text
stringlengths 4
2.78M
| meta
dict |
|---|---|
---
author:
- '[^1]'
bibliography:
- 'IEEEabrv.bib'
- 'SecrecyPs2.bib'
title: 'On Secrecy Rate of the Generalized Artificial-Noise Assisted Secure Beamforming for Wiretap Channels'
---
for $f_2$ and $f_1$, respectively.
However, the bisection method may not always work for searching solutions for $|f_2|<\epsilon_1$ in Step 2 of Table \[TA iterative steps\]. Note that for the initial value $P_U=P_T-P_{V_1}^{(i)}$, $f_2(P_T-P_{V_1}^{(i)},P_{V_1}^{(i)},0)<0$ given $P_{V_1}^{(i)}$. On the other hand, given $P_{V_1}^{(i)}$, there exist two cases for $f_2$ at initial value $P_U=0$: one is that $f_2(0,P_{V_1}^{(i)},P_{V_2}^{(i)})<0$ as depicted in Figure \[Fig\_f2\_char\] (a), and the other is $f_2(0,P_{V_1}^{(i)},P_{V_2}^{(i)})>0$ as depicted in Figure \[Fig\_f2\_char\] (b). In the later case, the bisection method works. However, if the former case happens, the function values have the same sign, and the bisection method does not work. To solve this problem, we can use the *golden section method* [@Heath_scientific_computing], which is a technique for finding the maximum in the interval $[0, P_T-P_{V_1}^{(i)}]$, i.e., to numerically find $\tilde{P}_U$ first such that given $P_{V_1}^{(i)}$, $f_2(\tilde{P}_U,P_{V_1}^{(i)},P_{V_2}^{(i)})$ is positive. After that we can follow the step 2 in Table I to solve $P_U$ in the interval $[\tilde{P}_U, P_T-P_{V_1}^{(i)}]$. If the maximum of $f_2(P_U,P_{V_1}^{(i)},P_{V_2}^{(i)})$ in the interval $[0, P_T-P_{V_1}^{(i)}]$ is still negative, we know that there does not exist any $P_U$ in this interval such that $f_2(P_U,P_{V_1}^{(i)},P_{V_2}^{(i)})=0$ given $P_{V_1}^{(i)}$. In this case, we set $P_U=0$ as the solution of $f_2(P_U,P_{V_1}^{(i)},P_{V_2}^{(i)})=0$ given $P_{V_1}^{(i)}$. From simulation results, according to the iterative algorithm in Table \[TA iterative steps\], the power $P_U^{(i)}$, $P_{V_1}^{(i)}$, and $P_{V_2}^{(i)}$ will converge to the optimal solution $P_U^{*}$, $P_{V_1}^{*}$, and $P_{V_2}^{*}$, respectively, which satisfy the KKT necessary conditions.
*Remark 1*: Note that in Section \[Sec\_proposed algorithm\] we assume that $P_U,\,P_{V_1},\mbox{and }\,P_{V_2}$ are all non-zeros to eliminate the multipliers. For channel conditions under which low rank AN covariance matrix is optimal, the proposed algorithm may have $P_{V_1}$ converge to a value approximately zero. When this value is smaller than a predefined threshold $\epsilon_2$, we claim that $P_{V_1}=0$ is optimal.
Simulation results {#Sec_simulation}
==================
In this section, we illustrate the performance gain of the proposed transmission scheme over Goel and Negi’s scheme. We use a 2 by 1 by 1 channel as an example. Assume that the noise variances of Bob and Eve are normalized to 1. From (\[EQ\_simplified\_obj\]) we know that the rate $R_{GAN}$ only depends on the norm of the main channel. Therefore, we use $||\mathbf{h}||^2=0.05,\,0.1,\mbox{ and }\,0.2$ to indicate different channel conditions in the simulation. For the statistics of the eavesdropper’s channel, we set $\E[\tilde{{G}}_1]=\E[\tilde{{G}}_2]=1$. In Fig. \[Fig\_h\_005\], \[Fig\_h\_01\], and \[Fig\_h\_02\], which correspond to $||\mathbf{h}||^2=0.05,\,0.1,\mbox{ and }\,0.2$, respectively, we compare the rates of Goel and Negi’s scheme to that of our proposed signaling with the generalized AN. The blue and black curves represent searching the optimal power allocations exhaustively and by the proposed iterative algorithm, respectively. In the iterative algorithm, we set the iteration number $MAXIT$ as 20, $MAXCheck$ as 5, and $\epsilon_1=\epsilon_2=10^{-5}$. From Fig. \[Fig\_h\_005\], \[Fig\_h\_01\], and \[Fig\_h\_02\], we can easily see that the proposed generalized AN scheme indeed provides apparent rate gains over Goel and Negi’s scheme in the moderate SNR regions. In addition, we can observe that the rate gains decrease with increasing $||\mathbf{h}||^2$, which is consistent with the results in [@Li_fading_secrecy_j]. We can also find that the value of $P_T$ which provides the largest rate gain also decreases with increasing $||\mathbf{h}||^2$. This is because AN in the signal direction provides much more rate gains when Bob’s received SNR is relatively small compared to Eve’s. Furthermore, the power allocations of the proposed iterative algorithm indeed converges to those by exhaustive search. In and Fig. \[Fig\_convergence01\] we show the convergence rate of the proposed algorithm under $||\mathbf{h}||^2=0.1$ with different $P_T$. It can be found that the proposed algorithm converges fast under different $P_T$, i.e., it costs at most 7 iterations to the final value, which verifies the complexity of solving the power allocation is much lower than the full search.
As another example, we also illustrate the optimal power allocation among $P_U$, $P_{V_1}$, and $P_{V_2}$ under $||\mathbf{h}||^2=0.05$ in Fig. \[Fig\_power\_allocation\_005\]. It can be easily seen that as the received SNR increases, the power allocated to $P_{V_1}$ decreases and the rate gain over Goel and Negi’s scheme also decreases.
Conclusion {#Sec_conclusion}
==========
In this paper we generalized Goel and Negi’s artificial noise (AN) for fast fading secure transmission with full knowledge of the main channel and only the statistics of the eavesdropper’s channel state information at the transmitter. Instead of transmitting AN in the null space of the legitimate channel, we considered injecting AN in all directions, including the direction for conveying the dedicated messages. Our main result provides a highly simplified power allocation problem to describe the ergodic secrecy rate. To attain it, we proved that for a multiple-input single-output single-antenna-eavesdropper system with the proposed AN injecting scheme, the optimal transmission scheme is a beamformer which is aligned to the direction of the legitimate channel. In addition, we provided the necessary condition for the optimal covariance matrix of AN to be full rank. After characterizing the optimal eigenvectors of the covariance matrices of signal and AN, we also developed an algorithm to efficiently solve the non-convex power allocation problem. Through simulations, we verified that the proposed scheme outperforms Goel and Negi’s AN scheme under certain channel conditions, especially when the legitimate channel is poor.
Appendix
========
Before proving Theorem \[Th\_necessary\_condition\], we first introduce the following lemma which will be used.
\[LE\_Y\_positive\_definite\] Given $\mathbf{D}_1 \succ \mathbf{D}_2$, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{Y}\triangleq\E\left[\frac{\mathbf{g}\mathbf{g}^H}{1+\mathbf{g}^H\mathbf{D}_2^H\mathbf{g}}
\right]-\E\left[\frac{\mathbf{g}\mathbf{g}^H}{1+\mathbf{g}^H\mathbf{D}_1^H\mathbf{g}}\right]
\succ 0.\label{EQ_Y}\end{aligned}$$
We first write the expectation in in the following integral, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{Y}_{1,1} &=\int^{\infty}_0e^{-t}\frac{1}{\left(1+P_{V_1}t\right)^2}\frac{1}{\left(1+P_{V_2}t\right)^{n_T-1}}dt- \int^{\infty}_0e^{-t}\frac{1}{\left(1+\left(P_U+P_{V_1}\right)t\right)^2}\frac{1}{\left(1+P_{V_2}t\right)^{n_T-1}}dt\notag\\
&=\int^{\infty}_0e^{-t}\left(\frac{1}{\left(1+P_{V_1}t\right)^2}-\frac{1}{\left(1+\left(P_U+P_{V_1}\right)t\right)^2}\right)\frac{1}{\left(1+P_{V_2}t\right)^{n_T-1}}dt>0, \label{EQ_Y_11}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{Y}_{i,i} &=\int^{\infty}_0e^{-t}\frac{1}{1+P_{V_1}t}\frac{1}{\left(1+P_{V_2}t\right)^{n_T}}dt-\int^{\infty}_0e^{-t}\frac{1}{1+\left(P_U+P_{V_1}\right)t}\frac{1}{\left(1+P_{V_2}t\right)^{n_T}}dt\notag\\
&=\int^{\infty}_0e^{-t}\left(\frac{1}{1+P_{V_1}t}-\frac{1}{1+\left(P_U+P_{V_1}\right)t}\right)\frac{1}{\left(1+P_{V_2}t\right)^{n_T}}dt>0, \label{EQ_Y_ii}\end{aligned}$$ for $i=2,3,\ldots,n_T$, and from [@Pulu_ergodic Lemma 4], we know that the non-diagonal entries of both the first and second terms of $\mathbf{Y}$ in are zeros, then $\mathbf{Y}_{i,j}=0$ for $i \neq j$. Therefore, we know that $\mathbf{Y}$ is a diagonal matrix and each diagonal entry from and is larger than zero, which completes the proof.
We now provide the proof of Theorem \[Th\_necessary\_condition\]
We first rearrange as $$\begin{aligned}
\bm\Theta_2 = \mathbf{C}-\lambda\mathbf{I}_{n_T}+\bm{\psi}_\mathbf{v}^T=\mathbf{0}\notag,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{C}\triangleq &\mathbf{U}\mathbf{Y}\mathbf{U}^H -\mathbf{c}\mathbf{c}^H, \label{EQ_def_C} \\
\mathbf{Y} \triangleq & \E\left[\frac{\mathbf{U}^H\mathbf{g}\mathbf{g}^H\mathbf{U}}{1+\mathbf{g}^H\mathbf{U}\mathbf{D}_2\mathbf{U}^H\mathbf{g}} \right]-\E\left[\frac{\mathbf{U}^H\mathbf{g}\mathbf{g}^H\mathbf{U}}{1+\mathbf{g}^H\mathbf{U}\mathbf{D}_1\mathbf{U}^H\mathbf{g}}\right]
=\E\left[\frac{\mathbf{g}\mathbf{g}^H}{1+\mathbf{g}^H\mathbf{D}_2^H\mathbf{g}} \right]-\E\left[\frac{\mathbf{g}\mathbf{g}^H}{1+\mathbf{g}^H\mathbf{D}_1^H\mathbf{g}}\right], \label{EQ_Y_DD}\\
\mathbf{c}\triangleq&\left(\frac{\mathbf{h}^H\mathbf{S_u}\mathbf{h}}{\left(1+\mathbf{h}^H\mathbf{S_v^*}\mathbf{h}\right)\left(1+\mathbf{h}^H\left(\mathbf{S_u}+\mathbf{S_v^*}\right)\mathbf{h}\right)}\right)^{1/2}\mathbf{h}.\label{EQ_def_c}\end{aligned}$$
Similar to , we have $$\label{EQ_KKT_equality2}
\bm\Lambda_{\mathbf{C}}\bm\Lambda_{\mathbf{S_v^*}}=\bm\Lambda_{\mathbf{S_v^*}}\bm\Lambda_{\mathbf{C}}=\mbox{tr}(\mathbf{C}\mathbf{S_v^*})\bm\Lambda_{\mathbf{S_v^*}}.$$ And we know that the necessary condition for the optimal AN to be full rank is that when $\mbox{tr}(\mathbf{C}\mathbf{S_v^*})>0$, $\mathbf{C}$ does not have any negative eigenvalues; or, when $\mbox{tr}(\mathbf{C}\mathbf{S_v^*})<0$, $\mathbf{C}$ does not have any positive eigenvalues. To verify this property, we resort to the fact from [@Pulu_ergodic Lemma 5] that if all eigenvalues $\lambda$ of $\mathbf{a}\mathbf{a}^H-\mathbf{A}$ are negative, then $l(0)> 0$, where $l(\lambda)$ is defined as, $$\begin{aligned}
l(\lambda)\triangleq1-\mathbf{a}^H\left(\mathbf{A}+\lambda
\mathbf{I}_{n_T}\right)^{-1}\mathbf{a},\end{aligned}$$ and $\mathbf{A}\succ 0$. Note that $l(\lambda)$ is a strictly increasing function when $\lambda>0$. Note also that $\mathbf{C}$ in (\[EQ\_def\_C\]) is negated of $\mathbf{a}\mathbf{a}^H-\mathbf{A}$. Thus all eigenvalues of $\mathbf{C}$ are positive implies $l(0)> 0$. Thus by substituting $\mathbf{c}$ and $\mathbf{U}\mathbf{Y}\mathbf{U}^H$ into $\mathbf{a}$ and $\mathbf{A}$, respectively, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{EQ_l_lambda}
l(\lambda)=1-\mathbf{c}^H\left(\mathbf{U}\mathbf{Y}\mathbf{U}^H+\lambda
\mathbf{I}_{n_T}\right)^{-1}\mathbf{c}.\end{aligned}$$
By Lemma \[LE\_Y\_positive\_definite\] we know $\left( \mathbf{U}\mathbf{Y}\mathbf{U}^H \right)^{-1}$ exists. Then we can expand $l(0)> 0$ from as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{EQ_c_ineq}
&1>\mathbf{c}^H\left( \mathbf{U}\mathbf{Y}\mathbf{U}^H \right)^{-1}\mathbf{c}.
\end{aligned}$$ Then after substituting $\mathbf{c}$ from to , and using Theorem \[Th\_optimal\_BF\] and Lemma \[Th\_U\_eq\_V\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
\left[\mathbf{Y}^{-1}\right]_{1,1} < \frac{\left(1+{\left|\left|\mathbf{h}\right|\right|}^2P_{V_1}\right)\left(1+{\left|\left|\mathbf{h}\right|\right|}^2\left(P_U+P_{V_1}\right)\right)}{{\left|\left|\mathbf{h}\right|\right|}^4P_U}.\notag\end{aligned}$$ From [@Pulu_ergodic Lemma 4] we know that $\mathbf{Y}$ is diagonal. In addition, with $\mathbf{Y}$ is invertible from the proof of Lemma \[LE\_Y\_positive\_definite\], we can further rearrange the above as $$\begin{aligned}
\left[\mathbf{Y}\right]_{1,1} > \frac{{\left|\left|\mathbf{h}\right|\right|}^4P_U}{\left(1+{\left|\left|\mathbf{h}\right|\right|}^2P_{V_1}\right)\left(1+{\left|\left|\mathbf{h}\right|\right|}^2\left(P_U+P_{V_1}\right)\right)}.\notag\end{aligned}$$ Then by the definition of $\mathbf{Y}$ in , and the fractional expansion, we can further express the above as $$\begin{aligned}
&\left(\frac{A_1}{P_{V_1}}F_1(P_{V_1})+\frac{A_2}{P_{V_1}}F_2(P_{V_1})\right)\mathbf{1}_{P_{V_1}\neq 0}+\underset{k=1}{\overset{n_T-1}{\sum}}\frac{B_k}{P_{V_2}}F_k(P_{V_2})
-\frac{A_1^{'}}{P_U+P_{V_1}}F_1(P_U+P_{V_1})-\frac{A_2^{'}}{P_U+P_{V_1}}F_2(P_U+P_{V_1})\notag\\
&-\underset{k=1}{\overset{n_T-1}{\sum}}\frac{B_k^{'}}{P_{V_2}}F_k(P_{V_2})
> \frac{{\left|\left|\mathbf{h}\right|\right|}^4P_U}{\left(1+{\left|\left|\mathbf{h}\right|\right|}^2P_{V_1}\right)\left(1+{\left|\left|\mathbf{h}\right|\right|}^2\left(P_U+P_{V_1}\right)\right)},\end{aligned}$$ where $A_1,\,A_2,\,A_1',\,A_2',\,B_k,\,\mbox{ and }B_k'$ for $k=1,2,\ldots,n_T-1$ are defined in the statement of the theorem. In addition, $\mbox{tr}(\mathbf{C}\mathbf{S_v^*})>0$ implies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{EQ_intermediate_condition}
\frac{1}{1+||\mathbf{ h}||^2P_{V_1}}-\frac{1+||\mathbf{ h}||^2P_{U}}{1+||\mathbf{ h}||^2(P_U+P_{V_1})}+\mathbf{ E}\left[\frac{1+\mathbf{g}^H(\mathbf{ D}_1-\mathbf{ D}_2)\mathbf{ g}}{1+\mathbf{ g}^H\mathbf{ D}_1\mathbf{ g}}\right]-\mathbf{ E}\left[\frac{1}{1+\mathbf{ g}^H\mathbf{ D}_2\mathbf{ g}}\right]>0.\end{aligned}$$ After some arrangement, can be further represented by $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{1}{1+||\mathbf{ h}||^2P_{V_1}}-\frac{1+||\mathbf{ h}||^2P_U}{1+||\mathbf{ h}||^2(P_U+P_{V_1})}+\left(1+\frac{P_{V_2}}{P_{V_1}}\right)A_1 F_1(P_{V_1})+A_2 F_2(P_{V_1})+\left(n_T-1+\frac{P_{V_1}}{P_{V_2}}\right)\underset{k=1}{\overset{n_T}{\sum}}\frac{B_k}{P_{V_2}}F_k(P_{V_2})\notag\\
&-\frac{P_{V_1}}{P_{V_2}}B_{n_T}F_{n_T}(P_{V_2})
-(P_{V_1}+(n_T-1)P_{V_2})\frac{A_1^{'}}{P_U+P_{V_1}}F_1(P_U+P_{V_1})-\frac{P_{V_1}A_2^{'}}{P_U+P_{V_1}}F_2(P_U+P_{V_1})\notag\\
&-\left(n_T-1+\frac{P_{V_1}}{P_{V_2}}\right)\underset{k=1}{\overset{n_T}{\sum}}B_k^{'}F_k(P_{V_2})+\frac{P_{V_1}}{P_{V_2}}B_{n_T}^{'}F_{n_T}(P_{V_2})>0.\end{aligned}$$
\[ht\]
------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[TA iterative steps\] Step 1 Set $i=0$, $P_{V_1}^{(0)}=0$, and initialize search region for the bisection method.
Step 2 Given $P_{V_1}^{(i)}$ and the total power constraint , find $P_{V_2}$ (and thus $P_U=(P_T-P_{V_2}-P^{(i)}_{V_1})/(n_T-1)$)
such that $|f_2(P_U,P_{V_1}^{(i)},P_{V_2})|<\epsilon_1$, where $f_2$ is defined in .
Set $P_{V_2}^{(i+1)}=P_{V_2}$
Step 3 Given $P_{V_2}^{(i+1)}$ and the total power constraint , find $P_{V_1}$
such that $|
f_1(P_{V_1},P_{V_2}^{(i+1)})|<\epsilon_1$, where $f_1$ is defined in
Set $P_{V_1}^{(i+1)}=P_{V_1}$.
Step 4 Let $i=i+1$ and repeat Step 2 to Step 3 until $MAXIT$.
Step 5 Check the whether the final power allocations meet Theorem \[Th\_necessary\_condition\].
If not, randomly re-initialize $P_{V_1}^{(0)}$ and run Step 1-4 until $MAXCheck$.
------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: The iterative algorithm for power allocation between signal and generalized AN
2
[^1]: Pin-Hsun Lin, and Hsuan-Jung Su are with Department of Electrical Engineering and Graduate Institute of Communication Engineering, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan 10617. Szu-Hsiang Lai is with MStar semiconductor, Hsinchu, Taiwan 114. Shih-Chun Lin is with Graduate Institute of Computer and Communication Engineering, National Taipei University of Technology, Taipei, Taiwan 10643. Emails: {[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]}. The material in this paper was presented in part at The 22nd IEEE Symposium on Personal, Indoor, Mobile and Radio Communications (PIMRC 2011). This work was supported by the National Science Council, Taiwan, R.O.C., under grant NSC 99-2628-E-002-001 and 100-2221-E-002-133.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
To offer a possible resolution to the apparent discrepancy between the experimental and the theoretical values of the $W + 1$ jet to $W + 0$ jets ratio reported by the 0 group, we examine the effects of the multiple soft gluon radiation on the $W$ boson production at the Tevatron. Based on the calculation of the $W$ boson transverse momentum ($Q_T$) distribution in the Collins-Soper-Sterman resummation formalism, we conclude that the effect of the soft gluon radiation is important in the region of $Q_T < 50$ GeV, and it can be better tested by a more inclusive observable $R_{CSS}(Q_T^{\min})\equiv
\frac{\sigma (Q_T>Q_T^{\min })}{\sigma _{Total}}$.
address: |
Department of Physics and Astronomy, Michigan State University,\
East Lansing, MI 48824, U.S.A.
author:
- 'C. Balázs[^1] and C.–P. Yuan[^2]'
title: Comment on the $W + 1$ jet to $W + 0$ jets ratio
---
0[DØ ]{}
Y epsf.tex
[MSUHEP-70428\
CTEQ-706]{}
Reports on the $W + 1$ jet to $W + 0$ jets ratio by the Fermilab 0 collaboration [@D0alphaS; @D0R10] have repeatedly shown a discrepancy between the experimental data and the next-to-leading-order (NLO) QCD predictions of the DYRAD Monte Carlo program [@DYRAD]. In accordance with the experimental situation, a DYRAD event is considered to represent $W + 0$ jets ($W + 1$ jet) event if the transverse momentum ($E_T$) of the jet is smaller (larger) than a certain $E_T^{\min}$ value. Using the above definition, the $W + 1$ jet $E_T$ cross section is calculated in ${\cal O}(\alpha_S^2)$ while the $W + 0$ jets $E_T$ distribution is calculated in ${\cal O}(\alpha_S)$ [@Yu]. From these $W +$ jet cross sections, the following ratio is formed: $$\begin{aligned}
R^{10}_{jet}(E_T^{\min}) =
\frac
{\displaystyle \int_{E_T^{\min}}^{E_T^{\max}} d E_T \frac{d \sigma}{d E_T}}
{\displaystyle \int_0^{E_T^{\min}} d E_T \frac{d \sigma}{d E_T}}, \end{aligned}$$ where $E_T^{\max}$ is the maximal $E_T$ allowed by the phase space. This ratio is then compared with the experimental results. The DYRAD prediction of $R^{10}_{jet}$ is found to be consistently lower than the experimental central values by about 30%. Since, with the increase of $E_T^{\min}$ the error bars of the experimental data increase, the confidence level of the statistical significance of the deviation is smaller in the $E_T^{\min} > 50$ GeV region. Therefore, we focus our attention on the $E_T^{\min} < 50$ GeV section, and ask the question: What physics can be responsible for this deviation?
The 0 analysis offers the uncertainty of the gluon parton distribution as the most likely reason for the discrepancy [@D0R10]. In this work we propose an additional possible explanation which originates from the perturbative QCD theory. We note that the situation is very similar to the one in the direct photon production, another process in which a vector boson produced together with a jet (or several jets). The NLO prediction of the transverse momentum ($p_T$) distribution of the photon is systematically lower than the measured cross sections [@Joey] for the low $p_T$ region.
Different parts of the answer to the $W +$ jet puzzle might come from different sorts of physics. To illustrate this, we point out that the ratio $R^{10}_{jet}$ has several shortcomings from a theoretical point of view:
> $\bullet$ The NLO calculation of $R^{10}_{jet}$ might not be sufficient to describe the data in the low transverse momentum region for it does not include the large effect of the multiple soft gluon emission.
> $\bullet$ Calculating the numerator of $R^{10}_{jet}$ in ${\cal O}(\alpha_S^2)$ and the denominator in ${\cal O}(\alpha_S)$ implies a discontinuity in the $E_T$ distribution at $E_T^{\min}$. It is therefore less natural than, say, a pure ${\cal O}(\alpha_S^2)$ calculation.
> $\bullet$ The value of $R^{10}_{jet}$ depends on the detailed definition of the jet in both the theoretical calculation and the experimental measurement.
Each of these deficiencies may contribute to a different degree to the disagreement in various $E_T$ regions. Since no better calculation of the jet $E_T$ cross section is available than the one used by 0, in order to analyze the situation, we turn to the calculation of the transverse momentum ($Q_T$) of the $W$ boson. In ${\cal O}(\alpha_S)$, the transverse momenta of the jet and the $W$ boson are the same: $E_T = Q_T$. In addition, the $Q_T$ distribution of the $W$ boson is theoretically well understood, and the contributions from the multiple soft gluon radiation can be resummed using the Collins-Soper-Sterman formalism [@CSS; @WRes; @RCSS].
We can form the ratio $R^{10}_{W}$ using the $W$ boson transverse momentum in the place of the jet $E_T$: $$\begin{aligned}
R^{10}_{W}(Q_T^{\min}) =
\frac
{\displaystyle \int_{Q_T^{\min}}^{Q_T^{\max}} d Q_T \frac{d \sigma}{d Q_T}}
{\displaystyle \int_0^{Q_T^{\min}} d Q_T \frac{d \sigma}{d Q_T}}, \end{aligned}$$ where $Q_T^{\max}$ is the largest $Q_T$ allowed by the phase space.
--- --
Y
--- --
In Fig. \[fig:R10W\], we plot the ratio $R^{10}_W$ for calculations done in different orders of the strong coupling constant $\alpha_S$.[^3] The difference of the ${\cal O}(\alpha_S)$ (short dashed) and ${\cal O}(\alpha_S^2)$ (long dashed) curves indicates that the K-factor is about 1.4 in the region of interest, which suggests that higher order perturbative contributions might have to be considered. From comparing the resummed (solid) and the ${\cal O}(\alpha_S^2)$ (long dashed) curves, we infer that the effects of the multiple soft gluon radiation increase the $Q_T$ cross section for $Q_T < 50$ GeV. This increase over the ${\cal O}(\alpha^2_S)$ rate is about 30% around $Q_T = 20$ GeV, and remains sizable (more than 5%) even at $Q_T = 40$ GeV. The dotted curve, which is calculated with the mismatched numerator (to ${\cal O}(\alpha_S^2)$) and denominator (to ${\cal O}(\alpha_S)$), runs under the ${\cal O}(\alpha_S^2)$ (long dashed) curve, but the difference coming from this mismatch is small in the $Q_T > 20$ GeV region.
Based on the results obtained for the $Q_T$ distribution of the $W$ boson, we conclude that soft gluon effects are important in the $W +$ jet production in the region of $Q_T < 50$ GeV. The ratio $R_{CSS} \equiv 1/(1 + R^{10}_W)$ [@RCSS] is more suitable to be compared to the experimental data for it is a more inclusive observable which does not involve any jet measurement but includes the large effect of multiple soft gluon contribution to all orders in $\alpha_S$.
We are grateful to R. Brock, T. Joffe-Minor, W.K. Tung and H. Weerts for helpful discussions and suggestions. This work was supported in part by NSF under grant No. PHY-9507683.
[99]{}
0 collaboration, S. Abachi [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{}, 3226 (1995);\
FERMILAB-CONF-96-172-E (1996);\
FERMILAB-CONF-96-245-E (1996).
0 collaboration, S. Abachi [*et al.*]{}, FERMILAB-CONF-96-272-EC (1996)
W. Giele, E. Glover, D.A. Kosover, Nucl. Phys. [**B403**]{}, 633 (1993).
J. Yu, Ph.D. Thesis, SUNY, Stony Brook (1993).
J. Huston, E. Kovacs, S. Kuhlmann, H.L. Lai, J.F. Owens, W.K. Tung, Phys. Rev. [**D51**]{}, 6139 (1995).
J. Collins, D. Soper, G. Sterman, Nucl. Phys. [**B250**]{}, 199 (1985).
C. Bal[á]{}zs and C.–P. Yuan, CTEQ-704 (1997).
C. Bal[á]{}zs and C.–P. Yuan, CTEQ-703 (1997).
[^1]: E-mail address: [email protected]
[^2]: E-mail address: [email protected]
[^3]: We use the ResBos Monte Carlo code [@WRes], $\sqrt{S} = 1.8~TeV$, and the CTEQ4M parton distribution.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
address: |
$^1$ Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720\
$^2$ Department of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720
author:
- 'R. MICHAEL BARNETT$^1$[^1], LAWRENCE J. HALL$^{1,2}$'
title: ' SQUARKS IN TEVATRON DILEPTON EVENTS ?'
---
\#1\#2\#3\#4[[\#1]{} [**\#2**]{}, \#3 (\#4)]{}
For ten years, two primary signatures for squarks and gluinos have been discussed[@THEORY; @SS]. The first consists of events with jets plus large missing transverse energy. The second consists of multilepton events with jets and missing transverse energy ($\!\not\!\!E_T$). We have looked at the events reported by the CDF and D0 collaborations in their top quark to dileptons sample[@top], and find that two CDF events and one D0 event have characteristics significantly different from other events in the top quark sample and similar to the second class of signature events for squarks and gluinos. While we cannot rule out a statistical fluctuation of the top signal or detector effects, we feel it worthwhile to examine the consequences for supersymmetry if these events are the precursors of a real supersymmetry signal. This work was first reported in Ref. 4; more details can be found there.
In 110 pb$^{-1}$, the CDF Collaboration observed 10 such opposite-sign dilepton events, where 6 were expected from $\bar{t} t$ production with $m_t = 175$ GeV, and 2 events were expected from non-top Standard Model backgrounds [@conf; @TARTARELLI; @Kruse]. The D0 collaboration has also observed dilepton events, one of which appears to have similar or even more dramatic characteristics [@Cochran]. However, there is a large uncertainty in the measurement of the muon $E_T$ and of $\!\not\!\!E_T$.
These events which we label A, B, and C (C being the D0 event) have large values of $E_S \equiv E_T^{\ell_1} + E_T^{\ell_2} +
\!\not\!\!E_T$, see Fig. 1a. Event A contains a third isolated charged track, which is likely to be an electron. A third isolated, hard charged lepton would make this event inconsistent with a $\bar{t} t$ origin. A kinematic argument shows that the values of $E_T^{\ell_1}$, $E_T^{\ell_2}$ and $\not\!\!E_T$ of event B cannot arise from the decay of any pair of $W$’s whether or not the $W$’s originated in $\bar{t} t $ production (neglecting neutrinos in the jets). This is also evident in Fig. 2 which shows $\!\not\!\!E_T$ with cuts satisfied by event B: $E_T^{\ell_1}\cos\theta(\ell_1-\!\not\!\!E_T) > 100$ GeV and $E_T^{\ell_2}\cos\theta(\ell_2-\!\not\!\!E_T) > 40$ GeV.
In Figs. 1b-d we show three additional plots that demonstrate that a top quark explanation for these events is quite unlikely. In Fig. 1b we require large $E_S$ and see that top quark events are unlikely to yield a small transverse angle between the leptons. Figs. 1c and 1d make no cuts and show very good fits to most of the reported CDF top quark events, but events A-C are on the tails of the distributions.
Heavier squarks and gluinos often decay via a sequence of cascades through charginos $(\widetilde{\chi}^+)$ and neutralinos $(\widetilde{\chi}^0)$, yielding events with isolated charged leptons $\ell$ as well as jets and $\not\!\!E_T$ [@THEORY; @SS]. The isolated charged leptons can arise from both $\widetilde{\chi}^+,\widetilde{\chi}^0$ decays, such as $\widetilde{\chi}^+ \rightarrow \widetilde{\nu} \bar{e}$, $\widetilde{e} \bar{\nu}$ and $\widetilde{\chi}^0 \rightarrow \widetilde{e}
\bar{e}$, $\widetilde{\nu} \bar{\nu}$, and also from slepton decays, for example $\widetilde e\rightarrow e \widetilde\chi_1^0.$ There are plausible ranges of superpartner masses in which the cascade decays of squarks, $\widetilde{q}
\rightarrow \widetilde{\chi} \rightarrow \widetilde{\ell} \rightarrow \ell$, could lead to a few $\ell \ell (\ell) jj \!\not\!\!E_T$ events, with extraordinarily high $\not\!\!E_T$ and $E_T^\ell$, in the last Tevatron run.
-0.8in
We study the simplified case where the three $\widetilde{\chi}'$ states ($\widetilde\chi$ states relevant to $\widetilde q$ decays) are dominantly the $SU(2)_L$ gauginos: $\widetilde{\chi}_1^{\pm} \approx \widetilde{w}^{\pm}$ and $\widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \approx \widetilde{w}_3$, choosing $|\mu| > 300$ GeV (for $M_2 = 260$ GeV).
In this scenario there are five flavors of left-handed squarks with masses in the region of 310 GeV. These decay to $SU(2)_L$ gauginos, $\widetilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}$ and $\widetilde{\chi}^0_2$, of mass near 260 GeV, which in turn decay to left-handed sleptons with mass near 220 GeV. The hardest charged leptons are produced in the final cascade of the sleptons to the LSP $\widetilde{\chi}^0_1$, taken to be dominantly bino.. The $\widetilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass is given by the hypercharge gaugino mass parameter, $M_1$, which is therefore several times less than $M_2$. The region of parameters of interest to us does not allow the relation $M_2 \approx 2 M_1$, which occurs in simple schemes of grand unification with large messenger scales for supersymmetry breaking.
In our scheme, dilepton events, such as events $A$ and $B$, arise from the decay of a $\widetilde{q}_L^{(\dagger)} \widetilde{q}_L$ pair. Since $\widetilde{g}$ decays to $ q^\dagger \widetilde{q}$ or to $q \widetilde{q}^\dagger$, events from $\widetilde{g} \widetilde{q}$ and $\widetilde{g} \widetilde{q}^\dagger$ production look similar to $\widetilde{q}^\dagger \widetilde{q}$ events. Because $\widetilde{q}_L$ has a small hypercharge, the direct decay $\widetilde{q}_L \rightarrow q \widetilde{\chi}^0_1$ has a small branching ratio compared to the cascade mode $\widetilde{q}_L \rightarrow
\widetilde{\chi}^0_2, \widetilde{\chi}^+_1 \rightarrow \widetilde{\ell}
\rightarrow \ell \widetilde{\chi}^0_1$, These events have the number of isolated charged leptons, $N_L$, varying from 0 to 4. Neglecting phase space, $3\over 4$ of these $\widetilde{q}_L^{(\dagger)} \widetilde{q}_L$ events have $N_L \geq 2$.
In our scheme, events $A$ and $B$ arise from cascade decays of $\widetilde{q}_L^{(\dagger)} \widetilde{q}_L$. In a run of 110 pb$^{-1}$ the expected number of events with $N_L \geq 2$ is ($\sigma_T / 0.05$ pb) ($\epsilon /0.25$), where $\epsilon$ is the detection efficiency $\approx 0.25$ and $\sigma_T$ is the total $\widetilde{q}_L^\dagger \widetilde{q}_L+
\widetilde{q}_L \widetilde{q}_L+
\widetilde{q}_L^\dagger \widetilde{q}_L^\dagger$ production cross section. There are two contributions to $\sigma_T$ which may be important: direct $\widetilde{q}_L^\dagger \widetilde{q}_L$ production, and $\widetilde{q}_L \widetilde{g}$, $\widetilde{q}_L^\dagger \widetilde{g}$ production followed by $\widetilde{g} \rightarrow \widetilde{q}_L^\dagger q, \widetilde{q}_L
q^\dagger$. The relative importance of these two contributions depends on $m_{\widetilde{g}}$ and $m_{\widetilde{q}_R}$, which we have not determined. For example, with $m_{\widetilde{g}} = 330$ GeV and $m_{\widetilde{q}_R} = m_{\widetilde{q}_L} = 310$ GeV, the direct production contributes 0.03 pb to $\sigma_T$, while squark-gluino production contributes $0.05$ pb to $\sigma_T$. For these parameters, a further production rate, $\sigma B$, for dilepton events of 0.04 pb arises from $\widetilde{q}_L^{(\dagger)} \widetilde{q}_R^{(\dagger)}$ production, giving a total expectation of about 2.5 events with $N_L\geq 2$. If $\widetilde\tau_L$ is degenerate with $\widetilde e_L$ and $\widetilde\mu_L$, this would be depleted by a factor of about 2.
Perhaps the most notable result of our analysis is that with only three candidate events from a hadron collider, we are able to roughly estimate the masses of six supersymmetric particles (and the gaugino/Higgsino content of the $\widetilde\chi'$ states at 260 GeV). Clearly more data are needed to refine these estimates and to establish the particular scenario we have described.
If our scenario is correct, we also anticipate the observation of events with large missing $E_T$ and 0, 1, 2, 3, and (very rarely) 4 leptons (though some may have significant backgrounds). These 1-lepton events may have only two jets and hence would not be in the top quark sample.
Additional signatures may also be present, depending on the values of $m_{\widetilde{q}_R}$ and $m_{\widetilde{g}}$. The production of $\widetilde{g}\widetilde{q}$ contributes equally to same-sign [@SS] and opposite-sign dileptons ($\widetilde{q}^{(\dagger)} \widetilde{q}$ production can also lead to same-sign events). When right-handed squarks are produced, they decay directly to the LSP: $\widetilde{q}_R \rightarrow q_R
\widetilde{\chi}^0_1$, so that several new signals are possible. For example, with $m_{\widetilde{g}} = 330$ GeV and $m_{\widetilde{q}_R} =
m_{\widetilde{q}_L} = 310$ GeV, we find a production rate, $\sigma B$, for ($jj \not
\!\!E_T,jj\ell \not\!\!E_T$) events of (0.13, 0.17) pb. The standard model backgrounds for these $N_L = 0,1$ events are larger than for the case of $N_L = 2$. However, the signal events are prominent: the $jj \not\!\!E_T$ events have $E_T^j \sim50-230$ GeV and $\not\!\!E_T \sim 50-280$ GeV.
The reach in squark mass in this scenario exceeds that of several previous analyses, because the signal can be kinematically distinguished from the $\bar{t} t$ background. The superpartner masses of our scheme are so high that no supersymmetric particle would be found at LEP2, and a 500 GeV NLC would not find all of these particles. If this turns out to be the first evidence for supersymmetry, the confirmation will come in the next Tevatron run which may obtain 10-20 times as many events. It may also be possible to identify a few events with large $\not\!\!E_T$ and 0, 1, 2 same-sign, or three isolated leptons in the present data.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We thank members of the CDF and D0 collaborations for useful conversations. This work was supported in part by the Director, Office of Energy Research, Office of High Energy and Nuclear Physics, Division of High Energy Physics of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC03-76SF00098 and in part by the National Science Foundation under grants PHY-93-20551 and PHY-95-14797.
[99]{} H. Baer, J. Ellis, G. B. Gelmini, D.V. Nanopoulos and X. Tata, ; G. Gamberini, ; H. Baer, V. Barger, D. Karatas, and X. Tata, ; R.M. Barnett, J.F. Gunion and H.E. Haber, . R.M. Barnett, J.F. Gunion and H.E. Haber, ; H. Baer, C. Kao and X. Tata, . F. Abe et al, CDF Collaboration, ; S. Abachi, D0 Collaboration, . R.M. Barnett and L.J. Hall, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{}, to be published (LBNL-39049). These events have been shown at recent conferences, such as SUSY96, and are included in the reported top quark dilepton sample. G.F. Tartarelli, CDF/PUB/TOP/PUBLIC/3664 (1996). M. Kruse, PhD Thesis, Purdue University (May, 1996). J. Cochran, PhD Thesis, SUNY at Stony Brook (Dec., 1993).
[^1]: presented by RMB at the DPF-96 Meeting, Minneapolis, Aug. 10-15
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
This is the first paper of a series on the methods and results of the Active Galactic Nuclei In Cosmological Simulations (AGNICS) project, which incorporates the physics of AGN into GalICS, a galaxy formation model that combines large cosmological N-body simulations of dark matter hierarchical clustering and a semi-analytic approach to the physics of the baryons. The project explores the quasar-galaxy link in a cosmological perspective, in response to growing observational evidence for a close relation between supermassive black holes (SMBHs) and spheroids. The key problems are the quasar fuelling mechanism, the origin of the BH to bulge mass relation, the causal and chronological link between BH growth and galaxy formation, the properties of quasar hosts and the role of AGN feedback in galaxy formation.
This first paper has two goals. The first is to describe the general structure and assumptions that provide the framework for the AGNICS series. The second is to apply AGNICS to studying the joint formation of SMBHs and spheroids in galaxy mergers. We investigate under what conditions this scenario can reproduce the local distribution of SMBHs in nearby galaxies and the evolution of the quasar population.
AGNICS contains two star formation modes: a quiescent mode in discs and a starburst mode in proto-spheroids, the latter triggered by mergers and disc instabilities. Here we assume that BH growth is linked to the starburst mode. The simplest version of this scenario, in which the black hole accretion rate $\dot{M}_\bullet$ and the star formation rate in the starburst component $\dot{M}_{\rm *burst}$ are simply related by a constant of proportionality, does not to reproduce the cosmic evolution of the quasar population. A model in which $\dot{M}_\bullet\propto\rho_{\rm burst}^\zeta\dot{M}_{\rm *burst}$, where $\rho_{\rm burst}$ is the density of the gas in the starburst and $\zeta\simeq 0.5$, can explain the evolution of the quasar luminosity function in B-band and X-rays (taking into account the presence of obscured AGN inferred from X-ray studies). The scatter and the tilt that this model introduces in the BH-to-bulge mass relation are within the observational constraints. The model predicts that the quasar contribution increases with the total bolometric luminosity and that, for a given bulge mass, the most massive black holes are in the bulges with the oldest stars.
author:
- |
A. Cattaneo $^{1,2,3}$, J. Blaizot $^4$, J. Devriendt $^5$, B. Guiderdoni $^{1,5}$\
\
$^1$Institut d’Astrophysique de Paris, 98bis Boulevard Arago, 75014 Paris, France\
$^2$Racah Institute of Physics, The Hebrew University, 91904 Jerusalem, Israel\
$^3$Astrophysikalisches Institut Potsdam, an der Sternwarte 16, 14482 Potsdam, Germany\
$^4$Max-Planck-Institut für Astrophysik, Karl-Schwarzschild-Str. 1, 85740 Garching bei München, Germany\
$^5$Centre de Recherche Astronomique de Lyon, 9 Avenue Charles André, 69561 St-Genis-Laval Cedex, France\
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: 'Active Galactic Nuclei In Cosmological Simulations - I. Formation of black holes and spheroids through mergers'
---
galaxies: formation, active – quasars: general
Introduction
============
The connection between quasars and galaxies: observational evidence and open problems
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several observational and theoretical arguments suggest a direct link between quasars and galaxy formation.
In ‘Galactic Nuclei as Collapsed Old Quasars’, @lynden-bell69 proposed that a quasar phase is part of normal galaxy evolution and predicted the presence of supermassive black holes in galaxy cores. The detection of massive dark objects in the nuclei of nearby galaxies has transformed this speculation into an observational fact. The relation between the black hole mass and the mass, luminosity and velocity dispersion of the host spheroid [@magorrian_etal98; @ferrarese_merritt00; @gebhardt_etal00; @merritt_ferrarese01; @tremaine_etal02; @marconi_hunt03; @haering_rix04] together with the chronological agreement between the quasar epoch ($z\sim 2-3$) and the stellar ages of early-type galaxies [@cattaneo_bernardi03] prove that black hole growth mechanisms are directly related to the origin of the bulge component.
This relation opens two kinds of questions. The first one concerns the triggering mechanism that activates black hole growth (what starts the accretion). The second concerns the mechanism that determines the final black hole mass (e.g. what terminates the accretion).
The first attempts to explain the link between quasars and galaxy formation were in the context of the monolithic collapse model [@eggen_etal62]. Matter with low angular momentum falls to the centre first forming the galactic nucleus and the bulge, while matter with high angular momentum slowly settles into a disc.
@toomre_toomre72 were the pioneers of computer simulations of galaxy interactions. They argued that galaxy mergers can drive a sudden supply of gas into the nuclear region while producing a morphological transformation of spiral galaxies into ellipticals. Smoothed-particle-hydrodynamics simulations of galaxy mergers confirmed their intuition [@barnes_hernquist91; @barnes_hernquist96; @mihos_hernquist94; @mihos_hernquist96; @springel00]. The impressive results of hydrodynamic simulations together with the widespread and successful use of the merger model in semi-analytic models of hierarchical galaxy formation (see below) contributed to a paradigm shift from the monolithic to the merger scenario.
From the point of view of AGN fuelling, the fundamental points of the merging scenario are that AGN are fuelled with cold gas from the discs of the merging galaxies and that black hole growth is conditional to a triggering process. A process with a trigger and a short intrinsic duration is consistent with the episodic nature of AGN (in the monolithic collapse model, the brief life time of quasars was attributed to the rapid consumption of low angular momentum gas).
In relation to the mechanism that determines the black hole mass, two scenarios are possible. The first is that black hole growth is determined by fuel availability. In this case, the quasar switches off when stars have consumed all the gas (e.g. [@kauffmann_haehnelt00]). In the second scenario, black hole growth is self-regulated through mechanical (jets or winds, [@omma_etal04] and references therein) or radiative (Compton heating, [@ciotti_ostriker97; @ciotti_ostriker01]) feedback. In this second case, supermassive black holes may be an essential ingredient of galaxy formation and not just a mere by-product [@silk_rees98; @granato_etal04; @dimatteo_etal05].
Cosmological models of the formation of quasars and galaxies
------------------------------------------------------------
The fuelling mechanism, the timing of the active phase in relation to the host galaxy evolution and the mechanism that limits the accretion are the three main open problems in relation to the link between quasars and galaxies.
There are two ways of approaching these problems. The first is to observe and model in great detail a small sample of individual objects. The second is to test if specific assumptions can reproduce the population properties of quasars and galaxies in a cosmological volume. Semi-analytic models are a powerful tool for this second type of study.
@white_rees78 and @efstathiou_rees88 were the pioneer of galaxy formation and quasar formation in a cosmological scenario, in which structures form through gravitational instability and hierarchical clustering of primordial density fluctuation. Semi-analytic models of galaxy formation have given a substantial contribution towards a more detailed comprehension of galaxy formation in a cosmological scenario. The field is now so vast that it is no longer possible to cite all authors who contributed to its development. The most advanced models are those of the research groups in Durham (e.g. [@cole_etal00] and references therein), Munich ([@kauffmann_etal99] and references therein; [@kauffmann_haehnelt00]), Paris [@hatton_etal03] and Santa Cruz [@somerville_primack99; @somerville_etal01]. Conceptually, a semi-analytic model is structured into two steps. In the first one, Press-Schechter theory [@press_schechter74] or N-body simulations (i.e [@kauffmann_etal99]) are used to follow gravitational clustering in the dark matter component. The aim of this first step is to construct merger trees for a sample of dark matter haloes, which are thought to represent the Universe. The second step is to use semi-analytic prescriptions to follow the physics of the baryons (cooling, star formation, stellar evolution, feedback, chemical enrichment, reprocessing of light by dust, mergers, bar instabilities, etc.) in the merger trees. Models in which merger trees are built by using N-body simulations, such as the GalICS (Galaxies In Cosmological Simulations) model by @hatton_etal03, are sometimes called hybrid models to distinguish them from pure semi-analytic models, in which merger trees are constructed from Press-Schechter theory.
Quasar modellers have followed a similar path [@carlberg90; @haehnelt_rees93; @katz_etal94; @maehoenen_etal95; @bi_fang97; @haiman_loeb98; @cattaneo_etal99; @nitta99; @menou_haiman99; @percival_miller99; @haiman_menou00; @monaco_etal00; @valageas_schaeffer00; @cattaneo01; @cattaneo02; @haiman_hui01; @hatz_etal01; @martini_weinberg01; @nath_etal02; @volonteri_etal02; @volonteri_etal03a; @hatz_etal03]. The assumptions in these papers are different, but most of them follow the common strategy of modelling the quasar luminosity function from the @press_schechter74 mass function of dark matter haloes in combination with various assumptions for the probability that a halo of mass $M_{\rm halo}$ at redshift $z$ contains a quasar with luminosity $L_{\rm QSO}$. These studies do not treat the complicated physics of galaxy formation and AGN fuelling, but show the fundamental scaling relations that a physical model has to satisfy.
The next logical development is the merging of the two research programmes achieved by including quasars into semi-analytic models of galaxy formation [@kauffmann_haehnelt00; @kauffmann_haehnelt02; @haehnelt_kauffmann00; @haehnelt_kauffmann02; @enoki_etal03; @dimatteo_etal03]. From an AGN perspective, this development allows a more physical modelling and thus a more physical understanding, while it reduces the number of arbitrary assumptions that the modeller can make. E.g. merging rates cannot be changed without changing galaxy morphologies, colours, luminosity function, etc. Of course, that means that more hypotheses and parameters go into the model, but the current data allow to constrain them. From a galaxy formation perspective, AGN may provide an answer to two long standing problems: the overcooling problem in massive haloes (cD galaxies are too many, too massive and too blue; e.g. [@hatton_etal03] and references therein) and the difficulty of reproducing sub-millimetre counts without ending up with galaxies that are too bright at the present cosmic epoch (e.g. [@devriendt_guiderdoni00]).
The AGNICS project
------------------
The Active Galactic Nuclei In Cosmological Simulations (AGNICS) project started as an extension of the GalICS (Galaxies In Cosmological Simulations) hybrid galaxy formation model [@hatton_etal03]. AGNICS was developed to investigate some aspects of the link between quasars and galaxy formation in a broad and coherent context. Combined models of quasars and galaxy formation are in a qualitative agreement with the cosmic evolution of the quasar population [@kauffmann_haehnelt00], but do not reproduce the quantitative decrease of the number of bright quasars at low redshift. Secondly, most of the AGN population is optically unseen [@ueda_etal03; @sazonov_etal04], but the impact of obscured AGN on models of the evolution of the quasar luminosity function has not been explored yet. Moreover, an interesting by-product of the AGNICS project is the possibility to use AGNICS as a tool for generating a virtual sky of quasars and galaxies, which may assist the planning of forthcoming observations. The virtual sky may be used to train automatic recognition algorithms and test sources of bias or incompleteness in observational studies.
The structure of this first paper is as follows. In Section 2 we recall the main assumptions and features of the GalICS galaxy formation model used to develop the AGNICS model while we refer to @hatton_etal03 for a more detailed presentation. We give particular importance to the origin of galaxy morphologies because a correct modelling of spheroids is essential to derive meaningful results for black holes and AGN. In Section 3 we describe the method that AGNICS uses to model black hole growth and AGN. Thereafter, we distinguish between two main models: the simplest possible model, in which the black hole accretion rate and the starburst rate are simply related by a constant of proportionality (we call this the basic model), and the reference model (the model which allows us to find the best agreement with the data). In Section 4 we show that the basic model does not reproduce the low redshift decrease of the comoving density of bright quasars, but we also show that we can modify the basic model by changing the expression for the black hole accretion rate and introducing a factor proportional to a power of starburst density ($\dot{M}_\bullet\propto\rho_{\rm burst}^\zeta\dot{M}_{\rm *burst}$, where $\dot{M}_\bullet$ is the black hole accretion rate, $\dot{M}_{\rm *burst}$ is the star formation rate in the starburst component and $\rho_{\rm burst}$ is the density of the gas in the starburst). For $\zeta\simeq 0.5$, the modified model (the reference model) satisfies the observational constraints deriving from optical [@wolf_etal03; @croom_etal04] and X-ray [@ueda_etal03] observations of AGN and from the scatter in the black hole-to-bulge mass relation [@marconi_hunt03; @haering_rix04]. In the Conclusion (Section 5), we discuss what we can learn from the work presented in this article and which questions that are still open. The study of quasar hosts is postponed to a future publication of the AGNICS series.
The GalICS galaxy formation model
=================================
GalICS is a model of hierarchical galaxy formation which combines high resolution cosmological simulations to describe the dark matter content of the Universe with semi-analytic prescriptions to follow the physics of the baryonic component. The modules that enter the GalICS model are the cosmology (to generate the merger trees), the cooling model (to follow cooling of hot gas in dark matter haloes), the model for the galaxy internal structure and dynamics, the merger model (merging rates and effect of mergers on galactic morphologies), the star formation and stellar evolution model (including feedback and metal enrichment) and the spectral evolution model (stellar spectra, extinction and dust thermal emission). We begin this Section by describing the N-body simulation used to generate the merger trees. Then we progress into explaining the main physical assumptions that enter each functional unit.
The dark matter simulation
--------------------------
### Simulation parameters
The cosmological N-body simulation used to construct the merger trees was carried out by using the parallel tree-code developed by Ninin (1999). This simulation was run for a flat cold dark matter model with a cosmological constant of $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.667$. The simulated volume is a cube of side $L_{\rm box}=100h_{100}^{-1}$Mpc, with $h_{100}\equiv H_0/100{\rm\,km\,s}^{-1}=0.667$, containing $256^3$ particles of mass $8.3\times 10^9$M$_{\odot}$ ($H_0$ is the Hubble constant). The smoothing length is of 29.29 kpc. The cold dark matter power spectrum was normalised in agreement with the present day abundance of rich clusters ($\sigma_8 =0.88$). The simulation produced 100 snapshots spaced logarithmically in the expansion factor $(1+z)^{-1}$ from $z=35.59$ to $z=0$.
### Halo identification
On each snapshot a friend-of-friend algorithm was run to identify virialised groups of more than 20 particles. The minimum mass of a dark matter halo is therefore $1.66\times 10^{11}\,M_{\odot}$. For each halo we compute a set of properties, which include the position and the velocity of the centre of mass, the kinetic and the potential energy, the spin parameter and the tensor of inertia.
We fit a triaxial ellipsoid to each dark matter halo identified in the snapshot. The semi-axes of the ellipsoid are in a ratio determined by the ratio between the three different components of the inertia tensor. We shrink the ellipsoid until the inner region satisfies the virial theorem. The matter within this virial volume determines the virial mass. The virial radius is the radius of a sphere whose volume is equal to the virial volume and the virial density is equal to the virial mass divided by the virial volume.
When passing from N-body to semi-analytic simulations, we idealise dark matter haloes as singular isothermal spheres truncated at the virial radius. The information about each individual halo passed to the semi-analytic model is therefore contained in three parameters. They are the virial mass, the virial density (the mean density within the virial radius) and the spin parameter.
### Merger trees
The merger trees are computed by linking the haloes identified in each snapshot with their progenitors at the previous time-step. All predecessors from which a halo has inherited one or more particles are counted as progenitors, but only one is the main progenitor, the one that has given the largest particle contribution. In the same way one can identify a main descendant for each dark matter halo. The merging histories that we obtain are thus far more complex than those constructed from Press-Schechter theory as they include the processes of evaporation and fragmentation of dark matter haloes. In such situations we assume that all baryons remain in the most massive remnant.
From haloes to discs
--------------------
### Gas cooling and infall
Newly identified haloes are given a mass of hot gas by using a universal baryonic fraction of $\Omega_{\rm b}/\Omega_0 = 0.135$. Hot gas is assumed to be shock heated to the virial temperature of the halo and in hydrostatic equilibrium with the dark matter potential. The density profile of the hot gas is that of a singular isothermal sphere truncated at the virial radius. The cooling time is calculated from the hot gas density distribution with the @sutherland_dopita93 cooling function. The gas that can cool in a time $\Delta t$ is the gas whose cooling time and free-fall time are both lower than $\Delta t$. GalICS assumes that gas cooling is accompanied by a simultaneous gas inflow in order to maintain the same hot gas density profile at all times. The disc radius is $r_{\rm d}=\lambda r_{\rm vir}/\sqrt2$, where $r_{\rm vir}$ is the virial radius and $\lambda$ is the angular momentum parameter of the halo. Cooling is inhibited in haloes with $\lambda>0.5$.
We also prevent cooling in haloes that contain a total mass of bulge stars $>10^{11}\,M_\odot$ not to exceed the observational constraints on the number of massive galaxies. The theoretical argument behind this solution is that the bulge mass is proportional to the black hole mass and therefore to the total energy budget of AGN over the life of the halo. We assume that AGN deposit energy in the intergalactic medium mechanically (through jets or winds) and radiatively (through hard X-ray photons) and that this input is proportional to the black hole accretion rate. In reality, the long term outcome of the interaction between the black hole and the intergalactic medium is poorly understood. In particular, there is no strong physical reason why feedback should become important above a critical black hole mass (but see [@cattaneo02; @dunlop_etal03]). The cut-off at a bulge mass of $>10^{11}\,M_\odot$ introduced by @hatton_etal03 and used for the work presented in this article is a temporary measure, whose justification is in its capacity of reproducing the data. In fact, all groups working on semi-analytic models of galaxy formation were forced to make arbitrary assumptions to fit the bright part of the galaxy luminosity function. Meanwhile, we are looking for a motivated self-consistent approach, which will appear in another paper of the AGNICS series.
### Star formation and stellar evolution
The star formation rate in the disc is $$\label{sfr}
\dot{M}_*={M_{\rm cold}\over\beta_*t_{\rm dyn}}.$$ Here $M_{\rm cold}$ is the mass of the gas in the disc (all the gas in the disc is cold and all the gas in the halo is hot) and $t_{\rm dyn}$ is the dynamical time (the time to complete a half rotation at the disc half mass radius). The parameter $\beta_*$, which determines the efficiency of star formation has a fiducial value of $\beta_*=50$ [@guiderdoni_etal98]. The mass of newly formed stars is distributed according to the @kennicutt83 initial mass function. Stars are evolved between time-steps using a sub-stepping of at most 1Myr. During each sub-step, stars release mass and energy into the interstellar medium. Most of the mass comes from the red giant and the asymptotic giant branch of stellar evolution, while most of the energy comes from shocks due to supernova explosions. In GalICS, the enriched material released in the late stages of stellar evolution is mixed to the cold phase, while the energy released from supernovae is used to reheat the cold gas and return it to the hot phase in halo. The reheated gas can also be ejected from the halo if the potential is shallow enough. The rate of mass loss in the supernova-driven wind that flows out of the disc is directly proportional to the supernova rate. The details of the model and their justification are found in @hatton_etal03.
Galaxy morphologies
-------------------
### Galaxy internal structure
GalICS models the baryonic part of a galaxy as the sum of three components: the disc, the bulge and the starburst. These three components are not always present at the same time. The fundamental assumption is that all galaxies are born as discs at the centre of a dark matter halo. The transformation of disc stars into bulge stars and of disc gas into starbursting gas is is due to bar instabilities and mergers. Gas is never added to bulges directly and the only gas in bulges is that coming from stellar mass loss. The starbursting gas forms a young stellar population that becomes part of the bulge stellar population when the stars have reached an age of 100$\,$Myr. We do not readjust the bulge radius when this happens. The disc has an exponential profile, while the bulge and the starburst are described by a @hernquist90 density distribution. The starburst scale is $r_{\rm burst}=\kappa r_{\rm bulge}$ with $\kappa=0.1$. This model cannot take into account the presence of more complex morphologies, which are particularly relevant to the case of starburst galaxies, but has a justification that comes from smoothed particle hydrodynamics simulations of galaxy mergers. The star formation law (Eq. \[sfr\]) has the same form and uses the same efficiency parameter $\beta_*$ for all three components when we redefine $M_{\rm cold}$ as the mass of the gas in the component and $t_{\rm dyn}$ as the dynamical time of the component. For the components described by a Hernquist profile, the dynamical time is $t_{\rm dyn}=r_{0.5}/\sigma$, where $r_{0.5}$ is the half mass radius and $\sigma$ is the velocity dispersion at the half mass radius.
### Disc instabilities
The formation of a bulge from a disc instability is modelled as follows. A disc is globally stable if $v_{\rm d}<0.7v_{\rm tot}$ (e.g. [@vandenbosch98]). Here $v_{\rm tot}$ is the circular velocity at the disc half mass radius, computed from the total gravitational potential of the disc, the bulge, the starburst and the halo, while $v_{\rm d}$ is the circular velocity computed from the gravitational potential of the disc only. The bar instability transfers gas from the disc to the starburst and stars from the disc to the bulge until the stability criterion is fulfilled.
### Merging rate
Mergers are the second path to form spheroids. The model for galaxy mergers is articulated into two parts: the computation of the merging rate and the model for predicting the outcome of mergers when they occur. Let us begin with the first one. In the beginning there is one galaxy at the centre of each halo. When two haloes merge, the central galaxies of the two haloes will sink towards the common centre of mass owing to dynamical friction. That will take some time, so that the halo may temporarily be without a central galaxy. The common centre of mass will be closer to the centre of mass of the more massive halo, so that the central galaxy of the more massive halo will reach the centre of the new halo more rapidly, not only because it is more massive and is therefore subject to stronger dynamical friction (computed from the standard differential equation in [@binney_tremaine87]), but also because it starts from a lower radial coordinate. Galaxy groups and clusters form because above a certain mass the dynamical friction time-scale for galaxy mergers becomes longer than the time-scale on which dark matter haloes merge. When groups or clusters merge, the radial coordinates of satellite galaxies in the new halo are determined according to a prescription such that, if the satellites come from the main progenitor and this is almost as massive as the final halo, their radial coordinates are nearly unperturbed. On the other, if the satellites come from a much less massive halo, their final radial coordinates are close to the virial radius of the new halo. GalICS considers not only mergers at the centre of the halo due to dynamical friction, but also mergers due to encounters of galaxies at a non zero radial coordinate (collisions between satellite galaxies), but these events are a small correction to the predominant merging activity with the central galaxy.
### Effect of mergers
We now come to the second part of the merging model: how mergers transform galactic morphologies. Bulge material remains bulge material and starburst material remains starbust material, while some of the disc material is removed from the disc. As in the case of the bar instability, gas is transferred to the starburst and stars are transferred to the bulge. The fraction of the disc mass transferred to the spheroidal component (the bulge and the starburst) depends on the mass ratio of the merging galaxies. The exact formula for this fraction is in @hatton_etal03, but the idea is that when one of the two galaxies is much less massive than the other one (minor merger), most of the disc mass stays in the disc. On the contrary, if the two galaxies have comparable masses (major merger), most of the disc mass is transferred to the spheroidal component. The separation between a minor and a major merger is for a mass ratio of 1:3.
Devriendt et al. (in preparation) have used GalICS to investigate the relative importance of bars, minor mergers and major mergers in the formation of spheroids. Elliptical galaxies acquire most of their mass through mergers, although disc instabilities are predominant in forming the bulges of spiral and lenticular galaxies. Minor mergers predominate over major mergers in all galaxy types.
### Tests of the model
In Fig. 1, the predictions of the GalICS model for the mass function and the stellar ages of local spheroids are shown as solid lines. These predictions are compared with a variety of data (shown as points with error bars, dashed and dotted lines).
The mass function of spheroids is a key test of the model. We have tried to make the comparison as robust as possible by using data derived with completely different methods. The first is to start from the galaxy luminosity function decomposed by morphological type, to assume a bulge fraction for each morphological type and finally to use a bulge mass-to-light ratio to convert the spheroid luminosity function into a mass function. We have applied this method to the 2Mass $K$ band data of @kochanek_etal01 and to the Sloan Digital Sky Survey $r^*$ band data of @nakamura_etal02, both with an aperture correction of -0.2$\,$mag (see [@shankar_etal04], from where we have taken the bulge-to-total mass ratios for early-type and late-type galaxies, and the $K$ band and $R$ band mass-to-light ratios). With these data, we have found the mass functions shown by the open diamonds [@kochanek_etal01] and the dotted line [@nakamura_etal02] in Fig. 1. The second way to compute the spheroid mass function is to perform a bulge to disc decomposition on a complete galaxy sample, to determine a bulge mass function and then to use a bulge mass-to-light ratio. The open triangles show the result of this method with the $I$ band spheroid luminosity function of @benson_etal02. The third method does not pass through galaxy luminosities at all. Instead, it uses the relation of bulge mass and velocity dispersion to convert the Sloan early-type galaxies velocity dispersion distribution (e.g. [@cattaneo_bernardi03]) into a spheroid mass function. The spheroid mass function computed through this method is shown by the dashed line (which misses the bulges of spirals because it is derived from a sample of early-type galaxies). The luminosity functions by @kochanek_etal01 and @nakamura_etal02 give very similar results. The mass functions obtained from @benson_etal02 and @cattaneo_bernardi03 resemble each other very closely, too, while there is difference between the first and the second group. However, the overall impression is that there is good agreement between the model and the data. In this comparison, we should have in mind that the dark matter simulation cannot resolve haloes less massive than $1.6\times 10^{11}M_\odot$. (haloes that contain less than $2\times 10^{10}M_\odot$ in baryons). Therefore, a galaxy less massive than $2\times 10^{10}M_\odot$ is formally below the resolution limit. In the case of Fig. 1, the importance of resolution effects is reduced by the fact that the fraction of the baryonic mass in bulges is small in low mass haloes.
The second panel of Fig. 1 shows the mean stellar ages of spheroids in GalICS (solid line) and in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (points with error bars). The small points show the scatter in GalICS ages. The points with error bars come from @cattaneo_bernardi03 using $M_{\rm bulge}\sim 10^{11}(\sigma/200{\rm\,km\,s}^{-1})^4$, where $\sigma$ is the stellar velocity dispersion of the spheroid. The stellar ages of spheroids that we are comparing are not exactly the same thing because the model outputs are mean values weighted by stellar mass, while the mean values inferred from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey are weighted by luminosity, but the difference should not be large for the $r$-band, especially for massive galaxies with old stellar populations. The agreement is acceptable but not so good as that found for the spheroid mass function. In the cosmology used for this paper the Universe is 13.7$\,$Gyr old. Lookback times of 7, 10 and 11$\,$Gyr correspond to redshifts of 1, 1.7 and 2.3, respectively. Low mass ellipticals are older in the model than in the data because at low masses disc galaxies contaminate the early-type sample, but the real problem is at large masses. GalICS shows that the typical redshift of formation of the stars in a galaxy with $M_{\rm bulge}\simeq 2.5\times 10^{11}M_\odot$ is of $z\sim 1.1$ whereas the data suggest a value closer to $z=1.7$. This discrepancy is a sign that the formation of spheroids in semi-analytic models of galaxy formation is an open problem and indicates the need of more work on this topic.
In Fig. 2 we show the cosmic evolution of the galaxy merging rate by plotting total masses (stars and cold gas) and gas masses for all mergers that have occurred in 4 time spans of 100 Myr each at redshifts of about 2, 1, 0.5 and 0. This figure contains more information than a plot of the merging rate as a function of redshift for galaxies above a mass threshold. The decrease of the merging rate as a function of redshift is not dramatic because the larger intergalactic distance at lower density of is compensated by a larger galaxy number, especially at high galaxy masses. On the other hand, low redshift mergers have a tendency to a lower gas fraction.
Galaxy luminosities
-------------------
Stellar spectral energy distributions (SEDs) in the optical and near infrared are computed by convolving the star formation history of each component with the SEDs derived from the STARDUST [@devriendt_etal99] stellar population synthesis model. STARDUST calculates the SEDs associated with a single burst of star formation at time intervals that go from 10Myr to 50Gyr. These SEDs assume a Kennicutt stellar initial mass function and depend on the metallicity of the stellar population. Dust absorption is computed with an extinction law depending on the mean hydrogen column density and the gas metallicity. The column density depends on the mass and the geometry of the gas distribution. GalICS uses two models: a spheroidal distribution for bulges and starbursts and a uniform slab for discs. In both cases, stars and dust have the same space distribution. For each disc, GalICS picks a random inclination angle and computes the extinction for that value. All the radiation that is absorbed is re-emitted in the infrared by four dust components: big carbonaceous grains, small carbonaceous grains, silicates and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. The infrared colour-luminosity relation observed in IRAS galaxies determines how the absorbed power is distributed among the four components.
The structure of the AGNICS model
=================================
Black hole growth model
-----------------------
The most recent data suggest that most bulges contain a supermassive black hole (see the Introduction). We do not know how these black holes formed, although @rees84 identified a number of astrophysical paths that are likely to result in the formation of a supermassive black hole. The main problem is how gas concentrates from a scale of $\sim100\,$pc down to $\sim1\,$pc. We do not try to model the complicated physics of how gas flows from the galaxy into the accretion disc and then from the accretion disc into the supermassive black hole. Instead, we accept as a fact that whenever there is a bulge or a starburst, there is a supermassive black hole.
The model for black hole growth is based on three ingredients: the initial black hole mass, the model for black hole accretion and the model for black hole coalescence.
### Seed mass
The initial black hole mass is important in models where the black hole mass determines the maximum accretion rate. If the accretion rate cannot exceed the Eddington limit (discussed in Section 3.2), then a larger initial mass allows the black hole to grow more rapidly. If we do not limit the accretion rate to the Eddington limit, then the value of the initial black hole mass is irrelevant (at least as long as the initial black hole mass is $M_\bullet\lsim 10^5M_\odot$).
### Accretion rate
The model for black hole accretion is the fundamental element that distinguishes between different models in the literature and also between different implementation of the AGNICS model. There are two families of models: those in which black holes grow through the accretion of cold gas (e.g. [@cattaneo_etal99; @kauffmann_haehnelt00; @enoki_etal03]), in which case we expect a relation between black hole growth and star formation, and those in which black hole grow through spherical @bondi52 accretion of hot gas (e.g. [@nulsen_fabian00]). In this paper we only fuel AGN with cold gas. We tried to develop models of the second type but we were not able to do it without overpredicting the number density of bright quasars at low redshift. The reason is that, at low redshift, potential wells are deeper and haloes are less dense, with the consequence that shock heating is more effective, the cooling time is longer and a higher baryonic fraction is in hot gas.
Within the family of models in which black hole accretion is fuelled with cold gas and triggered by mergers, we can identify different prescriptions for the gas mass accreted by the black hole. @cattaneo_etal99 assumed that at each major merger the black hole accretes a mass $\Delta M_\bullet\propto (1+z)^\eta\Delta M_{\rm *burst}$, where $\Delta M_{\rm *burst}$ is the stellar mass formed by the merger (in practice the mass of the gas in the discs of the merging galaxies) and $\eta$ is a free parameter determined to reproduce the cosmic growth of the comoving mass density in supermassive black holes (a reasonable agreement with the data required that $\eta\sim 2$). @kauffmann_haehnelt00 assumed that on average, at each major merger, the black hole accretes a mass $$\label{kh}
\Delta M_\bullet={f_{\rm BH}M_{\rm cold}\over1+(280{\rm\,km\,s}^{-1}/V_{\rm c})^2},$$ where $M_{\rm cold}$ is the mass of cold gas in the merging galaxies, $V_{\rm c}$ is the host halo circular velocity and $f_{\rm BH}$ is a free parameter determined from the black hole-to-bulge mass relation. The accretion was distributed over time with the law: $$\dot{M}_\bullet={\Delta M_\bullet\over t_{\rm accr}}{\rm\,exp}\left(-{t\over t_{\rm accr}}\right),$$ where $t_{\rm accr}(z)$ is a free parameter determined by fitting the quasar luminosity function. @enoki_etal03 used a very similar model with $$\label{enoki}
\Delta M_\bullet=f_{\rm BH}\Delta M_{*,{\rm burst}}=
{f_{\rm BH}M_{\rm cold}\over 0.75+(280{\rm\,km\,s}^{-1}/V_{\rm c})^{2.5}}$$ where $\Delta M_{\rm *burst}$ is the total mass of the stars formed in the starburst that accompanies the merger.
In AGNICS we integrate a differential equation for the black hole mass. In this paper we only consider models of the form: $$\label{bar}
\dot{M}_\bullet=k \dot{M}_{\rm *burst}.$$ $\dot{M}_{\rm *burst}$ is the star formation rate in the starburst component. Black holes in starbursts are active while black holes in galaxies that do not contain a starburst are quiescent. The accretion efficiency $k$ can depend on an large number of parameters (morphologies of the merging galaxies, gas fraction, structure of the intergalactic medium, effect of AGN and supernova feedback, impact parameter, inclination of the orbital plane with respect to the discs of the merging galaxies, corotation or counterrotation of the two discs, black hole spin, etc.). In practice, we only consider very simple cases. In this paper we discuss four of them (Table 1 summarizes all the models considered in this paper):
- $k=$constant: there is a one-to-one relation between black hole growth and starbursts. This is what we called the basic model and corresponds to model A.
- $k=$constant, $\dot{M}_\bullet\le\dot{M}_{\rm Edd}$ (model B).
- $k\propto\rho_{\rm cold}^\zeta$ where $\rho_{\rm cold}$ is the density of the gas in the starburst component. This is the reference model, which gives the best fit to the data and corresponds to models C, D and E.
- $k\propto\rho_{\rm cold}^\zeta/[1+(280{\rm\,km\,s}^{-1}/V_{\rm c})^2]$ to suppress black hole growth in small haloes (model F).
These recipes describe a mean accretion rate: the approach model oversimplifies the physics of individual objects, but can be expected to be meaningful in a statistical sense, when it is used to compute mean values in a cosmological volume. However, neglecting the dependence of $k$ on other parameters will lead to underestimate the scatter in the properties of black holes and AGN. The scatter in the results of the simulations can only be meaningful as a lower limit to the scatter predicted by the model. Another remark: Eq. (\[bar\]) implies that the AGN duty cycle coincides with the entire duration of the starburst. This is a simplification because black hole accretion is likely to be highly time-dependent, as it is shown by AGN variability.
### Black hole coalescence
The third choice that one has to make to complete the black hole growth model is what happens when two galaxies with black holes merge. We assume that the black holes immediately coalesce prior to any gas accretion. This is not a good description of reality if the active phase starts before the black holes have merged (it is not difficult to find images of quasar hosts with double nuclei). It is also possible that a third black hole from a second merger reaches the centre before the two black holes from the first merger have had time to coalesce. In this case, the three-body interaction may result in the ejection of one black hole from the galaxy [@begelman_etal80; @hut_rees92; @volonteri_etal03a]. Nevertheless, the simple assumption of instantaneous coalescence is the most natural within the assumption of instantaneous morphological transformation at the time of merging used in semi-analytic models.
Luminosity and spectral energy distribution of AGN
--------------------------------------------------
The bolometric luminosity of a quasar is $$\label{bol}
L_{\rm bol}={\epsilon_{\rm rad}\over 1-\epsilon_{\rm rad}}\dot{M}_\bullet{\rm c}^2,$$ where $\epsilon_{\rm rad}\sim 0.1$ is the radiative efficiency of black hole accretion. @bardeen70 explains the physics of this value.
The Eddington luminosity $L_{\rm Edd}$ is the critical luminosity above which the radiation pressure is stronger than the gravitational attraction. The justification for requiring $L_{\rm bol}\le L_{\rm Edd}$ is that, as soon as the Eddington luminosity is exceeded, radiation pressure pushes the gas outwards and brings the accretion rate back to sub-Eddington values. However, there are physical situations in which this limit can be exceeded, e.g. if the emission is beamed into a narrow cone or if photons are trapped into a radiatively inefficient, optically thick flow and advected into the event horizon [@begelman78]. In the latter case it is possible to have $\dot{M}_\bullet>\dot{M}_{\rm Edd}$ without requiring that $L_{\rm bol}> L_{\rm Edd}$ (here $\dot{M}_{\rm Edd}$ is the black hole accretion rate for which Eq. \[bol\] gives $L_{\rm bol}=L_{\rm Edd}$). Imposing the condition $\dot{M}_\bullet\le\dot{M}_{\rm Edd}$ introduces a characteristic time-scale for the growth of the black hole. This time-scale is linked to the Salpeter time $t_{\rm S}=4\times 10^8\,$yr, the time in which a black hole radiating at the Eddington limit releases its entire mass energy $M_\bullet{\rm c}^2$. Since a black hole cannot radiate its entire mass energy, the accretion time-scale is limited to $t_{\rm accr}=\epsilon_{\rm rad}t_{\rm S}$ and the black hole mass cannot grow faster than exp$(-t/t_{\rm accr})$.
@mirabel_rodriguez99 have shown that some microquasars in the Milky Way are accreting well above the Eddington limit. In this paper we consider different models (see Table 1): the default assumption is that nothing stops black holes from accreting at super-Eddington rates, but the luminosity cannot exceed the Eddington limit. This is the same assumption of @kauffmann_haehnelt00.
The standard reference in the literature for the quasar SED is the @elvis_etal94 median SED inferred from radio, sub-millimetre, infrared, optical, ultraviolet and X-ray observations of a sample of optically selected quasars. With this template, the blue magnitude of an optical quasar is $$M_B=-23.64-2.5{\rm\,Log}(L_{\rm bol}/10^{46}{\rm\,erg\,s}^{-1})$$ and the colours are: $U-B=-0.911$, $B-V=0.092$, $V-R=0.320$ and $R-K=3.287$. The @elvis_etal94 SED gives a bolometric correction of $\simeq 32$ for the 2-10$\,$keV X-ray band. @marconi_etal04 have shown that a luminosity-dependent bolometric correction provides a more adequate fit to the X-ray data and it is their model that we use to compute X-ray luminosities.
Obscured AGN
------------
\[bhvsigma\]
Obscured AGN are AGN where the optical/UV continuum and the broad line spectrum are not observable. Unified models state that unobscured and obscured AGN are intrinsically the same type of systems, made of a central black hole surrounded by its accretion disc and, more further out, by a dusty torus. In obscured (also called type 2) AGN, the system is observed from the equatorial plane of the torus and the optical/UV continuum is not observable because it is absorbed by dust on the line of sight. Obscured AGN can be detected in hard X-rays, at optical wavelengths (through scattered polarised light and strong narrow line emission), by using mid-infrared spectroscopy and with radio observations (see the review article by Risaliti & Elvis 2004). @ueda_etal03 [@szokoly_etal04; @barger_etal05] used X-ray selected sample to estimate the fraction of obscured AGN and found that the result is strongly luminosity-dependent (Fig. 3). Most bright quasars are unobscured, while $>75\%$ low luminosity AGN are obscured. These findings are consistent with those by @sazonov_etal04, who studied the combined cosmic infrared and X-ray background and inferred an obscured/unobscured ratio of a factor of three. Optical extinction is therefore an important effect and can shift the peak of the cosmic accretion history of supermassive black holes to lower redshifts (e.g. [@cattaneo_bernardi03; @steffen_etal03]).
The @elvis_etal94 SED is a phenomenological template for unobscured (type 1) quasars. It contains three components: the big blue bump (due to thermal emission from the accretion disc), the infrared bump (due to thermal emission from the inner edge of the dusty torus) and the X-ray bump (due to Comptonization of accretion disc light). We cannot treat AGN extinction as we do with the absorption of stellar light by dust, where we assume a covering factor of $\sim 1$, because that grossly underpredicts the number of AGN by extinguishing the entire quasar population with $A_V\sim 5$. Instead, we assume that for a given bolometric luminosity there is an obscuration probability $f_{\rm obs}(L_X)$, which is determined phenomenologically from the data in Fig. 3. This is the same as to assume that the torus has a luminosity-dependent opening angle. When an AGN is viewed from the equatorial plane of the torus we still see the infrared thermal emission from the torus and the X-ray emission from the central engine (assuming that we can neglect self-absorption at infrared wavelengths and that the torus is not Compton-thick).
The most delicate point is the choice of the function $f_{\rm obs}$. Fig. 3 shows the two model functions used in this paper. The first one, shown by the dashed line, fits the data @ueda_etal03 and @szokoly_etal04, while the second one, shown by the solid line, is closer to the new data by @barger_etal05. The two lines cover only a small fraction of the luminosity range because AGN with $L_X\lsim 3\times 10^{43}{\rm\,erg\,s}^{-1}$ are too faint to contribute to the luminosity function of optical quasars and we do not want to extrapolate the curves beyond the range to which we are applying them as a phenomenological model for the extinction of quasars by dust.
Black hole masses and the redshift evolution of the quasar population
=====================================================================
Model $k$ Eddington limit $\epsilon_{\rm rad}$ Extinction
------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- ---------------------- ------------
A (the basic model) 0.0017 No 0.26 II
B 0.0017 $\dot{M}_\bullet\le\dot{M}_{\rm Edd}$ - -
C (the reference model) $0.0012M_{11}^{0.5}r_{\rm burst}^{-1.5}$ $L_{\rm bol}\le L_{\rm Edd}$ 0.1 II
D $0.0012M_{11}^{0.5}r_{\rm burst}^{-1.5}$ $L_{\rm bol}\le L_{\rm Edd}$ 0.1 I
E $0.0012M_{11}^{0.5}r_{\rm burst}^{-1.5}$ No 0.08 II
F $0.0012M_{11}^{0.5}r_{\rm burst}^{-1.5}/[1+(280{\rm\,km\,s}^{-1}/V_{\rm c})^2]$ $L_{\rm bol}\le L_{\rm Edd}$ 0.1 I
We want to determine if a model in which the black hole accretion rate is related to the star formation rate in the proto-spheroid (Eq. \[bar\]) can reproduce the masses of black holes in nearby galaxies and the cosmic evolution of the quasar population.
The basic model
---------------
The simplest scenario is that the black hole accretion rate is directly proportional to the star formation rate in the starburst component (models A and B of Table 1). This assumption gives a tight $M_\bullet$ - $M_{\rm bulge}$ relation consistent with a linear scaling. The left and the right panel in Fig. 4 present the case without and with the constraint $\dot{M}_\bullet\le\dot{M}_{\rm Edd}$, respectively. The blue and the red points are the results of the simulations for disc-dominated (late-type) and bulge-dominated (early-type) galaxies. The open squares are the mass estimates by @marconi_hunt03 and the filled triangles those by @haering_rix04. The solid line shows the linear relation $M_\bullet=0.0017M_{\rm bulge}$. These lines and the data points are the same in both panels.
The tight $M_\bullet\propto M_{\rm bulge}$ relation follows directly from our assumption. The $\sim 0.1\,$dex scatter in the left panel (model A) is due to the presence of a stellar component in the discs of the merging galaxies. In a merger, the masses of the two bulges add together, and so do the masses of the two black holes. The gas in the discs of the merging galaxies contributes to the formation of bulge stars and to the growth of the black hole in a fixed proportion. However, the stars in the discs of the merging galaxies can only contribute to the growth of the bulge mass, and as the gas fraction is lower at high masses (Fig. 2), high mass mergers produce lower values of $M_\bullet/M_{\rm bulge}$ and a shallower $M_\bullet$ - $M_{\rm bulge}$ relation at high masses. The model with $\dot{M}_\bullet\le\dot{M}_{\rm Edd}$ (model B) contains more scatter because the Eddington limit introduces a characteristic time-scale for the growth of the black hole. In some galaxies with a short star formation time-scale, the starburst may be over before the black hole has had time to grow significantly. Nevertheless, the similarity between the two panels of Fig. 4 indicates that the importance of this effect is limited.
The basic model cannot reproduce the observational scatter in any of the two versions. That is not surprising, because we expect that our approach underestimates the scatter, since it ignores many parameters that can affect the mass accreted by black holes (Section 3.1). The real problem comes from the quasar luminosity function (Fig. 5).
Once we have specified the black hole growth model, our only freedom to fit the quasar luminosity function is in the value of the radiative efficiency parameter $\epsilon_{\rm rad}$ and in the choice of the extinction law (the fraction of type 2 AGN as a function of the X-ray luminosity, $f_{\rm obs}(L_X)$). The luminosity functions corresponding to models A and B in Fig. 5 were computed for a radiative efficiency of $\epsilon_{\rm rad}\simeq 0.26$ by using the extinction law II in Fig. 3. Very likely, these assumptions overestimate the blue light that comes out of powerful AGN. Nevertheless, Fig. 5 shows that model A underpredicts the number of bright quasars at $z\sim 2$ (model B is even worse).
We can improve the fit to the luminosity function at $z\sim 2$ by pushing the radiative efficiency to an even higher value, by removing optical extinction completely and by increasing the normalisation of the $M_\bullet$ - $M_{\rm bulge}$ relation (the data allow an increase up to a maximum of $30\%$). However, that misses the physical point, besides the difficulty of justifying such assumptions. The problem exists because the basic model underestimates the scatter in the black hole mass distribution. If the black hole mass distribution is a Gaussian in Log($M_\bullet$), then more scatter in Log($M_\bullet$) with the same mean value of Log($M_\bullet$) increases the comoving mass density of supermassive black holes, which automatically raises the total light output of the quasar population. Therefore, we can fix the lack of bright quasars at $z\simeq 2$ just by introducing a scatter factor $\propto 10^\chi$ in front of the right hand side of Eq. (\[bar\]), where $\chi$ is a Gaussian random deviate.
However, that does not solve the second problem of model A: the simulated evolution of the quasar luminosity function between $z\sim 2$ and $z\sim 0.5$ is not so strong in the model as it is in the data (here we have made the comparison with the 2dF data by [@croom_etal04]). This finding is not surprising because the figures in @kauffmann_haehnelt00 and @cattaneo01 had already shown this limitation of the simplest scenario. The Durham group too has encountered the same problem when they have started trying and incorporating AGN into their semi-analytic model of galaxy formation (R. Malbon, private communication).
The reference model
-------------------
The method to obtain a model that by construction reproduces the strong evolution of the quasar population is to identify the parameters that are significantly different in high and low redshift AGN and to force a dependence of the black hole accretion rate on these parameters. We find that the main difference between $z\simeq 2$ and $z\simeq 0.5$ AGN is not in the gas fraction or in the potential well, but in the density of the gas in the central starburst that fuel the AGN. Therefore, we choose to explore a model in which the black hole accretion rate is $$\dot{M}_\bullet\propto\rho_{\rm burst}^\zeta\dot{M}_{\rm *burst}.$$ Cattaneo, Haehnelt & Rees (1999) used a similar approach when they assumed that $\Delta M_\bullet\propto (1+z)^\eta\Delta M_{\rm *burst}$ with $\eta=2$ in order to obtain a reasonable agreement with the cosmic evolution of the comoving mass density of supermassive black holes. The difference is that here $z$ does not appear explicitly. We find a reasonable agreement with the local black hole masses and with the luminosity function of quasars for a dependence with a power of $\zeta=0.5$, a radiative efficiency of $\epsilon_{\rm rad}=0.1$ and model II for the fraction of obscured AGN (Figs. 5-6, model C, called the reference model hereafter).
### Black hole masses
The blue (late-type galaxies) and red (early-type galaxies) point clouds in Fig. 6 show the results of the reference model at different redshifts while the squares and the triangles with error bars are the mass estimates by @marconi_hunt03 and @haering_rix04, and are the same in all four panels. In fact, they are the same as in Fig. 4. The black hole mass distribution at $z=2$ is bimodal because two processes fuel AGN: mergers (predominant in elliptical galaxies) and bar instabilities (predominant in spiral and lenticular galaxies). Low redshift starbursts are less dense and form objects with lower values of $M_\bullet/M_{\rm bulge}$. This mechanism generates scatter in the $M_\bullet$ - $M_{\rm bulge}$ relation. At low redshift the scatter becomes so large that it erases any trace of the original bimodality and creates a continuity between the products of bars and those of mergers.
The $\rho_{\rm burst}^{0.5}$ factor not only introduces scatter, but also increases the slope of the Log$(M_\bullet)$ - Log$(M_{\rm bulge})$ relation, since the densest starburst are also the most massive ones. Perhaps it is not coincidental the data contain a tilt in the same sense (the lines in Fig. 6 show the $M_\bullet\propto M_{\rm bulge}^{1.12}$ relation found by [@haering_rix04]).
Since @ferrarese_merritt00 and @gebhardt_etal00, there has been considerable interest in the $M_\bullet-\sigma$ relation, where $\sigma$ is the velocity dispersion of the host bulge. This interest has been due to the discovery that the $M_\bullet-\sigma$ relation contains less scatter than the $M_\bullet-L_{\rm bul}$ relation, where $L_{\rm bul}$ is the optical luminosity of the host bulge. Nevertheless, @marconi_hunt03 and @haering_rix04 have shown that the $M_\bullet-M_{\rm bul}$ is as tight as the $M_\bullet-\sigma$ relation. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that the latter is more fundamental than the former. However, we have chosen to show our simulated $M_{\rm bulge}-\sigma$ relation (Fig. 8). This appears to have a shallower slope than that inferred from the mass estimates of @ferrarese_merritt00 and @tremaine_etal02, but the difference is entirely attributable to the slope in the $M_{\rm bulge}-\sigma$ relation, which is shallower in GalICS than in the data (see the dashed line in Fig. 8). The result is not so bad if we consider that GalICS calculate radii, and therefore velocity dispersions, of bulges assuming that mergers conserve the mass and the total energy, while neglecting the loss of mass and energy in tidal tails and ignoring any angular momentum consideration.
### Evolution of the AGN population
The fiducial model assumes that $\dot{M}_\bullet\propto\rho_{\rm burst}^{0.5}\dot{M}_{\rm *burst}$. The scatter introduced by the $\rho_{\rm burst}^{0.5}$ factor is large enough that it allows to fit the luminosity function of quasars with $\epsilon_{\rm rad}=0.1$ (model C of Fig. 5) without violating the constraints on black hole masses (Fig. 6). In Fig. 7, we take exactly the same model and compare its predictions with the data from COMBO-17 [@wolf_etal03], which probe fainter AGN and higher redshifts (left panel). In the right panel, we show the predictions of our model for the comoving number density of AGN with $10^{43}{\rm\,erg\,s}^{-1}<L_{\rm 2-10\,keV}<3\times 10^{44}{\rm\,erg\,s}^{-1}$ and $3\times 10^{44}{\rm\,erg\,s}^{-1}<L_{\rm 2-10\,keV}<10^{48}{\rm\,erg\,s}^{-1}$. The solid lines and the dashed lines are the predictions derived with the bolometric corrections in @marconi_etal04 and @elvis_etal94, respectively. We compare these predictions with the data by @ueda_etal03 (points with error bars). The model that uses the bolometric corrections proposed by @marconi_etal04 is in better agreement with the data.
The fraction of obscured AGN in model C is computed with extinction law II, given by the dashed line in Fig. 3. We should clearly say that this law has been deliberately constructed to obtain the best possible agreement between model C and the @croom_etal04 data. A posteriori, the @barger_etal05 data have shown that this model is not inconsistent with our present knowledge of the type 2 fraction as a function of luminosity, since the data points from @ueda_etal03 and @szokoly_etal04 in Fig. 3 do not include the contribution of Compton-thick AGN to the type 2 fraction (model D shows an alternative version of the reference model, in which we only include the obscuration that is known to exist from AGN that are detected in X-rays, but do not have UV excess or broad line emission). One can be worried because the magnitude intervals on which the model and the data are compared at $z\sim 2$ and $z\sim 1$ only overlap at one point ($M_B=-24.25$). Reassuringly, at that point the agreement is good at both redshifts, but the comparison with the COMBO-17 data in Fig. 7 gives the best evidence that the success of our model is not a mere consequence of the change in the extinction law at the magnitude separating high and low redshift data. Fig. 7 also shows that our model can reproduce a good agreement with the X-ray data. This agreement is independent of the obscuration model and supports the conclusion that the discrepancy between the blue luminosity function without obscuration and the optical data is due to extinction.
We introduced a steep increase in the type 2 fraction at low luminosities to suppress the number of AGN with $M_B>-24$. @kauffmann_haehnelt00 and @enoki_etal03 dealt with the same problem by introducing a low circular velocity cut-off (Eqs. \[kh\]-\[enoki\]). Model F shows our results when we apply this solution in combination with the extinction law I derived from the data in @ueda_etal03. The fit to the data is good at $z\simeq 2$ and $z\simeq 0.5$. The discrepancy at $z\simeq 1$ occurs because all our AGN $z\simeq 1$ are in large galaxy groups, where the low circular velocity cut-off has limited consequences, but this may be an effect of small number statistics due to cosmic variance together with the finite size of the computational box. The model with the low circular velocity cut-off gives a steeper slope in the Log($M_\bullet$)-Log($M_{\rm bulge}$) relation than the model without this cut-off.
Model E is an alternative version of model C in which we have dropped the $L_{\rm bol}\le L_{\rm Edd}$ condition. The excess of blue light from super-Eddington AGN is compensated by reducing the radiative efficiency from $\epsilon_{\rm rad}=0.1$ to $\epsilon_{\rm rad}=0.08$. Model E fits the data even better that model C does, but we have chosen to present model C as our reference model because its assumptions are more standard.
\[bhvsigma\]
### AGN activity and black hole mass
Fig. 9 shows relation between the mass of the black hole and the luminosity of the AGN in model E (the reference model without the $L_{\rm bol}\le L_{\rm Edd}$ condition). This figure prompts two considerations. The first one is that, even when we remove the Eddington limit, it is very difficult to find quasars brighter than $3-4\,L_{\rm Edd}$. The second one is the limited statistics deriving from the size of the computational box. At $z=2$, there are 22 quasars with $M_B<-24$ and only 4 with $M_B<-26$.
Fig. 10 presents the cosmic evolution of the mass function of supermassive black holes and the fraction of black holes that are active at an $M_B<-22$ level as a function of black hole mass. These plots are identical for models C and E. The black hole mass function shows that black holes are still growing at $1<z<2$, but the growth is small at $z<1$. The evolution in the interval $1<z<2$ is stronger at $M_\bullet\sim 3\times 10^8M_\odot$ than it is at $M_\bullet>10^9M_\odot$. The fraction of active black holes decreases by almost two orders of magnitude between $z\simeq 2$ and $z\simeq 0$. The most active black holes are objects of $\sim 6\times 10^8M_\odot$ at $z\simeq 2$ and $\sim 2\times 10^8M_\odot$ at $z\simeq 0.5$. The two panels combined suggest a picture in which the most massive black holes form earlier while less massive black holes continue growing to lower redshifts. This is consistent with the finding that the most massive galaxies form at higher redshifts [@monaco_etal00; @granato_etal01; @corbin_vacca02; @cattaneo_bernardi03] also known as down-sizing of galaxy formation or anti-hierarchical evolution of the baryons with respect to the dark matter, although Figs. 1 and 10 show that hierarchical models of galaxy formation can in fact reproduce this behaviour.
Discussion and conclusion
=========================
Observational and theoretical arguments (see the Introduction) suggest that the same physical mechanisms are responsible for the growth of bulges and supermassive black holes. The main questions are what are these mechanisms and if they work one-way only (from the galaxy to the black hole) or both ways (through AGN feedback).
Mergers and disc instabilities provide a path for transforming late-type galaxies into early-type galaxies while driving a sudden fuel supply into the galactic nucleus. The importance of this process is demonstrated by hydrodynamic simulations and observed in the real Universe. Semi-analytic models of galaxy formation have incorporated the merger model since the early 1990s and have achieved a substantial degree of success (e.g. Fig. 1), but some discrepancies (overcooling at the centre of massive haloes, late formation of massive galaxies, low SCUBA counts in relation to the blue light that comes out of local galaxies) remain. Critics of semi-analytic models have argued that the great complexity of the models and the inherent large number of free parameters allow for the possibility that incorrect assumptions may be reconciled with the data. After all, the Ptolemaic model allowed to compute the ephemerides with reasonable accuracy, but its basic assumptions were false. This is a real danger when models are developed to reproduce a small number of observational constraints. However, the increasing volume of astronomical data from sub-millimetre, infrared, optical and X-ray bands heavily outnumbers the free parameters in the hand of the simulators. The presence of the same discrepancies in models developed independently and the difficulty that the modellers are encountering in solving these problems prove that the semi-analytic approach is robust (although some relevant physics are still missing).
In this paper, we have presented AGNICS (Active Galactic Nuclei In Cosmological Simulations), a hybrid approach that incorporates large cosmological N-body simulations, a semi-analytic model of galaxy formation and a scheme for the growth of supermassive black holes. We have used this model to investigate a scenario where mergers and disc instabilities drive massive gas inflows from galaxy discs into compact central starbursts, while a small fraction of this gas fuels the growth of a supermassive black hole. If $\dot{M}_\bullet$ and $\dot{M}_{\rm *burst}$ are simply related by a constant of proportionality, that leaves us with a tight $M_\bullet\propto M_{\rm bulge}^q$ relation with $q\lsim 1$. In a standard semi-analytic model, this simple scenario is not consistent with the strong evolution of the quasar population at $z\lsim 2$ observed in optical studies of the quasar luminosity function (e.g. [@croom_etal04] and references therein).
Recently, @barger_etal05 have plotted the evolution with redshift of the rest-frame 2-8keV comoving energy density production rate for AGN with $L_{\rm 2-8\,kev}>10^{42}{\rm erg\,s}^{-1}$ and shown that this has a clear peak at $z\sim 1$. This result goes in the same sense of an earlier study by @cattaneo_bernardi03, where we assumed that supermassive black holes form at the same time as the stellar populations of their host galaxies and used this hypothesis to calculate the evolution with redshift of the total mass accreted by supermassive black holes per comoving volume and unit time. We found a peak at $z\sim 1.6$, but this can be an overestimate if some stars have formed before the black hole.
The discrepancy between X-ray and optical data is attributed to the presence of an obscured AGN population (type 2 AGN), which predominates at low luminosities [@barger_etal05; @szokoly_etal04; @ueda_etal03]. Low redshift AGN are less powerful and therefore more heavily obscured, with the consequence of amplifying the perceived evolution at optical wavelengths.
Following the method of @soltan82 and @chokshi_turner92, @yu_tremaine02 estimated the mass per unit cosmic volume accreted by optical quasars over the life of the Universe, $\rho_{\bullet B}$, by using the equation $$\label{soltan}
\rho_{\bullet B}=C_B{1-\epsilon_{\rm rad}\over\epsilon_{\rm rad}{\rm c}^2}\int{\rm d}t\int L_B\phi(L_B,t){\rm d}L_B,$$ where $\phi(L_B,t){\rm d}L_B$ is the number density of quasars with blue luminosity between $L_B$ and $L_B+{\rm d}L_B$ at a time $t$ after the Big Bang and $C_B\equiv L_{\rm bol}/L_B$ (this equation uses Eq. \[bol\] in the opposite direction). For $\epsilon_{\rm rad}=0.1$, $C_B=11.8$ (as in [@elvis_etal94]) and the @boyle_etal00 model for the luminosity function of quasars, in which $\phi(L_B,t)=\phi_*(l^a+l^b)$, where $l\equiv L_B/L_B(t)$ and $\phi_*$, $a$ and $b$ are parameters determined from the data, @yu_tremaine02 found $\rho_{\bullet B}\simeq 2.1\times 10^5M_\odot{\rm Mpc}^{-3}$. They compared this value to their estimate of the local mass density of supermassive black holes, $\rho_\bullet\simeq (2.5\pm 0.4)\times 10^5M_\odot{\rm Mpc}^{-3}$ and concluded that the need for non-luminous accretion is limited. There are two objections to this argument. The first one is that inserting $\phi(L_B,t)=\phi_*(l^a+l^b)$ into Eq. (\[soltan\]) extrapolates the power law behaviour outside the measured magnitude range. @barger_etal05 argue that this leads to overestimating $\rho_{\bullet B}$ by a factor of $\sim 1.8$. Secondly, most other studies [@salucci_etal99; @merritt_ferrarese01; @marconi_etal04] favour values closer to $\rho_\bullet\sim 4\times 10^5M_\odot{\rm Mpc}^{-3}$. It seems plausible to conclude that $50-75\%$ of black hole accretion is optically obscured. @sazonov_etal04 analysed the combined infra-red and X-ray background and reached a similar conclusion.
With these considerations in mind, we ask ourselves if obscuration, which is more effective on the low redshift luminosity function, can reconcile the simple mode $\dot{M}_\bullet\propto\dot{M}_{\rm *burst}$ with the data. The answer is that it cannot because model A in Fig. 5 does not fit the data even if it includes a large amount of obscuration (which may be an overestimate of the type 2 fraction at low luminosities).
There are two possible solutions. The first one is that this problem is related to the other shortcomings of semi-analytic models of galaxy formation. Overcooling in massive haloes, late formation of elliptical galaxies, low number of high redshift sub-millimetre sources, delayed quasar epoch, all point to a scenario in which the most massive baryonic structures form too late. In recent times, there has been great interest on mechanical (jets, winds) and radiative (Compton heating) AGN feedback as a possible answer to this physical problem [@tabor_binney93; @binney_tabor95; @tucker_david97; @ciotti_ostriker97; @ciotti_ostriker01; @quilis_etal01; @reynolds_etal01; @reynolds_etal02; @basson_alexander03; @omma_etal04; @omma_binney04]. In this case, quasars and galaxy formation cease to exist as separate problems because we cannot solve one without solving the other. We plan to present and discuss such a model in a forthcoming publication of the AGNICS series.
The second possibility, which we have studied in this paper, is to introduce a second parameter that breaks the strict proportionality between black hole accretion and star formation. This solution introduces a scatter and a tilt in the $M_\bullet$ - $M_{\rm bulge}$ relation.
A model in which the black hole accretion rate is enhanced by a factor proportional to the square root of the gas density can reproduce the evolution of the quasar population over the entire redshift range covered by 2dF [@croom_etal04] and Combo-17 [@wolf_etal03] data both at optical and X-ray [@ueda_etal03] wavelengths, without need to deviate from the standard radiative efficiency of $\epsilon_{\rm rad}=0.1$ and in a manner that is consistent with the observational constraints on the normalisation, the slope and the scatter of the $M_\bullet$ - $M_{\rm bulge}$ relation. This model produces a final black hole mass density of $\rho_\bullet\simeq 4.4\times 10^5M_\odot{\rm Mpc}^{-3}$, very close to the most recent estimate of $4.5\times 10^5M_\odot{\rm Mpc}^{-3}$ by @marconi_etal04 (see the discussion above). Black holes with $M_\bullet\gsim 1-2\times 10^8M_\odot$ are in bulge dominated galaxies and have mostly grown through mergers. At $M_\bullet<10^8M_\odot$ disc instabilities are an important growth path. The good agreement with the X-ray data support the conclusion that the high type 2 fraction that we need to invoke to fit the optical data at low luminosities has a physical basis. Allowing or preventing radiation at $L_{\rm bol}>L_{\rm Edd}$ does not any significant difference, which cannot be compensated by a small change of the value of the radiative efficiency $\epsilon_{\rm rad}$.
\[AGNpower\]
It is difficult to say to which extent this model is physical and to which extent the factor $\propto\rho_{\rm burst}^{0.5}$ simply compensates the shortcomings mentioned above. Up to a point, it certainly does, but it would be a coincidence if the dependence that compensates a shortcoming of the galaxy formation model and gives the appropriate evolution of the quasar luminosity function was also the dependence that introduces the right scatter in the black hole mass distribution (and tilts the distribution of an amount that does not exceed the constraints on the power of the $M_\bullet$ - $M_{\rm bulge}$ relation).
The solution proposed in this paper, which breaks the exact proportionality between black accretion and star formation in favour a higher accretion rate in dense high redshift starbursts, makes two observable predictions. The first one is that the quasar contribution to the total bolometric luminosity is stronger in the most powerful, denser starbursts (Fig. 11). This is a prediction that can be tested by inspecting the SEDs of ultra-luminous infra-red galaxies (ULIRGs) for AGN features and by studying how the presence and the strength of these features increase with the total bolometric luminosity of these objects. @tran_etal01 studied the mid-infrared spectra of 16 ULIRGs and found a transition from mostly starburst-powered to mostly AGN-powered objects at a luminosity of $\sim 2-3\times 10^{12}\,L_\odot$ in reasonable agreement with the prediction of the reference model (Fig. 11). The systematic discussion of the infra-red and sub-millimetre properties of AGN is left to a future publication of the AGNICS series. We can anticipate that we have checked the most fundamental constraints. E.g. even if we make the extreme assumption that all the AGN power in the Universe is absorbed and reemitted in the far infrared by dust in the host galaxies, that could account for $<1/3$ of the number of SCUBA sources counted at a flux of $S_{850\mu{\rm m}}>2{\rm\,mJy}$. The second prediction of our model is that, for a given bulge mass, the most massive black holes are found in the bulges with the oldest stellar populations. Observations [@merrifield_etal00] seem to confirm this second prediction, too, but it is important to have more data to make this conclusion more secure. Moreover, low redshift mergers have much lower gas fraction than high redshift mergers. That can be another explanation why bulges with younger stellar populations have a lower black hole mass fraction. The first prediction is thus a cleaner test of our assumption.
Acknowledgements
================
A. Cattaneo acknowledges financial support from the European Commission, through a Marie Curie Research Fellowship, and from the Golda Meir Foundation. He also wishes to thank A. Dekel, G. Mamon and L. Wisotzki for interesting discussion.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Learning how to figure out sharp $\,\mathscr L^p\,$-estimates of nonlinear differential expressions, to prove and use them, is a fundamental part of the development of PDEs and Geometric Function Theory (GFT). Our survey presents, among what is known to date, some notable recent efforts and novelties made in this direction. We focus attention here on the historic Morrey’s Conjecture and Burkholder’s martingale inequalities for stochastic integrals. Some of these topics have already been discussed by the present authors [@AIPS] and by Rodrigo Bañuelos [@Ba1]. Nevertheless, there is always something new to add.\
address:
- 'Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Helsinki, Finland'
- 'Department of Mathematics, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY 13244, USA and Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Helsinki, Finland'
- 'Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Helsinki, Finland'
- 'Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Helsinki, Finland'
author:
- |
Kari Astala, Tadeusz Iwaniec,\
István Prause, Eero Saksman
title: |
A hunt for sharp $\,\mathscr L ^p\,$-estimates and\
Rank-One Convex Variational Integrals
---
0.4cm
[^1]
Introduction
============
The $\,\mathscr L^p\,$-theory of PDEs has advanced considerably in the last two or three decades due to improved techniques in modern harmonic analysis [@As2; @BSV; @GR; @IM; @IMpr; @NTV] , stochastic processes [@Ba1; @BH; @Bu2; @Bu1; @DV; @GMS; @NTV] , quasiconvex calculus of variations [@Iw1; @IL; @PS] , complex interpolation [@AIPS] , etc.
It begins with the fundamental work by B. Bojarski [@Bo2; @Bo3; @Bo1] who inaugurated the $\,\mathscr L^p$-theory of the first order elliptic PDEs in the plane. He applied the Calderón-Zygmund type singular integral $$(\mathbf S \omega)(z) \;= \;- \frac{1}{\pi} \iint_\mathbb C \frac{\omega(\xi)\, \textnormal d \xi}{ (z - \xi)^2 }\;,\;\;\; \omega \in \mathscr L^p(\mathbb C)$$ which we refer to as the *Beurling Transform*, after its earliest appearance in A. Beurling’s old lecture notes [@Beb1; @Beb2]. Its significance to PDEs and Geometric Function Theory lies in the identity $ \mathbf S \circ \frac{\partial}{\partial \bar{z}} = \frac{\partial}{\partial z}$. Higher dimensional $(n \geqslant 3)$ analogues of the Beurling Transform have been found in various contexts [@Iw1; @IMpr; @IMacta; @IMb; @BL] and the need to evaluate their $\mathscr L^p$-norms became evere more quintessential in the analytical foundation of multidimensional Geometric Function Theory.
Our primary aim is to further the interest in the $\,
\mathscr L^p\,$- norm of the Beurling Transform $$S_p {\stackrel {\textnormal{def}}{=\!\!=} }\| \, \mathbf S : \mathscr L^p (\mathbb C) \rightarrow \mathscr L^p (\mathbb C) \| \;,\;\;\; 1 < p < \infty$$ The as yet unsolved conjecture [@Iw4] asserts that
\[p-normConjecture\] For all $\,1<p<\infty\,$ it holds $$S_p = p^* - 1 {\stackrel {\textnormal{def}}{=\!\!=} }\;\left\{\begin{array}{ll} p-1\;,\quad\qquad\; \textnormal{if}\;\;\; 2\leqslant p < \infty\\
\;\;1/(p-1) \;,\;\;\;\;\textnormal{if}\;\;\; 1<p\leqslant 2
\end{array}\right.$$
This amounts to saying that $$\label{p-norm2}
\Big{\|} \frac{\partial f}{\partial z}\,\Big{\|}_{\mathscr L^p(\mathbb C)} \;\leqslant \; (p^* - 1) \,\Big{\|} \frac{\partial f}{\partial \bar{z}}\,\Big{\|}_{\mathscr L^p(\mathbb C)}\;,\;\;\;\;\textnormal{for}\;\;\; f \in \mathscr C^\infty _\circ(\mathbb C)$$ or, equivalently $$\label{p-norm3}
\iint _\mathbb C \Big{\{} \,|f_z(z)|^p \; - (p^*-1)^p |f_{\bar{z}}(z)|^p \Big{\}} \;\textnormal d z \leqslant \;0\;
\;,\;\;\textnormal{for}\;\; f \in \mathscr C^\infty _\circ(\mathbb C)$$
Here the complex derivatives $$\,\frac{\partial }{\partial \bar z }\, = \frac{1}{2} \left(\frac{\partial}{\partial x } \;+\; i \,\frac{\partial}{\partial y } \right ) \;\;\textnormal{and} \;\;\frac{\partial }{\partial z }\, = \frac{1}{2} \left(\frac{\partial}{\partial x } \;-\; i \,\frac{\partial}{\partial y } \right ) \,,\;\;z = x\, + \,i \,y\;$$ represent exactly two homotopy classes of the first order elliptic operators. These two classes are characterized by the following topological property of the solutions to the corresponding homogeneous equations. In the class represented by $\,\partial /\partial \bar z\,$ the solutions are orientation preserving (with nonnegative Jacobian), whereas in the class of $\,\partial /\partial z\,$ the solutions are orientation reversing. One of the strategic tasks for the theory of complex elliptic systems (linear and nonlinear) is to establish precise $\,\mathscr L^p\,$-transition from $\,\frac{\partial f}{\partial \bar{z}}\,$ to $\,\frac{\partial f}{\partial \bar{z}}\,$, which is the *Beurling Transform*, .
Thoughtful evidence to support Conjecture \[p-normConjecture\] can be found in many articles. The interested reader is referred to [@As2; @AIMb; @AIS; @BM; @Ball2; @Ba1; @BJ1; @BJ2; @BL; @BW; @BSV; @DPV; @DV; @EH; @GMS; @Le; @H; @Iw4; @Iw3; @Iw5; @Iw1; @IKp; @IMb; @P; @PW; @NTV; @VN] for numerous attempts, partial results and related topics. This elegant mathematical problem has profound connections with the fundamental work of D.L. Burkholder on martingale inequalities and stochastic integrals [@Bu2; @Bu1; @Ba1; @BJ1; @BJ2; @BL; @BW; @DV; @GMS; @L], see the extended survey article by R. Bañuelos [@Ba1]. In fact the probabilistic study of the Beurling Transform was initiated in [@BW; @L], by applying the Burkholder integrals. Also some analogues of the Burkholder integrals have been found and developed for this purpose in dimensions $\,n\geqslant 2\,$, see [@Iw1; @IMb; @IL]. Today the studies of the Burkholder functions appear the most promising approach to Conjecture \[p-normConjecture\]. The purpose of this note is to give a survey of the Burkholder functions from this point of view.\
A. Beurling, D. Burkholder and C.B. Morrey
===========================================
A continuous function $\,
\mathbf E : \mathbb R^{\,m\times n} \rightarrow \mathbb R\,$, defined on the space of $\,m\times n\, $-matrices, is said to be *quasiconvex at* $\,A \in \mathbb R^{\,m\times n}\,$ if $$\label{quasiconvexity}
\int_{\mathbb R^n} \left[\,\mathbf E(A + D\eta) \,-\,\mathbf E(A) \, \right] \;\geqslant 0\,, \;\;\;\; \textnormal{for every}\;\;\,\eta \in \mathscr C^\infty_0 (\mathbb R^{\,n}, \mathbb R^{\,m})\,.$$ Here $ \, \eta : \mathbb R^n \rightarrow \mathbb R^m\,$ is a smooth mapping with compact support. We call $\mathbf E\,$ *quasiconvex* if (\[quasiconvexity\]) holds for all matrices $\,A \in \mathbb R^{\,m\times n}\,$. Quasiconvexity yields convexity in the directions of rank-one matrices $\,X \in \mathbb R^{\,m\times n}$. Precisely, if $\mathbf E\,$ is quasiconvex, then for every $\,A \in \mathbb R^{\,m\times n}\,$ the function of real variable t: $$\;\;\; \, t \mapsto \mathbf E(A+ t\,X)\,\textnormal{ is convex} \textnormal { whenever} \;\,rank\,X = 1\,.$$
We refer to this later property of $\,\mathbf E\,$ as *rank-one convexity*, see the seminal paper by C. B. Morrey [@M].
In general (in higher dimensions), the rank-one convexity does not imply quasiconvexity, see the famous example by V. Šverák [@Sv]. C.B. Morrey himself was not quite definite in which direction he though things should be true [@M]. Nowadays, the case $\,m = n = 2\,$ remains an enigma for complex analysts [@BM; @FS; @Mu2; @PS; @Sv]. Our own thoughts in the spirit of Morrey’s fundamental vision is the following.
\[MorreyProblem\] The rank-one convex functions $\,\mathbf E : \mathbb R^{2\times 2} \rightarrow \mathbb R\,$ are quasiconvex.
The dual concepts of *quasiconcave* and *rank-one concave* functions are formulated analogously: simply, we replace the word convex by concave. Equivalently, this amounts to considering $\, -\mathbf E\,$ instead of $\, \mathbf E\,$. The most famous (and, arguably, the most important) example in two dimensions is the rank-one concave energy integral: $$\label{BurkholderComplex}
\mathscr B^p_\Omega [f] {\stackrel {\textnormal{def}}{=\!\!=} }\int_\Omega \big[\,|f_z|\,-\, (p^{_\ast}-1) |f_{\bar z}| \, \big ] \cdot \big [\, |f_z| + |f_{\bar z}|\,\big ] ^{p-1} \, \textnormal d z \;,\;\;\; 1 < p < \infty$$ Such terms for the energy functionals pertain to all sorts of variational integrals whose integrands are rank-one concave functions (rank-one convex, quasiconvex, etc., respectively). Here and in the sequel we identify the gradient matrix $\,Df\,$ with the complex differential $\,df = f_{z}\,\textnormal{d}z \;+\; f_{\bar z}\,\textnormal{d}\bar{z} \,$ or a pair of complex derivatives, whenever convenient. Accordingly, $\, Df(z) \simeq \big(f_z , f_{\bar{z}}\big) \in \mathbb C \times \mathbb C\,\simeq \mathbb R^{2\times2}\,$.
The special interest in the function within the studies of the Beurling operator arises from the inequality $$\label{BeBu}
C_p \cdot \big(\,|f_z|^p \; - (p^*-1)^{p} |f_{\bar{z}}|^{p} \bigr) \leqslant \, \big(\,|f_{z}|\,-\,(p^*-1)\,|f_{\bar{z}}| \big)\cdot \big(\,|f_z|\;+\;|f_{\bar{z}}|\big)^{p-1} $$ which can be shown by elementary means, see e.g. [@stroock Lemma 6.3.20]. The positive constant $\,C_p = p\left(1 - \frac{1}{p^*} \right)^{p-1}$ for $p>1$. Thus in particular, Conjecture \[p-normConjecture\] follows if one can prove that the Burkholder functions are quasiconcave at $A = 0$.
We shall work with the operator norm $$\, |Df(z)| = \max \{|Df(z)\, \textbf{v} | \,;\; |\textbf{v}| = 1\,\}\,=\, | f_z| + |f_{\bar{z}}|,$$ and the Jacobian determinant $$\,J_f(z) {\stackrel {\textnormal{def}}{=\!\!=} }\det Df(z) = |f_z|^2 - | f_{\bar{z}}|^2 \,.$$ In these terms the foregoing energy integral (\[BurkholderComplex\]) can be expressed as: $$\label{BurkholderReal}
\mathscr B^p_\Omega [f] \;=\; \frac{p^{_\ast}}{2}\int_\Omega \left[\, \det Df \, - \big| 1 - 2/p \,\big| \, |Df |^2 \, \,\right ] \cdot |\,Df\,| ^{p-2}\;\;.$$
That a pair of complex numbers $\, A = (\xi, \zeta) \in \mathbb C \times \mathbb C\,$ represents a rank-one matrix simply means that $\,|\xi| = |\zeta| \neq 0\,$. The nonlinear algebraic expression $$\label{BurkholderFunction}
\mathbf B_p\,(\xi, \zeta) \;{\stackrel {\textnormal{def}}{=\!\!=} }\; \big[\,|\,\xi|\,- ( p^{_\ast}- 1)\, |\,\zeta| \, \,\big]\cdot \big[\, |\,\xi|\, + \,|\,\zeta|\,\big ] ^ {p-1}\,,$$ (for vectors $\,\xi\,$ and $\,\zeta\,$ in any real or complex Hilbert space) has emerged in Burkholder’s theory of stochastic integrals and martingale inequalities [@Bu2; @Bu1]. He shows that the function $\, t \mapsto \,\mathbf B_p\,(\xi + t \,\alpha\,,\, \zeta + t\, \beta)\,$ of a real variable $\,t\,$ is concave whenever $\,|\alpha| \leqslant |\beta |\,$; in particular, if $\,|\alpha| = |\beta |\,$. Burkholder’s computation, although planned for different purposes, when combined with (\[BurkholderComplex\]) and (\[BurkholderReal\]) reveals that $\,\mathscr B^p_\Omega [f]\,$ is rank-one-concave. It is this connection between Morrey’s problem and Burkholder’s work that inspired a search for the $\,n$-dimensional analogues of the rank-one-convex functionals suited to the $\,\mathscr L^p\,$-theory of quasiregular mappings [@Iw1]. Let us state it as:
The matrix function $\,\mathbf E : \mathbb R^{n\times n} \rightarrow \mathbb R\,$, defined by $$\label{BurkholderHigherDimensional}
\mathbf E (A) \;{\stackrel {\textnormal{def}}{=\!\!=} }\, \left[\; \pm\; \det A \,- \,\lambda \, |A|^n \,\right] \cdot |A|^{p-n} \;,$$ is rank-one-concave for all parameters $\,\lambda \geqslant |1 - \frac{n}{p} |\,$ and $\, p \geqslant \frac{n}{2}\,$. Moreover, $\,|1 - \frac{n}{p} |\,$ is the smallest value of $\,\lambda\,$ for which the rank-one-concavity holds.
We refer to (\[BurkholderFunction\]) and its $\,n\,$-dimensional analogue (\[BurkholderHigherDimensional\]) as *Burkholder functions*.\
Note that changing $\,\pm\,$ into $\,\mp\,$ in (\[BurkholderHigherDimensional\]) results in the interchange of $\,|f_z|\,$ and $\,|f_{\bar{z}}|\,$ in (\[BurkholderFunction\]). In particular, the rank-one concavity is unaffected. We confine ourselves to discussing the case of plus sign.
\[ConjOnBurkholderFunctionals\] Burkholder functions are quasiconcave.
Further analysis of this and related conjectures see [@BM; @BW; @BL].
Recently [@AIPS] , substantial progress has been made toward Conjecture \[ConjOnBurkholderFunctionals\] in dimension $\,n = 2\,$.
\[AIPS\] For $\, \frac{1}{K} = 1 - \frac{2}{p}\,$, the Burkholder energy $\, \mathscr B_p \,[f] \,,\, p \geqslant 2\,,$ is quasiconcave within $\, K\,$-quasiconformal extensions $\, f : \Omega \rightarrow \Omega \,$ of the identity boundary map. This just amounts to the following inequality $$\nonumber
\int_\Omega \mathbf B_p (Df)\; \textnormal{d} z \,\leqslant \,\int_\Omega \mathbf B_p (I)\; \textnormal{d} z\; = |\,\Omega |\;,$$ whenever $\,f(z) \equiv z\,$ on $\,\partial \Omega\,$ and $\; \mathbf B_p (Df(z)) \geqslant 0\;$, almost everywhere in $\, \Omega\,$.
Far reaching novelties follow from this result. Among the strong corollaries, we obtained weighted integral bounds for $\,K\,$-quasiregular mappings $\,f : \Omega \rightarrow \mathbb C\,$ at the borderline integrability exponent $\, p = \frac{2K}{K-1}\,$,\
$
\left[\,K - K(x)\,\right ] \, |Df(x)|^{\frac{2K}{K-1}} \; \in \mathscr L^1_{\textnormal{loc}} (\Omega)\;,\;\;\;\;\;\;\; K(x) {\stackrel {\textnormal{def}}{=\!\!=} }\frac{|\, Df(x) \,|\!|^2 }{ \,\det\, Df(x)} \, \leqslant K \,.
$
0.1cm
These sharpen and generalise the optimal higher integrability bounds for quasiconformal mappings proven in [@As1; @As2]
Among further consequences of Theorem \[AIPS\] we find that quite general classes of radial maps are local maxima for $\mathscr B^p_\Omega [f] $. These facts will be elaborated in more detail in Section \[localmax\].
$\,K\,$-quasiconformal extensions $\, f : \Omega \rightarrow \Omega \,$ of the identity boundary map $\,\textnormal{Id} : \partial \Omega \rightarrow \partial \Omega \,$, with maximal Burkholder energy, have been presented in [@AIPS]. It became reasonable to speculate that Theorem \[AIPS\] presents Conjecture \[ConjOnBurkholderFunctionals\] in its worst-scenario. The novelty of our approach lies in using an analytic family of the Beltrami equations, which manifests the intricate nature of Conjecture \[ConjOnBurkholderFunctionals\].\
Enquiry on quasiconvexity at $\, 0 \in \mathbb R^{n\times n}\,$
===============================================================
In spite of the example by V. Šverák [@Sv], which answers the general question of quasiconcavity of rank-one concave functions in the negative, it is still reasonable to inquire about quasiconcavity at $\, A = 0 \in \mathbb R^{n\times n}\,$. Let us take a quick look at the integrands $\,\mathbf E : \mathbb R^{n\times n} \rightarrow \mathbb R\,$ which are $\,p\,$-homogeneous at infinity; that is, $$\mathbf E(t A) = t^p \,\mathbf E(A) + o (t^p)\;,\;\textnormal{uniformly as}\; |A| \leqslant \textnormal{constant} \; \;\;\textnormal{and}\; t \rightarrow \infty\,.$$ Suppose $\,\mathbf E\,$ is quasiconcave at some $\, A \in \mathbb R^{n\times n}\,$. It is not difficult to see that $\,\mathbf E\,$ is automatically quasiconcave at $\, 0 \in \mathbb R^{n\times n}\,$. The converse is far from being true. This can easily be seen in case of the *Beurling* energy, $$\mathscr F_\Omega^{p , M} [f] \,{\stackrel {\textnormal{def}}{=\!\!=} }\, \iint_\Omega \big[\, |f_z|^p - M ^p |f_{\bar{z}}|^p \; \big] \;,\;\;\;\;\; f \in \mathscr W^{1,p}_\circ (\Omega)\;,\; p> 1$$ where $\, M \geqslant S_p\,$-the $\,\mathscr L^p\,$-norm of the Beurling transform. By the very definition of $\,S_p\,$ it follows that $\,\mathscr F^{p, M}_\Omega[f] \leqslant 0 \,$, for $f \in \mathscr W^{1,p}_\circ (\Omega)\,$. In other words, the *Beurling function* $$\label{BeurlingFunctional}
\,\mathbf F_p^M (\xi, \zeta) \,{\stackrel {\textnormal{def}}{=\!\!=} }\, |\,\xi|^p - M ^p |\,\zeta|^p \;,\;\; M \geqslant S_p\;,\; (\xi, \zeta) \in \mathbb C \times \mathbb C$$ is quasiconcave at the origin. On the other hand, when $\,p \neq \,2\,$, $\,\mathbf F_p^M\,$ is not quasiconcave (even for $\, M > 0\,$). In fact $\,\mathbf F_p^M\,$ fails to be rank-one-concave. For this, examine the function $\, t \mapsto\,|\,\xi +t|^p - M ^p |\,\zeta + t |^p \,$ for concavity at $\,t \approx 0\,$. When $\, p > 2\,$ concavity fails if $\,(\xi, \zeta) \approx (1, 0) \,$ . When $\, 1<p <2 \,$ concavity fails if $\,(\xi, \zeta) \approx (0, 1)\,$.\
It is therefore more realistic to insist that
\[Quasiconvexity-at-0\] Burkholder functions are quasiconcave at the zero matrix.
which is still sufficient for Conjecture \[p-normConjecture\]. Further, an affirmative answer would give us optimal $\,\mathscr L^p\,$-estimates of the gradient of $\,n\,$-dimensional quasiconformal mappings and the associated nonlinear PDEs. Up to now, quasiconcavity at zero for the functional (\[BurkholderHigherDimensional\]) has been established for $\, \lambda = \lambda_p (n)\, < 1$ sufficiently close to $1$, with $\,p \geqslant n - \varepsilon\,$ for some small $\,\varepsilon > 0\,$ [@Iw5; @Iw1]. At this point it is constructive to introduce an additional parameter to Burkholder integrand. $$\label{BurkholderM}
\mathbf B^M_p(\xi,\zeta) {\stackrel {\textnormal{def}}{=\!\!=} }\big[\,\,|\xi| - M\, |\zeta| \,\big ] \cdot \big [\, |\xi| + |\zeta|\,\big ] ^{p-1} \;$$ The rank-one-concavity still holds if $\,M\geqslant p^{_\ast}-1\,$. The $\,\mathscr L^p\,$-boundedness of the Beurling transform $\mathbf S$ implies that if $\,M\,$ is sufficiently large, then $\,\mathscr B^{p,\,M}_\Omega [f]\,$ is quasiconcave at zero. It should, therefore, come as surprise that
\[QuasiconvexityForMlarge\] Quasiconcavity of $\mathscr B^{p,\,M}_\Omega \,$ remains unknown for any $\,M\geqslant p^{_\ast}-1\, .$
Also note that we have the following point-wise inequality $$\; |f_z|^p - \;M^p |f_{\bar{z}} | ^p \,\;\leqslant\; p\,\left(\frac{M}{1 + M}\right)^{p-1} \big[\,|f_z| - M\, |f_{\bar z}|\,\big ] \cdot \big [\, |f_z| + |f_{\bar z}|\,\big ] ^{p-1}$$ whenever $\,M \geqslant p^{\,\ast} - 1\,$, see Lemma 8.1 in [@Iw1].
By way of digression, consider the following rank-one concave function, $$\label{G.AubertProc.Roy.Soc.Edin.106,1987}
\mathbf A(\xi, \zeta)\,=\, \big[\, |\xi|^2 \,-\,M^2 \,|\zeta|^2 \,\big ] \cdot \big [\, |\xi|^2 + |\zeta|^2\,\big ]\;,\;\;\,M \geqslant 2 + \sqrt{3}\,$$ For the original source of this function we refer the reader to [@Aubert]. The lower bound $\,M \geqslant 2 + \sqrt{3}\,$ is the best possible for the rank-one concavity of $\,\mathbf A(\xi, \zeta)\,$. It is not difficult to see that for every $\, M \geqslant 1\,$, there is a unique constant $\, c > 0\,$ such that $$\label{Quasiburkholder}
|f_{z} | ^4 \,-\,M^4 \, |f_{\bar{z}}|^4\;\leqslant c\, \big[\, |f_{ z}|^2 \,-\,M^2\,|f_{\bar{z}}|^2 \,\big ] \cdot \big [\, |f_z|^2 + |f_{\bar z}|^2\,\big ]$$ Actually, given the factor $\,M^2\,$ in the right hand side, the inequality (\[Quasiburkholder\]) forces $\,c\,$ to be equal to $\,\frac{2\,M^2}{1+ M^2}\,$. Never mind, even in the best scenario (conjectural quasiconcavity for $\, M = 2+\sqrt{3} > 3 \,$), the approach by using $\,\mathbf A(\xi\,,\zeta)\,$ would not result in the exact value of the $\,\mathscr L^{\,4}\,$-norm of the Beurling transform. Thus there is no prospect of gaining any good $\,\mathscr L^{\,4}\,$-estimates through the rank-one concavity of $\,\mathbf A(\xi, \zeta)\,$ and the inequality (\[Quasiburkholder\]). For more examples of rank-one functions we refer the reader to [@Aubert; @Sv2].
rank-one concave envelopes
==========================
Given a continuous function $\,
\mathbf E : \mathbb R^{\,m\times n} \rightarrow \mathbb R\,$, we use a visual notation to define:
- *Rank-one concave envelope* of $\,\mathbf E\,$ (*the smallest majorant*) as, $$\mathbf E_R^{\smallfrown} = \; \inf\{\,\Xi \,; \;\, \Xi :\, R^{\,m\times n} \rightarrow \mathbb R\,\textnormal{ is rank-one concave, and}\;\Xi \geqslant \mathbf E \}$$
- *Quasiconcave envelope* of $\,\mathbf E\,$ as, $$\mathbf E^{\smallfrown}_{Q}\, =\; \inf\{\,\Xi \,; \;\, \Xi :\, R^{\,m\times n} \rightarrow \mathbb R\,\textnormal{ is quasiconcave, and}\;\Xi \geqslant \mathbf E \}$$
Obviously $\,\mathbf E^{\smallfrown}_{Q} \geqslant \mathbf E_R^{\smallfrown}\,$ pointwise; the former function being quasiconcave and the latter rank-one concave.
Recall the Beurling function $\,\mathbf F_{\!p} : \mathbb C\times \mathbb C \rightarrow \mathbb R\,$ $$\mathbf F_{\!p} \,(\xi, \zeta) \,{\stackrel {\textnormal{def}}{=\!\!=} }\, |\,\xi |^p - \left(p^{\,\ast} - 1 \right) ^p |\,\zeta|^p \;,\;\; \;\;\;\;1 < p < \infty\,.$$ and the Burkholder’s function $$\mathbf B_p\,(\xi, \zeta) \;{\stackrel {\textnormal{def}}{=\!\!=} }\; \big[\, |\,\xi| - (p^{_\ast}- 1)\, |\,\zeta| \,\big]\cdot \big[\, |\,\xi|\, + \,|\,\zeta|\,\big ] ^ {p-1}\,$$ The rank-one concave envelope of $\mathbf F_p$ is given by the following formula. For $p \geqslant 2$,
$$\mathbf F^{\smallfrown}_p\, (\xi, \zeta) \; = \; \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
|\,\xi |^p - (p^{\,\ast} - 1) ^p |\zeta|^p \; \;=\; \mathbf F_{\!p}\,(\xi, \zeta)\;\; & \textrm{if $\;\;\;\left( p^{\,\ast} - 1 \right) |\zeta| \;\geqslant \; |\xi | \,$} \\
p\left( 1 - 1/p^{\,\ast}\right )^{p-1}\,\mathbf B_p & \textrm{if $\;\;\;\left( p^{\,\ast} - 1 \right) |\zeta| \;\leqslant \; |\xi | \,$}
\end{array} \right.$$
While, for $1<p<2$, $$\mathbf F^{\smallfrown}_p\, (\xi, \zeta) \; = \; \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
p\left( 1 - 1/p^{\,\ast}\right )^{p-1}\,\mathbf B_p & \textrm{if $\;\;\;\left( p^{\,\ast} - 1 \right) |\zeta| \;\geqslant \; |\xi | \,$} \\
\mathbf F_{\!p}\,(\xi, \zeta)\;\; & \textrm{if $\;\;\;\left( p^{\,\ast} - 1 \right) |\zeta| \;\leqslant \; |\xi | \,$}
\end{array} \right.$$
Burkholder [@Bu1] shows this in a slightly different sense. Namely, that the envelope function above is the smallest majorant of $\mathbf F_p$ which is concave in orientation-reversing directions (as discussed on page 5). See also, p. 64 in [@Ba1]. The result as stated here basically follows from the work [@VV].
Let us denote by $\mathbf{E}(\xi,\zeta)$ the formula given above. Our task is to show that $\mathbf F^{\smallfrown}_p=\mathbf{E}$. For any pair $\theta_1,\theta_2 \in [0,\pi)$, consider the function $\mathbf F^{\smallfrown}_{p,\theta_1,\theta_2} \colon \mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}$, $$(x,y) \mapsto \mathbf F^{\smallfrown}_p(e^{i\theta_1}x,e^{i \theta_2}y).$$ Using rank-one concavity of $\mathbf F^{\smallfrown}_p$ we see that $\mathbf F^{\smallfrown}_{p,\theta_1,\theta_2}$ is zig-zag concave, that is, concave in the directions of $\pm\, \pi/4$ in $\mathbb{R}^2$. By the results (Theorem 6 and 7) of [@VV] on the zig-zag concave envelope of $|x|^p-(p^*-1)^p |y|^p$, we have that $\mathbf F^{\smallfrown}_{p,\theta_1,\theta_2}(x,y) \geqslant \mathbf{E}(|x|,|y|)$. Since, this is true for any $\theta_1,\theta_2 \in [0,\pi)$ we have the inequality $\mathbf F^{\smallfrown}_p(\xi,\zeta) \geqslant \mathbf{E}(|\xi|,|\zeta|)=\mathbf{E}(\xi,\zeta)$. On the other hand, as we have remarked $\mathbf{E}$ is rank-one concave so $\mathbf F^{\smallfrown}_p=\mathbf{E}$ as claimed.
Radially linear transformations
===============================
It is advantageous to dispose with a fairly large class of mappings that can be effectively applied to all rank one-concave functionals when computing the energy. One of such classes is the following:\
Suppose we are given a Lipschitz function $\, \Lambda : [0, R] \rightarrow \mathbb R^{n\times n}\,$. Define a mapping $\, f \,: \mathbb B_R \rightarrow \mathbb R^n\,,\; \mathbb B_r = \{ x \,; \, |x| \leqslant r\,\}\,$, by the rule $$\label{TwistedRadialMap}
f(x) = \Lambda(|x|) \,x$$ Thus $\,f\,$ restricted to any sphere $\,\mathbb S_r = \{ x ; \; |x| = r\,\}\,,\, 0 < r \leqslant R\,$, is a linear transformation. Proceeding further in this direction one could obtain more mappings of interest, but for us the class of mappings defined by (\[TwistedRadialMap\]) will work perfectly well. For radial maps where $\, \Lambda : [0, R] \rightarrow \mathbb R$, the following proposition is shown e.g. in [@Ball90 Proposition 3.4].
\[EnergyRdialLinear\] Let $\,\textnormal E : \mathbb R^{n\times n} \rightarrow \mathbb R\,$ be continuous and rank-one concave. Then for $\,f(x) = \Lambda(|x|) \,x \,$ as in (\[TwistedRadialMap\]), we have $$\mathscr E [f] \,{\stackrel {\textnormal{def}}{=\!\!=} }\, \int_{\mathbb B_R} \textnormal E( Df ) \leqslant \int_{\mathbb B_R} \textnormal E( \Lambda(R)) \,=\, \mathscr E[f^R]\;,\;\textnormal{where}\;\; f^R(x) {\stackrel {\textnormal{def}}{=\!\!=} }\Lambda(R)\,x$$
A standard mollification procedure, through convolution of $\,\textnormal E\,$ with an approximation of the Dirac mass, $$\textnormal E_\varepsilon (X)\, {\stackrel {\textnormal{def}}{=\!\!=} }\,(\textnormal E \ast \Phi_\varepsilon) (X) \; = \int_{\mathbb R^{n\times n}} \Phi_\varepsilon(Y) \, \textnormal E(X - Y ) \,\textnormal{d} Y\;,$$ results in $\,\mathscr C^{\infty}\,$-smooth functions which are still rank-one concave. As $\,\varepsilon\,$ approaches 0 the mollified functions $\,\textnormal E_\varepsilon\,$ converge to $\,\textnormal E\,$ uniformly on compact subsets of $\,n\times n\,$- matrices. Therefore, there is no loss of generality in assuming that $\,\textnormal E \in \mathscr C^\infty( \mathbb R^{n\times n} \,, \mathbb R)\,$. With this assumption consider the linear mappings $\,f_t = \Lambda(t)\,x\,$, for $\,0 \leqslant t \leqslant R\,$. We aim to show that the difference of energies: $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\mathscr E(t) \;&{\stackrel {\textnormal{def}}{=\!\!=} }&\, \int_{|x| \leqslant \,t} \textnormal E(Df(x))\,\textnormal d x \;-\; \int_{|x| \leqslant \,t} \textnormal E(Df_t(x))\,\textnormal d x\;\\ & = &\int_{|x| \leqslant \,t} \textnormal E(Df(x))\,\textnormal d x \;-\;\frac{\omega_{n-1}}{n}\,t^n \textnormal E\left(\Lambda(t) \right)\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ is nondecreasing in $\,t\,$. Thus we compute its derivative for $\,t\geqslant 0\,$. The computation is legitimate at almost every $\,t \in [0 , R]\,$, $$\mathscr E\,'(t)\,=\int_{|x| = \,t} \textnormal E(Df(x))\,\textnormal d x \;-\; \omega_{n-1}\,t^{n-1} \textnormal E\left(\Lambda(t) \right) \;-\;
\frac{\omega_{n-1}}{n}\,t^n \big \langle\textnormal E '\left(\Lambda(t)\right) \,| \,\Lambda ' (t) \big\rangle$$
Next we find that $\,Df(x) = \Lambda (|x| ) \, + \Lambda ' (|x| )\, \frac{x \otimes x}{|x|}\,$, where the tensor product of vectors represents a rank-one matrix. By virtue of rank-one concavity of $\,\textnormal E\,$ it follows that $$\,\textnormal E(Df(x)) \leqslant \, \textnormal E \left (\Lambda(|x|) \right )\; +\; {\Big \langle} \textnormal E'\big (\Lambda(|x|)\big )\, \Big|\; \Lambda ' (|x| )\, \frac{x \otimes x}{|x|}\, \Big \rangle\,.$$ We then integrate over the sphere $\, |x| = t\,$, to obtain
$$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\int_{|x| = \,t} \textnormal E(Df(x))\,\textnormal d x \;&\leqslant & \; \omega_{n-1}\,t^{n-1} \textnormal E\left(\Lambda(t) \right) \; + \; {\Big \langle} \textnormal E'\big (\Lambda(t)\big )\, \Big|\; \frac{\Lambda ' (t)}{t} \int_{|x| = t} x \otimes x\, \Big \rangle\,,\\ &\textnormal{where} & \int_{|x| = t} x \otimes x\, = \frac{1}{n} \int_{|x| = t} |x|^2 \, I = \,\frac{\omega_{n-1}}{n} \,t^{n+1} \, I\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
In conclusion, $\,\mathscr E\, '(t) \leqslant 0\,$ almost everywhere. Hence $\,\int_{\mathbb B_R} \textnormal E( Df ) \leqslant \int_{\mathbb B_R} \textnormal E( \Lambda(R))\,$, as desired.
Burkholder’s energy of radial stretchings {#EnergyRadial}
=========================================
Of particular interest are mappings, subject to the given boundary data, at which the Burkholder energy assumes the maximum value. For this we look at the radial stretchings as in [@AIPS; @BM]. Our notations, however, are little different. Let $$\label{RadialStretchings}
f_{_+}(z) = \rho(|z|) \frac{z}{|z|}\;\;\;\textnormal{and}\;\;\;\; f_{_-}(z)\, {\stackrel {\textnormal{def}}{=\!\!=} }\,\rho(|z|) \,\frac{\bar{z}}{|z|}\;.$$ Here the continuous function $\,\rho: [0 , R ] \rightarrow [0, \infty)\,$ is assumed to be locally Lipschitz in $(0,R]$ and satisfy $\,\rho(0) = 0\,$. However, we do not require that $\rho$ is increasing, in particular $f_\pm$ needs not to be a homeomorphism. In our situation $\, f_{_+}\,$ and $\,f_{_-}\,$ have well defined complex derivatives for almost every $\,z \in \mathbb D_R = \{ z ;\; |z| \leqslant R\,\}\,$, $$\frac{\partial f_{_+}}{\partial z} (z) = \frac{1}{2}\left[\frac{\rho(|z|)}{|z|} \,+\, \rho\,'(|z|) \right]\;,\;\;\; \frac{\partial f_{_+}}{\partial \bar{z}} (z) \,= \frac{1}{2}\left[\rho\,'(|z|) - \frac{\rho(|z|)}{|z|} \right] \frac{z}{\bar{z}}$$ $$\frac{\partial {f_{_-}}}{\partial \bar{z}} (z) = \frac{1}{2}\left[\frac{\rho(|z|)}{|z|} \,+\, \rho\,'(|z|) \right]\;,\;\;\; \frac{\partial {f_{_-}}}{\partial z} (z) \,= \frac{1}{2}\left[\rho\,'(|z|) - \frac{\rho(|z|)}{|z|} \right] \frac{\bar{z}}{z}$$ In addition to $\,\rho\,$ being Lipschitz, we wish that $\, |Df| = |f_z| + |f_{\bar{z}}|\, $ be free from the derivative of $\,\rho\,$. This is equivalent to requiring that $$\label{RhoCondition1}
- \rho(r) \leqslant r \,\rho\,' (r)\;\leqslant \rho(r)\;,\;\;\;\;\textnormal{for almost every }\;\; r {\stackrel {\textnormal{def}}{=\!\!=} }|z| \leqslant R$$ Finally, in case $p>2$ we also assume that $$\label{RhoCondition2}
\lim_{r\to 0^+}r^{-1+2/p}\rho (r)=0.$$ Thus $$\left |\frac{\partial f_{_\pm}}{\partial z} (z)\right | = \frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\rho(|z|)}{|z|} \,\pm\, \rho\,'(|z|) \right)\;\;\textnormal{and}\;\;\; \left |\frac{\partial f_{_\pm}}{\partial \bar{z}} (z)\right | \,= \frac{1}{2}\left( \frac{\rho(|z|)}{|z|} \mp \rho\,'(|z|) \right)$$ In either case $\, |Df(z)| = \rho(|z|)/|z|\,$. The $\,\mathbf B_p\,$-energy of $\, f\,$ can then be computed; we take for $\,f\,$ the radial stretching $\,f_{_+}\,$ if $\,2 \leqslant p < \infty,$ and $\,f_{_-}\,$ if $\,1 <p \leqslant 2 \,$. $$\begin{aligned}
&&\mathscr B_p \,[f_{_\pm}] \;{\stackrel {\textnormal{def}}{=\!\!=} }\int_{|z|\leqslant R} \mathbf B_p(f_z, f_{\bar{z}})\;=\;\textnormal{$ \hskip9cm$}\nonumber\\ &=& \;\int_{|z|\leqslant R} \big[\,|f_z|\, - \, (p^{_\ast}-1) |f_{\bar z}| \,\big ] \cdot \big [\, |f_z| + |f_{\bar z}|\,\big ] ^{p-1} \, \textnormal d z \;\nonumber\\&=&
\frac{1}{2}\int_{|z|\leqslant R} \left[\, \Big(2 - p^{\ast}\Big) \frac{\rho(|z|)}{|z|} \,\pm\,p^{\ast} \,\rho\,'(|z|) \,\right] \cdot \left [\,\frac{\rho(|z|)}{|z|}\,\right ] ^{p-1} \, \textnormal d z \nonumber\\&=&
\pi \int_0^R \big [(2 - p^{\ast})\, r^{1-p} \rho^p \;\pm\; p^{\ast} \,r^{2-p} \rho^{p-1} \rho\,' \big ] \textnormal d r\nonumber\\&=&
\pm \frac{\pi p^{\ast}}{p} \int_0^R \frac{\textnormal{d}}{\textnormal{d}r} \left( r^{2-p} \rho ^p\right )\;\textnormal{d} r \;=\; \pm \frac{\pi p^{\ast}}{p} R^{2-p} \big[\rho(R) \big]^p\;= \mathscr B_p \,[f^R_{_\pm}]. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
This is none other than the $\,\mathbf B_p\,$-energy of the linear extension of the boundary map $\,f_{_\pm} : \mathbb S_R \rightarrow \mathbb C\,$; that is, $\,f^R_+(z) = \frac{\rho(R)}{R}\,z\; (2\leqslant p < \infty)\,$ and $\,f^R_-(z) = \frac{\rho(R)}{R}\,\bar{z}\; (1 < p \leqslant 2 )\,$.
Burkholder function is an extreme point {#ExtremePoint}
=======================================
Let $\,\mathscr V\,$ be a real vector space and $\,\mathcal F \subset \mathscr V\,$ a convex subset. An extreme point of $\mathcal F\,$ is an element $\,F \in \mathcal F\,$ which does not lie in any open segment joining two elements of $\,\mathcal F\,$.\
We shall consider the vector space $\,\mathscr V = \mathscr V_p \,$ of continuous functions $\,\mathbf E : \mathbb C \times \mathbb C \rightarrow \mathbb R\,$ which are isotropic and homogeneous of degree $\, 1 < p < \infty \,$. Precisely,
- we assume that$\,\mathbf E(\xi, \zeta)= \Phi(|\xi|\,, |\zeta| )\,$ for some locally Lipschitz function $\, \Phi : [0, \infty) \times [0, \infty) \rightarrow \mathbb R\,$ , and
- $
\mathbf E(t \xi, \,t\zeta)\; =\; t^p \,\mathbf E(\xi, \zeta)\;,\;\; \textnormal{for}\; t \geqslant 0\,\,\;\textnormal{and}\; \;\xi, \zeta \in \mathbb C\;.
$
Recall that $\,\mathbf E \in \mathscr V\,$ is rank-one convex (concave) if for every $\,\xi, \zeta \in \mathbb C\,$ and $\, \xi_\circ , \zeta_\circ \in \mathbb S^1\,$ the real variable function $\, t \mapsto \mathbf E(\xi +\,t\xi_\circ , \; \zeta + \,t\zeta_\circ ) \, $ is convex (concave, respectively).
We let $\,\mathscr V_p^{\,\smallsmile} \subset \mathscr V_p\,$ and $\,\mathscr V_p ^{\,\smallfrown} \subset \mathscr V_p\,$ denote the families of rank-one convex and rank-one concave functions, respectively.
Both families $\,\mathscr V_p^{\,\smallsmile}\,$ and $\,\mathscr V_p ^{\smallfrown}\,$ are convex subsets of $\,\mathscr V_p\,$.
Before proceeding to the extreme points we need to look at a slightly more general context. Suppose we are given a decomposition of the Burkholder function $\,\mathbf B_p = \mathbf B^\smallfrown_p \in \mathscr V_p{\,^\smallfrown} \,$ (and similarly $\,-\mathbf B_p\in \mathscr V_p^{\,\smallsmile}\,$).
$$\label{Decomposition1}
\mathbf B_p (\xi ,\zeta) =\sum_{1\leqslant i \leqslant n} \lambda_{\,i}\,\mathbf E_{\,i}(\xi , \zeta) \;,\;\; \lambda_{\,i} > 0\,,\;\;\textnormal{where $\,\mathbf E_{\,i} \in \mathscr V_p ^\smallfrown\,$.}$$
One possibility is that there exist positive numbers $\,\theta _i > 0\,$ such that $$\label{DecompositionOutcome1}
\mathbf E _i \;\equiv\; \theta _i \,\mathbf B_p\;,\;\;\textnormal{for all} \; i = 1, 2, ... , n\;,\;\;\textnormal{and}\;\; \sum_{1\leqslant i \leqslant n} \lambda_i\,\theta_i \;= 1 .$$
\[ResultOfDecomposition\] For $\,p \neq 2\,$, a decomposition of Burkholder function $\,\mathbf B_p\,$ as in (\[Decomposition1\]) forces its components $\,\mathbf E _i\,$ to satisfy (\[DecompositionOutcome1\]). For $\,p=2\,$, however, the Burkholder function is a null-Lagrangian (i.e. it is both quasiconcave and quasiconvex), $\,\mathbf B_2 (\xi, \zeta ) = |\zeta|^2 - |\xi |^2\,$. In this case each component $\,\mathbf E_i(\xi,\zeta)\,$ is a real (positive or negative) multiple of $\,\mathbf B_2 (\xi, \zeta )\,$.
The key observation to the proof is that Burkholder energy $\,\mathscr B_p [f] \,$ admits many stationary solutions. Among those are a number of radial power stretchings.
Let us test (\[Decomposition1\]) with the radial stretchings as in , $\,f = f_+\,$ if $ \,2 \leqslant p < \infty\,$ and $\,f = f_-\,$ if $ \,1 < p \leqslant 2\,$, requiring that holds and additionally that $\rho(t) = t$ for $0 \leqslant t \leqslant 1$. Computing their energies in the disc $B(0,R)$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
&&\mathscr B_p [f] = \sum_{1\leqslant i \leqslant n} \lambda_i\,\mathscr E_i [f] \; \leqslant \sum_{1\leqslant i \leqslant n} \lambda_i\,\mathscr E_i [f^R] \, \;\;\;\;\;\Big \|\;\;{\textnormal{because} \;\; \mathscr E_i [f] \; \leqslant \mathscr E_i [f^R]\atop \textnormal{for every} \; i = 1, 2,..., n }\, \nonumber \\ &=& \sum_{1\leqslant i \leqslant n} \lambda_i\,\pi R^{2-p} \,[\,\rho(R)\,]^p \,\mathbf E_i (I_\pm) \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\Big \|\,\; \textnormal{where}\; \;{\;\,I_+ = \textnormal{id} \;\;,\, 2 \leqslant p <\infty\,\;\atop \;\,I_- = \overline{\textnormal{id}} \;\; ,\,1<p\,\leqslant \;2\,\,} \nonumber \\ & =& \sum_{1\leqslant i \leqslant n} \lambda_i\,\pi R^{2-p}\, [\,\rho(R)\,]^p \,\mathbf B_p (I_\pm) \; \theta _i \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; \,\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\,\Big \|\;\,\textnormal{where}\;\;\theta _i = \frac{\mathbf E_i (I_\pm)}{\mathbf B_p (I_\pm)} \, \nonumber \\&=& \sum_{1\leqslant i \leqslant n} \lambda_i\,\mathscr B_p [f] \; \theta_i \;
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ As obviously $\sum_{1\leq i\leq n} \lambda_1\theta_1=1,$ we see that this chain is possible only if $$\mathscr E _i [f] \;=\; \theta _i \,\mathscr B_p [f] =\; \theta _i \,\mathscr B_p [f^R]\;,\;\;\textnormal{for all} \; i = 1, 2, ... , n\;, \;\textnormal {and all} \; R \geqslant 1\,.$$
We write it as: $$\, \int_{|z|\leqslant R }\mathbf E _i [Df]\,\textnormal{d} z \;=\; \theta _i \,\int_{|z|\leqslant R }\mathbf B_p [Df]\,\textnormal{d} z .$$
Note that $\,Df (z) \equiv I_\pm \,$ for $ |z| \leqslant 1 \,$ and, by the definition of $\,\theta_i\,$, $\,\mathbf E _{\,i}\, [I_\pm] = \theta _{\,i} \mathbf B_p \,[I_\pm] \,$. Hence $\, \int_{|z|\leqslant 1 }\mathbf E _i [Df]\,\textnormal{d} z \;=\; \theta _i \,\int_{|z|\leqslant 1}\mathbf B_p [Df]\,\textnormal{d} z .$ The energy equation reduces to:
$$\label{ReducedIdentity}
\, \int_{1\leqslant|z|\leqslant R }\mathbf E _i [Df]\,\textnormal{d} z \;=\; \theta _i \,\int_{1 \leqslant |z|\leqslant R }\mathbf B_p [Df]\,\textnormal{d} z .$$
We test this by further specifying the radial stretchings also in the annulus $1\leq |z|\leq R$ by setting $$\label{Testfunctions}
f(z) = f_+(z) = |z|^{\alpha - 1}\;z \;,\;\;\;\; f(z) = f_-(z) = |z|^{-\alpha - 1}\;\bar{z}, \quad \; -1 \leqslant \alpha \leqslant 1.$$ Then $f$ is quasiconformal in the annulus if $\alpha\not=0$, but one might observe that $f$ is a homeomorphism of $\{ |z|<R\}$ only if $\alpha >0.$ In any case $$2 \,|f_z(z)| = \,(\alpha + 1) \,|z|^{\alpha - 1} \;,\;\;\;\; 2 \,|f_{\bar{z}}(z)| = ( -\,\alpha + 1) \,|z|^{\alpha - 1}$$ Substitute these formulas into (\[ReducedIdentity\]) to obtain $$\nonumber
\, \int_{1\leqslant|z|\leqslant R } |z|^{\alpha p - p }\,\mathbf E _{\,i} (\alpha + 1 \,, -\alpha + 1 )\, \;=\; \theta _{\,i} \,\int_{1\leqslant|z|\leqslant R } |z|^{\alpha p - p }\,\mathbf B_p (\alpha + 1 \, , - \alpha + 1 )\,.$$ Hence $$\nonumber
\mathbf E _{\,i} \big(\alpha + 1\, , - \alpha +1\, \big)\, \;=\; \theta _{i} \,\mathbf B_p \big(\alpha + 1 \,,\, - \alpha + 1\, \big)\,.$$ By homogeneity and isotropy, $$\nonumber
\mathbf E _{\,i} (\xi\, , \,\zeta )\, \;=\; \theta _i \,\mathbf B_p (\xi \,,\, \zeta )\,,\;\;\;\textnormal{for all}\;\; \xi , \zeta \in \mathbb C$$ Now, for $\,p\neq 2\,$ , since both $\,\mathbf E _{\,i}\,$ and $\, \mathbf B_p\,$ are of the same rank-one convexity type, we conclude that $\,\theta_i > 0\,$. However, in case $\,p= 2\,$ (null-Lagrangians) the coefficients $\,\theta_{i} > 0\,$ are allowed to be negative as well. This completes the proof of Proposition \[ResultOfDecomposition\].
The proof of Proposition \[ResultOfDecomposition\] has an interesting consequence.
Let $\,\mathbf E \in \mathscr V_p \,$. Regardless of whether $\,\mathbf E\,$ is rank-one concave or not, the identity $$\mathscr E[f] {\stackrel {\textnormal{def}}{=\!\!=} }\int_{|z| \leqslant 1} \mathbf E(|f_z|\,,|f_{\bar{z}}| \,)\, \textnormal{d}z = \mathscr E[\textnormal{Id}] = \pi\;,$$ for all $ \; f(z) = \rho(|z|) \frac{z}{|z|}\,$ as in (\[RhoCondition1\]), yields $\,\mathbf E(\xi , \,\zeta) = \mathbf B_p (\xi, \zeta)\,$. In particular, $\,\mathbf E\,$ must be rank-one concave.
We now introduce a norm in the vector space $\,\mathscr V_p\,$ $$\|\,\textnormal E \| = \|\,\textnormal E \|_{\mathscr V_p} \,{\stackrel {\textnormal{def}}{=\!\!=} }\sup_{|\xi|+|\zeta| = 1} |\,\textnormal E(\xi, \zeta) |$$ so $\,(\mathscr V_p \;, \|\cdot \| )\,$ becomes a Banach space. The norm of Burkholder function equals $$\|\,\mathbf B_p \|\; = \,p^{\ast} \,- 1$$ Consider the subsets $\,\mathcal C_p^{\,\smallsmile} \subset \mathscr V_p^{\,\smallsmile}\,$ and $\,\mathcal C_p^{\,\smallfrown} \subset \mathscr V_p^{\,\smallfrown}\,$ of functions whose norm does not exceed $\,p^{\ast} \,- 1 \,$. These are convex sets.
\[ExtremePoint\] The Burkholder function $\,\mathbf B_p\,, \,p \neq 2\,,\,$ is an extreme point of $\,\mathcal C_p^{\,\smallfrown}\,$. Similarly, $-\mathbf B_p$ is an extreme point of $\,\mathcal C_p^{\,\smallsmile}\,$.
Consider a convex combination of $\,\mathbf B_p = \mathbf B_p^{\,\smallfrown}\,$
$$\label{Decomposition}
\mathbf B_p =\sum_{1\leqslant i \leqslant n} \lambda_{\,i}\,\mathbf E_{\,i} \;,\;\; \lambda_{\,i} > 0\,,\;\lambda _1 + ... + \lambda _n = 1\,, \;\textnormal{where $\,\mathbf E_{\,i} \in \mathcal C_p ^\smallfrown\,$.}$$
By Proposition (\[ResultOfDecomposition\]) there exist positive numbers $\,\theta _i > 0\,$ such that $$\label{DecompositionOutcome}
\mathbf E _i \;\equiv\; \theta _i \,\mathbf B_p\;,\;\;\textnormal{for all} \; i = 1, 2, ... , n\;,\;\;\textnormal{and}\;\; \sum_{1\leqslant i \leqslant n} \lambda_i\,\theta_i \;= 1 .$$ Computing the norms yields: $$\,p^{\ast} \,- 1 \geqslant \|\,\mathbf E _i\,\| = \,\|\,\mathbf B_p \|\,\theta_i = (p^{\ast} \,- 1)\, \theta_i$$ Therefore $\,\theta _i \leqslant 1\,$, for every $\, i = 1, 2, ... , n\,$. On the other hand, in view of $\,\sum_{1\leqslant i \leqslant n} \lambda_i\,\theta_i \;= 1\,$ and $\,\lambda _1 + ... + \lambda _n = 1\,$, we have $\,\theta _i = 1\,$, for every $\, i = 1, 2, ... , n\,$. This means that each $ \,\mathbf E _i\,$ equals $\,\mathbf B_p\,$, as desired.
Burkholder’s function is a maximal element
==========================================
\[Uniqueness\] Among all rank-one concave functions $\,\mathbf E \,:\,\mathbb C \times \mathbb C \rightarrow \mathbb R\,$ that are isotropic and homogeneous of degree $\, p > 1\,$, the function $\, \mathbf B_p(\xi, \zeta) \,= \big[|\,\xi| - ( p^{_\ast}- 1)\, |\,\zeta| \,\big]\cdot \big[\, |\xi|\, + \,|\zeta|\,\big ] ^ {p-1}\,$ is a maximal one; that is, the inequality $$\mathbf B_p(\xi, \zeta) \,\;\leqslant \;\mathbf E (\xi, \zeta)\,, \; \;\textnormal{for all}\;\; (\xi,\zeta) \in \mathbb C \times \mathbb C\,,$$ forces $\,\mathbf E\,$ to be equal to $\,\,\mathbf B_p\,$.
The proof goes through as for Proposition \[ResultOfDecomposition\], with a slight change. Under the same notation, we begin with an energy estimate in the ball $B(0,R)$ (with $R>1$) for the special radial stretchings (7.4) depending on parameter $\alpha$. Thus
$$\begin{aligned}
&& \mathscr B_p [f] \leqslant \,\mathscr E [f] \; \leqslant \mathscr E [f^R] \, \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\Big (\;\;\textnormal{by Proposition \ref{EnergyRdialLinear} }\;\Big) \, \nonumber \\ &=& \,\pi R^{2-p} \rho^p(R) \,\mathbf E (I_\pm) \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\,\Big (\,\textnormal{where}\,\,{\;\,I_+ = \textnormal{id} \;\;,\, 2 \leqslant p <\infty\,\;\atop \;\,I_- = \overline{\textnormal{id}} \;\; ,\,1<p\,\leqslant \;2\,\,}\,\Big)\, \nonumber \\ & =& \,\pi R^{2-p} \rho^p(R) \,\mathbf B_p (I_\pm) \; \theta \;=\;\mathscr B_p [f^R]\,\theta =\,\mathscr B_p [f] \; \theta\;\;\,\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\Big(\;\theta \;=\; \frac{\mathbf E (I_\pm)}{\mathbf B_p (I_\pm)} \,\Big)\, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Hence
$$\, \int_{|z|\leqslant R }\mathbf E [Df]\,\textnormal{d} z \;\leqslant\; \theta \,\int_{|z|\leqslant R }\mathbf B_p [Df]\,\textnormal{d} z .$$
Note that $\,Df (z) \equiv I_\pm \,$ for $ |z| \leqslant 1 \,$ and $\,\mathbf E [I_\pm] = \theta\, \mathbf B_p[I_\pm] \,$. Therefore $\, \int_{|z|\leqslant 1 }\mathbf E[Df]\,\textnormal{d} z \;=\; \theta \,\int_{|z|\leqslant 1}\mathbf B_p [Df]\,\textnormal{d} z .$ The energy inequality reduces to:
$$\label{ReducedIdentity2}
\, \int_{1\leqslant|z|\leqslant R }\mathbf E[Df]\,\textnormal{d} z \;\leqslant\; \theta\,\int_{1 \leqslant |z|\leqslant R }\mathbf B_p [Df]\,\textnormal{d} z .$$
As before, since we are testing (\[ReducedIdentity2\])with the maps (\[Testfunctions\]) using all values of $\; -1 < \alpha < 1\,$, this results in a point-wise inequality $$\nonumber
\mathbf B_p (\xi, \zeta) \leqslant \mathbf E(\xi, \zeta) \,\;\leqslant\;\theta\;\mathbf B_p (\xi, \zeta)\,,\;\;\;\textnormal{with a constant $\,\theta \in \mathbb R \,$ and all}\;\; \xi\,, \zeta \in \mathbb C\,.$$ We must have $\,\theta\,$ equal to 1, because the function $\,\mathbf B_p\,$ attains both strictly positive and strictly negative values. This implies that the first inequality must actually be an equality.
Local maxima {#localmax}
============
Theorem \[AIPS\] yields a number of interesting properties for the Burkholder function. For instance, under an additional assumption on $\,\rho\,$ the $\,\mathbf B_p\,$-energy, $\,p > 2\,$, assumes its local maximum at the radial stretchings $\,f(z) = \rho(|z|) \frac{z}{|z|}\,,$ in an explicitly specified neighbourhood of $f$. To see this, assume that $\,\rho: [0 , 1 ] \rightarrow [0, 1]\,$ is Lipschitz continuous, $\,\rho(0) = 0\,,\; \rho(1) = 1\,$, and that for almost every $\, r \in [ 0 , 1 ]\,$ it holds: $$\label{RhoCondition}
\rho(r) \geqslant r \,\rho\,' (r)\,\geqslant \big(1 - \,2/s\big)\; \rho(r)\,,\;\; \textnormal{for some}\; s > p\,.$$
\[LocalMaximum\] Consider an $\,\varepsilon\,$-perturbation of $\,f\,$ $$\label{Perturbation}
f^\varepsilon (z) = \rho(|z|) \frac{z}{|z|} \,+\,\varepsilon(z)\;,$$ with $\,\varepsilon\in \mathscr C^1_\circ(\mathbb D) \,$, small enough to satisfy $$\label{Smallepsilon}
(p-1)\,|\,\varepsilon_{\bar{z}}| \,+\, |\,\varepsilon_z| \leqslant 1 - \frac{p}{s}$$ Then $$\label{LocalInequality}
\mathscr B_p [ f^\varepsilon ] \leqslant \mathscr B_p [ f] \;=\; \mathscr B_p [\textnormal{Id}] = \pi$$
The inequality (\[LocalInequality\])would hold if (according to Conjecture \[Quasiconvexity-at-0\]) $\,\mathbf B_p\,$ was quasiconcave, by the very definition of quasiconcavity; consequently, condition at (\[Smallepsilon\]) would be redundant. But we do not know the answer to this conjecture. Fortunately, there is a very satisfactory partial answer; namely, inequality (\[LocalInequality\]) holds whenever the energy integrand $\,\mathbf B_p (|f^\varepsilon_z| \,,\, | f^\varepsilon_{\bar{z}}\,| ) \,$ is nonnegative and $\,f^\varepsilon(z) \equiv z\,$ for $\,|z| = 1\,$, see Theorem \[AIPS\]. Thus, we are reduced to proving the distortion inequality $$\,\frac{|f^\varepsilon_{\bar{z}} |}{|f^\varepsilon_z| } \leqslant \frac{1}{p-1}$$ The essence of the condition (\[RhoCondition\]) is the following slightly stronger distortion inequality for the mapping $\,f\,$ :
$$\,\frac{|f_{\bar{z}} |}{|f_z| } = \frac{\rho(r) \,-\, r\rho\,'(r)} {\rho(r) \,+\, r\rho\,'(r)} \leqslant \frac{1}{s-1} < \frac{1}{p-1} \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\textnormal{(\,by\,\,\ref{RhoCondition})}\;.$$ This leaves us a margin for small perturbations of $\,f\,$. Here is how one can exploit this margin. First the condition $ \, \rho(r) \geqslant r \,\rho\,' (r)\, $ tells us that the function $\,\frac{\rho(r)}{r} \,$ is nonincreasing. Since $\,\frac{\rho(1)}{1} = 1\,$, we see that $\,\frac{\rho(r)}{r} \geqslant 1\,$ and, again by (\[RhoCondition\]), we obtain $$\, \,|f_z| = \frac{1}{2} \left(\frac{\rho(r)}{r} + \rho \,'(r) \right) \geqslant \, \frac{1}{2}\left (1 + 1- 2/s\right) \, = \frac{s-1}{s} \;,\; \textnormal{thus}\; 1 \leqslant \frac{s}{s-1} \,|\,f_z\,| \,.$$ Next we estimate the derivatives of $\,f^\varepsilon\,$, $$|\,f^\varepsilon_{\bar{z}}\,| \leqslant |\,f_{\bar{z}}\,|\; +\,|\,\varepsilon_{\bar{z}}\,|\;,\;\;\;\;\;|\,f^\varepsilon_z\,| \geqslant |\,f_z\,|\; - \,|\,\varepsilon_z\,|$$ Hence $$\begin{aligned}
(p-1) \,|\,f^\varepsilon_{\bar{z}}\,| \;-\;|\,f^\varepsilon_z\,| &\leqslant & (p-1) \,|\,f_{\bar{z}}\,| \;-\;|\,f_z\,| \, + \;(p-1)\,|\,\varepsilon_{\bar{z}}| \,+\, |\,\varepsilon_z|\nonumber\\ &\leqslant& \frac{p-1}{s-1} \,|\,f_z| \; - |\,f_z\,| + \left( 1 - \frac{p}{s}\right) \cdot \frac{s}{s-1} \,|\,f_z\,|\; = 0\,.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ as desired.
Radial Mappings as Stationary Solutions
=======================================
In order to speak of the Lagrange-Euler equation we have to increase regularity requirements on the integrand and on the mappings in question. Consider a general isotropic energy functional; $$\label{Isotropic}
\mathscr E[f] = \int_\Omega \textbf{E} \big(|f_z|\,,\, |f_{\bar{z}}| \big) \,\textrm{d}z\;.$$ Here the function $\,\textbf{E} = \textbf{E}( u\,,\, v )\,$ is defined and continuous on $\,[0 , \infty)\times [0 , \infty)\,$. We assume that $\,\textbf{E} \,$ is $\,\mathscr C^2\,$-smooth in the open region $\, \mathbb R_+\times\mathbb R_+ = (0 , \infty)\times (0 , \infty)\,$. A map $\, f \in \mathscr C^1(\Omega)\,$ such that $$\big(\,|f_z(z)| \,,\; |f_{\bar{z}}(z)\,\big) \in \, \mathbb R_+\times\mathbb R_+ \, \;\quad\; \textrm{for every}\;\; z\in \Omega \subset \mathbb C$$ is a critical point, or stationary solution, for (\[Isotropic\]) if for each test function $\,\eta \in \mathscr C_\circ^\infty(\Omega)\,$ it holds $$\frac{\partial}{\partial \,\bar{\tau} }\;\mathscr E[ f + \tau \,\eta ] \,\big|_{\tau = 0} \;\;\;= \;0\,\;\;\quad\; \;\;\;\textnormal{ (here $\tau$ is a complex variable)}$$ It should be noted that we are using the Cauchy-Riemann derivative $\,\partial/\partial \,\bar{\tau} \,$ in the derivation of the variation of the energy functional. This leads to an integral form of the Euler-Lagrange equation $$\int _\Omega \Big[\,\frac{\partial \textbf{E}}{\partial u} \,\frac{f_z}{|f_z| }\,\,\overline{\eta_z} \;+\; \frac{\partial \textbf{E}}{\partial v} \,\frac{f_{\bar{z}}}{|f_{\bar{z}}| }\,\,\overline{\eta_{\bar{z}}} \,\;\Big]\,\textrm{d}z \;=\;0$$ Integration by parts yields a second order divergence type PDE $$\label{Lagrange}
\Big[\,\frac{\partial \textbf{E}}{\partial u} \,\frac{f_z}{|f_z| } \;\Big]_{\bar{z}} +\; \Big[\,\frac{\partial \textbf{E}}{\partial v} \,\frac{f_{\bar{z}}}{|f_{\bar{z}}| }\;\Big]_z \, \;=\;0$$ in the sense of distributions. From now on we assume that $\, f \in \mathscr C^2(\Omega)\,$ and abbreviate the notation for partial derivatives of $\,\textbf{E}\,$ to $\,\textbf{E}_u\,$ and $\,\textbf{E}_v\,$, respectively. Let us also introduce the auxiliary functions: $$\alpha = \alpha(z) = \frac{f_z}{|f_z|}\, \in \mathbb S^1 \;\quad\;\textrm{and}\;\;\; \beta = \beta(z) = \frac{f_{\bar{z}}}{|f_{\bar{z}}|}\, \in \mathbb S^1$$ $$u = u(z) = |f_z|\;\quad\;\; v= v(z) = |f_{\bar {z}}|$$ Upon lengthy though elementary computation the Euler-Lagrange system (\[Lagrange\]) takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{lagrangeEuler}
\lefteqn{\quad\;\;\; \big( \,\bar{\,\alpha}\,^2\, f_{zz} \;+\; \overline{f_{z\bar{z}}} \,\big)\, \textbf{E}_{uu} + }\\\nonumber
& & \big(\, 2\, \bar{\alpha} \bar{\beta}\, f_{z\bar{z}}\;+ \;\bar{\alpha} \beta \; \overline{f{_{\bar{z}\bar{z}}}}\;+\; \alpha \bar{\beta} \;\overline{f_{zz}}\,\big) \,\textbf{E}_{uv}+\\\nonumber
& & \big(\,\bar{\beta}\,^2\; f_{\bar{z}\bar{z}} \;+\; \overline{f_{z\bar{z}}} \,\big) \,\textbf{E}_{vv}+\\\nonumber
& & \big(\,\overline{f_{z\bar{z}}}\;-\;\bar{\;\alpha}\,^2\, f_{zz} \,\big) \,u^{-1}\,\textbf{E}_u+\\\nonumber
& & \big(\,\overline{f_{z\bar{z}}}\;-\;\bar{\beta}\,^2\; f_{\bar{z}\bar{z}} \,\big) \,v^{-1}\,\textbf{E}_v \;\quad\quad\quad =\;0\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The question arises when a radial stretching $$\,f(z) = \rho(\,|z - a|\,) \;\frac{z -a }{|z -a |}\;\;\;+\;\; b\,$$ satisfies this system (\[lagrangeEuler\]). We need only examine the case $\,a=0\,$ and $\,b = 0\,$. Recall formulas for the derivatives: $$\label{ComplexDerivatives}
f_z(z) = \frac{1}{2} \Big(\, \dot{\rho}(|z|)\;+\frac{\rho(|z|)}{|z|}\;\Big )\;\quad\;f_{\bar{z}}(z) = \frac{1}{2} \Big(\, \dot{\rho}(|z|)\;-\;\frac{\rho(|z|)}{|z|}\;\Big )\frac{z}{\bar{z}}$$ As mentioned before, the Euler-Lagrange equation requires $\,\mathscr C^2$-regularity of $\,f\,$. Because of this, we assume that $\,\ddot{\rho}\,$ is continuous. Now, further differentiation of (\[ComplexDerivatives\]) gives second order derivatives $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E-L}
\lefteqn{\quad\;\;\; 4 f_{zz} \,= \, \Big(\,\ddot{\rho}\;+\;\frac{\dot{\rho}}{|z|}\;-\; \frac{\rho}{|z|^2}\;\Big)\;\frac{\bar{z}}{|z|}}\\\nonumber
& & 4 f_{z\bar{z}} \,= \, \Big(\,\ddot{\rho}\;+\;\frac{\dot{\rho}}{|z|}\;-\; \frac{\rho}{|z|^2}\;\Big)\;\frac{z}{|z|}\\\nonumber
& & 4 f_{\bar{z}\bar{z}} \,= \, \Big(\,\ddot{\rho}\;-\;\frac{3\,\dot{\rho}}{|z|}\;+\; \frac{3\,\rho}{|z|^2}\;\Big)\;\frac{z^3}{|z|^3}\\\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ For the results in this section we further assume that $$\,\rho(|z|) \; > \;|z|\, \dot{\rho}(|z|)\;$$ and hence $\,\alpha \equiv 1\,$ and $\,\beta = \,-\,z/\bar{z}\,$. The Euler-Lagrange equation takes the form $$\label{leEquation}
\Big(\ddot{\rho}\;+\;\frac{\dot{\rho}}{|z|}\;-\; \frac{\rho}{|z|^2}\Big)\textbf{E}_{uu} \;-\,\; 2\,{\ddot{\rho}}\, \textbf{E}_{uv}\;+\; \Big(\ddot{\rho}\;-\;\frac{\dot{\rho}}{|z|}\;+\; \frac{\rho}{|z|^2}\Big)\textbf{E}_{vv} \;=\, \frac{4}{|z|}\, \textbf{E}_v$$ Note the absence of the term $\,\textbf{E}_u\,$. Indeed, the variables $z$ and $\bar{z}$ play uneven role in our considerations. For a radial mapping we have $\, 2\,v = 2\,|f_{\bar{z}}(z)|\; = \big(\frac{\rho}{|z|} \,-\,\dot{\rho}\big)\,$, so the equation (\[leEquation\]) takes the form: $$\label{EulLagr}
\big(\textbf{E}_{uu} \;- \,2\;\textbf{E}_{uv} \;+ \textbf{E}_{vv}\big)\;|z|\,\ddot{\rho}\;\;=\;\; \,2\,\big(\textbf{E}_{uu} \;-\; \textbf{E}_{vv} \;+\;2\,v^{-1}\textbf {E}_v \big)\,v$$\[ELsystem\] We shall now take a quick look at the Euler-Lagrange equation for the Burkholder energy $ \,\mathscr B_p [f] \;=\;\int_{\Omega} \big[\,|f_{z}|\;-\;(p-1) |f_{\bar{z}}| \;\big]\,\cdot\, \big[\;|f_z|\;+\;|f_{\bar{z}}|\;\big]^{p-1}\, \textrm d z \,$. Direct computation shows that the integrand $$\textbf{E} = \textbf{E}(u,\,v) = [u \,-(p-1)\,v ]\,\cdot\, [u \,+\,v ] ^{p-1}\;$$ satisfies the following system of partial differential equations $$\begin{aligned}
\label{PDEs}
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
\textbf{E}_{uu} \;-\,2\;\textbf{E}_{uv} \;+ \textbf{E}_{vv}\;=\; 0 \\ \\ \textbf{E}_{uu} \;-\; \textbf{E}_{vv} \; =\;- \;2\,v^{-1}\,\textbf {E}_v
\end{array}\right.\end{aligned}$$
The radial stretching $\,f\,$ (as specified above) is a critical point of the Burkholder energy functional $ \;\mathscr B_p [f]\;$.
It is purely theoretical but still interesting to know which variational integrals admit such radial mappings among their stationary solutions. We shall see that only Burkholder integrals fulfil this requirement. To this effect we observe that the equation (\[EulLagr\]), being satisfied for varied radial mappings, yields the system of PDEs in (\[PDEs\]). Indeed, let us view the terms in (\[EulLagr\]) as functions in three variables $\,|z|,\, \rho\,$ and $\, \dot{\rho}\,$, plus linear dependence on $\,\ddot{\rho}\,$. When the radial maps run over the admissible class, the term $\,\ddot{\rho}\,$ varies point-wise independently of the remaining three variables $\,|z|,\, \rho\,$ and $\, \dot{\rho}\,$ . This is possible only when both equations in (\[PDEs\]) are satisfied.\
Now we are left with the task of solving the system (\[PDEs\]). Here the second equation is reminiscent of the planar wave equation, suggesting to change variables in the following fashion: $$\xi = u \,+\,v\,, \;\;\;\; \zeta = u\,-\,v \;, \;\;\textrm{so}\;;\;\;2\,u = \xi +\zeta \;\;\textrm{and} \;\;\;2\,v = \xi - \,\zeta$$ Now we express the integrand $\,\textbf{E}\,$ in the form $\,\textbf{E} (u,v) = \Phi(\xi, \zeta)\,$. The system (\[PDEs\]) translates into the following equations for $\,\Phi\,$
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{PDE}
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
\Phi_{\zeta\,\zeta}=\; 0 \\ \\ (\xi - \zeta) \Phi_{\xi\,\zeta} \;=\; \Phi_\zeta \;-\;\Phi_\xi
\end{array}\right.\end{aligned}$$
Thus $\,\Phi\,$ is affine in the $\,\zeta$-variable; precisely, $\, \Phi(\xi,\,\zeta) \,=\, A(\xi)\,\zeta \;+\; B(\xi)\,$. Then the second equation yields the following ODE for the coefficients $\,A(\xi)\,$ and $\, B(\xi)\,$: $$\label{ODE}
\dot{B}(\xi)\;=\;\; A(\xi)\;-\;\xi\, \dot{A}(\xi)$$
Finally, suppose (like in the Burkholder’s functional) that $\,\Phi\,$ is homogeneous of degree $\,p \, $. Thus, up to a constant factor, $\, A(\xi)\,=\, p \, \xi^{p-1}\,$. Then Equation (\[ODE\]) yields $\,B(\xi)\,= \,(2-p)\, \xi^{p}\,$. Hence $\, \Phi(\xi,\,\zeta)\,=\, [\,p\; \zeta\; +\; (2-p)\,\xi\,] \;\xi^{p-1}\,$. Having in mind that $\,\xi = u + v\,$ and $\, \zeta = u - v\,$, we return to $\,u , v\,$-variables. It results in the Burkholder function $\,\textbf{E}(u,\,v)\,= [u - (p-1)\, v]\cdot [u +\, v]^{p-1} \,$.
The only isotropic $\,p\,$-homogeneous variational integrals which hold all radial mappings (of type specified above) among their stationary solutions are the scalar multiples of $\,\mathscr B_p\,[f] \,$.
Quasiconcavity at zero versus quasiconcavity at $\,A \in\mathbb R^{2\times 2}\,$
================================================================================
Let us begin with an example:
\[MaximumEnergyExample\] The following function belongs to the Sobolev space $\,\mathscr W^{1,p}(\mathbb C)\,$ for every $\,1 < p < \infty\,$ and its $\,\mathbf B_p\,$-energy equals zero. $$f(z)\; = \; \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
z\;\; & \textrm{if $\,|z| \leqslant R\,$} \\
\frac{R^2}{\bar{z}} & \textrm{if $\,|z| \geqslant R\,$}
\end{array} \right.$$
Indeed, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathscr B_p\,[f] &= & \int_\mathbb C \mathbf B_p ( f_z , f_{\bar{z}} ) \, \textrm d z\;=\; \int_{|z| \leqslant R} \textrm d z \; - \; (p-1) R^{2p} \int_{|z| \geqslant R } \frac{\textrm d z }{|z|^{2p}}\nonumber\\ &=& \pi R^2 \;-\; (p-1) R^{2p} \,\frac{\pi R^{2-2p}}{p-1}\; = 0\,.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ In view of Conjecture \[Quasiconvexity-at-0\] one may expect $\,f\,$ to have maximum energy (equal to zero) within the class $\,\mathscr W^{1,p}(\mathbb C)\,$. This example gains additional interest if we can answer in the affirmative the following
\[BigQuestion\] Given a linear map $\, z \mapsto a z + b {\bar{z}}\,$, does there exist a function $\, f \in \mathscr W^{1,p} (\mathbb C)\,$ such that $$\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
f(z) = a z + b {\bar{z}} \;,\; \textrm{in some nonempty domain $\,\Omega \subset \mathbb C\,$} \nonumber\\
$\,$ \\
\mathscr B_p\,[f] \;=\; \int_\mathbb C \mathbf B_p ( f_z , f_{\bar{z}} ) \, \textnormal{d}z\;= 0
\end{array}\nonumber \right.$$
In other words: $$\label{extremalsAtZero}
\int_{\mathbb C \setminus \Omega} \mathbf B_p ( f_z , f_{\bar{z}} ) \, \textnormal{d}z\;= \; - \mathbf B_p(a, b) \, |\Omega|$$ Now quasiconcavity of $\,\mathbf B_p\,$ at zero would tell us that $\,- \mathbf B_p(a, b) \, |\Omega|\,$ is the maximum energy among Sobolev mappings in $\,\mathscr W^{1,p}(\mathbb C \setminus \Omega)\,$ which agree with $\, a z + \, b \bar{z}\,$ on $\,\partial \Omega\,$. Question \[BigQuestion\] has yet another interesting effect.
Accept that Burkholder function is quasiconcave at zero and that a linear map $\,A z =a z + \, b \bar{z}\,$ in a domain $\,\Omega\,$ has been found to admit an extension satisfying (\[extremalsAtZero\]). Then $\,\mathbf B_p\,$ is quasiconcave at $\,A\,$.
Let $\,\varphi \in \mathscr C_\circ^\infty(\Omega)\,$ be any test mapping. We need to show that the following integral is nonpositive, $$\begin{aligned}
&&\int_\mathbb C \big[\mathbf B_p(A + D\varphi) - \mathbf B_p(A) \big] \; = \int_\Omega \big[\mathbf B_p(A + D\varphi) - \mathbf B_p(A) \big] \nonumber\\\;& = & \int_\Omega \mathbf B_p(A + D\varphi) + \int_{\mathbb C \setminus \Omega} \mathbf B_p(Df) = \int_{\mathbb C} \mathbf B_p(DF) \;\leqslant 0\,.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $$F(z) = \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
a z + b {\bar{z}} \, + \varphi(z) \;\; \textrm{in the domain $\,\Omega \subset \mathbb C\,$} \nonumber\\
$\,$ \\
f(z) \,\; \textnormal{in}\;\mathbb C \setminus \Omega
\end{array}\nonumber \right.$$ The latter inequality follows since $\, F \in \mathscr W^{1,p}(\mathbb C)\,$ and $\,\mathbf B_p\,$ was assumed to be quasiconcave at zero.
Now it follows from Example \[MaximumEnergyExample\] that
Quasiconcavity of $\,\mathbf B_p\,$ at zero would imply quasiconcavity at the identity matrix.
We believe that the presented advances (including some of the conditional statements for the Burkholder functions) will convince the interested readers of the intricate nature of computing the $\,p\,$-norms of the Beurling Transform.
[9]{}
K. Astala, *Distortion of area and dimension under quasiconformal mappings in the plane*. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 90 (1993), no. 24, 11958–11959
K. Astala, *Area distortion of quasiconformal mappings*. Acta Math. 173 (1994), no. 1, 37–60.
K. Astala, T. Iwaniec, G. J. Martin, *Elliptic partial differential equations and quasiconformal mappings in the plane*, Princeton University Press, 2009. K. Astala, T. Iwaniec, E. Saksman, *Beltrami operators in the plane. Duke Math. J*. 107 (2001), no. 1, 27–56.
K. Astala, T. Iwaniec, I. Prause, E. Saksman, *Burkholder integrals, Morrey’s problem and quasiconformal mappings*. Journal of Amer. Mat. Soc., vol. 25, no. 2, 2011, 507–531.
G. Aubert, *A counterexample of a rank one convex function which is not polyconvex in the case $\,N = 2\,$*. Proc. Roy. Soc. Edin., [106]{} (1987), 237–240.
A. Baernstein, S. Montgomery-Smith, *Some conjectures about integral means of $\partial f$ and $\overline\partial f$. Complex analysis and differential equations* (Uppsala, 1997), 92–109, Acta Univ. Upsaliensis Skr. Uppsala Univ. C Organ. Hist., 64, Uppsala Univ., Uppsala, 1999.
J. Ball, *The calculus of variations and material science*, Current and Future Challenges in the Applications of Mathematics, (Providence, RI, 1997). Quart. Appl. Math., 56 (1998), 719–740.
J.M. Ball *Sets of gradients with no rank-one connections*. J. Math. Pures Appl. (9) 69 (1990), no. 3, 241–259.
R. Bañuelos, *The foundational inequalities of D.L. Burkholder and some of their raminifications*, Decicated to Don Burkholder, Illinois J. Math. 54 (2010), no. 3, 789–868.
R. Bañuelos, P. J. M[é]{}ndez-Hern[á]{}ndez, *Space-time Brownian motion and the Beurling-Ahlfors transform,* Indiana Univ. Math. J. 52 (2003), no. 4, 981–990.
R. Bañuelos, P. Janakiraman, *On the weak-type constant of the Beurling-Ahlfors transform. Michigan Math. J*. 58 (2009), no. 2, 459–477.
R. Bañuelos, P. Janakiraman, *$L^p$-bounds for the Beurling-Ahlfors transform*. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 360 (2008), no. 7, 3603–3612.
R. Bañuelos, A. Lindeman, *A martingale study of the Beurling-Ahlfors transform in $R^n$*. J. Funct. Anal. 145 (1997), no. 1, 224–265.
R. Bañuelos, G. Wang, *Sharp inequalities for martingales with applications to the Beurling-Ahlfors and Riesz transforms*. Duke Math. J. 80 (1995), no. 3, 575–600.
A. Beurling, *The collected works of Arne Beurling. Vol. 1*. Complex analysis. Edited by L. Carleson, P. Malliavin, J. Neuberger and J. Wermer. Contemporary Mathematicians. Birkhäuser Boston, Inc., Boston, MA, 1989.
A. Beurling, *The collected works of Arne Beurling. Vol. 2*. Harmonic analysis. Edited by L. Carleson, P. Malliavin, J. Neuberger and J. Wermer. Contemporary Mathematicians. Birkhäuser Boston, Inc., Boston, MA, 1989.
B.V. Bojarski, *Homeomorphic solutions of Beltrami systems*. (Russian) Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR (N.S.) 102 (1955), 661–664.
B.V. Bojarski, *Generalized solutions of a system of differential equations of first order and of elliptic type with discontinuous coefficients*. (Russian) Mat. Sb. N.S. 43(85) 1957 451–503.
B.V. Bojarski, *Generalized solutions of a system of differential equations of the first order and elliptic type with discontinuous coefficients*. Translated from the 1957 Russian original. With a foreword by Eero Saksman. Report 118. University of Jyväskylä Department of Mathematics and Statistics, 2009.
N. Boros, L. Sz[é]{}kelyhidi Jr., A. Volberg, *Laminates meet Burkholder functions,* J. Math. Pures Appl. (9) 100 (2013), no. 5, 687–700.
D.L. Burkholder, *A sharp and strict $L^p$-inequality for stochastic integrals*. Ann. Probab. 15 (1987), no. 1, 268–273.
D.L. Burkholder, *Sharp inequalities for martingales and stochastic integrals*. Colloque Paul Lévy sur les Processus Stochastiques (Palaiseau, 1987). Astérisque No. 157-158 (1988), 75–94.
O. Dragicevic, S. Petermichl, A. Volberg, *A rotation method which gives linear $L^p$ estimates for powers of the Ahlfors-Beurling operator*. J. Math. Pures Appl. (9) 86 (2006), no. 6, 492–509.
O. Dragicevic, A. Volberg, *Sharp estimate of the Ahlfors-Beurling operator via averaging martingale transforms*. Michigan Math. J. 51 (2003), no. 2, 415–435.
A. Eremenko, D.H. Hamilton, *On the area distortion by quasiconformal mappings*. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 123 (1995), no. 9, 2793–2797.
D. Faraco, L. Székelyhidi, *Tartar’s conjecture and localization of the quasiconvex hull in $\,\mathbb R^{2\times 2}\,$*. Acta Math. 200 (2008), no. 2, 279-305.
F.W. Gehring, E. Reich, *Area distortion under quasiconformal mappings*. Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Ser. A I No. 388 1966.
S. Geiss, S. Montgomery-Smith, E. Saksman, *On singular integral and martingale transforms*. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 362 (2010), no. 2, 553–575.
O. Lehto, *Remarks on the integrability of the derivatives of quasiconformal mappings.* Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Ser. A I No. 371 1965 8 pp.
H. Hedenmalm, *The Beurling operator for the hyperbolic plane*, to appear in Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Math.
T. Iwaniec, *Extremal inequalities in Sobolev spaces and quasiconformal mappings*. Z. Anal. Anwendungen 1 (1982), no. 6, 1–16.
T. Iwaniec, *The best constant in a BMO-inequality for the Beurling Ahlfors transform*. Michigan Math. J. 33 (1986), no. 3, 387–394.
T. Iwaniec, *$L^p$-theory of quasiregular mappings. Quasiconformal space mappings*, 39–64, Lecture Notes in Math., 1508, Springer, Berlin, 1992.
T. Iwaniec, *Nonlinear Cauchy-Riemann operators in ${\Bbb R}^n$*. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 354 (2002), no. 5, 1961–1995
T. Iwaniec, R. Kosecki, *Sharp Estimates for Complex Potentials and Quasiconformal Mappings*, Syracuse University, preprint 1989, pp. 1-68.
T. Iwaniec, A. Lutoborski, *Integral estimates for null Lagrangians*, Arch. Rational Mech.Anal., 125 (1993), pp. 25-79.
T. Iwaniec, G. Martin, *The Beurling-Ahlfors transform in $\,\mathbb R^n$ and related singular integrals*, Preprint of Inst. Hautes Etudes Sci. (1990).
T. Iwaniec, G. Martin, *Riesz transforms and related singular integrals*. J. Reine Angew. Math. 473 (1996), 25–57.
T. Iwaniec, G. Martin, *Quasiregular Mappings in Even Dimensions*, Acta Math., 170 (1993), 29-81.
T. Iwaniec, G. Martin, *Geometric function theory and non-linear analysis*. Oxford Mathematical Monographs. The Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, New York, 2001.
A. Lindeman, *Martingales and the $\,n$-dimensional Beurling-Ahlfors transform*, preprint
C.B. Morrey, *Quasi-convexity and the lower semicontinuity of multiple integrals*, Pacific J. Math., 2 (1952), 25-53.
S. Müller, *Rank-one convexity implies quasiconvexity on diagonal matrices* , Internat. Math. Res Notices 1999, no. 20, 1087-1095.
P. Pedregal, V. Šverák, *A note on quasiconvexity and rank-one convexity for $2\times 2$ matrices*. J. Convex Anal. 5 (1998), no. 1, 107–117. A. Pe[ł]{}czyński, *Norms of Classical Operators in Function Spaces*, Colloque en L’Honneur de Laurent Schwartz, Vol. 1 (Ecole Polytechnique, 30 mai - 3 juin 1983) Astérisque No. 131, (1985), 137-162
S. Petermichl, J. Wittwer, *Heating of the Beurling operator: sufficient conditions for the two-weight case*. Studia Math. 186 (2008), no. 3, 203–217.
D.W. Stroock, [*Probability theory, an analytic view.*]{} Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993.
V. Šverák, *Rank-one convexity does not imply quasiconvexity*, Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh Sect. A 120 (1992), no. 1-2, 185–189.
V. Šverák, *New examples of quasiconvex functions*. Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. 119 (1992), no. 4, 293–300.
F. Nazarov, S. Treil, A. Volberg, A. *Bellman function in stochastic control and harmonic analysis*. Systems, approximation, singular integral operators, and related topics (Bordeaux, 2000), 393–423, Oper. Theory Adv. Appl., 129, Birkhäuser, Basel, 2001.
A. Volberg, F. Nazarov, *Heat extension of the Beurling operator and estimates for its norm.* (Russian) Algebra i Analiz 15 (2003), no. 4, 142–158; translation in St. Petersburg Math. J. 15 (2004), no. 4, 563–573
V. Vasyunin, A. Volberg, [*Burkholder’s function via Monge-Ampere equation.*]{} Illinois J. Math. 54 (2010), no. 4, 1393–1428.
[^1]: Astala and Saksman were supported by the Academy of Finland and Center of Excellence in Analysis and Dynamics research. Iwaniec was supported by the NSF grant DMS-0800416 and Academy of Finland grant 1128331. Prause was supported by project 1266182 of the Academy of Finland
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We introduce a new polynomial invariant of virtual knots and links and use this invariant to compute a lower bound on the virtual crossing number and the minimal surface genus.'
author:
- |
H. A. Dye\
McKendree University\
[email protected]\
Louis H. Kauffman\
University of Illinois at Chicago\
[email protected]
title: Virtual Crossing Number and the Arrow Polynomial
---
The arrow polynomial
====================
We introduce the arrow polynomial, an invariant of oriented virtual knots and links that is equivalent to the simple extended bracket polnomial [@louskein]. This invariant takes values in the ring $Z[A,A^{-1},K_{1},K_{2},...]$ where the $K_{i}$ are an infinite set of independent commuting variables that also commute with the Laurent polynomial variable $A.$ We give herein a very simple definition of this new invariant and investigate a number of its properties. This invariant was independently constructed by Miyazawa in [@miya] using a different definition. We do not make direct comparisons with the work of Miyazawa in this paper; such comparisons will be reserved for future work.
From the arrow polynomial, we can obtain a lower bound on the virtual crossing number, determining in some cases whether a link is classical or virtual. Previous results that determine whether a link diagram is virtual or classical include [@dk-surf], [@vom1], and [@vom2]. Recall that a virtual link is an equivalence class of virtual link diagrams. Two virtual link diagrams are *virtually equivalent* if one diagram can be transformed into the other by a sequence of classical and virtual Reidemeister moves as shown in figures \[fig:rmoves\] and \[fig:vrmoves\]. The virtual Reidemeister moves are equivalent to a single move, the detour move, which is executed by selecting a segment of a component of the link diagram that contains no classical crossings. After removing this segment, we may insert a new segment with no triple points and any double points result in a new virtual crossing.
= 1.5 in
= 1 in
The *arrow polynomial* invariant is based on the oriented state expansion as shown in figure \[fig:louorientedstate\] and is invariant (with normalization) under the virtual and classical Reidemeister moves. States of the arrow polynomial are collections of two-valent graphs that form closed loops. These states may have virtual crossings. The loops are obtained by applying the state expansion in figure \[fig:louorientedstate\] until no classical crossings remain and the states are obtained. More precisely, the state sum is a sum over powers of $A$ and evaluations of the states. We let $d = -A^2 - A^{-2} $. Let $ \alpha $ denote the number of smoothings with coefficient $A$ in the state $S$ and let $ \beta $ denote the number with coefficient $ A^{-1} $. The number of loops in the state is denoted by $ |S|$. The state sum of the virtual diagram $K$ is obtained by summing over all possible states: $$\langle K \rangle_A =
\sum_{S} A^{ \alpha - \beta} d^{|s|-1} \langle S \rangle$$ where $ \langle S \rangle $ is an evaluation of the state as described below. Each loop in a state will be reduced by the collection of rules shown in figure \[fig:hcuspcan\] and replaced by a variable in the polynomial.
= 1.5 in
Note that locally each state loop divides the plane into two local regions, and a given cusp points into one of these regions. We define the local orientation of a cusp by the region into which it points. Two adjacent cusps with the same orientation cancel (see figure \[fig:hcuspcan\]) but two adjacent cusps with opposite orientation do not reduce and remain on the closed loop. To determine the value of a loop in a state, we reduce the number of cusps in a loop using the cancellation shown in figure \[fig:hcuspcan\] and then determine the total number of cusps remaining. Each such reduced loop has a unique form. Individual loops can be separated using virtual equivalence. Note that each individual loop is virtually equivalent to a loop with no virtual crossings and a pattern of cusps; see figure \[fig:hcuspcan\].
= 2.0 in
The total number of cusps in a reduced loop will be even. Suppose that $ C $ is a reduced loop with $ m$ cusps and $ n=\frac{m}{2} $. Let $ d = -A^2 -A^{-2} $. If $n=0 $ then $ \langle C \rangle = 1 $ and if $n >0$ then $ \langle C \rangle = K_n $ where $K_n$ is a new variable. Then $\langle S \rangle = \Pi K_C $ where $K_C $ is the variable associated with $ \langle C \rangle $.
= 2.0 in
In figure \[fig:heathercuspcancellation2\], we illustrate how virtual self crossings have the potential to effect the total number of cusps. Consider the loop with a virtual crossing: although both cusps are apparently oriented outward, the virtual crossing results in a change in the orientation as the loop is traversed.
= 2.5 in
The reduction of a state $S$ in the arrow polynomial can be described by replacing each cusp with a *nodal arrow* as shown in figure 6 \[fig:heathercuspcon\]. In this formulation, two adjacent arrows cancel if they are both oriented same direction. Two adjacent arrows with opposite orientation do not reduce as shown in figure \[fig:heathercuspcon\]. The skein relation for this formulation is shown in figure \[fig:exstate\].
= 2.0 in
The nodal arrow is first shown in figure \[fig:heathercuspcon\] as a direction associated with one of the cusps at a reverse oriented smoothing. We then use a second notation for this nodal arrow by putting a node at the tip of this arrow in to differentiate the nodal arrow from an orientation arrow. The reader should note the difference between nodal arrows and orientation arrows on diagrams. With this convention, cusps in state loops can be replaced with nodal arrows.
In order to compute the invariant, we only need to know the nodal arrows on each state loop. At the point of computation, the orientations on the state loop edges are not needed.
= 1 in
In general, the virtual detour move applies universally to all graphs obtained by this procedure, see figure \[fig:pass\]. We will now show that the arrow polynomial is invariant under the virtual and classical Reidemeister moves. We will then utilize techiques from [@naoko2] to construct the lower bound, and conclude with examples.
In this formulation, we use the arrow number to produce a proof of the invariance of $ \langle K \rangle_A $ under the Reidemeister II and III moves. We postpone this proof until after demonstrating that the arrow reduction is unique in this formulation.
For each state, $ S $, we define the *arrow number* of a state: $a(S)$. Suppose $S$ consists of $ n $ components: $\lbrace C_1, C_2, \ldots C_n \rbrace $ where each component is a closed curve decorated with nodal arrows. The arrow number of a component, $C_i$, is denoted $ a(C_i) $ and is determined by reducing the number of arrows in the component using the moves pictured in figure \[fig:heathercuspcon\]. These closed curves can be made disjoint through a sequence of virtual Reidemeister moves. Let $m$ denote the number of arrows remaining in the component after reduction. Then:
$$a(C_i) = \frac{m}{2} .$$
Then the arrow number of the state $S$ with $n$ components is: $$a(S) = \sum_{i=1} ^{n} a(C_i) .$$
We can construct an equivalent definition of the arrow number based on local information provided by each decorated vertex. In order to determine the arrow number based on local information, label each edge in the diagram with either $0 $ or $1$. To assign a labeling, select an initial edge and label in each component. Then alternately assign values of 0 and 1 to each edge in the diagram. (Note that each component only has two possible labelings.) Now, associate a sign to each vertex $v$ in a a component $C$, denoted $val(v)$, as shown in figure \[fig:orientedvertex\].
= 2 in
For a fixed labeling, $L$, of an $n$ component collection of decorated loops, we define the *labeled arrow number* of $C_i$ as: $$\label{arrownumbereq}
a_L (C_i) = \sum_{v \in C_i} \frac{val(v)}{2} .$$ Now, $$\label{arrownumbereq2}
a_L(S) = \sum_{i=1} ^n a_L (C_i) \text{ and } a(S) = \sum_{i=1} ^n |a_L (C_i) |.$$ For a state $S$ with components $ C_1, C_2, \ldots C_n $, we observe that $ a(C_i) = | a_L (C_i)| $ and that $ a_L (S) \leq a(S) $ for all labelings $L$. It should be clear that for some labeling $L'$ that $a_{L'} (S) = a(S) $.
Changing the labeling of a component $C_i$ only changes $ a_L(C_i) $ by a sign. For a labeling of an $n$ component collection of decorated loops, we can denote a labeling $L$ as a vector $ \langle l_1, l_2, \ldots l_n \rangle \in \mathbb{Z}_2 ^n $, so that: $$\begin{gathered}
\text{if } a_L(C_i)< 0 \text{ then } l_i = 1 \\
\text{if } a_L(C_i) \geq 0 \text{ then } l_i =0. \end{gathered}$$ Now, $$a(S) = \sum_{i=1} ^{n} (-1)^{l_i} a_L(C_i).$$
We obtain the following theorem.
The arrow number of a state is independent of the orientation of the original link diagram and the labeling of the decorated loops.
**Proof:** Let $S$ be a state with labeling $ L= \langle l_1, l_2, \ldots l_n \rangle $. Consider component $C_i $ with $ a_L (C_i) = n $. In the alternate labeling, $ a_{L'} (C_i) = -n $. However, $ a(S)$ does not change. If the orientation of each component in the link diagram is reversed, then all the directed edges in the expanded state are reversed and the direction of the nodal arrow is reversed. (That is, each source becomes a sink and vice versa.) From figure \[fig:orientedvertex\], we observe that the value of each nodal arrow does not change. Therefore, $|a_K(C)|$ does not change and the orientation has not effect on $a(S)$.
Using this formulation, we define a *surviving state* to be a summand of $ \langle K \rangle_A $. The *k-degree* of a surviving state is the arrow number of the state associated with this summand. Note that if a summand has the form: $$A^m ( K_{i_1} ^{j_i} K_{i_2} ^{j_2} \ldots K_{i_v} ^{j_v}).$$ Then the k-degree is: $$i_1 \times j_1 + i_2 \times j_2 + \ldots + i_v \times j_v$$ which is equivalent to the reduced number of arrows in the state associated with these variables. Notice that if the summand has no $K_C$ variables, then the k-degree is zero. The maximum k-degree of $ \langle K \rangle_A $ is the *maximum k-degree* in the polynomial.
Let $K$ be a virtual link diagram. The polynomial $ \langle K \rangle_A$ is invariant under the Reidemeister moves II and III and virtual Reidemeister moves.
**Proof:** We illustrate invariance under the Reidemeister II move in figures \[fig:r2move1\] and \[fig:r2move2\]. Invariance under the Reidemeister III move is shown in figures \[fig:lhs\] and \[fig:rhs\]. The left hand side of an oriented Reidemeister III move is expanded in figure \[fig:lhs\]. The right hand side of this move is shown in figure \[fig:rhs\]. The virtual Reidemeister IV move is a single detour move, under which the smoothed states are invariant as observed earlier. Invariance under the virtual Reidmeister moves I-III is clear, since these moves do not involve any classical crossings.
In each case, terms that collectively cancel have the same reduced states. This is illustrated in figure \[fig:r2move1\], where the first three states collectively cancel.
We obtain invariance under the Reidemeister I move through normalization. Let $w(K) $ denote the writhe of the diagram then $$\langle K \rangle_{NA} = (-A^3)^{- w(K)} \langle K \rangle_A$$
= 2 in
= 2 in
= 2.5 in
= 2.5 in
We can obtain an invariant of flat virtual diagrams (virtual strings) from this definition by letting $ A=1 $ and $d=-2 $. In flat virtual diagrams, crossings drawn without over or under markings are flat crossings. The flat Reidemeister moves are analogs of the classical Reidemeister moves that do not contain over or under markings. The virtual Reidemeister moves can be applied to flat virtual diagrams; the only alteration is that the classical crossings in virtual Reidemeister move IV become flats.
Let $ AS(K) $ denote the set of k-degrees obtained from the set of surviving states of a diagram $K$. The surviving states are represented by the summands of $ \langle K \rangle_{A} $. That is, if $ A^3 K_1 K_4 $ is a summand of $ \langle K \rangle_{A} $ then $ 5 $ is an element of $AS(K)$. If a link $ K $ has a total of 4 summands with subscripts summing to: $ 2,2,1,0 $ then $ AS(K) = \lbrace 2,1,0 \rbrace $. The set of k-degrees obtained from the surviving states is invariant under the virtual Reidemeister moves and the classical Reidemeister II and III moves.
\[aset\] For a virtual diagram $K$, $ AS(K) $ is invariant under the virtual and classical Reidemister moves.
The maximum k-degree of $ \langle K \rangle_A $ is invariant under the virtual and classical Reidemeister moves.
**Proof:** See figures \[fig:r2move1\], \[fig:r2move2\], \[fig:lhs\] and \[fig:rhs\].
As a result of Lemma \[aset\] , we obtain the following theorem.
\[classical\] If $K$ is a classical link diagram then $ AS(K) = \lbrace 0 \rbrace $.
**Proof:** Let $K$ be a classical link diagram and arrange $K$ as braid, with all strands oriented downwards. Note that for any virtual or classical link, we can construct an equivalent link diagram that is a braid [@sophia], [@kamadabraid].
Consider an N-strand classical braid. In the figure \[fig:schemebraid\], we indicate classical crossings between 2 strands of the braid with a horizontal line.
= 2 in
Select a subset of the horizontal lines. This subset consists of all classical crossings that will be smoothed horizontally. Since all the strands are oriented downwards, each horizontal smoothing includes two nodal arrows. Each horizontal smoothing forms a cup and a cap with oppositely oriented nodal arrows (in a global sense). In the smoothed diagram, these cup/caps occur in cancelling pairs as shown in figure \[fig:schemesmooth\]. Each curve has arrow number zero and as a result, each state has arrow number zero. Since reducing states does not introduce any new oriented arrows or any new curves then any classical link has $AS(K)= \lbrace 0 \rbrace $.
= 2 in
Let $ K$ be a virtual link diagram with writhe $w(K)$. Then $ \langle K \rangle_{NA} $ is invariant under the classical Reidemeister moves and the virtual Reidemeister moves.
**Proof:** By Lemma \[aset\], the arrow number of a state is invariant under the Reidemeister moves. The coefficients are also invariant.
In the next section we will demonstrate that the maximum of the $ AS(K) $ forms a lower bound on the number of crossings.
Lower Bounds on the Virtual Crossing Number
===========================================
A lower bound on the virtual crossing number of the link $K$ is determined by the maximum value of the $AS(K)$. Recall that the virtual crossing number is the minimum number of virtual crossings in any diagram in the equivalence class of a virtual link.
We will construct a link diagram from each state of the arrow polynomial and demonstrate that the number of arrows in the reduced state is equivalent to the linking number. This proof is based on a technique introduced by Naoko Kamada ([@naoko1], [@naoko2], and [@kamada2]) that has been applied to the Miyazawa polynomial. We use signed c-pairs to form a lower bound on the virtual crossing number. We will apply this technique to the arrow polynomial in order to prove that the maximum value of AS(K) produces a lower bound on the virtual crossing number. For another approach to estimating virtual crossing number, see [@a-vom].
Given a state $S$ of the arrow polynomial of $K$, we construct a classical link diagram, $ \lambda (S) $. We will use the linking number of $ \lambda (S) $ to obtain estimates on the virtual crossing number. To make this construction, label each component by assigning an alternating label (0-1) to each edge (see figure \[fig:orientedvertex\]). We do not apply the virtual Reidemeister moves or cancel the cusps. Note that a classical crossing which has been resolved horizontally contains two cusps. This pair of cusps is referred to as a c-pair. Each labeled c-pair is resolved as shown in figure \[fig:labeled2\]. If we obtain a classical crossing from a c-pair, the 0-strand forms the overcrossing strand and the 1-strand forms the undercrossing strand. We resolve the virtual crossings in the following manner. If the two strands have different labels, the strand labeled 1 becomes the overcrossing strand and the 0-strand becomes the undercrossing strand. If both strands have the same label, choose the strand that passes from left to right (in the direction of the diagram) to be the overcrossing strand. This completes the construction of $ \lambda (S) $.
We define a linking number based on this diagram $ \lambda (S) $, for $i \neq j$, $Lk(i,j) $ is defined to be the sum of the signs of all crossings where strands labeled $i$ overpass strands labeled $j$. Note that $Lk(i,j) $ is the sum of the linking numbers between the $i$ labeled sublink and the $j$ labeled sublink.
Note that if the crossings in $ \lambda(S) $ are switched so that the 0-strands always underpass, we obtain a classical link diagram with unlinked components. Similarly, if the crossings are switched so that the underpassing strand is always labeled with one, we obtain a diagram with unlinked components. As a result, $Lk(0,1) = Lk(1,0)$. Since $\lambda (S)$ contains only the labels $1$ and $0$, we denote the absolute value of linking number, $ | Lk(0,1)|$, as $Lk( \lambda (S) ) $.
Given a virtual link, $K$, for each state $S$ of the arrow polynomial, we construct a classical link diagram $ \lambda (S) $. Then $Lk( \lambda (S) ) $ is less than or equal to the number of virtual crossings in $K$, $v(K)$.
**Proof:** The diagram $ \lambda (S) $ is contstructed from a state of the arrow polynomial of $K$. In $ \lambda (S) $, each virtual crossing is transformed into a classical crossing where the strand labeled one forms the overcrossing strand. Hence each virtual crossing contributes either a $ +1 $ or $ -1 $ to $ Lk(1,0) $. As a result, $ |Lk(1,0)| = Lk( \lambda (S) ) $, is less than or equal to $ v(K) $, the number of virtual crossings in $K$. Note that equality occurs when every virtual crossing is realized as either a positively (or negatively) signed crossing between two differently labeled strands.
= 2.5 in
We assign resolved c-pairs a sign of $0$, $1$, or $-1$ based the sign of the crossing obtained from the c-pair, as shown figure in \[fig:labeled2\]. We denote the sign of the c-pair, $c$, (obtained from cusps $v_1 $ and $v_2 $) as sgn(c).
Now, summing over all c-pairs in a labeled state $S$, $$\sum_{c \in S} sgn(c) = Lk(0,1).$$
We now prove the following lemma:
For a labeled link diagram $ \lambda (S) $, constructed from a state of the arrow polynomial of $K$, the sum of the c-pairs is less than or equal to the arrow number of the reduced state. Further, for some labeling, the arrow number is equivalent to the sum of the c-pairs. Thus for some labeling, the linking number of $ \lambda(S)$ is equal to the arrow number of the state $S$.
**Proof:** We fix an alternating (0-1) labeling, $ L$, of the diagram $ \lambda (S) $. The sign of the c-pair can be computed by referring to the vertex values from figure \[fig:orientedvertex\]. The result, which we leave to the reader, is that if $v_1$ and $v_2$ are both cusps obtained from the crossing $c$ then the sign of the c-pair is: $$\label{cpair}
\frac{1}{2} ( val(v_1) + val(v_2) ).$$ Recall the definition of arrow number for a fixed labeling of $S$ (with $n$ components $ C_1, C_2, \ldots C_n$) from equations \[arrownumbereq\] and \[arrownumbereq2\]. Now, for all the c-pairs, c, in the state $S$: $$\sum_{c \in S} sgn(c) = \sum_{i=1} ^{n} a_L(C_i).$$
Recall that for any labeling $L= \langle l_1, l_2, \ldots l_n \rangle $ of an n-component diagram, the value $ | a_L(C_i) | $ of an individual component $C_i$ remains constant. A different labeling will, at worst, change the sign of $ a_L(C_i)$.
Now, for some labeling $ L'=\langle l_1, l_2, \ldots l_n \rangle $, we note that $ l_i =0 $ for all $i$. For this labeling, from equation \[arrownumbereq2\]: $$a(S) = \sum_{i=1} ^n a(C_i) = \sum_{i=1} ^n a_{L'}(C_i)$$ Then for the labeling $L'$: $$a(S) = \sum_{i=1} ^n a_{L'}(C_i) = \sum_{c \in S} sgn (c)$$ As a result, for all labelings, $L$: $$a(S) \geq \sum_{i=1} ^{n} a_{L} (C_i). \qed$$
We have just proved the following theorem:
Let $K$ be a virtual link diagram. Then the virtual crossing number of $K$, $ v(K) $, is greater than or equal to the maximum k-degree of $ \langle K \rangle_A $.
**Proof:** We observe that the linking number $Lk(1,0)$ obtained from a link diagram $ \lambda $ constructed from a state of the arrow polynomial of $K$ is less than $v(k)$. In computing the maximum k-degree of $ \langle K \rangle_A $, we determine the linking number of the surviving states. The reductions of these states are invariant under the Reidemeister moves. As a result, the k-degrees of the surviving states are less than or equal to the number virtual crossings in any virtual link diagram equivalent to $K$. Hence, $ v(K) $ is greater than or equal to the maximum k-degree of $ \langle K \rangle_A $.
Examples
========
We compute the normalized arrow polynomial for a variety of knots and links.
Hopf Link
---------
We apply this invariant to the virtual Hopf link.
= 1.0 in
= 1.0 in
Let $VH$ denote the virtual Hopf link as illustrated in figure \[fig:vhopf\]. The states obtained from the arrow polynomial are in figure \[fig:vhopfstates\]. $$\langle VH \rangle_{NA} = -A^3 ( A^{-1} + K_1 A).$$ We observe that $AS(VH) = \lbrace 0, 1 \rbrace $. The lower bound on the virtual crossing number is one.
Virtualized Trefoil
-------------------
We apply the invariant to the virtualized trefoil, denoted $VT$ and pictured in figure \[fig:vtrefoil\]. The unreduced states of the virtual trefoil are shown in figure \[fig:vtrefoilstates\].
= 1.5 in
= 2.0 in
$$\langle VT \rangle_{NA} = -A^{-3} ( -A^{-5} + K_1 ^2 A^{-5} - K_1^2 A^3 ).$$
We compute that $AS(VT) = \lbrace 0,2 \rbrace $ giving a lower bound of two on the virtual crossing number.
Kishino’s Knot
--------------
Let $K$ denote Kishino’s knot as illustrated in figure \[fig:kishino\].
= 1.0 in
The states of the Kishino knot (which is not detected by the generalized bracket polynomial) is shown in figure \[fig:kishinostates\].
= 2.0 in
We determine that $$\langle K \rangle_{NA} = d^2 -1 -d^2 K_1 ^2 + 2 K_2 .$$ The arrow set of this knot, $AS(K) = \lbrace 0,2 \rbrace $, giving a lower bound of 2 on the virtual crossing number.
Slavik’s Knot
-------------
= 2.0 in
The knot shown in figure \[fig:slavikknot\] was found by Slavik Jablan. This knot is not dectected by the arrow polynomial. The value of the normalized polynomial is $ -A^3 $ since it has writhe $-1$. This knot is obtained from the trivial knot by a sequence of double flypes, which are illustrated in figure \[fig:flypes\]. A short calculation from these diagrams shows that the arrow polynomial, like the Miyazawa polynomial [@naoko1], [@naoko2] is invariant under double flypes.
= 1.0 in
The arrow polynomial of a virtual knot or link is not invariant under virtualization, as defined in [@kvirt].
Miyazawa Knot
-------------
= 1.0 in
This knot shown in figure \[fig:miyaknot\] is discussed in the paper [@naoko2] and is not detected by the Miyazawa polynomial. $$\langle Miyazawa \rangle_{NA} = A^{-6} ( A^{-2} + 2 A^2 + K_1 ( 1- A^{-4}) - K_1 ^2 (2 A^{-2} - 2 A^2) + K_2 (A^{-2} + A^2))$$ The lower bound on the virtual crossings is two.
Two knots differentiated only by $ K_1 $ and $ K_3 $
----------------------------------------------------
The two knots shown in figures \[fig:knot493\] and \[fig:knot4103\] are differentiated only by the $ K_n$ variables. That is, if $K_n =t $ for all $n$ then the two polynomials are equal. Both knots have writhe $-2$.
= 1.5 in
$$\langle K_{4.93} \rangle_{NA} = A^6 (A^2 + K_1 + K_1 ^2 ( A^{-6} - A^2 ) - K_1 K_2 (1+A^4) + K_3 A^4)$$
= 1.5 in
$$\langle K_{4.103} \rangle_{NA} = A^6 (A^2 + K_1 A^4 + K_1 ^2 (A^{-6} -A^2) - K_1 K_2 (1+ A^4) + K_3)$$
Flat knot with six virtual crossings
------------------------------------
= 1.2 in
We would like to thank Christian Soulie for the knot diagram shown in figure \[fig:flatg\] which he pointed out in response to an earlier diagram of ours. The flat knot shown in figure \[fig:flatg\] has six virtual crossings and is detected by the arrow polynomial. This diagram has virtual crossing number six as the calculation of the unnormalized arrow polynomial below demonstrates. If we realize each flat crossing as a classical crossing, the knot diagram is detected, regardless of the orientation of the crossings. For the realization with all positive crossings, the unnormalized arrow polynomial is: $$\begin{gathered}
2-A^4 - A^8 + 3 K_1 ^3 + 3 A^4 K_1 ^2 \\
- K_1 ^4 (9 + 3 A^{-8} + 9 A^{-4} + 3 A^4) + K_1 ^2
K_2 (6 + A^{-8} + 12 A^{-4} ) \\ - K_1 ^3 K_3 (1 + A^{-12} + 3 A^{-8} + 3 A^{-4}).\end{gathered}$$
Two virtual torus links
-----------------------
= 1.2 in
There are two virtual torus links in figure \[fig:twolinks\]. These links are equivalent as unoriented, virtual torus links. However, they are not equivalent as oriented links, and as shown below, the arrow polynomial distinguishes these links. This demonstrates that the orientation of the individual components affects the value of the arrow polynomial. The arrow polynomial of the link on the left hand side of figure \[fig:twolinks\]: $$\langle VT \rangle_A = K_1 (A^{-7} - A^{-3}) + A^3 + K_1 A.$$ The arrow polynomial of the link on the right hand side of figure \[fig:twolinks\]: $$\langle RV \rangle_A =A^{-7} - A^{-3} + A + K_1 A^3 .$$
The arrow polynomial for surface embeddings
===========================================
We can obtain an invariant of knots and links in surfaces by applying the arrow polynomial to a link in a surface. We describe this method here. If $K$ is a link diagram in the surface $F$, we expand the classical crossings as shown in figure \[fig:exstate\]. This results in a generalization of the arrow polynomial where we retain arrow number on the state loops, but also discriminates them via their isotopy class in the surface (taken up to orientation preserving homeomorphisms of the surface). This results in many more variables for the polynomial. This *generalized arrow polynomial* is a powerful invariant of link diagrams in surfaces (that is, of link embeddings in thickened surfaces). Note that it is possible in this framework to have multiple $K_{i}$’s corresponding to distinct isotopy classes. Note also that this generalized arrow polynomial is not formulated directly as an invariant of virtual knots, since it depends upon a specific surface embedding. We mention this generalization here, but in fact we will pursue an intermediate course and ask what information is in the arrow polynomial itself about the structure of surface representations of a given virtual knot or link. We will see that the minimal genus of such a surface can sometimes be determined from the arrow polynomial alone.
There is a useful topological interpretation ( [@kvirt], [@detectlou], [@kamada-stable]) of virtual links in terms of embeddings of links in thickened surfaces. Virtual links are in one to one correspondence with equivalence classes of links in thickened surfaces modulo $1$-handle stabilization and Dehn twists (representations of virtual links, see [@dk-surf], [@detectlou], [@kamada-stable]). We can also apply the generalized arrow polynomial to representations of virtual links. For a representation of a virtual link, there is a unique surface with minimum genus in which these links embed [@kuperberg]. A virtual link with *minimal genus* $g$ is a link diagram that corresponds to a representation with a surface of genus $g$ such that this is the minimum genus of any representation. In the remainder of this section, we consider the generalized arrow polynomial (respecting the isotopy classes of each $K_i$) in order to make arguments about the original arrow polynomial.
Recall that a state of the arrow polynomial consists of a collection of simple closed curves (possibly with nodal arrows) on the surface. In particular, for the generalized arrow polynomial, if some loop has non-zero arrow number then it is an essential curve in the surface. Therefore, the existence of non-zero arrow numbers in the polynomial implies that there are essential loops in the states. We obtain the following lemma:
Let $C$ be a curve in a state of the generalized arrow polynomial applied to a link in a surface. If $ C$ has non-zero arrow number then $C$ is an essential curve in the surface.
**Proof:** The same argument that shows a state loop from a classical knot has arrow number zero (Theorem \[classical\]) also demonstrates that a non-essential loop will have arrow number zero. Hence, an essential loop must have arrow number zero.
We investigate the relationship between genus and the summands of the polynomial $ \langle K \rangle_A $.
For any $i \geq 1 $, there exists a virtual knot (and a virtual link), $L$, with minimal genus 1 such that some summand of $ \langle L \rangle_A $ contains the variable $K_i$.
**Proof:** We consider two cases: a virtual knot that satisfies the above proposition and a virtual link that satisfies the above proposition.
Consider the virtual tangle illustrated in figure \[fig:trefoil-ki\] and its corresponding representation in $ S^1 \times I$.
= 1.2 in
We apply the arrow polynomial and obtain the sum of tangles shown in figure \[fig:trefexpansion\]. Notice that one tangle contains two oppositely oriented nodal arrows.
= 1 in
To construct a virtual knot diagram with arrow polynomial containing the variable $K_i$ and minimal genus one, we glue together $i$ copies of the virtual trefoil tangle. We illustrate the case with variable $K_3$. Let $T_3 $ denote the virtual knot shown in figure \[fig:t3\].
= 1.2 in
The arrow polynomial of the link $T_3$ is: $$\langle T_3 \rangle_A = A^{-6} + K_1 (-3 + 3 A^{-4}) + K_2 (3 A^{-2} - 6A^2 + 3 A^6) + K_3 (1 -3 A^4 + 3 A^8 - A^{12} ).$$ Similarly, we can construct a virtual link $L$ such that $ \langle L \rangle_A $ contains the summand $K_i$. Consider the tangle shown in figure \[fig:hopfi\].
= 1 in
Applying the arrow polynomial to this virtual tangle, we obtain the sum of tangles shown in figure \[fig:hopfexpansion\].
= 1.2 in
As a result, we can construct a virtual link with minimal genus one that has an arrow polynomial with some summand containing the variable $K_i$.
We now demonstrate that there is a connection between the isotopy class in the surface of a state curve of the arrow polynomial and the variables $K_i$. We begin by analyzing the number of essential, non-intersecting curves that an oriented, two dimensional surface of genus $g$ can contain.
\[g\] Let $S$ be an oriented, 2-dimensional surface with genus $g \geq 1$. If $g =1$ then $S$ contains at most $1$ nonintersecting, essential curve and if $ g > 1 $ then $S$ contains at most $3g-3$ non-intersecting, essential curves.
**Proof:** Cutting a torus along an essential curve produces a twice punctured sphere. If the torus contains two non-intersecting essential curves, then they must co-bound an annulus. Consider an oriented surface $S$ with genus $g > 1$. In this surface, there is a collection of $3g-3$ essential curves $
e_1, e_2, \ldots e_{3g-3} $ such that no pair of curves co-bounds an annulus. Cutting along these curves decomposes the surface into a collection of $ 2g-2$ triple punctured spheres (pairs of pants surfaces) as shown in figure \[fig:pants\]. If the surface contains any other non-intersecting, essential curve then such a curve must be contained in one of the triple punctured spheres. As a result, the curve co-bounds an annulus with one of the essential curves $ e_1, e_2, \ldots e_n$.
= 1.2 in
We also obtain the converse.
If $S$ is an oriented surface that contains $ 3g-3$ non-intersecting, essential curves with $g \geq 2$ then the genus of $S$ is at least $g$.
**Proof:** See [@hatcher].
Let $L$ be a virtual link diagram with arrow polynomial $ \langle L \rangle_A $. Suppose that $ \langle L \rangle_A $ contains a summand with the monomial $K_{i_1} K_{i_2} \ldots K_{i_n}$ where $i_j \neq i_k $ for all $ i,k $ in the set $\lbrace 1,2, \ldots n \rbrace $. Then $n$ determines a lower bound on the genus $g$ of the minimal genus surface in which $L$ embedds. That is, if $n > 1 $ then the minimum genus is 1 or greater and if $n \geq 3g-3 $ then the minimum genus is $g $ or higher.
**Proof:** The proof of the this theorem is based on Theorem \[g\]. Let $L$ be a virtual link diagram with minimal genus one. Suppose that the arrow polynomial contains a summand with the monomial $K_i K_j$ with $ i \neq j$. The summand corresponds to a state of expansion of $L$ in a torus that contains two non-intersecting, essential curves with non-zero arrow number. As a result, these curves cobound an annulus and either share at least one crossing or both curves share a crossing with a curve that bounds a disk in some state obtained from expanding the link $L$. Smoothing the shared crossings results in a curve that bounds a disk and has non-zero arrow number (either $ |i-j|$ or $ |i+j|$) resulting in a contradiction. Hence, the minimum genus of $L$ can not be one.
Suppose that $L$ is a virtual link diagram and that $ \langle L \rangle_A $ contains a summand with the factor $ K_{i_1} K_{i_2} \ldots K_{i_{3g-3}} $. Hence, the corresponding state of the skein expansion contains $3g-3$ non-intersecting, essential curves in any surface representation of $L$. If any of these curves cobound an annulus in the surface, then some state in the expansion of $L$ contains a curve that bounds a disk and has non-zero arrow number, a contradiction. Hence, none of the $3g-3 $ curves cobound an annulus and as a result, the minimum genus of a surface containing $L$ is at least $g$.
From this theorem, we can determine a lower bound on the minimal genus of a virtual link directly from the arrow polynomial. As a result, we can obtain genus information directly from the virtual link diagram and the arrow polynomial. There remains much more to investigate in this direction.
[10]{}
plus 1pt D. Afanasiev and V. O. Manturov. On Virtual Crossing Number Estimates For Virtual Links. arXiv:0811.0712.
J. S. Carter, S. Kamada, and M. Saito. Stable equivalence of knots on surfaces and virtual knot cobordisms. (English summary) Knots 2000 Korea, Vol. 1 (Yongpyong). [*J. Knot Theory Ramifications*]{}. **11** (2002), 3, 311–322.
H. A. Dye and L. H. Kauffman. Minimal surface representations of virtual knots and links. [ *Algebraic and Geometric Topology*]{}, **5** (2005), 509–535.
A. Hatcher. Pants Decompositions of Surfaces. arXiv:math/9906084
L. H. Kauffman. Detecting Virtual Knots. *Atti. Sem. Mat. Fis. Univ. Modena Supplemento al Vol. IL* (2001), 241–282.
L. H. Kauffman, *An Extended Bracket Polynomial for Virtual Knots and Links*. Preprint, www.arxiv.org, arXiv:0712.2546
L. H. Kauffman. Virtual Knot Theory. [ *European Journal of Combinatorics*]{}. [**20**]{} (1999), 7, 663–690.
L. H. Kauffman and S. Lambropoulou, Virtual braids. [*Fund. Math.*]{} [**184**]{} (2004), 159–186.
S. Kamada, Invariants of virtual braids and a remark on left stabilizations and virtual exchange moves. [*Kobe J. Math.*]{} [**21**]{} (2004), 1-2, 33–49.
N. Kamada. Some relations on Miyazawa’s virtual knot invariant. [ *Topology Appl.*]{} **154** (2007), 7, 1417–1429.
N. Kamada and Y. Miyazawa. A 2-variable polynomial invariant for a virtual link derived from magnetic graphs. [ *Hiroshima Math. J.*]{} **35** (2005), 2, 309–326.
N. Kamada. An index of an enhanced state of a virtual link diagram and Miyazawa polynomials. [ *Hiroshima Math. J.*]{} **37** (2007), 3, 409–429.
G. Kuperberg. What is a virtual link? [ *Algebr. Geom. Topol.*]{} **3** (2003), 587–591
V. O. Manturov. Kauffman–like polynomial and curves in $2$–surfaces. [*Journal of Knot Theory and Its Ramifications*]{}, [**12**]{}, (2003) 8, 1145–1153.
V. O. Manturov. Vassiliev invariants for virtual links, curves on surfaces, and the Jones-Kauffman polynomial. [*Journal of Knot Theory and Its Ramifications*]{}, [**14**]{}, (2005) 2, 231–242.
Y. Miyazawa. A multi-variable polynomial invariant for virtual knots and links. (2008) [ *Journal of Knot Theory and Its Ramifications*]{}, [**17**]{}, (11) 1311–1326.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
This paper presents a method to predict the future movements (location and gaze direction) of basketball players as a whole from their first person videos. The predicted behaviors reflect an individual physical space that affords to take the next actions while conforming to social behaviors by engaging to joint attention. Our key innovation is to use the 3D reconstruction of multiple first person cameras to automatically annotate each other’s the visual semantics of social configurations.
We leverage two learning signals uniquely embedded in first person videos. Individually, a first person video records the visual semantics of a spatial and social layout around a person that allows associating with past similar situations. Collectively, first person videos follow joint attention that can link the individuals to a group. We learn the egocentric visual semantics of group movements using a Siamese neural network to retrieve future trajectories. We consolidate the retrieved trajectories from all players by maximizing a measure of social compatibility—the gaze alignment towards joint attention predicted by their social formation, where the dynamics of joint attention is learned by a long-term recurrent convolutional network. This allows us to characterize which social configuration is more plausible and predict future group trajectories.
author:
- |
Shan Su\
UPenn\
[[email protected]]{}
- |
Jung Pyo Hong\
KAIST\
[[email protected]]{}
- |
Jianbo Shi\
UPenn\
[[email protected]]{}
- |
Hyun Soo Park\
UMN\
[[email protected]]{}
title: Social Behavior Prediction from First Person Videos
---
Introduction
============
We [*physically*]{} interact with people around us while [*mentally*]{} engaging with them via joint attention. For example, you as an audience in a concert are locally affected by the people around you and are globally connected to the people on the other side of the stage by sharing joint attention. While the physical connection delineates the proximal space around us, the mental connection encodes the group’s intent in a way that facilitates communications, role playing, and group task accomplishment. These connections provide social cues to further reason about the spatial and temporal extent of the social behaviors, which is a key design factor for an artificial intelligence of social robots.
\[Fig:teaser\]
However, such social cues are rather ambiguous, subtle, and situation dependent, which is challenging to be computationally learned by third person computer vision systems [@kim:2010; @kitani:2012; @alahi:2016; @ma:2016] due to their limited expressibility: it is necessary to tap into what we actually see. In this paper, we propose to use first person cameras collectively to decode the social cues and to further predict their future social behaviors.
What visual information makes us to stay connected to people, physically and mentally? We conjecture that two unique signals recorded in first person videos can describe the connections. (1) Individually, a first person video encodes the egocentric visual semantics that provides a social and spatial context to take the next action. (2) Collectively, first person videos follow joint attention spatially arranged by social formation [@kendon:1990; @park:2015], e.g., audiences dynamically change their social formation to secure visibility, which links the individuals to a group. As a proof-of-concept, we integrate these two learning signals to predict the movement (location and gaze directions) of basketball players, one of most complex forms of social interactions, from their first person videos (Figure \[Fig:teaser\]).
Our method takes an input, the first person videos of basketball players and outputs a set of plausible future trajectories. We learn an egocentric visual representation to recognize similar social and spatial configurations, e.g., which makes us to move, using a Siamese neural network. This representation is used to retrieve a set of future trajectories per player. We find a plausible group trajectory set from the retrieved trajectories of all players by maximizing a measure of social compatibility—the gaze alignment towards joint attention predicted by their social formation—via a generalized Dijkstra algorithm. The dynamics of joint attention is learned by a long-term recurrent convolutional network (LRCN) based on social formation features that encode locations and velocities of the players. Note that we predict not only the future locations but also their gaze directions and joint attention.
Our key innovation is leveraging 3D reconstruction of multiple first person videos to automatically annotate each other’s visual semantics of social configurations. This labels the location, orientation, and velocity of other players in pixels, precisely (reprojection error is often less than 0.5 pixel). This makes learning visual social signals on a large scale possible, which provides a richer context of the interactions comparing to third person social activity predictions [@kim:2010; @kitani:2012; @alahi:2016; @ma:2016].
A challenge of using first person cameras is that they often produce highly jittery, blurry, and narrow view, unlike third person videos captured from mostly static and omniscient views. We virtually stabilize first person images by applying cylindrical projection, and directly learn visual semantics of social configurations from the images via a convolutional neural network. To resolve a limited visibility issue, we consolidate first person images of all players, which substantially extend visible space via 3D registration.
The first person videos have been increasingly adapted to record professional sports such as basketball, soccer, handball, ice hockey, and American football [@firstvision]. Our work provides a computational tool to measure team performance and train players based on how they interact with others based on what they see. Beyond sports, decoding such social sensorimotor behaviors can be used to further explain how social cues are encoded in the human mirror neural system [@rizzolatti:2004]. Also this social intelligence system can apply to content generation for social virtual/augmented reality [@social_vr], human-robot interactions, and collaborative education.
**Contribution** To our best knowledge, this is the first paper that predicts long-term activities from a collection of first person videos. The core technical contributions include (a) learning egocentric visual semantics to recognize social and spatial configurations, (b) using a measure of social compatibility to identify plausibility of social behaviors, (c) formulating the trajectory selection process using a dynamic programming, and (d) learning the dynamics of joint attention via LSTM. We demonstrate the predictive validity of our algorithm in real world basketball datasets by comparing with third person prediction systems.
Related Work
============
Our work integrates two core vision tasks: 1) egocentric social perception: identifying social and spatial configuration, e.g., where I am, who I interact with, and how far they are, and 2) long term social behavior prediction: recognizing a plausible collective behaviors where we use joint attention as a social cue.
Unlike third person vision systems operating in social scenes [@cristani:2011; @setti:2013; @lan:2012; @rodriguez:2011; @choi:2014; @chakraborty:2013; @yang:2012; @vignesh:2016], a first person camera provides in-situ measurements of social interactions from an insider’s perspective. This unique property allows a camera to record two sources of information simultaneously. (1) The 3D camera pose reconstructed by structure from motion approximates the gaze orientation, and the intersection of the gaze directions is the location of joint attention [@park:2012; @park:2013]. (2) The visual semantics (depth, edge, and surface) of first person images encodes what is socially salient. Faces have been used to recognize a group of people [@fathi:2012] and build visual words to describe joint attention [@pusiol:2014]. Subtle reciprocal behaviors can also be recognized [@yonetani:2016]. Such visual information from first person cameras has been used for social video editing [@arev:2014], video summarization [@lee:2012], human-robot interactions [@gori:2016], and studying autistic behaviors for children [@rehg:2013].
How are my behaviors affected by others? This question has been a central theme in social psychology [@allport:1985] and neuroscience, e.g., mirror neuron [@rizzolatti:2004], and their models inspire computational algorithms for multi-agent motion planning in robotics [@cohen:2016; @lee:2015; @bhattacharya:2010] and graphics [@karamouzas:2014; @narrain:2009; @pettre:2014]. A notable model is Helbing’s social force model [@helbing:1995] that explains crowd movements as a collection of physical interactions between social agents. This model is used to track a crowd [@ali:2008] and recognize abnormal behaviors [@mehran:2009].
A group as a whole naturally creates a distinctive geometry of social formation that accommodates its social activity, e.g., a street busker’s performance surrounded by a crowd with a half circular formation. Therefore, the formation can be a key indicator to classify the type of social configurations that influence individual behaviors with respect to the group. For instance, Kendon’s F-formation theory [@kendon:1990] characterizes the spatial arrangements of a social group, that can be used to identify social interactions in an image [@cristani:2011], and its validity is empirically proven using a large social interaction dataset [@park:2015]. In dynamic social scenes, the formation enables re-identifying a group of people in a crowd from non-overlapping camera views [@alahi:2014], and the progression of formation change can be learned via inverse reinforcement learning [@ma:2016] and discriminative analysis (LSTM) [@alahi:2016].
Note that most prior methods in predicting social behaviors rely on the third person measurements which have a limited access to how we perceive the social configurations. We leverage the visual social semantics embedded in first person cameras, which allows us to directly predict a plausible future group trajectory. This also enables predicting not only people’s dynamic locations but also their attention, which have not been explored in prior studies.
First Person Social Behavior Prediction
=======================================
We predict a group future trajectory (location and gaze direction) up to 5 seconds given their first person videos. We use the 3D pose of a first person camera as a proxy of the head location, $\mathbf{c}$, and orientation (gaze direction)[^1], $\mathbf{r}$ where $\mathbf{c}$ and $\mathbf{r}$ are camera optical center and the $z$ axis of the camera rotation (optical axis) in the camera projection matrix, respectively. The camera projection matrices for all players are computed by structure from motion. We represent all variables in 2D by projecting 3D camera pose and joint attention on the 2D basketball court (50 ft.$\times$94 ft.) as shown in Figure \[Fig:concept\]: player’s location $\mathbf{x}=\mathbf{c}_{1:2}$, gaze direction $\mathbf{g}=\mathbf{r}_{1:2}/\|\mathbf{r}_{1:2}\| \in \mathds{S}$, velocity $\mathbf{v}$, joint attention $\mathbf{s} \in \mathds{R}^2$ where $\mathbf{r}_{1:2}$ is the first two elements of $\mathbf{r}$ assuming that the coordinate system is aligned with the basketball court origin, i.e., $\left[\begin{array}{ccc} 0 & 0 & 1\end{array}\right]^\mathsf{T}$ is the surface normal of the court. The ground truth joint attention is computed by triangulating the gaze directions of players [@park:2012; @park:2015]. For each player, a first person image, $\mathbf{I}$ is associated with the gaze, $(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{g})$.
Our method is composed of two parts: 1) egocentric trajectory retrieval per player and 2) a group trajectory selection using a measure of social compatibility. For each player, we recognize images that have similar social and spatial configurations and retrieve a set of $N$ future trajectories (location and orientation) in Section \[Sec:social\_affordance\]. This generates $nN$ trajectories for $n$ players, and we find a plausible group trajectory set that maximizes a measure of social compatibility (Section \[Sec:compatibility\]) while localizing joint attention using LRCN (Section \[Sec:tracking\]).
First Person Trajectory Retrieval {#Sec:social_affordance}
---------------------------------
We behave similarly in similar social situations. The location, velocity, and orientation of other players are recorded in a first person image, $\mathcal{I}$, which encodes not only spatial layout, e.g., basket, center line, and background, but also social layout, e.g., where are other players, around the person. In this section, we learn the visual representation of social and spatial configurations from first person images.
We use the 3D reconstruction of first person videos to automatically annotate each other’s location and orientation in pixels. We model each player using a cylinder with radius $r$ and height $H$ and project the cylinder onto a first person image, $\mathbf{I}$. The relative gaze direction, $\Delta \mathbf{g}$ is recorded in the label image, $\mathbf{M}$ using the HSV color map (Figure \[Fig:labeling\]): $$\begin{aligned}
&\mathbf{M}_{xy} = \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
(0,0,0) & {\rm if}~~~ j^* = \emptyset\\
\left(\Delta\mathbf{g}_{j^*},0.9, 0.9\right) & {\rm otherwise}\end{array}\right. \nonumber\\
&{\rm where}~~~j^* = \underset{j}{\operatorname{argmin}}~\underset{\lambda}{\operatorname{min}} \{\lambda|\mathbf{c} + \lambda \mathbf{r} \in \mathcal{C}_j, \lambda > 0\},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $\Delta\mathbf{g}=\angle\mathbf{g}_j-\angle\mathbf{g}$ is the $j^{\rm th}$ relative gaze direction, $\mathcal{C}_j = \{\mathbf{c}|\Delta\mathbf{c}_{3}<H, \|\Delta\mathbf{c}_{1:2}\| < r, \Delta\mathbf{c} = \mathbf{c}_j-\mathbf{c}\}$ is a set of 3D points in the cylinder of the $j^{\rm th}$ player. This label image directly encodes social configuration around a person.
We stabilize a first person image onto the cylindrical surface[^2] (Figure \[Fig:labeling\]). $$\begin{aligned}
&\Theta(\mathbf{I})_{\theta h} = \mathbf{I}_{xy}~~~~~~{\rm where}~~\left\{\begin{array}{l}x = \mathbf{r}_x^\mathsf{T} \mathbf{z}/\mathbf{r}^\mathsf{T} \mathbf{z}\\y = \mathbf{r}_y^\mathsf{T} \mathbf{z}/\mathbf{r}^\mathsf{T} \mathbf{z} \end{array}\right.\nonumber,\end{aligned}$$ and $\mathbf{z} = \left[\begin{array}{ccc}\cos\theta & \sin\theta & h\end{array}\right]^\mathsf{T}$. $\mathbf{r}_x$ and $\mathbf{r}_y$ is the $X$ and $Y$ axes of the first person camera. The mapping function $\Theta$ applies to both first person image $\mathbf{I}$ and label image $\mathbf{M}$.
The warped image has three properties that make visual learning effective. 1) Aligned vanishing lines: the head and foot location of the players are dependent solely on the depth given similar height; 2) no perspective distortion: the scale in image linearly proportional to the inverse depth; 3) optical center invariance: the representation is linear in angle where the optical center shift is linear translation in angle.
We learn the visual social semantics using a Siamese neural network. We generate the positive and negative pairs of images based on $\mathbf{M}$, i.e., positive if $\|\Theta(\mathbf{M}_i)-\Theta(\mathbf{M}_j)\| < \epsilon$ and negative otherwise. We minimize the following contrastive loss for training: $$\begin{aligned}
L_{\rm soc} = \sum_{(i,j)\in\mathcal{P}} l_{ij} \|\Delta \phi \|^2+(1-l_{ij}) \max(0, m^2-\|\Delta \phi \|^2) \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $l_{ij}$ is a label indicating positive and negative pairs, $\phi(\Theta(\mathbf{I}))$ is the visual feature of the warped image $\Theta(\mathbf{I})$ learned by a convolutional neural network (CNN). $\Delta\phi = \phi(\Theta(\mathbf{I}_i))-\phi(\Theta(\mathbf{I}_j))$, $\mathcal{P}$ is the set of pairs, and $m$ is a margin between positive and negative pairs. We use the pre-trained CNN [@krizhevsky:2012] and refine the weights through the training.
We empirically observed that this pairing across all locations inclines to learn the background because a first person image is dominated by background pixels, e.g., the network learns ego-motion rather than social configurations [@jayaraman:2015; @agrawal:2015; @jayaraman:2016; @park_floc:2016]. Instead, we make pairs that are located and oriented in the similar area of the basketball courts, i.e., $\|\mathbf{x}_i-\mathbf{x}_j\| < \epsilon_\mathbf{x}$ and $|\angle \mathbf{g}_i-\angle\mathbf{g}_j| < \epsilon_\mathbf{g}$. Our learning based approach is beneficial in particular dynamic social scenes that include severe motion blur, illumination and view point changes where standard structure from motion often fails.
Based on the learned feature of the target image, $\phi(\Theta(\mathbf{I}_{\rm tar}))$, we retrieve $N$ 2D trajectories, $\mathcal{T} = \{\mathbf{T}|\epsilon > \|\phi(\Theta(\mathbf{I}_{\rm tar}))-\phi(\Theta(\mathbf{I}))\|\}$ where $\mathbf{T}=\left\{\mathbf{x}^t,\mathbf{g}^t\right\}_{t=1}^T$ is a trajectory (location and gaze direction) of each player and $\epsilon$ is the feature decision boundary learned by the neural network. Similar to the training phase, we restrict the training data samples based on location and orientation. In practice, we cluster the trajectories, $\mathbf{T}$ using Medoidshift [@sheikh:2007] to identify topologically distinctive trajectories [@park_floc:2016]. Figure \[Fig:retrieval\] illustrates the retrieved trajectories that are projected onto the first person image in Figure \[Fig:reprojeciton\]. Note that our first person trajectory retrieval is highly selective as shown in Figure \[Fig:selectivity\].
The retrieved trajectories have three properties: 1) they discover egocentric physical space to move based on social configurations; 2) they include diverse topological structure, i.e., different trajectories may be plausible given a social configuration; and 3) they reflect spatial layout.
Group Trajectory via Social Compatibility {#Sec:compatibility}
-----------------------------------------
There exist $N^n$ possible combinations of group trajectories where $n$ is the number of players. The trajectories are retrieved independently, and not all combinations are [*socially*]{} plausible. In this section, we recognize the plausible trajectory combinations using a measure of social compatibility—the gaze alignment towards joint attention predicted by social formation. Note that we consolidate all retrieved egocentric trajectories by registering them into the basketball court.
There are two ways of computing joint attention in a static social scene: 1) geometrically finding the intersection of gaze directions [@park:2012] and 2) statistically learning the characteristics of the social formation, which does not require knowing gaze directions [@park:2015]. Note that we denote the geometrically computed joint attention as $\mathbf{s}$ to differentiate with the statistically estimated joint attention $\hat{\mathbf{s}}$. Ideally, these two locations of joint attention must agree, and we define a measure of social compatibility based on the alignment between two joint attentions: $$\begin{aligned}
\eta = \frac{1}{n} \sum_{\mathbf{x} \in \mathcal{X}} \frac{\left(\hat{\mathbf{s}} - \mathbf{x}_i\right)^\mathsf{T}\mathbf{g}_i}{\|\hat{\mathbf{s}} - \mathbf{x}_i\|}, \nonumber%\label{Eq:comp}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{X} = \{\mathbf{x}_i, \mathbf{g}_i\}_{i=1}^n$ is a set of player locations and gaze directions. The social compatibility measures how the gaze directions are geometrically aligned with statistically computed joint attention, and it characterizes which social formation and corresponding gaze directions are socially plausible. Note that $\hat{\mathbf{s}}$ is a function of $\{\mathbf{x}_i\}_{i=1}^n$.
We integrate the social compatibility over time to evaluate a group trajectory set: $$\begin{aligned}
\eta = \frac{1}{nT} \sum_{i=1}^n \eta_t \left(\{\hat{\mathbf{s}}_t\}_{t=1}^T, \mathbf{T}_i\right),\nonumber% \label{Eq:traj_eval}\end{aligned}$$ where $\eta_t$ is the accumulated measure of social compatibility over $T$ time instances.
**Group Trajectory Selection** Among the $nN$ retrieved trajectories from all players, $\left\{\mathcal{T}_i\right\}_{i=1}^n$, we find a group trajectory set that maximizes the measure of social compatibility: $$\begin{aligned}
\underset{\{p_i\}_{i=1}^n}{\operatorname{argmin}}~~-\frac{1}{nT}\sum_{i=1}^n \eta_t \left(\{\hat{\mathbf{s}}_t\}_{t=1}^T, \mathbf{T}_{p_i}\right), \label{Eq:cost}\end{aligned}$$ where $\{p_i\}_{i=1}^n$ is an index set for the retrieved trajectory of each player. Solving Equation (\[Eq:cost\]) by the exhaustive search is computationally prohibited, $\mathcal{O}(N^n)$. A stochastic search such as Monte Carlo simulations does not apply due to the low probability to choose a correct model. Instead, we employ the generalized Dijkstra algorithm, or Yen’s algorithm [@yen:1971] to efficiently find the $K$ best trajectory sets.
We construct a trellis graph where the vertical slice represents a set of the retrieved trajectories per players, $\mathcal{T}_i$, i.e., each node is a trajectory and an edge indicates the trajectory selection as shown in Figure \[Fig:traj\]. A path along the trellis graph determines the selected trajectory set where the path cost is defined in Equation (\[Eq:cost\]). Despite the greedy search due to a nonlinear prediction of joint attention (Section \[Sec:tracking\]), in practice, the algorithm finds “good” solutions that have high social compatibility. We predict the group behaviors using the selected trajectory set.
Joint Attention Dynamics {#Sec:tracking}
------------------------
Equation (\[Eq:cost\]) requires joint attention prediction, $\hat{\mathbf{s}}$. In this section, we learn the dynamics of joint attention with respect to social formation using LRCN [@donahue:2015].
As an input of the network, we generate a formation feature image, $\Phi(\mathcal{X})$ that encodes the occupancy and instantaneous velocity, $\mathbf{v}$, of the players in a discretized basketball court. The HSV value of the formation feature image is set to: $$\begin{aligned}
&\Phi_{ij} (\mathcal{X}) = \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\left(\angle\bar{\mathbf{v}}_{ij},\|\bar{\mathbf{v}}_{ij}\|, 0.9\right) & {\rm if}~~~ |\mathcal{C}_{ij}| > 0\\(0,0,0) & {\rm if}~~~ |\mathcal{C}_{ij}| = 0\end{array}\right. \nonumber\\
&{\rm where}~~~\bar{\mathbf{v}}_{ij} = \frac{1}{|\mathcal{C}_{ij}|} \sum_{\mathbf{v}_k \in \mathcal{C}_{ij}} \mathbf{v}_k,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $\mathcal{C}_{ij} = \left\{\mathbf{v} | \mathbf{x} \in C_{ij}\right\}$ and the $(i,j)$ cell of the court. $\Phi(\mathcal{X})$ is illustrated in the bottom right of Figure \[Fig:ja\_prediction\]. Note that unlike social dipole moment [@park:2015], this representation is independent on the location of center of mass and joint attention, which is robust to missing data.
We use LRCN with a few minor modifications to learn the dynamics of joint attention. We minimize the following joint attention error: $$\begin{aligned}
L_{\rm LSTM} = \sum_{t = 1}^T \|\mathbf{s}_t-\hat{\mathbf{s}}_t \|^2, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where the $\hat{\mathbf{s}}_{t+1}$ is recursively computed by $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\mathbf{s}}_{t+1} = f(\hat{\mathbf{s}}_t,\Phi(\mathcal{X}_t);\mathbf{w}_{\rm CNN},\mathbf{w}_{\rm LSTM}). \label{Eq:dynamics}\end{aligned}$$ $f$ is the dynamics parametrized by the weights of a convolutional neural network, $\mathbf{w}_{\rm CNN}$, and a long short-term memory unit, $\mathbf{w}_{\rm LSTM}$ as shown in Figure \[Fig:lstm\]. We initialize $\mathbf{w}_{\rm CNN}$ based on pre-trained model [@krizhevsky:2012] separately with further refinement by regressing the static location of joint attention from social formation, $\mathbf{s} = g(\Phi(\mathbf{X});\mathbf{w}_{\rm CNN})$.
Basketball Dataset Analysis
===========================
We use the first person basketball video data collected by the university team at Northwestern Polytechnical University in China [@arev:2014; @park:2015]. The dataset includes 10.5 hours of basketball games. We take two steps for reconstruction: (1) reference reconstruction: we subsample images from each player to reconstruct the reference 3D points and cameras ($\sim$3,000 images) using structure from motion [@hartley:2004]; and (2) camera registration: we register each image into the reference reconstruction coordinate system using a camera resectioning algorithm [@lepetit:2008] with local bundle adjustment up to 500 consecutive images.
Figure \[Fig:ja\] illustrates a normalized angle histogram of joint attention engagement. This indicates that the players consistently align their gaze directions to joint attention ($<$ 40 degree): 83%, 65%, and 48% of their play at 0 m/s, 1.5 m/s, and 3 m/s speed, respectively. As the speed gets faster, the player’s gaze direction tends to deviate from the joint attention: it often follows the fast motion, which forms behind the person (180 degrees) at high speed.
Player’s role is a key factor to characterize social formations. Figure \[Fig:role1\] illustrates a spatial distribution of players based on their role, given joint attention. For instance, when the Center possesses a ball, Power Forward and Center are likely located near the basket area for blocking and rebound. When a Point Guard possesses the ball, players tend to be distributed widely to create space to receive the ball. Also the role is a strong predictor of the play as similar roles in different teams enforces them to move together. Figure \[Fig:role\] shows that a strong correlation of roles in different teams.
Result
======
\[Fig:ja\_quant\]![We compare our predicted joint attention with 7 baseline algorithms which it shows 7 m error after 5 seconds. See text for the baseline algorithms.[]{data-label="Fig:vel"}](JA_errors "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}
We evaluate our social behavior prediction by comparing with the ground truth data. Note that the testing data are completely isolated from the training data in terms of time and players.
We use AlexNet [@krizhevsky:2012] to train the Siamese network with Caffe [@jia2014caffe]. 240k image pairs are generated from first person images of players where the pairs are selected within similar location ($\epsilon_\mathbf{x} < $ 3m) and orientation ($\epsilon_\mathbf{g} <$ 45 degrees) in the basketball court. Due to the location and orientation prior, the network can be efficiently trained with strong generalization power (98.7% testing accuracy). For training the dynamics of joint attention, we concatenate the AlexNet FC7 layer with LSTM through Theano [@2016arXiv160502688short]. We generate 85k sequences of joint attention and corresponding social formation feature (210$\times$410). The testing average error over 5 seconds is 3.12m.
Quantitative Evaluation
-----------------------
We evaluate our prediction in three categories: joint attention, missing trajectory, and social trajectories.
**Joint attention prediction** We compare our method with 7 baseline algorithms for predicting 5 seconds. A) Zero velocity (ZV) and linear constant velocity (LV) extrapolate the location of joint attention by taking into account instantaneous velocity; B) Center of mass (COM) and center of circumcircle (CC) are geometrically computed based on the locations of players; C) Social dipole moment [@park:2015] (SDM) is used to learn a binary classifier (AdaBoost) to recognize the location of joint attention; D) Our social formation feature image (SFI), $\Phi(\mathcal{X})$, with LSTM is used to predict joint attention using a convolutional neural network [@krizhevsky:2012]. We train the network to minimize the Euclidean loss of $\|\mathbf{s}-\hat{\mathbf{s}}\|$; E) A Bayesian filtering (BF) is applied for temporal smoothing by learning a stochastic dynamics of joint. Figure \[Fig:ja\_quant\] illustrates the predictive validity where our method outperforms all baseline algorithms. In particular, it shows a strong predictive power up to 4 seconds with 5 m error in a highly dynamic scene. The error in LV and ZV indicates the nature of dynamics of the basketball game. COM, CC, SDM, and SFI are time independent predictors where COM shows the most consistent and strongest prediction. This is caused by the fact that social formations in basketball data are often distributed near the basket area where the center of mass of players is likely located.
**Missing trajectory prediction** We apply our method for missing trajectory prediction. We leave out a trajectory and predict its behaviors using social compatibility. We compare our method with 7 baseline algorithms. A) We use a kinematic prior to predict a trajectory: location (Loc), orientation (Ori), velocity (Vel), and their combinations. B) We compare with state-of-the-art third person prediction systems based on Vanilla LSTM [@greff:2015] and Social LSTM [@alahi:2016]. We use the occupancy based Social LSTM which applies pooling based on social proximity. C) We compare with first person prediction based solely on visual features (Img) (no kinematic knowledge). The visual features are learned by our Siamese network. Note that we compare not only future locations but also gaze directions except for Vanilla and Social LSTMs where gaze prediction is not possible with their trivial extension.
Figure \[Fig:missing\_data\] indicates that orientation or velocity is a strong prior to predict future while our method produces more selective trajectories due to the social compatibility measure. Vanilla LSTM produces unconvincing results due to its limited expressibility on social interactions and Social LSTM shows drifts because the behaviors of basketball players are often affected by long range team players. Notably a first person image based method without kinematic knowledge (Img) performs poorly, which indicates visual information alone can be ambiguous.
Our method outperforms all baseline algorithms. In particular, our method shows strong predictive power on gaze direction driven by joint attention (30 degree error after 5 seconds).
**Social trajectory prediction** We focus on comparing with third person approaches: Vanilla LSTM and Social LSTM. Note that both LSTMs require longer observation time (10 seconds) to predict 5 seconds while our first person based method needs 0.5 second (instantaneous velocity).
Note that Vanilla LSTM behaves similarly to the missing data prediction as it has no consideration on social behaviors. Our method produces the error range, 5 m and 30 degree error after 5 seconds as shown in Figure \[Fig:group\_prediction\].
We also characterize the prediction error based on player’s role summarized in Table \[table:role\]. This error indicates that the predictive power can differ by the roles, e.g., predicting Shooting Guard’s behaviors is relatively more difficult than Centers because they involve with diverse interactions across the court.
Qualitative Evaluation
----------------------
We apply our method to predict players future behaviors in diverse basketball scenarios. Figure \[Fig:qual\] shows trajectory and joint attention predictions. We also show the retrieved sequences that have similar social configuration to reason about predictions.
\[Fig:average\]{width="48.00000%"}
**Predicting future image** The capability of predicting gaze direction enables hallucinating future images, e.g., what would I see in a next few seconds? Figure \[Fig:average\] visualizes the average future images retrieved by the $K$ best solutions. The average image is aligned with background structure and social configurations while it starts to dissolve as time progresses.
-------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
1sec 3 sec 5 sec 1sec 3 sec 5 sec 1sec 3 sec 5 sec 1sec 3 sec 5 sec 1sec 3 sec 5 sec
Ours **0.50** **0.60** **0.40** **1.59** **3.76** **5.71** **0.64** **0.25** **2.41** **1.51** **4.95** **7.79** **1.39** **0.65** **1.70**
Vanilla LSTM 6.50 10.86 13.77 6.85 12.86 8.30 3.52 3.81 9.05 1.98 15.43 7.69 9.35 5.54 12.23
Social LSTM 2.98 3.02 3.59 6.55 11.49 12.32 0.53 5.35 7.84 1.99 10.19 2.43 5.14 1.60 7.36
-------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Summary
=======
We present a method to predict the future location and gaze direction of basketball players from their first person videos. 3D reconstruction of multiple first person videos provides the automatic supervision for learning visual social semantics. We use the learned representation to retrieve trajectories per player. We evaluate the plausibility of each group trajectory using social compatibility. We select $K$ best group trajectories using a generalized Dijkstra’s algorithm. We demonstrate that our first person based method is effective, outperforming state-of-the-art social activity prediction systems that use third person views.
[^1]: Optionally, the fixed spatial relationship between camera optical axis and primary gaze direction can be calibrated [@park:2012].
[^2]: Similar projection has been used to generate a panoramic image [@szeliski:1997].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
address:
- |
$^{1}$ Graduate School of Science and Technology, Chiba University, 1-33 Yayoi-cho, Inage-ku, Chiba 263-8522, Japan\
[*E-mail: [email protected]*]{}
- |
$^{2}$ Department of Computer Simulation, Faculty of Informatics, Okayama University of Science, 1-1 Ridai-cho, Okayama 700-0005, Japan\
[*E-mail: [email protected]*]{}
- |
$^{3}$ Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, Chiba University, 1-33 Yayoi-cho, Inage-ku, Chiba 263-8522, Japan\
[*E-mail: [email protected]*]{}
author:
- 'Naoki Asai$^{1}$, Naoya Fukuda$^{2}$, and Ryoji Matsumoto$^{3}$'
title: MHD Simulations of a Moving Subclump with Heat Conduction
---
= cmmi10 scaled1 = cmmi10 = cmmi7 = cmmib10 scaled1 = cmmib10 = cmmib10 scaled 833 = cmbsy10 scaled1 = cmbsy10 = cmbsy10 scaled 833 1 = 1 = 1 = 9 = 9 = 9 = 10 = 10 = 10 =
Introduction
============
High spatial resolution observations of central region of cluster of galaxies by [*Chandra*]{} have revealed the existence of a peculiar X-ray emitting [*comet-like*]{} structure.
Wang (2004) presented results of a deep [*Chandra*]{} observation together with extensive multi-wavelength data of large-scale hierarchical structure related with A2125. An interesting feature is a distinct X-ray tail on one side of the fast moving ($v \sim 1500 \, {\rm km \, s^{-1}}$) galaxy C153, probably created by ram pressure stripping. They suggested that C153 crossed the central region of A2125 containing cD-like elliptical galaxies quite recently. Since X-ray emission above $1.5 \,{\rm keV}$ is absent in this tail, this tail is substantially cooler $(kT \leq 1.5 \, {\rm keV})$ than ambient intergalactic plasmas $(kT \sim 3.2 \, {\rm keV})$. They estimated that the length of this trail is $\sim 22^{\prime \prime} ( \sim 88 \, {\rm kpc})$ and its average width is $\sim 4^{\prime\prime} (\sim 16 \, {\rm kpc})$. Additionally, an extended \[O II\] line emission toward the same direction has been detected.
Since heat conduction in cluster of galaxies can be very efficient (e.g., Takahara & Ikeuchi 1977), heat conduction plays a key role in the formation of cold fronts (e.g., Ettori & Fabian 2000; Vikhlinin 2001) and thermal balance in the cluster core (cooling flow problem). Asai (2004) showed the dramatic effect of magnetic fields on heat conduction in cluster of galaxies. They carried out magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) simulations of a subcluster moving in a magnetized intercluster plasma. They showed that the contact surface (a cold front) between the cool subcluster plasma and hot intercluster plasma is maintained because the heat conduction across the cold front is suppressed by magnetic fields wrapping the forehead of the moving subcluster. In non-magnetized plasma, however, the cold front disappears by heat conduction. Similarly, the cool X-ray tail embedded in hotter ambient plasma should subject to heating by thermal conduction.
In this paper, we investigate the interaction between a moving subclump and magnetized intergalactic plasma and explore necessary conditions for the existence of the cool X-ray trail.
Simulation Model
================
We simulated the time evolution of a subclump in a frame comoving with the subclump. We solve the two-dimensional (2D) resistive MHD equations in a Cartesian coordinate system $(x, \, y)$. We use the specific heat ratio $\gamma = 5/3$. We assume an anomalous resistivity. The resistivity sets in locally only when the drift velocity ($v_{\rm d} \equiv |j|/ \rho$) exceeds the critical velocity ($v_{\rm c}$), where $j$ is current density. When $v_{\rm d} \geq v_{\rm c}$, the resistivity is $\eta = \eta_{0}(v_{\rm d} / v_{\rm c}- 1)^{2}$, otherwise $\eta = 0$. We adopt $\eta_{0}= 0.01$ and $v_{\rm c} = 3.0$. We set an upper limit of the resistivity, $\eta_{\rm max}=1.0$. We assume heat conduction along the magnetic field line. The classical Spitzer conductivity (Spitzer 1962) is assumed. When magnetic fields exist, the conductivity along the field line is $\kappa \approx \kappa_{\parallel} = \kappa_{0} T^{5/2}
(\kappa_{0} = 5 \times 10^{-7} \, {\rm ergs \, s^{-1}
\, cm^{-1} \, K^{-1}}$) and the conductivity across the field line is $ \kappa_{\perp} = 0$, where $T$ is temperature.
The size of the computational box is $600 \, {\rm kpc} \times 400 \, {\rm kpc}$ and the number of grid points is $(N_{x}, \, N_{y})=(1200, 800)$.
The units of length, velocity, density, pressure, temperature, and time in our simulations are $r_{0}=25 \, {\rm kpc}$, $v_{0}=500 \, {\rm km \, s^{-1}}$, $\rho_{0}=6.5 \times 10^{-27} \, {\rm g \, cm^{-3}}$, $p_{0} = 4 \times 10^{-11} \, {\rm erg \, cm^{-3}}$, $T_{0}= 1.5 \, {\rm keV}$, and $t_{{0}}=r_{0}/v_{0}= 5 \times 10^{7} \, {\rm yr}$, respectively.
=6.cm
-0.2cm \[fig2\]
Figure 1 shows the initial density distribution in the central region ($375 \, {\rm kpc} \times 250 \, {\rm kpc}$). Solid lines and arrows show magnetic field lines and velocity vectors. The subclump is assumed to be a spherical isothermal low-temperature ($kT_{\rm in} = 1.5 \, {\rm keV}$) plasma confined by the gravitational potential of the subclump. It is embedded in the less-dense $(\rho_{\rm out} = 0.25 \, \rho_{0})$, uniform hot $(kT_{\rm out} = 3.0 \, {\rm keV})$ plasma. Here the subscripts “in” and “out” denote the values inside and outside the subclump, respectively. We assume that the density distribution of the subclump is given by the $\beta$-model profile, $\rho_{\rm in}=\rho_{\rm c} [1 +(r/r_{\rm c})^{2}]^{-3 \beta/2}$, where $r = (x^{2}+y^{2})^{1/2}$ and $\beta=2/3$. The maximum density is $\rho_{\rm c}=5 \rho_{0} = 3.2 \times 10^{-26} \, {\rm g \, cm^{-3}}$, and the core radius is $r_{\rm c} = 8.3 \, {\rm kpc}$. The subclump is initially in hydrostatic equilibrium under the gravitational potential fixed throughout the simulation.
Table 1 shows model parameters. Important parameter is the plasma beta ($\beta_{0}$) defined as the ratio of the ambient gas pressure to the magnetic pressure. When $\beta_{0} = p_{\rm gas} / p_{\rm mag}= 100$, the magnetic field strength is $B \sim 3 \, {\rm \mu G}$.
We assume that the ambient plasma initially has a uniform speed with Mach number $M = v_{x}/c_{\rm s \, out} = 1$, where $c_{\rm s \, out}$ is the ambient sound speed. The Mach number with respect to the sound velocity inside the subcluster is $ M^{\prime}= v_{x}/c_{\rm s \, in}= \sqrt{2}$.
Model HC is a non-magnetic model with isotropic heat conduction. Models MCa, MCb, and MCc are models with moderate magnetic fields ($\beta_{0}=100$) and anisotropic heat conduction. In models HC, MCb, and MCc, the Mach number is taken to be $M=2$, and in model MCa, it is taken to be $M=1$. The inclination of magnetic fields from motion of the subclump is parameterized by $\theta=\arccos [{\bf v \cdot B }/(v \, B)]$.
Model $\theta [{}^{\circ}]$ $\beta_{0}$ $\kappa$ Mach number
------- ----------------------- ------------- ---------------------- -------------
MCa 90 100 $\kappa_{\parallel}$ 1
MCb 90 100 $\kappa_{\parallel}$ 2
MCc 45 100 $\kappa_{\parallel}$ 2
HC — $\infty$ $\kappa$ 2
: Models and parameters. Heat conduction is isotropic in model HC. In other models, heat conducts only along magnetic fields. $\theta$ is an angle between the motion of the subclump and the magnetic field. []{data-label="tbl-2"}
We use a modified Lax-Wendroff method with artificial viscosity for MHD part, and the heat conduction term in energy equation is solved by the implicit red and black successive overrelaxation method (see Yokoyama & Shibata 2001 for details).
For boundary conditions, the left boundary at $x= -5$ is taken to be a fixed boundary, and other boundaries are taken to be free boundaries where waves can be transmitted.
Numerical Results {#res}
=================
Effects of Magnetic Fields on Cold X-ray Tail {#tail}
---------------------------------------------
-0.2cm \[fig2\]
-0.5cm
Let us investigate effects of magnetic fields on the existence of the cold X-ray tail. Figure 2 shows the results for models MCa, MCb, MCc, and HC from left to right, respectively. The top and bottom panels in Figure 2 show the distributions of temperature and X-ray intensity at the central region ($375 \, {\rm kpc} \times 250 \,
{\rm kpc}$) after $t= 2 \times 10^{8} \, {\rm yr}$. X-ray intensity is visualized from simulation results as logarithm of $\sim \rho^{2}$.
In models with magnetic fields (MCa, MCb, and MCc), the cold plasma inside the subclump is expelled backward due to ram pressure and forms a cool tail dividing into two branches. The cool tail survives the heat conduction from hotter ambient plasmas, because magnetic fields wrapping the subclump suppress the heat conduction across them. On the other hand, in a model without magnetic fields (model HC), cool plasmas inside the subclump is heated by thermal conduction and evaporates quickly. Thus cool tail is not formed in this model.
In all models with magnetic fields, magnetic fields accumulating ahead of the subclump form a magnetic shield (e.g., Miniati 1999) and their strength is enhanced several times that of the initial state. In addition to the suppression of heat conduction, magnetic fields also prevent the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability in this region.
A typical length of the X-ray tail formed in our simulation is $100-200 \,{\rm kpc}$, and its width is $25-50 \,{\rm kpc}$ at $t=2 \times 10^{8} {\rm yr}$. The tails are longer in models MCb and MCc (Mach number $M=2$), than model MCa (Mach number $M=1$), because the subclump subjects to the stronger ram pressure.
Effects of Magnetic Fields on Energy Conversion {#con}
-----------------------------------------------
When a subclump moves in magnetized plasmas, magnetic fields can extract the kinetic energy of the plasma moving with the subclump because magnetic field lines are stretched by the plasma moving with the sublcump. The kinetic energy is converted to magnetic energy and thermal energy. We computed the energy conversion rates in order to study whether a motion of a subclump heats the ambient plasma. Figure 3 shows the time evolution of magnetic ([*solid line*]{}), kinetic ([*dotted line*]{}), and thermal ([*dot-dashed line*]{}) energies with respect to the initial kinetic energy, respectively. The left and right panels show results for model MCb (with magnetic fields) and HC (without magnetic fields).
The left panel shows that magnetic energy increases only slightly, because magnetic fields are deformed in small area close to the subclump. On the other hand, thermal energy increases while kinetic energy decreases. That is, the kinetic energy of the subclump is converted into thermal energy through a shock heating. The right panel shows the similar behavior in model HC.
The inefficiency of the energy conversion from kinetic energy to magnetic energy is partly due to the free boundary condition. When the magnetic fields are fixed at the boundaries, magnetic fields will be deformed until magnetic energy is comparable to the gravitational energy.
=8.5cm
-0.2cm \[fig3\]
-0.5cm
Discussion & Summary {#dis}
====================
We carried out 2D MHD simulations of a subclump moving through a magnetized ambient plasma. In §\[res\]\[tail\], we showed that the magnetic field is essential for the existence of a cold X-ray tail of a subclump like the galaxy C153 observed in A2125. Heat conduction across the magnetic fields is suppressed by the magnetic field wrapping the subclump. This mechanism is the same as that which enables the maintenance of cold fronts in cluster of galaxies (Asai 2004).
In the context of interstellar matter, similar works have been done (e.g., Jones 1996; Miniati 1999), although heat conduction and gravity are not included in their simulations.
They investigated, through 2D MHD simulations, the interaction of a uniform magnetic field oblique to a moving interstellar cloud. Miniati (1999) discussed the conversion rate of kinetic energy to magnetic energy for several models. In contrast to their results, only a small fraction of the kinetic energy is converted to the magnetic energy in our models (see §\[res\]\[con\]). The difference comes mainly from the fact that a subclump in our model has lower density and moves faster than that in their model.
Makishima (2001) proposed a model of heating of cluster plasma through the motion of member galaxies in magnetic fields. In local simulations we presented in this papar, the energy conversion rate of kinetic energy of the moving subclump to the magnetic energy is small because magnetic fields can freely move at boundaries. In cluster of galaxies, magnetic fields may be anchored to the cD galaxies. When subclumps move in such magnetosphere of the cD galaxy, magnetic fields will be stretched and twisted. Under such situation, the kinetic energy of the dark matter clump will be extracted through the magnetic interaction. The deformed magnetic field lines may form current sheets, in which magnetic reconnection converts magnetic energy into thermal energy and kinetic energy. We expect efficient heating through this process. This mechanism can be the heat source which compensates for the radiative cooling in cluster plasmas. Obviously, we have to carry out global MHD simulations to study this process. We would like to report the results of such simulations in subsequent papers (Asai 2005 in preparation).
Asai, N., Fukuda, N., & Matsumoto, R. 2004, ApJ, 606, L105 Asai et al. 2005, in preparation. Ettori, S., & Fabian, A. C. 2000, MNRAS, 317, L57 Ikebe, Y., et al. 1997, ApJ, 481, 660 Jones, T. W., Ryu, D., & Tregillis, I. L. 1996, ApJ, 473, 365 Makishima, K., et al. 2001, PASJ, 53, 401 Miniati, F., Jones, T. W., & Ryu, D. 1999, ApJ, 517, 242 Spitzer, L. 1962, Physics of Fully Ionized Gases (2d ed.; New York: Intersciense) Takahara, F., & Ikeuchi, S. 1977, Prog. Theor. Phys., 58, 1728 Vikhlinin, A., Markevitch, M., & Murray, S. S. 2001, ApJ, 551, 160 Wang, Q. D., Owen, F., & Ledlow, M. 2004, ApJ, 611, 821 Yokoyama, T., & Shibata, K. 2001, ApJ, 549, 1160
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Detectable flux is visible in the [Ly$\alpha$ ]{}and [Ly$\beta$ ]{}troughs of the highest redshift ($z=6.42$) quasar found to date, [SDSS J1148$+$5251]{}. This has previously been interpreted as continuum contamination from an interloper galaxy at $z=4.94$. We examine the [Ly$\gamma$ ]{}trough of [SDSS J1148$+$5251 ]{}and show that this interpretation is untenable: the spectrum does not show the continuum break in a $z=4.94$ galaxy expected from absorption by the intervening Ly$\alpha$ forest. Therefore, flux must be leaking through at least one of the troughs from the quasar itself. Contrary to previous claims, the flux ratios in the Ly$\alpha$ and [Ly$\beta$ ]{}troughs are consistent with pure transmission. From the [Ly$\gamma$ ]{}trough, we place an [*upper*]{} bound on the effective Ly$\alpha$ optical depth at $z\sim 6.2$ of $\tau_{\rm eff} < 14.3 \, (2\sigma)$. This implies a highly ionized IGM along this line of sight and significant cosmic variance in the transition toward complete Gunn-Peterson absorption. Detailed study of the observed transmission features will shed light on this era.'
author:
- 'S. Peng Oh & Steven R. Furlanetto'
title: |
How Universal is the Gunn-Peterson Trough at $\lowercase{z}\sim6$?:\
A Closer Look at the Quasar SDSS J1148+5251
---
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
Despite spectacular progress in recent years, the reionization history of the universe remains shrouded in mystery. The high electron scattering optical depth observed by WMAP indicates that reionization may have begun as early as $z\sim 20$ (Kogut et al 2003; Spergel et al 2003). On the other hand, spectra of high redshift quasars indicate a sharp change in the neutral hydrogen fraction and ionizing background at $z\sim6$, suggesting this era marks the end of the reionization epoch (Becker et al 2001, Fan et al 2002). Taken in tandem, these observations suggest a highly complex reionization history.
A crucial missing piece of the puzzle is the precise ionization state of the IGM at $z=6$. The large optical depth of the IGM to hydrogen Lyman transitions implies that Gunn & Peterson (1965) absorption can (at best) constrain the volume and mass-weighted neutral fractions to be $x_{\rm HI,V} \ge 10^{-3},\, x_{\rm HI,M}\ge 10^{-2}$ respectively (Fan et al 2002). It is plausible that the IGM is still highly ionized at $z=6$, and with full reionization occurring much earlier. On the other hand, modeling of the spectral regions around two quasars at $z \ga 6.2$ may indicate larger neutral fractions ($x_{\rm HI} \ga 0.2$; Wyithe & Loeb 2004a; Mesinger & Haiman 2004). At stake is the very nature of reionization: if these claims are correct, then reionization must be an extremely rapid process, since the IGM is known to be highly ionized ($x_{\rm HI} \le 10^{-5}$) by $z=5.9$ along all observed lines of sight (Fan et al 2003).
It is thus worth considering the IGM absorption in more detail. In particular, a completely dark Gunn-Peterson trough at $z\sim6$ is not necessarily universal. Both the [Ly$\alpha$ ]{}and [Ly$\beta$ ]{}troughs of the highest redshift quasar found to date, [SDSS J1148$+$5251]{}, contain detectable flux (White et al 2003). In this [*Letter*]{}, we show that its previous interpretation as continuum contamination from an interloper galaxy at $z=4.94$ is inconsistent with the observed flux ratios blueward and redward of the expected continuum break due to [Ly$\alpha$ ]{}forest absorption. Therefore, some of the flux is true transmission due to holes in the high redshift [Ly$\alpha$ ]{}forest. We derive our strongest contraints from the [Ly$\gamma$ ]{}trough, which was ignored in previous analyses and should be relatively uncontaminated by flux from an interloper. The presence of flux transmission implies that either the IGM is still highly ionized at $z=6$ or that there is significant cosmic variance in the reionization epoch along different lines of sight.
The Lyman Gamma Trough in SDSS J1148+5251 {#section:lyg_trough}
=========================================
Detectable flux and a network of transmission features is seen in both the [Ly$\alpha$ ]{}and [Ly$\beta$ ]{}troughs of [SDSS J1148$+$5251]{}. White et al (2003) interpreted this to be continuum contamination from interloper galaxies at $z=4.94$ for two reasons: (i) strong absorption features appear at $z=4.9$, so the apparent strong [Ly$\beta$ ]{}spikes at $z=6.03, 6.06$ could just be [Ly$\alpha$ ]{}emission from $z \approx 4.94$. (ii) The flux ratios of the troughs appear inconsistent: there is too little light in the [Ly$\beta$ ]{}trough given the [Ly$\alpha$ ]{}transmission. Although the [*a priori*]{} probability of such an interloper is small, it increases if the interloper also lenses [SDSS J1148$+$5251]{}, boosting its probability of detection.
By examining the [Ly$\gamma$ ]{}trough of [SDSS J1148$+$5251]{}, we argue that such an interpretation is untenable. We first note that if residual flux in [*any*]{} of the Ly$\alpha,\beta,\gamma$ troughs can be attributed to the quasar rather than an interloper galaxy, the IGM must still be highly ionized along the line of sight. Consider the boundary of the quasar proximity zone at $z_{\rm HII}\approx 6.33$, where the [Ly$\alpha$]{}, [Ly$\beta$ ]{}absorption increase rapidly. [*There is also a sharp jump in absorption at the boundary of the [Ly$\gamma$ ]{}trough, strongly suggesting that the transmission features redward of the [Ly$\gamma$ ]{}trough are genuine*]{}. Even if we exclude the sharp transmission spike at $\lambda=7205$ Å (putatively a [Ly$\alpha$ ]{}emission line from a galaxy at $z=4.94$), the residual flux changes from $F_{-20}(z_{\gamma}=6.33-6.40)=29.0\pm1.5$ (within the quasar proximity zone) to $F_{\-20}(z_{\gamma}=6.25-6.32)=4.3\pm1.4$ (outside the quasar proximity zone), where $F_{-20}$ is the flux $F$ in units of $10^{-20} {\rm erg \, s^{-1} \, cm^{-2}}$ Å$^{-1}$. It would be remarkable if the protocluster at $z\approx5$ lined up so as to exactly coincide with the quasar proximity zone in [Ly$\gamma$]{}: it is much more likely that the sudden change is due to genuine [Ly$\gamma$ ]{}absorption. This suggests the flux seen in the [Ly$\beta$ ]{}forest at $z>5.95$, before the onset of [Ly$\gamma$ ]{}absorption, represents true transmission.
It is also crucial that there is detectable flux in the [Ly$\gamma$ ]{}trough. Consider the wavelength stretch corresponding to $z=6.17-6.32$ in the various absorption troughs. This lies outside the quasar’s apparent region of influence and ends where the [Ly$\gamma$ ]{}trough becomes contaminated by Ly$\delta$ and higher order absorption ($\lambda=6962$ Å, corresponding to $z_{\gamma}=6.16$). White et al (2003) suggest that the [Ly$\alpha$]{}, [Ly$\beta$ ]{}troughs are contaminated by continuum emission from the interloper galaxy so that detected flux is not significant. To be conservative, let us ignore the transmitted flux in the [Ly$\beta$ ]{}trough, which is potentially also contaminated by emission line features from the $z\approx5$ proto-cluster. We find that $F_{-20}$([Ly$\alpha$]{})$=3.0 \pm0.9$ while $F_{-20}$([Ly$\gamma$]{})$=4.9 \pm0.9$; these regions correspond to $\lambda=1467-1498$ Å and $\lambda=1174-1199$ Å in the rest frame of an interloper galaxy at $z=4.94$. [*These flux ratios are strongly inconsistent with the expected continuum of a $z\approx5$ galaxy, which should have a strong break due to the intervening [Ly$\alpha$ ]{}forest*]{}. Songaila & Cowie (2002) obtain a flux suppression factor $T_{\alpha}=0.14 \pm 0.03$ for the [Ly$\alpha$ ]{}forest in this redshift and wavelength interval (Becker et al 2003 find $T_{\alpha}=0.11$). Even if the flux in the [Ly$\alpha$ ]{}trough is entirely due to continuum contamination from the interloper, the implied continuum contribution to the [Ly$\gamma$ ]{}trough would be $F_{-20}=0.4 (T_{\alpha}/0.14) \ll F_{-20}$([Ly$\gamma$]{}), which lies well within the noise. Thus, almost all the observed flux in the [Ly$\gamma$ ]{}trough must be genuine transmitted flux from the quasar. Because it is almost completely free from continuum contamination, the [Ly$\gamma$ ]{}trough places the strongest constraint on the IGM ionization state along this line of sight.
[ccrrrrrlll]{} [Ly$\alpha$ ]{}& $3.0 \pm 0.9$ & (2560,1730,1690) & $(6.8,6.4,6.4)\pm 0.3$ & $(6.8,6.4,6.4)\pm 0.3$ & $(6.8,6.4,6.4)\pm 0.3$ & $(6.8,6.4,6.4)\pm 0.3$\
[Ly$\beta$ ]{}& $9.0 \pm 1.1$ & (2140,1870,1710) & $(5.5,5.3,5.2)\pm 0.1$ & $(3.1,3.0,2.9)\pm 0.3$ & $(8.2,7.8,7.6)\pm 0.9$ & $(6.7,6.4,6.2)\pm 0.7$\
[Ly$\gamma$ ]{}& $4.9 \pm 0.9$ & (2070,1910,1710) & $(6.1,6.0,5.9)\pm 0.3$ & $(2.5,2.4,2.3)\pm 0.3$ & $(11.5,11.2,10.7)\pm 1.4$ & $(8.4,8.2,7.8)\pm 1.0$
Because there are indisputably absorbers at $z=4.9$, the putative protocluster may conceivably have another effect: it could ionize the IGM at $z=5$, creating a transparent Ly$\alpha$ window there. However, the proximity zone of the interloper galaxy itself is too small. We need to highly ionize the IGM on comoving lengthscales $L \approx 55 (\Delta z/0.1)$ Mpc at $z=5$. If the flux in the Ly$\alpha$ trough is interpreted as the continuum of the interloper, then $F_{-20}(\lambda=1450 \AA)=3.9$. If we take $F(\lambda=1450 \AA)/F(\lambda=900 \AA)=4.6$ as is observed in $z=3.4$ LBGs (Steidel et al 2001) for the strongest ionizing continuum possible (corresponding to a $\sim 100\%$ escape fraction for ionizing photons), then we infer $L_{\nu}(1 {\rm Ryd})=1.4 \times 10^{28} {\rm erg \, s^{-1} \, cm^{-2} \, Hz^{-1}}$, roughly implying a star formation rate ${\rm SFR} \sim 14 {\rm M_{\odot} yr^{-1}} $ for a Salpeter IMF. Assuming the mean background ionizing rate in units of $10^{-12} {\rm s}^{-1}$ to be $\Gamma_{-12} (z=5)\approx 0.15$ (e.g., Fig 2 of Fan et al 2002), the local radiation field becomes comparable to the metagalactic ionizing at $r\approx 1.3$ Mpc comoving, far too small to be of interest. Lyman-break galaxies (LBGs) at $z\approx 3-4$ also show excess Ly$\alpha$ transmission on lengthscales $L\approx 0.5$ Mpc comoving (Adelberger et al 2003), roughly corresponding to the distance a $600 \, {\rm km \, s^{-1}}$ wind would travel on the $\sim 300$ Myr star formation timescale of LBGs. It is unlikely a $z=5$ galaxy would affect a significantly larger volume. Galaxies near (but not along) the line of sight could contribute additional ionizing photons. Note, however, that we require a factor $\sim 5$ increase in $T_{\alpha}$ over a lengthscale $\sim 10$ times larger than the comoving correlation length for highly biased galaxies. There is no evidence for such strong fluctuations in transmission at this redshift: typically $\sigma_{\rm T\alpha}/T_{\alpha}\sim 0.3$ (Songaila & Cowie 2002). In any case, an anomalously large protocluster should be easily visible in narrowband optical searches.
Implications for the IGM at $z=6$ {#section:tau}
=================================
Having established the reality of residual flux from [SDSS J1148$+$5251]{}, we will now consider its implications for reionization at $z \sim 6$. We must first estimate the effective optical depths $\tau_{\rm eff}$ in each transition. We begin by summarizing our methodology and the error budget (which is frequently underestimated).
The errors for Ly$\gamma$ transmission $T_{\gamma}=T_{\rm tot}/(T_{\alpha}T_{\beta})$ must include not only pixel noise but also the cosmic variance in foreground transmission in Ly$\alpha$ and Ly$\beta$. Previous analyses have often neglected this additional scatter. It has been measured in quasar samples; we use the values in Table 2 of Songaila & Cowie (2002), who tabulate the measured $\langle T_\alpha \rangle, \sigma_{\rm T\alpha}$ for 6 redshift bins between $z=4.1-5.5$. However, these use fixed wavelength intervals, and $\sigma_{\rm T\alpha}$ obviously depends on the corresponding comoving length $L$. We cannot simply assume Poisson statistics, because long wavelength modes could dominate the variance. To estimate $\sigma_{\rm T\alpha}$ we follow the [*ansatz*]{} of Lidz et al (2002), who argue that the transmission power spectrum takes the shape (though not the normalization) of the linear mass power spectrum on large scales, yielding: $$\sigma_{\rm T\alpha}^{2}=2 \int_{0}^{\infty} \frac{dk}{2 \pi} \left[ \frac{{\rm sin}(kL/2)}{kL/2}\right]^{2} P_{f}(k) + \frac{\sigma_{n}^{2}}{N},
\label{eqn:sigmaF}$$ where $\sigma_{n}$ is the noise per pixel, $N$ is the number of pixels, and $P_{f}(k)=B{\rm exp}(-ak^{2})\int_{k}^{\infty}(dk/2\pi)k P_{\rm mass}(k)$, where $a\approx k_{\rm J}^{-1/2}$, $k_{J}$ is the Jeans wavenumber, and $B$ is normalized to the observed $\sigma_{\rm T\alpha}$ for some observed stretch $L_{\rm obs}$. The first term in equation (\[eqn:sigmaF\]) typically dominates by an order of magnitude. For the large lengthscales of interest, $P_{f}(k)$ is fairly flat, and we have approximately $\sigma_{\rm T\alpha}^{2} \propto L^{-1}$, as expected for a white noise power spectrum. Note that this [*ansatz*]{} for the transmission power spectrum $P_{f}(k)$ assumes a homogeneous ionizing background $\Gamma$; if $\Gamma$ exhibits small-scale fluctuations, $\sigma_{\rm T\alpha}$ could be larger. However, there is [*no*]{} cosmic variance in $T_\beta$, because we have observed the corresponding [Ly$\alpha$ ]{}transmission (at $z_\alpha=5.9$) along the same line of sight. The main uncertainty comes from the optical depth conversion between different lines (see below).
Another crucial item is uncertainty in the quasar continuum. This is particularly important in comparing relative absorption between the different troughs. The Ly$\alpha$ line is much broader than the Ly$\beta$ and Ly$\gamma$ lines and generally spills over into the observed trough. Uncertainty in the strength of the line creates significant uncertainty in the inferred $\tau_{\alpha}$. A simple way to quantify this is to compare the optical depths inferred assuming the composite spectrum from the Large Bright Quasar Survey (LBQS; Brotherton et al 2001) and the far-UV quasar power law spectrum of Telfer et al (2002). The former includes all the emission line structure, while the latter assumes a pure power law; the difference between the two therefore captures the uncertainty in emission line contribution. We normalize the continuum to the observed flux at $\sim 1290 {\rm \AA}$.
Table 1 lists the measured effective line optical depths $\tau_i \equiv \tau_{\rm eff}$([Ly$\alpha$]{}) and their associated $1\sigma$ errors. The results for the [Ly$\alpha$ ]{}and [Ly$\beta$ ]{}line optical depths are comparable to those of White et al. (2003). They argued that the pair are incompatible with each other, because $\tau_{i} \propto \lambda_{i} f_{i}$ (where $f_{i}$ is the oscillator strength of line $i$), implying $\tau_{\alpha}/\tau_{\beta}=6.24$ and $\tau_{\alpha}/\tau_{\gamma}=17.93$. However, these relations are only true at fixed density, and only apply if the IGM is homogeneous. For the large comoving lengths which we are considering, the flux transmission comes from a variety of densities: $$\langle T_{i} \rangle = \langle {\rm exp}\left( -\tau_{{\rm eff},i} \right) \rangle = \int {\rm exp}\left[ -\tau_{i}(\Delta) \right] P(\Delta) d\Delta,
\label{eqn:flux_transmission}$$ where $P(\Delta)$ is the probability distribution of overdensities $\Delta \equiv \rho/\bar{\rho}$, $\tau_{i} \propto \lambda_{i} f_{i} (1+z)^{4.5} \Delta^{2} \alpha(T)/\Gamma$ (e.g., Hui & Gnedin 1997) in the optically thin limit, and $\alpha(T)$ is the recombination coefficient. We use the form of $P(\Delta)$ given by Miralda-Escudé, Haehnelt & Rees (2000), which is a good fit to numerical simulations. If we assume an equation of state $T\propto \Delta^{\gamma}$ (where $\gamma \sim 0$–$1$) and a fluctuating radiation field whose amplitude may be density dependent, $\Gamma = \Gamma_{o} \Delta^{\xi}$, then $\tau_{i} =A(z) (1+z)^{4.5} \Delta^{\beta}$, where $\beta={2-0.7\gamma-\xi}$. We can solve for the normalization constant $A(z)$ by demanding $\langle T_{i}(A) \rangle=
T_{\rm obs}(z)$. Note that $A(z) \propto f_{i} \lambda_{i}/\Gamma_{o}$.
The integral in equation (\[eqn:flux\_transmission\]) can be evaluated by the method of steepest descents (Songaila & Cowie 2002, Songaila 2004): $$\tau_{\rm eff}= -A^{1/(1+3\beta/4)}+\frac{0.83}{(\beta+4/3)}{\rm ln}(A) + {\rm const}.
\label{eqn:tau_eff}$$ The leading term implies that $\tau_{\rm eff} \propto A^{0.4}$ for $\beta=2$ (corresponding to a uniform radiation field and an isothermal equation of state). Thus, in an inhomogeneous universe the optical depth increases more slowly than linearly with the oscillator strength; conversely, it increases more slowly with a weaker radiation field. Evaluating equation (\[eqn:flux\_transmission\]) numerically, we find that $\tau_{\alpha}/\tau_{\beta} \approx 3$, and $\tau_{\alpha}/\tau_{\gamma} \approx 5-6$, with weak dependence on redshift, the equation of state, and $\Gamma$. This is because transmission is dominated by rare voids, and the primary effect of decreasing $f_i$ is to increase the range of densities sampled by the line.
This behaviour becomes even more marked if $\Gamma$ is not uniform, which is certainly the case before reionization is complete. As a fiducial case, consider a uniform radiation field $\Gamma=0.05$ at $z=6.15$, which produces a Ly$\alpha$ effective optical depth $\tau_{\alpha}=7$. In this case, $(\tau_{\alpha}/\tau_{\beta},\tau_{\alpha}/\tau_{\gamma})=(2.7,4.9)$. Now let us consider various scenarios that would produce the same $\tau_{\alpha}$ but different $(\tau_{\beta},\tau_{\gamma})$. Suppose the optical depth $\tau \propto \Delta^{\beta}$ has $\beta>2$, which could, for example, mimic self-shielding in overdense regions. In this case, from equation (\[eqn:tau\_eff\]), the optical depth increases even more slowly with oscillator strength: for $\beta=3$, ($\tau_{\alpha}/\tau_{\beta}, \tau_{\alpha}/\tau_{\gamma})=(2.1,3.4)$. Only if the optical depth is independent of overdensity ($\beta=0$) will we recover the linear scaling $\tau_{\rm eff} \propto A$. Fluctuations in the radiation field that are uncorrelated with density fluctuations (so that $\tau \propto \Delta^{2}$) will produce similar effects. For example, a radiation field with a lognormal probability distribution $(\bar{\Gamma},\sigma_{\rm ln \Gamma})=(0.02,1)$ yields $(\tau_{\alpha}/\tau_{\beta},\tau_{\alpha}/\tau_{\gamma})=(1.9,2.9)$.
Thus, the fluctuating density and radiation fields introduce considerable uncertainty in the relations between $\tau_{\alpha},\tau_{\beta},$ and $\tau_{\gamma}$. The effective optical depth is often used to infer $x_{\rm HI,V}$ and $x_{\rm HI,M}$ in the IGM, a procedure that we caution is fraught with uncertainty. In the case of $x_{\rm HI, M}$, it is almost meaningless. It is easy to see why: we can infer $\langle x_{\rm HI} \rangle \propto \langle \tau \rangle$ from $\langle e^{-\tau} \rangle$ only in the limit where $\tau \ll 1$ and $\langle e^{-\tau} \rangle \approx 1 -\langle \tau \rangle$; otherwise, our ignorance of the full probability distribution $P(\tau)$ means that a wide variety of $\langle x_{\rm HI} \rangle$ would be consistent with a given observed $\langle e^{-\tau})$. As an illustration, we show in Figure 1 the logarithmic integrand $y \Delta P(\Delta) \propto \langle y \rangle$, for various quantities $y$; all the curves have been normalized to have unit area. Since $\langle e^{-\tau} \rangle$ is heavily weighted toward voids and $\langle x_{\rm HI} \rangle$ is weighted toward overdense regions, estimating one from the other is extremely model-dependent. In particular, $x_{\rm HI,M}$ is heavily weighted toward large overdensities, and the quasar spectra essentially leave it unconstrained. For instance, the neutral fraction could be considerably lower in overdense regions without affecting the transmitted flux.
With these caveats, we list $\tau_\alpha$ derived from each of the three transitions in the rightmost columns of Table 1 for $\beta=2,\,3$. The flux ratios in all 3 troughs are entirely consistent with flux transmission from the quasar without any contamination from an interloper: the equivalent Ly$\alpha$ optical depths all lie within $1-2\sigma$ of one another. The apparent inconsistency in White et al (2003) appears simply because they did not integrate over the IGM density distribution. Again, we caution that the optical depth conversion between different transitions has large uncertainties (not reflected in the error bars) due to uncertainty in the probability distribution of optical depths $P(\tau)$. The true effective optical depth inferred from the [Ly$\alpha$ ]{}and [Ly$\beta$ ]{}troughs could also be somewhat higher if there is some continuum contribution from an interloper, which we cannot completely rule out. The most stringent optical depth constraint comes from the [Ly$\gamma$ ]{}trough, which implies $\tau_{\alpha} < 14.3 \ (2 \sigma)$, with a most likely value $\tau_{\alpha} \approx 6$–$10$. By contrast, in [SDSS J1030$+$0524]{}, the $1\sigma$ ($2\sigma$) lower limit to the optical depth in the Ly$\beta$ trough is $\tau_{\rm eff} >11.1$ (9.9); the [Ly$\gamma$ ]{}trough yields similar constraints.
Discussion
==========
In this [*Letter*]{}, we have argued that the residual flux in the Ly$\alpha,\beta$, and $\gamma$ troughs of SDSS J1148+5251 is not due to an interloper galaxy but represents true transmission in the $z \ga 6$ IGM. This places an upper bound on the effective [Ly$\alpha$ ]{}optical depth of $\tau_{\rm eff} \le 14.3 \ (2\sigma)$, implying that the IGM is still highly ionized at $z\sim 6.3$. It has been argued that the size of the regions of the two highest redshift quasars $R_{\rm HII} \approx 4.5$ Mpc imply $x_{\rm HI} > 0.1$ in this range (Wyithe & Loeb 2004a): $R_{\rm HII} \approx 7 x_{\rm HI}^{-1/3} (t_{\rm age}/10^{7} \ {\rm yr})^{1/3}$ Mpc, where $t_{\rm age}$ is the lifetime of the quasar. This is of course strongly dependent on the assumed template spectrum; if the escape fraction of ionizing photons in high-redshift quasars is somehow smaller, the constraint weakens. The quasars could also be lensed and hence intrinsically fainter (Haiman & Cen 2002), though follow-up HST observations have failed to detect multiple images in either quasar (White et al 2004 in preparation). For our purpose, we note that region radius is determined by the mass-weighted neutral fraction $x_{\rm HI,M}$. As we showed in §\[section:tau\], this is very poorly constrained by $\tau_{\rm eff}$, because voids containing only a small fraction of the mass dominate the transmission. For instance, if $x_{\rm HI, M} \sim 0.1$ of the baryons are in neutral self-shielded halos, we could still have $x_{\rm HI, V} \sim x_{\rm HI, M}/\delta \sim 0.1/200 \sim 5 \times 10^{-4}$, which could easily be accommodated by our results.
A second argument in favor of $x_{\rm HI} \ga 0.1$ is an indirect detection of the Gunn-Peterson damping wing (Mesinger & Haiman 2004). There is a stretch at the boundary of the region of SDSS J1030+0524 with Ly$\beta$ transmission but no Ly$\alpha$ transmission, implying $6 <\tau_{\rm eff} < 11$. The absence of any [Ly$\alpha$ ]{}transmission from low-density voids in this segment implies a source of smooth opacity, attributed to a Ly$\alpha$ damping wing that requires a large optical depth $\tau > 10^{3}$. However, [SDSS J1148$+$5251 ]{}contains no such transition region. We also caution that the statistical significance of such transition regions is still unclear. For instance, in [SDSS J1148$+$5251 ]{}there is a stretch from $z=5.95-6.0$ with [Ly$\beta$ ]{}transmission ($F_{-20}=37.9 \pm 1.7$) but no significant [Ly$\alpha$ ]{}flux ($F_{-20}=2.5\pm 1.7$). Again, the optical depth ratios are consistent with pure flux transmission ($\tau_{\alpha}=6.6\pm0.7$, $\tau_{\beta}=2.0\pm 0.4 \Rightarrow \tau_{\rm eff,\alpha}\approx 5.5 \pm 1.2$). This stretch is $\sim 2.5$ times longer than the $\Delta z=0.02$ zone seen in [SDSS J1030$+$0524]{}, over which even damping wing absorption would change substantially; in any case, we have argued that the IGM is highly ionized along this stretch. Such regions may therefore be fairly generic and not indicative of a damping wing. More detailed analysis, incorporating a pixel-by-pixel analysis, variance in the foreground [Ly$\alpha$ ]{}forest, and better theoretical modeling of the fluctuating radiation and density fields in realistic models of reionization, would help shed light on this issue.
Nonetheless, if the region around [SDSS J1030$+$0524 ]{}is significantly neutral, this may be a hint of large cosmic variance in the epoch of reionization. Indeed, a strongly fluctuating $\tau_{\rm eff}$ is itself a signature of the pre-overlap era. In the extreme interpretation that the [Ly$\alpha$ ]{}and [Ly$\beta$ ]{}troughs of [SDSS J1030$+$0524 ]{}indicate $x_{\rm HI}\sim 0.2$ down to $z=5.95$, this implies large modulation in the ionization fraction and typical bubble sizes of order $\Delta z=0.38$, or $L\sim 150$ Mpc comoving. This is substantially larger than the regions of these extremely bright and rare quasars, $R_{\rm HII} \sim 30$ Mpc comoving. It is also larger than theoretical expectations for the scale of typical regions at the tail end of reionization (Furlanetto et al. 2004; Wyithe & Loeb 2004b), so we consider such a scenario to be extremely unlikely. At the other extreme, the measured $\tau_{\rm eff}$ are compatible with a slightly faster increase in $\tau_{\rm eff}$ along the sightline to [SDSS J1030$+$0524 ]{}($\tau_{\rm eff} >9.9$, 2$\sigma$), than to [SDSS J1148$+$5251 ]{}, ($\tau_{\rm eff}\approx 6$–$10$). Whether a highly-ionized universe can tolerate such scatter is unclear. We have shown that a simple $\tau_{\rm eff}$ analysis is a blunt instrument, and more sophisticated interpretation is required to put strong constraints on reionization.
Note that surveys of [Ly$\alpha$ ]{}emitters have found no evolution of the luminosity function of [Ly$\alpha$ ]{}emitters at $z=5.7$ and $z=6.5$ (Malhotra & Rhoads 2004, Stern et al 2004), which has been interpreted as evidence against percolation taking place at $z\sim 6$, in agreement with our conclusions.
What other signatures of large Ly$\alpha$ optical depth could emerge from the spectra? One possibility is the absorption forest (Oh 2002). is an excellent tracer of neutral hydrogen: it has a very similar ionization potential $E=13.62$eV, so it lies in tight charge exchange equilibrium. Furthermore, its $1302$ Å absorption line lies redward of the Ly$\alpha$ forest. Although the forest coincides with a noisy portion of the night sky, the sightline to [SDSS J1030$+$0524 ]{}(which may contain substantially neutral regions) has no lines with $W_{\rm obs} > 0.5$ Å and perhaps $\le 3$ lines with $W_{\rm obs} > 0.3$ Å (X. Fan, private communication). Significantly more lines are expected if the universe is substantially neutral (Oh 2002), although this is model-dependent. The forest clearly merits further investigation, though a good standard star calibration is essential to removing strong telluric features from the atmosphere.
We thank R. White, X. Fan for providing the spectra of SDSS J1148+5251, and X. Fan for stimulating conversations. We also thank Z. Haiman, A. Lidz, P. Madau, A. Meisinger for helpful discussions/correspondence, and Colleen Schwartz for technical assistance. SPO gratefully acknowledges support by NSF grant AST-0407084, PHY99-07949 and the hospitality of KITP.
Barkana, R., & Loeb, A. 2004, , 601, 64 Becker, R. H., et al. 2001, , 122, 2850 Brotherton, M. S., Tran, H. D., Becker, R. H., Gregg, M. D., Laurent-Muehleisen, S. A., & White, R. L. 2001, ApJ, 546, 775 Fan, X., et al. 2002, , 123, 1247 Fan, X., et al. 2003, , 125, 1649 Furlanetto, S. R., Zaldarriaga, M., & Hernquist, L. 2004, , 613, 1 Gunn, J. E. & Peterson, B. A. 1965, , 142, 1633 Haiman, Z. & Cen, R. 2002, , 578, 702 Hui, L. & Gnedin, N. Y. 1997, , 292, 27 Kogut A. et al, 2003, ApJS, 148, 161 Lidz, A., Hui, L., Zaldarriaga, M., & Scoccimarro, R. 2002, , 579, 491 Malhotra & Rhoads, ApJL, in press, astro-ph/0407408 Mesinger, A. & Haiman, Z. 2004, ApJ, 611, L69 Miralda-Escud[' e]{}, J., Haehnelt, M., & Rees, M. J. 2000, , 530, 1 Oh, S. P. 2002, , 336, 1021 Songaila, A., & Cowie, L. L. 2002, , 123, 2183 Songaila, A. 2004, AJ, 127, 2598 Spergel, D.N., et al, 2003, ApJS, 148, 175 Stern, D., et al, ApJ, submitted, astro-ph/0407409 Telfer, R. C., Zheng, W., Kriss, G. A. 2002, , 565, 773 White, R. L., Becker, R. H., Fan, X., & Strauss, M. A. 2003, , 126, 1 Wyithe, J. S. B., & Loeb, A. 2004a, , 427, 815 Wyithe, J. S. B., & Loeb, A. 2004b, , in press (astro-ph/0409412)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider a 0-$\pi$ Josephson junction consisting of asymmetric $0$ and $\pi$ regions of different lengths $L_0$ and $L_\pi$ having different critical current densities $j_{c,0}$ and $j_{c,\pi}$. If both segments are rather short, the whole junction can be described by an *effective* current-phase relation for the spatially averaged phase $\psi$, which includes the usual term $\propto\sin(\psi)$, a *negative* second harmonic term $\propto\sin(2\psi)$ as well as the unusual term $\propto H \cos\psi$ tunable by magnetic field $H$. Thus one obtains an electronically tunable current-phase relation. At $H=0$ this corresponds to the $\varphi$ Josephson junction. Further, by means of numerical simulaton we extend our results to a practically relevant 0-$\pi$ junction of *moderate* length. Finally, we present experimental data obtained on superconductor-insulator-ferromagnet-superconductor 0-$\pi$ Josephson junction.'
author:
- 'A. Lipman'
- 'H. Sickinger'
- 'M. Weides'
- 'R. G. Mints'
- 'H. Kohlstedt'
- 'R. Kleiner'
- 'D. Koelle'
- 'E. Goldobin'
bibliography:
- 'SF.bib'
- 'pi.bib'
date:
title: 'Josephson junction with magnetic-field tunable current-phase relation'
---
Introduction {#Sec:Intro}
============
Recently we proposed[@Goldobin:2011:0-pi:H-tunable-CPR] to implement a $\varphi$ Josephson junction (JJ) [@Buzdin:2003:phi-LJJ] with magnetic-field tunable current-phase relation (CPR) based on an 0-$\pi$ JJ with the 0 and $\pi$ segments of different length $L_0\neq L_\pi$. This proposal was made keeping in mind -Nb ramp zigzag JJ technology[@Smilde:ZigzagPRL; @Hilgenkamp:zigzag:SF] (or a similar one[@Ariando:Zigzag:NCCO] with -Nb) established recently in our group also[@Scharinger:ramp-zigzag:Ic(H)]. However, in experiment we were more successful[@Sickinger:varphiExp] in employing superconductor-insulator-ferromagnet-superconductor (SIFS) 0-$\pi$ JJs[@Weides:2006:SIFS-0-pi; @Weides:2010:SIFS-jc1jc2:Ic(H); @Kemmler:2010:SIFS-0-pi:Ic(H)-asymm], where the lengths of 0 and $\pi$ segments are equal, but critical current densities $j_{c,0}$ and $j_{c,\pi}$ in the 0 and $\pi$ parts are different. Also, the region in parameter space where the theory[@Goldobin:2011:0-pi:H-tunable-CPR] works and predicts $\varphi$ JJ is so slim, that it is almost impossible experimentally to get a 0-$\pi$ JJ that lays in this right region of the parameter space. Therefore, in this paper we present a more general theory, which describes an effective $\varphi$ JJ made of asymmetric $0$ and $\pi$ regions of different lengths $L_0$ and $L_\pi$ having different critical current densities $j_{c,0}$ and $j_{c,\pi}$. and further extend our results to the regions of parameter space where the simple analytical approach (based on the smallness of the deviation of the phase from its average value) does not work. The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. \[Sec:Model\] we present a model and derive the effective equation for the general case $j_{c,0}\neq j_{c,\pi}$ and $L_0\neq L_\pi$. In Sec. \[Sec:NumSim\] we, by means of numerical simulations, consider practically relevant regions in parameter space, where the theory presented in Sec. \[Sec:Model\] does not work. Experimental results obtained on SIFS 0-$\pi$ JJs are presented and discussed in Sec. \[Sec:ExpRes\]. Finally, Sec. \[Sec:Conclusions\] concludes the work.
Model {#Sec:Model}
=====
The static sine-Gordon equation that describes the behavior of the Josephson phase $\phi$ in a 0-$\pi$ JJ is $$\frac{\Phi_0}{2\pi\mu_0 d_J}\phi'' - j_c(x)\sin\phi = -j
.\label{Eq:sine-Gordon:Phys}$$ Here $\mu_0$ is the magnetic flux quantum, $\mu_0 d_J$ is the specific inductance (per square) of the superconducting electrodes forming the JJ and $j$ is the bias current density. The prime denotes the partial derivatives with respect to coordinate $x$. We assume that the critical current density $j_c(x)$ has the form of a step-function $$\begin{aligned}
&j_c=j_{c,0}>0,\quad\ &0\le x \le L_0
,\label{Eq:eq01}\\
\label{eq02}
&j_c=j_{c,\pi}<0,\quad\ &-L_\pi\le x < 0.\end{aligned}$$ We write the critical current density $j_c(x)$ as $$j_c(x)=\av{j_c(x)} [1+g(x)]
, \label{eq04}$$ where $$\av{j_c} = \frac{1}{L}\int_{-L_\pi}^{L_0} j_c(x)\,dx
= \frac{1}{L}\left( j_{c,0}L_0 + j_{c,\pi} L_\pi \right)
\label{Eq:j_av}$$ is the average critical current density, $L=L_0+L_\pi$ is the total length of the junction, and $\av{g(x)}=0$. The function $g(x)$ is defined as $$\label{eq07}
g(x) = \frac{j_c(x)}{\av{j_c(x)}} - 1$$ that results in $$g(x) =
\begin{cases}
g_0, & 0<x<L_0,\\
g_\pi, & -L_\pi<x<0.
\end{cases}
\label{Eq:g(x)}$$ where $$g_0 = \frac{(j_{c,0}-j_{c,\pi})L_\pi}{j_{c,0}L_0+j_{c,\pi} L_\pi}
;\quad
g_\pi =-\frac{(j_{c,0}-j_{c,\pi})L_0 }{j_{c,0}L_0+j_{c,\pi} L_\pi}
. \label{Eq:g}$$
Then we divide Eq. by $|\av{j_c}|$ and normalize the coordinate $x$ to the Josephson length calculated using $|\av{j_c}|$, , $$\lambda_J = \sqrt{\frac{\Phi_0}{2\pi\mu_0 d_J |\av{j_c}|}}
. \label{Eq:lambda_J_av}$$ Thus, we obtain a normalized sine-Gordon equation for the phase difference $\phi(x)$ $$\phi'' -\sgn(\av{j_c})\left[1+g(x)\right]\sin\phi =-\gamma
, \label{Eq:sG(g):sgn}$$ where $\gamma =j/|\av{j_c}|$ is the normalized bias current density. It is worth mentioning that $\av{j_c}$ can be positive as well as negative. Below, for the same of simplicity, we assume $\av{j_c}>0$. Thus, Eq. becomes $$\phi'' -\left[1+g(x)\right]\sin\phi =-\gamma
. \label{Eq:sG(g)}$$ In the case $\av{j_c}<0$ the substitution $\phi\to\pi-\phi$ converts Eq. to the same Eq. .
We look for a solution of Eq. in the form $$\label{Eq:PhaseSplit}
\phi(x) = \psi + \xi(x)\sin\psi,$$ where $$\psi = \av{\phi(x)}
\label{Eq:Def:psi}$$ is a constant *average phase*, while $\xi(x)\sin\psi$ describes the deviation of the phase from the average value, , $\av{\xi(x)}=0$. Further we assume that the deviation is small, , $| \xi(x)\sin\psi| \ll 1$. Then we plug the relation into Eq. , expand it in series in $\xi(x)\sin\psi$, and keep the terms of zero and first order. We get $$\xi''\sin\psi - [1+g(x)][1+\xi(x)\cos\psi]\sin\psi = -\gamma.
\label{Eq:sG-mix}$$ The constant terms (zero order of $\xi$ in Eq. ) are $$\gamma = \sin\psi + \av{\xi(x)g(x)}\cos\psi\sin\psi.
\label{Eq:const-terms}$$ The terms of first order of $\xi(x)$ in Eq. are $$\xi'' - g(x) = \{\xi + \xi(x)g(x)-\av{\xi(x)g(x)}\}\cos\psi.
\label{Eq:dev-terms}$$
Numerical calculations show that the two terms $\propto\cos\psi$ have an extremely weak effect on solutions of Eq. . We neglect these terms and obtain for $\xi(x)$ $$\xi'' - g(x) = 0
.\label{Eq:for-xi}$$ We treat solutions of Eq. by using the matching continuity (at $x=0$) and boundary (at $x=-l_\pi\equiv -L_\pi/\lambda_J$, $x=l_0\equiv L_0/\lambda_J$) conditions $$\label{eq16}
\xi_{\pi}(0) = \xi_0(0),\qquad \xi_{\pi}'(0) = \xi_0'(0),$$ $$\label{eq17}
\xi_\pi'(-l_\pi)\sin\psi = h,\qquad \xi_0'(l_0)\sin\psi = h.$$
The applied field $H$ is normalized by $H_{c1}/2$, , $$\label{eq18}
h=\frac{2H}{H_{c1}},\qquad H_{c1}=\frac{\Phi_0}{\pi\Lambda\lambda_J},$$ where $\Lambda$ is the effective magnetic thickness of the JJ. We integrate Eq. (\[Eq:for-xi\]) once and obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq19}
\xi_0'(x) = g_0(x-l_0) + \frac{h}{\sin\psi},\quad 0<x<l_0,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq20}
\xi_{\pi}'(x) = g_{\pi} (x+l_\pi) + \frac{h}{\sin\psi},\quad -l_\pi<x<0.\end{aligned}$$ The second integration results in $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq21}
\xi_0(x) = g_0 \left(\frac{x^2}{2}-l_0 x\right) + \frac{hx}{\sin\psi}+C,\\
\text{for }0<x<l_0,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq22}
\xi_{\pi}(x) = g_{\pi}\left(\frac{x^2}{2}+l_\pi x\right) + \frac{hx}{\sin\psi}+C,\\
\text{for }-l_\pi<x<0.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The integration constant $C$ can be obtained using the condition $\langle\xi(x)\rangle = 0$ $$\label{eq23}
C=\frac{l_0 -l_\pi}{2}\left(\frac{g_0l_0+g_\pi l_\pi}{3}-\frac{h}{\sin\psi}\right).$$
We use Eqs. , , and and obtain the average $\av{\xi(x)g(x)}$ in the form $$\label{Eq:xig}
\av{\xi(x)g(x)} = \Gamma_0 + \Gamma_h\frac{h}{\sin\psi},$$ where the coefficients $\Gamma_0$ and $\Gamma_h$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_0 &=& -\frac{l_0^2l_\pi^2}{3} \frac{(j_{c,0}-j_{c,\pi})^2}{(j_{c,0}l_0+j_{c,\pi} l_\pi)^2}
,\label{Eq:Gamma0}\\
\Gamma_h &=& \frac{l_0l_\pi}{2} \frac{j_{c,0}-j_{c,\pi}}{j_{c,0}l_0+j_{c,\pi} l_\pi}
.\label{Eq:GammaH}
\label{Eq:Gammas}\end{aligned}$$ Using Eqs. and we find the current-phase relation in the form $$j=\av{j_c}\left(\sin\psi +\Gamma_0\sin\psi\cos\psi +h\Gamma_h\cos\psi\right)
.\label{Eq:CPR}$$
It is worth noting that there is a simple relation between the coefficients $\Gamma_0$ and $\Gamma_h$. Indeed, it follows from Eqs. (\[Eq:Gamma0\]) and (\[Eq:GammaH\]) that $$\Gamma_0 = -\frac{4}{3}\Gamma_h^2
.\label{Eq:GammaH(Gamma0)}$$
In the case of equal lengths of 0 amd $\pi$ parts ($l_0=l_\pi =l/2$) we find $$\Gamma_0=-\frac{l^2}{12} \left(\frac{j_{c,0}-j_{c,\pi}}{j_{c,0}+j_{c,\pi}}\right)^2 , \qquad
\Gamma_h= \frac{l}{4} \frac{j_{c,0}-j_{c,\pi}}{j_{c,0}+j_{c,\pi}}\,.
\label{Eq:Gammas@EqualL}$$
The energy $U(\psi)$ corresponding to the current-phase relation (\[Eq:CPR\]) is given by $$U(\psi)=\av{j_c}\left(1-\cos\psi +h\Gamma_h\sin\psi+\frac{\Gamma_0}{2}\sin^2\psi\right)
. \label{Eq:U(psi)}$$
In summary, the dependence of the CPR on the phase and applied field is the same as in our previous study[@Goldobin:2011:0-pi:H-tunable-CPR]. The difference is in the formulas for $\Gamma_0$ and $\Gamma_h$. In addition, we have done a detailed comparison of the numerically and analytically calculated data.
Energy
------
The JJ energy is given by $$\label{Eq:Energy}
{\cal{E}} ={\cal E}_0\int dx \left[\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{d\phi}{dx}\right)^2\!\!\! + [1+g(x)](1-\cos\phi)\right],$$ where $$\label{Eq:E0}
{\cal E}_0=\frac{\hbar\lambda_J\av{j_c}}{2e}.$$ We calculate the energy $\cal{E}$ in two “steps” writing $$\label{Eq:U(psi)}
{\cal E}={\cal E}_1+{\cal E}_2,$$ where ${\cal E}_1$ is for the boundary contribution and ${\cal E}_2$ is for the bulk contribution $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq31}
{\cal E}_1&=&\frac{{\cal E}_0}{2}\int_{-l_\pi}^{l_0}dx\left(\frac{d\phi}{dx}\right)^2\approx
\nonumber\\
&\ &\frac{{\cal E}_0}{2}\,\sin^2\psi\int_{-l_\pi}^{l_0}dx \left(\frac{d\xi}{dx}\right)^2\approx
\nonumber\\
&-&\frac{{\cal E}_0}{2}\sin^2\psi\,\int_{-l_\pi}^{l_0}\!\!\! dx\,\xi''\xi =
\nonumber\\
&-&\frac{{\cal E}_0}{2}\sin^2\psi\,l\langle g(x)\xi(x)\rangle\,.\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq32}
{\cal E}_2={\cal E}_0\,\int_{-l_\pi}^{l_0} dx\,[1+g(x)](1-\cos\phi)\approx
\nonumber\\
{\cal E}_0\,l\left[1-\cos\psi +\sin^2\psi\,\langle g(x)\xi(x)\rangle\right].\end{aligned}$$
Summing Eqs. (\[Eq:U(psi)\]) and (\[eq31\]) we find $$\label{eq33}
{\cal E}= {\cal E}_0l\left[1 -\cos\psi +\frac{1}{2}\sin^2\psi\langle g(x)\xi(x)\rangle \right]\,.$$
Bulaevskii normalization
------------------------
The Mints[@Mints:1998:SelfGenFlux@AltJc] normalization of length to $\lambda_J(\av{j_c})$ given by Eq. is very useful for theoretical analysis. However for comparing with experiment it may be more convenient to use Bulaevskii normalization[@Bulaevskii:0-pi-LJJ], namely to the local $\lambda_{J,0}=\lambda_J(j_{c,0})$ and $\lambda_{J,\pi}=\lambda_J(j_{c,\pi})$: $$\ell_0 = \frac{l_0}{\lambda_{J,0}} =l_0 \sqrt{\frac{j_{c,0}}{\av{j_c}}}
,\quad
\ell_\pi = \frac{l_\pi}{\lambda_{J,\pi}}=l_\pi\sqrt{\frac{j_{c,\pi}}{\av{j_c}}}
. \label{Eq:def:ell}$$ In these terms $$\av{j_c} = \frac{l_0 j_0 + l_\pi j_\pi}{l_0 + l_\pi}
= \frac{l_0 j_0\sqrt{|j_\pi|}+l_\pi j_\pi\sqrt{j_0}}{l_0\sqrt{|j_\pi|}+l_\pi\sqrt{j_0}}
, \label{Eq:j_av:Bulaevskii}$$ while our key result can be rewritten as $$\Gamma_0 = -\frac{\ell_0^2\ell_\pi^2}{3}
\frac{(j_0-j_\pi)^2}{
\left| \ell_0 j_0 \sqrt{|j_\pi|}+\ell_\pi j_\pi \sqrt{j_0} \right|
\left( \ell_0\sqrt{|j_\pi|}+\ell_\pi\sqrt{j_0} \right)
}
, \label{Eq:Gamma0:Bulaevskii}$$ while Eq. stays the same.
Beyond analytics {#Sec:NumSim}
================
Let us now consider the regions in the parameter space where the condition $|\xi(x)\sin\psi|$ is not satisfied. This can be the case of 0-$\pi$ JJ of moderate length, or of a rather high applied magnetic field $H$. In the latter case magnetic field sets a high value of the phase derivative at the edges of the JJ, which results in a high amplitude of $|\xi(x)\sin\psi|$.
To treat these cases numerically we perform a numerical simulation of the complete static sine-Gordon Eq. for given $L_0$, $L_\pi$, $j_{c,0}$, $j_{c,\pi}$ and applied bias current $j$. As a result we obtain one or more solutions $\phi(x)$ depending on initial/seed value of $\phi(x)$. For each of these solutions we then calculate $\psi=\av{\phi(x)}$ and plot these values of $\psi$ on a $\psi(\gamma)$ plot. By repeating this procedure for different values of $\gamma$ one obtaines a $\psi(\gamma)$ plot, , the *effective current-phase relation* (e-CPR).
An example of the e-CPR is shown in Fig. \[Fig:NumCPR\]. One can see that qualitatively the behavior is similar, but quantitatively there are deviations. In particular, the ground state phase and harmonic content of e-CPR are different.
Ground state
------------
In Figs. \[Fig:PhaseDiag10\] and \[Fig:PhaseDiag05\] one can see the phase diagrams with the lines of the constant ground state phase $\varphi$. Then for several selected values of $\varphi$ one can see a comparison of numerically calculated constat phase line with the lines calculated analytically in the limits $\ell_0\lesssim 1$, $\ell_\pi\lesssim 1$ and $\ell_0\gg 1$, $\ell_\pi\gg 1$.
#### Analytics for $L_0\lesssim\lambda_{J,0}$ and $L_\pi\lesssim\lambda_{J,\pi}$.
To calculate a curve of constant ground state phase $\varphi$, we use with $h=0$ (ground state) and $\psi=\varphi$ to get $$1+\Gamma_0\cos(\varphi)=0
. \label{Eq:GrStt}$$ Since $\Gamma_0<0$ Eq. results in solutions $|\varphi|\leq\pi/2$. We remind that this is the case when $\av{j_c}>0$. For $\av{j_c}<0$ one should use $\pi-\varphi$ instead of $\varphi$ in Eq. . Thus, for arbitrary $\av{j_c}$ one can write $$1+\Gamma_0|\cos(\varphi)|=0
. \label{Eq:GrStt:gen}$$ Using the expression for $\Gamma_0$ we solve the above equation to find
$$\begin{aligned}
\ell_\pi(\ell_0) = \ell_0 \frac{\sqrt{3j_0|j_\pi|}}{2}
\frac{j_\Sigma\sqrt{3}+|j_\Delta|\sqrt{3+4\ell_0^2\cos\varphi}}
{\ell_0^2 j_\Delta^2 \cos\varphi -3j_0j_\pi}
;\label{Eq:ell<1:ell_pi(ell_0)}\\
\ell_0(\ell_\pi) = \ell_\pi \frac{\sqrt{3j_0|j_\pi|}}{2}
\frac{\sqrt{3}j_\Sigma-|j_\Delta|\sqrt{3-4\ell_\pi^2\cos\varphi}}
{\ell_\pi^2 j_\Delta^2 \cos\varphi +3j_0j_\pi}
.\label{Eq:ell<1:ell_0(ell_pi)}
\end{aligned}$$
\[Eq:ell<1:ell\_0-ell\_pi\]
where $$j_\Sigma = j_0+j_\pi, \quad j_\Delta = j_0-j_\pi
. \label{Eq:Def:j_Sigma&Delta}$$ Note that Eqs. are valid for any $0\leq\varphi\leq\pi$. Still, for $\varphi\leq\pi/2$ it is more convenient to use Eq. , while Eq. has a singularity at $\ell_\pi=\sqrt{-3j_0 j_\pi/(j_\Delta^2\cos\varphi)}$. For $\varphi>\pi/2$ the situation is opposite: Eq. always give $\ell_0$ for given $\ell_\pi$, while Eq. diverges at $\ell_0=\sqrt{2j_0 j_\pi/(j_\Delta^2\cos\varphi)}$.
The same formulas in Mints units read $$\begin{aligned}
l_\pi(l_0) = j_0 l_0
\frac {3j_\pi-l_0 j_\Delta \sgn(\cos\varphi)\sqrt{3|\cos\varphi|}}
{l_0^2 j_\Delta^2 |\cos(\varphi)| - 3j_0^2}
; \label{Eq:L<1:Lpi(L0)}\\
l_0(l_\pi) = j_\pi l_\pi
\frac {3j_0+l_\pi j_\Delta \sgn(\cos\varphi)\sqrt{3|\cos\varphi|}}
{l_\pi^2 j_\Delta^2 |\cos(\varphi)| - 3j_0^2}
. \label{Eq:L<1:Lpi(L0)}\end{aligned}$$
#### Analytics for $L_0\gg\lambda_{J,0}$ and $L_\pi\gg\lambda_{J,\pi}$.
In this limit the phase solution in the ground state $\phi(x)$ is given by the two fluxon tails properly joined at $x=0$ as described in appendix \[Sec:Asym-0-pi-LJJ.Semifluxon\]. The average phase in the limit $L_0,L_\pi\to\infty$ is calculated in appendix \[Sec:Asym-0-pi-LJJ.AvPhase\] and is given by Eq. (in physical units). To obtain the lines of constant phase $\varphi$, we express $L_\pi$ as a function of $L_0$, , $$L_\pi = \frac{\varphi}{\pi-\varphi}L_0 + \Delta L_\pi
, \label{Eq:L_pi(L_0).units.RM}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta L_\pi
&=& \frac{-\lambda_{J,0 }}{\pi-\varphi}\left[ 4\ln(z_0)\arctan(z_0) +M(z_0)\right]
\label{Eq:DeltaL_pi.units.phys}\\
&+& \frac{-\lambda_{J,\pi}}{\pi-\varphi}\left[ \ln(z_\pi)(2\pi-4\arctan(z_0)) -M(1/z_\pi)\right]
, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ In the units of Bulaevskii we get $$l_\pi = \frac{\varphi}{\pi-\varphi}l_0\sqrt{\frac{|j_{c,\pi}|}{j_{c,0}}} + \Delta l_\pi
, \label{Eq:L_pi(L_0).units.LB}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta l_\pi
&=& \frac{-1}{\pi-\varphi}\left[ 4\ln(z_0)\arctan(z_0) +M(z_0)\right] \sqrt{\frac{|j_{c,\pi}|}{j_{c,0}}}
\label{Eq:DeltaL_pi.units.LB}\\
&+& \frac{-1}{\pi-\varphi}\left[ \ln(z_\pi)(2\pi-4\arctan(z_0)) -M(1/z_\pi)\right]
. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Note that for $j_{c,0}=|j_{c,\pi}|$ the values $z_0=\sqrt2-1$, $z_\pi=\sqrt2+1$, so that $z_\pi=1/z_0$ and, after simple algebra, $\Delta l_\pi=0$.
Then the average phase is
$$\varphi = \frac{4\lambda_{J,0} + \pi L_\pi - 4\lambda_{J,\pi}}{L_0+L_\pi}
. $$
From here $$L_\pi = \frac{\varphi}{\pi-\varphi}L_0 - 4\frac{\lambda_{J,0}-\lambda_{J,\pi}}{\pi-\varphi}
. $$ In Bulaevskii notations $$l_\pi
= \frac{\varphi}{\pi-\varphi}l_0\sqrt{\frac{|j_{c,\pi}|}{j_{c,0}}}
- \frac{4}{\pi-\varphi} \left( \sqrt{\frac{|j_{c,\pi}|}{j_{c,0}}} - 1\right)
. \label{Eq:l_pi(l_0).simple}$$
Harmonics analysis of e-CPR
---------------------------
To see harmonic content of CPR we have performed FFT of the numerically obtained CPR. The results are presented in Eq. . Analytical model, discussed in Sec. \[Sec:Model\] predics only $\sin(\psi)$ and $\sin(2\psi)$ harmonics present. One can see that in the longer JJ one also obtains higher harmonics $\sin(n\psi)$, first of all with even $n$. In the same time the amplitude of $\sin(\psi)$ and $\sin(2\psi)$ decreases.
When a magnetic field is applied, in addition to $\cos(\psi)$ term predicted by the model, one gets also $\cos(n\psi)$ terms. Also $\sin$-terms are modified....
Multivalued e-CPR
-----------------
At larger $H$ and $l$ the e-CPR may become not single valued, see Fig. \[Fig:MultiCPR\](a). This corresponds to two (3?) different static solutions of Eq. . As an example, Fig. \[Fig:MultiCPR\](b) shows the magnetic field profile $\phi'(x)$ corresponding to the same values of the phase $\psi$, but different total supercurrent flowing through the structure, see arrows in Fig. \[Fig:MultiCPR\](a). The number of such a double valued regions in e-CPR grows with the length of the JJ and with applied magnetic field. As an example, in Fig. \[Fig:MultiCPR\](a) we show a rather extreem e-CPR for $l=8$ and $H=1.8$ .
Experiment {#Sec:ExpRes}
==========
Results on the 2nd 0-$\pi$ JJ.
Self-field effect
-----------------
It turns out that the so-called *self-field effect*, , parasitic magnetic field created by the bias current circuitry, may skew an $I_c(H)$ dependence in a manner similar to the one prediced by the model (see Sec. \[Sec:Model\]) and numerical simulations (see Sec. \[Sec:NumSim\]). Here we investigate in detail the difference between self-field effect and the $I_c(H)$ asymmetry caused by $j_{c,0}\neq j_{c,\pi}$ or $L_{0}\neq L_{\pi}$.
In most cases the self-field effect is modelled by an additional *uniform* applied magnetic field $\propto$ bias curent $I$, , $$H_\mathrm{tot} = H + K_\mathrm{SF}I
, \label{Eq:H_tot}$$ where $H_\mathrm{tot}$ is the total magnetic field applied to the JJ, $H$ is magnetic field applied externally by the coil, while $k_\mathrm{SF}$ is a self-field coefficient. What one measures in experiment is $I_c(H)$. To measure $I_c$ at given $H$ one ramps the bias current $I$ up to find $I_c$, bute simultaneously the total applied field changes according to Eq. . As a result the whole $I_c(H)$ will be skewed along $H$ axis. Note several properties of this transformation: (a) the self-field effect preserves point-symmetry if $I_c(H)$ curve relative to origin, if any; (b) the height of all $I_c(H)$ maxima stays the same; (c) The minima with $I_c=0$ do not move.
The first suspicion that one may have is that the the point-symmetric shift of the crossing point (further x-point) of $I_c(H)$ branches (minimum between two main maxima) is caused fully by self-field effect alone. That is one assumes that the junction is symmetric ($l_0=l_\pi$ and $j_{c,0}= j_{c,\pi}$) and should have symmetric $I_c(H)$ with a minimum at $H=0$. From the experimental position $I_\mathrm{c,min}$ and $H_\mathrm{min}$ one can easily get $k_\mathrm{SF}=H_\mathrm{min}/I_\mathrm{c,min}$. However, the difference in maxima cannot be reproduced in this way. Therefore in the following we consider a mixture of self-field effect and asymmetry of the junctions parameters trying to obtain a better fit to experimental $I_c(H)$ dependence.
First, if one assumes uniform remanent magnetization of the F-layer, the experimental $I_c(H)$ is expected to be point-symmetric with respect to the origin $I_c=H=0$. In our experiment it is roughly so, , $+I_c(H)$ and point-reflected $-I_c(H)$ in Fig. \[Fig:ExpIc(H)\]. The asymmetry, if any, is caused by different megnetization of $0$ and $\pi$ parts or even more general $M(x)$ profile. At this moment we ignore the small point-asymmetry.
Finally, we would like to stress that the the self-field effect, if any, only shifts $H_\mathrm{min}$, which may affect the value of $\varphi$ that we find from experimental data not taking a self-field into account. The fact that we still have x-point and, therefore, two critical currents remains. This means that we are still dealing with a bistable system with two energy minima.
Conclusions {#Sec:Conclusions}
===========
Actually we’ve made a lot of stuff: extended theory for $|\xi(x)\sin\psi|\ll1$ to the case of $L_0\neq L_\pi$ and $j_{c,0}\neq|j_{c,\pi}|$; wrote solution for semifluxon in infinite asymmetric LJJ, ... We have extended our previous results [@Goldobin:2011:0-pi:H-tunable-CPR] to the case of arbitrary critical current densities $j_{c,0}\neq j_{c,\pi}$ more relevant for experiment[@Sickinger:varphiExp]. The dependence of the CPR on the phase and applied field is the same as in our previous study[@Goldobin:2011:0-pi:H-tunable-CPR]. The difference is in the formulas for $\Gamma_0$ and $\Gamma_h$.
Semifluxon in asymmetric 0-$\pi$ JJ {#Sec:Asym-0-pi-LJJ.Semifluxon}
===================================
Consider an infinite asymmetric 0-$\pi$ LJJ with $j_{c,0}\neq j_{c,\pi}$. We assume that 0-part is situated at $x<0$ and $\pi$ part at $x>0$. Then the phase is given by the fluxon tails $$\phi(x) =
\begin{cases}
4\arctan\exp\left( \ratio{x-x_0 }{\lambda_{J,0 }} \right) & x<0\\
\\
4\arctan\exp\left( \ratio{x-x_\pi}{\lambda_{J,\pi}} \right) -\pi & x>0
\end{cases}
. \label{Eq:mu(x):general}$$ At 0-$\pi$ boundary at $x=0$ the phase and its derivative (magnetic field) must be continuous, , $$\begin{aligned}
\arctan(z_0) &=& \arctan(z_\pi)-\frac{\pi}{4}
; \label{Eq:BC0:phase}\\
\frac{1}{\lambda_{J,0}}\frac{z_0}{1+z_0^2}&=&\frac{1}{\lambda_{J,\pi}}\frac{z_\pi}{1+z_\pi^2}
, \label{Eq:BC0:field}\end{aligned}$$ where $$z_0 = \exp\left( \frac{-x_0 }{\lambda_{J,0 }} \right)
,\quad
z_\pi= \exp\left( \frac{-x_\pi}{\lambda_{J,\pi}} \right)
.\label{Eq:Def:z}$$ By taking a $\tan(\ldots)$ of the both sides of Eq. we get $$\begin{aligned}
z_0 &=& \frac{z_\pi-1}{z_\pi+1}
; \label{Eq:e0(e_pi)}\\
\frac{1}{\lambda_{J,0}}\frac{z_0}{1+z_0^2}&=&\frac{1}{\lambda_{J,\pi}}\frac{z_\pi}{1+z_\pi^2}
, \label{Eq:BC0:field:1}\end{aligned}$$ Solving for $z_0$ and $z_\pi$ we obtain two roots (for each of them). The negative root makes no sense since $z_0$ and $z_\pi$ are positive by definition. Thus, the remaining positive roots are
$$\begin{aligned}
z_\pi = \sqrt{\frac{|j_{c,\pi}|}{j_{c,0}}+1} + \sqrt{\frac{|j_{c,\pi}|}{j_{c,0}}} \geq 1
; \label{Eq:Sol:z_pi}\\
z_0 = \sqrt{\frac{j_{c,0}}{|j_{c,\pi}|}+1} - \sqrt{\frac{j_{c,0}}{|j_{c,\pi}|}} \leq 1
. \label{Eq:Sol:z_0}
\end{aligned}$$
\[Eq:Sol:z\]
From here, taking into account definitions , we get
$$\begin{aligned}
x_\pi = -\lambda_{J,\pi} \ln
\left( \sqrt{\frac{|j_{c,\pi}|}{j_{c,0}}+1} + \sqrt{\frac{|j_{c,\pi}|}{j_{c,0}}} \right) \leq0
; \label{Eq:Sol:x_pi}\\
x_0 = -\lambda_{J,0 } \ln
\left( \sqrt{\frac{j_{c,0}}{|j_{c,\pi}|}+1} - \sqrt{\frac{j_{c,0}}{|j_{c,\pi}|}} \right) \geq0
. \label{Eq:Sol:x_0}
\end{aligned}$$
\[Eq:Sol:x\]
Approximating the integral of $\ln(z)/(1+z^2)$ {#Sec:M(z)}
==============================================
Here we derive an approximate expression for the following function $(Z\geq0)$ $$M(z) = -\int_0^z \frac{\ln(u)}{1+u^2} \,du
. \label{Eq:Def:M(z)}$$ Note that $u=1$ is a special point where $\ln(u)$ changes sign so that for $z<1$ the integral $M(z)>0$ and grows with $z$, while for $z>1$ the function $M(z)$ decreases, see Fig. \[Fig:M(z)\]. Moreover, by introducing a new variable $v=1/u$ one can immediately prove that $$M(z) = M(1/z)
. \label{Eq:M(z).reciprocity}$$ In particular, $M(0)=M(+\infty)=0$.
![ The function $M(z)$ (continuous line) calculated directly from definition and its approximations $M_0(z)$ (dotted line) and $M_1(z)$ (dashed line) calculated using Eqs. and . []{data-label="Fig:M(z)"}](M(Z))
The integrand of Eq. can be represented as a series $$\frac{\ln(u)}{1+u^2} = \sum_{n=0}^{N} (-1)^n u^{2n}\ln(u)
, \label{Eq:Integrand.SerPresent}$$ with $N=\infty$, which converges only for $u \leq 1$.
If $z\leq1$, then $u \leq 1$ too, and the series always converges. By integrating it, one obtains $${\cal M}_N(z) = -\sum_{n=0}^N (-1)^n \frac{z^{2n+1}}{(2n+1)^2} \left[ (2n+1)\ln(z)-1 \right]
. \label{Eq:_M(z)}$$ If $z>1$ one uses relation to make argument $z<1$ and again use the sum with the argument $1/z<1$, , $$M_N(z) = \begin{cases}
{\cal M}_N(z) & Z\leq1\\
{\cal M}_N(1/z) & Z>1
\end{cases}
, \label{Eq:M_N(z)}$$ The sum converges very fast. Therefore, one can approximate it very well by taking only the few first terms, , finite $N$ instead of $N=\infty$. The plots of $M(z)$ and its approximation by finite $N$ are shown in Fig. \[Fig:M(z)\]. One can see that the deviation has a maximum at $Z=1$ (boundary of convergence interval) and is less than few percents even for $N=0$. For example, $M(1)=0.916$, while $M_0(1)=1.000$, $M_1(1)=0.889$, $M_2(1)=0.929$, $M_3(1)=0.908$. Thus, for most practical purposes one can simply use $M_0(z)$ or $M_1(z)$.
The dependence of the $\varphi(L_0,L_\pi)$ at $L_0\gg\lambda_{J,0}$, $L_\pi\gg\lambda_{J,\pi}$ {#Sec:Asym-0-pi-LJJ.AvPhase}
==============================================================================================
Our aim is to calculate $$\varphi=\av{\phi(x)} \equiv \frac{1}{L_0+L_\pi}\int_{-L_0}^{+L_\pi} \phi(x)
, \label{Eq:Def:phi_av}$$ in the limit of $L_0,\,L_\pi\to\infty$. In this limit the phase $\phi(x)$ is given by Eq. .
First, we find the value of integral in 0 domain, , we integrate from $-L_0$ to 0. By introducing a new integration variable $$y = \frac{x-x_0}{\lambda_{J,0}}$$ and, correspondingly, new integration limits $$y_0 =\frac{-x_0 }{\lambda_{J,0 }},\quad y_{L_0 } = \frac{-L_0 -x_0 }{\lambda_{J,0 }},$$ after integration by parts, we get $$\lambda_{J,0}\left[\left. 4 y \arctan e^y \right|_{y_{L_0}}^{y_0}
-\int_{y_{L_0}}^{y_0} 4 \arctan e^y\, dy\right]
. \label{Eq:int0(y)}$$ Further, we introduce a new integration variable, , Eq. , $$z = e^y\text{, so that }z_0=e^{y_0}\text{ and }z_{L_0} = e^{y_{L_0}}
, $$ and Eq. becomes $$\lambda_{J,0}\left[ \left. 4 \ln(z)\arctan(z) \right|_{z_{L_0}}^{z_0}
- 4\int_{z_{L_0}}^{z_0} \frac{\ln z}{1+z^2} \,dz\right]
. \label{Eq:int0(z)}$$ The value of $z_{L_0}$ is exponentially small for large $L_0$. Therefeore, $\ln(z_{L_0})\arctan(z_{L_0})$ as well as the the lower integration limit $z_{L_0}$ can be substituted by 0 with exponential accuracy. Thus, we obtain $$\lambda_{J,0}\left[ 4 \ln(z_0)\arctan(z_0) + 4 M(z_0)\right]
, \label{Eq:int0(z_0)}$$ where the function $M(z)$ is defined by Eq. and can be calculated as discussed in appendix \[Sec:M(z)\]. Note, that according to Eq. $z_0<1$, , one can take a series ${\cal M}_N(z_0)$, see Eq. .
The calculation of the average phase in $\pi$ domain follows the same procedure. Now $$y = \frac{x-x_\pi}{\lambda_{J,\pi}}$$ and, correspondingly, new integration limits $$y_\pi =\frac{-x_\pi}{\lambda_{J,\pi}},\quad y_{L_\pi} = \frac{L_\pi-x_\pi}{\lambda_{J,\pi}}
, \label{Eq:Def:y_pi}$$ after integration by parts, we get $$-\pi L_\pi
+\lambda_{J,\pi}\left[\left. 4 y \arctan e^y \right|_{y_\pi}^{y_{L_\pi}}
-\int_{y_\pi}^{y_{L_\pi}} 4 \arctan e^y\, dy\right]
. \label{Eq:int_pi(y)}$$ Further, we introduce a new integration variable, , Eq. , $$z = e^y\text{, so that }z_\pi=e^{y_\pi}\text{ and }z_{L_\pi} = e^{y_{L_\pi}}
, \label{Eq:Def:z_pi}$$ and Eq. becomes $$-\pi L_\pi
+\lambda_{J,\pi}\left[ \left. 4 \ln(z)\arctan(z) \right|_{z_\pi}^{z_{L_\pi}}
- 4\int_{z_\pi}^{z_{L_\pi}} \frac{\ln z}{1+z^2} \,dz\right]
. \label{Eq:int_pi(z)}$$ The value of $z_{L_\pi}$ is exponentially large so that the limit of integration can be substituted by $+\infty$ and $\arctan(z_{L_\pi})$ can be substituted by $2\pi$ with exponential accuracy. Thus, we obtain $$-\pi L_\pi
+ \lambda_{J,\pi}\left[ 2\pi \ln(z_{L_\pi}) - 4 \ln(z_\pi)\arctan(z_\pi) - 4 M(z_\pi)\right]
. \label{Eq:int_pi(z_pi)}$$ By using a definitions and the first term in the braces can be expanded to have $L_\pi$ explicitely. Further, according to Eq. $z_\pi>1$, , one should make use of relation and obtain $$+\pi L_\pi
+ \lambda_{J,\pi}\left[ \ln(z_\pi)(2\pi - 4 \arctan(z_\pi)) - 4 {\cal M}(1/z_\pi)\right]
. \label{Eq:int_pi(z_pi).final}$$ Finally, combining Eqs. and and embedding them into Eq. we obtain
$$\varphi = \frac{
\lambda_{J,0}\left[ 4 \ln(z_0)\arctan(z_0) + 4 {\cal M}(z_0)\right]
+\pi L_\pi
+ \lambda_{J,\pi}\left[ \ln(z_\pi)(2\pi - 4 \arctan(z_\pi)) - 4 {\cal M}(1/z_\pi)\right]
}{L_0+L_\pi}
. \label{Eq:Res:varphi@L=inf}$$
Note that the values of $z_0$, $z_\pi$ in Eq. are just constants defined by $j_{c,0}$ and $j_{c,\pi}$ and given by Eq. .
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
Clément [Cancès]{} (corresponding author),\
Université de Provence,\
39, rue F. Joliot Curie, 13453 Marseille Cedex 13.\
[email protected]\
Thierry [Gallouët]{},\
Université de Provence,\
39, rue F. Joliot Curie, 13453 Marseille Cedex 13.\
[email protected]\
Alessio ,\
Università di Roma Tor Vergata,\
Via della Ricerca Scientifica 1, 00133 Roma.\
[email protected]
title: 'Two-phase flows involving capillary barriers in heterogeneous porous media.'
---
\
[**Keywords.**]{} flows in porous media, capillarity, nonlinear PDE of parabolic type.
Presentation of the problem
===========================
The models of immiscible two-phase flows are widely used in petroleum engineering, particularly in basin modeling, whose aim can be the prediction of the migration of hydrocarbon components at geological time scale in a sedimentary basin.
The heterogeneousness of the porous medium leads to the phenomena of oil-trapping and oil-expulsion, which is modeled with discontinuous capillary pressures between the different geological layers.
The physical principles models and the mathematical models can be found in [@AS79; @Bear72; @CJ86; @vDMdN95; @Ench]. The phenomenon of capillary trapping has been completed only in simplified cases (see [@BPvD03]), and several numerical methods have been developed (see e.g. [@EEN98; @EEM06]).
The aim of this paper is to introduce a new notion of weak solution, which allows us to deal with more general cases than those treated in [@EEM06], while it is equivalent to the notion of weak solution introduced in [@EEM06] on the already treated cases. We will consider a simplified model defined page , in which the convection is neglected,
We then give a uniqueness result in the one dimensional case which is inspired from the result in [@BPvD03] and extends this latter one to more general situations, by requiring weaker assumptions on the solutions and applying to a larger class of initial data.
We have to make some assumptions on the heterogeneous porous medium:
\[geom\][**(Geometrical assumptions)**]{}
1. The heterogeneous porous medium is represented by a polygonal bounded connected domain $\O\subset{\mathbb{R}}^d$ with $meas_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}(\O)>0$, where $meas_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}$ is the Lebesgue’s measure of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$.
2. There exists a finite number $N$ of polygonal connected subdomains $(\O_i)_{1\le i\le N}$ of $\O$ such that:
1. for all $i\in\IN$, $meas_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}(\O_i)>0$,
2. $\ds \bigcup_{i=1}^N \overline\O_i=\overline \O$,
3. for $(i,j)\in\IN^2$ with $i\neq j$, $\O_i\cap\O_j=\emptyset$.
Each $\O_i$ represents an homogeneous porous medium. One denotes, for all $(i,j)\in\IN^2$, $\Gij\subset\O$ the interface between the geological layers $\O_i$ and $\O_j$, defined by $\overline\G_{ij}=\partial\O_i\cap\partial\O_j$.
![An example for the domain $\Omega$ []{data-label="domaine"}](domaine)
We consider an incompressible and immiscible oil-water flow through $\O$, and thus through each $\O_i$. Using Darcy’s law, the conservation of oil and water phases is given for all $(x,t)\in\OiT$, $$\label{modele1}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\ds \phi_i\partial_t u_i(x,t) -\div\big{(}\eta_{o,i}(u_i(x,t))
(\grad p_{o,i}(x,t)-\rho_o {\bf g})\big{)}=0,\\
-\ds \phi_i\partial_t u_i(x,t) -\div\big{(}\eta_{w,i}(u_i(x,t))
(\grad p_{w,i}(x,t)-\rho_w {\bf g})\big{)}=0,\\
p_{o,i}(x,t)-p_{w,i}(x,t)=\pi_i(u_i(x,t)),
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $u_i\in[0,1]$ is the oil saturation in $\O_i$ (and therefore $1-u_i$ the water saturation), $\phi_i\in\ ]0,1[$ is the porosity of $\O_i$, which is supposed to be constant in each $\O_i$ for the sake of simplicity, $\pi_i(u_i(x,t))$ is the capillary pressure, and ${\bf g}$ is the gravity acceleration. The indices $o$ and $w$ respectively stand for the oil and the water phase. Thus, for $\sigma=o,w$, $p_{\sigma,i}$ is the pressure of the phase $\sigma$, $\eta_{\sigma,i}$ is the mobility of the phase $\sigma$, and $\rho_\sigma$ is the density of the phase $\sigma$.
We have now to make assumptions on the data to explicit the transmission conditions through the interfaces $\Gij$:
\[pii\_li\] [**(Assumptions on the data)**]{}
1. for all $i\in\IN$, $\pi_i\in C^1([0,1],{\mathbb{R}})$, with $\pi'_i(x)>0$ for $x\in]0,1[$,
2. for all $i\in\IN$, $\eta_{o,i}\in C^0([0,1],{\mathbb{R}}_+)$ is an increasing function fulfilling $\eta_{o,i}(0)=0$,
3. for all $i\in\IN$, $\eta_{w,i}\in C^0([0,1],{\mathbb{R}}_+)$ is a decreasing function fulfilling $\eta_{w,i}(1)=0$,
4. the initial data $u_0$ belongs to $L^\infty(\O)$, $0\le u_0 \le 1$.
One denotes $\a_i=\lim_{s\rightarrow0}\pi_i(s)$ and $\b_i=\lim_{s\rightarrow1}
\pi_i(s)$. We can now define the monotonous graphs $\tilde\pi_i$ by: $$\label{tpii}
\t\pi_i(s)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\ds \pi_i(s) &\text{ if } s\in]0,1[,\\
\ds ]-\infty,\a_i]& \text{ if } s=0,\\
\ds [\b_i,+\infty[ &\text{ if } s=1.
\end{array}\right.$$
![Graphs for the capillary pressures[]{data-label="pression_nb"}](pression_nb)
As it is exposed in [@EEM06], the following conditions must be satisfied on the traces of $u_i$, $p_{\sigma,i}$ and $\grad p_{\sigma,i}$ on $\GijT$, still denoted respectively $u_i$, $p_{\sigma,i}$ and $\grad p_{\sigma,i}$ (see [@Bear72]):
1. for any $\sigma=o,w$, $(i,j)\in \IN^2$ such that $\Gij\neq\emptyset$, the flux of the phase $\sigma$ through $\Gij$ must be continuous: $$\label{flux}
\eta_{\sigma,i}(u_i)(\grad p_{\sigma,i}-\rho_\sigma{\bf g})\cdot{\bf n}_i+
\eta_{\sigma,j}(u_j)(\grad p_{\sigma,j}-\rho_\sigma{\bf g})\cdot{\bf n}_j=0,$$ where ${\bf n}_i$ denotes the outward normal of $\Gij$ to $\O_i$;
2. for any $\sigma=o,w$, $(i,j)\in \IN^2$ such that $\Gij\neq\emptyset$, either $p_\sigma$ is continuous or $\eta_\sigma=0$. Since the saturation is itself discontinuous across $\Gij$, one must express the mobility at the upstream side of the interface. This gives $$\label{raccord_pressions_partielle}
\eta_{\sigma,i}(u_i)(p_{\sigma,i}-p_{\sigma,j})^+-\eta_{\sigma,j}(u_j)(p_{\sigma,j}-p_{\sigma,i})^+=0.$$
The conditions (\[raccord\_pressions\_partielle\]) have direct consequences on the behaviour of the capillary pressures on both side of $\Gij$. Indeed, if $0<u_i,u_j<1$, then the partial pressures $p_o$ and $p_w$ have both to be continuous, and so we have the connection of the capillary pressures $\pi_i(u_i)=\pi_j(u_j)$. If $u_i=0$ and $0<u_j<1$, then $p_{o,i} \ge p_{o,j}$ and $p_{w,i}=p_{w,j}$, thus $\pi_j(u_j)\le \pi_i(0)$. The same way, $u_i=1$ and $0<u_j<1$ implies $\pi_j(u_j)\ge \pi_i(1)$. If $u_i=0$, $u_j=1$, then $p_{o,i}\ge p_{o,j}$ and $p_{w,i}\le p_{w,j}$, so $\pi_i(0)\ge\pi_j(1)$. Checking that the definition of the graphs $\t\pi_i$ and $\t\pi_j$ implies $\t\pi_i(0)\cap\t\pi_j(0)\neq\emptyset$, $\t\pi_i(1)\cap\t\pi_j(1)\neq\emptyset$, we can claim that (\[raccord\_pressions\_partielle\]) leads to: $$\label{raccord_pi1}
\t\pi_i(u_i)\cap\t\pi_j(u_j)\neq\emptyset.$$ We introduce the global pressure in $\O_i$ $$\label{pression_globale}
\overline{p}_i (x,t)=p_{w,i}(x,t)+\int_0^{u_i(x,t)}\frac{\eta_{o,i}(a)}{\eta_{o,i}(a)+\eta_{w,i}(a)}
\pi'_i(a)\text{d}a$$ (see e.g. [@AKM90] or [@CJ86]), and the global mobility in $\O_i$ $$\label{mobilite_globale}
\l_i(u_i(x,t))=\frac{\eta_{o,i}(u_i(x,t))\eta_{w,i}(u_i(x,t))}{\eta_{o,i}(u_i(x,t))+\eta_{w,i}(u_i(x,t))}$$ which verifies $\l_i(0)=\l_i(1)=0$, and $\l_i(s)>0$ for $0<s<1$. Taking into account (\[pression\_globale\]) and (\[mobilite\_globale\]) in (\[modele1\]), and adding the conservation laws leads to, for $(x,t)\in\OiT$: $$\label{systeme_complet}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\ds\phi_i\partial_t u_i(x,t) - \div\big{(}\eta_{o,i}(u_i(x,t))(\grad\overline{p}_i(x,t)-\rho_o {\bf g})-\l_i(u_i(x,t)) \grad \pi_i(u_i(x,t))\big{)}=0,\\
\ds -\div\left(\sum_{\sigma=o,w}\eta_{\sigma,i}(u_i(x,t))(\grad\overline{p}_i(x,t)-\rho_\sigma {\bf g})\right)=0.
\end{array}
\right.$$
We neglect the convective effects, so that we focus on the mathematical modeling of flows with discontinuous capillary pressures, which seem to necessary to explain the phenomena of oil trapping. This simplification will allow us to neglect the coupling with the second equation of (\[systeme\_complet\]), and we get the simple degenerated parabolic equation in $\OiT$: $$\label{parabolic}
\phi_i\partial_t u_i(x,t) -\div(\l_i(u_i(x,t))\grad\pi_i(u_i(x,t)))=0\quad \text{ in }\OiT.$$ In this simplified framework, the transmission condition on the fluxes through $\Gij$ can be rewritten: $$\label{flux_simples}
\l_i(u_i(x,t))\grad(\pi_i(u_i(x,t)))\cdot {\bf n}_i+\l_j(u_j(x,t))\grad(\pi_j(u_j(x,t)))\cdot {\bf n}_j=0 \quad \text{on }\GijT.$$ We suppose furthermore that $u_i(x,0)=u_0(x)$ for $x\in \O_i$. In the remainder of this paper, we suppose to take a homogeneous Neumann boundary condition, The existence of a weak solution proven in section \[existence\] can be extended to the case of non-homogeneous Dirichlet conditions. Nevertheless, homogeneous Neumann boundary conditions are needed to prove the theorem \[regularity\_graph\], and thus to prove the conclusion theorem \[existence\_SOLA\]
Taking into account the equations (\[raccord\_pi1\]), (\[parabolic\]), (\[flux\_simples\]), the boundary condition, and the initial condition, we can write the problem we aim to solve this way: for all $i\in\IN$, for all $j\in\IN$ such that $\Gij\neq\emptyset$, $$\label{P}\tag{$\mathcal{P}$}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\phi_i\partial_t u_i -\div(\l_i(u_i)\grad\pi_i(u_i))=0 &\text{in }\OiT,\\
\t\pi_i(u_i)\cap\t\pi_j(u_j)\neq\emptyset & \text{on }\GijT,\\
\l_i(u_i)\grad(\pi_i(u_i))\cdot {\bf n}_i+\l_j(u_j)\grad(\pi_j(u_j))\cdot {\bf n}_j=0 & \text{on }\GijT,\\
\l_i(u_i)\grad(\pi_i(u_i))\cdot {\bf n}_i=0 &\text{on }\partial\O_i\cap\partial\OT,\\
u_i(\cdot,0)=u_0(x) &\text{in }\O_i.
\end{array}\right.$$
All the results presented in this paper still hold if one not neglects the effect of the gravity and if one assumes that the global pressure is known, that is for problems of the type : $$\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\ds\phi_i \partial_t u_i + \div \left( {\bf q} f_i(u_i) + \l_i(u_i) (\rho_o - \rho_w) {\bf g}
\ds- \l_i(u_i) \grad \pi_i(u_i) \right) =0 &\textrm{in }\OiT, \\
\ds\t\pi_i(u_i)\cap\t\pi_j(u_j)\neq\emptyset & \text{on }\GijT, \\
\ds \sum_{k=i,j}\left( {\bf q} f_k(u_k) + \l_k(u_k) (\rho_o - \rho_w) {\bf g}
- \l_k(u_k) \grad \pi_k(u_k) \right)\cdot{\bf n}_k = 0 &\text{on }\GijT, \\
\ds \left( {\bf q} f_i(u_i) + \l_i(u_i) (\rho_o - \rho_w) {\bf g}
- \l_i(u_i) \grad \pi_i(u_i) \right)\cdot{\bf n}_i =0 &\text{on }\partial\O_i\cap\partial\OT,\\
\ds u_i(\cdot,0)=u_0(x) &\text{in }\O_i,
\end{array}\right.$$ where $f_i$ is supposed to be a $C^1([0,1],{\mathbb{R}})$-increasing function, $\l_i$ is also supposed to belong to $C^1([0,1],{\mathbb{R}}_+)$ and ${\bf q}$ satisfies
- $\forall i$, ${\bf q}\in \left( C^1(\overline\O_i\times[0,T])\right)^d$,
- $\div{\bf q} =0$ in $\OiT$,
- ${\bf q}_{|\O_i}\cdot{\bf n}_i+ {\bf q}_{|\O_j}\cdot{\bf n}_j =0$ on $\GijT$,
- ${\bf q}\cdot {\bf n} =0$.
In order to ensure the uniqueness result stated in theorem \[prop\_unicite\], the technical condition (see [@AL83] or [@Otto96]) has to be fulfilled: $$\forall i,\qquad f_i\circ\varphi_i^{-1}, \l_i\circ\varphi_i^{-1} \in C^{0,1/2}([0,\phii(1)],{\mathbb{R}}).$$
In the modeling of two-phase flows, irreducible saturations are often taken into account. One can suppose that there exists $s_i$ and $S_i$ ($0<s_i<S_i<1$) such that $\l_i(s)=0$ if $s\notin (s_i,S_i)$. In such a case, the problem becomes strongly degenerated, but a convenient scaling eliminates this difficulty (at least if $s_i\le u_0 \le S_i$ a.e. in $\O_i$). Moreover, the dependance of the capillary pressure with regard to the saturation can be weak, at least for saturations not too close to $0$ or $1$. Thus the effects of the capillarity are often neglected for the study of flows in homogeneous porous media, leading to the Buckley-Leverett equation (see e.g. [@GMT96]). Looking for degeneracy of $u\mapsto\pi_i(u)$ is a more complex problem, particularly if the convection is not neglected as above. Suppose for example that $\pi_i(u) = {\varepsilon}u+ P_i$, where $P_i$ are constants, and let ${\varepsilon}$ tend $0$. Non-classical shocks can appear at the level of the interfaces $\Gij$ (see [@non-classic]). Thus the notion of entropy solution used by Adimurthi, J. Jaffr[é]{}, and G.D. Veerappa Gowda [@AJV03] is not sufficient to deal with this problem. This difficulty has to be overcome to consider degenerate parabolic problem. But it seems clear that the notion of entropy solution developed by K.H. Karlsen, N.H. Risebro, J.D. Towers [@KRT02a; @KRT02b; @KRT03] is not adapted to our problem.
The notion of weak solution {#notion}
===========================
In this section, we introduce the notion of weak solution to the problem (\[P\]), which is more general than the notion of weak solution given in [@Ench; @EEM06]. Indeed, we are able to define such a solution even in the case of an arbitrary finite number of different homogeneous porous media. Furthermore, the notion of weak solution introduced in this paper is still available in cases where the one defined in [@EEM06] has no more sense. We finally show that the two notions of solution are equivalent in the case where the notion of weak solution in the sense of [@EEM06] is well defined. The existence of a weak solution to problem (\[P\]) in a wider case is the aim of the section \[existence\].
One denotes by $\phii$ the $C^1([0,1],{\mathbb{R}}_+)$ function which naturally appears in the problem (\[P\]) and which is defined by: $\forall s\in[0,1]$, $$\label{phii_graph}
\phii(s)=\int_0^s \l_i(a)\pi'_i(a)da.$$
\[phii\_invers\] The assumptions on the data insure that $\phii'>0$ on $]0,1[$, and so we can define an increasing continuous function $\phii^{-1}:
[0,\phii(1)]\rightarrow [0,1]$.
We are now able to define the notion of weak solution to the problem (\[P\]).
\[gws\] Under assumptions \[geom\] and \[pii\_li\], a function $u$ is said to be a weak solution to the problem (\[P\]) if it verifies:
1. $u\in L^\infty(\OT)), 0\le u\le 1 \text{ a.e. in }\OT$,
2. $\forall i\in\IN$, $\phii(u_i)\in L^2(0,T;H^1(\O_i))$, where $u_i$ denotes the restriction of $u$ to $\OiT$,
3. $\t\pi_i(u_i)\cap\t\pi_j(u_j)\neq\emptyset \text{ a.e. on } \G_{i,j}\times(0,T)$,
4. for all $\psi\in {\mathcal{D}}(\overline{\O}\times [0,T))$, $$\label{gws_eq}
\begin{array}{c}
\ds\SiN\int_{\O_i}\int_0^T \phi_i u_i(x,t)\partial_t\psi(x,t)dxdt +\SiN\int_{\O_i}\phi_i u_0(x)\psi(x,0)dx\\
\ds-\SiN\int_{\O_i}\int_0^T \grad\phii(u_i(x,t))\cdot\grad\psi(x,t) dxdt=0.
\end{array}$$
The third point of the previous definition, which insures the connection in the graph sense of the capillary pressures on the interfaces between several porous media, is well defined. Indeed, since $\phii(u_i)$ belongs to $L^2(0,T;H^1(\O_i))$, it admits a trace still denoted $\phii(u_i)$ on $\GijT$. Thanks to the remark \[phii\_invers\], we can define the trace of $u_i$ on $\GijT$.
\[3bis\] One can equivalently substitute the condition: $$3 bis.\ \ \ \breve{\pi}_i(u_i)\cap\breve{\pi}_j(u_j)\neq\emptyset \text{ a.e. on } \G_{i,j}\times(0,T),$$ to the third point of the definition \[gws\], where $\breve{\pi}_i$ is the monotonous graph given by: $$\label{bpii}
\breve{\pi}_i(s)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\ds \pi_i(s) &\text{ if } s\in]0,1[,\\
\ds [\min_{j}(\a_j),\a_i]& \text{ if } s=0,\\
\ds [\b_i,\max_j(\b_j)] &\text{ if } s=1.
\end{array}\right.$$
We will now quickly show the equivalence between the notion of weak solution to the problem (\[P\]) and the notion of weak solution given in [@EEM06], in the case where this one is well defined, i.e. $N=2$ and $\max(\a_1,\a_2)=\a<\b=\min(\b_1,\b_2)$. We denote as in [@EEM06] the truncated capillary pressures by $\h\pi_1= \max(\a,\pi_1)$, $\h\pi_2=\min(\b,\pi_2)$, and we introduce the problem (\[P2\]), which is treated in [@EEM06]. $$\label{P2}\tag{$\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}$}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\phi_i\partial_t u_i -\div(\l_i(u_i)\grad\pi_i(u_i))=0 &\text{in }\OiT,\\
\h\pi_1(u_1)=\h\pi_2(u_2)& \text{on }\GijT,\\
\l_1(u_1)\grad(\pi_1(u_1))\cdot {\bf n}_1+\l_2(u_2)\grad(\pi_2(u_2))\cdot
{\bf n}_2=0 & \text{on }\GijT,\\
\l_i(u_i)\grad(\pi_i(u_i))\cdot {\bf n}_i=0 &\text{on }\partial\O_i\cap\partial\OT,\\
u_i(\cdot,0)=u_0(x) &\text{in }\O_i.
\end{array}\right.$$
![Truncated capillary pressures[]{data-label="pression_tronques_nb"}](pression_tronques_nb)
Then it is easy to check that: $\forall (s_1,s_2)\in[0,1]^2$, $$\label{graph&tronques}
\h\pi_1(s_1)=\h\pi_2(s_2) \LeftrightarrowÊ\t\pi_1(s_1)\cap\t\pi_2(s_2)\neq\emptyset
\LeftrightarrowÊ\breve{\pi}_1(s_1)\cap\breve{\pi}_2(s_2)\neq\emptyset.$$
In order to recall the definition of weak solution, we have to introduce the function $$\Psi:\left\{\begin{array}{l}
[\a,\b]\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}\\
\ds p\mapsto \int_\a^p \min_{j=1,2}(\l_j\circ\pi_j^{-1}(a))\textrm{d}a.
\end{array}\right.$$ $\Psi$ is increasing, and for $i=1,2$, $\Psi\circ\h\pi_i\circ\phii^{-1}$ is a Lipschitz continuous function.
\[weak\_sol\_graph\] A function $u$ is said to be a weak solution to the problem (\[P2\]) if it verifies:
1. $u\in L^\infty(\OT)), 0\le u\le 1 \text{ a.e. in }\OT$,
2. $\forall i\in\{1,2\}, \phii(u_i)\in L^2(0,T;H^1(\O_i))$,
3. $w:\OT\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}$, defined for $(x,t)\in \OiT$ by $w(x,t)=\Psi\circ\h\pi_i(u_i)(x,t)$ belongs to $L^2(0,T;H^1(\O))$,
4. for all $\psi\in {\mathcal{D}}(\overline{\O}\times [0,T))$, $$\begin{array}{c}
\ds\SiN \int_{\O_i}\int_0^T \phi_i u_i(x,t)\partial_t\psi(x,t)dxdt +\SiN\int_{\O_i}\phi_i u_0(x)\psi(x,0)dx\\
\ds-\SiN\int_{\O_i}\int_0^T \grad\phii(u_i(x,t))\cdot\grad\psi(x,t) dxdt=0.
\end{array}$$
The notion of weak solution to the problem (\[P2\]) can be adapted in the case where there are $N>2$ homogeneous domains, but we have to keep conditions of compatibility on $(\a_i)_{1\le i\le N} $ and $(\b_i)_{1\le i\le N}$.
[**Proof of the equivalence of the weak solutions**]{}
On the one hand, if $u$ is a weak solution to the problem (\[P2\]) in the sense of definition \[weak\_sol\_graph\], then for a.e. $t\in(0,T)$, $w(\cdot,t)\in H^1(\O)$,and particularly $w(\cdot,t)$ admits a trace on $\Gij$, whose value is in the same time $\Psi(\h\pi_i(u_i(\cdot,t)))$ and $\Psi(\h\pi_j(u_j(\cdot,t)))$. Since $\Psi$ in increasing, for a.e $(x,t)\in\GijT$, $\h\pi_i(u_i(x,t))=\h\pi_j(u_j(x,t))$. Using (\[graph&tronques\]), we conclude that any weak solution to the problem (\[P2\]) is a weak solution to the problem (\[P\]) in the sense of definition \[gws\].
On the other hand, if $u$ is a weak solution to the problem (\[P\]) in the sense of definition \[gws\], then thanks to (\[graph&tronques\]), for almost every $(x,t)\in\GijT$, $$\label{graph_ench}
\h\pi_i(u_i(x,t))=\h\pi_j(u_j(x,t)) \Leftrightarrow \Psi\circ\h\pi_i\circ\phii^{-1}(\phii(u_i(x,t)))=\Psi\circ\h\pi_j\circ\phij^{-1}(\phij(u_j(x,t))).$$ Since $\Psi\circ\h\pi_i\circ\phii^{-1}$ is a Lipschitz continuous function, the second point in definition \[gws\] insures us that $\Psi\circ\h\pi_i(u_i)$ belongs to $L^2(0,T,H^1(\O_i))$ for $i=1,2$, and (\[graph\_ench\]) insures the connection of the traces on $\GijT$, then the third point of definition \[weak\_sol\_graph\] is fulfilled and $u$ is a weak solution to the problem (\[P2\]). [$\blacksquare$]{}
We can define a [*function*]{} $\t\pi^{-1}_i, i\in\IN$, which verifies $\t\pi^{-1}_i\circ\t\pi_i(s)=s$ for any $s\in [0,1]$. Using the function defined on ${\mathbb{R}}$ by $\t\Psi(p)=\int_{-\infty}^p \min_{j=1,2}(\l_j\circ\t\pi_j^{-1}(a))
\textrm{d}a$, it is easy to check that we can equivalently substitute the function $\t\Psi\circ\pi_i(u_i)$ to $\Psi\circ\h\pi_i(u_i)$ in the third point of definition \[weak\_sol\_graph\]. This function is still defined if $\a\ge\b$, but it becomes identically $0$, so the notion of weak solution to the problem (\[P2\]) is weaker than the notion of weak solution to the problem (\[P\]). Indeed, in such a case, $u(x,t)=u_0(x)=a\in]0,1[$ for any $(x,t)\in\OT$ is a weak solution to the problem (\[P2\]), but it does not fulfill the third point in definition \[gws\].
Existence of a weak solution {#existence}
============================
The aim of this section is to prove the following theorem, which claims the existence of a weak solution to the problem (\[P\]). This result has already been proven in section \[notion\] in the case $N=2$ and $\a>\b$, for which the notion of weak solution in the sense of definition \[gws\] is equivalent to the notion of weak solution in the sense of definition \[weak\_sol\_graph\].
\[thm\_existence\] Under assumptions \[geom\] and \[pii\_li\], there exists a weak solution to problem (\[P\]) in the sense of definition \[gws\].
In order to prove the existence of a weak solution to the problem (\[P\]) in the sense of the definition \[gws\], we build a sequence of solutions to approximated problems (\[Pn\]), which converges, up to a subsequence, toward a weak solution to the problem (\[P\]). The approximated problems do not involve capillary barriers, so existence and uniqueness of such approximated solutions is given in [@NoDEA]. We let the proof of the following technical lemma to the reader.
\[phiin\] There exists sequences $(\l_{i,n})_n$, $(\pi_{i,n})_n$ belonging to $(C^\infty([0,1],{\mathbb{R}}))^{{\mathbb{N}}}$ such that, for $i\in\IN$, and for $n$ large enough:
- $\ds {\l_{i,n}}_{| [0,1/n]\cup[1-1/n,1]}=\frac{1}{n^2}$, $\ds \l_{i,n}(s)> \frac{1}{2n^2},$ for all $s\in[0,1]$, $\l_{i,n}\rightarrow \l_i$ uniformly on $[0,1]$,
- $\pi_{i,n}(0)=\pi_{j,n}(0) \rightarrow -\infty $, $\pi_{i,n}(1)=\pi_{j,n}(1) \rightarrow +\infty $, $Kn^{\frac{3}{2}}>\pi_{i,n}' \ge \ds\frac{1}{n}$, $\pi_{i,n}\rightarrow \pi_i$ in $L^1(0,1)$, $\pi_{i,n}\rightarrow \pi_i$ and $\pi_{i,n}'\rightarrow \pi_i'$ uniformly on any compact set of $]0,1[$,
- the function $\phiin\!: s\mapsto\!\! \int_0^s \l_{i,n}(a)\pi_{i,n}'(a)da$ furthermore fulfills $\phiin([0,1])=\phii([0,1])$ and $\phiin \rightarrow \phii$ in $W^{1,\infty}(0,1)$.
We also define the increasing functions: $$\Psi_n: \left\{\begin{array}{l}
[a_n,b_n]\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}\\
\ds p\mapsto \int_{a_n}^p \min_{j\in\IN}(\l_{j,n}\circ\pi_{j,n}^{-1}(a))
\textrm{d}a.
\end{array}\right.$$ The conditions on the functions on the intervals $[0,\frac{1}{n}]\cup[1-\frac{1}{n},1]$ insures that for any fixed large $n$, the functions $(\phiin\circ\pi_{i,n}^{-1}\circ\Psi_n^{-1})'$ are Lipschitz continuous. Then thanks to [@NoDEA], for all $n$, the approximated problems: $$\label{Pn}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\phi_i \partial_t u_{i,n} -\div(\l_{i,n}(u_{i,n})\grad\pi_{i,n}(u_{i,n}))=0
&\text{in }\OiT,\\
\pi_{i,n}(u_{i,n})=\pi_{j,n}(u_{j,n}) & \text{on }\GijT,\\
\l_{i,n}(u_{i,n})\grad(\pi_{i,n}(u_{i,n}))\!\cdot\! {\bf n}_i\!+\!\l_{j,n}(u_{j,n})
\grad(\pi_{j,n}(u_{j,n}))\!\cdot\! {\bf n}_j=0 & \text{on }\GijT,\\
\l_{i,n}(u_{i,n})\grad(\pi_{i,n}(u_{i,n}))\cdot {\bf n}_i=0 &\text{on }
\partial\O_i\cap\partial\OT,\\
u_{i,n}(x,0)=u_0(x) &\text{in }\O.
\end{array}\right.$$ admit a unique weak solution in the sense of definition \[weak\_sol\_n\] given below, and this solution belongs to $C([0,T],L^p(\O))$ for $1\le p<+\infty$.
\[weak\_sol\_n\] [**(Weak solutions for approximated problems)**]{}\
A function $u_n$ is said to be a weak solution to the problem (\[Pn\]) if it verifies:
1. $u_n\in L^\infty(\OT)), 0\le u_n\le 1 \text{ a.e. in }\OT$,
2. $\forall i\in\{1,2\}, \phiin(u_{i,n})\in L^2(0,T;H^1(\O_i))$,
3. $w_n:\OT\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}$, defined on $\OiT$ by $w_n=\Psi_n\circ\pi_{i,n}(u_{i,n})$ belongs to\
$L^2(0,T;H^1(\O))$,
4. for all $\psi\in {\mathcal{D}}(\O\times [0,T))$, $$\label{eq_n}
\begin{array}{c}
\ds\SiN \int_{\O_i}\int_0^T \phi_i u_{i,n}(x,t)\partial_t\psi(x,t)dxdt +\SiN\int_{\O_i} \phi_i u_0(x)\psi(x,0)dx\\
\ds-\SiN\int_{\O_i}\int_0^T \grad\phiin(u_{i,n}(x,t))\cdot\grad\psi(x,t) dxdt=0.
\end{array}$$
The proof of existence of a weak solution given in [@NoDEA], shows that for all $i\in\IN$, for all $n$, there exists $C_1>0$ not depending on $n$ such that, for all $i\in\IN$: $$\label{L2H1_estimate}
\| \phiin(u_{i,n})\|^2_{L^2(0,T;H^1(\O_i))} \le C_1\|\pi_{i,n}\|_{L^1(0,1)},$$ thus $( \phiin(u_{i,n}))_n$ is a bounded sequence of $L^2(0,T;H^1(\O_i))$ using lemma \[phiin\]. A study of the proof of the time translate estimate used in [@NoDEA; @EEM06], and detailed in [@EGH00 lemma 4.6] leads to the existence of $C_2$ not depending on $n$ such that: $$\label{time_trans}
\| \phiin(u_{i,n}(\cdot,\cdot+\tau))-\phiin(u_{i,n}(\cdot,\cdot))\|^2_{L^2(\O_i\times(0,T-\tau))}\le \tau C_2
\|\pi_{i,n}\|_{L^1(0,1)}\|\varphi_{i,n}'\|_{L^\infty(0,1)}.$$ Using lemma \[phiin\] once again, estimates (\[L2H1\_estimate\]), (\[time\_trans\]) allow us to apply Kolmogorov’s compactness criterion (see e.g. [@Bre83]), thus we can claim the relative compactness of the sequence $(\phiin(u_{i,n}))_n$ in $L^2(\OiT)$. There exists $f_i\in L^2(0,T;H^1(\O_i))$ such that $$\phiin(u_{i,n}) \rightarrow f_i \text{ in } L^2(\OiT),$$ $$\phiin(u_{i,n}) \rightarrow f_i \text{ weakly in }L^2(0,T;H^1(\O_i)).$$
Let us now recall a very useful lemma, classically called Minty trick, and introduced in this framework by Leray and Lions in the famous paper [@LL65].
Let $(\phi_n)_n$ be a sequence of non-decreasing functions with for all $n$, $\phi_n:{\mathbb{R}}\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}$, and let $\phi:{\mathbb{R}}\rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$ be a non-decreasing continuous function such that:
- $\phi_n\rightarrow \phi$ pointwise,
- there exists $g\in L^1_{loc}({\mathbb{R}})$ such that $|\phi_n|\le g$.
Let $\Oo$ be an open subset of ${\mathbb{R}}^k$, $k\ge 1$. Let $(u_n)_n\in (L^\infty(\Oo))^{\mathbb{N}}$, let $u\in L^\infty(\Oo)$ and let $f\in L^1(\Oo)$ such that:
- $u_n\rightarrow u$ in the $L^\infty(\Oo)$-weak-$\star$ sense,
- $\phi_n(u_n)\rightarrow f$ in $L^1(\Oo)$.
Then $$f=\phi(u).$$
Since $0\le u_{i,n} \le 1$, $(u_{i,n})_n$ converges up to a subsequence to $u_i$ in the $L^\infty(\OiT)$-weak-$\star$ sense. $(\phiin)_n$ converges uniformly toward $\phii$ on $[0,1]$, and we can easily check, using Minty trick, that $f_i=\phii(u_i)\in L^2(0,T;H^1(\O_i))$. Thus we can pass to the limit in the formulation (\[eq\_n\]) to obtain the wanted weak formulation: $$\begin{array}{c}
\ds\SiN\int_{\O_i}\int_0^T \phi_i u_i(x,t)\partial_t\psi(x,t)dxdt +\SiN \int_{\O_i} \phi_i u_0(x)\psi(x,0)dx\\
\ds-\SiN\int_{\O_i}\int_0^T \grad\phii(u_i(x,t))\cdot\grad\psi(x,t) dxdt=0.
\end{array}$$
The last point needed to achieve the proof of theorem \[thm\_existence\] is the convergence of the traces of the approximate solutions $(u_{i,n})_n$ on $\GijT$ toward the trace of $u_i$, and to verify that $\t\pi_i(u_i)\cap\t\pi_j(u_j)\neq\emptyset$ a.e. on $\GijT$.
Since $\O_i$ has a Lipschitz boundary, there exists an operator $P$, continuous from $H^1(\O_i)$ into $ H^1({\mathbb{R}}^d)$, and also from $L^2(\O_i)$ into $L^2({\mathbb{R}}^d)$, such that $Pv_{|\O_i}=v$ for all $v\in L^2(\O_i)$. Then $P$ is continuous from $H^s(\O_i)$ into $H^s({\mathbb{R}}^d)$ for all $s\in[0,1]$. One has, for all $v\in H^s(\O_i)$, $$\| v \|_{H^s(\O_i)}\le \| Pv \|_{H^s({\mathbb{R}}^d)}\le\|Pv\|_{H^1({\mathbb{R}}^d)}^s \|Pv\|_{L^2({\mathbb{R}}^d)}^{1-s}\le
C \|v \|_{H^1(\O_i)}^s \|v\|_{L^2(\O_i)}^{1-s}.$$ One deduces from the previous inequality and from (\[time\_trans\]) that for all $s\in ]0,1[$, for all $\tau \in ]0,T[$, there exists $C_3$ not depending on $n, \tau$ such that $$\label{times_trans2}
\| \phiin(u_{i,n}(\cdot,\cdot+\tau))-\phiin(u_{i,n}(\cdot,\cdot))\|^2_{L^2(0,T-\tau;H^s(\O_i))}\le\tau^{1-s} C_3$$ For $s_1>s_2$, $H^{s_1}$ is compactly imbedded in $H^{s_2}$, and then estimate (\[times\_trans2\]) allows us to claim that the sequence $(\phiin(u_{i,n}))_n$ is relatively compact in $L^2(0,T;H^s(\O_i))$ for all $s\in]0,1[$. Particularly, one can extract a subsequence converging toward $\phii(u_i)$ in $L^2(0,T;H^s(\O_i))$. We can claim, using once again Minty trick, that the traces of $(\phiin(u_{i,n}))_n$ on $\Gij$ also converge toward the trace of $\phii(u_i)$, still denoted $\phii(u_i)$ in $L^2(0,T;H^{s-1/2}(\Gij))$, and particularly for almost every $(x,t)\in\GijT$. Since $\phii$ is increasing, $(u_{i,n}(x,t))_n$ converges almost everywhere on $\GijT$ toward $u_i(x,t)$.
Let us now check that $\t\pi_i(u_i)\cap\t\pi_j(u_j)\neq\emptyset$ a.e. on $\GijT$. For almost every $(x,t)\in\GijT$ the sequence $(\pi_{i,n}(u_{i,n}(x,t)))_n$ converges (up to a new extraction) toward $\gamma_i(x,t)\in\overline{\mathbb{R}}$. Since for all $n$, $\pi_{i,n}(u_{i,n}(x,t))=\pi_{j,n}(u_{j,n}(x,t))$, one has: $$\label{traces_lim}
\gamma_i(x,t)=\gamma_j(x,t) \text{ a.e. on }\GijT.$$
If $u_i(x,t)\in\ ]0,1[$, then $\gamma_i(x,t)=\pi_i(u_i(x,t))$. If $u_i(x,t)=0$, $\gamma_i(x,t)\le \a_i$, and $\gamma_i(x,t)\in\t\pi_i(0)$. In the same way, if $u_i(x,t)=1$, $\gamma_i(x,t)\in\t\pi_i(1)$.
This achieves the proof of theorem \[thm\_existence\], because relation (\[traces\_lim\]) insures the connection of the traces in the sense of: $$\t\pi_i(u_i)\cap\t\pi_j(u_j)\neq\emptyset \text{ a.e. on }\GijT.$$
A regularity result {#section_regularity}
===================
In this section and in section \[unicite\], we show the existence and the uniqueness of a solution with bounded flux to the problem (\[P\]) in the one-dimensional case. We make the proofs in the case where there are only two sub-domains $\O_1=]-1,0[$ and $\O_2=]0,1[$, but a straightforward adaptation of them gives the same result for an arbitrary finite number of $\O_i$, each one with an arbitrary finite measure. We now state the main result of this section, which claims the existence of a solution with bounded spatial derivatives on ${\mathcal{Q}}_i$, where ${\mathcal{Q}}_i=$ $\OiT$. We also set ${\mathcal{Q}}=]-1,1[\times]0,T[$ and $\G=\{x=0\}$.
\[regularity\_graph\] Let $u_0 \in L^\infty(-1,1)$, $0\le u_0\le 1$ such that:
- $\phii(u_0) \in W^{1,\infty}(\O_i)$,
- $\t\pi_1(u_{0,1})\cap \t\pi_2(u_{0,2})\neq\emptyset$ on $\G$.
Then there exists a weak solution $u$ to the problem (\[P\]) such that $\partial_x\phii(u_i)\in L^\infty({\mathcal{Q}}_i)$.
All the section will be devoted to the proof of the theorem \[regularity\_graph\]. As in section \[existence\], we will get this existence result by taking the limit of a sequence of solutions to approximate problems (\[Pn\]) involving no capillary barriers, whose data fulfill the properties stated in lemma \[phiin\].
We will now build a sequence of approximate initial data $(u_{0,n})$ adapted to the sequence of approximate problems.
\[reg\_u0\] Let $u_0$ be chosen as in theorem \[regularity\_graph\], then there exists $(u_{0,n})_n$ such that, for all $n$,
- $0\le u_{0,n} \le 1$,
- $\pi_{1,n}(u_{0,n,1})=\pi_{2,n}(u_{0,n,2})$ on $\G$.
The sequence $(u_{0,n})_n$ furthermore fulfills: $$\label{conv_u0n}
\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} \| u_{0,n}-u_0\|_\infty= 0, \qquad \|\partial_x \phiin(u_{0,n})\|_{L^\infty(\O_i)}
\le \|\partial_x \phii(u_{0})\|_{L^\infty(\O_i)} .$$
Since $\t\pi_1(u_{0,1})\cap\t\pi_2(u_{0,2})\neq \emptyset $, then there exists $(a_{1,n}, a_{2,n})\in [0,1]^2$ such that one has $\pi_{1,n}(a_{1,n})=\pi_{2,n}(a_{2,n})$ and $|a_{1,n}-u_{0,1}|+ |a_{2,n}-u_{0,2}|\rightarrow 0$. One sets, for $x\in\O_i$: $$u_{0,n}(x)=\phiin^{-1}\left(T_{\phii}\left[\phii(u_0)+\phiin(a_{i,n})-\phii(u_{0,i})\right]\right)$$ where $$T_{\phii}(s)=\left\{\begin{array}{rcl}
s&\text{ if }& s\in[0,\phii(1)]=[0,\phiin(1)],\\
\phiin(1)&\text{ if }& s>\phii(1),\\
0&\text{ if }& s<0.
\end{array}\right.$$ Then the sequence $(u_{0,n})$ converges uniformly toward $u_0$. For all $n$, $0\le u_{0,n}\le1$ and either $\partial_x\phiin(u_{0,n})=\partial_x \phii(u_0)$, or $\partial_x\phiin(u_{0,n})=0$.
\
The approximate problem (\[Pn\]) admits a unique solution $u_n$ thanks to [@NoDEA], which belongs to $C([0,T],L^1(\O))$. Now, in order to get a $L^\infty({\mathcal{Q}}_i)$-estimate on the sequence $(\partial_x\phiin(u_n))_n$, we introduce a new family of approximate problems (\[Pnk\]) for which the spatial dependence of the data is smooth.
Let $\theta \in C^\infty({\mathbb{R}}), 0\le \theta\le 1 $, with $\theta(x)= 0$ if $x<-1$, and $\theta(x)=1$ if $x>1$. Let $k\in{\mathbb{N}}^\star$, one sets:
- $\phi^{k}(x)=(1-\theta(kx))\phi_1+\theta(kx)\phi_2$,
- $ \l_{n,k}(s,x)=(1-\theta(kx))\lambda_{1,n}(s)+\theta(kx)\lambda_{2,n}(s),$
- $ \pi_{n,k}(s,x)=(1-\theta(kx))\pi_{1,n}(s)+\theta(kx)\pi_{2,n}(s).$
We will now take a new approximation of the initial data. $$u_{0,n,k}(x)=\left\{
\begin{array}{rcl}
u_{0,n}\left(\frac{k}{k-1}\left(x+\frac{1}{k}\right)\right) & \text{ if } & x<-1/k,\\
u_{0,n}\left(\frac{k}{k-1}\left(x-\frac{1}{k}\right)\right) & \text{ if } & x>1/k.\\
\end{array}\right.$$ In the layer $[-1/k,1/k]$, $u_{0,n,k}$ is defined by the relation $$(1-\theta(kx))\pi_{1,n}(u_{0,n,k}(x))+\theta(kx)\pi_{2,n}(u_{0,n,k}(x))=\pi_{1,n}(a_{1,n})
=\pi_{2,n}(a_{2,n}),$$ so that the approximate capillary pressure $\pi_{n,k}(u_{0,n,k},\cdot)$ is constant through the layer.
Moreover one has either $$\l_{n,k}(u_{0,n,k},x)\partial_x (\pi_{n,k}(u_{0,n,k},x))=
\frac{k}{k-1}\partial_x\phiin(u_{0,n})\qquad \textrm{ if }|x|>\frac{1}{k},$$ or $$\partial_x
(\pi_{n,k}(u_{0,n,k},x))=0 \qquad
\textrm{ if }|x|<\frac{1}{k}.$$ So we directly deduce from the definition of $u_{0,n,k}$ the following lemma:
\[u\_0nk\] Let $n\ge1$, $0\le u_{0,n}\le 1$ with $\phiin(u_{0,n}) \in W^{1,\infty}(\O_i)$ and $\pi_{1,n}(u_{0,n,1})=\pi_{2,n}(u_{0,n,2})$, then there exists a sequence $(u_{0,n,k})_k$ satisfying, for all $k\ge2$, that $0\le u_{0,n,k} \le 1$ and $$\| \l_{n,k}(u_{0,n,k},\cdot)\partial_x (\pi_{n,k}(u_{0,n,k},\cdot))
\|_\infty \le
2\max_{i=1,2}(\|\partial_x\phiin(u_{0,n})\|_\infty),$$ $$u_{0,n,k}\rightarrow u_{0,n}\text{ in } L^1(\O) \text{ as } k\rightarrow +
\infty.$$
For any fixed $k\ge2$ and $n$ large enough, we can now introduce the smooth non-degenerate parabolic problem (\[Pnk\]): $$\label{Pnk}
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
\phi^{k}(x)\partial_t u_{n,k}-\partial_x (\l_{n,k}( u_{n,k},x)\partial_x \pi_{n,k}( u_{n,k},x))=0, \\
\partial_x u_{n,k}(-1,t)=\partial_x u_{n,k}(1,t)=0,\\
u_{n,k}(x,0)=u_{0,n,k}(x).
\end{array}\right.$$ Moreover, one can furthermore suppose, up to a new regularization, that $u_{0,n,k}\in C^\infty([-1,1])$. Then (\[Pnk\]) admits a unique strong solution $u_{n,k}\in
C^\infty([0,T]\times [-1,1])$ (see for instance [@F64; @LSU]).
Now one sets $f_{n,k}(x,t)=\l_{n,k}( u_{n,k},x)\partial_x \pi_{n,k}( u_{n,k},x)$, so the main equation of (\[Pnk\]) can be rewritten: $$\phi^{k}\partial_t u_{n,k}=\partial_x f_{n,k}.$$ A short calculation shows that $f_{n,k}(x,t)$ is the solution of the problem: $$\label{Pb_flux}
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
\partial_t f_{n,k}= a_{n,k} \partial_{xx}^2 f_{n,k}+b_{n,k} \partial_{x} f_{n,k},\\
f_{n,k}(-1,t)=f_{n,k}(1,t)=0,\\
f_{n,k}(x,0)=\l_{n,k}(u_{0,n,k},\cdot)\partial_x (\pi_{n,k}(u_{0,n,k},\cdot)),
\end{array}\right.$$ where $a_{n,k},b_{n,k}$ are the regular functions defined below. $$a_{n,k}=\l_{n,k}(u_{n,k},x)\frac{(\pi_{n,k})'(u_{n,k},x)}{\phi^{k}(x)}>0,$$ $$b_{n,k}=(\l_{n,k})'(u_{n,k},x)\frac{\partial_x [\pi_{n,k}(u_{n,k},x)]}{\phi^{k}(x)}
+ \l_{n,k}(u_{n,k},x)\partial_x\left[\frac{(\pi_{n,k})'(u_{n,k},x)}{\phi^{k}(x)}\right] .$$ The fact that $u_{0,n,k}$ is supposed to be regular allows us to write the problem (\[Pb\_flux\]) in a strong sense (this is necessary, because this problem can not be written in a conservative form). In particular, $f_{n,k}$ satisfies the maximum principle, and thus $$\| f_{n,k} \|_{L^\infty((-1,1)\times(0,T))} \le \| \l_{n,k}(u_{0,n,k},\cdot)\partial_x (\pi_{n,k}(u_{0,n,k},\cdot))
\|_{L^\infty(-1,1)}.$$ Thanks to the lemmas \[u\_0nk\] and \[reg\_u0\], we have a uniform bound on $(f_{n,k})$: $$\label{maxPnk}
\| f_{n,k} \|_{L^\infty((-1,1)\times(0,T))} \le 2 \max_{i=1,2}(\|\partial_x\phii(u_0)\|_\infty).$$
Since the problem (\[Pnk\]) is fully non degenerated (recall that $
\l_{i,n}> \frac{1}{2n^2}$ and $\pi_{i,n}' \ge \ds\frac{1}{n}$) it follows that $\partial_x u_{n,k}$ and $\partial_t u_{n,k}$ are uniformly bounded respectively in $L^\infty({\mathcal{Q}}_i)$ and in $L^2(0,T:H^{-1}(\O_i))$ with respect to $k$, then the sequence $(u_{n,k})_k$ converges toward $u_n$ in $L^2({\mathcal{Q}}_i)$, and the limit $u_n$ fulfills, thank to estimate (\[maxPnk\]): $$\label{maxPn}
\| \partial_x \phiin(u_n)\|_{L^\infty({\mathcal{Q}}_i)} \le 2 \max_{i=1,2}(\|\partial_x
\phii(u_0)\|_\infty).$$
One has for all $\psi\in{\mathcal{D}}([-1,1]\times [0,T[)$, $$\label{weak_kn}
\int_0^T \int_{-1}^1\phi^{k} u_{n,k}\partial_t \psi+ \int_{-1}^1\phi^{k}
u_{0,n}^{k} \psi_0 -
\int_0^T \int_{-1}^1 f_{n,k}\partial_x\psi=0.$$ Thanks to (\[maxPnk\]), $$\lim_{k\rightarrow+\infty}\int_0^T \int_{-\frac{1}
{k}}^{\frac{1}{k}} f_{n,k}\partial_x\psi=0.$$ One has $u_{n,k}\rightarrow u_n$ in the $L^\infty({\mathcal{Q}})$-weak- $\star$ and $L^2({\mathcal{Q}})$ senses, $u_{0,n,k}\rightarrow u_{0,n}$ in $L^1(-1,1)$ thanks to lemma \[u\_0nk\]. Moreover, thanks to estimate (\[maxPnk\]), $\partial_x\pi_{i,n,k}(u_{n,k})\rightarrow \partial_x\pi_{i,n}(u_{n,k})$ in the $L^\infty({\mathcal{Q}})$-weak- $\star$ sense. Thus we can let $k$ tend toward $+\infty$ in (\[weak\_kn\]) to get $$\label{weak_n}
\int_0^T \sum_{i=1,2}\int_{\O_i} \phi_i u_n\partial_t \psi+
\sum_{i=1,2}\int_{\O_i}\phi_i u_{0,n}\psi_0 -
\int_0^T \sum_{i=1,2}\int_{\O_i} \l_{i,n}(u_n)\partial_x \pi_{i,n}(u_n)
\partial_x\psi=0.$$ Furthermore, using the fact that $\pi_{n,k}(u_{n,k},x)$ belongs to $L^2(0,T; H^1(\O))$ and, even more, that $\partial_x( \pi_{n,k}(u_{n,k},x) ) $ is bounded uniformly in $k$, we can claim that $\pi_{1,n}(u_{1,n})=\pi_{2,n}(u_{2,n})$, and so $u_n$ is the unique weak solution to the approximate problem (\[Pn\]) for $u_{0,n}$ as initial data.
When $n$ tends toward $+\infty$, the sequence $(u_n)_n$ converges, up to a subsequence toward a weak solution to the problem (\[P\]), as seen in section \[existence\], but the estimate (\[maxPn\]) insures that $$\partial_x \phii(u)\in
L^\infty({\mathcal{Q}}_i).$$ This achieves the proof of theorem \[regularity\_graph\].
A uniqueness result {#unicite}
===================
In this section, we give a uniqueness result in the one dimensional case in a framework where the existence results are stronger than the general existence result stated in theorem \[thm\_existence\]. Under a regularity assumption on the initial data $u_0$, we proved in section \[section\_regularity\] the existence of a solution having bounded flux, for which we give a uniqueness result in theorem \[prop\_unicite\] and corollary \[cor\_uni\]. The bound on the flux will be necessary to prove that the contraction property is also available in the neighborhood of the interface $\{x=0\}$. Then we show in theorem \[existence\_SOLA\] the existence and uniqueness of the weak solution which is the limit of bounded flux solutions for any initial data $u_0$ with $0\le u_0\le 1$. Indeed, the set of initial data giving a bounded flux solution is dense in $L^\infty(\O)$ for the $L^1(\O)$ topology, and theorem \[prop\_unicite\] has for consequence that the contraction property can be extended to a larger class of solution, defined for all initial data in $L^\infty(\O)$. We unfortunately are not able to characterize them differently than by a limit of bounded flux solutions, and we can not either exhibit a weak solution which is not the limit of bounded flux solutions.
\[prop\_unicite\] Let $u,v$ be two weak solutions to the problem (\[P\]) for the initial data $u_0, v_0$. Then, if $\partial_x\phii(u_i)$ and $\partial_x\phii(v_i)$ belong to $L^\infty({\mathcal{Q}}_i)$, we have the following $L^1$-contraction principle: $\forall t\in [0,T]$, $$\label{contract}
\sum_{i=1,2}\int_{\O_i} \phi_i \left(u(x,t)-v(x,t)\right)^\pm dx \le \sum_{i=1,2}
\int_{\O_i} \phi_i \left(u_{0}(x)-v_{0}(x)\right)^\pm dx.$$
The first part of this section is devoted to the proof of the theorem \[prop\_unicite\] which, with theorem \[regularity\_graph\], admits the following straightforward consequence:
\[cor\_uni\] For all $u_0\!\in \!L^{\infty}(-1,1)$ with $0\le u_0\le 1$, such that, for $i=1,2$, $\phii(u_0)\in W^{1,\infty}(\O_i)$, and $\t\pi_1(u_{0,1})\cap\t
\pi_2(u_{0,2})\neq\emptyset$, there exists a unique weak solution to the problem (\[P\]) in the sense of definition \[gws\] and such that $\partial_x\phii(u)\in L^\infty({\mathcal{Q}}_i)$; moreover $u\in C([0,T],L^p(\O))$ for all $1\le p < +\infty$.
The proof of the theorem \[prop\_unicite\] is based on entropy inequalities, obtained through the method of doubling variables, first introduced by S. Kruzkov [@K70] for first order equations, and then adapted by J. Carrillo [@Car99] for degenerate parabolic problems. Note that in the present setting, we only need doubling with respect to the time–variable, as it is done, for instance by F. Otto [@Otto96] for elliptic–parabolic problems (or in [@BP05] for Stefan–type problems).
In the sequel of the proof, we will only give the comparison $$\sum_{i=1,2}\int_{\O_i} \phi_i \left(u(x,t)-v(x,t)\right)^+ dx \le \sum_{i=1,2}
\int_{\O_i} \phi_i \left(u_{0}(x)-v_{0}(x)\right)^+ dx.$$ The comparison with $(\cdot)^-$ instead of $(\cdot)^+$ can be proven exactly the same way.
Let $u$ be a bounded flux solution to the one-dimensional problem, i.e $\partial_x\phii(u)\in L^\infty({\mathcal{Q}}_i)$, $i=1,2$. The weak formulation of definition \[gws\] adapted to the one-dimensional framework of the section can be rewritten, for all $\psi\in {\mathcal{D}}(\overline{\O}
\times [0,T[)$, $$\label{weak_for_1d}
\begin{array}{c}
\ds\int_0^T\sum_{i=1,2}\int_{\O_i} \phi_i u(x,t)\partial_t \psi(x,t)dxdt
+\sum_{i=1,2}\int_{\O_i} \phi_i u_0(x)\psi(x,0)dx\\
\ds- \int_0^T\sum_{i=1,2}\int_{\O_i} \partial_x\phii(u)(x,t)\partial_x
\psi(x,t)dxdt=0
\end{array}$$ This formulation clearly implies, for $i=1,2$, for all $\psi\in C^\infty_c(\overline\O_i\times [0,T[)$ with $\psi(0,t)=0$, $$\label{weak_i}\begin{array}{c}
\ds \int_0^T\int_{\O_i} \phi_i u(x,t)\partial_t \psi(x,t)dxdt +
\int_{\O_i} \phi_i u_0(x)\psi(x,0)dx \\
\ds - \int_0^T\int_{\O_i} \partial_x\phii(u)(x,t)\partial_x
\psi(x,t)dxdt=0
\end{array}$$ Classical computations (see e.g. [@BP05; @Car99; @Otto96]) on equation (\[weak\_i\]) lead to the following entropy inequalities: for all weak solutions $u,v$, for initial data $u_0,v_0$, for all $\xi\in {\mathcal{D}}^+(\overline\O_i\times[0,T[\times[0,T[)$ such that $\xi(0,t,s)=0$, $$\label{entro_i}
\begin{array}{c}
\ds\int_0^T \int_0^T \int_{\O_i}\phi_i(u(x,t)-v(x,s))^+(\partial_t\xi(x,t,s)+\partial_s\xi(x,t,s))dxdtds\\
+\ds \int_0^T\!\int_{\O_i}\phi_i(u_0(x)-v(x,s))^+\xi(x,0,s)dxds \\
\ds + \int_0^T \int_{\O_i}\phi_i(u(x,t)-v_0(x))^+\xi(x,t,0)dxdt\\
-\ds \int_0^T \int_0^T \int_{\O_i}\partial_x(\phii(u)(x,t)-\phii(v)(x,s))^+\partial_x\xi(x,t,s)dxdtds\ge0.
\end{array}$$
Let us note here an important consequence of the entropy inequality (\[entro\_i\]) (and of the corresponding one for $(u-v)^-$ ), namely that $u$ can be proved to satisfy $$\label{ess-cont}
ess-\!\!\lim_{t\rightarrow 0}\,\, \int_{\O_i}|u(x,t)-u_0(x)|dx =0\,.$$ Indeed, this follows by taking $v$ as a constant in (\[entro\_i\]) and using an approximation argument, see e.g. Lemma 7.41 in [@MNRR96]. We deduce the time continuity at $t=0$ for any solution and in particular for both $u$ and $v$ taken above.
Now, let $\rho\in C^\infty_c({\mathbb{R}},{\mathbb{R}}^+)$ with $supp(\rho)\subset [-1,1]$ and $\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\rho(t)dt=1$. One denotes $\rho_m(t)=m\rho(mt)$. Let $\psi\in {\mathcal{D}}^+([-1,1]\times[0,T[)$ with $\psi(0,\cdot)=0$. For $m$ large enough, $\xi(x,t,s)= \psi(x,t)\rho_m(t-s)$ belongs to ${\mathcal{D}}^+([-1,1]\times[0,T[\times[0,T[)$, and we can take it as test function in (\[entro\_i\]). Then summing on $i=1,2$ leads to $$\label{avant_cont}
\begin{array}{c}
\ds \int_0^T\int_0^T\sum_{i=1,2}\int_{\O_i} \phi_i (u(x,t)-v(x,s))^+\partial_t
\psi(x,t)\rho_m(t-s)dxdtds\\
\ds + \int_0^T\sum_{i=1,2}\int_{\O_i} \phi_i (u_0(x)-v(x,s))^+\psi(x,0)
\rho_m(-s)dxds \\
\ds+\int_0^T\sum_{i=1,2}\int_{\O_i} \phi_i (u(x,t)-v_0(x))^+\psi(x,t)
\rho_m(t)dxdt\\
\ds - \int_0^T\int_0^T\sum_{i=1,2}\int_{\O_i} \partial_x
(\phii(u)(x,t)-\phii(v)(x,s))^+\partial_x\psi(x,t)\rho_m(t-s)dxdtds\ge0.
\end{array}$$ We can now let $m$ tend toward $+\infty$ in (\[avant\_cont\]), and using (\[ess-cont\]) for $u$ and $v$, and the theorem of continuity in mean, we get: for all $\psi\in {\mathcal{D}}^+(\overline\O\times[0,T[)$ such that $\psi(0,t)=0$, $$\label{entro+}
\begin{array}{c}
\ds \int_0^T\sum_{i=1,2}\int_{\O_i} \phi_i (u(x,t)-v(x,t))^+\partial_t \psi(x,t)dxdt\\
\ds + \sum_{i=1,2}\int_{\O_i} \phi_i (u_0(x)-v_0(x))^+ \psi(x,0)dx \\
\ds - \int_0^T\sum_{i=1,2}\int_{\O_i} \partial_x (\phii(u)(x,t)-\phii(v)(x,t))^+
\partial_x\psi(x,t)dxdt\ge0.
\end{array}$$
We aim now to extend the inequality (\[entro+\]) in the case where $\psi(0,t)\neq0$, and particularly in the case $\psi(x,t)=\theta(t)$, so that the third term disappears in (\[entro+\]).
To this purpose, let us set here $u_i(t)= u_i(0,t)$ to denote the trace of $u_i$ at the interface $\G$ (and correspondingly, $v_i(t)=v_i(0,t)$). We introduce the subsets of $(0,T)$:
- $E_{u>v}=\{t\in[0,T]\ |\ u_1(t)>v_1(t) \text{ or } u_2(t)>v_2(t)\}$,
- $E_{u \le v}=\{t\in[0,T]\ |\ u_1(t)\le v_1(t) \text{ and } u_2(t)\le v_2(t)\}$,
so that $E_{u \le v}$ is the complement of $E_{u>v}$ in $[0,T]$.
For all ${\varepsilon}>0$, one defines $\psi_{\varepsilon}(x)=\max\left(1-\frac{|x|}{{\varepsilon}},0\right)$. For all $\theta\in {\mathcal{D}}^+([0,T[)$, we take $(x,t)\mapsto \theta(t)
(1-\psi_{\varepsilon}(x))$ instead of $\psi(x,t)$ as test-function in (\[entro+\]), thus we get: $$\begin{array}{c}
\ds \int_0^T\sum_{i=1,2}\int_{\O_i} \phi_i (u(x,t)-v(x,t))^+\partial_t
\theta(t)(1-\psi_{\varepsilon}(x))dxdt\\
\ds + \sum_{i=1,2}\int_{\O_i} \phi_i (u_0(x)-v_0(x))^+
(1-\psi_{\varepsilon})(x)\theta(0)dx \\
\ds -
\int_0^T\frac{\theta(t)}{{\varepsilon}} \left(
\begin{array}{c}
(\varphi_1(u)(-{\varepsilon},t)-\varphi_1(v)(-{\varepsilon},t))^+ -
(\varphi_1(u_1)(t)-\varphi_1(v_1)(t))^+\\
+ (\varphi_2(u)({\varepsilon},t)-\varphi_2(v)({\varepsilon},t))^+-
(\varphi_2(u_2)(t)-\varphi_2(v_2)(t))^+
\end{array}
\right)
dt\ge0.
\end{array}$$ For almost every $t\in E_{u\le v}$, the function $(\phii(u)-\phii(v))^+(\cdot,t)$ admits a nil trace on $\{x=0\}$, thus the third term in the previous inequality can be reduced to the set $E_{u> v}$ obtaining $$\label{entro+1}
\begin{array}{c}
\ds \int_0^T \sum_{i=1,2}\int_{\O_i} \phi_i (u(x,t)-v(x,t))^+\partial_t
\theta(t)(1-\psi_{\varepsilon}(x))dxdt\\
\ds + \sum_{i=1,2}\int_{\O_i} \phi_i (u_0(x)-v_0(x))^+ (1-\psi_{\varepsilon})(x)\theta(0)dx \\
\ds +
\int_{E_{u>v}}{\theta(t)} \sum_{i=1,2}\int_{\O_i} \partial_x (\phii(u)(x,t)-
\phii(v)(x,t))^+\partial_x\psi_{\varepsilon}(x) dxdt\ge0.
\end{array}$$
We show now the crucial point of the uniqueness proof, which is the subject of the following lemma.
\[point\_clef\] For all $\theta\in{\mathcal{D}}^+([0,T[)$, if $u,v$ are both bounded flux solutions, i.e. if one has $\partial_x\phii(u),\partial_x\phii(v)\in
L^\infty({\mathcal{Q}}_i)$ one has, $$\ds\limsup_{{\varepsilon}\rightarrow 0} \int_{E_{u>v}}{\theta(t)} \sum_{i=1,2}\int_{\O_i}
\partial_x (\phii(u)(x,t)-\phii(v)(x,t))^+\partial_x\psi_{\varepsilon}(x) dxdt\le0.$$
Using the weak formulation (\[weak\_for\_1d\]), we can claim that for any regular function $\vartheta\in{\mathcal{D}}([0,T[)$, $$\label{vie}
\lim_{{\varepsilon}\rightarrow 0} \int_0^T \vartheta(t)\sum_{i=1,2}\int_{\O_i}
\partial_x (\phii(u)-\phii(v))\partial_x\psi_{\varepsilon}(x)dxdt=0.$$ Since for $i=1,2$, $\partial_x (\phii(u)-\phii(v))$ belongs to $L^\infty(\OiT)$, one has $$\left|\int_0^T \vartheta(t)\sum_{i=1,2}\int_{\O_i}
\partial_x (\phii(u)-\phii(v))\partial_x\psi_{\varepsilon}(x)dxdt\right|\le
C\|\vartheta\|_{L^1(0,T)},$$ then a density argument allows us to claim that (\[vie\]) still holds for any $\vartheta\in L^1(0,T)$, and particularly for $\vartheta(t)=\theta(t){\rm 1 \! l}_{E_{u>v}}(t)$. Thus there exists $A({\varepsilon})$ tending to $0$ as ${\varepsilon}$ tends to $0$ such that $$\label{entro_trace2}
\ds \int_{E_{u>v}}\theta(t)\sum_{i=1,2} \int_{\O_i} \partial_x(\phii(u)(x,t)-\phii(v)(x,t))\partial_x \psi_{\varepsilon}(x) dx dt
=A({\varepsilon}).$$
Splitting up the positive and negative parts of $(\phii(u)(x,t)-\phii(v)
(x,t))$, (\[entro\_trace2\]) becomes: $$\label{entro_trace3}
\begin{array}{c} \ds \int_{E_{u>v}}\theta(t) \sum_{i=1,2} \int_{\O_i}
\partial_x(\phii(u)(x,t)-\phii(v)(x,t))^+\partial_x \psi_{\varepsilon}(x) dx dt \\
\ds
=
\int_{E_{u>v}}\theta(t)\sum_{i=1,2} \int_{\O_i}
\partial_x(\phii(u)(x,t)-\phii(v)(x,t))^-\partial_x \psi_{\varepsilon}(x) dx dt
+A({\varepsilon}).
\end{array}$$ It is at this point that we actually use the monotony of the transmission condition, i.e. condition 3 in Definition \[gws\]. Indeed, the conditions $\t\pi_1(u_1(t))\cap\t\pi_2(u_2(t))\neq\emptyset$ and $\t\pi_1(v_1(t))\cap\t\pi_2(v_2(t))\neq\emptyset$ insure that : $$\label{monotony}
u_1>v_1 \implies u_2\ge v_2\qquad \hbox{and }\qquad u_1<v_1 \implies u_2\le v_2\,.$$ Therefore, recalling the definition of the set $E_{u>v}$ and of $\psi_{\varepsilon}$, the first term in the right member of (\[entro\_trace3\]) is non-positive, and then we conclude $$\ds\limsup_{{\varepsilon}\rightarrow 0} \int_{E_{u>v}}{\theta(t)} \sum_{i=1,2}\int_{\O_i}
\partial_x (\phii(u)(x,t)-\phii(v)(x,t))^+\partial_x\psi_{\varepsilon}(x) dxdt\le0.$$ This achieves the proof of lemma \[point\_clef\], and allows us to take the limit in inequality (\[entro+1\]) for ${\varepsilon}\rightarrow 0$. Then for all $\psi\in{\mathcal{D}}^+([0,T[)$, one gets $$\label{fin}
-\int_0^T \sum_{i=1,2}\int_{\O_i} \phi_i (u(x,t)-v(x,t))^+\partial_t \psi(t)dxdt
\le \sum_{i=1,2}\int_{\O_i} \phi_i (u_0(x)-v_0(x))^+\psi(0)dx .$$ One can also prove exactly the same way that $$\label{fin2}
-\int_0^T \sum_{i=1,2}\int_{\O_i} \phi_i (u(x,t)-v(x,t))^-\partial_t \psi(t)dxdt
\le \sum_{i=1,2}\int_{\O_i} \phi_i (u_0(x)-v_0(x))^-\psi(0)dx .$$ These inequalities still hold for $\psi=(T-t)$, and then if $u_0=v_0$, one has $u=v$ almost everywhere in ${\mathcal{Q}}$. Moreover we can take $\psi(t) ={\rm 1 \! l}_{[0,s]} (t)$ as test function in (\[fin\]) to get the $L^1$-contraction principle (\[contract\]) stated in theorem \[prop\_unicite\].
In the sequel, we prove that for any $u_0$ in $L^\infty(-1;1)$, $0\le u_0 \le 1$, there exists a unique weak solution of problem (\[P\]) which is the limit of a sequence of bounded flux solutions $(u_n)_n$, i.e. for all $n\ge 1$, $\partial_x\phii(u_n)\in L^\infty({\mathcal{Q}}_i)$.
\[existence\_SOLA\] Let $u_0\in L^\infty(-1,1)$, $0\le u_0\le 1$, and let $(u_{0,n})_{n\ge1}$ be a sequence of bounded flux initial data, i.e. for all $n\ge 1$,
- $0\le u_{0,n}\le 1$,
- $\phii(u_{0,n})\in W^{1,\infty}(\O_i)$,
- $\t\pi_1(u_{0,n,1})\cap\t\pi_2(u_{0,n,2})\neq\emptyset,$
such that $$\lim_{n\rightarrow+\infty} \|u_{0,n}-u_0\|_{L^1(\O)} =0.$$ Let $(u_n)_{n\ge1}$ be the sequence of the bounded flux solutions to the problem (\[P\]) for $u_{0,n}$ as initial data. Then the sequence $(u_n)_{n\ge1}$ converges toward $u$ in $C(]0,T[,L^p(-1,1))$, $1\le p<+\infty$, where $u$ is a solution to the problem (\[P\]), called Solution Obtained as Limit of Approximation (SOLA). Furthermore, if $u,v$ are two SOLAs, for initial data $u_0,v_0$, one has the following $L^1$-contraction principle: $\forall t\in [0,T]$, $$\SiN\int_{\O_i} \phi_i (u(x,t)-v(x,t))^\pm dx \le \SiN \int_{\O_i} \phi_i
(u_{0}(x)-v_{0}(x))^\pm dx.$$ This particularly leads to the uniqueness of the SOLA.
Let $(u_{0,n})$ be a regular sequence of initial data converging toward $u_0$ in $L^1(-1,1)$ - one take e.g. $u_{0,n}\in C^\infty_c (]-1,0[\cup]0,1[)$. Then $(u_{0,n})$ is a Cauchy sequence, and thanks to (\[contract\]), for all $t\in[0,T]$, $$\SiN\int_{\O_i} \phi_i |u_n(x,t)-u_m(x,t)| dx \le \SiN \int_{\O_i} \phi_i
|u_{0,n}(x)-u_{0,m}(x)| dx.$$ Thus $(u_n)_n$ is a Cauchy sequence in $C([0,T];L^1(\O))$ and converges to a function $u$ in $C([0,T];L^1(\O))$. Since $(u_n)_n$ is bounded in $L^\infty({\mathcal{Q}})$, one has $u_n\!\!\rightarrow\! u$ in $C([0,T];L^p(-1,1))$.
We now have to check that $u$ is a weak solution to the problem (\[P\]). It is easy to check, using to the $L^\infty$-bound of $u_n$, that $\phii(u_n)$ tends toward $\phii(u)$ in $L^p(\OiT)$, for all $p\in[1,+\infty[$. Thanks to (\[L2H1\_estimate\]), the sequence $(\phii(u_n))_n$ is bounded in $L^2(0,T;H^1(\O_i))$, and thus $\phii(u_n)\rightarrow\phii(u)$ weakly in $L^2(0,T;H^1(\O_i))$, and $\phii(u_n)$ converges in $L^2(0,T;H^s(\O_i))$, for all $s\in]0,1[$, still toward $\phii(u)$. Particularly, $u_{n,i}(t)$ tends toward $u_i(t)$. Since the set $\{(a,b)\in [0,1]^2\ |$ $\t\pi_1(a)\cap\t\pi_2(b)\neq\emptyset \}$ is closed, we can claim that $$\t\pi_1(u_1(t))\cap\t\pi_2(u_2(t))\neq\emptyset\quad \text{ for a.e. }t\in[0,T].$$ We can also pass to the limit in the weak formulation in order to conclude that $u$ is a weak solution to the problem (\[P\]), achieving this way the existence of a SOLA $u$.
Let now $v$ be another SOLA, obtained through a sequence $(v_{0,n})_n$ of regular initial data converging toward $v_0$. Thanks to (\[contract\]), one has, $$\SiN\int_{\O_i} \phi_i |u_n(x,t)-v_n(x,t)| dx \le \SiN \int_{\O_i} \phi_i
|u_{0,n}(x)-v_{0,n}(x)| dx,$$ whose limit as n tends toward $+\infty$ gives the attempted $L^1$-contraction principle: $$\SiN\int_{\O_i} \phi_i |u(x,t)-v(x,t)| dx \le \SiN \int_{\O_i} \phi_i
|u_{0}(x)-v_{0}(x)| dx,$$ and so the uniqueness of the SOLA, completing the proof of theorem \[existence\_SOLA\].
[22]{} and [Veerappa Gowda G. D.]{}, [*Godunov-type methods for conservation laws with a flux function discontinuous in space*]{}, SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 42 (2004), 179-208 (electronic) and [Luckhaus S.]{}, [*Quasilinear elliptic-parabolic differential equations*]{} Math. Z., 183 (1983), pp 31-341 and [Monakhov, V. N.]{}, [*Boundary value problems in mechanics of nonhomogeneous fluids*]{}, Stud. Math. Appl., vol 17, North-Holland, Amsterdam, (1990)
K. and [Settari]{} A., [*Petroleum Reservoir Simulation*]{}, Elsevier Applied Science Publishers, London, (1979). J., [*Dynamic of Fluids in Porous Media*]{}, Dover, New York, (1972). D. and [Porretta]{} A., [*Stefan problems with nonlinear diffusion and convection*]{}, J. Differential Equations 210 (2005), no. 2, pp 383-428. and [van Duijn C.]{}, [*Analysis of oil trapping in porous media flow*]{}, SIAM J. Math. Anal., 35 (2003), pp 245-267. H., [*Analyse fonctionnelle: Théorie et applications*]{} , Masson, Paris (1983). , [*Nonlinear parabolic equations with spatial discontinuities*]{}, to appear.
, [*Occurrence of non classical shocks in modeling of oil-trapping*]{}, in preparation. , [*Entropy solutions for nonlinear degenerate problems*]{}, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal., 147 (1999), pp 269-361. and [Jaffré J.]{}, [*Mathematical Models and Finite Elements for Reser- voir Simulation*]{}, Stud. Math. Appl., vol.17, North-Holland, Amsterdam, (1986) , [*Modèles et schémas numériques pour la simulation de génèse de bassins sédimentaires*]{}, Thèse, (2004). and [Michel A.]{}, [*Numerical approximation of a two- phase flow problem in a porous medium with discontinuous capillary forces*]{}, SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 43 (2006), no. 6, pp 2402-2422. and [Nybo R.]{}, [*Numerical methods for flows in a porous medium with internal boundary*]{}, Comput. Geosci., 2 (1998), pp 217-240. and [Herbin R.]{}, [*Finite Volume Methods*]{}, Handbook of Numerical Analysis, P.G. Ciarlet, J.L. Lions eds, North-Holland, vol 7 (2000), pp.713-1020. , [*Partial Differential Equations of Parabolic Type*]{}, Prentice-Hall, En- glewood Cliffs, NJ, (1964). , [*First order quasilinear equations in several independent variables*]{}, Math. USSR-Sb 0 (1970), 217-243. and [Madaune-Tort M.]{}, [*Analyse mathématique de modèles non linéaires de l’ingénierie pétrolière*]{} [Mathématiques & Applications,]{} vol. 22, Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1996) and [Towers J. D.,]{} [*On a nonlinear degenerate parabolic transport-diffusion equation with a discontinuous coefficient*]{} Electron. J. Differential Equations, No. 93 (2002), 23 pp. (electronic)
and [Towers J. D.,]{} [*Upwind difference approximations for degenerate parabolic convection-diffusion equations with a discontinuous coefficient*]{} IMA J. Numer. Anal., 22 (2002), 623-664 and [Towers J. D.,]{} [*$L^1$ stability for entropy solutions of nonlinear degenerate parabolic convection-diffusion equations with discontinuous coefficients*]{} Skr. K. Nor. Vidensk. Selsk., (2003), 1-49 and [UralÕceva N.N.]{}, [*Linear an Quasi-linear Equations of Parabolic Type*]{}, Transl. Math. Monogr. 23, AMS, Provi- dence, RI, (1968). and [Lions J.L.]{}, [*Quelques résultats de Visik sur les problèmes elliptiques non linéaires par les méthodes de Minty-Browder*]{}, Bulletin de la S.M.F., tome 93 (1965), pp 97-107. and [Ružička M.]{}, [*Weak and measure valued solutions to evolutionary PDEs*]{}, Chapman & Hall, London, (1996). , [*$L^1$-contraction and uniqueness for quasilinear elliptic-parabolic equations, J. Differential Equations*]{}, 131 (1996), pp 20-38. and [de Neef M. J.]{}, [it The effect of capillary forces on immiscible two-phase flows in heterogeneous porous media]{}, Transport in Porous Media, 21 (1995), pp 71-93.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Data on $e^+e^- \to \pi ^+\pi ^- \Upsilon (1S,2S,3S)$ show a large increase in branching fractions near $\Upsilon (10860)$. A suggestion of Ali et al. [@AliA] is to interpret this as evidence for a tetraquark, $Y_b(10890) \equiv (bn)(\bar b \bar n)$. However, it may also be interpreted in terms of $\Upsilon (10860) \to
\bar B B^*$, $\bar B^*B^*$ and $\bar B_sB^*_s$ above the open-$b$ threshold, followed by de-excitation processes such as $\bar BB^* \to
\Upsilon (1S,2S,3S)$. In the charm sector, a hypothesis open to experimental test is that $X,Y$ and $Z$ peaks in the mass range 3872 to 3945 MeV may all be due to regular $^3P_{1}$ and $^3P_2$ $\bar cc$ states (and perhaps $^3P_0$ and $^1P_1$) mixed with meson-meson.
---
[**Meson Spectroscopy without Tetraquarks**]{}
Introduction
============
There is much speculation about the existence of tetraquarks. Most papers unfortunately do not distinguish between tetraquarks and simple meson-meson. It is prudent, but less exciting, to examine conventional interpretations in terms of non-exotic $\bar nn$, $\bar ss$, $\bar cc$ or $\bar bb$ states with admixtures of meson-meson.
Nuclei may be viewed as six quark combinations. However, nucleon-nucleon phase shifts may be fitted in terms of meson exchanges. The essential reason nuclear matter does not collapse is short-range repulsion due to the Pauli principle. Returning to meson spectroscopy, the conventional $\bar qq$ states appear as octets and singlets (or linear combinations). Jaffe has suggested that two coloured quarks can form a colour $\bar 3_c$ which is anti-symmetric, or $6_c$ which is symmetric [@Jaffe]. Then $0^+$ mesons can be formed as $(\bar 3 3)$ combinations of flavour and colour. This neatly evades repulsion between $qq$ and also accounts for the high masses of $a_0(980)$ and $f_0(980)$. However, Jaffe’s scheme without meson-meson disagrees with observed branching ratios [@BRs]. The ratio $g^2(f_0(980) \to KK)/g^2(a_0(980) \to KK)$ (where $g$ are coupling constants) requires that $f_0(980)$ has a dominant $K\bar K$ component; also the predicted ratio $g^2(\kappa \to K\pi )/g^2(\sigma \to \pi \pi )$ is much too small. What may defeat Jaffe’s proposal is chiral symmetry breaking. The pion and kaon are abnormally light, with the result that meson-meson configurations $(\bar qq)(\bar qq)$ dominate over $(qq)(\bar q\bar q)$ in $\sigma$, $\kappa$, $a_0(980)$ and $f_0(980)$. Present measurements of branching ratios are not good enough to rule out some small admixture of $(qq)(\bar q \bar q)$; further improvements in the branching ratios of $\sigma$ and $f_0(980)$ to $KK$, $\eta \eta$ and $\pi \pi$ above 1 GeV would help greatly.
Meson exchanges do make good predictions for $\pi \pi$ [@Caprini] and $K\pi$ [@Descotes] phase shifts up to masses where $q\bar q$ resonances appear. They also predict correctly low energy $I=2$ and $I=3/2$ phase shifts. There is no evidence for the $\underline {\bf {27}}$ representation predicted for $(6,6)$ combinations of flavour and colour. In a valuable review, Richard [@Richard] discusses the issues in terms of the flux-tubes within four-quark configurations.
There is a further feature relevant to meson-meson configurations. The train of argument is as follows. Many mesons are observed at or very close to thresholds of opening channels. Well known examples are $f_0(980)$ and $a_0(980)$ at the $KK$ threshold, $f_2(1565)$ ar the $\omega \omega$ threshold and $X(3872)$ at the $\bar D_0\bar D^*$ threshold within $\sim 0.3$ MeV. The mechanism for this synchronisation is rather fundamental [@locking]. The conventional form for the denominator of a resonance is $$D(s) = M^2 - s - i\sum _i G^2_i \rho_i(s),$$ where $s$ is Lorentz invariant mass squared, $G_i= g_iF_i(s)$, $g_i$ are coupling constants of open channels and $F_i$ are form factors. However, the correct form for $D(s)$ is $M^2 - s - {\rm Re} \, \Pi(s) - i {\rm Im}\, \Pi(s)$ where ${\rm Im} \, \Pi(s) = G^2_i(s)\rho_i(s)$ and $${\rm Re} \, \Pi (s) = \frac {1}{\pi} \rm {P} \int
_{s_{thr}} ^\infty ds' \, \sum _i \frac {G^2_i(s')\rho _i(s') } {s' -
s}.$$ Here $s_{thr}$ is the value of $s$ at the opening of the threshold and P denotes the principal value integral; \[${\rm Im} \, \Pi(s)$ is the pole term from this expression.\] The origin of Eq. (2) is that amplitudes are analytic functions of $s$, so that any change in the imaginary part of the amplitude must be accompanied by a change in the real part, or vice versa.
Fig. 1 sketches the behaviour of ${\rm Im}\, \Pi(s)$ and ${\rm Re}\,
\Pi(s)$ at an S-wave threshold, $KK$ in this example. The value of ${\rm Re}\, \Pi (s)$ is large and peaks exactly at the $S$-wave threshold. It acts as an attractor and can explain why $f_0(980)$ and $a_0(980)$ lie very close to the $KK$ threshold. The present limitation in calculating $\rm {Re}\, \Pi(s)$ accurately is that form factors $F_i(s)$ are poorly known. Incidentally, Eq. (2) is equivalent to solving Schr" odinger type equations, a procedure adopted by many authors. These solutions are explicitly analytic. It is also included in the model of van Beveren and Rupp, because their amplitudes are constructed algebraically to be analytic [@Rupp].
-12mm -6mm
The Hamiltonian for a $\bar qq$ state decaying to meson-meson obeys $$H \Psi = \left(
\begin {array} {cc}
H_{11} & V \\
V & H_{22}
\end {array}
\right) \Psi;$$ $H_{11}$ describes short-range $\bar qq$ components and $H_{22}$ refers to ingoing and outgoing mesonic channels and must include $t$- and $u$-channel meson exchanges; $V$ accounts for the coupling between them due to $s$-channel decays. The eigenfunction $\Psi$ becomes a linear combination of $\bar qq$ and meson-meson. The latter is not an ‘optional extra’; if a resonance decays to meson-meson, that component is a necessary part of the wave function, and indeed plays a vital role. This is the basis of a large number of papers by Oset and collaborators, enumerating the attractive meson-meson contributions to a large number of mesons, e.g. [@Gamermann]; their calculations include empirical short-range terms which may well simulate $\bar qq$ contributions.
The form of Eq. (3) is strictly analogous to the formation of covalent bonds in chemistry [@covalent]. According to the variational principle, the eigenstate minimises the eigenvalue. The $\bar qq$ component is of short range. Mixing with meson-meson components at longer range lowers momentum components in the wave function and hence the energy eigenvalue.
The $J/\Psi$, $\Psi '(1S)$, $\Upsilon (1S)$ and $\Upsilon (2S)$ are very narrow and it is a good approximation to view them as pure $\bar
cc$ states. Some commentators then argue that other mesons cannot be $\bar cc$ or $\bar bb$ because they have unexpected meson-meson components. That is wrong. If a resonance is close to an opening threshold with the same quantum numbers, it must contain virtual components of that channel. Taking $c\bar c n\bar n$ as an example, there are attractive long range mesonic components in the configurations $(c\bar n)(\bar c n)$ and $(c \bar c)(n\bar n)$; examples are $D\bar D^*$ and $\omega J/\Psi $, which appear prominently in observed decays of X,Y,Z in the mass range 3872 to 3945 MeV. The observed meson-meson decays are in fact a signature of mesonic components in the wave function. Weinstein and Isgur modelled the $f_0(980)$ and $a_0(980)$ in terms of meson exchanges [@Isgur], as did the Julich group of Janssen et al. [@Janssen].
These general remarks set the scene for further details. Section 2 discusses $\Upsilon (10860)$ in this light. It might be the first clear tetraquark. However, it may also be understood at least qualitatively as a $\bar bb$ state coupled strongly to $\bar B B^*$, $\bar B^* B^*$ and $\bar B^*_s B^*_s$ channels which open in the mass range 10559 to 10826 MeV and can de-excite to $\pi \pi \Upsilon (nS)$, $n<5$.
Section 3 discusses states popularly known as $X,Y,Z$. The Particle Data Group [@PDG] labels them as $\chi_{c2}(2P)$, $X(3940)$ and $X(3945)$; the last of these is somewhat confusing in view of the fact that its average mass is now $3915$ MeV. Here $Z(3930)$ will be used as a shorthand for $\chi_{c2}(2P)$. All these states lie close to the $\bar D D^*$ threshold. This leads to my suggestion that all of these states are $n=2$ $\bar cc$ $P$-states mixed with meson-meson.
Spin-parity determinations of these states are presently lacking. This appears to be due to the fact that only decays have been analysed; that leads to ambiguities. It is essential to analyse the full process of production and decay, as in the analysis of Dalitz plots. This leads to orthogonal matrix elements between all $J^P$. The ideal process for analysis is $B \to K(\omega J/\Psi )$; here $B$ and $K$ both have spin 0, making the formulae rather simple. Formulae for this process were published in 2005 [@PWA], but experimental groups have not taken advantage of spin information from decays of $\omega$ and $J/\Psi$; that is essential because it determines spin alignments. With the full formulae, my simulation (which assumes uniform geometric acceptance) suggests that $\sim 50$ events are sufficient to determine $J^P$ if only a single amplitude is present or dominant. If there are more amplitudes, it gets harder, but it would still be valuable to know the outcome.
Section 4 reviews the Partial Wave Analysis using tensor notation in its simplest form. The formulae can be used in fully relativistic form. However, for the mass range 3872 to 3945 MeV, relativistic corrections are small and barely significant with present statistics. Two appendices discuss the tensor notation, also the simplest choice of axes and questions of how to do Lorentz transformations and rotations of axes, if needed. Section 6 summarises conclusions briefly.
-52mm -52mm
The $\Upsilon (10860)$
======================
The Belle Collaboration reports branching fractions for $\Upsilon (10860) \to \pi ^+\pi ^- \Upsilon (1S)$, $\pi ^+\pi^-\Upsilon (2S)$ and $\pi ^+\pi ^-\Upsilon (3S)$ a factor $\sim 50$ larger than for $\Upsilon (4S)$ [@Chen] [@Adachi]. Ali, Hambrook, Ahmed and Aslam interpret these branching fractions in terms of a tetraquark $Y_b(10890) \equiv (bn)(\bar b \bar n)$ [@AliA]. More recently, Ali, Hambrock and Mishima [@AliB] predict for this configuration an intensity ratio $$\sigma [\Upsilon (1S)K^+K^-]/\sigma [\Upsilon (1S)K^0\bar K^0] = 1/4.$$ For a $\bar b b$ or $\bar B B^*$ composition, this ratio should be 1, allowing a clear experimental test.
There is a natural explanation of the sizable branching fraction for $\Upsilon (10860) \to \pi \pi \Upsilon (1S, 2S, 3S)$ in terms of diagrams like that in Fig. 2. The intermediate states are off-shell, allowing $\pi$ production, even though $B^*$ and $B^*_s$ are below the kinematic threshold for pionic decays. The final step allows de-excitation of $B^*\bar B$ to lower lying $\pi \pi \Upsilon $ channels with larger phase space. Many similar diagrams exist with intermediate $B$, $B^*$, $B_s$ and $B^*_s$. Via mixing with meson-meson configurations, the wave function of $\Upsilon (10860)$ becomes $$|\Upsilon (10860)> = \alpha |b\bar b> + \sum_{ij} \beta _{ij}|\bar B_iB_j>
+\sum _{n=1,3}\gamma_n |\pi \pi \Upsilon (nS)>.$$ However, it is not possible to calculate these branching fractions accurately for lack of experimental information. The decay width of $\Upsilon (4S)$ to $\pi \pi \Upsilon (1S)$ is very weak, probably because it decays almost entirely to $B\bar B$. Transitions between $B$ and $B\pi$ are forbidden by angular momentum conservation. Channels involving real $B^*$ and $B^*_s$ are closed, so only virtual intermediate states contribute. However, once intermediate $\bar B B^*$, $\bar B^* B^*$, $\bar B_s B_s$ and $\bar B_s B^*_s$ channels are open, there are 20 alternative diagrams. There may be complicated interferences amongst them. The conclusion is that the observed $\pi^+\pi ^-\Upsilon (1S)$ decays of $\Upsilon (10860)$ are not dramatically out of line with expectation, bearing in mind the increase in phase space. What would be decisive is an accurate determination of the branching ratio of $\Upsilon (10860)$ to $K^+K^-$ and $K^0\bar K^0$.
A technical detail concerns the fit to the $\pi ^+\pi ^-$ angular distribution. The $\pi ^+\pi ^-$ amplitude contains a broad pole at $(440-470)$ MeV. In some sets of data it appears as a peak, e.g. in $J/\Psi \to \omega \pi ^+\pi ^-$ [@BESII]. In others it appears as in elastic scattering. In principle, it therefore needs to be fitted by an amplitude $[\Lambda _1 + \Lambda _2(s - s_A)]/D(s)$, where $s_A$ is the Adler zero, 0.0097 GeV$^2$ and $\Lambda$ are coupling constants. An algebraic parametrisation of the denominator $D(s)$ is given in Ref. [@sigpole]. It is not correct to fit the data with the E791 parametrisation, a Breit-Wigner amplitude of constant width. That has a phase variation in complete disagreement with $\pi \pi$ elastic scattering and violates Watson’s theorem [@Watson]. Furthermore, it contains an unphysical pole just below the $\pi \pi$ threshold.
X,Y,Z
=====
It is well known to theorists that the opening of strong thresholds can move resonances by large amounts. As one example, Barnes [@Barnes] has studied charmonium loop diagrams and concluded that mass shifts are potentially $>100$ MeV; he finds that they tend to be similar for all states in a multiplet with similar radial excitation number $n$ but different orbital angular momentum $L$, e.g. the $n=2$ $^3P_{0,1,2}$ and $^1P_1$ states.
The $Z(3930)$ is identified clearly in Belle data for $e^+e^- \to e^+e^- + \bar DD$ by a strong $D$-wave component in $\bar DD$ with mass $M=3929 \pm 5 \pm 2$ MeV, $\Gamma = 29 \pm 10 \pm 2$ MeV. [@Z3930]. It is now adopted by the PDG as the $\chi_{c2}(2P)$ radial excitation of $\chi_{c2}$ [@PDG]. There are two observations still labelled $X(3945)$ by the PDG. One is by Babar in $B \to K(\omega J/\Psi )$ with $M = 3914.6 ^{+3.8}_{-3.4} \pm 2.0$ MeV, $\Gamma = 34 ^{+12}_{-8} \pm 5$ MeV [@Babar3915]. The second, with less events $(49 \pm 15)$, is by Belle in $e^+e^- \to e^+ e^-(\omega J/\Psi )$ with $M = 3916 \pm 3 \pm 2$ MeV, $\Gamma = 17 \pm 10 \pm 3$ MeV [@Belle3915]. The mass difference from $ Z(3930)$ is $14 \pm 6 \pm 4$ MeV, so it is quite possible this is the $\chi_{c2}(2P)$ decaying to $\omega J/\Psi$. Another possibility is the $\chi_{c0}(2P)$.
There is considerable scatter in masses predicted for these states. A representative collection of recent predictions is shown in Table 1. Mass differences between $^3P_2$ and $^3P_0$ radial excitations are large, but can be affected by thresholds and form factors. If the $n=2$ $^3P_2$ predictions can be trusted, at least approximately, this state has been pulled down in mass by a large amount. The strong signal for $\omega J/\Psi$ at 3915 MeV is a hint of mixing between $c\bar c$ and the $\omega J/\Psi $ channel and attraction to this threshold and/or the $D\bar D^*$ threshold.
State BGS \[25\] EFG \[26\] \[27\]
--------- ------------ ------------ --------
$^3P_2$ 3972 3972 3941
$^3P_1$ 3925 3929 3900
$^3P_0$ 3852 3854 3839
$^1P_1$ 3934 3945 3909
$^1D_2$ 3799 3811 3799
: Recent predictions of masses of $n=2$ $^3P$ states and $n=1$ $^1D_2$ in MeV.
The $X(3945)$ claimed by Belle [@Choi] at $3943 \pm 11 \pm 13$ MeV with $\Gamma = 87 \pm 22 \pm 26$ MeV does not agree well with masses near 3915 MeV. However, they are in the same decay channel and with a small stretch of the errors may both be consistent with $Z(3930)$.
A puzzle is where the $^3P_0$ state is. Its obvious decay mode is to $\bar DD$. Its width is strongly dependent on the form factor for the $\bar DD$ channel [@Eichten],[@Swanson]. An early paper of Babar comments that separation of $D\bar D$ events is obscured by mis-identified $\bar D D^*$ events, so it could have escaped detection just below that threshold [@Babar03]. The other obvious possibility is that it could be the 3915 MeV peak in $\omega J/\Psi$, but then the inference is that it couples strongly to that threshold.
The $X(3940)$ is observed by Belle in $e^+e^- \to J/\Psi$ + an inclusive collection of $\bar DD$ and $\bar D D^*$ events. From 52 identified $\bar D D^*$ events, Belle find a mass of $M = 3943 ^{+7}_{-6} \pm 6$ MeV [@Pakhlov]. There are two obvious possibilities for its spin-parity. Firstly, it could be the missing $^1P_1$ state. Secondly, it could be $\chi_{c2}(2P)$ decaying to $\bar D
D^*$ with orbital angular momentum $\ell = 2$, though there is presently no claim to observe it in $\bar DD$. The rising phase space for $\ell = 2$ would naturally move the peak up in mass. To illustrate this, suppose $Z(3930)$ is described by a Breit-Wigner resonance of constant width with Belle parameters. A simple calculation using $\bar D D^*$ phase space and an $\ell = 2$ centrifugal barrier for decay with a radius of interaction of 0.73 fm [@FF] gives a peak at 3939 MeV with width 43 MeV; this is close to Belle parameters, but perhaps fortuitous in view of experimental errors for both $Z(3930)$ and $X(3940)$. Also strong coupling to the $\bar D D^*$ channel would move the peak by an amount which cannot be calculated without knowledge of the relative branching ratios to $\bar DD$ and $\bar D D^*$. A puzzle is that Belle do not observe any significant $B \to K(\bar D D^*)$ signal near 3940 MeV [@Aushev].
The spin-parity analysis of $e^+ e^- \to J/\Psi + 2^+$ involves spins $1^- \to 1^- + 2^+ + L$; since momenta in the final state are large, $L$ can run up to 4. This makes a complete partial wave analysis impossible with present data and $J^P = 0^+$ can be confused in this reaction with the helicity 0 component of the $^3P_2$ state.
Spin-Parity Analysis
====================
Spin-parity determinations of these states are needed if any progress is to be made in understanding them. The cleanest route to $J^P$ determination lies in $B \to K + X$, $X \to \omega J/\Psi $ (or $\rho J/\Psi$) or $\bar D D^*$. This is because both $B$ and $K$ are spinless, with the result that the kaon is produced with known orbital angular momentum equal to the spin of X; this simplifies the partial wave analysis greatly. However, that analysis [*must*]{} use formulae which describe both production and decay of X and must use spin information from both $\omega $ and $J/\Psi$ or from the $D^*$. The spin of the $\omega$ is normal to its decay plane in the rest frame of $\pi ^+\pi ^-\pi ^0$. The $J/\psi$ is detected via decays to lepton-lepton, and its polarisation vector $\epsilon$ is normal to the lepton-lepton axis in its rest frame. These are key pieces of information. With them, matrix elements for the full amplitude contain correlations between the spectator kaon and decays of $\omega $ and $J/\Psi$ which are highly distinctive; without these correlations, most of the relevant information is discarded. Formulae for these matrix elements were published in 2005 [@PWA] and will be reviewed here in outline, together with comments on the simplest choice of reference frames.
If formulae are written in terms of vectors and tensors, the vital features are transparent. The formulae can be written in any reference frame, but in practice they simplify greatly in the rest frame of X,Y,Z for reasons explained algebraically in Appendix 1. A general point is that all matrix elements are orthogonal; that is a valuable check on computer programmes.
Mass (MeV) $\bar D D^*$ barrier $\omega J/\Psi$ barrier
------------ ---------------------- -------------------------
3900 0.1905 0.1105
3915 0.2880 0.1835
3930 0.3679 0.2498
3945 0.4361 0.3096
3960 0.4937 0.3635
: $L=2$ centrifugal barriers for $\bar D D^*$ and $\omega J/\Psi$.
The decay of the resonance $X$ is described by combined spins $s$ of $\omega$ and $J/\Psi$ (or $D + D^*$). The $Z(3930)$ is likely to decay dominantly with $\ell = 0$, though $l=2$ is allowed in principle. However, the centrifugal barrier factor for $\ell = 2$ is quite strong. Table 2 exhibits Blatt-Weisskopf centrifugal barrier factors for the amplitude using a generous radius of interaction 0.73 fm, including the convolution of both particles in the final state; (average masses are used for $D$ and $D^*$). For a smaller radius, the barrier factors are even smaller. The $\ell = 4$ barrier makes that amplitude negligible. The primary objective of the analysis should be to determine the dominant amplitudes, hence should start with $J^P = 0^+$ and $2^+$, both with $\ell = 0$. Further $\ell = 2$ amplitudes may then be introduced one by one with penalty functions which constrain their magnitudes unless the data really demand them. This may be done, for example, by adjusting the penalty function to contribute $\chi^2$ or log likelihood in the range 1–4.
-35mm -6mm
A simple choice of axes is shown in Fig. 3 with the $Z$-axis along the direction of the $J/\Psi$ and $Y$ along the normal to the plane of K, $\omega $ and $J/\Psi$. The formula for $\omega \to \pi ^+\pi ^-\pi^0$ is a 4-vector $W$ given in Lorentz invariant form in Section 4.2 of [@PWA]. This formula is easily evaluated in any reference frame, such as that of Fig. 3. It includes naturally the well-known enhancement near the edge of the Dalitz plot for its decay to $\pi ^+\pi ^-\pi ^0$.
The $J/\Psi$ decay is simplest in its rest frame. The effect of the Lorentz transformation to the rest frame of X,Y,Z is small because the $J/\Psi$ is heavy and therefore non-relativistic in that frame. The gymnastics required for the Lorentz transformation of its polarisation vector $\epsilon$ are given in Appendix 2.
For $J^P = 1^+$, the kaon in the production process carries $L = 1$. In the resonance rest frame, this angular momentum is described by the 3-momentum $\vec {K}$ of the kaon. In the decay $X(3872) \to \rho J/\Psi$, the spin 1 of the $\rho$ is represented by the vector $P = k(\pi _1) - k(\pi _2)$, where $k$ are momenta in any reference frame. In the non-relativistic limit the full matrix element reduces to $\sl {M} = \vec {\epsilon}.\vec {P} \wedge \vec {K}$. There is a simple trick which can be used to do the spin average over $\vec {\epsilon}$. This is to write $\epsilon _x = 1$ and $\epsilon _y = i = \sqrt {-1}$; then intensities are obtained by taking the modulus squared of $\sl {M}$. For $X(3872)$, $\ell = 2$ in the decay is eliminated by the tiny width of the state. The threefold dependence on the lepton axis, the spin of the $\rho$ and the kaon direction is then unique and highly distinctive.
For $J^P = 0^+$, the matrix element is $$M = \vec {W}.\vec {\epsilon} = W_1\epsilon _1 + W_2\epsilon _2 +
W_3\epsilon _2 - W_4 \epsilon_4,$$ where $\vec {W}$ and $\vec {\epsilon}$ are 4-vectors. Without the last term, which is very small, the matrix element is just the scalar product of 3-vectors $\vec {W}$ and $\vec {\epsilon}$. With this simplification, the intensity is $\sin ^2 \alpha$, where $\alpha$ is the angle between $\vec {W}$ and the lepton axis. The simplicity of this formula may actually make the $0^+$ state harder to identify than other amplitudes.
For $J^P = 2^+$, the kaon carries $L = 2$ and is described by a tensor $$\tau _{\alpha \beta} = K_\alpha K_\beta - (1/3)\delta_{\alpha \beta }
(K^2).$$ Here $\delta$ is the usual Kronecker delta function and $K^2 = K_1^2 + K^2_2 + K^2_3 - K^2_4$. For decays with $\ell = 0$, the combined spin of $\omega$ and $J/\Psi$ is $s = 2$. The decay is then described by the tensor $$T_{\alpha \beta} = \epsilon _{\alpha} W_\beta + \epsilon _\beta W_\alpha
- (2/3)(\epsilon_\mu W^\mu )$$ in the resonance rest frame; $\epsilon _\mu W^\mu$ implies the summation over $\mu = 1$ to 4 and takes the same general form as $K^2$ above. The full matrix element is just the contraction $\tau _{\alpha \beta }T^{\alpha \beta }$. It is very distinctive because of the dependence on angles of all of $K$, $\vec {W}$ and $\vec {\epsilon}$.
A simulation of these $J^P$, assuming full geometrical acceptance, suggests that 50 events would give a separation at $90\%$ confidence level between $0^+$, $1^+$ and $2^+$ if only one of them contributes a significant amplitude. Babar and Belle between them have many more events than this, with the exception of $X(3940) \to \bar D D^*$. If more than one $J^P$ contributes, the separation is obviously poorer, and an overlap between $0^+$ and $2^+$ could be a difficult case. Formulae for $\ell = 2$ in decays are given in Ref. [@PWA].
A distinctive feature of $X(3872)$ is that its mass lies within 0.3 MeV of the $\bar D_0 D^*_0$ threshold. There is a simple explanation. It is attracted to this threshold by the dispersive effect due to the opening of the threshold. Lee et al. [@Lee] model the $X(3872)$ including exchange of $\pi$ and $\sigma$ between $\bar D$ and $D^*$. They solve the Schr" odinger equation, including the $\bar D D^*$ channel; this is equivalent to evaluating the dispersion integral of Eq. (2), since their solution is explicitly analytic. One should not be misled into thinking that the effect of $\bar D D^*$ is small because few events are seen in $X(3872) \to \bar D_0 D^*_0$; there are few events because of the narrow width of $X(3872)$. However, the attraction to the threshold does not involve the resonance denominator in Eq. (2); it arises from the integral over all phase space for $\bar D D^*$. A parallel example is the deuteron. Its binding energy is not governed by its tiny width; it comes from virtual meson exchanges over the whole left-hand cut.
Present data have failed to distinguish between $J^P = 1^+$ and $2^-$ for $X(3872)$. The key point is to check whether partial wave analysis is consistent with $J^P = 1^+$ or not. If it is, the fact that the mass coincides with the $\bar D D^*$ threshold is significant information. A state with $J^P = 2^-$ couples to $\bar D D^*$ with $l=1$ and there is no obvious reason why it should lie close to this threshold. In fact, predictions for the mass of $\eta _{c2}(1\, ^1D_2)$ in Table 1 lie far below $X(3872)$; this is because spin-splitting for $D$ states is smaller than for $P$-states and the mass of the $\psi (3770)$ (mostly $n=1\, ^3D_1$) is well known. For $J^P=2^-$, formulae are more messy and are given in Ref. [@PWA]. There are are in principle three amplitudes, but one requires $\ell = 3$, which is irrelevant for the narrow $X(3872)$. The others have $\ell = 1$ and combined spins either $s = 1$ or 2.
A full partial wave analysis of Belle data for $X(3940) \to \bar D D^*$ will in general be ambiguous with only $\sim 50 $ events. However, this may be enough events to test the possibility that $J^P = 0^-$. The spin information is carried by the vector $$Q = k_D - k_\pi - \frac {M^2_D - m^2_\pi }{M^2_{D^*}}[k_D + k_\pi],$$ where $k$ are momenta (in any frame). With $J^P=0^-$, production requires $L=1$ and decays to $D\bar D^*$ with $\ell = 1$, so only a single amplitude is present; it has the distinctive feature of going through zero at the centre of the angular distribution for decays. There is a missing $^1P_1$ $\bar cc$ state. From predicted masses in Table 1 and the fact that the mass of the $n=1$ $^1P_1$ state is slightly about the $^3P_1$ state, it seems likely that the $^1P_1$ state will lie above $X(3872)$. However, it is not easy to find. It has charge conjugation $C=-1$, while $\omega J/\Psi$ has $C=+1$, so this decay is forbidden. It can appear in $\bar D D^*$. However, it appears in that channel in the combination $\bar D_+ D^*_- + \bar D_0 D^*_0$ (because of the minus sign associated with $\bar D_0$), while $^3P_1$ decays with the opposite relative sign. Without interferences with a state of established $J^{PG}$, $^1P_1$ and $^3P_1$ are not separated in any particular charge state.
Conclusions
===========
It is necessary to be specific about what tetraquark configuration is meant in every discussion of them. Meson-meson combinations mixed with $q\bar q$ are to be expected via $t$- and $u$-channel exchanges and also from the $s$-channel decay.
The increase in branching fractions for $e^+e^- \to \pi ^+\pi ^- \Upsilon (1S,2S,3S)$ as the mass increases from $\Upsilon (4S)$ to $\Upsilon (10860)$ may be understood qualitatively via the opening of real decays to $\bar B B^*$, $\bar B^* B^*$ and $\bar B_s B^*_s$ channels in the mass range 10559 to 10826 MeV, followed by de-excitation to $\pi\pi\Upsilon$. Observed branching fractions are not seriously out of line with expectation. The composition $(bn)(\bar b\bar n)$ may be tested by measuring the intensity ratio given by $\sigma [\Upsilon (1S)K^+K^-]/\sigma [\Upsilon (1S)K^0\bar K^0)$, which Ali, Hambrock and Mishima show to be 1/4 for exotic tetraquarks; for a $\bar B B^*$ composition or $\bar bb$, this ratio should be 1.
Spin-parity analyses of X,Y,Z states are needed and can be done straightforwardly in several cases using formulae developed in Ref. [@PWA]. It is suggested here that they can be explained naturally as the expected $n=2$ radial excitations of $^3P_1$, $^3P_2$ and perhaps $^3P_0$. It is essential to make use of the full forms of matrix elements for production and decay for partial wave analysis.
Acknowledgement
===============
I am grateful to Prof. George Rupp for valuable comments on the points discussed here.
Appendix 1
==========
Chung gives an introduction to tensor formalism [@Chung]. Foundation work was done by Zemach [@Zemach]. The convention used here is that the Lorentz metric $g_{\mu \nu}$ is such that four-vectors are written as $(-p_1, -p_2, -p_3, E = p_4)$, i.e. $g_{\mu \nu}$ has only diagonal elements (-1,-1,-1,1).
The decay of a scalar particle, e.g. $\sigma \to \pi \pi$, is described by its mass $(k_1+k_2)_4 \equiv P_4$; here $k_{1,2}$ are 4-vectors of the decay pions. A spin 1 particle needs to be described by a vector constructed to be orthogonal to the scalar expression. This is done, for example in describing $\rho \to \pi \pi$, using $$(k^\bot _{12})_\mu = g^\bot _{\mu \nu }(k_1 + k_2)_\nu,$$ where $$g^\bot _{\mu \nu} = g_{\mu \nu} - (P_\mu P_\nu)/M^2_\rho.$$ Substituting (11) into (10), $$(k^\bot _{12})_\mu = g_{\mu \nu}(k_1 - k_2)_\nu -
\frac {[(k_1-k_2)_\nu (k_1 + k_2)_\nu](k_1 + k_2)_\mu}{M^2_\rho}.$$ The orthogonality between vector and scalar is demonstrated from the dot product of $(k^\bot _{12})_\mu$ with $(k_1 + k_2)_\mu$: $$g_{\mu \nu}(k_1-k_2)_\nu(k_1+k_2)_\mu - (M_1^2 -
M_2^2)M^2_\rho/M^2_\rho = 0.$$
In the rest frame of the decaying particle, $g^\bot _{\mu \nu}$ has diagonal elements \[-1,-1,-1,1\]-\[0,0,0,1\]= -\[1,1,1,0\]. This gives the important result that $k^\bot$ is a 3-vector in the rest frame of a resonance. Then $k^\bot$ describes the angular momentum carried by the particle. Tensor expressions for higher spins are built up as described by Zemach and Chung so that they are orthogonal to lower spins. They are symmetric and traceless, i.e. diagonal elements add to 0. We shall need only the tensor $T_{\mu \nu}$ for spin 2.
Appendix 2
==========
Suppose the lepton pair from $J/\Psi$ decay has components $(\sin \theta \cos \phi$, $\sin \theta \sin \phi$, $\cos \theta )$ in axes in the $J/\Psi$ rest frame parallel to $X,Y,Z$ of Fig. 3. This vector may be expressed as $$\left(\begin {array} {ccc}
\cos \phi & -\sin \phi & 0 \\
\sin \phi & \cos \phi & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 \\
\end {array}
\right)
\left(\begin {array} {ccc}
\cos \theta & 0 & \sin \theta \\
0 & 0 & 1 \\
-\sin \theta & 0 & \cos \theta \\
\end {array}
\right)
\left(
\begin {array} {c}
0 \\
0 \\
1\\
\end {array}
\right).$$ The spin $\epsilon$ of the $J/\Psi$ is orthogonal to this lepton axis. In axes x,y,z aligned along the lepton axis, $\epsilon$ is given by a vector $(\cos R, \sin R, 0)$ and eventually it is necessary to average over $R$. In X,Y,X, axes, $\epsilon $ is given by the converse relation to Eq. (14) with the result $$\left(\begin {array} {ccc}
\cos \theta & 0 & -\sin \theta \\
0 & 1 & 0 \\
\sin \theta & 0 & \cos \theta \\
\end {array}
\right)
\left(\begin {array} {ccc}
\cos \phi & \sin \phi & 0 \\
-\sin \phi & \cos \phi & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 \\
\end {array}
\right)
\left(\begin {array} {c}
\cos R \\
\sin R \\
0 \\
\end {array}
\right)$$ $$= \left(\begin {array} {c}
\cos \theta (\cos \phi \cos R + \sin \phi \sin R) \\
-\sin \phi \cos R + \cos \phi \sin R\\
\sin \theta (\cos \phi \cos R + \sin \phi \sin R)\\
\end {array}
\right).$$ Under the Lorentz transformation back to the centre of mass frame, this becomes $$\left(\begin {array} {c}
\cos \theta (\cos \phi \cos R + \sin \phi \sin R) \\
-\sin \phi \cos R + \cos \phi \sin R\\
\gamma \sin \theta (\cos \phi \cos R + \sin \phi \sin R)\\
\beta \gamma \sin \theta (\cos \phi \cos R + \sin \phi \sin R) \\
\end {array}
\right),$$ where $\gamma$ and $\beta$ are the usual expressions for the Lorentz transformation. This approach is simpler than that given in Ref. [@PWA].
[99]{} A. Ali, C. Hambrock, I. Ahmed and M.J. Aslam, Phys. Lett. [**B**]{} 684, 28 (2010). R.L. Jaffe, Phys. Rev. D [**14**]{} 267 and 281 (1977). D.V. Bugg, Eur. Phys. J C [**47**]{} 57 (2006). I. Caprini, G. Colangelo and H. Leutwyler, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{} 032001 (2006). D. Descotes-Genon and B. Moussallam, Eur. Phys. J. C [**48**]{} 553 (2006). J-M. Richard, arXiv: 1012.1022. D.V. Bugg, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. [**35**]{} 075005 (2008). E. van Beveren and G. Rupp, Annals Phys. [**324**]{} 1620 (2009). D. Gamermann [*et al.*]{}, Eur. Phys. J. A [**33**]{} 119 (2007). D.V. Bugg, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. [**37**]{} 055007 (2010). J. Weinstein and N. Isgur, Phys. Rev. D [**41**]{} 2236 (1990). G. Janssen, B.C. Pearce, K. Holinde and J. Speth, Phys. Rev. D [**52**]{} 2690 (1995). K. Nakamura et al., \[Particle Data Group\], J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. [**37**]{} 075021 (2010). D.V. Bugg, Phys. Rev. D [**71**]{} 016006 (2005). K.F. Chen [*et al.*]{} \[Belle Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**100**]{} 11200 (2008). I. Adachi [*et al.*]{} \[Belle Collaboration\], arXiv: 0808.2445. A. Ali, C. Hambrock and S. Mishima, arXiv: 1011.4856. Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{} 074004 (2009). M. Ablikim [*et al.*]{} Phys. Lett. B [**598**]{} 149 (2004). D.V. Bugg, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. [**34**]{} 151 (2007). K.M. Watson, Phys. Rev. [**88**]{} 1163 (1952). T. Barnes, arXiv: 1003.2644. S. Uehara [*et al.*]{} \[Belle Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{} 082003 (2006). B. Aubert [*et al.*]{} \[Babar Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**101**]{} 082001 (2008). S. Uehara [*et al.*]{} \[Babar Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**104**]{} 092001 (2010). T. Barnes, S. Godfrey and E.S. Swanson, Phys. Rev. D [**72**]{} 054026 (2005). D. Ebert, R.N. Faustov and V.O. Galkin, Phys. Rev. D [**67**]{} 014027 (2003). B-Q. Li, C. Meng and K-T. Chao, Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{} 014012 (2009). S-K. Choi [*et al.*]{} \[Belle Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**94**]{} 182002 (2005). E.J. Eichten, K. Lane and C. Quigg, Phys. Rev. D [**69**]{} 094019 (2004). E.S. Swanson, Phys. Rept. [**429**]{} 243 (2006). B. Aubert [*et al.*]{} \[Babar Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. D [**68**]{} 092001 (2003). P. Pakhlov [*et al.*]{} \[Belle Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**100**]{} 202001 (2008). D.V. Bugg, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. [**36**]{} 075002 (2009). T. Aushev et al., \[Belle Collaboration\], arXiv: 0810.0358. I.W. Lee, A. Faessler, T. Gutsche and V.E. Lyubovitskij, Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{} 094005 (2009). S.U. Chung, Phys. Rev. D [**48**]{} 1225 (1993). C. Zemach, Phys. Rev. [**140**]{} B97 (1965); [*ibid*]{} [**140**]{} B109 (1965).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Recent elegant work[@kre] on the structure of Perturbative Quantum Field Theory (PQFT) has revealed an astonishing interplay between analysis(Riemann Zeta functions), topology (Knot theory), combinatorial graph theory (Feynman Diagrams) and algebra (Hopf structure). The difficulty inherent in the complexities of a fully-fledged field theory such as PQFT means that the essential beauty of the relationships between these areas can be somewhat obscured. Our intention is to display some, although not all, of these structures in the context of a simple zero-dimensional field theory; i.e. a quantum theory of non-commuting operators which do not depend on spacetime. The combinatorial properties of these boson creation and annihilation operators, which is our chosen example, may be described by graphs [@bbm; @bbs], analogous to the Feynman diagrams of PQFT, which we show possess a Hopf algebra structure[@geh]. Our approach is based on the partition function for a boson gas. In a subsequent note in these Proceedings we sketch the relationship between the Hopf algebra of our simple model and that of the PQFT algebra.'
address: |
$^{a}$The Open University, Physics and Astronomy Department\
Milton Keynes MK7 6AA, United Kingdom\
$^{b}$Lab.de Phys.Théor,de la Matière Condensée, CNRS UMR 7600, Université Pierre et Marie Curie\
Tour 24 – 2e ét., 4 Pl.Jussieu, F 75252 Paris Cedex 05, France\
$^{d}$H.Niewodniczański Institute of Nuclear Physics, Polish Academy of Sciences\
ul. Eliasza-Radzikowskiego 152, PL 31342 Krakow, Poland\
$^{c}$ Institut Galil´ee, LIPN, CNRS UMR 7030 99 Av. J.-B. Clement, F-93430 Villetaneuse, France
author:
- 'A. I. Solomon$^{a,b}$,G. E. H. Duchamp$^{c}$, P. Blasiak$^{d}$,A. Horzela$^{d}$, K. A. Penson$^{b}$'
title: Hopf Algebra Structure of a Model Quantum Field Theory
---
Partition Function Integrand
============================
Consider the Partition Function $Z$ of a quantum statistical mechanical system $$\label{pf1}
Z={\rm Tr}\exp(-\beta H)\,.$$ whose hamiltonian is $H$ ($\beta \equiv 1/kT$, $k$=Boltzmann’s constant $T$=absolute temperature). We may evaluate the trace over any complete set of states; we choose the (over-)complete set of coherent states $$\label{cs}
|z\rangle= e^{-|z|^2|/2}\sum_n ({{z^n}{/n!}) {a^{\dagger}}^n}|0\rangle$$ where $a^{\dagger}$ is the boson creation operator satisfying $[a.a^{\dagger}]=1$, for which the completeness or [*resolution of unity*]{} property is $$\label{cs1}
\frac{1}{\pi}\int d^{2}z |z\rangle\langle z|=I\equiv
\int d\mu(z)|z\rangle\langle z|.$$ The simplest, and generic, example is the free single-boson hamiltonian $H=\epsilon a^{\dagger}a$ for which the appropriate trace calculation is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{tr1}
Z&=&\frac{1}{\pi}\int d^{2}z \langle z|\exp\bigl(-\beta \epsilon a^{\dagger}a\bigr)|z\rangle=\nonumber \\
&=&\frac{1}{\pi}\int d^{2}z \langle
z|:\exp\bigl(a^{\dagger}a(e^{-\beta\epsilon}-1)\bigr):|z\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ Here we have used the well-known relation [@[5]; @[6]] for the [*forgetful*]{} normal ordering operator $:\!f(a, a^{\dagger})\!:$ which means “normally order the creation and annihilation operators in $f$ [*forgetting*]{} the commutation relation $[a,a^{\dagger}]=1.$”[^1]
We may write the Partition Function in general as $$\label{pf2}
Z=\int{F(x,z)\,d\mu(z)}\\; \; \; \; \; (x\equiv -\beta \epsilon)$$ thereby defining the Partition Function Integrand (PFI) $F(x,z)$, which will be the object of our analysis.
Combinatorial aspects: Bell numbers
===================================
The generic free-boson example Eq.(\[tr1\]) above may be rewritten to show the connection with certain well-known combinatorial numbers. Writing $y=|z|^2$, Eq.(\[tr1\]) becomes $$\label{z2}
Z=\int\limits_0^\infty dy\exp\bigl(y(e^{x}-1)\bigr)\,.$$ This is an integral over the classical [*exponential generating function*]{} for the [*Bell polynomials*]{} $$\label{bpgf1}
\exp\left(y\bigl(e^{x}-1\bigr)\right)=\sum_{n=0}^\infty B_n(y)\,\frac{x^n}{n!}$$ where the Bell number is $B_{n}(1)=B(n)$, the number of ways of putting $n$ different objects into $n$ identical containers (some may be left empty). Related to the Bell numbers are the [*Stirling numbers of the second kind*]{} $S(n,k)$, which are defined as the number of ways of putting $n$ different objects into $k$ identical containers, leaving none empty. From the definition we have $B(n)=\sum_{k=1}^n S(n,k)$. The foregoing gives a combinatorial interpretation of the partition function integrand $F(x,y)$ as the exponential generating function of the Bell polynomials.
Graphs
------
We now give a graphical representation of the Bell numbers. Consider labelled lines which emanate from a white dot, the origin, and finish on a black dot, the vertex. We shall allow only one line from each white dot but impose no limit on the number of lines ending on a black dot. Clearly this simulates the definition of $S(n,k)$ and $B(n)$, with the white dots playing the role of the distinguishable objects, whence the lines are labelled, and the black dots that of the indistinguishable containers. The identification of the graphs for 1, 2 and 3 lines is given in Figure 1.
We have concentrated on the Bell number sequence and its associated graphs since, as we shall show, there is a sense in which this sequence of graphs is [*generic*]{}. That is, we can represent [*any*]{} combinatorial sequence by the same sequence of graphs as in Figure 1, with suitable vertex multipliers (denoted by the $V$ terms in the same figure). Consider the general partition function of Eq.(\[pf1\]) with hamiltonian given by $H=\epsilon
w(a,a^{\dagger})$, with $w$ a string (= sum of products of positive powers) of boson creation and annihilation operators. The partition function integrand $F$ of Eq.(\[pf2\]) for which we seek to give a graphical expansion, is now $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pf3}
F(x,z)&=&\langle z|\exp(xw)|z\rangle= \hskip20mm(x=-\beta \epsilon)\nonumber \\
&=&\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\langle z|w^n|z\rangle\,\frac{x^n}{n!}=\nonumber \\
&=&\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}W_n(z)\,\frac{x^n}{n!}=\nonumber \\
&=&\exp\biggl(\;\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}V_n(z)\,\frac{x^n}{n!}\biggr),\end{aligned}$$ with obvious definitions of $W_n$ and $V_n$. The sequences $\left\{W_n\right\}$ and $\left\{V_n\right\}$ may each be recursively obtained from the other [@[7a]]. This relates the sequence of multipliers $\{V_n\}$ of Figure 1 to the hamiltonian of Eq.(\[pf1\]). The lower limit $1$ in the $V_n$ summation is a consequence of the normalization of the coherent state $|z\rangle$. A mild generalization is to write the Partition Function Integrand of Eq.(\[pf3\]), using the product formula [@bbs; @Vasiliev; @ben1], as $$\label{pf4}
F(x,{\mathbb{V}},{\mathbb{L}})=\left.\exp\left(\sum_{m=1}^{\infty} L_m \frac{x^m}{m!}\frac{d^m}{dy^m}\right)
\exp\left(\sum_{s=1}^{\infty} V_s \frac{y^s}{s!}\right)\right|_{y=0} .$$ (We have suppressed the explicit dependence on the coherent state parameter $z$.) The advantage of this formulation is that it treats the white and black spots symmetrically[^2], as well as having some calculational advantages. An example of some of the associated graphs is given in Figure 2.
Hopf Algebra structure
======================
We briefly describe the Hopf algebra ${\bf BELL}$ which the diagrams of Figure 1 define.
1. Each distinct diagram is an individual basis element of ${\bf BELL}$; thus the dimension is infinite. (Visualise each diagram in a “box”.) The sum of two diagrams is simply the two boxes containing the diagrams. Scalar multiples are formal; for example, they may be provided by the $V$ coefficients.
2. The identity element $e$ is the empty diagram (an empty box).
3. Multiplication is the juxtaposition of two diagrams within the same “box”. ${\bf BELL}$ is generated by the [*connected*]{} diagrams; this is a consequence of the Connected Graph Theorem [@FU]. Since we have not here specified an order for the juxtaposition, multiplication is commutative.
4. The coproduct $\Delta:{\bf BELL}{\longrightarrow}{\bf BELL}\times {\bf BELL}$ is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta(e)&=&e\times e \; \; \; \;({\rm unit}\; \; e) \nonumber \\
\Delta(x)&=&x \times e +e \times x \; \; \; \; ({\rm generator}\; \; x) \nonumber \\
\Delta(AB)&=&\Delta(A)\Delta(B) \; \; \; {\rm otherwise} \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ so that $\Delta$ is an algebra homomorphism.
5. The co-unit $\epsilon$ satisfies $\epsilon(e)=1$ otherwise $\epsilon(A)=0$.
6. The antipode ${\mathcal S}:{\bf BELL}{\longrightarrow}{\bf BELL}$ satisfies ${\mathcal S}(e)=e$; on a generator $x$, ${\mathcal S}(x)=-x$. It is an [*anti-homomorphism*]{}, i.e. ${\mathcal S}(AB)={\mathcal S}(B){\mathcal S}(A)$.
It may be shown that the foregoing structure ${\bf BELL}$ satisfies the axioms of a commutative, co-commutative Hopf algebra. Diagrams such as those of Figure 2, associated with the formulation Eq.(\[pf4\]) similarly give rise to a commutative, co-commutative Hopf algebra ${\bf DIAG}$ generated by the connected graphs. The Bell Hopf algebra ${\bf BELL}$ is a homomorphic image of ${\bf DIAG}$.
Discussion
==========
The philosophy of our approach has been the following. To elucidate the structure of a complicated physical system, such as perturbative quantum field theory (PQFT) , is itself a daunting task. One may gain some insight by considering a much more straightforward system, such as the one treated here. This may be thought of as a zero-dimensional field theory, as our simple boson operator $a$ does not depend on space or time. Nevertheless, we have shown that even such a basic system does exhibit some of the features of the more complicated case, in particular the structure of the Hopf algebras ${\bf BELL}$ and ${\bf DIAG}$. This may be thought of as a simple solvable model in its own right. However, one may also adopt the approach of asking wherein does this simple structure sit within the full PQFT structure? Our approach is to generalize the [*algebraic*]{} structure, and thereby produce Hopf algebras of sufficient complexity to emulate those associated with PQFT.
In the following note [@GHE] we show how such a generalization may be achieved, with starting point the Hopf algebras ${\bf BELL}$ and ${\bf DIAG}$ described here.
[999]{} A readable account may be found in Dirk Kreimer’s “Knots and Feynman Diagrams”, Cambridge Lecture Notes in Physics, CUP (2000). We use the graphical description of Bender, Brody and Meister, J.Math.Phys. [**40**]{}, 3239 (1999) and arXiv:quant-ph/0604164 This approach is extended in Blasiak, Penson, Solomon, Horzela and Duchamp, J.Math.Phys. [**46**]{}, 052110 (2005) and arXiv:quant-ph/0405103 A preliminary account of the more mathematical aspects of this work may be found in arXiv: cs.SC/0510041 J.R. Klauder and E.C.G. Sudarshan: *Fundamentals of Quantum Optics*. Benjamin, New York, 1968. W.H. Louisell: *Quantum Statistical Properties of Radiation*. J. Wiley, New York, 1990. M. Pourahmadi: Amer. Math. Monthly **91**, 303, 1984. N.A. Vasiliev, *Functional Methods in Quantum Field Theory and Statistical Physics*, Gordon and Breach Publishers, Amsterdam, 1998. C.M. Bender,D.C. Brody and B.K.Meister, Quantum field theory of partitions, [*J.Math. Phys.*]{} [**40**]{} 3239,1999; C.M. Bender, D.C. Brody and B.K. Meister, Combinatorics and field theory, [*Twistor Newsletter*]{} [**45**]{} 36, 2000. G.W. Ford and G.E. Uhlenbeck, Proc. Nat. Acad. [**42**]{}, 122,1956. G.H.E. Duchamp [*et al*]{}, “A multipurpose Hopf deformation of the Algebra of Feynman-like Diagrams”, in these Proceedings.
[^1]: Of course, this procedure may alter the value of the operator to which it is applied.
[^2]: Thus we need not adhere to the previous convention of treating the white spots as the origins.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'C. Martayan'
- 'Y. Frémat'
- 'A.-M. Hubert'
- 'M. Floquet'
- 'J. Zorec'
- 'C. Neiner'
date: 'Received /Accepted'
subtitle: 'I: Large Magellanic Cloud, field of NGC2004.'
title: 'Effects of metallicity, star formation conditions and evolution in B and Be stars.'
---
Introduction
============
The study of physical properties of B stars with respect to the relative frequency of Be stars in young open clusters and their surrounding field can provide important insights into the origin of the Be phenomenon. Indeed, our knowledge of mass-loss conditions, which lead to the formation of an anisotropic envelope around a fraction of B stars, is still very poor. Several physical processes could be involved, such as rapid rotation, non-radial pulsations, magnetic fields, evolutionary effects, binarity... Although the Be phenomenon has frequently been considered as a rapid rotation-related phenomenon in OB stars, it is not yet established whether only a fraction or all of the rapidly rotating early-type stars evolve into Be stars.
Several recent studies tackled the major question of the influence of metallicity and evolution on rapid rotators. The Be phenomenon could be favoured in stars of low metallicity (Maeder et al. 1999). Preliminary results by Royer et al. (2004) could confirm this metallicity effect, although they use limited stellar samples. The appearance of the Be phenomenon could also depend on stellar ages (Fabregat & Torrejón 2000). Accounting for the effects of fast rotation and of gravitational darkening, Zorec et al. (2005) concluded that Be stars spread over the whole Main Sequence (MS) evolutionary phase. However, they find that in massive stars the Be phenomenon tends to be present at smaller age ratios than in less massive stars. Moreover, Keller (2004) found that young clusters host more rapid rotators than their surrounding field. This assessment is valid for the LMC, as well as in the Galaxy. A similar trend was found by Gies & Huang (2004) from a spectroscopic survey of young galactic clusters.
Up to now, spectroscopic surveys were only obtained with a resolution power R$<$5000 and/or a low signal to noise ratio (S/N). The new instrumentation FLAMES-GIRAFFE installed at the VLT-UT2 at ESO is particularly well suited to obtain high quality spectra of large samples needed for the study of stellar populations. Thus, we have undertaken the determination of fundamental parameters for a large sample of B and Be stars in regions of different metallicity: (i) to check whether the low metallicity favours the formation of rapid rotators and in particular of Be stars; and (ii) to investigate the evolutionary status of Be stars. In a first paper (Martayan et al. 2005, hereafter Paper I), we reported the identification of numerous B-type stars, the discovery of new Be stars and spectroscopic binaries in the young cluster LMC-NGC2004 and its surrounding field with the help of medium resolution spectra obtained with the FLAMES instrumentation. The present paper deals with fundamental parameters and evolutionary status of a very large fraction of those objects, taking into account rotational effects (stellar flattening, gravitational darkening) when appropriate.
Observations
============
This work makes use of spectra obtained with the multifibre spectrograph VLT-FLAMES in Medusa mode (132 fibres) at medium resolution (R=6400) in setup LR02 (396.4 - 456.7 nm). Observations (ESO runs 72.D-0245B and 73.D-0133A) were carried out in the young cluster LMC-NGC2004 and in its surrounding field, as part of the Guaranteed Time Observation programmes of the Paris Observatory (P.I.: F. Hammer). The observed field (25 in diameter) is centered at $\alpha$(2000) = 05h 29m 00s and $\delta$(2000) = -67$^{\circ}$ 14 00. Besides the young cluster NGC2004, this field contains several high-density groups of stars (KMHK943, 971, 963, 991, 988 and BSDL2001). Spectra were obtained on November 24, 2003 and April 12, 2004; at these dates, the heliocentric velocities are smaller than 1.5 . The strategy and conditions of observations, as well as the spectra reduction, are described in Paper I. A significant sample of the B stars population (168 objects), 6 O and 2 A stars were observed during the two observing runs. Since the V magnitude of the selected targets ranges from 13.7 to 17.8 mag, we chose a 2-hour integration time. This corresponds to an average S/N $\simeq$ 120, with individual values ranging from $\sim$20 to $\sim$150 for the fainter and brighter stars, respectively.
The colour diagram V versus B-V (Fig. \[figcoul\]), derived from our instrumental photometry, shows the B and Be stars in our sample compared to all the stars in the EIS-LMC33 field. Several stars present a strong reddening and are mainly located either in the clusters NGC2004, KMHK943, KMHK971, ‘unknown2’ and in the galactic open cluster HS66325, either at the periphery of the region LHA120-N51A, or in the field, but without explicit link between all these regions. The locations of the observed O, B and A-type stars are shown in the LMC33 field from the EIS pre-FLAMES survey (Fig. \[figure0\]).
Finally, among the 124812 stars which we have listed in the EIS LMC33 field, our pre-selection with photometric criteria gives 1806 B-type stars. And we have observed 177 B-type stars among the 1235 B-type stars which are observable in the VLT-FLAMES/GIRAFFE field. The ratio of observed to observable B-type stars represents 14.3%. Consequently, this sample is statistically significant.
Fundamental parameters determination {#FPD}
====================================
Atom Ion Number of levels
----------- ------------ ---------------------------------
Hydrogen H [i]{} 8 levels + 1 superlevel
H [ii]{} 1 level
Helium He [i]{} 24 levels
He [ii]{} 20 levels
He [iii]{} 1 level
Carbon C [ii]{} 53 levels all individual levels
C [iii]{} 12 levels
C [iv]{} 9 levels + 4 superlevels
C [v]{} 1 level
Nitrogen N [i]{} 13 levels
N [ii]{} 35 levels + 14 superlevels
N [iii]{} 11 levels
N [iv]{} 1 level
Oxygen O [i]{} 14 levels + 8 superlevels
O [ii]{} 36 levels + 12 superlevels
O [iii]{} 9 levels
O [iv]{} 1 level
Magnesium Mg [ii]{} 21 levels + 4 superlevels
Mg [iii]{} 1 level
: Atoms and ions treated in the computations assuming NLTE. The number of levels taken into account for each ion is given.[]{data-label="tab:desc"}
One important step in the analysis of the data collected with FLAMES is the determination of the stellar fundamental parameters. In order to derive the effective temperature (), surface gravity (), projected rotational velocity () and radial velocity (RV) in an homogeneous and coherent way for the whole stellar sample, we use the GIRFIT least squares procedure, which is able to handle large datasets and was previously developed and described by Frémat et al. (2005a). GIRFIT fits the observations with theoretical spectra interpolated in a grid of stellar fluxes computed with the SYNSPEC programme and from model atmospheres calculated with TLUSTY (Hubeny & Lanz 1995, see references therein) or/and with ATLAS9 (Kurucz 1993; Castelli et al. 1997). It accounts for the instrumental resolution through convolution of spectra with a Gaussian function and for Doppler broadening due to rotation. Use is made of subroutines taken from the ROTINS computer code provided with SYNSPEC (Hubeny & Lanz 1995).
It is worth noting that the spectra obtained in this way do not take into account the second order effects of fast rotation (stellar flattening and gravitational darkening), which are expected to be strong in Be stars. To introduce these effects in our discussion, stellar parameters are corrected afterwards by adopting a grid of synthetic stellar spectra computed by Frémat et al. (2005b) with the FASTROT computer code assuming a solid-body-type rotation. In the following sections, the terms ’apparent’ and ’parent non-rotating counterpart’ (pnrc) are used as defined by Frémat et al. (2005b).
We introduce in the following sections the grid of model atmospheres (Sect. \[subsec:grid\]) we use, the fitting criteria we adopt in the GIRFIT procedure (Sect. \[subsec:girfit\]) and the corrections for fast rotation we apply on the Be stars’ fundamental parameters (Sect. \[subsec:effects\]). The calibrations that allow us to estimate the spectral type of each non-Be target from the equivalent width of the hydrogen and helium lines are detailed in Sect. \[subsec:mktyp\].
Grid of model atmospheres {#subsec:grid}
-------------------------
The models we use to build the GIRFIT input grid of stellar fluxes are computed in two consecutive steps. To account in the most effective way for line-blanketing, the temperature structure of the atmospheres is computed using the ATLAS9 computer code (Kurucz 1993; Castelli et al. 1997). Non-LTE level populations are then estimated for each of the atoms we consider using TLUSTY (Hubeny & Lanz 1995) and keeping fixed the temperature and density distributions obtained with ATLAS9.
Table \[tab:desc\] lists the ions that are introduced in the computations. Except for , the atomic models we use in this work were downloaded from TLUSTY’s homepage (http://tlusty.gsfc.nasa.gov) maintained by I. Hubeny and T. Lanz. is treated with the MODION IDL package developed by Varosi et al. (1995) and the atomic data (oscillator strengths, energy levels, and photoionization cross-sections) from the TOPBASE database (Cunto et al. 1993). It reproduces the results obtained by Sigut (1996).
In this way, and for each spectral region studied in the present work, the specific intensity grids are computed for effective temperatures and surface gravities ranging from 15000 K to 27000 K and from 2.5 to 5.0 dex, respectively. For $<$ 15000 K and $>$ 27000 K we use LTE calculations and the OSTAR 2002 NLTE model atmospheres grid (Lanz & Hubeny 2003), respectively.
The metallicities of the model atmospheres are chosen to be as close as possible to the NGC2004 averaged value, $[m/H]~=~-0.45$ (where $[m/H] = \log(m/H)_{\rm LMC} -
\log(m/H)_\odot$), estimated from the results by Korn et al. (2002, Table 3). The Kurucz and OSTAR 2002 models we use are therefore those calculated for \[m/H\]$=-0.5$. Finally, the complete input flux grid is built assuming the averaged element abundances derived by Korn et al. (2002) for C, N, O, Mg, Si, and Fe. The other elements, except hydrogen and helium, are assumed to be underabundant by $-0.45$ dex relative to the Sun.
The GIRFIT procedure: fitting criteria and continuum level {#subsec:girfit}
----------------------------------------------------------
The procedure we adopt to derive the stellar fundamental parameters mainly focuses on the spectral domain ranging from 4000 to 4500 Å, which gathers two hydrogen lines (H$\gamma$ and H$\delta$),8 strong helium lines (He[i]{} $\lambda$ 4009, 4026, 4121, 4144, 4169, 4388, 4471 and [ii]{} $\lambda$ 4200) and several weak lines of silicon and carbon. The $\chi^{2}$ parameter is computed on different spectral zones generally centred on these temperature- and gravity-sensitive diagnostic features. However, due to the moderate spectral resolution and frequent high apparent rotational velocities of targets, other criteria such as those based on silicon lines cannot be used. Furthermore It is worth noting that even the / line ratios used to estimate and values are less accurate for early B-type stars (B1-B0) than for later types, the simultaneous fit of several hydrogen and helium line-profiles enables us to obtain the sought stellar parameters quite easily, within the error boxes given in Table \[tab:sn\] (see also Fig. 1 in Frémat et al. 2005b). In the most dubious cases, the overall agreement between observed and synthetic spectra was checked over the complete spectral range.
In Be stars, which often display circumstellar emission/absorption in their spectra, the zones are further defined to exclude any part of the spectral lines that could be deformed by line emission or shell absorption (e.g. hydrogen line cores). Note that, as the parameters derived for Be stars at this stage of the procedure do not take into account the effects of fast rotation (see Sect. \[subsec:effects\]), they will be further called apparent fundamental parameters.
During the spectra fitting procedure, 4 free parameters are considered: the effective temperature, the surface gravity, the projected rotational velocity and the radial velocity. To reduce as much as possible the impact of noise on the location of the stellar continuum, we also include a fifth parameter standing for the wavelength-independent ratio (i.e. a scaling factor) between the mean “flux” level of the normalized observed and theoretical spectra. Assuming a Poisson noise distribution to compute a reference spectrum, Fig. \[fig:sn\] shows how the derived fundamental parameters can be affected by a decrease of S/N, while Table \[tab:sn\] lists the averaged absolute errors on the fundamental parameters expected for different values of S/N.
For each star of the sample, we repeat the GIRFIT procedure several times with different fitted zones and initial parameters values in order to scan the complete space of solutions. The solutions we finally select are those with the lowest $\chi^{2}$ recomputed over the same wavelength range: the whole spectrum for O, B, and A-type stars without emission, and only the blue part of the spectrum (4000–4250 Å) for Be stars in order to avoid, as much as possible, the influence of line emission in the hydrogen lines. After a final visual check of the adjusted spectra, the determinations obtained at the end of the GIRFIT procedure are compared to the values directly measured on the observations. If this ultimate verification is successful, the process stops. Otherwise, the fitting spectral zones are modified and the procedure is restarted. Examples of fitted spectra, for a B, an O-B and a Be star are given in Fig. \[fits\].
Following Bouret et al. (2003), who used the same atomic data, there is no difference between fits obtained with TLUSTY-SYNSPEC (Hubeny & Lanz 1995) and with the CMFGEN code (Hillier & Miller 1998), which takes into account not only NLTE effects and line-blanketing but also a wind model with mass loss. This effect is present in O stars, but is not critical for B-type stars. Bouret et al. (2003) presented several fits for their sample of O and B stars and obtained similar apparent fundamental parameters with these two codes for early B-type stars. This study validates our choice of code for determining the fundamental parameters of B stars.
Spectral classification determination {#subsec:mktyp}
-------------------------------------
The spectral type and luminosity class of the B-type stars we observed are determined in two different ways. First, we use an iterative method we developed, which has the advantage of being fast and easy to use. We estimate the spectral type from the equivalent width of the H$\gamma$ line by assuming, in a first step, that our sample is only composed of dwarf stars. The spectral type is combined with the equivalent width of the 4471 line to derive, in a second step, the luminosity class, which is then used to rederive the spectral type. Several iterations are required to obtain a combination of spectral type/luminosity class fully coherent with the equivalent widths of the selected lines (H$\gamma$ and 4471). The equivalent width calibrations we adopt in this procedure are those proposed by Azzopardi (1987) and Jaschek & Jaschek (1995) for H$\gamma$ and by Didelon (1982) for the 4471 line.
-------- ------------------------- -------------------- -----------------------
S/N $\Delta$($T_{\rm eff}$) $\Delta$($\log~g$) $\Delta$($V\!\sin i$)
(%) (%) (%)
30 20 10 30
40 15 10 20
50 12 10 16
60 10 9 16
70 8 8 10
80 6 6 10
90 6 6 7
100 5 5 5
120 5 5 5
$>$140 $<$5 $<$5 $<$5
-------- ------------------------- -------------------- -----------------------
: Averaged absolute errors on the fundamental parameters introduced by different S/N. For $\le$ 50 , the error is estimated to $\pm$20 (due to the intermediate resolution) and the minimum error in is $\pm$10 for the other cases.
\[tab:sn\]
The second method transcribes the set of fundamental parameters we derived by fitting the observed spectra into spectral type and luminosity class, with the help of effective temperature and surface gravity calibrations given by Gray & Corbally (1994) and Zorec (1986) for B stars, and by Bouret et al. (2003) for hotter stars.
The differences in the results provided by these two methods are, on average, half a spectral subtype and half a luminosity class for stars between B0 and B5, affecting both the equivalent width measurements and the derived stellar fundamental parameters. However, the first method fails to give a reliable spectral classification for the few hotter (late O) and cooler (B5-A0) stars in the sample. Moreover, for Be stars, the spectral classification determination is only performed using the derived apparent fundamental parameters (second method), since the emission contamination, often present in H$\gamma$ and in several cases in the 4471 line, makes the first method particularly inappropriate for early Be stars.
\
\
Effects of fast rotation {#subsec:effects}
------------------------
As mentioned in the introduction, Be stars are fast rotators with angular velocities probably around 90% of their breakup velocity (Frémat et al. 2005b). It is further expected that solid-body-type fast rotation flattens the star, which causes a gravitational darkening of the stellar disk due to the variation of the temperature and density distribution from pole to equator. For Be stars, we therefore have to account for these effects on the stellar spectra and, consequently, on the determination of the fundamental parameters. In the present paper, these effects are introduced as corrections directly applied to the apparent fundamental parameters we derived. These corrections are computed by systematically comparing a grid of spectra taking into account the effects of fast rotation obtained with the FASTROT code for different values of pnrc (i.e. parent non-rotating counterpart) stellar parameters (, , ) and of angular velocity (, where $\Omega$$_{c}$ is the break-up angular velocity) to a grid of spectra computed using usual plane-parallel model atmospheres. Adopting the same spectroscopic criteria than those described in Section \[subsec:girfit\] (i.e. hydrogen and helium lines), we obtain different sets of pnrc and apparent stellar parameters (, , ). The corrections we apply to the apparent stellar parameters of the Be stars in the sample (Section \[subsec:girfit\]) are interpolated in this grid using an iterative procedure. Generally, only a few iterations are needed (to reach differences smaller than 500 K for and 0.05 dex for ) to obtain the final pnrc parameters for a given . The radius, mass, and luminosity of the non-rotating stellar counterparts are estimated by (; )–interpolation in the theoretical evolutionary tracks (Charbonnel et al. 1993).
Results
=======
In this section we present the results on stellar parameters and spectral classification determination we obtain as described in Sect. \[FPD\] for non-emission line O-B-A stars, for Be stars, and for some spectroscopic binary systems. The $\alpha$(2000) and $\delta$(2000) coordinates, the instrumental V magnitude and the instrumental (B-V) colour index for individual stars are extracted from EIS pre-FLAMES (LMC33) survey images, as reported in Paper I. The S/N we measure in the spectra may differ for objects with the same magnitude depending either on the position of the fibres within the GIRAFFE field, either on transmission rate differences, or on the presence of clouds partly obscuring the observed field (the field of GIRAFFE has a 25 diameter on the sky). All these informations are given in Tables \[table3\], \[tableBe\], and \[tablebin\] for the different groups of stars mentioned above, respectively.
O-B-A stars
-----------
### Fundamental parameters of O-B-A stars
Early-type stars that do not show intrinsic emission lines in their spectrum and have not been detected as spectroscopic binaries are listed in Table \[table3\] sorted by their MHF catalogue number. Moreover, three stars with a KWBBe name, reported as Be stars by Keller et al. (1999) but not confirmed or in a temporary B phase at epochs of VLT/FLAMES observations, are added at the end of the Table. The fundamental parameters , , , and obtained by fitting the observed spectra, as well as the spectral classification deduced on one hand from – plane calibration (CFP determination, method 2) and on the other hand from equivalent width diagrams (CEW determination, method 1), are reported in columns 7, 8, 9 and 10, respectively. As the heliocentric velocities are smaller than 1.5 and the mean error on are 9-10 km s$^{-1}$, we do not correct from the heliocentric velocity.
### Luminosity, mass, and radius for O-B-A stars {#subsec:HRtracks}
Once the fundamental parameters of O, B, and A stars are known, to derive their luminosity, mass and radius, we interpolate in the HR-diagram grids calculated for the LMC metallicity (Z = 0.004; Korn et al. 2002, Rolleston et al. 1996) and for stars without rotation in Charbonnel et al. (1993).
In order to justify the use of non-rotating models, we estimate the mean radius, mean mass and mean in various mass bins (e.g. 5 $<$ M $<$ 7 M$\odot$, 7 $<$ M $<$ 9 M$\odot$, etc). We then obtain a mean equatorial velocity for a random angle distribution using:\
$$V_{e} = \frac{4}{\pi} <V\!\sin i_{\rm~\!app.}>,
\label{eqVevsini}$$ where $<$$>$ is the mean .
We calculate the critical velocity with the classical formula:\
$$V_{c} \simeq 436.7 \left(\frac{<M>}{<R>}\right)^{1/2},
\label{veqc}$$ where $<$M$>$ and $<$R$>$ are the mean mass in M$_{\odot}$ and mean radius in R$_{\odot}$.
This gives the $V_{e}/V_{c}$ ratio, and we can then obtain thanks to formulae taken from Chauville et al. (2001):
$$$\omc$ = \frac{1}{0.724} V_{e}/V_{c} [1 - 0.276 (V_{e}/V_{c})^{2}].
\label{omc}$$
----------- ---------------- ------------- ------------
Star = 85%
MHF57079 25000$\pm$2900 4.4$\pm$0.4 327$\pm$50
MHF57975 21500$\pm$1600 4.1$\pm$0.3 357$\pm$35
MHF95555 21000$\pm$1200 4.0$\pm$0.2 331$\pm$30
MHF98629 22500$\pm$1700 4.1$\pm$0.3 348$\pm$35
MHF106613 19500$\pm$1100 4.0$\pm$0.2 338$\pm$25
MHF107458 22000$\pm$1600 4.0$\pm$0.3 350$\pm$35
MHF116094 23000$\pm$2100 4.1$\pm$0.3 384$\pm$60
MHF131188 31000$\pm$1500 4.4$\pm$0.2 333$\pm$16
KWBBe1169 16500$\pm$2400 4.4$\pm$0.4 294$\pm$57
----------- ---------------- ------------- ------------
: Corrections for = 85% for rapidly rotating B stars in the sample. The units are K for , dex for , and for .
\[tabBnfastrot\]
For B stars $<$$>$ is close to 110 km s$^{-1}$, thus $V_{e}/V_{c}$ $\simeq$ 27% and $\simeq$ 37%. As the effects of fast rotation appear for $>$ 50% (Zorec et al. 2005), we do not need to correct B stars for fast rotation effects except for 9 of them which have a strong .
We obtain in this way the luminosity, mass and radius of most O, B and A stars of the sample (see Table \[tabLMR\]). The position of these stars in the HR diagram is shown in Fig. \[hr2\].
Corrections for rapidly rotating B-type stars {#Bnstars}
---------------------------------------------
The 9 B-type stars MHF57079, MHF57975, MHF95555, MHF98629, MHF106613, MHF107458, MHF116094, MHF131188, and KWBBe1169 have a high rotational velocity, although they do not show emission lines as Be stars. The star KWBBe1169 was previously observed like a Be star by Keller (1999) but, in our observations, it does not show any emission. This could be due to the transient nature of the Be phenomenon. Results on fundamental parameters taking into account fast rotation effects are given in Table \[tabBnfastrot\] and Fig. \[hr2\].
\
Be stars
--------
### Fundamental parameters of Be stars
The total number of Be stars in the sample is 47. It includes 22 known Be stars, called KWBBe in Keller et al. (1999), for which the H$\alpha$ emissive character has been confirmed, and 25 new Be stars reported in Paper I and called MHFBe. For a description of the emission line characteristics of these stars we refer to Paper I. The apparent fundamental parameters (, , , and ) we derive in a first step for these stars are reported in Table \[tableBe\]. The spectral classification derived from apparent fundamental parameters is also given in the last column of the Table. Without correction for fast rotation nearly all Be stars would have a sub-giant or giant luminosity class. The apparent position of Be stars in the HR diagram compared to B stars is also shown in Fig. \[hr2\].
\
### Rapid rotation corrections for Be stars {#befastcalculs}
The pnrc (i.e. parent non rotating counterpart) fundamental parameters (, , ) we obtain after correction with FASTROT (see Sect. 3.4) are given in Table \[tabBefastrot\] for different rotation rates . We estimate the rotation rate to be used for the selection of the probable most suitable pnrc fundamental parameters of Be stars in the LMC thanks to the equations mentioned above. We obtain $V_{e}/V_{c}$ $\simeq$ 70% and $\simeq$ 85% on average. As for O-B-A stars and with the pnrc fundamental parameters corresponding to the rotation rate = 85%, we derive $\log(L/L_{\odot}$), $M/M_{\odot}$, and $R/R_{\odot}$ for Be stars. These parameters are given in Table \[tabLMRBe\]. After correction for rapid rotation, Be stars globally shift in the HR diagram towards lower luminosity and higher temperature, as illustrated in Fig.\[hr2\]. It clearly demonstrates that Be stars are less evolved than their apparent fundamental parameters could indicate.
Spectroscopic binaries
----------------------
The determination of fundamental parameters was undertaken for 15 spectroscopic binaries that show a single line spectrum (SB1, see Table 2 in Paper I). However, since we usually obtained only one spectrum for each suspected SB1 binary, the influence of the secondary component on the spectrum is not known. Results are given in Table \[tablebin\]. We note a fair agreement between spectral classifications derived from fundamental parameters and from the equivalent width of the H$\gamma$ and 4471 lines, except for one star (MHF91603). The mean for these binaries is 100 .
\
Characteristics of the sample {#charsample}
-----------------------------
To characterize the sample of stars, we study the distribution in spectral types, luminosity classes and masses for stars in clusters and in the field. These results are presented in the following subsections.
### O-B-A stars {#charBstars}
We present in Fig. \[LCSTBLMC\] the distribution of O-B-A stars with respect to spectral type and luminosity class. The classification used here is the one obtained from the fundamental parameters determination.
Fig. \[LCSTBLMC\] indicates that the B stars in the sample are essentially early B-type stars (B0 to B3) and are mainly dwarfs (class V), in the field as well as in clusters.
\
### Be stars
As in Sect. \[charBstars\], we present the distribution of Be stars with respect to luminosity class and spectral type. Again the classification used here is the one obtained from the fundamental parameters determination. We also compare the distribution obtained before and after correction of fast rotation effects.
Fig. \[LCBeLMC\] shows that Be stars after fast rotation treatment appear less evolved than apparent parameters would suggest: some stars in classes III and IV are redistributed in classes IV and V, but about 60% of the Be stars still appear as giants and subgiants.
Fig. \[STBeLMC\] presents the distribution in spectral types for Be stars before and after fast rotation treatment. The stars corrected for rotation effects appear hotter than apparent fundamental parameters would suggest. In particular there are more B1 types. Nevertheless, in both distributions the sample is composed of early-type stars (B0 to B3).
### Masses
In addition, we investigate the mass distribution of B and Be stars (Fig. \[fmasse\]). The sample shows a distribution peaking around 7 and 10 M$_{\odot}$ for B and Be stars, respectively. Among the stars with $M$ $\le$ 9 $M_{\odot}$ 18% are Be stars, whereas among the stars with $M$ $>$ 9 $M_{\odot}$ 62% are Be stars. This is probably due to a bias effect in the target selection procedure, since the sample includes 61% of Be stars among stars brighter than V=15.
Rotational velocity and metallicity: results and discussion
===========================================================
In the following subsections, we first give some preliminary remarks about the study by Gies & Huang (2004) on B-type stars in clusters of the Milky Way (MW), which are used as a central thread in our study. Then we summarize results on we obtained for B and Be stars in the LMC. Finally, we compare these results with previous studies in the LMC and in the MW, and we discuss the effect of age and metallicity on rotational velocity.
Ages, , and Be stars
--------------------
Gies & Huang (2004, hereafter GH04) studied the link between rotational velocity and age in clusters of the MW. They noted a good agreement for the rotational velocity between data and predictions by Meynet & Maeder (2000) for a 12 M$_{\odot}$ star and for clusters with $\log(t)$ $\le$ 7. However, clusters with $\log(t)$ $ >$ 7 seem to rotate faster than predicted. According to GH04, there could be several explanations: binarity, initial spin rates, and rotational velocity dependence on mass. For $\log(t)$ $\le$ 7 the mean fraction of binaries calculated from the fraction given by GH04 for each cluster is $\frac{SB}{all}$ = 15%, whereas for $\log(t)$ $>$ 7, $\frac{SB}{all}$ = 19%. Therefore, binaries do not seem to be at the origin of the difference in rotational velocity.
As GH04 merged B and Be stars in their sample and as Be stars are fast rotators, a possible explanation of the differences in rotational velocity may be the proportion of Be stars in the clusters. We therefore searched in the WEBDA database[^1] for the amount of Be stars in the clusters studied by GH04 and calculated the average percentages of Be stars for clusters younger or older than $\log(t)$ = 7 in their sample. We obtained that for $\log(t)$ $\le$ 7 the fraction of Be stars is $\frac{Be}{all}$ = 4.8%, whereas for $\log(t)$ $>$ 7, $\frac{Be}{all}$ = 22%.Thus, the high proportion of Be stars in the clusters with $\log(t)$ $>$ 7 and their high rotational velocities may explain the discrepancy between the observed and predicted for a 12 M$_{\odot}$ star of the same clusters. The high proportion of Be stars found in clusters with $\log(t)$ $>$ 7 is also in agreement with results by Fabregat & Torrejón (2000), who found that Be stars reached the maximun abundance between 13 and 25 Myr.
Another explanation is related to the mass function of the sample stars of GH04. They used the prediction in rotational velocity across the main sequence for a 12 M$_{\odot}$. However, the behaviour in during evolution is not identical for a 12 M$_{\odot}$ and a 7 M$_{\odot}$ star. In the latter case, following Meynet & Maeder (2000), the mass loss is much weaker than for massive stars (M $\ge$ 10 M$_{\odot}$) and the evolutionary track presents an increase of velocity instead of a decrease. This may explain why B-type stars are more likely to increase their rotational velocity during their MS life than the more massive O-type stars.
Results for the LMC and comparison with the MW
----------------------------------------------
In the following sub-sections we compare the obtained apparent fundamental parameters to previous studies, which generally did not take fast rotation effects into account in the determination of fundamental parameters.
For all stars in the LMC stellar sample studied in this paper, we find the following mean (in ) for B and Be stars in the field and clusters, where the given errors are the mean errors and the number in brackets is the number of stars used in the average:
------------------------ ----------------------
Be$_{field+clusters}$: = 272 $\pm$20 (47),
B$_{field+clusters}$: = 119 $\pm$20 (106)
Be$_{field}$: = 268 $\pm$20 (27),
B$_{field}$: = 117 $\pm$20 (93),
(B+Be)$_{clusters}$: = 223 $\pm$20 (33),
Be$_{clusters}$: = 278 $\pm$20 (20),
B$_{clusters}$: = 140 $\pm$20 (13).
------------------------ ----------------------
Field B stars Field Be stars Clusters B stars Clusters Be stars
---------------------------- -------------------- -------------------- ------------------- -------------------
LMC this study 121 $\pm$ 10 (81) 268 $\pm$ 30 (26) 144 $\pm$ 20 (10) 266$ \pm$ 30 (19)
LMC Keller (2004) 112 $\pm$ 50 (51) 146 $\pm$ 50 (49)
MW Glebocki et al. (2000) 124 $\pm$ 10 (449) 204 $\pm$ 20 (48)
MW Levato et al. (2004) 108 $\pm$ 10 (150)
MW Yudin (2001) 207 $\pm$ 30 (254)
MW Chauville et al. (2001) 231 $\pm$ 20 (56)
MW WEBDA $\log(t)$ $<$ 7 127 $\pm$ 20 (44) 199 $\pm$ 20 (8)
MW WEBDA $\log(t)$ $>$ 7 149 $\pm$ 20 (59) 208 $\pm$ 20 (45)
\[Vsinifield\]
These mean values cannot be compared directly with values in the MW, because they are affected by ages and evolution, mass function of samples, etc. We must therefore select B and Be stars in the same range of spectral types and luminosity classes or of masses (when they are known) and ages for samples in the LMC and in the MW. Then, to investigate the effect of metallicity and age on the rotational velocity, we first compare the mean of the B and Be stars in the LMC to the ones in the MW.
We calculate rotational velocities evolutionary tracks for different initial velocities and for a 7 M$_{\odot}$ star, which corresponds to the maximum of the mass function for the B-type stars sample. We have obtained these curves by interpolation thanks to the Figure 5 published in Meynet & Maeder (2002) for the tracks of a 7 M$_{\odot}$ with an initial velocity at the ZAMS=300 . And we have used the Figure 12 published in Meynet & Maeder (2000), and more particularly the Figure 5 from Maeder & Meynet (2001) in order to obtain tracks for different initial rotational velocities (V0=100, 200, 300, 400, 500 ). The use of tracks with a metallicity Z=0.00001 for a 7 M$_{\odot}$ is justified because the tracks for a star with 9 M$_{\odot}$ at metallicity Z=0.004 or Z=0.00001 are quasi identical, then we expect that the tracks for a 7 M$_{\odot}$ are identical at Z=0.00001 and at Z=0.004.
Let us note that due to fast internal angular momentum redistribution in the first $\simeq$ 10$^{4}$ years in the ZAMS, the surface rotational velocities decrease 0.8 times their initial value. Then, for the comparison sake with our observational data, the values plotted are not $V$ but are average $=(\pi/4)V$ (see eq. \[eqVevsini\]). For example, for an initial rotational velocity equals to 300 , the angular momentum redistribution leads roughly to V$_{ZAMS}=$ 240 , which corresponds to $=(\pi/4) \times 240$ $\simeq$ 190 . The curves are only slightly affected by mass loss effects. Due to the low metallicity LMC environment, the mass-loss dependent effects are even less noticeable.
In the present work, the purpose of these curves is only to give a rough interpretation of the behavior observed of $<$$>$.
We determine the ages of stars of the field and of several clusters or associations in our observations. For this purpose, we use HR evolutionary tracks (for non-rotating stars) for the stars of the sample unaffected by rapid rotation and for Be stars corrected for the effects of fast rotation with = 85%. For the cluster NGC2004, we obtain $\log(t)$ = 7.40, which is close to the value obtained in previous studies: $\log(t)$ = 7.30 (Keller 1999) and 7.40 (Maeder et al. 1999). This comparison validates our method to determine ages for clusters.
### Field B and Be stars {#BBefield}
\
The mean obtained for B stars in the field of the LMC closely agrees with Keller’s (2004) results in the same age range (see Table \[Vsinifield\] and Fig. \[agevsinifield\], upper panel). To compare the rotational velocity of B stars in the LMC with the MW, we use the studies of Levato & Grosso (2004) and Glebocki & Stawikowski (2000). In these studies, we select stars with spectral types ranging from B1 to B3 and luminosity classes from V to III, because ages and masses were not determined. To compare the rotational velocity of Be stars in the LMC with the MW, we use Chauville et al. (2001), Glebocki & Stawikowski (2000) and Yudin (2001) with the same selection criteria as for B stars. The comparison of in the LMC and the MW for B and Be stars in the field is presented in Table \[Vsinifield\] and Fig. \[agevsinifield\], upper panel. The range of stellar ages is reported as the dispersion in age in the figure. For samples with an unknown age, we adopt as error bar the duration of the Main Sequence for a 7 M$_{\odot}$ star, which overestimates the age uncertainty. The curves in Fig. \[agevsinifield\], upper panel, show the evolutionary tracks of rotational velocity during the Main Sequence for different initial velocity for a 7 M$_{\odot}$ star, which corresponds to the maximum of the mass function of the B-stars sample.
In order to know if the samples contain a sufficient number of elements for the statistic to be relevant and give an average not biased by inclination effects, we calculate averages for samples with different number of elements. The deviation of the averages gives the statistical error. If this statistical error is smaller than the error on the data, the value determined for the data is statistically significant and does not represent an effect of inclination. Thanks to this test, we find that our samples in the LMC and in the MW are statistically significant even in the cases when the number of stars does not exceed 10. For example, in Table \[Vsinifield\], we have found no difference between the cluster B stars (=144 , 10 stars) following our results and according to Keller (2004) (=146 , 49 stars).
We complete the statistical studies by a Student’s t–test (see Table \[testStudent1\]) in order to know whether the differences observed in the samples are significant. The Student test gives:\
(i) for field B stars: There is no significant difference between the LMC studies carried-on in this paper and Keller’s (2004). The test further gives no significant difference between LMC and MW studies, when the data used for the MW are those of Glebocki & Stawikowski (2000). There are, however, significant differences when the comparison is based on data taken from Levato & Grosso (2004). It is therefore difficult to conclude whether B stars have similar rotational velocities in the LMC and the MW fields.\
(ii) for field Be stars: A significant difference between studies in the LMC (this paper) and the MW. Field Be stars in the LMC have a rotational velocity higher than in the MW.
### B and Be stars in clusters {#BBecl}
As for B stars in the field, we find that the mean of B stars in the LMC clusters ($\log(t)$ $>$ 7) determined from our observations closely agrees with Keller’s (2004) results (see Table \[Vsinifield\] and Fig. \[agevsinifield\], lower panel). In the MW, we selected young clusters with $\log(t)$ $<$ 8 (some of them were observed by GH04) in the WEBDA database for which published and MK classification exist. We distinguish two groups: the younger clusters with $\log(t)$ $<$ 7 and older clusters with $\log(t)$ $>$ 7. The younger clusters (given by increasing age) are: IC1805, Trumpler14, IC2944, NGC6193, NGC2362, NGC2244, NGC6611, NGC2384, NGC3293, and NGC1502. The older clusters (given by increasing age) are: NGC869, NGC884, NGC4755, IC2395, NGC7160, and NGC2422. Their difference in age gives the age–dispersion reported in Fig \[agevsinifield\], lower panel. The ages are those given by GH04 and in WEBDA.
The results concerning B stars in the LMC clusters and MW Be stars with $\log(t)$ $<$ 7 must be taken cautiously. In fact, the samples are not numerous enough to have the inclination angle effects, in averages, entirely removed so as to reflect the <V>-dependent information properly. For the stars in these clusters, the Student’s t–test (see Table \[testStudent1\]) gives:\
(i) for B stars: A slight difference between younger ($\log(t)$ $<$ 7) and older ($\log(t)$ $>$ 7) clusters in the MW, which may be explained by the effect of evolution on rotational velocity, but no significant difference between the LMC and the MW clusters with $\log(t)$ $>$ 7. B stars in the LMC and MW clusters seem to have a similar rotational velocity when intervals of similar ages are compared.\
(ii) for Be stars: A significant difference between the LMC and the MW clusters. Be stars in the LMC clusters have a rotational velocity higher than in the MW clusters. However, the number of Be stars observed in LMC clusters, as well as the number of Be stars identified in young MW clusters, is poor and may affect the statistics.
Fig. \[agevsinifield\], lower panel, illustrates the comparison of the mean in the LMC and the MW for B and Be stars in clusters. As in Fig \[agevsinifield\], upper panel, the curves show the evolutionary tracks of rotational velocity during the Main Sequence for different initial velocity for a 7 M$_{\odot}$ star.
### Comparison between field and clusters
Results on rotational velocity of B and Be stars in the field and clusters presented in Sect. \[BBefield\] and \[BBecl\] (see also Table \[Vsinifield\] and Table \[testStudent1\]) lead to the following conclusions:\
(i) According to Meynet & Maeder (2000), the lower the mass-loss in massive stars is, the lower the metallicity is. We can the expect that stars in low-metallicity regions may lose less angular momentum and then better preserve the initial high rotational rates. Such a metallicity effect seems to be present in Be stars, as we see that they rotate faster in the field and clusters of the LMC than in the MW. However, we were not able to detect such an effect in B stars.\
(ii) Be stars rotate more rapidly than B stars in the field as well as in clusters, in the LMC, and the MW. Be stars would begin their life on the MS with an initial rotational velocity higher than the one of B stars. The lower the metallicity environment is, the higher the initial rotational velocity of Be stars would be. Moreover, we note that these objects would require an initial rotational velocity of at least $\sim$250 .\
(iii) No significant differences can be found between the rotational velocity of field and cluster Be stars, neither in the LMC nor in the MW.\
(iv) No significant differences can be found between rotational velocities of young field and cluster B stars in the LMC and in the MW. However, there is a significant difference between the rotational velocity of older field and cluster B stars in the MW. This fact can be explained in terms of evolution of rotational velocities.
### Be stars: mass and rotation {#Bemasses}
The number of Be stars is too low to make a statistical study by mass range on in clusters and in the field of the LMC separately. As mentioned in the previous section, we did not find significant differences in mean values for Be stars between clusters and the field. Therefore we compare Be stars only by intervals of mass, regardless of their location.\
(i) for $5 < M < 10 M_{\odot}$, the sub-sample contains 21 stars. The determined mean parameters are: $<M>$ = 7.7 $M_{\odot}$, $<R>$ = 5.8 $R_{\odot}$, and $<$$>$ = 285 , which correspond to a mean ratio $\simeq$ 85% $\pm$ 9 %\
(ii) for $10 < M < 12 M_{\odot}$, the sub-sample contains 13 stars. The determined mean parameters are: $<M>$ = 11.0 $M_{\odot}$, $<R>$ = 9.3 $R_{\odot}$, and $<$$>$ = 259 , which correspond to a mean ratio $\simeq$ 83% $\pm$ 9 %;\
(iii) for $18 > M > 12 M_{\odot}$, the sub-sample contains 10 stars. The determined mean parameters are: $<M>$ = 14.6 $M_{\odot}$ close to 15 $M_{\odot}$, $<R>$ = 12.7 $R_{\odot}$, and $<$$>$ = 224, which correspond to a mean ratio $\simeq$ 73% $\pm$ 9 %.
These results are plotted in Fig. \[MBecomp\] and compared to the theoretical evolutionary tracks for a 7 and 15 M$_{\odot}$ star for different values of initial rotational velocity (Maeder & Meynet 2001). These curves can be considered as envelopes of evolutionary tracks of our sample of Be stars in the LMC. This figure shows that stars follow the theoretical rotational velocity evolution in a low metallicity environment: the mean decreases as the mass increases. This trend can be explained by a difference in mass loss between massive and less massive stars.
### Star formation conditions and magnetic field
According to Stepién (2002), the sufficient condition for a star to rotate rapidly on the ZAMS is the presence of a weak or moderate stellar magnetic field and the existence of an accretion disk for at least 10% of its pre-Main Sequence (PMS) phase. The magnetic field and its interactions with the disk or wind and other phenomena such as accretion have an impact on rotational velocity during the PMS and affect the initial rotational velocity (spin down for strong values of magnetic field) in the Main Sequence (MS). For stars in the MW, the progenitors of all Be stars would possess a fossil magnetic field with a surface intensity between 40 and 400 G and, due to the short PMS phase for the early types, they would conserve their strong rotational velocity during the MS. On the opposite, stars with a magnetic field stronger than 400 G would become slowly rotating magnetic B stars. In the LMC and other environments of low metallicity, the magnetic field has less braking impact on the velocity as explained by Penny et al. (2004) due to the lower abundances of metals. It may explain why Be stars in the LMC can rotate initially with higher velocities than in the MW, as shown in Fig. \[agevsinifield\], upper panel. Note that a weak magnetic field is suspected in the classical Be star (Neiner et al. 2003).
Evolutionary status of Be stars in the LMC {#evol}
------------------------------------------
Using the same approach as the one described by Zorec et al. (2005), we studied the evolutionary status of the LMC Be stars in our sample. We used evolutionary tracks with an initial velocity V$_0$ = 300 provided by Maeder & Meynet (2000). These evolutionary tracks for rotating stars are only available for stars in the MW. They show a slight shift towards lower temperatures and an extension of the time a star may spend on the MS ($\tau_{MS}$), compared to evolutionary tracks of non-rotating stars. Therefore, a star placed in a HR diagram for non-rotating stars has a different age ($\tau$) and a different evolutionary status than if it would be placed in an HR diagram for rotating stars. Fig. \[evolBeLMCveil\] shows the evolutionary status of Be stars in the sample. It appears that more massive Be stars in our sample in the LMC seem to be evolved, since they are localized mainly in the second part of the MS. Contrary to previous similar studies (Zorec et al. 2005, Frémat et al. 2005), in our Be star sample, massive stars (M$\ga$10M$_{\odot}$) by the end of the MS evolutionary phase represent a high fraction of the total number of the studied stars (60%). The distribution obtained cannot correspond only to differences in the mass-dependent evolutionary sampling, but it could reflect some star formation history in the region: stars with M$\ga$10M$_{\odot}$ in $\tau/\tau_{\rm MS}\ga0.5$ have an average age $<\!\!\tau\!\!>\sim(1.5\pm0.4)\times10^7$ yr, stars with M$\la$10M$_{\odot}$ in $\tau/\tau_{\rm MS}\ga0.5$ have $<\!\!\tau
\!\!>\sim(2.9\pm0.2)\times10^8$ yr, while those with M$\la$10M$_{\odot}$ and $\tau/\tau_{\rm MS}\la0.5$ have $<\!\!\tau\!\!>\sim(0.7\pm0.6)\times10^7$ yr.
The observed trend is only indicative, because evolutionary tracks for massive stars are mass loss dependent and the initial rotational velocities of Be stars are higher than 300 . Nevertheless, according to Zorec et al. (2005), changes of initial velocities from V$_0$ = 300 to higher values do not seem to strongly affect evolutionary tracks.
However, several Be stars with lower mass seem to be close to the ZAMS, which is inconsistent with the assumption that the Be star phenomenon occurs preferentially in the second half of the MS life. Those objects, for which spectra were mostly obtained with low S/N ratio, need to be reobserved to clearly confirm their fundamental parameters.
Conclusions
===========
With the VLT-GIRAFFE spectrograph, we obtained spectra of a large sample of B and Be stars in the LMC-NGC2004 and in its surrounding field. We determined fundamental parameters for B stars in the sample, and apparent and parent non-rotating counterpart (pnrc) fundamental parameters for fast rotators such as Be stars.
From the study for B and Be stars in the LMC and its comparison with the MW, we conclude that Be stars begin their life on the MS with a stronger initial velocity than B stars. Moreover, this initial velocity is sensitive to the metallicity. Consequently, only a fraction of B stars can become Be stars. This result may explain the differences in the proportion of Be stars in clusters with similar age.
Our results support Stepien’s scenario (2002): massive stars with a weak or moderate magnetic field and with an accretion disk during at least 10% of their PMS lifetime would reach the ZAMS with sufficiently high initial rotational velocity to become Be stars.
We find no clear influence of the metallicity on rotational velocity in B-type stars. The low metallicity may favour the PMS evolution of high velocity stars by minimizing the braking due to magnetic field interactions with the disk, but the influence of metallicity during the life of B-type stars in the MS is not preponderant. As Be stars are not critical rotators, an additional process, such as magnetic field by transfering momentum to the surface or non-radial pulsations (see Rivinius et al. 1998), must provide additional angular momentum to eject material from the star.
The effects of metallicity, the star formation conditions and the evolutionary status of B and Be stars discussed in this paper will be investigated in a forthcoming paper in the Small Magellanic Cloud, which has a lower metallicity than the Large Magellanic Cloud, in order to enlarge the results presented here.
We would like to thank Dr H. Flores for performing the observing run in November 2003 with success and good quality. We thank Drs M.R. Cioni and J. Smoker for their help during the observing run in April 2004. We also thank the referee Dr S. J. Smartt for his constructive remarks. This research has made use of the Simbad database and Vizier database maintained at CDS, Strasbourg, France, as well as of the WEBDA database.
Azzopardi, M. 1987, A&AS, 69, 421
Ballereau, D., Zorec, J. & Chauville, J. 1995, A&AS, 111, 423
Bica, E.L.D., Geisler, D., Dottori, H., et al. 1998, AJ, 116,723
Bouret, J. C., Lanz, T., Hillier, D. J., et al. 2003, AJ, 595, 1182
Castelli, F., Gratton, R. G., & Kurucz, R. L. 1997, A&A, 318, 841
Charbonnel, C., Meynet, G., Maeder, A., et al. 1993, A&AS, 101, 415
Chauville, J., Zorec, J., Ballereau, D., et al. 2001, A&A, 378, 861
Cunto, W., Mendoza, C., Ochsenbein, F., & Zeippen, C. J. 1993, A&A, 275, L5
Didelon, P. 1982, A&ASS, 50, 199
Fabregat, J. & Torrejón, J. M. 2000, A&A, 357, 451
Frémat, Y., Neiner, C., Hubert, A.-M. et al. 2005a, A&A, in press, astroph$/$0509336
Frémat, Y., Zorec, J., Hubert, A.-M. & Floquet, M. 2005b, A&A, 440, 305
Gies, D. R. & Huang, W. 2004, IAUS, 215, 57 (GH04)
Glebocki, R. & Stawikowski, A. 2000, Acta Ast., 50, 509
Gray, R. O. & Corbally, C. J. 1994, AJ, 107, 742
Hillier, D.J. & Miller, D.L. 1998, ApJ, 496, 407
Hubeny, I. & Lanz, T. 1995, ApJ, 439, 875
Jaschek, C. & Jaschek, M. 1995, Cambridge University Press, The behavior of chemical elements in stars
Keller, S.C. 1999, AJ, 118, 889
Keller, S.C. 2004, PASA, 21, 310
Keller, S.C., Wood, P.R. & Bessell, M.S. 1999, A&AS, 134, 489
Korn, A.J., Keller, S.C., Kaufer, A., et al. 2002, A&A, 385, 143
Kurucz, R. L. 1993, Kurucz CE-ROM No.13. Cambridge, Mass.: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory.
Lanz, T. & Hubeny, I. 2003, ApJS, 146, 417
Levato, H. & Grosso, M. 2004, IAUS, 215, 51
Martayan, C., Hubert, A.-M., Floquet, M., et al. 2005, A&A, in press, astroph0509339
Maeder, A., Grebel, E.K. & Mermilliod, J.C. 1999, A&A, 346, 459
Maeder, A. & Meynet, G. 2000, ARAA, 38, 143
Maeder, A. & Meynet, G. 2001, A&A, 373, 555
Meynet, G. & Maeder, A. 2000, A&A, 361, 101
Meynet, G. & Maeder, A. 2002, A&A, 390, 561
Neiner, C., Hubert, A.-M., Frémat, Y.,et al. 2003, A&A, 409, 275
Penny, L. R., Sprague, A. J., Seago, G., et al. 2004, ApJ, 617, 1316
Rivinius, Th., Baade, D., Stefl, S., et al. 1998, BeSN, 33, 15
Rolleston, W. R. J., Brown, P. J. F., Dufton, P. F., Howarth, I. D. 1996, A&A, 315, 95
Royer, F., Melo, C., Mermilliod, J.-C., et al. 2004, IAUS, 215, 71
Sigut, T. A. A. 1996, ApJ, 473, 452
Stepién, K. 2002, A&A, 383, 218
Varosi, F., Lanz, T., deKoter, A., et al. 1995, ftp://idlastro.gsfc.nasa.gov/pub/contrib/varosi/modion
Yudin, R. V. 2001, A&A, 368, 912
Zorec, J., Frémat, Y. & Cidale, L. 2005, A&A, 441, 235
Zorec, J. 1986, PhD Thesis: Structure et rotation différentielle dans les étoiles B avec et sans émission (Paris: Université VII, 1986)
[^1]: The WEBDA database is maintained by J.C. Mermilliod. See http://obswww.unige.ch/webda/navigation.html
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'R.M. Matuev [^1]'
- 'I.A. Taimanov [^2]'
title: 'The Moutard transformation of two-dimensional Dirac operators and conformal geometry of surfaces in the four-space [^3]'
---
Introduction
============
In [@T151] the Moutard transformation, for a two-dimensional Dirac operator with a real-valued potential, derived in [@C], was related with conformal geometry of surfaces in the three-space. In this article we expand this picture for surfaces in the four-space, because every such a surface admits a Weierstrass representation related to a two-dimensional Dirac operator [@TDS; @T-RS].
Therewith we generalize the Moutard transformation from [@C] onto Dirac operators with complex-valued potentials, i.e. for operators of the form $$\label{dirac}
\cal D = \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & \partial \\
-\bar{\partial} & 0
\end{array}
\right) + \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
U & 0 \\
0 & \bar{U}
\end{array}
\right),$$ where $\partial = \frac{1}{2}\big(\frac{\partial}{\partial x} - i\frac{\partial}{\partial y}\big)$ and $\bar{\partial} =
\frac{1}{2}\big(\frac{\partial}{\partial x} + i\frac{\partial}{\partial y}\big)$.
Let us briefly expose the main results. We consider the operator $$\D^\vee = \left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & \partial \\
-\bar{\partial} & 0 \end{array}\right) +
\left(\begin{array}{cc} \bar{U} & 0 \\
0 & U \end{array}\right).$$ Let $\psi$ and $\varphi$ satisfy the equations $$\label{diraceq}
\D\psi=0, \ \ \ \ \D^\vee\varphi=0.$$ Then the matrix-valued functions $$\label{quaternionsol}
\Psi = \left(\begin{array}{cc} \psi_1 & -\bar{\psi}_2 \\
\psi_2 & \bar{\psi}_1 \end{array} \right), \ \ \ \
\Phi = \left(\begin{array}{cc} \varphi_1 & -\bar{\varphi}_2 \\
\varphi_2 & \bar{\varphi}_1 \end{array} \right)$$ satisfy the equations $$\label{matrixdirac}
{\cal D} \Psi = 0, \ \ \ \D^\vee\Phi = 0,$$ which, in fact, means the solutions of (\[diraceq\]) are invariant with respect to the transformations$$\left(\begin{array}{c} \psi_1 \\ \psi_2 \end{array}\right) \longrightarrow
\left(\begin{array}{c} -\bar{\psi}_2 \\ \bar{\psi}_1 \end{array}\right), \ \ \
\left(\begin{array}{c} \varphi_1 \\ \varphi_2 \end{array}\right) \longrightarrow
\left(\begin{array}{c} -\bar{\varphi}_2 \\ \bar{\varphi}_1 \end{array}\right).$$ Here it is important that the potentials are complex conjugate to each other.
In this article we show that
1. [*every pair of solutions $\psi$ and $\varphi$ to (\[diraceq\]) and every point $x_0 \in \R^4$ define a transformation of the Moutard type of the operator $\D$ to an operator of the same form;*]{}
2. [*geometrically the Moutard transformation is given by an action of composition of the inversion and the reflection, with respect to a line, on a surface in $\R^4$. This surface is defined via the Weierstrass representation by vector functions (spinors) $\psi$ and $\varphi$ and $x_0\in \R^4$ and the potential $U$ of the Dirac operator enters into this Weierstrass representation.*]{}
The Moutard transformation
==========================
Let us consider the quaternion algebra $\Q$, realized by matrices of the form $\left(\begin{array}{cc} a & b \\ -\bar{b} & \bar{a} \end{array}\right), a,b \in \C$. To every vector function $\left(\begin{array}{c} \psi_1 \\ \psi_2 \end{array}\right)$ we correspond a matrix valued function $$\Psi = \left(\begin{array}{cc} \psi_1 & -\bar{\psi}_2 \\ \psi_2 & \bar{\psi}_1 \end{array}\right)$$ with the value in $\Q$.
To every pair $\Phi$ and $\Psi$ of $\Q$-valued functions we correspond the $1$-form $\omega$: $$\label{omega}
\omega(\Phi,\Psi) = \Phi^\top \Psi dy - i \Phi^\top \sigma_3 \Psi dx
=$$ $$-\frac{i}{2}\left(\Phi^\top \sigma_3 \Psi + \Phi^\top \Psi\right) dz - \frac{i}{2}\left(\Phi^\top \sigma_3 \Psi - \Phi^\top \Psi\right) d\bar{z},$$ and the function $$\label{sigma}
S(\Phi,\Psi)(z,\bar{z},t) = \Gamma \int_0^z \omega(\Phi,\Psi),$$ where $$\Gamma = \left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\ -1 & 0 \end{array}\right) = i\sigma_2, \ \ \
\sigma_3= \left(\begin{array}{cc} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & -1 \end{array}\right),$$ $\sigma_2$ and $\sigma_3$ are the Pauli matrices.
The form $\omega$ and the function $S$ take values in $\Q$, and moreover $S$ is defined up to integration constants, i.e. up to a constant matrix from $\Q$.
Here and in the sequel we define the transposition of $X$ by $X^\top$.
To every pair of $\Q$-valued functions $\Phi$ and $\Psi$ we correspond a matrix valued function $$\label{kmatrix}
K(\Phi,\Psi) = \Psi S^{-1}(\Phi,\Psi)\Gamma \Phi^\top\Gamma^{-1} =
\left(\begin{array}{cc} i\bar{W} & a \\ -\bar{a} & -iW \end{array}\right).$$
By straightforward computations it is proved that
\[th1\] Let $\Psi_0$ and $\Phi_0$ be solutions of the form (\[quaternionsol\]) of the Dirac equations (\[diraceq\]).
Then for every pair $\Psi$ and $\Phi$ of solutions of (\[diraceq\]) the functions $$\label{moutard1}
\begin{split}
\widetilde{\Psi} = \Psi - \Psi_0 S^{-1}(\Phi_0,\Psi_0) S(\Phi_0,\Psi), \\
\widetilde{\Phi} = \Phi - \Phi_0 S^{-1}(\Psi_0,\Phi_0) S(\Psi_0,\Phi)
\end{split}$$ satisfy the Dirac equations $$\widetilde{\D}\widetilde{\Psi} = 0, \ \ \ \ \widetilde{\D}^\vee \widetilde{\Phi} = 0$$ for the Dirac operators $\widetilde{\D}$ and $\widetilde{\D}^\vee$ with the potential $$\label{newpotential}
\widetilde{U} = U + W,$$ where $W$ is defined by the formula (\[kmatrix\]) for $K(\Phi_0,\Psi_0)$.
[Remarks.]{} 1) Due to matrix integration constants in (\[sigma\]) $\widetilde{\Psi}$ and $\widetilde{\Phi}$ are defined up to multiplication on $(\Psi_0 S^{-1}(\Phi_0, \Psi_0)) \cdot A$ and $(\Phi_0 S^{-1}(\Psi_0, \Phi_0)) \cdot B$, respectively, with $A$ and $ B$ constant matrices from $\Q$.
2\) The formulas (\[omega\]) are (\[sigma\]) the same as for the Moutard transformation of the Dirac operator with a real-valued potential $U$ [@T151; @C]. The transformation from Theorem 1 reduces to it for a real-valued potential $U$ and $\Phi_0=\Psi_0$. The proof of Theorem 1 will follow to its analogue, for the case of a real-valued potential, given in [@T151].
[Proof.]{} 1) Let $$\widetilde{\Psi}_0 = \Psi_0 S^{-1}(\Phi_0, \Psi_0), \ \ \
\widetilde{\Phi}_0 = \Phi_0 S^{-1}(\Psi_0, \Phi_0).$$ WE show that $\widetilde{\Psi}_0$ and $\widetilde{\Phi}_0$ satisfy the Dirac equations $$\label{newdirac}
\widetilde{\D} \widetilde{\Psi} = \D_0 \widetilde{\Psi} + \left(\begin{array}{cc} \widetilde{U} & 0 \\ 0 & \bar{\widetilde{U}}
\end{array}\right)\widetilde{\Psi} = 0, \ \ \ \widetilde{\D}^\vee\widetilde{\Phi} =0,$$ where $$\D_0 = \left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & \partial \\ -\bar{\partial} & 0 \end{array}\right),$$ with the potential $\widetilde{U} = U+W$ given by (\[newpotential\]).
Let us apply the “Leibniz rule” [@T151] $$\label{leibniz}
\D_0 (A \cdot B) = (\D_0\,A) \cdot B +
\left(\begin{array} {cc} 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 \end{array}\right) A \cdot \partial B
+
\left(\begin{array} {cc} 0 & 0 \\ -1 & 0 \end{array}\right) A \cdot \bar{\partial} B$$ to $A = \Psi_0$ and $B= S^{-1} = S^{-1}(\Phi_0, \Psi_0)$: $$\label{new}
\begin{split}
\D_0 (\Psi_0 S^{-1}(\Phi_0, \Psi_0)) =
\\
(\D_0 \Psi_0)S^{-1} +
\left(\begin{array} {cc} 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 \end{array}\right) \Psi_0 S^{-1}_z
+ \left(\begin{array} {cc} 0 & 0 \\ -1 & 0 \end{array}\right) \Psi_0 S^{-1}_{\bar z} =
\\
= - \left(\begin{array}{cc} U & 0 \\ 0 & \bar{U}
\end{array}\right) \Psi_0 S^{-1} +
i \left(\begin{array} {cc} 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 \end{array}\right) \Psi_0 S^{-1} \Gamma \Phi_0^\top
\left(\begin{array}{cc} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 \end{array}\right)\Psi_0 S^{-1} +
\\
+ i \left(\begin{array} {cc} 0 & 0 \\ -1 & 0 \end{array}\right) \Psi_0 S^{-1}\Gamma \Phi_0^\top
\left(\begin{array} {cc} 0 & 0 \\ 0 & -1 \end{array}\right) \Psi_0 S^{-1}.
\end{split}$$ It follows from $S^{-1}S = 1$ that $$(S^{-1})_z = - S^{-1} S_z S^{-1}, (S^{-1})_{\bar{z}} = - S^{-1} S_{\bar{z}} S^{-1}$$ and, by the definition of $S(\Phi_0,\Psi_0)$, we have $$\label{derivative}
(S^{-1})_z= \frac{i}{2}S^{-1} \Gamma \Phi_0^\top (\sigma_3+1)\Psi_0 S^{-1}, \ \
(S^{-1})_{\bar{z}}= \frac{i}{2} S^{-1} \Gamma \Phi_0^\top (\sigma_3-1)\Psi_0 S^{-1}.$$ In view of these identities the formula (\[new\]) takes the form $$\D_0 (\Psi_0 S^{-1}) =
- \left(\begin{array}{cc} U & 0 \\ 0 & \bar{U}
\end{array}\right)(\Psi_0 S^{-1}) +$$ $$+ i \left(\left(\begin{array} {cc} 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 \end{array}\right) G
\left(\begin{array}{cc} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 \end{array}\right)
+ \left(\begin{array} {cc} 0 & 0 \\ 1 & 0 \end{array}\right) G
\left(\begin{array} {cc} 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 \end{array}\right)\right)(\Psi_0 S^{-1}) =$$ $$=
-\left(\begin{array}{cc} U + W& 0 \\ 0 & \bar{U} + \bar{W}
\end{array}\right)(\Psi_0 S^{-1}),$$ where $$G = K(\Phi_0, \Psi_0) \Gamma^{-1} = \Psi_0 S^{-1}(\Phi_0, \Psi_0) \Gamma \Phi_0^\top = \left(\begin{array} {cc} -a & i\bar{W} \\ iW & -\bar{a} \end{array}\right).$$ therefore we prove that $\tilde{\Psi}_0$ satisfies the first equation from (\[newdirac\]). Analogously it is proved that $\tilde{\Phi}_0$ satisfies the second equation from (\[newdirac\]).
2\) Let us find a transformation of an arbitrary solution $\Psi$ of (\[matrixdirac\]) to a solution $\widetilde{\Psi}$ of (\[newdirac\]). WE will look for it in the form $$\widetilde{\Psi} = \Psi + \widetilde{\Psi}_0 N.$$ By (\[leibniz\]), we have $$0 = \widetilde{\D}\widetilde{\Psi} = (\D +\left(\begin{array}{cc} W & 0 \\ 0 & \bar{W} \end{array}\right))(\Psi + \widetilde{\Psi}_0 N) = \D\Psi + \left(\begin{array}{cc} W & 0 \\ 0 & \bar{W} \end{array}\right) \Psi +
(\widetilde{\D}\widetilde{\Psi}_0)\cdot N +$$ $$+ \left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 \end{array}\right)\widetilde{\Psi}_0 \partial N +
\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 0 \\ -1 & 0 \end{array}\right)\widetilde{\Psi}_0 \bar{\partial} N,$$ where $W = \widetilde{U}-U$, and, since $\widetilde{\D}\widetilde{\Psi} = \D \Psi=0$, we will look for $N$ such that $$\left(\begin{array}{cc} W & 0 \\ 0 & \bar{W} \end{array}\right) \Psi = -\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 \end{array}\right)\widetilde{\Psi}_0 \partial N -
\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 0 \\ -1 & 0 \end{array}\right)\widetilde{\Psi}_0 \bar{\partial} N.$$ However it follows from the formula for $W$ that $$\left(\begin{array}{cc} W & 0 \\ 0 & \bar{W} \end{array}\right) \Psi = \left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 \end{array}\right)\widetilde{\Psi}_0 S_z (\Phi_0,\Psi) +
\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 0 \\ -1 & 0 \end{array}\right)\widetilde{\Psi}_0 S_{\bar{z}}(\Phi_0,\Psi),$$ therefore $N$ is equal to $$N = -S(\Phi_0,\Psi)$$ up to a constant matrix from $\Q$ and, hence, the action of the Moutard transformation on $\Psi$ takes the form pointed out by Theorem 1: $$\widetilde{\Psi} = \Psi - \Psi_0 S^{-1}(\Phi_0,\Psi_0) S(\Phi_0,\Psi).$$ Analogously the transformation of $\Phi$ is derived.
Theorem 1 is proved.
Geometry of the Moutard transformation {#section4}
======================================
The Weierstrass representation of surfaces in $\R^4$
----------------------------------------------------
The Weierstrass representation of surfaces in $\R^4$ correspond to solutions $\psi$ and $\varphi$ of (\[diraceq\]) the surface defined by the formulas $$\label{int4} x^k(P) = x^k(P_0) + \int \left( x^k_z dz + \bar{x}^k_z
d\bar{z}\right), \ \ k=1,2,3,4,$$ where $$\label{int40}
\begin{split}
x^1_z = \frac{i}{2} (\bar{\varphi}_2\bar{\psi}_2 + \varphi_1
\psi_1), \ \ \ \ x^2_z = \frac{1}{2} (\bar{\varphi}_2\bar{\psi}_2 - \varphi_1 \psi_1),
\\
x^3_z = \frac{1}{2} (\bar{\varphi}_2 \psi_1 + \varphi_1
\bar{\psi}_2), \ \ \ \ x^4_z = \frac{i}{2} (\bar{\varphi}_2 \psi_1 -
\varphi_1 \bar{\psi}_2),
\end{split}$$ where the integral is taken along a path from the initial point $P_0$ to $P$. Therewith the induced metric is equal to $$e^{2\alpha} dzd\bar{z} =
(|\psi_1|^2+|\psi_2|^2)(|\varphi_1|^2+|\varphi_2|^2)dz d\bar{z}$$ and the mean curvature vector $$\H = \frac{2 x_{z\bar{z}}}{e^{2\alpha}}$$ is related to $U$ as follows $$|U| = \frac{|\H| e^\alpha}{2}.$$ These formulas for constructing surfaces in $\R^4$ were introduced in [@K2]. For $\psi=\varphi, U=\bar{U}$ we have $x^4=\mathrm{const}$ and these formulas reduce to analogous formulas for surfaces in $\R^3$.
These formulas have a local character and for their globalization it is necessary to consider vector functions $\psi$ as sections of spinor bundles. Such a representation is constructed (up to a multiplication of $\psi$ by $\pm 1$) for every surface in $\R^3$ and therewith $4 \int U^2 dx\,dy$ coincides with the value of the Willmore functional [@T-MNV].
For surfaces in $\R^4$ the situation is more complicated [@TDS]: every surface in $\R^4$ is also given by such formulas, however $\psi$ are $\varphi$ are defined by a factorization of the Gauss map and are defined not uniquely but up to gauge transformations $$\label{gauge}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\psi_1 \\ \psi_2
\end{array}
\right) \to \left(
\begin{array}{c}
e^h\psi_1 \\ e^{\bar{h}}\psi_2
\end{array}
\right), \ \ \ \left(
\begin{array}{c}
\varphi_1 \\ \varphi_2
\end{array}
\right) \to \left(
\begin{array}{c}
e^{-h} \varphi_1 \\ e^{-\bar{h}}\varphi_2
\end{array}
\right),$$ where $h$ is an arbitrary function on the universal covering of the surface. Among $\psi$ and $\varphi$, constructed from the Gauss map, we can find such functions which satisfy the Dirac equations (\[diraceq\]). The spinors $\psi$ and $\varphi$, satisfying (\[diraceq\]), again are not uniquely defined but up to gauge transformations (\[gauge\]) where $h$ is a holomorphic function on the universal covering. Therewith the phase of the potential is also changed: $$\label{gaugep}
U \to e^{(\bar{h}-h)}U.$$
Let us clarify the relation of $U$ to the mean curvature vector. For a surface $M$ â $\R^4$ at every point $x \in M$ there exists a two-dimensional space $\nu M_x$ formed by all tangent vectors to $\R^4$ which are normal to the surface. Given a Weierstrass representation of the surface, let us choose in $\nu M_x$ the basis $\n_1$ and $\n_2$ in the form $$\n_1 = e^{-\alpha}(-\Im (\psi_2\varphi_1-\bar{\psi}_1\bar{\varphi}_2), -\Re(\bar{\psi}_1\bar{\varphi}_2+\psi_2\varphi_1),$$ $$\Re(\psi_2\bar{\varphi}_2-\bar{\psi}_1\varphi_1),-\Im (\bar{\psi}_1\varphi_1+\psi_2\bar{\varphi}_2)),$$ $$\n_2 = e^{-\alpha}(\Re(\psi_2\varphi_1-\bar{\psi}_1\bar{\varphi}_2), -\Im(\bar{\psi}_1\bar{\varphi}_2+\psi_2\varphi_1),$$ $$\Im (\psi_2\bar{\varphi}_2 - \bar{\psi}_1\varphi_1), \Re (\bar{\psi}_1\varphi_1 + \psi_2\bar{\varphi}_2)).$$ Define a complex-valued vector $$\label{normal}
\p = e^{\alpha}(\n_1+i\n_2).$$ By straightforward computations, it is shown the the potential $U$ of the Weierstrass representation takes the form $$U = \frac{1}{2}\langle \H,\p\rangle,$$ where $\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$ is the Euclidean (not Hermitian) scalar product. Different Weierstrass representations of the same surface with a fixed conformal parameter are related by a gauge transformation (\[gauge\]) and, therefore, the vectors $\n_1$ and $\n_2$, constructed from the representations, as well as $U$ are related by (\[gaugep\]).
The inversion of $\R^4$ and the Moutard transformation
------------------------------------------------------
By the Liouville theorem, for $n \geq 3$ the group formed by all orientation-preserving conformal transformations of $S^n = \R^n \cup \{\infty\}$ is generated by translations, rotations of $\R^n$, and the inversion.
The inversion of $\R^4$ has the form $$T: \x \to \frac{\x}{|\x|^2}, \ \ \ \x = (x^1,\dots,x^4) \in \R^4.$$ In [@T151] in the definition of the inversion the right-hand side of the analogous formula was taken with the opposite sign to preserve the orientation.
Let $u$ be a vector tangent to $\R^4$ at $\x$: $u \in T_{\x}\R^4$ and let $\x\neq 0$. By straightforward computations we derive the formula $$T^\ast u = \frac{u}{|\x|^2} - 2\x \frac{\langle \x,u\rangle}{|\x|^4}.$$ This implies that $$\langle T^\ast u, T^\ast v\rangle = \frac{\langle u,v \rangle}{|\x|^4}, \ \ \ \ u,v \in T_{\x}\R^4.$$ Let us consider an immersed surface $r: {\cal U} \to \R^4$ with a conformal parameter $z$. The inversion maps it into the surface $\widetilde{r} = T \cdot r: {\cal U} \to \R^4$, on which $z$ is also a conformal parameter and the conformal factors of the metrics satisfy the equality $$e^{\widetilde{\alpha}(z,\bar{z})} = \frac{e^{\alpha(z,\bar{z})}}{|r(z,\bar{z})|^2}, \ \ \ e^{2\widetilde{\alpha}} =
\frac{1}{2} \langle \widetilde{r}_z, \widetilde{r}_{\bar{z}}\rangle, \ \ e^{2\alpha} = \frac{1}{2} \langle r_z, r_{\bar{z}}\rangle.$$
Let $\psi = \left(\begin{array}{c} \psi_1 \\ \psi_2 \end{array}\right)$ and $\varphi = \left(\begin{array}{c} \varphi_1 \\ \varphi_2 \end{array}\right)$ define the surface $r: {\cal U} \to \R^4$ via the Weierstrass representation.
Let us identify $\R^4$ with the Lie algebra $u(2)$ (or, which that same, with the matrix realization of quaternions) by the mapping $$\x = (x^1,x^2,x^3,x^4) \to
\X = \left(\begin{array}{cc} ix^3 + x^4& -x^1 - ix^2 \\ x^1-ix^2 & -ix^3 +x^4\end{array}\right) .$$ By straightforward computation,we derive
\[comp\] In this representation the map $$\label{stransform}
\X \longrightarrow \X^{-1}$$ is a composition of the inversion $\x \to \frac{\x}{|\x|^2}$ and the reflection $$\label{reflection}
(x^1,x^2,x^3,x^4) \to (-x^1,-x^2,-x^3,x^4).$$
We have
The formula (\[sigma\]) gives an immersion into $u(2) = \R^4$ of the surface defined by the spinors $\psi$ and $\varphi$ via the Weierstrass representation.
[Proof.]{} By (\[int40\]) and (\[omega\]), $$S(\Phi_0,\Psi_0)(P) = \Gamma \int_{P_0}^P
-\frac{i}{2}\left(\Phi_0^\top (\sigma_3+1) \Psi_0 dz + \Phi_0^\top (\sigma_3 -1)
\Psi_0\right) d\bar{z}) =$$ $$\label{surface}
= i \int_0^P \left(\begin{array}{cc} \psi_1 \bar{\varphi}_2 & -\bar{\psi}_2 \bar{\varphi}_2 \\
\psi_1 \varphi_1 & -\bar{\psi}_2 \varphi_1 \end{array}\right)dz +
\left(\begin{array}{cc} \psi_2 \bar{\varphi}_1 & \bar{\psi}_1 \bar{\varphi}_1 \\
-\psi_2 \varphi_2 & -\bar{\psi}_1 \varphi_2 \end{array}\right)d\bar{z} =$$ $$= \int_0^P d \left(\begin{array}{cc} ix^3 + x^4 & -x^1 - ix^2 \\ x^1-ix^2 & -ix^3 + x^4\end{array}\right) \in u(2) ,$$ i.e. $S$ is the surface determined by the spinors $\psi$ and $\varphi$ via the Weierstrass representation. Proposition is proved.
The following theorem demonstrates the geometrical meaning of the Moutard transformation from Theorem 1.
Let a surface $$S = S(\Phi_0,\Psi_0): {\cal U} \to \R^4$$ with a conformal parameter $z \in {\cal U} \subset \C$ is defined by the spinors $\Psi_0$ and $\Phi_0$ via the Weierstrass representation. Then the surface $$S^{-1}: {\cal U} \to \R^4 \cup \{\infty\},$$ obtained from $S$ by applying the composition of the inversion and the reflection (see Proposition \[comp\]) is defined by the spinors $$\widetilde{\Psi}_0 = \Psi_0 S^{-1}(\Phi_0, \Psi_0), \ \ \ \
\widetilde{\Phi}_0 = \Phi_0 S^{-1}(\Psi_0, \Phi_0)$$ via the Weierstrass representation.
[Proof.]{} Let $\hat{\Psi}$ and $\hat{\Phi}$ define the surface $S^{-1}(\Phi_0,\Psi_0)$ via the Weierstrass representation. The formula (\[derivative\]) implies the equality $$\hat{S} _z= -\frac{i}{2} \Gamma \hat{\Phi}_0^\top (1+\sigma_3)\hat{\Psi}_0=
\frac{i}{2} S^{-1}(\Phi_0,\Psi_0) \Gamma \Phi_0^\top (1+ \sigma_3) \Psi_0 S^{-1}(\Phi_0, \Psi_0),$$ which is simplified up to the form $$\hat{\Phi}_0^\top (1+\sigma_3)\hat{\Psi}_0 =
-\Gamma^{-1} S^{-1} \Gamma \Phi_0^\top (1+ \sigma_3) \Psi_0 S^{-1}.$$ It is easy to check the following identity $$-\Gamma^{-1} S^{-1}(\Phi_0, \Psi_0)\Gamma = \Gamma S^{-1}(\Phi_0, \Psi_0) \Gamma = (S^{-1}(\Psi_0, \Phi_0))^\top,$$ which together with the preceding equality imply $$\label{z}
D^\top (1+\sigma_3) C = (1+\sigma_3) = \left(\begin{array}{cc} 2 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 \end{array}\right)$$ for $$C = \Psi_0 S^{-1}(\Phi_0, \Psi_0) \hat{\Psi}_0^{-1}, \ \ \
D = \Phi_0 S^{-1}(\Psi_0, \Phi_0) \hat{\Phi}_0^{-1}.$$ Analogously, by considering $\hat{S}_{\bar{z}}$ and $S_{\bar{z}}$, we conclude that $$D^\top (\sigma_3-1)C = (\sigma_3-1) = \left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 0 \\ 0 & -2 \end{array}\right).$$ It follows from the last equality and from (\[z\]) that the matrices $C$ and $D$ are diagonal and $C = D^{-1}$. Since $\Psi_0, S^{-1}, \hat{\Psi}_0, \Phi_0, \hat{\Phi}_0 \in \Q$, we have $C, D \in \Q$, therefore, $$C = D^{-1} = \left(\begin{array}{cc} e^{h} & 0 \\ 0 & e^{\bar{h}} \end{array}\right)$$ and we infer that $$\hat{\Psi}_0 = \left(\begin{array}{cc} e^{h} & 0 \\ 0 & e^{\bar{h}} \end{array}\right) \Psi_0 S^{-1}(\Phi_0, \Psi_0), \ \ \
\hat{\Phi}_0 = \left(\begin{array}{cc} e^{- h} & 0 \\ 0 & e^{- \bar{h}} \end{array}\right) \Phi_0 S^{-1}(\Psi_0, \Phi_0),$$ i.e. the spinors $(\hat{\Psi}_0,\hat{\Phi}_0)$ are obtained from $(\Psi_0 S^{-1}(\Phi_0, \Psi_0), \Phi_0 S^{-1}(\Phi_0, \Psi_0))$ by the gauge transformation (\[gauge\]) and define the same surface. Theorem 2 is proved.
For the completeness of exposition let us compute the function $W= \widetilde{U}-U$ in terms of the Weierstrass representation.
$$W = \frac{\langle r, \p \rangle}{|r|^2} = \frac{e^\alpha}{|r|^2}\langle r, \n_1+i\n_2 \rangle,$$ where $r:U \to \R^4$ is a surface in $\R^4$, the vector $\p$ has the form (\[normal\]), $e^{2\alpha}$ is the conformal factor of the metric and $(\n_1,\n_2)$ is a basis of the normal bundle.
[Proof.]{} Let us compute the function $K_{22}=-iW$ given by (\[kmatrix\]). We have $$K = \Psi_0 S^{-1}(\Phi_0, \Psi_0) \Gamma \Phi_0^\top \Gamma^{-1} =$$ $$\Psi_0 S^{-1} \left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\ -1 & 0 \end{array}\right)
\left(\begin{array}{cc} \varphi_1 & \varphi_2 \\ -\bar{\varphi}_2 & \bar{\varphi}_1 \end{array}\right)
\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & -1 \\ 1 & 0 \end{array}\right) =$$ $$=
\frac{1}{|r|^2}
\left(\begin{array}{cc} \psi_1 & -\bar{\psi}_2 \\ \psi_2 & \bar{\psi}_1 \end{array}\right)
\left(\begin{array}{cc} -ix^3 + x^4 & x^1 + ix^2 \\ -x^1 +ix^2 & ix^3 + x^4 \end{array}\right)
\left(\begin{array}{cc} \bar{\varphi}_1 & \bar{\varphi}_2 \\ -\varphi_2 & \varphi_1 \end{array}\right),$$ where $|r|^2 = \sum_{k=1}^3 (x^k)^2$, and conclude that, by (\[normal\]), $$K_{22} = \frac{1}{|r|^2} (x^1
(\psi_2\varphi_1 -\bar{\psi}_1\bar{\varphi}_2)+ ix^2 (\psi_2\varphi_1 +\bar{\psi}_1\bar{\varphi}_1)+ ix^3
(\bar{\psi}_1\varphi_1 - \psi_2 \bar{\varphi}_2) +$$ $$+ x^4 (\bar{\psi}_1 \varphi_1 + \psi_2 \bar{\varphi}_2) ) = - \frac{i}{|r|^2} \langle r, \p\rangle.$$ Proposition is proved.
An integrable example of “conformal” transformations of the spectral curve and of the Floquet functions
=======================================================================================================
Let the potential $U$ is double-periodic: $$U(z+\lambda)=U(z), \ \ \ \lambda \in \Lambda \approx {\mathbb Z}^2 \subset \C.$$ A solution $\psi$ of (\[diraceq\]) is called the Floquet function (on the zero energy level) of $\D$, if there exist constants $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$ (the Floquet multipliers) such that $$\psi(z+\lambda_k) = \mu_k \psi(z), \ \ \ k=1,2,$$ where $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$ generate the period lattice $\Lambda$. The Floquet functions are parameterized by the spectral curve $\Gamma$ of $\D$ [@T98] (see, also, [@T-RS]), which was first introduced in [@DKN] for the two-dimensional Schrödinger operator.
In [@GT] it was proved that the actions of conformal transformations of $\R^4$ on tori preserve the Floquet multipliers of the Dirac operators coming into their Weierstrass representations. The proof consists in the following:
1\) the identity map and the inversion are connected by a smooth curve $\gamma(t)$ in the space of conformal transformations;
2\) to the torus $\Sigma \subset \R^2$ with a fixed conformal parameter $z$ was applied the conformal transformation $\gamma(t)$;
3\) on the constructed torus $\Sigma_t = \gamma(t)\cdot \Sigma$ the parameter $z$ is also conformal and its Weierstrass representation has the potential $U(z,\bar{z},t)$;
4\) the derivatives in $t$ of the Floquet functions are computed and, therewith, it is proved that the derivatives of the multipliers vanish.
Moreover in [@GT] it was shown that the evolution in $t$ of the Floquet functions has the form of a nonlinear equation of the Melnikov type. In [@GT] it was pointed out that under such a deformation the spectral curve may become singular due to creation of double points. We demonstrate that below by using explicit analytical formulas.
For tori in $\R^3$ the preservation of the multipliers, conjectured by us, was proved in [@GS]. The question on the preservation of the spectral curve was not discussed in [@GS].
Let us present an explicit example of such a deformation of a potential $U(z,\bar{z},t)$ and of the corresponding Floquet functions.
This examples is related to the Clifford torus $\Sigma$, which is defined by the equations $$(x^1)^2 + (x^2)^2 = \frac{1}{2}, \ \ ( x^3)^2 + (x^4)^2 = \frac{1}{2}$$ and is parameterized as follows $x^1=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \cos x, x^2 = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \sin x$, $x^3 = -\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \cos y$, $x^4 = -\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \sin y$. Its Weierstrass representation is given by the potential $$\label{cliffordp}
U_{\rm clifford} = -\frac{ i}{\sqrt{8}}$$ and by the spinors $$\psi_0 = \frac{e^{-\frac{i(x+y)}{2}}}{\sqrt{2}} \left(\begin{array}{c} e^{i\frac{3\pi}{8}} \\ e^{-i\frac{3\pi}{8}} \end{array}\right), \ \ \
\varphi_0 = \frac{e^{\frac{i(y-x)}{2}}}{2} \left(\begin{array}{c} -e^{-i\frac{3\pi}{8}} \\ e^{i\frac{3\pi}{8}} \end{array}\right)$$ (in [@T-RS] we used the potential $U=\frac{1+i}{4}$ which is related to (\[cliffordp\]) by a gauge transformation (\[gaugep\])).
The basis of the Floquet functions of the Dirac operator (\[dirac\]) with a constant potential $U$ may be taken in the form $$\psi(z, \bar{z}, \lambda) =\exp \left( \lambda z - \frac{|U|^2}{\lambda}\bar{z}\right) \left(\begin{array}{c} 1 \\ -\frac{U}{\lambda} \end{array}\right),$$ where $\lambda \in \C \setminus \{0\}$ and the (compactified) spectral curve is the Riemann sphere: $\Gamma = \C \cup \{\infty\}$. For the potential (\[cliffordp\]) of the Clifford this basis takes the form $$\label{floquet}
\psi_{\rm Clifford}(z, \bar{z}, \lambda) = \exp \left( \lambda z -
\frac{1}{8\lambda}\bar{z}\right) \left(\begin{array}{c} 1 \\ \frac{i}{\sqrt{8}\lambda} \end{array}\right).$$
Let us consider the family of surfaces $\Sigma_t$ obtained from the Clifford tours by translations by $t$ along the $Ox^4$ where $t\in \R$: $$(x^1,x^2,x^3,x^4) \to (x^1,x^2,x^3,x^4+t),$$ and apply to each torus form this family the mapping (\[stransform\]), i.e. a composition of the inversion with the center at the origin and the reflection (\[reflection\]). The obtained tori we denote by $\tilde{\Sigma}_t$. The potentials $U(z,\bar{z},t)$ of their Weierstrass representations are explicitly computed by using Theorem 1 and are as follows: $$U(z,\bar{z},t) =-\frac{i}{\sqrt{8}} + \frac{\sqrt{2}i - (1 + i) t \sin y }{2(t^2 - \sqrt{2}t \sin y + 1)},$$
The tori $\tilde{\Sigma}_t$ are defined by the spinors $$\widetilde{\psi}_0 = \frac{e^{i\frac{3\pi}{8}}}{\sqrt{2}(t^2 -\sqrt{2}t \sin y + 1)}\left(\begin{array}{c} e^{i\frac{\pi}{4}} \exp \left(\frac{i(y-x)}{2}\right) + t \exp \left(-\frac{i(x+y)}{2}\right) \\ \exp \left(\frac{i(y-x)}{2}\right) - t e^{i\frac{\pi}{4}}\exp \left(-\frac{i(x+y)}{2}\right) \end{array}\right)$$ $$\widetilde{\varphi}_0 = \frac{e^{i\frac{3\pi}{8}}}{2 (t^2 -\sqrt{2}t \sin y + 1)}\left(\begin{array}{c} -\exp \left(-\frac{i(x+y)}{2}\right) - t e^{i\frac{\pi}{4}}\exp \left(\frac{i(y-x)}{2}\right) \\ e^{i\frac{\pi}{4}}\exp \left(-\frac{i(x+y)}{2}\right) - t \exp \left(\frac{i(y-x)}{2}\right) \end{array}\right)$$
We derive from these formulas that
1. for $t=0$ the Clifford torus is mapped into itself and the potential is mapped into a gauge equivalent potential: $$U_{\rm Clifford} = - \frac{i}{\sqrt{8}} \to U(z,\bar{z},0) = \frac{i}{\sqrt{8}};$$
2. only for $t=\pm 1$ the spinors $\tilde{\psi}$ and $\tilde{\varphi}$ are proportional: $$\tilde{\psi} = \mp \sqrt{2} \tilde{\varphi},$$ or, which is equivalent, the surface lies in the three-dimensional hyperplane. Indeed, only in these cases the torus $\Sigma_t$ passes through the origin and by the inversion is mapped into the hyperplane $x^4 = {\rm const}$. In this hyperplane the surface $\tilde{\Sigma}_t$ is the Clifford torus (in $\R^3$) on which the Willmore functional attains its minimum among all tori in $\R^3$ [@MN]. The potentials of these tori are equal to $$U(z,\bar{z},\pm 1) = \mp \frac{\sin y}{2\sqrt{2}(\sqrt{2} \mp \sin y)};$$
3. by Theorem 1, the Floquet functions of the operator with the potential $U(z,\bar{z},t)$ are obtained from the functions (\[floquet\]) by the Moutard transformation and take the form $$\widetilde{\psi} =
\exp \left( \lambda z - \frac{1}{8\lambda}\bar{z} \right)
\left(\begin{array}{c} 1 - \frac{2 i + 2 t \cdot ( 2\sqrt{2} i \lambda \cos y + e^{- i \frac{\pi}{4}} \sin y)}{(8 \lambda ^2+i)(t^2 - \sqrt{2}t \sin y + 1)}
\\ i\left( \frac{1}{\sqrt{8}\lambda} + \frac{-4\sqrt{2} \lambda + 2 t \cdot (\cos y + 2\sqrt{2} e^{-i \frac{\pi}{4}} \lambda \sin y) }{(8 \lambda ^2+i)(t^2 - \sqrt{2}t \sin y + 1)} \right)
\end{array}\right).$$ By multiplying that by $\lambda^8+i$ to get rid of the appearing poles in $\lambda$ and by saving, for brevity, the notations, we derive for $$u = \frac{1+i}{4}, \ \ \
t=1$$ that $$\widetilde{\psi}(u) =
\left(\begin{array}{c} \frac{i \sqrt{2} e^{i \frac{x+y}{2}} + (1 - i )e^{i \frac{x-y}{2}}}{ \sqrt{2} - \sin y } \\ \frac{ (i - 1)e^{i \frac{x+y}{2}} + i \sqrt{2}e^{i \frac{x-y}{2}}}{\sqrt{2} - \sin y} \end{array}\right),
\ \
\widetilde{\psi}(-\bar{u})=
\left(\begin{array}{c} \frac{(1 + i) e^{i \frac{x+y}{2}} - i \sqrt{2} e^{i \frac{x-y}{2}}}{ \sqrt{2} - \sin y } \\ \frac{i \sqrt{2}e^{i \frac{x+y}{2}} + (1 + i)e^{i \frac{x-y}{2}}}{\sqrt{2} - \sin y} \end{array}\right),$$ $$\widetilde{\psi}(-u) =
\left(\begin{array}{c} \frac{i \sqrt{2} e^{-i \frac{x+y}{2}} + ( i - 1 )e^{i \frac{y - x}{2}}}{ \sqrt{2} - \sin y } \\ \frac{ (1 - i)e^{-i \frac{x+y}{2}} + i \sqrt{2}e^{i \frac{y - x}{2}}}{\sqrt{2} - \sin y} \end{array}\right),
\ \
\widetilde{\psi}(\bar{u}) =
\left(\begin{array}{c} \frac{-(1 + i) e^{-i \frac{x+y}{2}} - i \sqrt{2} e^{i \frac{y-x}{2}}}{ \sqrt{2} - \sin y } \\ \frac{i \sqrt{2}e^{-i \frac{x+y}{2}} - (1 + i)e^{i \frac{y-x}{2}}}{\sqrt{2} - \sin y} \end{array}\right),$$ which implies the following equalities $$\widetilde{\psi}(u) = \frac{1+i}{\sqrt{2}} \, \widetilde{\psi}(-\bar{u}), \ \
\widetilde{\psi}(-u) = -\frac{1+i}{\sqrt{2}} \, \widetilde{\psi}(\bar{u}).$$ Hence, for $t=1$ the Floquet functions are uniquely parameterized by points of the singular curve $\C \setminus \{0\}/\{u \sim -\bar{u}, -u \sim \bar{u}\}$, and the spectral curve $\Gamma_1$, compactified by a pair of “infinities” $\lambda=0$ and $\lambda=\infty$, is a rational curve with a pair of double points. These finite gap integration data for the Clifford torus were obtained in [@TC].
From the explicit formulas for the Floquet functions it is easy to notice that for small $t$ the spectral curve of the operator with the potential $U(z,\bar{z},t)$ is preserved and stays smooth, and for $t=1$ on it appear a pair of double points. Therewith the Floquet multipliers are preserved.
[MMM]{}
Taimanov, I.A.: The Moutard transformation of two-dimensional Dirac operators and the Mobius geometry. Math. Notes [**97**]{}:1 (2015), 124–135.
Delong Yu, Q.P. Liu, and Shikun Wang: Darboux transformation for the modified Veselov–Novikov equation. J. of Physics A [**35**]{} (2001), 3779–3785.
Taimanov, I.A.: Surfaces in the four-space and the Davey-Stewartson equations. J. Geom. Phys. [**56**]{}:8 (2006), 1235–1256.
Taimanov, I.A. Two-dimensional Dirac operator and surface theory. Russian Math. Surveys [**61**]{}:1 (2006), 79–159.
Konopelchenko, B.G.: Weierstrass representations for surfaces in 4D spaces and their integrable deformations via DS hierarchy. Ann. Global Anal. Geom. [**16**]{}:1 (2000), 61–74.
Taimanov, I.A.: Modified Novikov–Veselov equation and differential geometry of surfaces. Amer. Math. Soc. Transl., Ser. 2, V. 179, 1997, pp. 133–151.
Taimanov, I.A.: The Weierstrass representation of closed surfaces in $\R^3$. Functional Anal. Appl. 32:4 (1998), 258-267.
Dubrovin, B.A., Krichever, I.M., and Novikov, S.P.: The Schr'’odinger equation in a periodic field and Riemann surfaces. Sov. Math. Dokl. [**17**]{} (1976), 947–951.
Grinevich, P.G., and Taimanov, I.A.: Infinitesimal Darboux transformations of the spectral curves of tori in the four-space. Int. Math. Res. Not. 2007, no. 2, Art. ID rnm005.
Grinevich, P.G., and Schmidt, M.U.: Conformal invariant functionals of tori into $\R^3$. J. Geom. Phys. [**26**]{} (1998), 51–78.
Marques, F.C., and Neves, A.: Min-Max theory and the Willmore conjecture. Ann. Math. [**179**]{} (2014), 683–782.
Taimanov, I.A.: Finite gap theory of the Clifford torus. International Mathematics Research Notices (2005), 103–120.
[^1]: Sobolev Institute of Mathematics, Academician Koptyug avenue 4, 630090, Novosibirsk, Russia, and Department of Mathematics and Mechanics, Novosibirsk State University, Pirogov street 2, 630090 Novosibirsk, Russia; e-mail: [email protected].
[^2]: Sobolev Institute of Mathematics, Academician Koptyug avenue 4, 630090, Novosibirsk, Russia, and Department of Mathematics and Mechanics, Novosibirsk State University, Pirogov street 2, 630090 Novosibirsk, Russia; e-mail: [email protected].
[^3]: The work was supported by the grant 3485/GF4 of Ministry of education and science of Republic of Kazakhstan.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study the cavity mode frequencies of a Fabry–Pérot cavity containing two vibrating dielectric membranes. We derive the equations for the mode resonances and provide approximate analytical solutions for them as a function of the membrane positions, which act as an excellent approximation when the relative and center-of-mass position of the two membranes are much smaller than the cavity length. With these analytical solutions, one finds that extremely large optomechanical coupling of the membrane relative motion can be achieved in the limit of highly reflective membranes when the two membranes are placed very close to a resonance of the inner cavity formed by them. We also study the cavity finesse of the system and verify that, under the conditions of large coupling, it is not appreciably affected by the presence of the two membranes. The achievable large values of the ratio between the optomechanical coupling and the cavity decay rate, $g/\kappa$, make this two-membrane system the simplest promising platform for implementing cavity optomechanics in the strong coupling regime.'
author:
- 'Jie Li$^1$, André Xuereb$^{2,3}$, Nicola Malossi$^{1}$, and David Vitali$^{1}$'
title: 'Cavity Mode Frequencies and Strong Optomechanical Coupling in Two-Membrane Cavity Optomechanics'
---
Introduction
============
Opto- and electro-mechanical systems in which a nanomechanical resonator is coupled to an optical or microwave cavity mode have been recently operated in the quantum regime by exploiting the so called linearised regime where the effective optomechanical interaction is enhanced by strongly driving the selected cavity mode [@TeuflGSC; @PainterGSC; @KippenbergGSC; @PainterSquee; @PurdySquee; @schwab; @sillanpaa]. In this regime the system dynamics is linear and one is typically restricted to the manipulation and detection of Gaussian states of optical and mechanical modes [@Hammerer2012]. However, there is a strong interest in realizing optomechanical devices able to reach the strong single-photon optomechanical coupling regime [@favero; @srinivasan; @meenehan], where the nonlinear nature of the radiation pressure coupling would allow the demonstration of novel phenomena. In fact, if the single-photon optomechanical coupling is large enough, the nonlinear dispersive nature of the radiation-pressure interaction would allow the observation of photon blockade [@Rabl2011], the generation of mechanical non-Gaussian steady states [@Nunnenkamp2011; @Xu2013], nontrivial photon statistics in the presence of coherent driving [@Liao2012; @Xu2013b; @Kronwald2013], quantum non-demolition measurement [@Ludwig2012], single-photon detection [@hong], and quantum gates [@Stannigel2012; @asjad] at the single photon/phonon level. A further possibility is to use single photon optomechanical interferometry in this strong coupling regime for generating and detecting quantum superpositions at the macroscopic scale, eventually exploiting post-selection [@Pepper2012; @Vanner2013; @Akram2013; @Hong2013; @Sekatski2014; @Galland2014].
The standard path for reaching the strong single-photon optomechanical coupling regime is to consider co-localised optical and vibrational modes [@favero; @srinivasan; @meenehan], with a large spatial overlap confined in very small volumes, corresponding to mechanical modes with extremely small effective mass. An alternative solution, capable of providing systems with a large ratio between the single-photon optomechanical coupling rate $g$ and the cavity decay rate $\kappa$, is to exploit quantum interference in multi-element optomechanical setups [@andre; @andre2]. In this case $g/\kappa$ can be increased by orders of magnitude even in more massive systems. Here we study in detail such a constructive interference enhancement in the simplest case of two parallel membranes within an optical cavity. We derive and solve the equation for the optical cavity mode resonance frequencies. The behaviour of these frequencies as a function of the center-of-mass (CoM) and relative distance of the two membranes provides a complete description of the optomechanical properties of the system and will allow us to establish which are the parameters to tune in order to reach large $g/\kappa$ values.
In such a two-membrane optomechanical system, the dependence of the cavity mode frequencies on the positions of the membranes is central to the description of the system, since it determines the optomechanical couplings [@bhattacharya1]. However, we know that the mode equation is transcendental and cannot be solved analytically. The cavity resonance in such a system has been first studied in Ref. [@bhattacharya2], in which approximate analytical solutions of the mode equation are obtained in a perturbative manner. However, the solutions there are provided for only a few particular membrane positions, i.e., the equilibrium positions of the membranes are not left as free parameters in the optical frequencies. In this article, we instead provide approximate analytical solutions that work in more [*general*]{} situations, i.e., the optical mode frequency is a function of the CoM $Q$ and the relative position $q$ of the two membranes. With these analytical approximations, one can straightforwardly derive the optomechanical coupling for the CoM and the relative motion of the two membranes. We find that the optomechanical coupling of the latter can be significantly increased in the case of high-reflectivity membranes, $R_\text{m} \to 1$, when the two membranes are positioned such that the inner cavity they form is resonant. Such a coupling saturates to the value corresponding to the inner cavity, $g \propto \omega_0/q$ ($\omega_0$ is the cavity frequency) for very small $q$, as already shown in Refs. [@andre; @andre2]. These latter references focused on the scaling of the optomechanical coupling with the membranes at certain predefined fixed positions, without analyzing the generic dependence of the optical mode frequency versus the membrane positions along the cavity axis. Moreover they did not analyze in detail the effect of the membrane positions onto the cavity finesse. On the contrary, here we derive also an analytical expression for the cavity finesse versus the relative position $q$ of the two membranes. In particular, we have verified that the cavity finesse, and therefore the cavity decay rate, is not appreciably altered by the two membranes under the strong coupling condition; as a consequence $g/\kappa$ may be significantly increased, so that the two-membrane system is a promising candidate for the realisation of strong-coupling optomechanics. The present paper sheds new light on an experimentally-feasible instance of the optomechanical arrays studied in Refs. [@andre; @andre2], which research it complements by providing analytical approximations to the properties and behaviour of the cavity around resonance. The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II we derive the exact equation for the cavity mode resonances in the presence of two membranes, we provide the approximate analytical solutions, and compare them with the numerical results. In Sec. III we discuss the optomechanical coupling and provide approximate analytical formulas for such a coupling. Furthermore, we study the cavity finesse in the presence of the two membranes, especially in the large coupling regime. Finally, we reserve Sec. IV for some concluding remarks.
Cavity resonances
=================
![Schematic diagram of the system: Two movable dielectric membranes are placed inside a Fabry–Pérot cavity of length $L$ which is driven by an external laser. The position of two fixed mirrors (movable membranes) is denoted by $q_0$ and $q_3$ ($q_1$ and $q_2$); we have $L_i=q_i-q_{i-1}$ ($i=1,2,3$), with $q_{0,3}=\mp L/2$. []{data-label="model"}](scheme2.pdf){width="0.9\linewidth"}
As shown in Fig. \[model\], we consider two movable dielectric membranes placed inside a Fabry–Pérot cavity with length $L$, which is driven by an external laser. The Fabry–Pérot cavity is composed of two mirrors with electric field reflection and transmission coefficients $r_{1,2}$ and $t_{1,2}$. For simplicity, the cavity mirrors are assumed identical, i.e., $r\equiv r_{1,2}$ and $t\equiv t_{1,2}$; however, the results obtained in this paper can be extended in a straightforward way to the more general case of nonidentical mirrors. The reflection and transmission coefficients of a dielectric membrane of thickness $L_\text{m}$ and index of refraction $n$ are given by [@Brookerbook] $$\begin{split}
r_\text{m}&=\frac{(n^2-1)\sin\beta}{(n^2+1)\sin\beta+i\,2n\cos\beta}, \\
t_\text{m}&=\frac{2n}{(n^2+1)\sin\beta+i\,2n\cos\beta},
\end{split}
\label{rmtm}$$ where $\beta=n k L_\text{m}$, and $k=2\pi/\lambda$ is the wavenumber of the electric field; $\lambda$ is its wavelength. In order to simplify our calculations, we assume that the membranes are identical.
The optical resonance frequencies correspond to the maxima of transmission of the whole cavity. The electric field amplitudes $A_j$ of incident ($j=\text{in}$), reflected ($j=\text{ref}$), and transmitted ($j=\text{tran}$) waves, as well as for the fields in the cavity ($j=1,2,\dots,6$), satisfy the following equations: $$\begin{split}
A_1&=i\,t\,A_\text{in} + r\,A_2 e^{i k L_1}, \\
A_2&=i\,t_\text{m} A_4 e^{i k L_2} - r_\text{m} A_1 e^{i k L_1}, \\
A_3&=i\,t_\text{m} A_1 e^{i k L_1} - r_\text{m} A_4 e^{i k L_2}, \\
A_4&=i\,t_\text{m} A_6 e^{i k L_3} - r_\text{m} A_3 e^{i k L_2}, \\
A_5&=i\,t_\text{m} A_3 e^{i k L_2} - r_\text{m} A_6 e^{i k L_3}, \\
A_6&=r\,A_5 e^{i k L_3}, \\
A_\text{ref}&=i\,t\,A_2 e^{i k L_1} + r\,A_\text{in}, \\
A_\text{tran}&=i\,t\,A_5 e^{i k L_3},
\end{split}
\label{Aeqs}$$ where $L_i$ ($i=1,2,3$) is the length of the subcavities formed by the mirrors and the membranes, i.e., $L_i=q_i-q_{i-1}$ ($i=1,2,3$), $q_{0,3}=\mp L/2$ (see Fig. \[model\]), so that $L=L_1+L_2+L_3$. We point the reader to Ref. [@harris] for a similar approach in the case of a single membrane. The above equations, together with Eqs. (\[rmtm\]), are valid for any value of the thickness $L_\text{m}$, in the ideal one-dimensional case of plane waves, and flat and aligned mirrors and membranes. It can be applied also to the case of Gaussian cavity modes and spherical external mirrors as long as the membranes are placed within the Rayleigh range of the cavity. Membranes with very small absorption are available and therefore we will restrict to the case of real $n$, implying in particular ${\rm arg}(r_\text{m})={\rm arg}(t_\text{m})\equiv\phi$. Solving the above equations, the transmission ${\cal T}_\text{c}\equiv |t_\text{c}|^2=|A_\text{tran}/A_\text{in}|^2$ of the whole cavity is given by $${\cal T}_\text{c}=\frac{(1-R)^2(1-R_\text{m})^2}{|{\cal D}|^2},$$ with $$\begin{gathered}
{\cal D}=1-R_\text{m} e^{i 2k L_2+i 2\phi}+R R_\text{m} e^{i 2k(L_1+L_3)+i 2\phi}-R e^{i 2k L+i 4\phi}\\+\sqrt{R R_\text{m}}\Bigl[e^{i 2k L_1+i \phi}+e^{i 2k L_3+i \phi}-e^{i 2k(L_1+L_2)+i 3\phi}\\-e^{i 2k(L_2+L_3)+i 3\phi}\Bigr].
\label{denom}\end{gathered}$$ We have taken $r=\sqrt{R}$, $t=\sqrt{1-R}$, and $R_\text{m}=\sqrt{r_\text{m}}e^{i \phi}$, $T_\text{m}=\sqrt{1-R_\text{m}}e^{i \phi}$, with $R$ and $R_\text{m}$ the reflectivity of the mirror and membrane, respectively. The external mirrors reflectivity will be taken as a given fixed parameter, which for typical high-finesse cavities is such that $1-R\sim10^{-5}$. For standard homogeneous membranes, the reflectivity $R_\text{m}$ associated with Eqs. (\[rmtm\]) takes values of the order of $0.1$–$0.4$, but patterned sub-wavelength grating membranes [@Lawall] and photonic-crystal membranes [@Bui; @makles; @groblacher; @Deleglise] have been recently fabricated, and values up to $R_\text{m} \simeq 0.998$ have been achieved. Therefore $R_\text{m}$ will be taken as a variable parameter, eventually approaching $1$, but assuming in any case $R_\text{m} < R$. Re-expressing the quantities in terms of the relative motion $q=q_2-q_1$ and CoM coordinate $Q=(q_1+q_2)/2$, after some algebra, the denominator in the transmission ${\cal T}_\text{c}$, i.e. $|{\cal D}|^2$, can be expressed in the following form $$\begin{split}
|{\cal D}|^2&=A\,{\cal X}^2(k L') +B\,{\cal X}(k L') +C,
\end{split}
\label{denom2}$$ where ${\cal X}(k L')\equiv\sin(kL')-R_\text{m}\sin(kL'-2kq')$, and $A, B, C$ are the coefficients given by $$\begin{split}
A&=4R, \\
B&=8\sqrt{R R_\text{m}}\,(1+R)\cos (2kQ) \sin (kq'), \\
C&=8RR_\text{m} \cos(4kQ) \sin^2(kq')-2R(1-R_\text{m})^2 \\
&\,\,\,\,\,+(1+R^2)\left[1-2R_\text{m}\cos(2kq')+R_\text{m}^2\right].
\end{split}
\label{ABC}$$ We have introduced the two parameters $L'\equiv L+2\phi/k$ and $q'\equiv q+\phi/k$, which can be considered as the effective cavity length and the effective membrane relative distance including the effect of the phase shift due to each membrane.
The equations derived in this section give access to the optical properties of a Fabry–Pérot cavity with two identical membranes inside; we note in particular that the results of Refs. [@andre; @andre2] are limited to cavities with perfect end-mirrors (i.e., $R=1$). In what follows we will use the above expressions in experimentally-motivated limits to derive the optomechanical coupling strength for the relative motion of the two membranes.
Derivation of the cavity mode resonance frequencies
---------------------------------------------------
In the case of perfectly reflecting mirrors, $R=1$, the cavity mode resonances are given by the zeros of the denominator in the transmission ${\cal T}_\text{c}$, which in this case reduces to $$|{\cal D}|^2= 4\left[{\cal X}(k L')+2\sqrt{R_\text{m}}\cos(2kQ)\sin(kq')\right]^2,$$ so that the explicit equation for the cavity mode wavevector $k$ reads $$\begin{gathered}
\sin(kL')-R_\text{m}\sin(kL'-2kq')\\
+2\sqrt{R_\text{m}}\cos(2kQ)\sin(kq')=0.
\label{modeeq1}\end{gathered}$$ This expression is closely related to Eq. (19) in Ref. [@andre2]. In the general case $R<1$, the mode equation is obtained by minimizing the denominator $|{\cal D}|^2$. From Eq. , it is straightforward to see that when ${\cal X}(k L')=-B/2A$, i.e. $$\begin{gathered}
\sin(kL')-R_\text{m}\sin(kL'-2kq')\\
+\frac{1+R}{\sqrt{R}}\sqrt{R_\text{m}}\cos(2kQ)\sin(kq')=0,
\label{modeeq2}\end{gathered}$$ ${\cal T}_\text{c}$ achieves its maximum value, that is $${\cal T}_\text{c}^\text{max}=\frac{(1-R_\text{m})^2}{(1-R_\text{m})^2+4R_\text{m} \sin^2(2kQ)\sin^2(kq')}.
\label{Tcmax}$$ Eq. is therefore the exact equation for the cavity mode resonances, generalizing Eq. to the case $R\leq 1$. Eqs. and cannot be solved analytically, but only numerically. However, in what follows, we show that excellent approximations of the analytical solution of Eqs. and can be obtained under physically interesting conditions. Eq. can be cast into the following form $${\cal A}(kq')\sin(kL')+{\cal B}(kq')\cos(kL')={\cal F}(kQ,kq'),
\label{ABF}$$ where ${\cal A}(kq')=1-R_\text{m} \cos(2kq')$, ${\cal B}(kq')=R_\text{m} \sin(2kq')$, and ${\cal F}(kQ,kq')=-2\sqrt{R_\text{m}}\cos(2kQ)\sin(kq')$. We then divide both sides of Eq. by $\sqrt{{\cal A}^2+{\cal B}^2}$, and define ${\tilde O}=O/\sqrt{{\cal A}^2+{\cal B}^2}$, $O={\cal A}, {\cal B}, {\cal F}$. $|\tilde{\cal A}| \leq 1$ and $|\tilde{\cal B}| \leq 1$ by definition, while it is possible to explicitly verify that also $|\tilde{\cal F}| \leq 1$ holds. Therefore, we can rewrite Eq. in the equivalent form $$\sin\left[kL'+\theta(kq')\right]=\tilde{\cal F}(kQ,kq'),
\label{kequation}$$ where we have introduced the explicit dependence upon the variables $kq'$ and $kQ$, $$\label{efk}
\tilde{\cal F}(kQ,kq')=-\frac{2\sqrt{R_\text{m}}\cos(2kQ)\sin(kq')}{\sqrt{1+R_\text{m}^2-2R_\text{m} \cos(2kq')}},$$ and $\theta(kq')=(-1)^{{\rm Step}[-{\cal B}(kq')]} \arccos[\tilde{\cal A}(kq')]$, with ${\rm Step}(x)$ the unit-step function which is equal to $0$ for $x<0$ and to $1$ for $x\ge 0$. Note that since ${\cal A}(kq')>0$, one has that $\theta(kq')\in(-\frac{\pi}{2},\frac{\pi}{2})$. The step function is introduced due to the fact that when ${\cal B}(kq')$ is positive, $\theta(kq')=\arccos[\tilde{\cal A}(kq')]\in (0,\frac{\pi}{2})$, while when ${\cal B}(kq')$ is negative, $\theta(kq')=-\arccos[\tilde{\cal A}(kq)]\in(-\frac{\pi}{2},0)$. Notice that Eq. is an equivalent form also for Eq. with an extremely good level of approximation, because $\frac{1+R}{\sqrt{R}}\simeq2$ for typical values of $R$.
0.15cm[(a)]{}6.63cm[(b)]{}5.53cm[(c)]{} {width="0.33\linewidth"} {width="0.33\linewidth"} {width="0.318\linewidth"}\
1.2cm[(a)]{}5.6cm[(b)]{}5.6cm[(c)]{} {width="0.33\linewidth"} {width="0.33\linewidth"} {width="0.33\linewidth"}
Eq. is equivalent to its formal solutions obtained by inverting the $\sin$ function, $$kL'=m\pi+(-1)^m \arcsin[\tilde{\cal F}(kQ,kq')]-\theta(kq'),
\label{keq2}$$ where $m = 1,2,3,\dots$. The case without membranes in the cavity corresponds to taking $R_\text{m}=0$, implying $\tilde{\cal F}(kQ,kq')=\theta(kq')=0$, when one obtains the standard empty cavity mode solutions $k_m^{(0)}=m\pi/L$. The insertion of the two membranes within the cavity is responsible for a frequency shift of each empty cavity mode, $k = k_m^{(0)}+ \delta k_m $. Since $k_m^{(0)}= 2 \pi/\lambda = m \pi/L$, and in typical experiments, $m$ is a very large integer because $\lambda \ll L$, this implies $ k_m^{(0)} \gg \delta k_m$, so that one can safely take $L'\simeq L+\frac{2\phi}{k_m^{(0)}}$ and $q'\simeq q+\frac{\phi}{k_m^{(0)}}$. Inserting the expressions of $k$, $L'$ and $q'$ into Eq. , the latter can be written as an equation for the frequency shifts alone, $$\begin{gathered}
\delta k_m=L^{-1}\Big\{ (-1)^m \arcsin[\tilde{\cal F}(k_m^{(0)}Q+\delta k_m Q,\, k_m^{(0)}q'+\delta k_m q')]\\
-\theta(k_m^{(0)}q'+\delta k_m q')-2\phi \Big\} \equiv h(k_m^{(0)}+ \delta k_m). \label{keq3}\end{gathered}$$ This equation is formally equivalent to the implicit equations for the cavity mode frequencies and wave vector Eqs. (\[kequation\]) and (\[keq2\]), but it suggests a natural route for an approximate solution. In fact, we are looking for the frequency shift $\delta \omega_m = c \delta k_m$ around the optical frequency corresponding to the driving laser, $\omega_0 = c k_m^{(0)}$. Since $ k_m^{(0)} \gg \delta k_m$, it is reasonable to expand the right hand side of Eq. (\[keq3\]) as a Taylor series around $k_m^{(0)}$, $$\delta k_m = h(k_m^{(0)})+ h'(k_m^{(0)})\delta k_m+\frac{1}{2}h''(k_m^{(0)})\delta k_m^2+\dots \, . \label{keq4}$$ In what follows we drop the subscript $m$ whenever it is deemed unnecessary. It is possible to verify that the zeroth order solution $\delta k^{(0)} = h(k^{(0)})$ (see Fig. \[ultracoupling\](a)) and the first order solution, $\delta k^{(1)} = h(k^{(0)})/[1-h'(k^{(0)})]$ provide a good approximate solution of the implicit equation Eq. (\[keq3\]) for not too large values of $q$ and $Q$, i.e., when $q/L, |Q/L| \ll 1$, and for values of $R_\text{m}$ not too close to 1. This is explicitly shown in Fig. \[ultracoupling\](b) where the exact numerical solution of Eq. (\[keq3\]) is well reproduced by the zeroth order solution in the case $Q=0$ and $q/L \simeq 10^{-3}$, $ q \simeq 10 \lambda$. This is justified by the fact that one can rewrite $$\begin{aligned}
h'(k)&=&\frac{Q}{L} d_Q+\frac{q}{L} d_q,\\
\label{d1hdk1}
h''(k)\,&=&\frac{1}{L}\,(Q^2\,d_{Q^2}+{q^2}\,d_{q^2}+2Qq\,d_{Qq})
\label{d2hdk2}\end{aligned}$$ with $d_Q$, $d_q$, $d_{Q^2}$,$d_{q^2}$, $d_{Qq}$ dimensionless functions obtained by differentiating with respect to $kq$ and $kQ$. We have that $|d_Q|\leq 2$, while $d_q$, $d_{Q^2}$, $d_{q^2}$, and $d_{Qq}$ can be large, especially for highly reflective membranes, $R_\text{m} \to 1$, but nonetheless $h'(k)$ can be kept limited provided that $q/L, |Q/L| \ll 1$. This latter condition can be easily realised experimentally because one can always place the two membranes at the cavity center $Q=0$, and with a sufficiently small spacing between them, $q\ll L$, i.e., forming an inner cavity much shorter than the main one. Fig. \[k0k1\] shows that both the zeroth and first order approximations match quite well with the numerical solution of $\delta k$ even for larger values of $Q$ and $q$ when $R_\text{m}$ is not too close to unity, and the first order solution is slightly better than the zeroth order one when $R_\text{m}$ is large. From Figs. \[ultracoupling\] and \[k0k1\], we see that different choices of $\phi$ only shift the curves in $\delta k$ and $q$ axes without changing their pattern. In closing this section, we note that known results are mostly limited to the discussion of linear optomechanical coupling (however see Ref. [@bhattacharya1] for a notable exception); the results presented in this section give access to coupling to higher powers of the displacement of the membranes and may in fact be straightforwardly extended to higher orders.
Strong optomechanical coupling
==============================
An important and evident aspect of Fig. \[ultracoupling\] is that it shows that it is possible to achieve *strong single-photon optomechanical coupling* when the two-membrane system is placed at an appropriate configuration. In fact, Fig. \[ultracoupling\](b) shows that a large single-photon optomechanical coupling with the relative motion, $g_q = c(\partial \delta k/\partial q) x_{\rm zpm}$ (with $x_{\rm zpm}=\sqrt{\hbar/M\omega_{\rm m}}$ the size of the zero-point motion of a mechanical resonator with mass $M$ and frequency $\omega_{\rm m}$) is achieved when $ q \ll L$ and $q+\frac{\phi}{k^{(0)}} \simeq p \pi/k^{(0)}$ (integer $p$), i.e., very close to a resonance of the inner cavity formed by the two membranes, especially in the limit $R_\text{m} \to 1$.
The possibility to enhance the optomechanical coupling with $N$ membranes within a Fabry–Pérot cavity has been first pointed out in Refs. [@andre; @andre2]. Here we focus on the case of $N=2$ membranes in more detail, benefiting from our approximate analytical solutions of the cavity resonance presented in Sec. II. We derive the conditions under which one can achieve extremely large values of the derivative $\partial \delta k/\partial q\simeq \partial \delta k/\partial q'$ and therefore of $g_q$, by elaborating on Eq. (\[keq3\]) and on its zeroth order approximation, and we also derive simple analytical expressions for the dependence of $g_q$ upon $R_\text{m}$. We fix from now on the CoM coordinate $Q$ at a small value $Q \simeq 0$ and focus only upon the $q'$ dependence of $\delta k$. One can verify that $\delta k_m $ has the maxima and minima close to $ q'=2 p \pi/k_m^{(0)}$ (integer $p$) for $m$ even and at $ q'=(2 p+1) \pi/k_m^{(0)}$ for $m$ odd, and that the maximum shift is always bounded by $|\delta k|_{max}=2\pi/L$, which is approached for $R_\text{m} \to 1$. This is due to the fact that for the one-membrane case, the maximum frequency shift is $|\delta k|=\pi/L$ (corresponding to $R_\text{m}=1$), which occurs when the membrane is placed at the antinodes of the wave. Similarly, the same amount of frequency shift is induced by inserting the second membrane at the antinodes. Let us consider the case of odd $m$ in order to fix the ideas. Fig. \[ultracoupling\] shows that a large derivative $|\partial \delta k/\partial q'|$ ($q'=q$ when $\phi=0$) is achieved between two successive maxima and minima, at a value exactly given by $ q'=(2 p+1) \pi/k_m^{(0)}$. This fact, and the fact that $\tilde{\cal F}$ in Eq. (\[efk\]) is a function of $kq'$ only, suggest to write $k^{(0)}q'=(2 p+1) \pi+k^{(0)}\delta q' \equiv (2 p+1) \pi +\varepsilon$, and look at the behaviour of the shift $\delta k$ around $\varepsilon=0$. In fact, we expect that the maximum derivative and therefore the strongest optomechanical coupling, is achieved at a membrane distance $q$ smaller by $\frac{\phi}{k_m^{(0)}}$ from the inner cavity resonance condition $(2 p+1) \pi/k_m^{(0)}$.
After some algebra, we can rewrite also ${\cal A}(kq')$, ${\cal B}(kq')$, and $\tilde{\cal F}(kQ,kq')$ as a function of $\varepsilon$, obtaining $$\begin{split}
{\cal A}(\varepsilon)&=T_\text{m}+2R_\text{m} \sin^2 \varepsilon, \\
{\cal B}(\varepsilon)&=R_\text{m} \sin (2\varepsilon), \\
\tilde{\cal F}(kQ,\varepsilon)&=\frac{2\sqrt{R_\text{m}} \cos (2kQ)\, \varepsilon}{\sqrt{T_\text{m}^2+4R_\text{m} \varepsilon^2}},
\label{bvare}
\end{split}$$ where $T_\text{m}=1-R_\text{m}$. Using the zeroth order solution of the implicit equation Eq. (\[keq3\]), we then obtain the derivative of $\delta k$ with respect to $\varepsilon$. Neglecting high order terms of $\varepsilon$ in $\partial \delta k/\partial \varepsilon$, one then gets $$\label{shiftvare}
\frac{\partial \delta k}{\partial \varepsilon}\simeq-\frac{1}{L} \,\frac{2\sqrt{R_\text{m}}}{T_\text{m}}\, \left[\cos (2k^{(0)} Q)+\sqrt{R_\text{m}}\right].$$ As a consequence, one has that the single-photon coupling of the relative motion of the two membranes is given by $$\begin{aligned}
g_{q}&=c \frac{\partial \delta k}{\partial q} x_{\rm zpm} \simeq c \left(\frac{\partial \delta k}{\partial \varepsilon} \frac{\partial \varepsilon}{\partial \delta q'} \right) x_{\rm zpm} \\
&\simeq -\frac{\omega_0}{L} \frac{2\sqrt{R_\text{m}}}{T_\text{m}} \left[\cos (2k^{(0)} Q)+\sqrt{R_\text{m}}\right] x_{\rm zpm} \\
&=-\frac{\cos (2k^{(0)} Q)+\sqrt{R_\text{m}}}{T_\text{m}} g_{\rm sing},
\label{g_q}\end{aligned}$$ corresponding to an enhancement by the factor $[\cos (2k^{(0)} Q)+\sqrt{R_\text{m}}]/T_\text{m}$ with respect to the maximum coupling of the single membrane case, $g_{\rm sing}=2\sqrt{R_\text{m}}(\omega_0/L)x_{\rm zpm}$. Therefore if $R_\text{m}$ is sufficiently close to 1, by placing the two membranes at the cavity center and with a carefully calibrated distance between them, one can achieve a strong single-photon coupling regime. Strong optomechanical coupling with the relative motion $q$ implies strong coupling with each membrane, because one has (for identical membranes) $g_1 = g_Q/2-g_q$ and $g_2 = g_Q/2+g_q$. Notice that there is no enhancement of the CoM coupling $g_Q$ (also refer to Fig. \[ultracoupling\](a)).
However, Eq. (\[g\_q\]) is valid when $R_\text{m}$ is not too close to unity and cannot be extended to the case of arbitrarily small $T_\text{m}$, i.e., one cannot achieve arbitrarily large coupling. In fact, this equation has been derived from the zeroth order solution for $\delta k$ which is no more valid when the first order term becomes relevant, i.e., when $|h'(k_0)| \simeq |(q/L)d_q| \lesssim 1$, which occurs just when $R_\text{m} \to 1$, when $d_q$ becomes very large. Using this fact, one has $$\label{condi}
| g_q| =\, \left|\frac{\omega_0}{L} x_{\rm zpm}\, d_q\right| \,\leq \,\left|\frac{\omega_0}{L} x_{\rm zpm}\frac{L}{q}\right| = \frac{\omega_0}{q} x_{\rm zpm}=g_q^{\rm max},$$ suggesting that the single-photon coupling can achieve at best the standard value corresponding to the small inner cavity of length $q$ formed by the two membranes, in the limit of highly reflective membranes $R_\text{m} \to 1$. This coincides with the results of Refs. [@andre; @andre2; @wang] and it is also confirmed by Fig. \[ultracoupling\](c), where the numerical solution of the implicit equation for the frequency shift for extremely small values of $T_\text{m}$ is shown. The saturation of the optomechanical coupling to a value which corresponds just to $g_q^{\rm max}$ of Eq. (\[condi\]) when $R_m \gtrsim 0.9999$ is evident. Therefore, comparing with the expression for the single membrane case used in Eq. (\[g\_q\]), one has that approaching the limit $R_m \to 1$, the single-photon optomechanical coupling rate is enhanced by an optimal double-membrane setup with respect to the single membrane case by the factor $$\label{enhanc}
\left|\frac{ g_q^{\rm max}}{g_{\rm sing}}\right| =\frac{L}{2q}.$$ Taking $L \sim 1$ cm for the cavity length and an achievable value $q \sim 10$ $\mu$m, which also guarantees that the high reflectivity of the membranes is not affected by near field effects, this corresponds to a significant increase by three orders of magnitude.
The physical argument at the basis of such a huge enhancement of the coupling when $R_\text{m} \to 1$ is that the optimal value for the membrane distance, $q \simeq p \pi/k^{(0)}-\frac{\phi}{k^{(0)}}$, corresponds to a field configuration in which the inner cavity formed by the two membranes is filled with a high intensity field, with a very weak field leaking out into the external cavity. In this case an infinitesimal change of the membrane distance corresponds to a big variation of the resonant frequency of the optical system and therefore to a large parametric radiation pressure coupling. In this regime one can achieve large coupling: the price to pay is that one needs an increasingly accurate control and stabilization of the membrane distance. In fact, it is possible to verify from the exact solution of Eq. (\[keq3\]) (see also Fig. \[ultracoupling\](b)), that when $ R_\text{m} \to 1$, the interval of values for $q$ in which one has a very large coupling becomes narrower and narrower, and it scales to zero as $\lambda T_\text{m}/2\pi$. This scaling has not been discussed in previous treatments (cf., for example, Refs. [@andre; @andre2]) and emerges as a natural consequence of the analytical expressions obtained in this paper.
Effects of the two-membrane system on the cavity finesse
--------------------------------------------------------
It is important to check the behaviour of the cavity finesse, and therefore of the cavity mode linewidth, in the configuration corresponding to the significant enhancement of the single-photon optomechanical coupling. In fact, strong optomechanical coupling means achieving a large ratio $g/\kappa$ which would also facilitate achieving large values of the single photon cooperativity $C_0 = g^2/(\kappa \gamma_\text{m})$, where $\gamma_\text{m}$ is the mechanical damping rate. Therefore we have to verify that $\kappa$ is not simultaneously increased when large coupling to the relative motion is established.
The cavity modes are obtained by solving the mode equation Eq. , with the optimal phase $\delta_m=kL' \equiv kL+2\phi$, which gives the maxima of the transmission ${\cal T}_\text{c}^\text{max}$. The transmission peaks can be approximated by a Lorentzian around the maxima, i.e., they can be written as a function of $\delta'=\delta-\delta_m$ for a given cavity mode, ${\cal T}_\text{c} \simeq \frac{\beta^2}{\beta^2+\delta'^2} {\cal T}_\text{c}^\text{max}$. The finesse of the cavity is related to $\beta$ by the relation ${\cal F}_{\rm cav}=\pi/(2\beta)$, and after tedious but straightforward calculations, one can see that it takes a relatively simple form when $Q=0$,
$${\cal F}_{\rm cav}=\frac{\pi \sqrt{ R R_\text{m}^2 \cos (2\delta_m-4k q') -2R R_\text{m} \cos (2\delta_m-2k q') +R \cos (2\delta_m) +(1+R)^2 R_\text{m} \sin^2 (k q') }}{(1-R)(1-R_\text{m})},$$
which extends known results [@andre2] to the domain of arbitrary membrane reflectivity and positions. In Fig. \[finessePlot\], we compare the finesse of the cavity in the presence of the two membranes with that of the empty cavity without the membranes, ${\cal F}_{\rm cav}=\pi\sqrt{R}/(1-R)$, under the same conditions of Fig. 2 corresponding to an enhanced coupling $g_q$. We see that the finesse is not affected by the presence of the two membranes: this is an important result, showing that by placing the two membranes very close to each other and close to a resonance condition of the inner cavity formed by them, one can strongly enhance the single-photon optomechanical coupling $g_q$, while maintaining the same value of the cavity decay rate $\kappa$, since $\kappa=\pi c/(2L{\cal F}_{\rm cav})$. This result holds in the ideal situation we have assumed here of negligible absorption and scattering at the membranes. Recent experiments with high-reflectivity membranes [@Lawall; @Deleglise] have shown that optical absorption is actually negligible, but that scattering losses are responsible for a reduction of the cavity finesse. However, scattering losses can be mitigated and finesse reduction can become irrelevant provided that larger cavity mirrors are used. In any case, it is reasonable to assume that the cavity decay rate $\kappa$ will be essentially the same in the one and two-membrane case, so that using Eq. (\[enhanc\]), one has $$\label{enhanc2}
\left|\frac{ \left(g/\kappa\right)_{\rm double}}{\left(g/\kappa\right)_{\rm sing}}\right| =\left|\frac{ g_q^{\rm max}}{g_{\rm sing}}\right|=\frac{L}{2q},$$ that is, a significant increase, up to three orders of magnitude, of also the $g/\kappa$ ratio.
The explicit expression of the maximum value of such a ratio in the double-membrane case is given by $$\frac{g_q^{\rm max}}{\kappa}=\frac{2\omega_0 {\cal F}_{\rm cav}}{\pi c} \frac{L}{q} x_{\rm zpm},
\label{goverk}$$ which is achieved when the coupling $g_q$ saturates to its maximum value $g_q^{\rm max}$, which corresponds to $R_m \geq 0.9999$ with the parameters used in Fig. \[ultracoupling\](c). In this case, one reaches $g_q^{\rm max}/\kappa \simeq 1$ for the realistic set of parameters $L \simeq 1$ cm, $q \simeq 10$ $\mu$m, ${\cal F}_{\rm cav} \simeq 40000$, $M=2 $ ng, $\omega_{\rm m}=940 $ kHz. However, more importantly, for the recently achieved value of the membrane reflectivity $R_m\simeq 0.998$ [@Lawall; @Deleglise], the numerical results of Fig. \[ultracoupling\](c) show that $g_q \simeq 0.66 g_q^{\rm max}$, and therefore one can still achieve the strong single-photon coupling condition $g_q/\kappa \simeq 1$ by simply employing an external cavity with the higher value ${\cal F}_{\rm cav}\simeq 6\times 10^4$. When combined with membrane vibrational modes with high mechanical quality factors (e.g., of the order of $10^6$), which has been recently shown to be compatible with high reflectivity membranes [@groblacher], this parameter regime corresponds to single photon cooperativities $C_0 \simeq 8\times 10^5$, significantly larger than the value $C_0 \simeq 8$ recently demonstrated by the single “trampoline” membrane-in-the-middle setup of Ref. [@sankey]. In this parameter regime, many of the quantum nonlinear phenomena proposed in Refs. [@Rabl2011; @Nunnenkamp2011; @Xu2013; @Liao2012; @Xu2013b; @Kronwald2013; @Ludwig2012; @hong; @Stannigel2012; @asjad] could be demonstrated.
. The black line denotes the cavity finesse in the absence of the membranes, i.e., ${\cal F}_{\rm cav}=\pi\sqrt{R}/(1-R)$. Note that scatter of the data around the black line is due to numerical errors. The rest of the parameters are as in Fig. \[ultracoupling\].[]{data-label="finessePlot"}](finesse999.pdf){width="0.8\linewidth"}
Conclusions
===========
We have studied an optomechanical system of two vibrating dielectric membranes placed inside a Fabry–Pérot cavity. We have derived the equation for the cavity mode resonance frequencies, and its zeroth and first order solutions that are excellent approximations of the implicit mode equation when the relative and CoM position of the two membranes, $q$ and $Q$, are much smaller than the cavity length. These analytical approximations provide a convenient tool to explore the rich physics of the system, and a full picture of the optomechanical coupling depending upon the position of the two membranes within the cavity. We stress that several of our expressions extend known results to the situation where the membranes are not tied to particular locations in the cavity (as opposed to Ref. [@bhattacharya2]), and are more amenable to analysis and give access to further insight when compared to the generic $N$-membrane results first presented in Refs. [@andre; @andre2].
We have shown, both numerically and analytically, that when the membrane reflectivity $R_\text{m}$ is close to $1$, very large single-photon optomechanical coupling of the relative motion is achievable when the inner cavity formed by the two membranes is close to resonance. We have also derived the analytical expression of the cavity finesse in the presence of the two membranes, and verified that, under the same conditions one has strong optomechanical coupling, the cavity finesse is not appreciably affected by the presence of the two membranes. As a consequence, one can achieve the single-photon strong coupling condition $g_q/\kappa \simeq 1$ when two high-reflectivity membranes with the recently demonstrated value $R_m = 0.998$ [@Lawall; @Deleglise] form an inner cavity of length $q \simeq 10$ $\mu$m, placed in the middle of an external cavity of length $L \simeq 1$ cm and finesse ${\cal F}_{\rm cav}\simeq 6\times 10^4$. This fact makes the two-membrane-in-the-middle system a very promising scheme for the implementation of the single-photon strong coupling regime of cavity optomechanics.
[*Acknowledgments*]{}.—We thank C. Genes for useful discussions and the anonymous referee for his/her detailed comments. A. X. thanks the University of Camerino for its kind hospitality. This work is supported by the European Commission through the Marie Curie ITN cQOM and FET-Open Project iQUOEMS.
[99]{}
J. D. Teufel, T. Donner, D. Li, J. W. Harlow, M. S. Allman, K. Cicak, A. J. Sirois, J. D. Whittaker, K. W. Lehnert, and R. W. Simmonds, [Nature **475**, 359 (2011)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature10261).
J. Chan, T. P. M. Alegre, A. H. Safavi-Naeini, J. T. Hill, A. Krause, S. Groblacher, M. Aspelmeyer, and O. Painter, [Nature **478**, 89 (2011)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature10461).
E. Verhagen, S. Deleglise, S. Weis, A. Schliesser, T. J. Kippenberg, [Nature **482**, 63 (2012)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature10787).
A. H. Safavi-Naeini, S. Gröblacher, J. T. Hill, J. Chan, M. Aspelmeyer, O. Painter, [Nature **500**, 185 (2013)](http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1038/nature12307).
T. P. Purdy, P. L. Yu, R. W. Peterson, N. S. Kampel, and C. A. Regal, [Phys. Rev. X [**3**]{}, 031012 (2013)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.3.031012).
E. E. Wollman, C. U. Lei, A. J. Weinstein, J. Suh, A. Kronwald, F. Marquardt, A. A. Clerk, and K. C. Schwab, [Science **349**, 952-955 (2015)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aac5138).
J. M. Pirkkalainen, E. Damskägg, M. Brandt, F. Massel, and M. A. Sillanpää, [Phys. Rev. Lett. **115**, 243601 (2015)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.243601).
K. Hammerer, C. Genes, D. Vitali, P. Tombesi, G. J. Milburn, C. Simon, and D. Bouwmeester, [*Nonclassical States of Light and Mechanics*]{}. In: M. Aspelmeyer, T. J. Kippenberg, F. Marquardt eds. [*Cavity Optomechanics: Nano- and Micromechanical Resonators Interacting with Light*]{} (Berlin: Springer Book Series, 2014).
C. Baker, W. Hease, D. T. Nguyen, A. Andronico, S. Ducci, G. Leo, and I. Favero, [Opt. Express **22**, 14072 (2014)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/OE.22.014072).
K. C. Balram, M. Davanço, J. Y. Lim, J. D. Song, and K. Srinivasan, [Optica, **1**, 414 (2014)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/OPTICA.1.000414).
S. M. Meenehan, J. D. Cohen, S. Gröblacher, J. T. Hill, A. H. Safavi-Naeini, M. Aspelmeyer, and O. Painter, [Phys. Rev. A **90**, 011803(R) (2014)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.90.011803).
P. Rabl, [Phys. Rev. Lett. **107**, 063601 (2011)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.063601).
A. Nunnenkamp, K. B[ø]{}rkje, and S. M. Girvin, [Phys. Rev. Lett. **107**, 063602 (2011)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.063602).
X. W. Xu, H. Wang, J. Zhang, and Y. X. Liu, [Phys. Rev. A **88**, 063819 (2013)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.88.063819).
J. Q. Liao, H. K. Cheung and C. K. Law, [Phys. Rev. A **85** 025803 (2012)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.85.025803).
X. W. Xu, Y. J. Li and Y. X. Liu, [Phys. Rev. A **87**, 025803 (2013)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.87.025803).
A. Kronwald, M. Ludwig, and F. Marquardt, [Phys. Rev. A **87**, 013847 (2013)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.87.013847).
M. Ludwig, A. H. Safavi-Naeini, O. Painter, and F. Marquardt, [Phys. Rev. Lett. **109**, 063601 (2012)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.063601).
H. Tang and D. Vitali, [Phys. Rev. A **89**, 063821 (2014)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.89.063821).
K. Stannigel, P. Komar, S. J. M. Habraken, S. D. Bennett, M. D. Lukin, P. Zoller, and P. Rabl, [Phys. Rev. Lett. **109**, 013603 (2012)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.013603).
M. Asjad, P. Tombesi, D. Vitali, [Opt. Express **23**, 7786 (2015)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/OE.23.007786).
B. Pepper, R. Ghobadi, E. Jeffrey, C. Simon, and D. Bouwmeester, [Phys. Rev. Lett. **109**, 023601 (2012)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.023601).
M. R. Vanner, M. Aspelmeyer, and M. S. Kim, [Phys. Rev. Lett. **110**, 010504 (2013)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.010504).
U. Akram, W. P. Bowen, and G. J. Milburn, [New J. Phys. **15**, 093007 (2013)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/18/1/013043).
T. Hong, H. Yang, H. Miao, and Y. Chen, [Phys. Rev. A **88**, 023812 (2013)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.88.023812).
P. Sekatski, M. Aspelmeyer, and N. Sangouard, [Phys. Rev. Lett. **112**, 080502 (2014)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.080502).
C. Galland, N. Sangouard, N. Piro, N. Gisin, and T. J. Kippenberg, [Phys. Rev. Lett. **112**, 143602 (2014)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.143602).
A. Xuereb, C. Genes, and A. Dantan, [Phys. Rev. Lett. [**109**]{}, 223601 (2012)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.223601).
A. Xuereb, C. Genes, and A. Dantan, [Phys. Rev. A [**88**]{}, 053803 (2013)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.88.053803).
M. Bhattacharya, H. Uys, and P. Meystre, [Phys. Rev. A [**77**]{}, 033819 (2008)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.77.033819).
M. Bhattacharya and P. Meystre, [Phys. Rev. A [**78**]{}, 041801(R) (2008)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.78.041801).
G. Brooker, [*Modern Classical Optics*]{} (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003).
A. M. Jayich, J. C. Sankey, B. M. Zwickl, C. Yang, J. D. Thompson, S. M. Girvin, A. Clerk, F. Marquardt, and J. Harris, [New J. Phys. [**10**]{} 095008 (2008)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/10/9/095008).
C. Stambaugh, H. Xu, U. Kemiktarak, J. Taylor, and J. Lawall, [Ann. Phys. (Berlin), [**527**]{}, 81 (2015)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/andp.201400142).
C. H. Bui, J. Zheng, S. W. Hoch, L. Y. T. Lee, J. G. E. Harris, and C. W. Wong, [Appl. Phys. Lett. **100**, 021110 (2012)](http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/apl/100/2/10.1063/1.3658731).
K. Makles [*et al.*]{}, [Optics Lett. **40**, 174 (2015)](https://www.osapublishing.org/ol/abstract.cfm?uri=ol-40-2-174). R. A. Norte, J. P. Moura, and S. Gröblacher, [Phys. Rev. Lett. **116**, 147202 (2016)](http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.147202).
X. Chen [*et al.*]{}, [arXiv:1603.07200](http://arxiv.org/abs/1603.07200).
S. Chesi, Y.-D. Wang, and J. Twamley, [Sci. Rep. [**5**]{}, 7816 (2015)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep07816).
C. Reinhardt, T. Müller, A. Bourassa, and J. C. Sankey, [Phys. Rev. X **6**, 021001 (2016)](http://journals.aps.org/prx/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevX.6.021001).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We address three different problematic Casimir experiments in this work. The first is the classical Casimir force measured between two metal half spaces; here in the form of the Casimir pressure measurement between a gold sphere and a gold plate as performed by Decca et al. \[[*Phys. Rev.*]{} D [**75**]{}, 077101 (2007)\]; theory predicts a large negative thermal correction, absent in the high precision experiment. The second experiment is the measurement of the Casimir force between a metal plate and a laser irradiated semiconductor membrane as performed by Chen et al. \[[*Phys. Rev.*]{} B [**76**]{}, 035338 (2007)\]; the change in force with laser intensity is larger than predicted by theory. The third experiment is the measurement of the Casimir force between an atom and a wall in the form of the measurement by Obrecht et al. \[[*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**98**]{}, 063201 (2007)\] of the change in oscillation frequency of a ${}^{87}Rb$ Bose-Einstein condensate trapped to a fused silica wall; the change is smaller than predicted by theory. We show that saturation effects can explain the discrepancies between theory and experiment observed in all these cases.'
author:
- 'Bo E. Sernelius'
title: Saturation effects in experiments on the thermal Casimir effect
---
The Casimir force is very fascinating scientifically and has inspired many scientists ever since Casimir published his classical paper [@Casi] in 1948. It is caused by fluctuations in the electromagnetic fields. What is most intriguing is the result in the most pure geometry, the one treated by Casimir himself – two perfectly reflecting metal plates in vacuum. Here, the force is due to true vacuum fluctuations, fluctuations of the electromagnetic fields in the vacuum surrounding the plates.
The interest in Casimir interactions grew very strong during the last decade. This increase in interest was spurred by the torsion pendulum experiment by Lamoreaux [@Lamo], which produced results with good enough accuracy for the comparison between theory and experiment to be feasible. This stimulated both theorists [@BosSer; @LamRey; @Bordag; @BreAar] and experimentalists [@Mohi; @DecLop] and the field has grown constantly since then. Another reason for this development is the huge shift of general interest in the science community into nano-science and nano-technology where these forces become very important. However, the field has not been a complete success story. A dark cloud has been hovering over this field. Theory and experiment agree quite well for low temperatures, but at room temperature, where most experiments are performed there are serious deviations. Each new type of experiment has lead to new puzzling discrepancies between theory and experiment. Theorists have been forced to resort to phenomenological approaches to the problems, with new prescriptions for each new experiment. This has led to an unfortunate polarization of the community with those that are content with phenomenological descriptions on one side and those that want a more stringent theoretical treatment of the physics on the other. In this work we put forward what we think is the solution to the problem or at least the first step towards a solution.
We address three types of experiment or experimental geometry: Two interacting metal plates (G1); a semiconductor plate interacting with a metal plate (G2); an atom interacting with a semiconductor plate (G3).
In all three examples the interaction energy per unit area, $V\left( d
\right)$, can at zero temperature be written on the form [@Ser] $$V\left( d \right) = \frac{\hbar }{\Omega }\sum\limits_{\bf{k}}
{\int\limits_0^\infty {\frac{{d\omega }}{{2\pi }}} } \ln \left[ {f\left(
{k,i\omega } \right)} \right],
\label{equ1}$$ where $d$ is the distance between the objects, [**k**]{} the two-dimensional wave vector in the plane of the plate(s), $\Omega $ the area of a plate, and $f\left( {k,\omega } \right) = 0$ is the condition for an electromagnetic normal mode in the particular geometry. The integration is along the imaginary frequency axis. At finite temperature the integration is replaced by a discrete summation over Matsubara frequencies, $$V\left( d \right) = \frac{1}{{\beta \Omega }}\sum\limits_{\bf{k}}
{\sum\limits_{\omega _n } }^{'} \ln \left[ {f\left( {k,i\omega _n } \right)}
\right];\;\omega _n = \frac{{2\pi n}}{{\hbar \beta }}.
\label{equ2}$$ Alternatively one may integrate along the real frequency axis, $$V\left( d \right) = \frac{{2\hbar }}{\Omega }\sum\limits_{\bf{k}}
{{\mathop{\rm Im}\nolimits} \int\limits_0^\infty {\frac{{d\omega }}{{2\pi
}}} } \left[ {n\left( \omega \right) + {1 \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {1 2}}
\right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} 2}} \right]\ln \left[ {f\left(
{k,\omega } \right)} \right],
\label{equ3}$$ where $n\left( \omega \right) = \left[ {\exp \left( {\hbar \beta \omega }
\right) - 1} \right]^{ - 1} $ is the distribution function for massless bosons. This form can also be used at zero temperature; then the distribution function vanishes.
The force per unit area, or pressure, is obtained as the derivative with respect to distance, $F\left( d \right) = - {{dV\left( d \right)}
\mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{dV\left( d \right)} {dd}}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {dd}}$. In all three geometries there are two groups of normal mode, transverse magnetic (TM) and transverse electric (TE), each with a different mode condition function. The interaction potential is a sum of two terms, $ V\left( d \right) = V^{TM} \left( d
\right) + V^{TE} \left( d \right) $. In G1 and G2 the mode condition functions are $$f^{\scriptstyle TM, \hfill \atop \scriptstyle TE \hfill} \left( {k,\omega
} \right) = 1 - e^{ - 2\gamma _0 \left( {k,\omega } \right)d}
r_{01}^{\scriptstyle TM, \hfill \atop \scriptstyle TE \hfill} \left(
{k,\omega } \right)r_{02}^{\scriptstyle TM, \hfill \atop \scriptstyle TE
\hfill} \left( {k,\omega } \right),$$ where the Fresnel amplitude reflection coefficients at an interface between medium [*i*]{} and [*j*]{} are $$r_{ij}^{TM} \left( {k,\omega } \right) = \frac{{\varepsilon _j \left(
\omega \right)\gamma _i \left( {k,\omega } \right) - \varepsilon _i \left(
\omega \right)\gamma _j \left( {k,\omega } \right)}}{{\varepsilon _j \left(
\omega \right)\gamma _i \left( {k,\omega } \right) + \varepsilon _i \left(
\omega \right)\gamma _j \left( {k,\omega } \right)}},$$ for TM modes (p-polarized waves) and $$r_{ij}^{TE} \left( {k,\omega } \right) = \frac{{\gamma _i \left( {k,\omega
} \right) - \gamma _j \left( {k,\omega } \right)}}{{\gamma _i \left(
{k,\omega } \right) + \gamma _j \left( {k,\omega } \right)}},$$ for TE modes (s-polarized waves), respectively. We have let the objects be of medium 1 and 2 and let the surrounding vacuum be denoted by medium 0. The gamma functions are $$\gamma _j \left( {k,\omega } \right) = \sqrt {k^2 - \varepsilon _j \left(
\omega \right)\left( {{\omega \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {\omega c}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} c}} \right)^2 } ;\;j = 0,1,2.$$
![Dispersion curves for the modes between two gold plates in absence of dissipation. The frequencies are in units of $\omega _s $, the surface plasmon frequency. The solid straight line is the light dispersion curve in vacuum; the dashed (dotted) curves are TE (TM) propagating modes; the thin solid curves are evanescent TM modes; the thick solid curve is the lower boundary for transverse bulk modes in the plates. From Ref. [@Ser2][]{data-label="figu1"}](Fig1.eps){width="8cm"}
Let us now study the dispersion curves for the electromagnetic normal modes in G1 shown in Fig. \[figu1\] for two gold plates [@Ser2]. This figure is valid in neglect of dissipation in the plate materials. The modes are propagating (evanescent) above and to the left (below and to the right) of the light dispersion curve. Note that there are no TE evanescent modes. When the system is allowed to have dissipation there are modes everywhere. Each original mode is replaced by a continuum of modes [@Ser3]. Evanescent TE modes appear and the continuum extends all the way down to the momentum axis. These modes are the cause of all the problems with the thermal Casimir force in this geometry. The proposed prescription has been to neglect the dissipation in the intraband part of the dielectric function but keep it in the interband part [@MosGey]. The experimental result [@Decca] for the normalized Casimir pressure at 295 K is shown as dots in Fig. \[figu2\]. The bars are the endpoints of the experimental error bars. The upper (lower) thick solid curve is the theoretical result for zero temperature (295 K) calculated with Eqs. (\[equ1\]) and (\[equ2\]), respectively. We note that the zero temperature result agrees much better with the experimental result. The large negative thermal correction comes entirely from the TE evanescent modes [@TorLam]. We will demonstrate this in more detail in a forthcoming publication [@Ser4]. All curves are normalized with the zero temperature Casimir pressure between two perfect metal plates, ${{\hbar c\pi ^2 } \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{\hbar c\pi ^2 } {\left(
{240z^4 } \right)}}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {\left( {240z^4 }
\right)}}$. We have neglected surface roughness effects.
![Casimir pressure between two gold plates. The experimental result from Ref. [@Decca] is shown as dots and the endpoints of the error bars are indicated by horizontal bars; the upper (lower) solid curve is the traditional theoretical zero (Room) temperature result; the circles are the present results with damping parameters 0.01, 0.1, and 1.0, respectively counting from below.[]{data-label="figu2"}](Fig2.eps){width="8cm"}
Let us now explain our view of what goes wrong in the theory of the thermal Casimir effect in presence of dissipation. The traditional theory relies fully on the concept of electromagnetic normal modes. These are assumed to be independent massless bosons. The possibility to excite one of these modes is assumed to be completely independent of how many modes are already excited. An excitation of a mode involves excitations of the charged particles in the system, electrons in the geometries studied here. These are the sources of the fields. Now, the electrons are fermions and there is at most one electron in each particle state. An electron that is excited at one instant of time cannot be excited again – the state is empty. The more modes that are excited the more difficult it is to excite new modes — there are saturation effects. In the theoretical treatment this is not taken care of. In most cases this fact will not cause any problems, but sometimes it could. We think that the thermal Casimir effect is one such case. When dissipation is included each mode is replaced by a continuum of an infinite number (for an infinite system) of new modes. The distribution function diverges towards zero frequency and the saturation effects should appear here. This is very difficult to treat in a strict way. We use an approximation which is very easy to implement. We shift the distribution function in Eq. (\[equ3\]) downwards in frequency, so that it never reaches the point of divergence, by adding a damping parameter, $D$, $$\tilde n\left( \omega \right) = \left[ {\exp \left( {\hbar \beta \omega +
D} \right) - 1} \right]^{ - 1}.$$ The discrete frequency summation in Eq. (\[equ2\]) is the result of the poles of the distribution function that all fall on the imaginary axis, see Ref. [@Ser]. Our new distribution function has its poles shifted away from the axis the distance ${D \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {D {\hbar
\beta }}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {\hbar \beta }}$ into the left half plane. The new form is $$V\left( d \right) = \frac{1}{{\beta \Omega }}\sum\limits_{\bf{k}}
{\sum\limits_{\omega _n } }^{' } \frac{1}{\pi }\int\limits_{ - \infty }^\infty
{\frac{{\left( {{D \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {D \beta }} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} \beta }} \right)\ln \left[ {f\left( {k,i\omega
'} \right)} \right]}}{{\left( {\omega ' - \omega _n } \right)^2 + \left(
{{D \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {D \beta }} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} \beta }} \right)^2 }}}.
\label{equ9}$$
![The change in Casimir force, at 300 K, between a gold sphere and a silicon membrane with and without laser irradiation. The open squares with error bars are the experimental [@Chen] result. The dashed curve with open circles is the theoretical result without saturation effects. The solid curve with filled (open) circles is our present result with $D$ equal to 0.01 (0.1). []{data-label="figu3"}](Fig3.eps){width="8cm"}
Each term in the summation is replaced by an integral. for small $D$ values it is enough to replace only the zero frequency term. We will expand on this in Ref. [@Ser4]. The circles in Fig. (\[figu2\]) are the results with damping parameters 0.01, 0.1, and 1.0, respectively counting from below. We have used Eq. (\[equ3\]) with the modified distribution function to get the thermal correction.
The second geometry, G2, is a gold plate and a laser irradiated semiconductor membrane as performed by Chen et al. [@Chen]. They measured the change in force with the laser irradiation compared to without any irradiation. The results are shown in Fig. \[figu3\]. The open squares with error bars are the experimental result. The dashed curve with open circles is the theoretical result for 300 K. The deviations are clear. In this geometry it is not enough to neglect dissipation to get agreement with experiment. Besides, it is now the TM modes that cause the problems. One postulated that for the non-irradiated semiconductor one should completely omit the contribution to the dielectric function from the thermally excited carriers. That brought the theory and experiment into agreement, see Fig. 10 in Ref. [@Chen]. The solid curve with filled (open) circles is our saturation based result with $D$ equal to 0.01 (0.1). Here we have used Eq. (\[equ2\]) and just modified the zero frequency contribution according to Eq. (\[equ9\]).
![Fractional change in trap frequency for a Rb atom near a silica wall versus separation in thermal equilibrium. The open squares are the experimental result [@Obrecht]. The upper (lower) curve is the theoretical result including (neglecting) the conductivity from the few thermal carriers in the silica wall. The circles are our present results for the $D$ values $10^{
- 10}$, $10^{ - 11}$, and $10^{ - 12}$, respectively, counted from below.[]{data-label="figu4"}](Fig4.eps){width="8cm"}
The third geometry, G3, is a Rb atom near a fused silica wall. We study the fractional change in trap frequency versus separation when both the surroundings and the wall have the same temperature, 310 K. In Fig. \[figu4\] the experimental result [@Obrecht] is shown as open squares with error bars. We use the same formalism as in Ref. [@KliMos] to find the relation between the change in trap frequency and the Casimir force. The upper (lower) curve is the theoretical result, without saturation, including (neglecting) the conductivity from the few thermal carriers in the silica wall. We see that also here the neglect of the contribution, to the dielectric function of the silica wall, from the very few thermally excited carriers brings the theoretical result into agreement with experiment. This neglect is the postulated remedy in Ref. [@KliMos]. In this geometry, just as in G2, the TM modes cause the problems and it is not enough to neglect dissipation to get good agreement between theory and experiment. To include saturation effects we have used Eq. (\[equ2\]) and just modified the zero frequency contribution according to Eq. (\[equ9\]). We note that in this experiment it is enough to have a damping parameter as small as $10^{ - 10}$ to bring the theoretical result into agreement with experiment. We have assumed that the thermally excited carriers in the wall material have the conductivity $100\,s^{ - 1}$ ($ \sim 10^{ - 10} {\rm{ohm}}^{ - 1} {\rm{cm}}^{ - 1}$), which is the upper limit of the range given in Ref. [@KliMos]. Using smaller values leads to even weaker demands on the damping parameter.
In summary we have proposed that saturation effects are responsible for the discrepancy between theory and experiment in several quite different Casimir geometries. We have treated saturation within a very simple calculation model and demonstrated that the problems may go away in all cases. Other very recent theoretical models [@Pita; @DalLam] have been proposed for the treatment of dielectric materials with a very small amount of free carriers, applicable to the G2 and G3 geometries. However, no quantitative comparison with the experiments has been presented.
We are grateful to R.S. Decca, G.L. Klimchitskaya, and U. Mohideen for providing us with experimental data. The research was sponsored by the VR-contract No:70529001 and support from the VR Linné Centre LiLi-NFM and from CTS is gratefully acknowledged.
[10]{}
H. B. G. Casimir, [*Proc. K. Ned. Akad. Wet.*]{} [**51**]{}, 793 (1948).
S. K. Lamoreaux, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.* ]{} [**78**]{}, 5 (1997).
M. Bostr[öm]{} and Bo E. Sernelius, [*Phys. Rev. Lett*]{} [ **84**]{}, 4757 (2000).
A. Lambrecht, and S. Reynaud, [*Eur. Phys. J.*]{} D [ **8**]{}, 309 (2000).
M. Bordag, B. Geyer, G. L. Klimchitskaya, and V. M. Mostepanenko [*Phys. Rev. Lett*]{} [**87**]{}, 259102 (2001).
I. Brevik, J. B. Aarseth, and J. S. H[ø]{}ye, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} E [**66**]{}, 026119 (2002).
U. Mohideen, and A. Roy, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.* ]{} [**81**]{}, 4549 (1998).
R. S. Decca, D. L[ó]{}pez, E. Fischbach, and D. E. Krause, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**91**]{}, 050402 (2003).
Bo E. Sernelius, [*Surface Modes in Physics*]{} (Wiley-VCH, Berlin, 2001).
Bo E. Sernelius, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} B [**71**]{}, 235114 (2005).
Bo E. Sernelius, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} B [**74**]{}, 233103 (2006).
V. M. Mostepanenko and B. Geyer, [*J. Phys. A:Math. Theor.*]{} [**41**]{}, 164014 (2008).
R. S. Decca, D. Lopéz, E. Fischbach, G. L. Klimchitskaya, D. E. Krause, and V. M. Mostepanenko, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D [**75**]{}, 077101 (2007).
J. R. Torgerson, and S. K. Lamoreaux, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} E [**70**]{}, 047102 (2004).
Bo E. Sernelius, to be published
F. Chen, G. L. Klimchitskaya, V. M. Mostepanenko, and U. Mohideen, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} B [**76**]{}, 035338 (2007).
J. M. Obrecht, R. J. Wild, M. Antezza, L. P. Pitaevskii, S. Stringari, and E. A. Cornell, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**98**]{}, 063201 (2007).
G. L. Klimchitskaya and V. M. Mostepanenko, [*J. Phys. A:Math. Theor.*]{} [**41**]{}, 312002 (2008).
L. P. Pitaevskii, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.* ]{} [**101**]{}, 163202 (2008).
D. A. R. Dalvit and S. K. Lamoreaux, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.* ]{} [**101**]{}, 163203 (2008).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
Sergey A. Merkulov\
Department of Pure Mathematics, Glasgow University\
15 University Gardens, Glasgow G12 8QW, UK
date:
title: 'Affine connections on involutive $G$-structures'
---
\[theorem\][Proposition]{} \[theorem\][Lemma]{} \[theorem\][Definition]{} \[theorem\][Corollary]{}
#### 0. Introduction.
An affine connection is one of the central objects in differential geometry. One of its most informative characteristics is the (restricted) holonomy group which is defined, up to a conjugation, as a subgroup of $GL(T_t M)$ consisting of all automorphisms of the tangent space $T_t M$ at a point $t\in M$ induced by parallel translations along the $t$-based contractible loops in $M$. The list of groups which can be holonomies of affine connections is dissappointingly dull — according to Hano and Ozeki [@HO], [*any*]{} closed subgroup of a general linear group can be realized in this way. The situation, however, is very different in the subclass of affine connections with [*zero torsion*]{}. Long ago, Berger [@Berger] presented a very restricted list of possible irreducibly acting holonomies of torsion-free affine connections. His list was complete in the part of [*metric*]{} connections (and later much work has been done to refine this “metric” part of his list, see, e.g., [@Bryant2] and references cited therein), while the situation with holonomies of [*non-metric*]{} torsion-free affine connections was and remains very unclear. One of the results that will be discussed in this paper asserts that [*any*]{} torsion-free holomorphic affine connection with irreducibly acting holonomy group can, in principle, be constructed by twistor methods. Another result reveals a new natural subclass of affine connections with [*very little torsion*]{} which shares with the class of torsion-free affine connections two basic properties — the list of irreducibly acting holonomy groups of affine connections in this subclass is very restricted and the links with the twistor theory are again very strong.
The purpose of this paper is to explain the key elements of the above mentioned twistor constructions without indulging in rather lengthy proofs. We work throughout in the category of complex manifolds, holomorphic affine connections, etc., though many results can be easily adapted to the real analytic case along the lines explained in [@Manin].
#### 1. Irreducible $G$-structures.
When studying an affine connection $\nabla$ with the irreducibly acting holonomy group $G$, it is suitable to work with the associated $G$-structure. In this section we recall some notions of the theory of $G$-structures.
Let $M$ be an $m$-dimensional complex manifold and ${{\cal L}}^*M$ the holomorphic coframe bundle $\pi: {{\cal L}}^*M {\rightarrow}M$ whose fibres $\pi^{-1}(t)$ consist of all ${\Bbb C}$-linear isomorphisms $e: {\Bbb C}^{m} {\rightarrow}\Omega^1_t M$, where $\Omega^1_t M$ is the cotangent space at $t\in M$. The space ${{\cal L}}^*M$ is a principle right $GL(m,{\Bbb C})$-bundle with the right action given by $R_g(e)= e\circ g$. If $G$ is a closed subgroup of $GL(m,{\Bbb C})$, then a (holomorphic) $G$-structure on $M$ is a principal subbundle ${\cal G}$ of ${{\cal L}}^*M$ with the group $G$. It is clear that there is a one-to-one correspondence between the set of $G$-structures on $M$ and the set of holomorphic sections $\sigma$ of the quotient bundle $\tilde{\pi}: {{\cal L}}^*M/G {\rightarrow}M$ whose typical fibre is isomorphic to $GL(m,{\Bbb C})/ G$. A $G$-structure on $M$ is called [*locally flat*]{} if there exits a coordinate patch in the neighbourhood of each point $t\in M$ such that in the associated canonical trivialization of ${{\cal L}}^*M/G$ over this patch the section $\sigma$ is represented by a constant $GL(m,{\Bbb C})/G$-valued function. A G-structure is called [*k-flat*]{} if, for each $t\in M$, the $k$-jet of the associated section $\sigma$ of ${{\cal L}}^*M/G$ at $t$ is isomorphic to the $k$-jet of some locally flat section of ${{\cal L}}^*M/G$. It is not difficult to show that a $G$-structure admits a torsion-free affine connection if and only if it is 1-flat (cf.[@Bryant2]). A $G$-structure on $M$ is called [*irreducible*]{} if the action of $G$ on ${\Bbb C}^{m}$ leaves no non-zero invariant subspaces.
Given an affine connection $\nabla$ on a connected simply connected complex manifold $M$ with the irreducibly acting holonomy group $G$, the associated irreducible $G$-structure ${\cal G}_{\nabla}\subset{{\cal L}}^*M$ can be constructed as follows. Define two points $u$ and $v$ of ${{\cal L}}^*M$ to be equivalent, $u\sim v$, if there is a holomorphic path $\gamma$ in $M$ from $\pi(u)$ to $\pi(v)$ such that $u=P_{\gamma}(v)$, where $P_{\gamma}:\Omega^1_{\pi(v)}M{\rightarrow}\Omega^1_{\pi(u)}M$ is the parallel transport along $\gamma$. Then ${\cal G}_{\nabla}$ can be defined, up to an isomorphism, as $\left\{u\in {{\cal L}}^*M \mid u\sim v\right\}$ for some coframe $v$. The $G$-structure ${{\cal G}}_{\nabla}$ is the smallest subbundle of ${{\cal L}}^*M$ which is invariant under $\nabla$-parallel translations.
It will be shown later that for any holomorphic irreducible $G$-structure ${\cal G}{\rightarrow}M$ there is associated an analytic family of compact isotropic submanifolds $\{X_t {\hookrightarrow}Y\mid t\in M\}$ of a certain complex contact manifold $Y$ which encodes much information about ${\cal G}$. To explain this correspondence in more detail, we first digress in the next two sections to the Kodaira [@Kodaira] deformation theory of compact complex submanifolds and to its particular generalization studied in [@Me1].
#### 2. Kodaira relative deformation theory.
Let $Y$ and $M$ be complex manifolds and let $\pi_{1}: Y\times
M{\longrightarrow}Y$ and $\pi_{2} : Y\times M {\longrightarrow}M$ be natural projections. An analytic family of compact submanifolds of the complex manifold $Y$ with the parameter space $M$ is a complex submanifold $F\hookrightarrow Y\times M$ such that the restriction of the projection $\pi_{2}$ on $F$ is a proper regular map (regularity means that the rank of the differential of $\nu :=
\left.\pi_{2}\right|_{F}: F{\longrightarrow}M$ is equal to $\dim M$ at every point). The parameter space $M$ is called a [*Kodaira moduli space*]{}. Thus the family $F$ has a double fibration structure $$Y \stackrel{\mu}{\longleftarrow} F \stackrel{\nu}{{\longrightarrow}} M$$ where $\mu := \left.\pi_{1}\right|_{F}$. For each $t\in M$ we say that the compact complex submanifold $X_{t} = \mu\circ\nu^{-1}(t)
\hookrightarrow Y$ belongs to the family $F$. Sometimes we use a more explicit notation $\{X_t{\hookrightarrow}Y\mid t\in M\}$ to denote an analytic family $F$ of compact submanifolds.
If $F{\hookrightarrow}Y\times M$ is an analytic family of compact submanifolds, then, for any $t\in M$, there is a natural linear map [@Kodaira], $$k_t : T_{t}M {\longrightarrow}H^{0}(\nu^{-1}(t), N_{\nu^{-1}(t)\mid F})
\stackrel{\mu_{*}}{{\longrightarrow}}
H^{0}(X_{t}, N_{X_{t}\mid Y}),$$ which is a composition of the natural lift of a tangent vector at $t$ to a global section of the normal bundle of the submanifold $\nu^{-1}(t)
\hookrightarrow F$ with the Jacobian of $\mu$ (here the symbol $N_{A|B}$ stands for the normal bundle of a submanifold $A\hookrightarrow B$). An analytic family $F\hookrightarrow Y\times M$ of compact submanifolds is called [*complete*]{} if the map $k_{t}$ is an isomorphism for all $t\in M$ which in particular implies that $\dim M = h^0(X_{t}, N_{X_{t}\mid Y})$.
In 1962 Kodaira [@Kodaira] proved the following existence theorem: [*if $X \hookrightarrow Y$ is a compact complex submanifold with normal bundle $N$ such that $H^{1}(X,N) = 0$, then $X$ belongs to a complete analytic family $F{\hookrightarrow}Y\times M$ of compact submanifolds of $Y$.*]{}
#### 3. Deformations of compact complex Legendre submanifolds of complex contact manifolds.
In this section we shall be interested in the following specialisation (which will eventually turn out to be a generalisation) of the Kodaira relative deformation problem: the initial data is a pair $X{\hookrightarrow}Y$ consisting of a compact complex Legendre submanifold $X$ of a complex contact manifold $Y$ and the object of study is the set, $M$, of all holomorphic deformations of $X$ inside $Y$ which remain Legendre. First, we recall some standard notions, then give a better formulation of the problem, and finally present its solution.
Let $Y$ be a complex $(2n + 1)$-dimensional manifold. A complex contact structure on $Y$ is a rank $2n$ holomorphic subbundle $D\subset TY$ of the holomorphic tangent bundle to $Y$ such that the Frobenius form $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi: D \times D & \longrightarrow & TY/D\\
(v,w) & \longrightarrow & [v,w]\bmod D\end{aligned}$$ is non-degenerate. Define the contact line bundle $L$ by the exact sequence $$0{\longrightarrow}D {\longrightarrow}TY \stackrel{\theta}{{\longrightarrow}} L {\longrightarrow}0.$$ One can easily verify that maximal non-degeneracy of the distribution $D$ is equivalent to the fact that the above defined “twisted” 1-form $\theta \in H^0(Y, L\otimes \Omega^1 M)$ satisfies the condition $\theta\wedge (d\theta)^n \neq 0$. A complex submanifold $X{\hookrightarrow}Y$ is called [*isotropic*]{} if $TX\subset D$. An isotropic submanifold of maximal possible dimension $n$ is called [*Legendre*]{}. In this paper we shall be primarily interested in compact Legendre submanifolds. The normal bundle $N_{X\mid Y}$ of any Legendre submanifold $X\hookrightarrow Y$ is isomorphic to $J^1 L_X$ [@L2], where $L_X = \left.L\right|_X$. Therefore, $N_{X\mid Y}$ fits into the exact sequence $$0{\longrightarrow}\Omega^1 X\otimes L_{X} {\longrightarrow}N_{X\mid Y} \stackrel{pr}{{\longrightarrow}}
L_{X} {\longrightarrow}0 . \label{ext}$$
Let $Y$ be a complex contact manifold. An analytic family $F{\hookrightarrow}Y\times M$ of compact submanifolds of $Y$ is called an [*analytic family of compact Legendre submanifolds*]{} if, for any point $t\in M$, the corresponding subset $X_{t}:= \mu\circ\nu^{-1}(t) \hookrightarrow Y$ is a Legendre submanifold. The parameter space $M$ is called a [*Legendre moduli space*]{}.
Let $F{\hookrightarrow}Y\times M$ be an analytic family of compact Legendre submanifolds. According to Kodaira [@Kodaira], there is a natural linear map $k_t : T_{t}M {\longrightarrow}H^{0}(X_{t}, N_{X_{t}\mid Y})$. We say that the family $F$ is [*complete at a point*]{} $t\in M$ if the composition $$s_{t}: T_{t}M \stackrel{k_{t}}{{\longrightarrow}} H^{0}(X_{t}, N_{X_t\mid Y})
\stackrel{{pr}}{{\longrightarrow}} H^{0}(X_{t}, L_{X_{t}})$$ provides an isomorphism between the tangent space to $M$ at the point $t$ and the vector space of global sections of the contact line bundle over $X_{t}$. One of the motivations behind this definition is the fact [@Me1] that an analytic family of compact Legendre submanifolds {$X_{t}{\hookrightarrow}Y \mid t \in M$} which is complete at a point $t_{0}\in M$ is also [*maximal*]{} at $t_{0}$ in the sense that, for any other analytic family of compact Legendre submanifolds {$X_{\tilde{t}}{\hookrightarrow}Y \mid \tilde{t}
\in \tilde{M}$} such that $X_{t_{0}} = X_{\tilde{t}_0}$ for a point $\tilde{t}_{0}\in \tilde{M}$, there exists a neighbourhood $\tilde{U}\subset \tilde{M}$ of $\tilde{t}_0$ and a holomorphic map $f: \tilde{U}{\longrightarrow}M$ such that $f(\tilde{t}_{0}) = t_{0}$ and $X_{f(\tilde{t}')} = X_{\tilde{t}'}$ for each $\tilde{t}'\in \tilde{U}$. An analytic family $F{\hookrightarrow}Y\times M$ is called [*complete*]{} if it is complete at each point of the Legendre moduli space $M$. In this case $M$ is also called complete.
The following result [@Me1] reveals a simple condition for the existence of complete Legendre moduli spaces.
\[leg\] Let $X$ be a compact complex Legendre submanifold of a complex contact manifold $(Y,L)$. If $H^{1}(X,L_{X}) = 0$, then there exists a complete analytic family of compact Legendre submanifolds $F{\hookrightarrow}Y\times M$ containing $X$. This family is maximal and $\dim M = h^{0}(X,L_{X})$.
Let $X$ be a complex manifold and $L_X$ a line bundle on $X$. There is a natural “evaluation” map $H^0(X,L_X)\otimes {{\cal O}}_X {\longrightarrow}J^1 L_X$ whose dualization gives rise to the canonical map $$L_X\otimes S^{k+1} (J^1 L_X)^* {\longrightarrow}L_X\otimes S^{k} (J^1 L_X)^*
\otimes \left[H^0(X,L_X)\right]^*$$ which in turn gives rise to the map of cohomology groups $$H^1\left(X,L_X\otimes S^{k+1} (J^1 L_X)^*\right) \stackrel{\phi}{{\longrightarrow}}
H^1\left(X,L_X\otimes S^{k} (J^1 L_X)^*\right)
\otimes \left[H^0(X,L_X)\right]^* .$$ For future reference, we define a vector subspace $$\tilde{H}^1\left(X,L_X\otimes S^{k+1} (J^1 L_X)^*\right) := \ker \phi
\, \subset \, H^1\left(X,L_X\otimes S^{k+1} (J^1 L_X)^*\right).$$
#### 4. $G$-structures induced on Legendre moduli spaces of generalized flag varieties.
Recall that a generalised flag variety $X$ is a compact simply connected homogeneous Kähler manifold [@BE]. Any such a manifold is of the form $X=G/P$, where $G$ is a complex semisimple Lie group and $P\subset G$ a fixed parabolic subgroup. Assume that such an $X$ is embedded as a Legendre submanifold into a complex contact manifold $(Y,L)$ with contact line bundle $L$ such that $L_X := \left.L\right|_X$ is very ample. Then the Bott-Borel-Weil theorem and the fact that any holomorphic line bundle on $X$ is homogeneous imply that $H^1(X,L_X)=0$. Therefore, by Theorem \[leg\], there exists a complete analytic family of compact Legendre submanifolds $\{X_t{\hookrightarrow}Y\mid t\in M\}$, i.e. the initial data “$X{\hookrightarrow}Y$” give rise to a new complex manifold $M$ which, as the following result shows, comes equipped with a rich geometric structure.
[*[@Me1]*]{}\[Main\] Let $X$ be a generalised flag variety embedded as a Legendre submanifold into a complex contact manifold $Y$ with contact line bundle $L$ such that $L_X$ is very ample on $X$. Then
(i)
: There exists a complete analytic family $F{\hookrightarrow}Y\times M$ of compact Legendre submanifolds with moduli space $M$ being an $h^0(X,L_X)$-dimensional complex manifold. For each $t\in M$, the associated Legendre submanifold $X_t$ is isomorphic to $X$.
(ii)
: The Legendre moduli space $M$ comes equipped with an induced irreducible $G$-structure, ${{\cal G}}_{ind} {\rightarrow}M$, with $G$ isomorphic to the connected component of the identity of the group of all global biholomorphisms $\phi: L_X
\rightarrow L_X$ which commute with the projection $\pi: L_X\rightarrow X$. The Lie algebra of $G$ is isomorphic to $H^0\left(X, L_X\otimes (J^1 L_X)^*\right)$.
(iii)
: If ${{\cal G}}_{ind}$ is $k$-flat, $k\geq 0$, then the obstruction for ${{\cal G}}_{ind}$ to be $(k+1)$-flat is given by a tensor field on $M$ whose value at each $t\in M$ is represented by a cohomology class $\rho_t^{[k+1]}\in \tilde{H}^1\left(X_t, L_{X_t}
\otimes S^{k+2}(J^1 L_{X_t})^*\right)$.
(iv)
: If ${{\cal G}}_{ind}$ is 1-flat, then the bundle of all torsion-free connections in ${{\cal G}}_{ind}$ has as the typical fiber an affine space modeled on $H^0\left(X, L_{X}\otimes S^2(J^1 L_{X})^*\right)$.
[Remark]{}. Theorem \[Main\] is actually valid for a larger class of compact complex manifolds $X$ than the class of generalized flag varieties — the only vital assumptions are [@Me1] that $X$ is rigid and the cohomology groups $H^1(X,{{\cal O}}_X)$ and $H^1(X,L_X)$ vanish.
The geometric meaning of cohomology classes $\rho_t^{[k+1]}\in \tilde{H}^1\left(X_t, L_{X_t}
\otimes S^{k+2}(J^1 L_{X_t})^*\right)$ of Theorem \[Main\](iii) is very simple — they compare to $(k+2)$th order the germ of the Legendre embedding $X_t{\hookrightarrow}Y$ with the “flat” model, $X_t{\hookrightarrow}J^1 L_{X_t}$, where the ambient contact manifold is just the total space of the vector bundle $J^1 L_{X_t}$ together with its canonical contact structure and the Legendre submanifold $X_t$ is realised as a zero section of $J^1 L_{X_t} {\rightarrow}{X_t}$. Therefore, the cohomology class $\rho_t^{[k]}$ can be called the $k$th Legendre jet of $X_t$ in $Y$. Then it is natural to call a Legendre submanifold $X_t{\hookrightarrow}Y$ $k$-[*flat*]{} if $\rho_t^{[k]}=0$. With this terminology, the item (iii) of Theorem \[Main\] acquires a rather symmetric form: [*the induced $G$-structure on the moduli space $M$ of a complete analytic family of compact Legendre submanifolds is $k$-flat if and only if the family consists of $k$-flat Legendre submanifolds*]{}.
This general construction can be illustrated by three well known examples which were among the motivations behind the present work (in fact the list of examples can be made much larger — Theorem \[Main\] has been checked for all “classical” torsion-free geometries as well as for a large class of locally symmetric structures). The first example is a “generic” $GL(m,{\Bbb C})$-structure on an $m$-dimensional manifold $M$. The associated twistorial data $X{\hookrightarrow}Y$ is easy to describe: the complex contact manifold $Y$ is the projectivized cotangent bundle ${\Bbb P}({\Omega^1 M})$ with its natural contact structure while $X ={{\Bbb C} {\Bbb P}}^{m-1}$ is just a fiber of the projection ${\Bbb P}({\Omega^1 M}){\rightarrow}M$. The corresponding complete family $\{X_t{\hookrightarrow}Y\mid t\in M\}$ is the set of all fibres of this fibration. Since $L_X={{\cal O}}(1)$ and $J^1 L_X={\Bbb C}^m\otimes{{\cal O}}_X$, we have $H^1\left(X,L_X\otimes S^{k+2}((J^1L_X)^*)\right)=0$ for all $k\geq 0$ which confirms the well-known fact that any $GL(m,{\Bbb C})$-structures on an $m$-dimensional manifold are locally flat.
The second example [@L1] is a pair $X{\hookrightarrow}Y$ consisting of an $n$-quadric $Q_n$ embedded into a $(2n+1)$-dimensional contact manifold $(Y,L)$ with $\left. L\right|_X\simeq i^*{{\cal O}}_{{{\Bbb C} {\Bbb P}}^{n+1}}(1)$, $i: Q_n\rightarrow {{\Bbb C} {\Bbb P}}^{n+1}$ being a standard projective realisation of $Q_n$. It is easy to check that in this case is precisely the conformal algebra implying that the associated $(n+2)$-dimensional Legendre moduli space $M$ comes equipped canonically with a conformal structure. Since $H^1\left(X, L_X\otimes S^2(J^1 L_X)^*\right)=0$, the induced conformal structure must be torsion-free in agreement with the classical result of differential geometry. Easy calculations show that the vector space $H^1\left(X, L_X\otimes S^3(J^1 L_X)^*\right)$ is exactly the subspace of $TM\otimes{\Omega^1 M}\otimes \Omega^2M$ consisting of tensors with Weyl curvature symmetries. Thus Theorem \[Main\](iii) implies the well-known Schouten conformal flatness criterion. Since $H^0\left(X, L_X\otimes S^2
(J^1 L_X)^*\right)$ is isomorphic to the typical fibre of ${\Omega^1 M}$, the set of all torsion-free affine connections preserving the induced conformal structure is the affine space modeled on $H^0(M,{\Omega^1 M})$, again in agreement with the classical result.
The third example is Bryant’s [@Br] relative deformation problem $X\hookrightarrow Y$ with $X$ being a rational Legendre curve ${{\Bbb C}{\Bbb P}}^1$ in a complex contact 3-fold $(Y,L)$ with $L_X={{\cal O}}(3)$. Calculating $H^0(X,L_X\otimes (J^1 L_X)^{*})$, one easily concludes that the induced $G$-structure on the associated 4-dimensional Legendre moduli space is exactly an exotic $G_3$-structure which has been studied by Bryant in his search for irreducibly acting holonomy groups of torsion-free affine connections which are missing in the Berger list [@Berger] (the missing holonomies are called [*exotic*]{}). Since $H^1\left(X, L_X\otimes S^2(J^1 L_X)^*\right)=0$, Theorem \[Main\](iii) says that the induced $G_3$-structure is torsion-free in accordance with [@Br]. Since $H^0\left(X, L_X\otimes S^2(J^1 L_X)^*\right)=0$, ${\cal G}_{ind}$ admits a unique torsion-free affine connection $\nabla$. The cohomology class $\rho_t^{[2]}\in H^1\left(X, L_X\otimes
S^3(J^1 L_X)^*\right)$ from Theorem \[Main\](iii) is exactly the curvature tensor of $\nabla$.
How large is the family of $G$-structures which can be constructed by twistor methods of Theorem \[Main\]? As the following result [@Me1] shows, in the category of irreducible 1-flat $G$-structures this class as large as one could wish.
\[Main2\]
(i)
: Let $H$ be one of the following representations: (a) $Spin(2n+1,{\Bbb C})$ acting on ${\Bbb C}^{2^n}$, $n\geq 3$; (b) $Sp(2n,{\Bbb C})$ acting on ${\Bbb C}^{2n}$, $n\geq 2$; (c) $G_2$ acting on ${\Bbb C}^7$. Suppose that $G\subset GL(m,{\Bbb C})$ is a connected semisimple Lie subgroup whose decomposition into a locally direct product of simple groups contains $H$. If ${\cal G}$ is any irreducible 1-flat $G\cdot {\Bbb C}^*$-structure on an $m$-dimensional manifold $M$, then there exists a complex contact manifold $(Y,L)$ and a generalised flag variety $X$ embedded into $Y$ as a Legendre submanifold with $L_X$ being very ample, such that, at least locally, $M$ is canonically isomorphic to the associated Legendre moduli space and ${\cal G} \subset {\cal G}_{ind}$. In particular, when $G=H$ one has in the case (a) $X= SO(2n+2,{\Bbb C})/U(n+1)$ and ${\cal G}_{ind}$ is a $Spin(2n+2,{\Bbb C})\cdot {\Bbb C}^*$-structure; in the case (b) $X={\Bbb C} {\Bbb P}^{2n-1}$ and ${\cal G}_{ind}$ is a $GL(2n,{\Bbb C})$-structure; and in the case (c) $X=Q_5$ and ${\cal G}_{ind}$ is a $CO(7,{\Bbb C})$-structure.
(ii)
: Let $G\subset GL(m,{\Bbb C})$ be an arbitrary connected semisimple Lie subgroup whose decomposition into a locally direct product of simple groups does not contain any of the groups $H$ considered in (i). If ${\cal G}$ is any irreducible 1-flat $G\cdot {\Bbb C}^*$-structure on an $m$-dimensional manifold $M$, then there exists a complex contact manifold $(Y,L)$ and a Legendre submanifold $X{\hookrightarrow}Y$ with $X=G/P$ for some parabolic subgroup $P\subset G$ and with $L_X$ being very ample, such that, at least locally, $M$ is canonically isomorphic to the associated Legendre moduli space and ${\cal G} = {\cal G}_{ind}$.
The conclusion is that there are very few irreducible $G$-structures which can [*not*]{} be constructed by twistor methods discussed in this paper. It is also worth pointing out that Theorem \[Main\](iii) gives rise to a new and rather effective machinery to search for exotic holonomies. The new results in this direction will be discussed elsewhere — here we only note that the claimed efficiency of the twistor technique is largerly due to the simple observation that the key cohomology groups ${H}^1\left(X_t, L_{X_t}\otimes S^{2}(J^1 L_{X_t})^*\right)$ and ${H}^1\left(X_t, L_{X_t}\otimes S^{3}(J^1 L_{X_t})^*\right)$, which provide us with the full information about torsion and curvature tensors, can be computed by a [*combination*]{} of the representation theory methods (such as Bott-Borel-Weil theorem) and the methods of complex analysis. In some important cases it is even enough to use the complex analysis methods only.
#### 5. Torsion-free affine connections.
Let $F{\hookrightarrow}Y\times M$ be a complete analytic family of compact Legendre submanifolds. Any point $t$ in $M$ is represented thus by a compact complex Legendre submanifold $X_t$. The first floors of the two towers of infinitesimal neighbourhoods of the analytic spaces $t{\hookrightarrow}M$ and $X_t{\hookrightarrow}Y$ are related to each other via the isomorphism $T_tM = H^0(X_t, L_{X_t})$. What happens at the second floors of these two towers? If $J_t\subset {{\cal O}}_M$ is the ideal of holomorphic functions which vanish at $t\in M$, then the tangent space $T_tM$ is isomorphic to $\left(J_t/J_t^2\right)^*$. Define a second order tangent bundle, $T_t^{[2]}M$, at the point $t$ as $\left(J_t/J_t^3\right)^*$. Then, evidently, $T_t^{[2]}M$ fits into an exact sequence of complex vector spaces $$0{\longrightarrow}T_tM {\longrightarrow}T_t^{[2]}M {\longrightarrow}S^2(T_tM) {\longrightarrow}0 \label{mu}$$ For each $t\in M$ there exists a holomorphic vector bundle, $\Delta_{X_t}^{[2]}$, on the associated Legendre submanifold $X_t{\hookrightarrow}Y$ such that there are an exact sequence of locally free sheaves $$0{\longrightarrow}L_{X_t} \stackrel{\alpha}{{\longrightarrow}} \Delta_{X_t}^{[2]} {\longrightarrow}S^2(J^1
L_{X_t}) {\longrightarrow}0
\label{mumu}$$ and a commutative diagram $$\begin{array}{rccccccccl}
0 & {\longrightarrow}& T_t M & {\longrightarrow}& T^{[2]}_t M & {\longrightarrow}& S^2(T_t M) & {\longrightarrow}& 0 \\
&& \Big\downarrow && \Big\downarrow && \Big\downarrow && \\
0 & {\longrightarrow}& H^0(X_t,L_{X_t}) & {\longrightarrow}&
H^0\left(X_t,\Delta_{X_t}^{[2]}\right) &
{\longrightarrow}& H^0\left(X_t, S^2(J^1 L_{X_t})\right) & {\longrightarrow}& 0
\end{array} \label{mumumu}$$ which extends the canonical isomorphism $T_tM \rightarrow
H^0(X_t, L_{X_t})$ to [*second*]{} order infinitesimal neighbourhoods of $t\hookrightarrow M$ and $X_t\hookrightarrow Y$. For the details of the construction of $\Delta_{X_t}^{[2]}$ we refer the interested reader to [@Me1]. In this paper we need only to know that this bundle exists and has the stated properties. The extension (\[mumu\]) defines a cohomology class $$\rho_t^{[1]}\in\mbox{Ext}^1_{{{\cal O}}_{X_t}}
\left(S^2(J^1 L_{X_t}),L_{X_t}\right)
=H^1(X_t, L_{X_t}\otimes S^2(J^1 L_{X_t})^*).$$ This is exactly the class of Theorem \[Main\](iii) which is the obstruction to 1-flatness of $X_t$ in $Y$. Therefore, if $X_t$ is 1-flat, then extension (\[mumu\]) splits, i.e. there exists a morphism $\beta: \Delta_{X_t}^{[2]}
\rightarrow L_{X_t}$ such that $\beta\circ\alpha = id$. Any such a morphism induces via the commutative diagram (\[mumumu\]) an associated splitting of the exact sequence (\[mu\]) which is equivalent to a torsion-free affine connection at $t\in M$. A torsion-free connection on the Legendre moduli space $M$ which arises at each $t\in M$ from a splitting of the extension (\[mumu\]) is called an [*induced*]{} connection. Now we can formulate the main theorem about torsion-free affine connections.
[*[@Me1]*]{}\[conn\] Let $\nabla$ be a holomorphic torsion-free affine connection on a complex manifold $M$ with irreducibly acting reductive holonomy group $G$. Then there exists a complex contact manifold $(Y,L)$ and a 1-flat Legendre submanifold $X{\hookrightarrow}Y$ with $X=G_s/P$ for some parabolic subgroup $P$ of the semisimple factor $G_s$ of $G$ and with $L_X$ being very ample, such that, at least locally, $M$ is canonically isomorphic to the associated Legendre moduli space and $\nabla$ is an induced torsion-free affine connection in ${\cal G}_{ind}$.
The conclusion is that any holomorphic torsion-free affine connection with irreducibly acting holonomy group can, in principle, be constructed by twistor methods.
#### 6. From Kodaira to Legendre moduli spaces and back.
In this subsection we first show that [*any*]{} complete Kodaira moduli space can be interpreted as a complete Legendre moduli space and then use this fact to prove a proposition about canonically induced geometric structures on Kodaira moduli spaces.
If $X\hookrightarrow Y$ is a complex submanifold, there is an exact sequence of vector bundles $$0 {\longrightarrow}N_{X\mid Y}^{*} {\longrightarrow}\left.\Omega^{1}Y\right|_{X} {\longrightarrow}\Omega^{1}X {\longrightarrow}0,$$ which induces a natural embedding, ${\Bbb P}(N_{X\mid Y}^{*})
{\hookrightarrow}{\Bbb P}(\Omega^{1}Y)$, of total spaces of the associated projectivised bundles. The manifold $\hat{Y} = {\Bbb P} (\Omega^{1}Y)$ carries a natural contact structure such that the constructed embedding $\hat{X} =
{\Bbb P}(N_{X\mid Y}^{*}){\hookrightarrow}\hat{Y}$ is a Legendre one [@Ar]. Indeed, the contact distribution $D \subset T\hat{Y}$ at each point $\hat{y}\in\hat{Y}$ consists of those tangent vectors $V_{\hat{y}}\in T_{\hat{y}}\hat{Y}$ which satisfy the equation $<\hat{y}, \tau_{*}(V_{\hat{y}})> = 0$, where $\tau:
\hat{Y} {\longrightarrow}Y$ is a natural projection and the angular brackets denote the pairing of 1-forms and vectors at $\tau(\hat{y})\in Y$. Since the submanifold $\hat{X}\subset \hat{Y}$ consists precisely of those projective classes of 1-forms in $\left.\Omega^{1}Y\right|_{X}$ which vanish when restricted on $TX$, we conclude that $T\hat{X}\subset \left.D\right|_{\hat{X}}$. One may check that this association $$\begin{array}{ccc}
\mbox{Kodaira moduli space} & {\longrightarrow}& \mbox{Legendre moduli space}\\
\{X_t{\hookrightarrow}Y\mid t\in M\} & {\longrightarrow}&
\left\{\hat{X}_{t} := {\Bbb P}( N_{X_t\mid Y}^{*})
\hookrightarrow \hat{Y}:={\Bbb P}(\Omega^{1}Y)\ \mid t\in M\right\}
\end{array}$$ preserves completeness while changing its meaning, i.e. a [*complete*]{} Kodaira family of compact complex submanifolds is mapped into a [*complete*]{} family of compact complex Legendre submanifolds (which is usually not complete in the Kodaira sense).
The contact line bundle $L$ on $\hat{Y}$ is just the dual of the tautological line bundle ${{\cal O}}_{\hat{Y}}(-1)$. Simplifying the notations, $N:= N_{X\mid Y}$ and $\hat{N}:= N_{\hat{X}\mid \hat{Y}}$, we write down the following commutative diagram which explains how $\hat{N}$ is related to $\rho^*(N)$ and $L$ $$\begin{array}{rccccccccl}
\vspace{2 mm} & & 0 && 0 &&&& \\
\vspace{2 mm}&& \downarrow && \downarrow && && \\
\vspace{2 mm}&& \rho^*(\Omega^1X)\otimes L_{\hat{X}} & = &
\rho^*(\Omega^1X)\otimes L_{\hat{X}} &&&& \\
\vspace{2 mm}&& \downarrow && \downarrow && && \\
\vspace{2 mm}0 & {\longrightarrow}& \Omega^1\hat{X}\otimes L_{\hat{X}} &
{\longrightarrow}& \hat{N} & {\longrightarrow}& L_{\hat{X}} & {\longrightarrow}& 0 \\
\vspace{2 mm}&& \downarrow && \downarrow && || && \\
\vspace{2 mm}0 & {\longrightarrow}& \Omega^1_{\rho}\otimes L_{\hat{X}} &
{\longrightarrow}& \rho^*(N) & {\longrightarrow}& L_{\hat{X}} & {\longrightarrow}& 0 \\
\vspace{2 mm}&& \downarrow && \downarrow && && \\
&& 0 && 0 &&
\end{array}$$ Here $L_{\hat{X}} = \left. L \right|_{\hat{X}}$, $\rho$ is a natural projection $\hat{X} {\rightarrow}X$, and $\Omega^1_{\rho}$ is the bundle of $\rho$-vertical 1-forms, i.e. the dual of $T_{\rho} = ker: T\hat{X}{\rightarrow}TX$. Using this diagram it is not hard to show that there is a long exact sequence of cohomology groups $$\begin{array}{rccccccl}
0&{\rightarrow}& H^0\left(X, N\otimes S^2(N^*)\right)& {\rightarrow}&
H^0\left(\hat{X},L_{\hat{X}}\otimes S^2(\hat{N}^*)\right)&{\rightarrow}&
H^0(X, N^*\otimes TX)& {\rightarrow}\\
&{\rightarrow}& H^1\left(X, N\otimes S^2(N^*)\right)& {\rightarrow}&
H^1\left(\hat{X},L_{\hat{X}}\otimes S^2(\hat{N}^*)\right)&{\rightarrow}&
H^1(X, N^*\otimes TX)&{\rightarrow}\ldots
\end{array}$$
\[ko\] Let $X{\hookrightarrow}Y$ be a compact complex rigid submanifold with rigid normal bundle $N$ such that $H^1(X,N)=0$ and let $M$ be the associated Kodaira moduli space. If $$H^1\left(X,N\otimes S^2(N^*)\right)
= H^1\left(X,N^*\otimes TX\right) = 0, \label{po}$$ then the associated Kodaira moduli space $M$ comes equipped with an induced 1-flat $G$-structure with the Lie algebra $g$ of $G$ being characterized by the following exact sequence of Lie algebras $$0{\longrightarrow}H^0(X,N\otimes N^*) {\longrightarrow}g {\longrightarrow}H^0(X,TX){\longrightarrow}0$$
[*Proof*]{}. By Kodaira theorem [@Kodaira], there is a complete family, $\{X_t{\hookrightarrow}Y\mid t\in M\}$, of compact complex submanifolds and hence the associated complete family, $\{\hat{X}_t{\hookrightarrow}\hat{Y}\mid t\in M\}$, of compact complex Legendre submanifolds with $\hat{X}_t =
{\Bbb P}(N_t^*)$ and $\hat{Y}= {\Bbb P}({\Omega^1 M})$. Equations (\[po\]) together with the above long exact sequence of cohomology groups imply the vanishing of $H^1\left(\hat{X},L_{\hat{X}}\otimes S^2(\hat{N}^*)\right)$. This together with Theorem \[Main\](iii) and the subsequent Remark implies in turn that the induced $G$-structure on $M$ is 1-flat. The final statement about the Lie algebra of $G$ follows from Theorem \[Main\](ii), the exact sequence $$0 {\longrightarrow}L_{\hat{X}}\otimes\rho^*(N^*) {\longrightarrow}L_{\hat{X}}\otimes \hat{N}^*
{\longrightarrow}\rho^*(TX) {\longrightarrow}0$$ and the fact that $H^0(\hat{X},L_{\hat{X}}\otimes\rho^*(N^*)) =
H^0(X,N\otimes N^*)$. $\Box$
If, for example, $X$ is the projective line ${{\Bbb C} {\Bbb P}}^1$ embedded into a complex manifold $Y$ with normal bundle $N={\Bbb C}^{2k}\otimes {{\cal O}}(1)$, $k\geq 1$, then by Proposition \[ko\] the associated Kodaira moduli space $M$, which is a $4k$-dimensional complex manifold, comes equipped canonically with a complexified quaternionic structure, in accordance with [@P; @PP]. For other results on geometric structures induced on Kodaira moduli spaces we refer to [@Me4; @MP].
#### 7. Involutive $G$-structures.
Let $M$ be a complex $m$-dimensional manifold and let ${\cal G}\subset {\cal L}^*M$ be an irreducible holomorphic $G$-structure with reductive $G$ (hence $G$ must be isomorphic to $G_s$ or $G_s\times {\Bbb C}^*$ for some semisimple Lie group $G_s\subset GL(m,{\Bbb C})$). Since ${\cal G}$ is irreducible, there is a naturally associated subbundle $\tilde{F}\subset
{\Omega^1 M}$ whose typical fiber is the cone in ${\Bbb C}^m$ defined as the $G_s$-orbit of the line spanned by a highest weight vector. Denote $\tilde{\cal F} = \tilde{F}\setminus 0_{\tilde{F}}$, where $0_{\tilde{F}}$ is the “zero” section of $\tilde{p}: \tilde{F} {\rightarrow}M$ whose value at each $t\in M$ is the vertex of the cone $\tilde{p}^{-1}(t)$. The quotient bundle $\nu: {\cal F} = \tilde{\cal F}/{{\Bbb C}^*} {\longrightarrow}M$ is then a subbundle of the projectivized cotangent bundle ${\Bbb P}({\Omega^1 M})$ whose fibres $X_t$ are isomorphic to the generalised flag variety $G_s/P$, where $P$ is the parabolic subgroup of $G_s$ which preserves the highest weight vector in ${\Bbb C}^m$ up to a scale. The total space of the cotangent bundle ${\Omega^1 M}$ has a canonical holomorphic symplectic 2-form $\omega$ which makes the sheaf of holomorphic functions on ${\Omega^1 M}$ into a sheaf of Lie algebras via the Poisson bracket $\{f,g\}= \omega^{-1}(df,dg)$.
An irreducible $G$-structure ${\cal G} {\rightarrow}M$ is called involutive if $\tilde{\cal F}$ is a coisotropic submanifold of the symplectic manifold ${\Omega^1 M}\setminus 0_{{\Omega^1 M}}$.
The first motivation behind this definition is the following
Every irreducible 1-flat $G$-structure is involutive.
[*Proof*]{}. It is well known that a submanifold of a symplectic manifold is isotropic if and only if the associated ideal sheaf is the sheaf of Lie algebras relative to the Poisson bracket. This condition obviously holds for a locally flat $G$-structure. Since the Poisson bracket involves only a 1st order differential operator, this condition must also be satisfied for a 1-flat $G$-structure. $\Box$
The pullback, $i^*{\omega}$, of the symplectic form $\omega$ from ${\Omega^1 M}\setminus 0_{{\Omega^1 M}}$ to its submanifold $i:
\tilde{\cal F}{\longrightarrow}{\Omega^1 M}\setminus 0_{{\Omega^1 M}}$ defines a distribution ${\cal D}\subset T\tilde{\cal F}$ as the kernel of the natural “lowering of indices” map $T\tilde{\cal F} \stackrel{\lrcorner\,\omega}{{\longrightarrow}}
\Omega^1\tilde{\cal F}$, i.e.${\cal D}_e = \left\{V\in T_e\tilde{\cal F}: V\lrcorner\,
i^*\omega = 0\right\}$ at each point $e\in \tilde{\cal F}$. Using the fact that $d(i^*\omega) = i^*d\omega = 0$, one can show that this distribution is integrable and thus defines a foliation of $\tilde{\cal F}$ by holomorphic leaves. We shall assume from now on that the space of leaves, $\tilde{Y}$, is a complex manifold. This assumption imposes no restrictions on the local structure of $M$. The fact that the Lie derivative, ${\cal L}_V i^*\omega =
V\lrcorner\, i*d\omega + d(V\lrcorner\, i^*\omega) = 0$, vanishes for any vector field $V$ tangent to the leaves implies that $i^*\omega$ is the pullback relative to the canonical projection $\tilde{\mu}: \tilde{\cal F}
{\rightarrow}\tilde{Y}$ of a closed 2-form $\tilde{\omega}$ on $\tilde{Y}$. It is easy to check that $\tilde{\omega}$ is non-degenerate which means that $(\tilde{Y}, \tilde{\omega})$ is a symplectic manifold. There is a natural action of ${\Bbb C}^*$ on $\tilde{\cal F}$ which leaves ${\cal D}$ invariant and thus induces an action of ${\Bbb C}^*$ on $\tilde{Y}$. The quotient $Y := \tilde{Y}/{\Bbb C}^*$ is an odd dimensional complex manifold which has a double fibration structure $$Y \stackrel{\mu}{\longleftarrow} {\cal F}=\tilde{\cal F}/{\Bbb C}^*
\stackrel{\nu}{{\longrightarrow}} M$$ and thus contains an analytic family of compact submanifolds $\left\{X_t =\mu\circ\nu^{-1}(t){\hookrightarrow}Y\mid t\in M\right\}$ with $X_t = \tilde{X}_t/{\Bbb C}^*\simeq G_s/P$. Next, inverting a well-known procedure of symplectivisation of a contact manifold [@Ar], it is not hard to show that $Y$ has a complex contact structure such that all the submanifolds $X_t{\hookrightarrow}Y$ are isotropic. The contact line bundle $L$ on $Y$ is just the quotient $L=\tilde{\cal F}\times {\Bbb C}/{\Bbb C}^*$ relative to the natural multiplication map $\tilde{\cal F}\times{\Bbb C} {\longrightarrow}\tilde{\cal F}\times {\Bbb C}$, $(p,c){\rightarrow}(\lambda p, \lambda c)$, where $\lambda\in {\Bbb C}^*$. This can be summarized as follows.
\[Iso\] Given an irreducible $G$-structure ${\cal G}{\rightarrow}M$ with reductive $G$. There is canonically associated a complex contact manifold $(Y,L)$ containing a $\dim M$-parameter family $\{X_t{\hookrightarrow}Y\mid t\in M\}$ of isotropically emdedded generalized flag varieties $X_t= G_s/P$, where $G_s$ is the semisimple part of $G$ and $P$ is the parabolic subgroup of $G_s$ leaving invariant a highest weight vector in the typical fibre of $\Omega^1 M{\rightarrow}M$ up to a scale.
Let $e$ be any point of $\tilde{\cal F}\subset {\Omega^1 M}\setminus 0_{{\Omega^1 M}} $. Restricting a “lowering of indices” map $T_e({\Omega^1 M})
\stackrel{\lrcorner\,\omega}
{{\longrightarrow}}\Omega^1_e({\Omega^1 M})$ to the subspace ${\cal D}_e$, one obtains an injective map $$0{\longrightarrow}{\cal D}_e\stackrel{\lrcorner\,\omega}{{\longrightarrow}} {\cal N}_e^*,$$ where ${\cal N}_e^*$ is the fibre of the conormal bundle of $\tilde{\cal F}{\hookrightarrow}{\Omega^1 M}\setminus 0_{{\Omega^1 M}}$. Therefore, the rank of the distribution ${\cal D}$ is equal at most to ${\mbox{rank}}\, {\cal N}^* =\dim M
- \dim X_t - 1$. It is easy to check that ${\mbox{rank}}\, \cal D$ is maximal possible if and only if ${\cal G}$ is involutive. In this case the contact manifold $Y$ associated to ${\cal G}$ has dimension $$\begin{aligned}
\dim Y & = & \dim \tilde{Y} - 1 = \dim \tilde{\cal F} - {\mbox{rank}}{\cal D} - 1\\
&=& (\dim M + \dim X_t + 1) - (\dim M - \dim X_t - 1) - 1
= 2\dim X_t + 1\end{aligned}$$ which means that the associated complete family $\{X_t{\hookrightarrow}Y\mid t\in M\}$ is an analytic family of compact Legendre submanifolds. This argument partly explains the following result
Let $G\subset GL(m,{\Bbb C})$ be an arbitrary connected semisimple Lie subgroup whose decomposition into a locally direct product of simple groups does not contain any of the groups $H$ considered in Theorem \[Main2\](ii). If ${\cal G}$ is any involutive $G\times {\Bbb C}^*$-structure on an $m$-dimensional manifold $M$, then there exists a complex contact manifold $(Y,L)$ and a Legendre submanifold $X{\hookrightarrow}Y$ with $X=G/P$ for some parabolic subgroup $P\subset G$ and with $L_X$ being very ample, such that, at least locally, $M$ is canonically isomorphic to the associated Legendre moduli space and ${\cal G} = {\cal G}_{ind}$.
In the case of involutive $G$-structures ${\cal G} {\rightarrow}M$ with $G$ as in Theorem \[Main2\](i) one can still canonically identify the base manifold $M$ with a Legendre moduli space, but now ${\cal G}$ is properly contained in ${\cal G}_{ind}$.
In conclusion, the earlier posed question — how large is the family of $G$-structures which can be constructed by twistor methods of Theorem \[Main\]? — has the following answer: this family consists of involutive $G$-structures.
#### 8. Affine connections with “very little torsion”.
With any irreducible $G$-structure ${\cal G}$ on a complex manifold $M$ one can associate the [*torsion number*]{} defined as follows $$l = \frac{1}{2} \left(\dim M - \dim G/P - {\mbox{rank}}{\cal D} -1 \right).$$ Here $P$ is the parabolic subgroup of $G$ leaving invariant up to a scale a highest weight vector in the typical fibre of $TM$, and ${\cal D}$ is the distribution associated to ${\cal G}$ as explained in section 7. We see that the torsion number $l$ is composed of two very different parts: the first part, $\dim M - \dim G/P $, encodes only “linear” information about the particular irreducible representation of $G$, while the second part, ${\mbox{rank}}{\cal D} - 1$, measures how this particular representation is “attached” to the base manifold $M$. It is not difficult to prove that $l$ is always a non-negative [*integer*]{}. This fact alone shows that the proposed combination $l$ of four natural numbers does give some insight into the structure of ${\cal G}$. This impression can be further strengthened by the fact that $l$ has a nice geometric interpretation. Remember that, by Proposition \[Iso\], the $G$-structure $\cal G$ gives rise to a complex contact manifold $(Y,L)$ and a family $\{X_t{\hookrightarrow}Y\mid t\in M\}$ of isotropic submanifolds parameterised by $M$. Then, in these terms, $$l= \frac{1}{2}(\dim Y - 1) - \dim X_t ,$$ i.e. $l$ measures how much $X_t$ lacks to be a Legendre submanifold.
Why is $l$ called a [*torsion*]{} number? It is not difficult to show that the torsion number of any [*1-flat* ]{} $G$-structure is zero. Therefore, a $G$-structure on $M$ may have non-vanishing $l$ only if it has a non-vanishing invariant torsion (but not vise versa, as we shall see in a moment). Moreover, the larger $l$ is, the less integrable is the distribution ${\cal D}$ and, in this sense, the “larger” is the invariant torsion.
The torsion number of an affine connection $\nabla$ is the torsion number of the associated holonomy bundle ${\cal G}_{\nabla}$.
An affine connection with torsion is said to have very little torsion if its torsion number is zero.
The class of affine connections with very little torsion is a sibling of the class torsion-free affine connections in the sense that both these classes (and only these two classes) have involutive holonomy bundles (it is not difficult to show that a $G$-structure has $l=0$ if and only if it is involutive). This means in particular that [*all*]{} connections of both types can be constructed by twistor methods on appropriate Legendre moduli spaces. Another conclusion is that the class of affine connections with very little torsion is non empty — one can construct plenty of them using Legendre deformations problems $"X{\hookrightarrow}(Y,L)$" such that $H^1(X,L_X\otimes S^2(J^1 L_X)^*)
\neq 0$. This does not mean, however, that this class is enormously large — on the contrary, as the table below shows, the list of irreducibly acting holonomies of affine connections with very little torsion must be very restricted.
[|c||c|c|]{} &\
&\
$G$ & representation & $\dim$\
$SL(2,\Bbb C)$ &
(20,20) (6,2) (3,7)
$k\geq 4$ & $k(k+1)/2$\
$SL(2,{\Bbb C})SL(2,\Bbb C)$ &
(1,20) (-2,2) (-4,7)
$\otimes$
(9,20) (1,2) (-1,7)
$k\geq 2$ & $2k+2$\
&
(1,20) (-2,2) (-4,7)
$\otimes$
(9,20) (1,2) (-1,7)
$k\geq 2$ & $3k+3$\
$SL(3,\Bbb C)$ &
(30,20) (0,2)[(5,0)[30]{}]{} (0,2) (30,2) (-2,6) (28,6)
& 8\
&
(30,20) (0,2)[(5,0)[30]{}]{} (0,2) (30,2) (-2,6) (28,6)
& 15\
$Sp(4,\Bbb C)$ &
(30,20) (0,0.7)[(5,0)[30]{}]{} (0,3.3)[(5,0)[30]{}]{} (0,2) (30,2) (12,6)[(5,-2)[10]{}]{} (12,-2.5)[(5,2)[10]{}]{} (-2,6) (30,6)
& 16\
&
(30,20) (0,0.7)[(5,0)[30]{}]{} (0,3.3)[(5,0)[30]{}]{} (0,2) (30,2) (12,6)[(5,-2)[10]{}]{} (12,-2.5)[(5,2)[10]{}]{} (-2,6) (30,6)
& 14\
&
(30,20) (0,0.7)[(5,0)[30]{}]{} (0,3.3)[(5,0)[30]{}]{} (0,2) (30,2) (12,6)[(5,-2)[10]{}]{} (12,-2.5)[(5,2)[10]{}]{} (-2,6) (30,6)
& 30\
$G_2$ &
(30,20) (0,0)[(5,0)[30]{}]{} (0,2)[(5,0)[30]{}]{} (0,4)[(5,0)[30]{}]{} (0,2) (30,2) (12,6)[(5,-2)[10]{}]{} (12,-2.5)[(5,2)[10]{}]{} (-2,6) (28,6)
& 27\
&
(30,20) (0,0)[(5,0)[30]{}]{} (0,2)[(5,0)[30]{}]{} (0,4)[(5,0)[30]{}]{} (0,2) (30,2) (12,6)[(5,-2)[10]{}]{} (12,-2.5)[(5,2)[10]{}]{} (-2,6) (28,6)
& 77\
Here irreducible representations are written in the notations of [@BE]).
In conclusion we note that the problem of classifying all irreducibly acting reductive holonomies of affine connections with zero or very little torsion has a strong purely symplectic flavour — it is nearly equivalent to the problem of classifying all generalized flag varieties $X$ which can be realized as complex Legendre submanifolds of [*non-trivial* ]{} contact manifolds $Y$ (non-trivial in the sense that the germ of $Y$ at $X$ is [*not*]{} isomorphic to the germ of the total space of the jet bundle $J^1L_X$, for some line bundle $L_X{\rightarrow}X$, at its zero section).
[99]{}
, [*Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics*]{}, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1978 \[Russian: Nauka, Moscow, 1974\].
, [*The Penrose transform, its interaction with representation theory*]{}, Oxford University Press, 1989.
, [*Sur les groupes d’holonomie des variétés á connexion affine et des variétés Riemanniennes*]{}, [Bull. Soc. Math. France]{} [**83**]{} (1955), 279-330.
, [*Metrics with exceptional holonomy*]{}, [Ann. of Math.]{} (2) [**126**]{} (1987), 525-576.
, [*Two exotic holonomies in dimension four, path geometries, and twistor theory*]{}, [Proc. Symposia in Pure Mathematics]{} [**83**]{} (1991), 33-88.
, [*On the holonomy groups of linear connections*]{}, [ Nagoya Math. J.]{} [**10**]{} (1956), 97-100.
, [*A theorem of completeness of characteristic systems for analytic families of compact submanifolds of complex manifolds*]{}, [Ann. Math.]{} [**75**]{} (1962), 146-162.
, [*Spaces of complex null geodesics in complex-Riemannian geometry*]{}, [Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.]{} [**284**]{} (1983), 209-321.
, [*Thickenings and conformal gravity*]{}. [ Commun. Math. Phys.]{} [**139**]{} (1991), 1-43.
, [*Gauge Field theory and Complex Geometry*]{}, Springer-Verlag, 1988 \[Russian: Nauka, Moscow, 1984\].
, [*Existence and geometry of Legendre moduli spaces*]{}, preprint (1994); [*Moduli of compact complex Legendre submanifolds of complex contact manifolds*]{}, [Math. Research Lett.]{} [**1**]{} (1994), 717-727.
, [*Geometry of relative deformations I*]{}, in [*Twistor Theory*]{} (ed.S. Huggett), Marcell Dekker, 1994.
, [*Geometry of relative deformations II*]{}, in [*Twistor Theory*]{} (ed.S. Huggett), Marcell Dekker, 1994.
, [*Twistorial construction of quaternionic manifolds*]{}, In [*Proc. VIth Int. Coll. on Diff. Geom. , Cursos y Congresos, Univ. Santiago de Compostela*]{}, [**61**]{} (1989), 207-218.
, [*Non-linear gravitons and curved twistor theory*]{}, [Gen. Rel. Grav.]{} [**7**]{} (1976), 31-52.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We find the exact value of the Ramsey number $R(C_{2\ell},K_{1,n})$, when $\ell$ and $n=O(\ell^{10/9})$ are large. Our result is closely related to the behaviour of Turán number ${\mathrm{ex}}(n, C_{2\ell})$ for an even cycle whose length grows quickly with $n$.'
address:
- |
Adam Mickiewicz University\
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science\
Umultowska 87, 61-614 Poznań, Poland
- |
Adam Mickiewicz University\
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science\
Umultowska 87, 61-614 Poznań, Poland
- |
Hebei Normal University\
18. School of Mathematical Sciences\
Shijiazhuang, P.R.China
author:
- Tomasz Łuczak
- Joanna Polcyn
- Yanbo Zhang
date: 'March 6th, 2020'
title: |
The Ramsey number of\
a long even cycle versus a star
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
For a graph $H$ by $${\mathrm{ex}}(n,H)=\max\{|E|: G=(V,E)\not\supseteq H \ \&\ |V|=n\}$$ we denote its Turán number. Let us recall that for graphs $H$ with chromatic number at least three the asymptotic value of ${\mathrm{ex}}(n,H) $ was determined over fifty years ago by Erdős and Stone [@ESt], and Erdős and Simonovits [@ESi], while for most of bipartite graphs $H$ the behaviour of ${\mathrm{ex}}(H,n)$ is not well-understood. Let us recall some results on the case when $H$ is an even cycle $C_{2\ell}$. The best upper bound for ${\mathrm{ex}}(n, C_{2\ell})$ for general $\ell$ is due to Bukh and Jiang [@BJ] who improved the classical theorem of Bondy and Simonovits [@BS] to $${\mathrm{ex}}(n, C_{2\ell})\le 80\sqrt{\ell} \ln \ell n^{1+1/\ell}+ 10\ell^2 n.$$ The best lower bound which holds for all $\ell$ follows from the construction of a regular graph of large girth by Lubotzky, Phillips, and Sarnak [@LPS], which gives $${\mathrm{ex}}(n, C_{2\ell})\ge n^{1+(2+o(1))/3 \ell}.$$ The correct exponent $\alpha_\ell$ for which ${\mathrm{ex}}(n,C_{2\ell})=n^{\alpha_\ell+o(1)}$ is known only for $\ell=2,3,5$, when it is equal to $1+1/\ell$ (see the survey of Füredi and Simonovits [@FS] and references therein), and finding it for every $\ell$ is one of the major open problems in extremal graph theory. Can it become easier when we allow the length of an even cycle to grow with $n$? This paper was inspired by this question. However, instead of the original problem we consider its, nearly equivalent, partition version. Thus, instead of ${\mathrm{ex}}(n,C_{2\ell})$, we study the Ramsey number $R(C_{2\ell}, K_{1,n})$. Note that from the result of Bukh and Jiang and the construction of Lubotzky, Phillips, and Sarnak mentioned above we get $$\label{eq1}
n+ n^{(2+o(1))/3\ell} \le R(C_{2\ell}, K_{1,n})\le n+ 81\sqrt{\ell} \ln \ell n^{1/\ell}+ 11\ell^2.$$ Since a graph on $N$ vertices with minimum degree at least $N/2$ is hamiltonian (Dirac [@D]), and if its minimum degree is larger than $N/2$, it is pancyclic (Bondy [@B]), for $\ell \ge n\ge 2 $, we have $R(C_{2\ell},K_{1,n})=2\ell$. Moreover, Zhang, Broersma, and Chen [@ZBC] showed that if $n/2<\ell<n$ then $R(C_{2\ell},K_{1,n})=2n$, while for $3n/8+1\le \ell\le n/2$, we get $R(C_{2\ell},K_{1,n})=4\ell-1$. Our main result determines the value of $R(C_{2\ell},K_{1,n})$ for all large $\ell$ and $n \le 0.1\ell^{10/9}$.
\[thm1\] For every $t\ge 2$, $\ell\ge (19.1t)^9$, and $n$ such that $(t-1)(2\ell-1)\le n-1 < t(2\ell-1)$, we have $$\label{eq:main}
R(C_{2\ell}, K_{1,n}) =f_t(\ell,n)+1,$$ where $$\label{eq:main2}
f_t(\ell,n)=\max\{t(2\ell-1), n+ \lfloor (n-1)/t\rfloor \}.$$
We do not know how much one can relax the condition $n\le 0.1\ell^{10/9}$ in Theorem \[thm1\]. We suspect that the result holds for $n$ growing polynomially with $\ell$, but it is conceivable that it remains true even for $n$ which grows exponentially with $\ell$. On the other hand, because of , the assertion of Theorem \[thm1\] fails for, say, $n\ge \ell^{2\ell}$.
We remark that, as we mentioned above, one can use similar technique to find the value of ${\mathrm{ex}}(n,C_{2\ell})$ when $n$ is not much larger than $\ell$. The difference between this problem, when we try to maximize the number of edges in the graph, and the Ramsey setting we chose, when we maximize its minimum degree, is not substantial. However, the result for ${\mathrm{ex}}(n,C_{2\ell})$ is more predictable, since in this case one needs to maximize the number of blocks of size $2\ell-1$ and supplement it with at most one smaller block. The behaviour of $R(C_{2\ell},K_{1,n})$ seems to us more intriguing. Indeed, for a given $\ell$ and $(t-1)(2\ell-1)\le n-1< \frac{t^2}{t+1}(2\ell-1)$ we have $$f_t(\ell,n) =(2\ell-1)t,$$ i.e. for this range of $n$ the value of $R(C_{2\ell}, K_{1,n})$ does not depend on the size of the star. On the other hand, as it is shown in the next section, for $\frac{t^2}{t+1}(2\ell-1)\le n-1< t(2\ell-1) $, when $$f_t(\ell,n) = n+ \lfloor (n-1)/t\rfloor\,$$ the ‘extremal graphs’ which determine the value of $R(C_{2\ell}, K_{1,n})$ typically have all blocks much smaller than $2\ell-1$.
The lower bound for $R(C_{2\ell}, K_{1,n})$ {#sec:lower}
===========================================
In this section we show that for given integers $t$, $\ell$, and $n$ such that $(t-1)(2\ell-1) \le n-1 < t(2\ell - 1)$, we have $$\label{eq:lower}
R(C_{2\ell},K_{1,n}) >f_t(\ell,n)=\max\{t(2\ell-1), n+ \lfloor (n-1)/t\rfloor \}.$$
Let us consider first the graph $H_1$ which consists of $t$ vertex-disjoint copies of the complete graph $K_{2\ell-1}$. Clearly, $|V(H_1)| = t(2\ell-1)$ and $H_1\nsupseteq C_{2\ell}$. Moreover, $\Delta({ \sbox{\myboxA}{$\m@thH$} \setbox\myboxB\null \ht\myboxB=\ht\myboxA \dp\myboxB=\dp\myboxA \wd\myboxB=0.75\wd\myboxA \sbox\myboxB{$\m@th\overline{\copy\myboxB}$} \setlength\mylenA{\the\wd\myboxA} \addtolength\mylenA{-\the\wd\myboxB} \ifdim\wd\myboxB<\wd\myboxA \rlap{\hskip 0.5\mylenA\usebox\myboxB}{\usebox\myboxA} \else
\hskip -0.5\mylenA\rlap{\usebox\myboxA}{\hskip 0.5\mylenA\usebox\myboxB} \fi}_1) = (t-1)(2\ell-1) \le n-1$ yielding ${ \sbox{\myboxA}{$\m@thH$} \setbox\myboxB\null \ht\myboxB=\ht\myboxA \dp\myboxB=\dp\myboxA \wd\myboxB=0.75\wd\myboxA \sbox\myboxB{$\m@th\overline{\copy\myboxB}$} \setlength\mylenA{\the\wd\myboxA} \addtolength\mylenA{-\the\wd\myboxB} \ifdim\wd\myboxB<\wd\myboxA \rlap{\hskip 0.5\mylenA\usebox\myboxB}{\usebox\myboxA} \else
\hskip -0.5\mylenA\rlap{\usebox\myboxA}{\hskip 0.5\mylenA\usebox\myboxB} \fi}_1 \nsupseteq K_{1,n}$. Hence $$R(C_{2\ell},K_{1,n}) >t(2\ell-1)\,.$$
Now let $k=n-1 - t\lfloor (n-1)/t\rfloor$ and $m=\lfloor (n-1)/t\rfloor + 1$. We define a graph $H_2$ as a union of $k$ vertex-disjoint complete graphs $K_m$ and $t+1-k$ other copies of $K_m$ which are ‘almost’ vertex-disjoint except that they share exactly one vertex. Then $$\begin{aligned}
|V(H_2)|&=km+(t+1-k)(m-1) + 1=(t+1)m-(t-k)\\
&=(t+1)(\lfloor (n-1)/t\rfloor + 1) -t + n-1 - t\lfloor (n-1)/t\rfloor\\
&=n+\lfloor (n-1)/t\rfloor. \end{aligned}$$ Note also that $n-1< t(2\ell-1)$, and so $m=\lfloor (n-1)/t\rfloor +1\le 2\ell-1$. Hence $H_2\not\supseteq C_{2\ell}$. Finally, $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta({ \sbox{\myboxA}{$\m@thH$} \setbox\myboxB\null \ht\myboxB=\ht\myboxA \dp\myboxB=\dp\myboxA \wd\myboxB=0.75\wd\myboxA \sbox\myboxB{$\m@th\overline{\copy\myboxB}$} \setlength\mylenA{\the\wd\myboxA} \addtolength\mylenA{-\the\wd\myboxB} \ifdim\wd\myboxB<\wd\myboxA \rlap{\hskip 0.5\mylenA\usebox\myboxB}{\usebox\myboxA} \else
\hskip -0.5\mylenA\rlap{\usebox\myboxA}{\hskip 0.5\mylenA\usebox\myboxB} \fi}_2) = |V| - m= n+\lfloor (n-1)/t\rfloor -\lfloor (n-1)/t\rfloor - 1 =n-1.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore $$R(C_{2\ell},K_{1,n}) >|V(H_2)|= n+ \lfloor (n-1)/t\rfloor,$$ and follows.
Let us remark that the two graphs $H_1$ and $H_2$ we used above are by no means the only ‘extremal graphs’ with $R(C_{2\ell},K_{1,n})-1$ vertices. Let us take, for example, $n=4.1\ell$. Then $R(C_{2\ell},K_{1,n})=3(2\ell-1)+1$ and the lower bound for $R(C_{2\ell},K_{1,n})$ is ‘certified’ by the graph $H'_1$ which consists of three vertex disjoint cliques $K_{2\ell-1}$. However, if we replace each of these cliques by a graph on $2\ell-1$ vertices and the minimum degree $1.91\ell$, the complement of the resulting graph will again contain no $K_{1,n}$, so each such graph shows that $R(C_{2\ell},K_{1,n})>3(2\ell-1)$ as well. On the other hand, adding to $H'_1$ a triangle with vertices in different cliques does not result in a copy of $C_{2\ell}$, so $H'_1$ is not even a maximal extremal graph certifying that $R(C_{2\ell},K_{1,n})>3(2\ell-1)$.
Cycles in 2-connected graphs
============================
In order to show the upper bound for $R(C_{2\ell},K_{1,n})$ we have to argue that large graphs with a high enough minimum degree contain $C_{2\ell}$. In this section we collect a number of results on cycles in 2-connected graphs we shall use later on.
Let us recall first that the celebrated theorem of Dirac [@D] states that each 2-connected graph $G$ on $n$ vertices contains a cycle of length at least $\min\{ 2\delta(G),n\}$, and, in particular, each graph with the minimum degree at least $n/2$ is hamiltonian. Below we mention some generalizations of this result. Since we are interested mainly in even cycles, we start with the following observation due to Voss and Zuluaga [@VZ].
\[l:VZ\] Every 2-connected graph $G$ on $n$ vertices contains an even cycle $C$ of length at least $\min\{2\delta(G), n-1\}$.
The following result by Bondy and Chvátal [@BC] shows that the condition $\delta(G)\ge n/2$, sufficient for hamiltonicity, can be replaced by a somewhat weaker one. Recall that the closure of a graph $G=(V,E)$ is the graph obtained from $G$ by recursively joining pairs of non-adjacent vertices whose degree sum is at least $|V|$ until no such pair remains.
\[l:BC\] A graph $G$ is hamiltonian if and only if its closure is hamiltonian.
If we allow $\delta(G)>n/2$, then, as observed by Bondy [@B], $G$ becomes pancyclic. We use the following strengthening of this result, proved under slightly stronger assumptions, due to Williamson [@W].
\[l:W\] Every graph $G=(V,E)$ on $n$ vertices with $\delta(G)\ge n/2+1$ has the following property. For every $v,w\in V$ and every $k$ such that $2\le k\le n-1$, $G$ contains a path of length $k$ which starts at $v$ and ends at $w$. In particular, $G$ is pancyclic.
Finally, we state a theorem of Gould, Haxell, and Scott [@GHS], which is crucial for our argument. Here and below $\textrm{ec}(G)$ denotes the length of the longest even cycle in $G$.
\[l:GHS\] Let $a>0$, $\hat K = 75\cdot 10^4 a^{-5}$, and $G$ be a graph with $n\ge 45 \hat K/a^4$ vertices and minimum degree at least $an$. Then for every even $r\in [4,\textrm{ec}(G)-\hat K]$, $G$ contains a cycle of length $r$.
Let us also note the following consequence of the above results.
\[l:small\] For $c\ge 1$ we set $$\label{eq:ks}
K(c) = 24\cdot 10^6 c^5 = 75\cdot 10^4 (1/2c)^{-5},$$ and let $\ell \ge 360c^4K(c)$. Then for every 2-connected $C_{2\ell}$-free graph $H=(V,E)$ such that $|V|\le 2\ell c$ and $\delta(H) \ge \ell + K(c)$, we have $$|V|\le 2\ell - 1.$$
Let us consider first the case $|V| < 2\ell + 2K(c)-2$. Then, since $$\delta(H) \ge \ell +K(c) > { |V|}/{2}+1,$$ from Lemma \[l:W\] we infer that $H$ is pancyclic. But $C_{2\ell} \nsubseteq H$ meaning that $|V|\le 2\ell - 1$, as required.
On the other hand, for $|V|\ge 2\ell + 2K(c)-2$ Lemma \[l:VZ\] implies that $$\textrm{ec}(H) \ge 2\ell + 2K(c)-2>2\ell+K(c)$$ Moreover, as $|V|\le 2\ell c$ and $\ell \ge 360c^4K(c)$, one gets $$\delta(H)> \ell \ge \frac{1}{2c}|V|\quad \textrm{and}\quad |V| > 2\ell \ge 45\left(\frac{1}{2c}\right)^{-4}K(c).$$ Therefore, from Lemma \[l:GHS\] applied to $H$ with $a=1/(2c)$, we infer that $H$ contains a cycle of length ${2\ell}$, contradicting $C_{2\ell}$-freeness of $H$.
Proof of the main result
========================
The two examples of graphs we used to verify the lower bound for $R(C_{2\ell}, K_{1,n})$ (see Section \[sec:lower\]) suggest that a natural way to deal with the upper bound for $R(C_{2\ell}, K_{1,n})$ is to show first that each $C_{2\ell}$-free graph $G$ with a large minimum degree has all blocks smaller than $2\ell$. However, most results on the existence of cycles in 2-connected graphs are using the minimum degree condition, and even if the minimum degree of $G$ is large, some of its blocks may contain vertices of small degree. Nonetheless we shall prove that the set of vertices in each such $G$ contains a ‘block-like’ family of 2-connected subgraphs without vertices of very small degree. Then, based on the results of the last section, we argue that each subgraph in such family is small. In the third and final part of our proof we show that if this is the case, then $G$ has at most $f_t(\ell, n)$ vertices.
Before the proof of Theorem \[thm1\] we state two technical lemmata. The first one will become instrumental in the first part of our argument, when we decompose the graph $G$ into 2-connected subgraphs without vertices of small degree.
\[l:dec\] Let $n\ge k\ge 2$. For each graph $G$ with $n$ vertices and minimum degree $\delta(G)\ge n/k + k$, there exists an $s<k$ and a set of vertices $U\subset V(G)$, $|U| \le s-1$, such that $G-U$ is a union of $s$ vertex-disjoint 2-connected graphs.
Consider a sequence $U_0,U_1,\dots, U_{t}=U$ of subsets of $V$ which starts with $U_0=\emptyset$ and, if $G-U_i$ contains a cut vertex $v_i$, we put $U_{i+1}=U_i\cup \{v_i\}$. The process terminates when each component of $G-U_i$ is 2-connected. Note that in each step the number of components of a graph increases by at least one, so $G-U_i$ has at least $i+1=|U_i|+1$ components. Moreover, the process must terminate for $t< k-1$ since otherwise the graph $G-U_{k-1}$ would have $n-k+1$ vertices, at least $k$ components, and the minimum degree at least $n/k+1$ which, clearly, is impossible. Hence the graph $G-U=G-U_t$ has $n-t$ vertices, $s\ge |U|+1= t+1$ components, and the minimum degree larger than $n/k+1$. Finally, let us notice that, again, since each component has more than $n/k$ vertices, we must have $s<k$.
The following result is crucial for the final stage of our argument, when we show that each graph $G$ with a large minimum degree, which admits a certain block-like decomposition into small 2-connected subgraphs, cannot be too large.
\[l:V\] For a given set $V$ and positive integers $\ell, s,t,n\ge 2$, satisfying $(t-1)(2\ell-1)\le n-1 < t(2\ell-1)$, let $V_1, V_2, \dots, V_s$ be subsets of $V$ such that
1. \[it:1\] $V = V_1\cup V_2\cup \dots \cup V_s$,
2. \[it:2\] $|V_i|\le 2\ell-1$ for $i=1,2,\dots,s$,
3. \[it:3\] $|V\setminus V_i|\le n-1$ for $i=1,2,\dots,s$,
4. \[it:4\] $|V_1| + |V_2| + \cdots + |V_s| \le |V| + s -1$.
Then $$|V|\le f_t(\ell,n)= \max \{t(2\ell-1),n+\lfloor (n-1)/t\rfloor\}\,.$$
Note first that if $s\le t$, then \[it:1\] and \[it:2\] imply that $|V|\le t(2\ell-1)$. Thus, let us assume that $s\ge t+1$. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
s(n-1)
&\overset{\textrm{\ref{it:3}}}{\ge}&
\sum_{i=1}^s |V\setminus V_i|=s|V| - (|V_1|+|V_2|+\dots+|V_s|) \\
&\overset{\textrm{\ref{it:4}}}{\ge }&
s|V| - (|V|+s-1) = (s-1)|V| - (s-1),
\end{aligned}$$ and thereby $$\hfill |V| \le \frac{s}{s-1}(n-1) +1 = n + \frac{n-1}{s-1}\le n+ \frac{n-1}{t}.$$ Since $|V|$ is an integer, the assertion follows.
Since we have already bound $R(C_{2\ell},K_{1,n})$ from below in Section \[sec:lower\], we are left with the task of showing that $$\label{l:up}
R(C_{2\ell},K_{1,n}) \le f_t(\ell,n)+1.$$ For this purpose, let $t\ge 2$, $$\label{eq:el}
\ell \ge (19.1t)^9> 360(t+1)^4\cdot K(t+1),$$ where $K(t+1) = 24\cdot 10^6 (t+1)^5$ is a function defined in , and $$(t-1)(2\ell-1) \le n-1 < t(2\ell-1).$$ Moreover, let $G=(V,E)$ be a $C_{2\ell}$-free graph on $$\label{eq:Nf}
|V|
=f_t(\ell,n)+1$$ vertices such that ${ \sbox{\myboxA}{$\m@thG$} \setbox\myboxB\null \ht\myboxB=\ht\myboxA \dp\myboxB=\dp\myboxA \wd\myboxB=0.75\wd\myboxA \sbox\myboxB{$\m@th\overline{\copy\myboxB}$} \setlength\mylenA{\the\wd\myboxA} \addtolength\mylenA{-\the\wd\myboxB} \ifdim\wd\myboxB<\wd\myboxA \rlap{\hskip 0.5\mylenA\usebox\myboxB}{\usebox\myboxA} \else
\hskip -0.5\mylenA\rlap{\usebox\myboxA}{\hskip 0.5\mylenA\usebox\myboxB} \fi} \nsupseteq K_{1,n}$ (or equivalently, $\Delta({ \sbox{\myboxA}{$\m@thG$} \setbox\myboxB\null \ht\myboxB=\ht\myboxA \dp\myboxB=\dp\myboxA \wd\myboxB=0.75\wd\myboxA \sbox\myboxB{$\m@th\overline{\copy\myboxB}$} \setlength\mylenA{\the\wd\myboxA} \addtolength\mylenA{-\the\wd\myboxB} \ifdim\wd\myboxB<\wd\myboxA \rlap{\hskip 0.5\mylenA\usebox\myboxB}{\usebox\myboxA} \else
\hskip -0.5\mylenA\rlap{\usebox\myboxA}{\hskip 0.5\mylenA\usebox\myboxB} \fi}) \le n-1$).
Recall that $f_t(\ell, n) = \max\{t(2\ell-1), n+ \lfloor (n-1)/t\rfloor \}$ and observe that $$\label{eq:estimate}
(n-1)+\frac{ t(2\ell-1)}{t+1} <
f_t(\ell,n) < (t+1)(2\ell-1)\,.$$ Indeed, the upper bound follows immediately from the fact that $n-1 < t(2\ell - 1)$, so it is enough to verify the lower bound for $f_t(\ell,n)$. If $$(n-1) + \frac{t(2\ell-1)}{t+1} < {t(2\ell-1)}$$ then we are done, otherwise we have $$\frac{t(2\ell-1)}{t+1}\le\frac{n-1}{t}$$ and, since $f_t(\ell,n)\ge n+\lfloor \frac{n-1}{t}\rfloor$, holds as well.
Our aim is to show that $G$ contains a family of 2-connected subgraphs $G_i=(V_i,E_i)$, $i=1,2,\dots,s$, such that their vertex sets fulfil the conditions \[it:1\]-\[it:4\] listed in Lemma \[l:V\]. We first apply Lemma \[l:dec\] to $G$ with $k = \frac{(t+1)^2+1}{t}$. We are allowed to do this, because tells us that $$\label{eq:dd}
\begin{aligned}
\delta(G) &= |V|-1 - \Delta({ \sbox{\myboxA}{$\m@thG$} \setbox\myboxB\null \ht\myboxB=\ht\myboxA \dp\myboxB=\dp\myboxA \wd\myboxB=0.75\wd\myboxA \sbox\myboxB{$\m@th\overline{\copy\myboxB}$} \setlength\mylenA{\the\wd\myboxA} \addtolength\mylenA{-\the\wd\myboxB} \ifdim\wd\myboxB<\wd\myboxA \rlap{\hskip 0.5\mylenA\usebox\myboxB}{\usebox\myboxA} \else
\hskip -0.5\mylenA\rlap{\usebox\myboxA}{\hskip 0.5\mylenA\usebox\myboxB} \fi}) \ge f_t(\ell,n)-(n-1)> \frac{t(2\ell-1)}{t+1}\ge \frac{t|V|}{(t+1)^2}
\end{aligned}$$ However, both $|V|$ and $\ell$ are much larger than $t$, in particular, $|V|\ge 2\ell> (19.1t)^9$. Hence, $$\delta(G) \ge \frac{t|V|}{(t+1)^2}
>
\frac{t}{(t+1)^2+1}|V| + \frac{(t+1)^2+1}{t}$$ and the assumptions of Lemma \[l:dec\] hold with $k= \frac{(t+1)^2+1}{t}\le t+3$. Thus, there exists $s\le t+2$ and a set of vertices $U\subset V$, $|U|\le s-1$, such that $G-U$ is a union of $s$ vertex-disjoint, 2-connected graphs, $G'_i=(V'_i, E'_i)$. Note that since $|U|\le t+1$ and $\ell > 4K(t+1)$ are large, $$\label{eq:deltaup}
\delta(G'_i) \ge \delta(G)-|U| > \frac{2(2\ell-1)}{3} - (t+1) > \ell + K(t+1).$$ Moreover, clearly, $|V'_i|\le |V| <(t+1)2\ell$, so Lemma \[l:small\] applied to $G'_i$, with $c=t+1$, gives $$\label{eq:Gi}
|V'_i| \le 2\ell - 1 \quad \textrm{for}\quad i=1,2,\dots,s.$$ Now, for every $i=1,2,\dots,s$, we define $$U_i = \{u\in U: \deg_G(u, V'_i) \ge 4t\},\quad V_i = V'_i\cup U_i, \quad \textrm{and}\quad\ G_i = G[V_i].$$ We will show that the sets $V_1, V_2, \dots, V_s$ satisfy the conditions \[it:1\]-\[it:4\] of the hypothesis of Lemma \[l:V\].
In order to verify \[it:1\] observe that since the minimum degree of $G$ is large, i.e. $\delta(G)\ge 8t^2$, every vertex $u\in U$ belongs to at least one of the sets $U_i$, and therefore $V = V_1 \cup V_2 \cup \dots\cup V_s$.
To prove that $|V_i|\le 2\ell -1$, let us assume that $|V_i|\ge 2\ell$. Now take any subset $\hat U_i$ of $U_i$, with $|\hat U_i| = 2\ell - |V_i'|$ elements and set $H_i=G[V'_i\cup \hat U_i]$. Note that $H_i$ has $2\ell$ vertices. We will argue that $H_i$ is hamiltonian. To this end, consider the closure of $H_i$. From we know that all vertices from $V'_i$ have degree at least $\delta(G'_i)> \ell+K(t+1)$, so in the closure of $H_i$ the set $V'_i$ spans a clique of size at least $2\ell-|U|\ge 2\ell -t-1$. On the other hand, each vertex from $\hat U_i$ has in $V'_i$ at least $4t$ neighbours, so the closure of $H_i$ is the complete graph and therefore, by Lemma \[l:BC\], $H_i$ is hamiltonian. However it means that $C_{2\ell}\subseteq H_i\subseteq G$ which contradicts our assumption that $G$ is $C_{2\ell}$-free. Consequently, for every $i=1,2,\dots, s$, we have $|V_i|\le 2\ell-1$, as required by \[it:2\].
Note that from it follows that $|V'_i|> \delta(G'_i)> \ell$. Since $U\setminus U_i$ sends at most $4t|U|\le 4t(t+1)<\ell$ edges to the set $V'_i$, there exists a vertex $v_i\in V'_i\subseteq V_i$ which has all its neighbours in $G_i$. It means however that, since ${ \sbox{\myboxA}{$\m@thG$} \setbox\myboxB\null \ht\myboxB=\ht\myboxA \dp\myboxB=\dp\myboxA \wd\myboxB=0.75\wd\myboxA \sbox\myboxB{$\m@th\overline{\copy\myboxB}$} \setlength\mylenA{\the\wd\myboxA} \addtolength\mylenA{-\the\wd\myboxB} \ifdim\wd\myboxB<\wd\myboxA \rlap{\hskip 0.5\mylenA\usebox\myboxB}{\usebox\myboxA} \else
\hskip -0.5\mylenA\rlap{\usebox\myboxA}{\hskip 0.5\mylenA\usebox\myboxB} \fi}\not\supseteq K_{1,n}$, the set $V\setminus V_i$, which contains only vertices which are not adjacent to $v_i$, has at most $n-1$ elements, and so \[it:3\] holds.
Finally, to verify \[it:4\] consider an auxiliary bipartite graph $F=(V_F, E_F)$, where $V_F=\{V'_1, V'_2, \dots, V'_s\}\cup U$ and $$E_F=\{uV'_i:u\in U_i\}.$$ We claim that $F$ is a forest. Indeed, assume for a sake of contradiction that $F$ contains a cycle $C=V'_{i_1}u_{j_1}\dots V'_{i_w}u_{j_w}V'_{i_{w+1}}$, ${i_1} = {i_{w+1}}$. Observe that every vertex $u_{j_x}$, $x= 1,2,\dots,w$, has at least two neighbours in both sets $V'_{i_x}$ and $V'_{i_{x+1}}$. Moreover, $\delta(G'_i) > \ell+1$ and $|V'_i| \le 2\ell - 1$, so from Lemma \[l:W\] it follows that any two vertices of $V'_i$ can be connected by a path of length $y$ for every $y=2,3,\dots, |V_i|-1$. Therefore, since $w\le |U|\le t+1\le \ell/4$, the existence of $C$ in $F$ implies the existence of a cycle $C_{2\ell}$ in $G$, contradicting the fact that $G$ is $C_{2\ell}$-free.
Since $F$ is a forest it contains at most $|U|+s-1$ edges, i.e. $$\sum_{u\in U}\deg_F(u) \le |U|+s-1.$$ Note that in the sum $|V_1|+|V_2|+\cdots+|V_s|$ each vertex from $\bigcup_i V'_i = V\setminus U$ is counted once, and each vertex $u\in U$ is counted precisely $\deg_F(u)$ times, so $$|V_1|+\dots +|V_s| = |V| -|U|+\sum_{u\in U}\deg_F(u) \le |V|+s-1,$$ as required by \[it:4\].
Now we can apply Lemma \[l:V\] and infer that $|V|\le f_t(\ell,n)$ while we have assumed that $|V|=f_t(\ell,n)+1$. This final contradiction completes the proof of the upper bound for $R(C_{2\ell}, K_{1,n})$ and, together with , concludes the proof of Theorem \[thm1\].
[^1]: The first author was partially supported by National Science Centre, Poland, grant 2017/27/B/ST1/00873. The third author was partially supported by NSFC under grant numbers 11601527, 11971011, and 11801520.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The prospect of neural reconstruction from Electron Microscopy (EM) images has been elucidated by the automatic segmentation algorithms. Although segmentation algorithms eliminate the necessity of tracing the neurons by hand, significant manual effort is still essential for correcting the mistakes they make. A considerable amount of human labor is also required for annotating groundtruth volumes for training the classifiers of a segmentation framework. It is critically important to diminish the dependence on human interaction in the overall reconstruction system. This study proposes a novel classifier training algorithm for EM segmentation aimed to reduce the amount of manual effort demanded by the groundtruth annotation and error refinement tasks. Instead of using an exhaustive pixel level groundtruth, an active learning algorithm is proposed for sparse labeling of pixel and boundaries of superpixels. Because over-segmentation errors are in general more tolerable and easier to correct than the under-segmentation errors, our algorithm is designed to prioritize minimization of false-merges over false-split mistakes. Our experiments on both 2D and 3D data suggest that the proposed method yields segmentation outputs that are more amenable to neural reconstruction than those of existing methods.'
author:
- |
Toufiq Parag\
HHMI Janelia Research Campus\
Ashburn, VA\
[[email protected]]{}
bibliography:
- 'limited\_gt\_final.bib'
title: What Properties are Desirable from an Electron Microscopy Segmentation Algorithm
---
Introduction
============
One important task for neural reconstruction from Electron Microscopy (EM) is to extract the anatomical structure of a neuron by accurately assigning regions of EM images to corresponding cells. Due to the size and number of EM images typically required for a useful dense reconstruction, it is impractical to manually perform such task. Recent studies on neural reconstructions or connectomics [@takemura13][@helmstaedter13a] apply automated segmentation algorithms for determining cell morphology. The result of such an automated segmentation algorithm is not free of errors, which is why a reconstruction approach must either manually correct the mistakes made by these algorithms [@takemura13], or conform them to a skeleton representation generated earlier by hand [@helmstaedter13a].
In addition, there have been many notable works addressing one or multiple processes constituting an overall segmentation algorithm. Existing algorithms such as[@jain10cvpr][@ciresan12][@jurrus10mia] for pixel classification; [@liu12watershed][@liu14] for effective generation of over-segmentation; [@parag14][@jain11][@andres12] for isotropic 3D supervoxel clustering; [@vazquez11][@funke12] for co-segmentation for anisotropic data report impressive performances on different kinds of EM datasets. Many of these novel approaches are motivated by the methods in natural image segmentation and evaluate output accuracy using error measures popular in computer vision literature, e.g., Rand Error (RE) of [@jain11], Variance of Information (VI) of [@andres12][@parag14].
Ideally, an automated segmentation should attain $100\%$ accuracy – its output should be free of both types of segmentation errors, namely false merge (under-segmentation) and false split (over-segmentation). However, it is not realistic to expect (near) $100\%$ accuracy in practice; given the performances of the existing state of the art algorithms, one can generally assume that their outputs need to be corrected afterwards. Then, from a connectomics point of view, a segmentation algorithm should be designed to minimize manual labor (or algorithmic complexity) required for correcting its output[@jain10opinion].
To the best of our knowledge, there has not yet been a study analyzing the effect of segmentation errors on the effort necessary to correct them. Although error quantities, such as Rand Error (RE) [@jain11], provide a coarse assessment of the mistakes an algorithm makes, they are unable to conclusively forecast the amount of work required for refinement. As an example, inaccurately combining two regions of sizes A and B would incur the same RE value as incorrectly splitting one region of size A+B into two parts. However, rectifying these two mistakes demands significantly different amount of work [@chklovskii10]. The high RE of a false split of two large bodies, e.g., $A = B = 10000$, on a $512 \times 512$ image disproportionately penalizes the effort to correct such error.
From a reconstruction perspective, an over-segmented result is preferred over an under-segmented one because a fragmented set of regions can be refined by automated methods such as agglomeration [@iglesias13][@parag15b][@parag14] or co-segmentation [@funke12], but an under-segmented region can only be fixed by a human expert. Even for a human expert, identifying and correcting false merges is more difficult than correcting false split [@chklovskii10]. This difficulty is more pronounced in 3D volume segmentation than it is in 2D segmentation. Consider separating the two regions falsely connected through 450 planes (from 50 to 500) of a $520^3$ volume by a segmentation method as displayed in Figure \[F:INTRO\]. The authors of [@iglesias13][@parag15b][@parag14] were aware of this issue and reported the two types of error rates separately for performance assessment. The study of [@jain10cvpr] attempts to reduce false merges by identifying the locations vital for preserving topology given exhaustive groundtruth of the data.
Another desirable property of the EM segmentation algorithms is to be able to train the necessary components efficiently without compromising accuracy. An efficient training is perhaps essential for large scale reconstruction where one may anticipate learning the predictors multiple times for different neuropils. A quick segmentation result may also assist the neurobiologist to decide the optimal sample preparation that would maximize segmentation accuracy. But, training existing segmentation algorithms [@jain10cvpr][@ciresan12][@jurrus10mia] remains a significant bottleneck in connectomics [@helmstaedter13b] due to the time and effort necessary for generating the groundtruth and time complexity of training the classifier (e.g., deep neural networks).
A highly curated exhaustive groundtruth, such as those offered by the segmentation challenges (e.g., ISBI 2012 2D, SNEMI 2013 3D), demands extensive effort. Provided necessary resources, it is possible to generate a reasonable groundtruth by iteratively refining segmentation on a small volume with an interactive labeling tool such as ilastik [@ilastik11]. This label set is expected to contain a small degree of tolerable noise but is efficient to generate. Some recent algorithms [@andres12][@iglesias13][@parag15b][@parag14] have utilized interactively generated groundtruth to train the necessary tools for segmentation. However, these algorithms inherently rely on highly expert annotators or neurobiologists in order to produce a useful annotation efficiently (by finding out the minimal area to label for the prediction-correction scheme). Automated algorithms are expected to diminish such dependency on human expertise. As an alternative to exhaustive labeling, Jones et.al. [@jones13sparse] presented a method for sparsely labeling the membrane locations based on appearance similarity to user annotated examples. A completely semisupervised approach like [@jones13sparse] will be sensitive to the penalty parameter and has a risk of introducing noises that are too difficult for a classifier to tolerate.
We adopt a standard EM segmentation approach [@jain11][@andres12][@iglesias13][@parag14], as illustrated in Figure \[F:PIPELINE\], where the confidence values of a pixelwise classifier [^1] are utilized to generate an initial over-segmentation of the dataset. The over-segmentated image or volume is then refined by aggregating superpixels with the help of a superpixel boundary classifier. In this paper, we propose an algorithm for training pixel and superpixel boundary classifiers. The classifiers are trained to attain two desirable properties of an EM segmentation method:
1\. Maximize efficiency: the proposed algorithm employs active learning for classification. Instead of requiring an exhaustive pixel-level groundtruth, *our algorithm automatically determines a small fraction of samples that are critical for training* the pixel and superpixel boundary classifiers ($<1\%$ for pixel and $<20\%$ for superpixel boundary). These examples are identified using the disagreement between two predictors: a) a classifier being updated iteratively, and b) a semisupervised label propagation algorithm [@semi-super06] predicting labels based on feature similarity. Unlike [@jones13sparse], all our training examples are labeled by an annotator.
2\. Minimize false-merge: without exhaustive groundtruth, it is not possible to locate the topologically critical pixels using the method of [@jain10cvpr]. We hypothesize that emphasizing on the detection of membrane pixels over other types would reduce the amount of false merges. Accordingly, our training protocol is designed to be biased towards more accurate learning of membrane class than the remaining categories.
We empirically demonstrate the advantages of the proposed method over the state of the art techniques for neural reconstruction from both 2D and 3D EM data. The overall active learning algorithm is defined in Section \[S:OVERALL\]. Sections \[S:ACTIVE\_PIXEL\] and \[S:ACTIVE\_SP\] explain how our active training approach is adapted for pixel and superpixel boundary classification. The following section (Section \[S:EXP\_RESULT\]) discusses the experimental setup and reports the results. Finally, Section \[S:DISCUSSION\] concludes with a discussion summarizing our findings.
Proposed Active Labeling Framework {#S:OVERALL}
==================================
The segmentation scheme we adopt consists of pixel classification followed by a superpixel clustering by means of a superpixel boundary classifier. We propose an active strategy to train both the pixel and superpixel boundary classifiers. The goal of an active learning method is to identify a few examples – crucial for training a classifier – from a pool of unlabeled samples. The proposed active classification scheme identifies the challenging examples from the dataset and requests their labels from user. Given the labels for the query examples, the algorithm reconfigures its predictors and identifies a new set of queries in a repetitive fashion.
With the aim of locating these challenging examples, we estimate the class label of any unlabeled point by two predictors having substantially different views of the dataset. One predictor is a classifier (Random Forest (RF) [@breiman01] in our experiments) trained from an initially available subset of datapoints $X_l \subset X = \{ x_1, \dots, x_n \}$ and their labels $Y_l$. The other predictor is a novel variant of semisupervised label propagation algorithm [@zhu03][@semi-super06], that assumes a cluster formation of similar datapoints in feature space. While the classifier assesses the class of an unlabeled example by a discriminative set of rules learned so far, the label propagation technique extrapolates a prediction based on feature similarity among the datapoints.
A training sample is considered to be challenging if the class suggested by feature similarity is different from that calculated by the discriminative rules and vice versa. For the interested readers, we illustrate the intuition behind our query generation approach on the synthetic two moon dataset on Figure \[F:MTHOD\_EXPLN\]. Provided the same set of labeled examples, circled in black in Figure \[F:MTHOD\_EXPLN\] and Figure \[F:MTHOD\_EXPLN\], the label propagation can correctly extrapolate the labels of the rest of the datapoints utilized feature similarity (here euclidean distance between points) whereas a classifier, such as RF, will be unable to infer the class separation. Our method would select some samples, where the two predictions differ (marked by blue diamonds), as the next set of queries.
The disagreement among these two types of estimates is quantified by a ranking formula. The first few examples in descending order of disagreement measure are presented to the user as queries. The set $X_l$ is augmented by this new annotated queries and the whole process is repeated until a predefined stopping criterion is satisfied.
In Section \[S:MULTICLASS\_LABEL\_PROP\], we propose the semisupervised label propagation method for a multiclass setting to facilitate the multiclass approaches of [@parag15b][@iglesias13]. The strategies for query generation and initialization are different for pixel and superpixel boundary classification and are explained in Sections \[S:ACTIVE\_PIXEL\] and \[S:ACTIVE\_SP\] respectively.
Proposed Multiclass Label Propagation {#S:MULTICLASS_LABEL_PROP}
-------------------------------------
Let us suppose, we have $n$ datapoints $x_i$ that we wish to classify into one of the $k$ classes. Let $\mathbf{f}_i$ denote the indicator variable for datapoint $x_i$: $f_i^c = 1$ if $x_i$ is classified to class $c$ and rest of its values are $0$. We wish to assign similar datapoints into the same class, i.e., the pairs of samples $x_i$ and $x_j$ with large feature similarity quantified by $w_{ij}$ should belong to the same class. We propose to attain this by minimizing the following cost.
In this cost function, we normalize the weight $w_{ij}$ by the corresponding degree $d_i = \sum_j w_{ij}$ to balance the effects of disparity in class sample size. The cost is summed over all neighboring $i \sim j$ that possess a feature similarity above a certain predefined value. Using a matrix notation for the indicator variables, $F = [ \mathbf{f}_1^T, \dots \mathbf{f}_n^T]^T$, we can write this cost function as where $I$ and $D$ are the identity and diagonal degree matrices respectively. By relaxing the values of $F$ to be nonnegative real-valued numbers $f_i^c \ge 0$ and differentiating wrt $F$, one can compute the system of linear equations needed to be solved for determining $F$. Of course, the minimization is constrained by label consistency among the values of $\mathbf{f}_i$, i.e., $F \mathbf{1} = \mathbf{1}$, where $\mathbf{1}$ is a vector of all 1’s.
An efficient solver for Equation \[E:LABELPROPOBJ\] is essential to build an interactive interface of our method. By avoiding the factorization of matrices with thousands of variables, iterative techniques can produce a solution significantly faster than the closed form methods with the same level of accuracy ( up to a certain error tolerance). A stationary iterative formulation of this equation would repeatedly update the solution using the following formula [@kelley95]. This iteration will converge if: 1) the absolute value of the eigenvalues of $D^{-0.5} W D^{-0.5}$ is bounded by 1, and 2) $I-D^{-0.5} W D^{-0.5}$ is non-singular [@kelley95]. Since there is no bipartite connected component in the graph corresponding to $W$, the first condition is satisfied [@chung96]. We add a small perturbation to the quantity $D^{-0.5} W D^{-0.5}$ to attain non-singularity. One must also satisfy the label consistency constraint $F \mathbf{1} = \mathbf{1}$ to reach a meaningful solution.
In our active learning setting, the algorithm is given the labels for $m$ out of $n$ examples (where $m << n$) at the beginning of the process. We set the known labels in $F$ and iterate Equation \[E:LABELPROPITR\] followed by a projection onto $F \mathbf{1} = \mathbf{1}$ until convergence for computing the unknown label confidences. The algorithm is outlined in Table \[T:ALGORITHM\] and has similarity to a past approach for efficient label propagation on large dataset [@zhu02tech].
-----------------------------------------------------
Algorithm: Multiclass Label Propagation
repeat
1\. Set the known labels in $F$.
2\. Update solution by Equation \[E:LABELPROPITR\].
3\. Project onto $F \mathbf{1} = \mathbf{1}$
until convergence
-----------------------------------------------------
: Multiclass Label Propagation algorithm[]{data-label="T:ALGORITHM"}
After a query set is annotated by user, the linear equations in \[E:LABELPROPOBJ\] need to be solved again. Instead of starting the solver algorithm (Table \[T:ALGORITHM\]) from scratch, we begin with the most recently converged $F$ as the initial solution. Such a warm start brought about a significant speed-up without altering the output in our experiments.
Active Learning for Pixel Classification {#S:ACTIVE_PIXEL}
----------------------------------------
In pixel classification, each datapoint $x_i$ of the above formulation corresponds to a pixel. We will denote a pixel by a different literal $u_i$ to distinguish it from it from superpixel boundary defined later. In our design, each pixel is classified into one of the four classes: membrane, cytoplasm, mitochondria, mitochondria border [@parag15b].
**Initial Subset Selection :** Equal size subsets of samples, one for each class, are selected from the dataset to constitute the initial dataset $X_l$ for label propagation. In the interactive setting, the user will be required to select the initial $X_l$ using a GUI.
In an attempt to maximize the detection of membrane pixels, the initial training set for the RF classifier is constructed from a subset of $X_l$ that contains different number of examples for different classes. In the following text, we describe how the pairwise similarity values in $W$ are utilized to determine the sample proportion for different categories.
Introducing indicator vectors $\boldsymbol{\alpha}^m$ and $\boldsymbol{\alpha}^o$ for membrane class $m$ and other classes $o$ respectively, one can determine the sample proportion by solving an optimization problem. The value of $\alpha^m_i = 1$ if the i-th membrane example in $X_l$ is selected and $\alpha^m_i=0$ otherwise. The following formulation will select of largest subset of initial samples that will prevent misclassification of any member of class $m$ in a nearest neighbor classifier setting.
Here, $y_i \in \{m,o\}$ indicates whether $u_i$ belongs to membrane or other categories. In practice, we compute a sub-optimal solution to this problem for efficiency. In our solution, $\alpha^m_i = 1$ for all $i$. We then greedily select examples for each class $o$ to increase $\text{Cut}(m,o)$ as long as $\text{Vol}(o) \le \text{Vol}(m)$; we refer the reader to [@meila01] for the definitions of these terms and to comprehend the motivation behind our heuristics.
**Query Generation :** Let the vector $\mathbf{p}_i$ denote the prediction confidences generated by the classifier for an unlabeled pixel $u_i$, where $p_i^c$ corresponds to the confidence towards class $c$. If one wishes to compute the over-segmentation from the classifier probability for membrane class $p_i^m$, it is favorable to have $p_i^m > p_i^o,~ o \ne m$ for all membrane pixels. For a pixel $u_i$ from the other classes, the deviance $p_i^o - p_i^m$ should be maximized instead. We define a margin vector $\bar{\mathbf{p}}_i$ wrt class $m$ consisting of these quantities defined as follows. Let $\bar{\mathbf{g}}_i$ be the margin wrt class $m$ computed for $u_i$ in a similar fashion from the real-valued outputs of multiclass label propagation algorithm. The disagreement $\delta(u_i)$ between these two estimates is computed by the dot product of their differences. [ $$\delta_{\text{pixel}}(u_i) = (\bar{\mathbf{g}}_i - \bar{\mathbf{p}}_i)^T (\bar{\mathbf{g}}_i - \bar{\mathbf{p}}_i).
\vspace{-0.1cm}$$]{} The margins $\bar{\mathbf{g}}_i$ and $\bar{\mathbf{p}}_i$ are modeled to capture the overlap in confidence the two predictors have between membrane and other classes. The disagreement $\delta_{\text{pixel}}(u_i)$ between these two margins will increase when the confidence distributions deviate from one another. A few unlabeled samples with largest disagreement value $\delta_{\text{pixel}}(u_i)$ will be selected as the next set of queries to be presented to the user. After the termination of the training process, the real-valued confidences of the classifier (RF in our case) are used for the subsequent tasks.
Active learning for Superpixel Boundary Classification {#S:ACTIVE_SP}
------------------------------------------------------
The output confidence of pixel classifier (RF in our cases) is utilized to generate an over-segmentation of the image or volume (see Figure \[F:PIPELINE\]). In order to aggregate the fragments into actual cell regions, each boundary between two superpixels of this over-segmentation needs to be classified as true or false boundary. We employ a superpixel boundary classifier (RF) that is also trained using the active learning method. For this training, each datapoint $v_i$ corresponds to a superpixel boundary.
**Initial Subset Selection :** In order to reduce redundancy, the initial labeled set $X_l$ was populated by the centers of the output of a clustering algorithm such as k-means.
**Query Generation :** Given the real valued confidences $q_i$ from the current classifier and the estimates $h_i$ of the label propagation method, we use the following formula to compute disagreement between them. Note that, since there are only two classes, values of both $q_i$ and $h_i$ are scalar for superpixel border classification. A few samples with largest $\delta_{\text{sp}}(v_i)$ are selected as the next query set to be annotated. After the training terminates, the real valued predictions from RF are used for superpixel clustering.
Experiments and Results {#S:EXP_RESULT}
=======================
The proposed algorithm has been tested for both 3D volume and 2D image segmentation problems. In the following, we will describe the experimental setup, i.e., computation of the intermediate quantities, feature representation etc. for pixel and superpixel boundary classification. The Sections \[S:RESULT3D\] and \[S:RESULT2D\] report the results on 3D and 2D data respectively.
Experimental Setup {#S:EXPSETUP}
------------------
**Pixel classification :** As noted earlier, each pixel was classified into four classes: membrane, cytoplasm, mitochondria, and mitochondria border. A pixel is represented by features similar to those utilized in ilastik [@ilastik11], e.g., gaussian smoothing, gradient magnitude, laplacian of gaussian, hessian of gaussian and its eigenvalues, structure tensor and its eigenvalues etc. computed at different scales. The similarity values for a pair of examples $\{u_i, u_j\}$ were generated by gaussian distance between their feature representations: $w_{ij} = \exp\bigl \{ -{1 \over 2} (\boldsymbol{\phi}_i - \boldsymbol{\phi}_j)^T \Sigma^{-1} (\boldsymbol{\phi}_i - \boldsymbol{\phi}_j) \bigr \}$ where $\boldsymbol{\phi}_i$ are the feature values of $u_i$ and $\Sigma$ is the covariance matrix among all feature vectors.
**Superpixel boundary classification :** Given the pixel detection result, we utilize the predicted confidence values of the membrane class for generating an over-segmentation by the watershed algorithm [@meyer93]. In order to generate the watershed, we used all the pixels (or clusters or pixels larger than size 3) with RF confidence for membrane class $p_i^m < 0.01$. For superpixel clustering, we follow a context-aware agglomeration approach of [@parag15b] that was designed to prevent under-segmentation by delaying some merge decisions during agglomeration. This agglomeration scheme first clusters the cytoplasm superpixels together using a superpixel boundary predictor and then absorbs the mitochondria bodies into the agglomerated cytoplasm regions based on their degree of inclusion. A superpixel boundary predictor for this setup considers the cell boundary as well as the border between mitochondria and cytoplasm as true boundaries and only the borders between over-segmented cytoplasm superpixels as false boundaries.
Each boundary is represented by the statistical properties of the multiclass probabilities estimated by the pixel detector. The statistical properties include mean, standard deviation, 4 quartiles of the predictions generated for the data locations on the boundary, two regions it separates as well as the differences of these region statistics [@parag15b]. All of these features can be updated in constant time after a merge – a property which improves the efficiency of the segmentation algorithm substantially. The affinity values between two suprepixel boundaries were computed by the same formula used for pixel classification.
Result on 3D segmentation {#S:RESULT3D}
-------------------------
We have tested our algorithm for 3D volume segmentation on Focused Ion Beam Serial Electron Microscopy (FIBSEM) isotropic images collected from fruit fly retina with a resolution of $10\times 10\times10$nm. One $250^3$ volume and two $520^3$ volumes were used as training and test datasets respectively. The proposed algorithm does not need an exhaustive pixel-level groundtruth. However, for this particular experiment, instead of presenting queries to an annotator, we read off their labels from a noisy pixel level groundtruth generated earlier for another study [@parag15b]. Each of the segmentation tasks, namely pixel classification, over-segmentation and subsequent context-aware agglomeration were performed in 3D.
The performance of our algorithm was compared against a combination of [@ciresan12] and [@iglesias13] that has been one of the top scorer of the SNEMI 3D segmentation challenge 2013 (<http://brainiac2.mit.edu/SNEMI3D>). The neural net for pixel prediction was trained with the same techniques described in [@ciresan12][@giusti13]. In order to further improve the quality of the probability maps, the outputs on rotated images were averaged together [@ciresan13]. The watersheds were generated in the same manner as those of the proposed method and then the agglomeration technique of [@iglesias13] was applied for superpixel clustering.
We report the under- and over-segmentation errors separately because under-segmentation is costlier than the other in terms of manual correction. Given a groundtruth, $GT$, and a segmentation, $SG$, split versions of variance of information (VI) [@meila03] and Rand Error (RE) [@jain11] were selected for performance evaluation. For split-VI, the over and under-segmentation are quantified by the conditional entropy $H(\text{GT} ~|~ \text{SG})$ and $H(\text{SG} ~|~ \text{GT})$ respectively. The over-segmentation and under-segmentation quantities in Rand Error are the ratios of pixel pairs within same cluster in GT but different cluster in SG and vice versa.
The proposed algorithm has been trained and applied 6 times to assess its consistency. In each training pass, we randomly subsampled a set of pixels from the whole training set so that the weight matrix $W$ used in label propagation contains $\sim 0.5\%$ nonzero values and still fit in the available memory. The remaining parameters of the proposed active learning scheme are fixed to initial set size $= 4000$ (1000 each class), query set size $=10$, number of queries $=800$ for all the experiments reported in this paper. For the superpixel boundary learning, the parameters are set for all experiments to initial set size $= 3.5\%$ of total number of boundaries, query set size $= 10$, number of total boundaries labeled $= 15\%$ of all examples ($10000 \sim 140000$ in total). With our current implementation, the computation of pixel and superpixel training scheme needed around 24 hours on a 32 and 16 core cluster node respectively.
In Figure \[F:FIBSEM\_QUANT\], we plot the split versions of error measures: x and y axes correspond to under- and over-segmentation errors respectively. Ideally, a segmentation algorithm should attain an error rate of 0, and therefore be plotted at the origin of the graph. For both the proposed and that of [@ciresan12][@iglesias13], the points on the plot were calculated by varying the stopping point of the agglomeration algorithm. The curve corresponding to the proposed method is an average of performances on 6 trials. On the two FIBSEM test volumes, the proposed algorithm (blue -o-, cyan and green curves are explained later) consistently produced lower false merge errors than that (red -x-) of [@ciresan12][@iglesias13] at the same over-segmentation error level.
The combined methods of [@ciresan12][@iglesias13] generally attained high quality segmentation in most areas of the test volumes. However, because they do not emphasize on the membrane class for training, their outputs were vulnerable to false merges near relatively weaker membranes. In Figure \[F:INTRO\], we have displayed the false merge generated by [@ciresan12][@iglesias13] operating at agglomeration threshold 0.15 (highest point on the red curve of Figure \[F:FIBSEM\_QUANT\]) on test volume 2. Segmentation produced by the proposed method did not reproduce this or any other false merges of similar size; the output of our method is shown in Figure \[F:PROPOSED\_QUAL\]- for the same three planes. The qualitative results from the proposed method was generated with an agglomeration threshold of 0.3 (halfway in the blue curves of Figure \[F:FIBSEM\_QUANT\]). In both these images, the segmented regions are overlaid on the raw data with random color. Adjacent regions with same color may not always imply they are merged. The qualitative outputs on the two test volumes and a python script to visualize them can be found at <https://www.dropbox.com/sh/35x0z6md064yo88/AAAbH6JUwAwDKITDNnSsVEKga?dl=0>. A video of the output is also uploaded to youtube at <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osJtSJ8CSO4>.
In fact, both the test volumes were under-segmented in the watershed computed from [@ciresan12]. The VI errors for under-segmentation for a watershed on [@ciresan12] output were 0.132 and 0.236 respectively for two test volumes as opposed to 0.0188 and 0.0243 on average for those computed from our method. Such outcome may not be obvious from an examination of pixel probabilities computed by the proposed method and [@ciresan12]; example predictions on Plane 484 are displayed in Figure \[F:FIBSEM\_ANALYZE\]-. Indeed, the overall accuracy of our pixel detector is less than $90\%$ on samples whose labels are unknown to the active algorithm. Although the deviation measure defined for active learning of pixel detection in Section \[S:ACTIVE\_PIXEL\] enables the identification of misclassified locations, the gain in classification accuracy is not the prominent factor contributing to the low under-segmentation error of our technique.
The proposed pixel detection algorithm inherently minimizes the number of boundary pixels (and maximizes number of other types of pixels) receiving a confidence $p_i^m < 0.01$. Such an outcome is conducive to minimizing false merges in the consequent watershed method. In Figure \[F:FIBSEM\_ANALYZE\] we plot the percentage of pixels of membrane (blue o) and other classes (red x) with $p_i^m< 0.01$ against the number of iterations. By construction, the algorithm starts with a very low, approximately $0.01\%$, of membrane pixels with $p_i^m < 0.01$. With the progression of the iterative updating of training examples, the proposed approach increases the percentage of other pixels with $p_i^m < 0.01$ while maintaining that for membrane pixels at the initial value.
In case of the superpixel boundary classifier, however, the training scheme effectively reduces the classification error in distinguishing false boundaries from the correct ones. In Figure \[F:FIBSEM\_ANALYZE\], we plot the increase in accuracy of the classifier being actively trained (blue curve) and that of the one learned from all examples (black dashed line) on test samples. The plot shows a steady performance improvement with query iterations (x-axis). Interestingly enough, the error rates of both the predictors, namely the label propagation and the classifier, on query sets of images drops to zero after a certain number of iterations as shown in Figure \[F:FIBSEM\_ANALYZE\]. Such behavior has been observed in all the trials of superpixel boundary training and was utilized to determine a stopping criterion for training.
We have not reached to a point of zero error rates in query set for pixel classification. In order to test the sensitivity of the stopping criterion, we have plotted the error curves with 700, 800 and 1000 queries on Figure \[F:FIBSEM\_QUANT\] in cyan, blue and green colors respectively. The almost overlapping error curves suggest that the training converges in practice around 800 queries. After termination, the distribution of pixels in the whole dataset and those selected by the active semi-supervised algorithm are provided in Table \[T:SELECTED\]. Our algorithm selected more samples from the membrane class than one would choose by randomly sampling the same number of examples.
cytoplasm membrane mitochon. mito border
----------------- ----------- ---------- ----------- -------------
Whole dataset 72.43 12.94 11.01 3.62
Active selected 52.09 30.59 14.78 2.54
: Percentage of pixels in different classes in the whole dataset and the training set selected by the proposed pixel detection algorithm.[]{data-label="T:SELECTED"}
To further test the parameter sensitivity and robustness of our algorithm, we applied the proposed training with the exact same parameter on a $250^3$ FIBSEM volume from a different region (mushroom body) of fly brain and produced almost perfect segmentation on a separate $512^3$ mushroom body volume. Figure \[F:PROPOSED\_QUAL\_MB\] shows outputs on some of the planes, note how the bias towards the membrane class of the proposed method resisted false merges on membrane gaps marked by white squares. Segmentation of all $512$ images can be found at <https://www.dropbox.com/sh/35x0z6md064yo88/AAAbH6JUwAwDKITDNnSsVEKga?dl=0>. The output is also uploaded to youtube at: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKnxxbQtN0g>.
**Performance of DAWMR [@huang13dawmr] :** Our effort to test the capability of DAWMR [@huang13dawmr], which is an extended version of [@jain10cvpr], has not yet yielded results comparable to [@ciresan12][@iglesias13]. We attempt to analyze the reason behind such performance in the following text.
The authors of [@huang13dawmr] have kindly generated the affinity maps computed by the deep network for both our FIBSEM volumes. We computed the probability maps according to the authors’ suggestion and applied [@iglesias13] for superpixel clustering. At the same over-segmentation level as the proposed method (y-axis on Figure \[F:FIBSEM\_QUANT\]), the result of DAWMR$+$ [@iglesias13] contained large incorrectly merged bodies in comparison to the proposed method and the combination of [@ciresan12][@iglesias13].
While investigating the reason behind this performance, we found that the pixel predictions of DAWMR for cell membrane fade away in several consecutive planes at multiple locations on the test volume. We show 3 such planes (339 341) in Figure \[F:DAWMR\_PRED\]. These areas, some of which are marked in red on Figure \[F:DAWMR\_PRED\], are most probably responsible for joining two neurites inaccurately during the agglomeration. Recall that, the region statistics of pixelwise confidences are typically used as features for the superpixel boundary classifier [@andres12][@iglesias13][@parag14].
Result on 2D segmentation - ISBI 12 {#S:RESULT2D}
-----------------------------------
We have also tested the proposed method for 2D segmentation on datasets provided for ISBI 2012 segmentation challenge (<http://brainiac2.mit.edu/isbi_challenge/home>). The challenge website provides a training set of 30 annotated images, generated by serial section Transmission Electron Microscopy (ssTEM) from the ventral nerve cord (VNC) of the Drosophila larva. We remind the user that an exhaustive groundtruth is not required by the proposed strategy because it automatically identifies the pixels and superpixel boundaries that are needed to be labeled by an annotator. For convenience of experimentation, and to incorporate some mistakes a human annotator would make in the active learning setting, we generated a noisy groundtruth by performing a watershed with all cell interior pixels marked as seeds and read off labels from this groundtruth.
A similar set of 30 images, without the groundtruth, was also provided for test purposes. The proposed method was applied on this dataset with the same number of samples and iteration for pixel classification as mentioned in Section \[S:RESULT3D\]. The number of examples utilized for superpixel boundaries is also similar to those stated in Section \[S:RESULT3D\]. In Table \[T:RESULT\_ISBI12\], we show the quantitative measures of performances of our method, that of [@ciresan12] and another baseline algorithm that uses all pixels for training the pixel detector (Random Forest) and the technique of [@iglesias13] for superpixel boundary training. Since the groundtruth for the test dataset is not available, the split versions of VI and RE could not be computed. A qualitative inspection of the results (at <https://www.dropbox.com/sh/35x0z6md064yo88/AAAbH6JUwAwDKITDNnSsVEKga?dl=0>) suggests that the difference in error values between our method and those of [@ciresan12] was most probably caused by over-segmentation.
Proposed [@ciresan12] All+ [@iglesias13]
------- ---------- --------------- --------------------
error 0.08 0.05 0.126
: Comparison of F-measure of Rand error provided by ISBI 2012 website.[]{data-label="T:RESULT_ISBI12"}
For complete neuron reconstruction, the 2D segmentation results on anisotropic images – such as those of ISBI 12 dataset – need to be connected across planes by a linkage algorithm. The linkage algorithms have been shown to refine some false split errors, but cannot recover from false merges [@funke12][@vazquez11]. It is therefore rational (and may even be necessary) to prevent under-segmentation at a cost of small over-segmentation rate. This strategy will be more effective on difficult areas of EM volume characterized by broken or hazy membranes or dark cell regions. We downloaded 20 images from two different regions of the whole larva dataset ([http://fly.mpi-cbg.de/ ](http://fly.mpi-cbg.de/ )) and computed segmentation with predictors trained on the challenge data and the same set of parameters. For [@ciresan12], the output was generated by applying watershed after thresholding the pixel prediction values at $0.3$, same as that used to compute the winning entry of the ISBI 12 challenge.
As Figure \[F:LARVA2\] demonstrates, the proposed method prevents most of the false merges generated by [@ciresan12] in these challenging areas and facilitates more accurate reconstruction through linkage algorithms like [@funke12; @vazquez11]. An emphasis on learning the membrane class leads to a wall generally higher than those from [@ciresan12] around watershed basins. Results on all the 20 images can be found at <https://www.dropbox.com/sh/35x0z6md064yo88/AAAbH6JUwAwDKITDNnSsVEKga?dl=0>.
Figure \[F:ISBI\_SELECTED\] shows images with some pixel locations (circle centers) selected as queries by our active pixel training method. Recall that the query set consists of the challenging examples – the locations where the estimation of the two techniques contradict each other. The regions covered by queries include patch between mitochondria and cell boundary, areas with darker shades. These regions often turn out to be misclassified (or receive low confidence) by a predictor trained in interactive setting of [@ilastik11].
In Figure \[F:ISBI\_ANALYZE\], we show the output confidences from the label propagation algorithm and classifier on the first few samples selected as queries for three classes: cytoplasm (blue), membrane (green) and mitochondria (brown). The top and bottom panels correspond to the label propagation and RF respectively. The \# sign on top the bar shows the correct label for that particular sample. The plot shows how some samples misclassified by the RF classifier were correctly predicted by label propagation method and vice versa. Interestingly, the first sample was not detected accurately by any of the techniques.
Discussion {#S:DISCUSSION}
==========
We have proposed a framework for training the necessary tools for an EM segmentation algorithm by acquiring some properties suitable for neural reconstruction. On one hand, the proposed method suggests a strategy to train without complete groundtruth by automatically selecting a small fraction of training examples. On the other hand, our algorithm is designed to minimize the false merge errors which are substantially more difficult to correct than the false split errors. The results demonstrate the merit of our method for neural reconstruction in comparison to the existing algorithms.
EM segmentation is a critical element of neural reconstruction process that led to high impact research in natural sciences, in particular neurobiology/neuroscience [@takemura13][@helmstaedter13a]. Our approach is designed to expedite multiple components of the overall reconstruction effort. For example, the neurobiologist who prepares the tissue sample currently relies only on visual inspection for sample quality assessment. A faster training method could assist the imaging expert to determine the optimal sample quality based on actual results rather than the raw images.
The authors of [@takemura13] made an observation vital to the manual error correction step: screening $100\%$ of the segmentation result is impractical due to data size and is often redundant for extracting the underlying connectome. An intelligent strategy to automatically spot the areas needing correction, as proposed in [@jones15proofread], is perhaps essential for computing connectome from EM images. The presence of no or minimal under-segmentation is a prerequisite for applying methods such as [@jones15proofread].
With the increase of the size of brain region that the researchers ponder on reconstructing, it is anticipated that appearances (and therefore the feature distributions) of different regions of brain would vary considerably from one another. An efficient approach for preparing the automated algorithms may be inevitable for scenarios where one must train different predictors for different regions of large datasets.
Finally, although the algorithm is modeled and tested primarily for EM reconstruction, it has a potential to be applied in other domains. Techniques that use superpixels aggregation to produce the final segmentation, e.g., [@amat14] for cell tracking in light microscopy, [@wang14histo] for blood cell segmentation, can utilize our method for efficiency and performance improvement.
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
Toufiq Parag gratefully acknowledges Pat Rivlin, Chris Ordish, Corey Fisher for assistance in data preparation; Stuart Berg, Steve Plaza for software support; Gary Huang for computing DAWMR output; Stephan Saalfeld for providing the access to the complete larva dataset.
[^1]: We adopt multi-class pixel classification, as is explained later.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
address: |
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, Scotland\
E-mail:[email protected]
author:
- Arjun Berera
title: Dissipative Dynamics of Inflation
---
To appear in Proceeding, PASCOS-01, 2001
The basic picture of inflationary dynamics centers around a scalar field often called the inflaton. During the inflationary period, the potential energy of this field is pictured to dominate the energy density of the universe, thereby driving inflation-like accelerated expansion of the scale factor. The inflaton field also is required to interact with other fields, so as to allow transfer of energy from potential energy into radiation. Eventually the radiation energy density must dominate so that inflation can terminate into a standard hot big-bang radiation dominated regime. Although ultimately for inflationary dynamics to fit into a realistic particle physics scheme, the final models may be more elaborate, it is believed that these simple inflaton models contain all the essential features that must be found in any more realistic model.
The most nontrivial aspect of the inflaton models is understanding the energy transfer dynamics from potential energy to radiation. A commonly followed picture is that dissipative effects of the inflaton field can be ignored throughout the inflation period, thus leading to a supercooled inflationary regime. However, from a thermodynamic perspective, this picture appears very restrictive. The point being, even if the inflaton were to allow a minuscule fraction of the energy to be released, say one part in $10^{20}$, it still would constitute a significant radiation energy density component in the universe. For example, for inflation with vacuum (i.e. potential) energy at the GUT scale $\sim 10^{15-16} {\rm GeV}$, leaking one part in $10^{20}$ of this energy into radiation corresponds to a temperature of $10^{11} {\rm GeV}$, which is nonnegligible. In fact, the most relevant lower bound that cosmology places on the temperature after inflation comes from the success of hot Big-Bang nucleosynthesis, which thus requires the universe to be within the radiation dominated regime by $T \stackrel{>}{\sim} 1 {\rm GeV}$. This limit can be met in the above example by dissipating as little as one part in $10^{60}$ of the vacuum energy into radiation. Thus, from the perspective of both interacting field theory and basic notions of equipartition, it appears to be a highly tuned requirement of supercooled inflation to prohibit the inflaton from even such tiny amounts of dissipation.
These considerations have led to examining the possibility of warm inflation, an inflationary regime in which radiation also is present. Warm inflation is comprised of non-isentropic expansion in the background cosmology [@wi] and thermal seeds of density perturbations [@bf2; @abnpb; @wipert] (see also [@moss]). During warm inflation, interactions between the inflaton and other fields cause the radiation energy density to remain substantial due to its constant production from conversion of vacuum energy. This expansion regime is intrinsically different from the supercooled inflation regime, since warm inflation smoothly terminates into a subsequent radiation dominated regime, without a reheating period.
The warm inflation picture has one immediate conceptual advantage in that the dynamics is completely free of questions about quantum-to-classical transition. The scalar inflaton field is in a classical state, thus immediately justifying the application of a classical evolution equation. Also, the fluctuations of the inflaton, which induce the metric perturbations, are classical. Furthermore, warm inflation dynamics offers interesting solutions to the initial condition problem of inflation [@bg], as well as possibilities for generating cosmic magnetic fields [@bkw].
However despite the conceptual clarity and despite the suggestive thermodynamic considerations, deriving this dynamics from first principles quantum field theory is nontrivial. The key reasons primarily are technical. To clarify this point, a comparison with supercooled inflationary dynamics is useful. In supercooled inflation, the process of inflation and radiation production are neatly divided into two different epochs, whereas in warm inflation dynamics, both processes occur concurrently. As such, for warm inflation dynamics there is considerable and nontrivial interplay between the equations of background inflationary expansion and quantum field theory dynamics, making it technically more difficult to solve than supercooled inflation. In effect, warm inflation solutions are of an “all-or-nothing” type in that if a solution works, it solves everything and if something fails, the whole solution becomes useless. On the other hand, supercooled inflation solutions are of a “pick-and-choose” type, in that every aspect of the problem is compartmentalized, i.e. inflation, reheating, quantum-to-classical transition, and there is little continuity amongst the different problems.
Statements have been made about the impossibility of warm inflation dynamics [@yl]. However the dynamical considerations leading up to these conclusions were limited in their scope, as had been noted previous to this work [@bgr]. In particular, these works looked for high temperature warm inflation solutions, under rigid adiabatic, equilibrium conditions. Nevertheless, within this limited framework, one type of warm inflation solution was obtained [@bgr2; @abnpb], and due to the “all-or-nothing” nature mentioned above, this solutions can not be discarded as a serious contender in any more complete theory of inflation [@bk]. Moreover, these early works [@yl; @bgr] have explicated one very important point, that warm inflation dynamics is not trivial and before it can be directly solved, several missing gaps in the knowledge of dissipative dynamics must be clarified.
As one step in this direction to fill the missing gaps, recently we studied the zero temperature dissipative dynamics of interacting scalar field systems in Minkowski spacetime [@br]. This is useful to understand, since the zero temperature limit constitutes a baseline effect that will be prevalent in any general statistical state. What our results show is that for a broad range of cases, involving interaction with as few as one or two fields, dissipative regimes are found for the scalar field system. This is important for inflationary cosmology, since it suggests that dissipation may be the norm not exception for an interacting scalar field system, thus suggesting that warm inflation could be a natural dynamics once proper treatment of interactions is done.
Our analysis of dissipative dynamics starts with the general Lagrangian, $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal L} [ \Phi, \chi_j, \bar{\psi}_k, \psi_k] &=&
\frac{1}{2}
(\partial_\mu \Phi)^2 - \frac{m_\phi^2}{2}\Phi^2 -
\frac{\lambda}{4 !} \Phi^4
+ \sum_{j=1}^{N_{\chi}} \left\{
\frac{1}{2} (\partial_\mu \chi_{j})^2 - \frac{m_{\chi_j}^2}{2}\chi_j^2
- \frac{f_{j}}{4!} \chi_{j}^4 - \frac{g_{j}^2}{2}
\Phi^2 \chi_{j}^2
\right\}
\nonumber \\
&+& \sum_{k=1}^{N_{\psi}}
\bar{\psi}_{k} \left[i \not\!\partial - m_{\psi_k} -h_{k,\phi} \Phi
- \sum_{j=1}^{N_\chi} h_{kj,\chi} \chi_j \right] \psi_{k}
\: ,
\label{Nfields} \end{aligned}$$ with $\Phi \equiv \varphi + \phi$ such that $\langle \Phi \rangle = \varphi$. Our aim is to obtain the effective equation of motion for $\varphi(t)$ and from that determine the energy dissipated from the $\varphi(t)$ system into radiation.
Using the tadpole method [@tadpole], which requires $\langle \phi \rangle =0$, the effective equation of motion for $\varphi(t)$ emerges $$\begin{aligned}
\ddot{\varphi}(t) + m_\phi^2 \varphi(t) + \frac{\lambda}{6} \varphi^3(t)
+\frac{\lambda}{2} \varphi(t) \langle \phi^2 \rangle
+\frac{\lambda}{6} \langle \phi^3 \rangle
+\sum_{k=1}^{N_{\psi}} h_{k} \langle \bar{\psi_k} \psi_k \rangle= 0 \;.
\label{eeom}\end{aligned}$$ The field expectation values in this equation are obtained by solving the coupled set of field equations. In our calculation, we have evaluated them in a perturbative expansion using dressed Green’s functions [@br; @lawrie1; @bgr]. One general feature of these expectation values is they will depend of the causal history of $\varphi(t)$, so that Eq. (\[eeom\]) is a temporally nonlocal equation of motion for $\varphi(t)$.
Formally, we can examine Eq. (\[eeom\]) within a Markovian-adiabatic approximation, in which the equation of motion is local in time and the motion of $\varphi(t)$ is slow. At $T=0$, such an approximation is not rigorously valid. Nevertheless, this approximation allows understanding the magnitude of dissipative effects. Furthermore, we have shown in [@br] that the nonlocal effects tend to filter only increasingly higher frequency components of $\varphi(t)$ from nonlocal effects increasingly further back in time. Thus for low frequency components of $\varphi(t)$, memory only is retained to some short interval in the past. Since within the adiabatic approximation, $\varphi(t)$ only has low frequency components, we believe the Markovian-adiabatic approximation is legitimate at least for order of magnitude estimates. Within this approximation, the effective equation of motion for $\varphi(t)$ has the general form $$\begin{aligned}
&& \ddot{\varphi}(t) + m_{\phi}^2 \; \varphi (t) +
\frac{\lambda}{6} \varphi^3 (t) + \eta (\varphi)
\dot{\varphi} (t) =0\;,
\label{final1} \end{aligned}$$ where explicit expressions for the dissipative coefficient $\eta$ for various cases are given in [@br].
Based on this equation, energy production will be estimated here with full details given in [@br]. Our primary interest is in the overdamped regime $$m^2(\phi) = m_{\phi}^2 + \lambda \varphi^2/2 < \eta^2,$$ since this is the regime ultimately of interest to warm inflation. In this regime, the energy dissipated by the scalar field goes into radiation energy density $\rho_r$ at the rate $${\dot \rho}_r = -\frac{dE_{\phi}}{dt} =
\eta(\varphi) {\dot \varphi}^2 .$$
In [@br] we have determined radiation production for two cases $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm (a). } \hspace{0.1cm} & & m(\varphi) > m_{\chi} > 2m_{\psi} \nonumber\\
{\rm (b). } \hspace{0.1cm} & & m_{\chi} > 2 m_{\psi} > m(\varphi). \end{aligned}$$ To focus on a case typical for inflation, suppose the potential energy is at the GUT scale $V(\varphi)^{1/4} \sim 10^{15} {\rm GeV}$ and we consider the other parameters in a regime consistent with the e-fold and density fluctuation requirements of inflation. Note, although this is a flat nonexpanding spacetime analysis, since the dissipative effects will be at subhorizon scale, one expects these estimates to give a reasonable idea of what to expect from a similar calculation done in expanding spacetime. Expressing the radiation in terms of a temperature scale as $T \sim \rho_r^{1/4}$, we find for case (a) $1 {\rm GeV} < T < 10^7 {\rm GeV} < H$ and for case (b) $T \stackrel{>}{\sim} 10^{14} {\rm GeV} > H$, where $H = \sqrt{8 \pi V/(3m_p^2)}$.
It should be clarified that the results found in this paper in no way require supersymmetry, although they easily could be applied in SUSY models. For such models, the low $T$ warm inflation solutions suggested by case (a) could be useful in avoiding gravitino overproduction [@tl]. On the other hand, case (b) in general seems more interesting, since it offers a very robust possibility for radiation production. Although this is what the formal calculation indicates, we believe at this point a deeper understanding of radiation production is necessary.
In regards the potential implications of the results discussed in this talk to inflationary cosmology, we infer that under generic circumstances the scalar inflaton field will dissipate a nonnegligible amount of radiation during inflation. In particular, the lower bound suggested by the above estimates already are sufficiently high to preclude a mandatory requirement for a reheating period. Moreover, the high temperature results of case (b) suggest that warm inflation could be very robust. Verification of these expectations requires a proper extension of these calculations to expanding spacetime, and within a nonequilibrium formulation [@lawrie2], which we plan to examine.
[**Acknowledgments**]{}
This work was supported by a PPARC Advanced Fellowship.
A. Berera, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{}, 3218 (1995); Phys. Rev. D [**54**]{}, 2519 (1996); Phys. Rev. D [**55**]{}, 3346 (1997); Proceeding PASCOS-98, hep-ph/9807523.
A. Berera and L. Z. Fang, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**74**]{}, 1912 (1995).
A. Berera, Nucl. Phys. B [**585**]{}, 666 (2000).
W. Lee and L. Z. Fang, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D [**6**]{}, 305 (1997); A. N. Taylor and A. Berera, Phys. Rev. D [**62**]{}, 083517 (2000); H. P. De Oliveira and S. E. Joras, gr-qc/0103089.
I. Moss, Phys. Lett. B [**154**]{}, 120 (1985); R. Brout and S. P. Spindel, Nucl. Phys. B [**348**]{}, 405 (1991); S. P. Spindel and R. Brout, Phys. Lett. B [**320**]{}, 241 (1994).
A. Berera and C. Gordon, Phys. Rev. D [**63**]{}, 063505 (2001).
A. Berera, T. W. Kephart, and S. D. Wick, Phys. Rev. D [**59**]{}, 043510 (1999).
J. Yokoyama and A. Linde, Phys. Rev. D [**60**]{}, 083509 (1999).
A. Berera, M. Gleiser and R. O. Ramos, Phys. Rev. D [**58**]{}, 123508 (1998).
A. Berera, M. Gleiser and R. O. Ramos, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 264 (1999).
A. Berera and T. W. Kephart, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 1084 (1999); Phys. Lett. B [**456**]{}, 135 (1999); A. Berera, Proceedings COSMOS-98, hep-ph/9902288.
A. Berera and R. O. Ramos, Phys. Rev. D [**63**]{}, 103509 (2001).
G. Semenoff and N. Weiss, Phys. Rev. D [**31**]{}, 699 (1985); A. Ringwald, Phys. Rev. D [**36**]{}, 2598 (1987); Ann. Phys. [**177**]{}, 129 (1987); Z. Phys. C [**34**]{}, 481 (1987).
I. D. Lawrie, J. Phys. A [**25**]{}, 6493 (1992); Phys. Rev. D [**60**]{}, 063510 (1999);
A. N. Taylor and A. R. Liddle, astro-ph/0011365.
I. D. Lawrie, Phys. Rev. D [**40**]{}, 3330 (1989).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper we investigate *repeated weak measurements without post-selection* [@AVA;PRL1988; @AV;PRA1989], on a *single copy*. By a careful analysis of errors, it is shown that there is a tradeoff between errors and *invasiveness*. Lower the errors, greater the invasiveness. Though the outcomes are not independently distributed, an analytical expression is obtained for how averages are distributed, which is shown to be the way outcomes are distributed in a *strong measurement*, in stark contrast to the central limit theorem. An *error-disturbance* relation, though not of the Ozawa-type [@ozawa2014], is also derived. In the limit of vanishing errors, the invasiveness approaches what would obtain from strong measurements.'
author:
- 'N.D. Hari Dass'
title: 'Repeated weak measurements on a single copy are *invasive*.'
---
Introduction
============
With the advent of many new and novel types of measurements like *Protective Measurements*, *POVM Measurements*, *Weak Measurements* etc [@wisemannbook2010], the foundational aspects need to be revisited. In this paper, we do so for Weak Measurements without *Post-Selection*, first proposed by Aharonov, Vaidman and Albert [@AVA;PRL1988; @AV;PRA1989], and in particular address repeated measurements on a *single* copy. For an account of the issues involved see [@alterbook]. Let S be the observable of the system with $s_i,|s_i\rangle_S$ its spectrum, which we take to be *non-degenerate*. The initial states of the system and the apparatus are taken to be *pure*. Generalization to the *mixed* case should be straightforward. For ensemble measurements, such generalized treatments are already available in [@kofman2012].
Let $|\psi\rangle_S=\sum_i\,\alpha_i\,|s_i\rangle_S$ be the *unknown* initial state of the system on which measurements of S are done. The expectation value of S in the state $|\psi\rangle_S$ is given by $\langle\psi|S|\psi\rangle_S=
\sum_i\,|\alpha_i|^2\,s_i$. The *Pointer States* of the apparatus denoted by $|p\rangle_A$, are taken to be eigenstates of an apparatus observable $P_A$. The point of view taken here is that such pointer states form the basis in which the density matrix becomes diagonal as a result of *decoherence*. They are not always labelled by the mean values of $P_A$ in a given state of the apparatus. Therefore, the specification of an *apparatus* involves some quantum system, along with a decoherence mechanism which picks out the pointer states.
In the Dirac-von Neumann models of projective measurements, the *initial* apparatus state had to be necessarily a pointer state and the system-apparatus interaction had to be of the type $H_I= g(t)\lambda\,S\,Q_A$ where $Q_A$ was *canonically conjugate* to $P_A$ i.e $[Q_A,P_A]=i\hbar$. In [@kofman2012] one can find extensive discussion of how to go beyond such restrictions as far as weak measurements are concerned. But we shall stick to this choice. More pragmatically, in the original model the initial aparatus states were taken to be *sharp Gaussian states* centred around some $p_0$. In other words, for $p_0=0$, $$|\phi_0\rangle_A = N\,\int\,dp\,e^{-\frac{p^2}{2\Delta_p^2}}\,|p\rangle_A\quad\quad N^2\sqrt{\pi\Delta_p^2}=1
\label{eq:iniapp}$$ In the case of projective measurements, $\Delta_p << 1$. For weak measurements, however, $\Delta_p >> 1$.That means that the initial apparatus state is a *very broad* superposition of pointer states with practically *equal* weight for each pointer state. We shall see that a combination of these factors results, with high probability, in neither the apparatus nor the system changing appreciably as a result of the measurement. Hence the name *Weak Measurements*.
In both strong and weak measurements, the measurement interaction is taken to be *impulsive* i.e the function g(t) is nonvanishing only during a very small duration, say, $-\epsilon < t < \epsilon$. Without loss of generality g(t) can be taken to satisfy $\int\,dt\,g(t)=1$, and $\lambda=1$. The impulsive approximation is clearly an idealisation not shared by real life measurements. It is easy to work out the combined (pure)state of the system and apparatus after the impulsive measurement interaction is complete: $$|\Psi(t>\epsilon)\rangle_{SA} = N\int\,dp\,\sum_i\,\alpha_i\,e^{-\frac{(p- s_i)^2}{2\Delta_p^2}}\,|s_i\rangle_S\,|p\rangle_A
\label{postMI}$$ When $\Delta_p << 1$, only $p\approx\,s_i$ dominate and one recovers the well known results for strong measurements. As has been well emphasized, this is still an *entangled* state of the system and apparatus, and therefore does not reflect the fact that measurements have definite outcomes i.e after the measurement has been completed, the apparatus should be left in only one of the pointer states. It is believed that *environmental decoherence* diagonalizes the resulting combined pure density matrix in the pointer states basis, to give the *post-measurement* density matrix: $$\rho^{post}_{SA} = \int dp\, |N(p,\{\alpha\})|^2|p\rangle\langle p|_A\,|\psi(p,\{\alpha\}\rangle\langle \psi(p,\{\alpha\}|_S
\label{eq:weakpost}$$ where $$N(p,\{\alpha\}) = N\,\sqrt{\sum_i\,|\alpha_i|^2\,e^{-\frac{(p- s_i)^2}{\Delta_p^2}}}
\label{eq:Nweakpost}$$ $$|\psi(p,\{\alpha\}) = \frac{N}{N(p,\{\alpha\})}\,\sum_j\,\alpha_j\,e^{-\frac{(p- s_j)^2}{2\Delta_p^2}}\,|s_j\rangle_S
\label{eq:psiweakpost}$$ Several aspects of weak measurements, which have puzzled many(for a very detailed account of various aspects of such measurements, see [@kofman2012]) , can be clarified with the help of eqns.(\[eq:weakpost\],\[eq:Nweakpost\], \[eq:psiweakpost\]). The measurement process gets completed when a single output of the apparatus, say, p, and a single system state $\psi(p,\{\alpha\})\rangle_S$ are picked from the mixture of eqn.(\[eq:weakpost\]). The outcome p can, first of all, range over $[-\infty,\infty]$, far beyond the eigenvalue-range of S. Since the associated system state is in general not an eigenstate of S, there is no meaning to associating any ’value’ of the observable to p. System states corresponding to different outcomes are not *orthogonal*, and:w the measurements are of the POVM type, with the measurement operators $M_p$ given by $$\label{eq:weakpovm}
M_p = N\,\sum\limits_i\,e^{-\frac{(p-s_i)^2}{2\Delta_p^2}}\,|s_i\rangle\langle s_i|$$
For an *ensemble* of weak measurements, $P(p,\{\alpha\})=|N(p,\{\alpha\})|^2$ being the probability for outcome p, the mean outcome is $$\langle p \rangle_\psi = \int dp\, p|N(p,\{\alpha\})|^2 = \sum_i\,|\alpha_i|^2\,s_i
\label{eq:weakmean}$$ yielding the same expectation value as in strong measurements. Therefore *state tomography* can be achieved through such ensemble weak measurements (repeated weak measurements as a means of augmenting projective tomography is considered in [@arvind2014]). The variance of the outcomes can be readily calculated to yield $$(\Delta p)^2_\psi = \frac{(\Delta p)^2}{2}+(\Delta S)^2
\label{eq:weakvariance}$$ This exposes one of the major weaknesses(!) of weak measurements i.e the errors in individual measurements are huge. This can be reduced statistically as usual. If one considers averages over $M_w$ measurements, the variance in the average, is $\frac{\Delta_p}{\sqrt{2M_w}}$. It makes sense to compare different measurement schemes only for a *fixed* statistical error. Therefore if averaging is done over $M_s$ strong measurements, $$\frac{\Delta S}{\sqrt{M_s}}=\frac{\Delta_p}{\sqrt{2M_w}}\rightarrow M_w = (\frac{\Delta_p}{\Delta S})^2\,\frac{M_s}{2}
\label{eq:sizeweakmeas}$$ The required resources will be supermassive!
The aspect of weak measurements that has gained great prominence is its alleged *non-invasiveness*. It is clear from eqn.(\[eq:psiweakpost\]) that for low p, the state of the system is practically the same as the unknown intial state. In fact, even when $p\cdot s_i \approx \Delta_p^2$, $|\psi(p)\rangle_S$ equals $|\psi\rangle_S$ to a high degree! It is instructive to see how the expectation value in eqn.(\[eq:weakmean\]) gets saturated as the range of outcomes is increased($f\Delta_p
$ is the maximum magnitude of p): $$R_{sat}=\frac{\langle p \rangle_\psi^f}{\langle p \rangle_\psi} = erf(f) - \frac{2f}{\sqrt{\pi}}\,e^{-f^2}
\label{eq:weakmeansat}$$ Here erf is the Gaussian error function. At f=0.5, this ratio is 0.08, at f=1 it is 0.43 while it already reaches 0.94 at f=2! Thus when $p\,s_i\approx \Delta_p^2$, values of outcomes where the state remains unaffected to a high degree, the expectation value will be indistuinguishable from its true value! These considerations are further strengthened by looking at the *post-measurement reduced density matrix* of the system: $$\rho^{post}_S = \rho^{ini} - \frac{1}{4\Delta_p^2}\,\sum_{i,j}\,(s_i-s_j)^2\,\alpha_i\alpha_j^*\,|s_i\rangle \langle s_j|
\label{eq:weakpostreduced}$$ giving the impression that the weak measurements are *non-invasive* to a very high degree. The non-invasiveness of weak measurements has been argued to be useful, for example, in the context of the *Leggett-Garg Inequalities* [@leggettgarg1985; @homeleggett2013]. The maintenance of the state to such a high degree may give rise to the hope that it holds even for repeated measurements on single copies. One would then have arrived at a way of obtaining *full information* about a single copy of a system in an *unknown* state without appreciably disturbing it. That would be in conflict with the *Copenhagen Interpretation*. We now show that a careful analysis of the errors in a weak measurement nullify this expectation of non-invasiveness. The errors in weak measurements, though highly negligible in a single act of measurement, get so amplified with repetition as to almost totally disturb the system. This can be heuristically grasped from eqn.(\[eq:weakpostreduced\]) on recognizing, from eqn.(\[eq:sizeweakmeas\]), that the number of repetitions must far exceed $\Delta_p^2$ for acceptable error levels; compounding the change in reduced density matrix per step is seen to totally alter the system state. But eqn.(\[eq:weakpostreduced\]) is strictly valid only for ensemble measurements. We remedy that in the rest of the paper by working out the consequences of *repeated weak measurements* on a single copy.
Repeated weak measurements on a single copy
===========================================
Continuous and repeated measurements are well known concepts. For example, they are treated extensively in [@jacobs2006; @mdsbook2001]. Sequential weak measurements of several observables are also discussed in [@popescuseq2007]. The following schema defines for us repeated weak measurements of the same observable on a single copy: (i) perform a weak measurement of system observable S in state $|\psi\rangle_S$ with the apparatus in the state of eqn.(\[eq:iniapp\]) with *very large* $\Delta_p$, ii) let the definitive outcome, defined as above, be $p_1$, and the single system state be $|\psi(p_1,\{\alpha\})\rangle_S$, iii) restore the apparatus to its initial state, and, iv) repeat step (i), and so on. After N such steps, let the sequence of outcomes be denoted by $p_1,p_2\ldots,p_N$ and the resulting system state by $|\psi(\{p\},\{\alpha\})\rangle_S$.
The probability distribution for the first outcome $p_1$,$P^{(1)}(p_1)$ is simply given by $|N^{(1)}(p_1,\{\alpha\})|^2=|N(p_1,\{\alpha\})|^2$ with $N(p,\{\alpha\})$ given by eqn.(\[eq:Nweakpost\]). The corresponding system state is given by $|\psi(p_1,\{\alpha\})\rangle_S$ of eqn.(\[eq:psiweakpost\]). Thus the set of $\alpha$ for this state is given by $$\alpha_i^{(1)} = \frac{N}{N(p_1,\{\alpha\})}\,e^{-\frac{(p_1-s_i)^2}{2\Delta_p^2}}\,\alpha_i
\label{eq:psiweakfirst}$$ Since in step (iii) the apparatus state has been restored, the probability distribution $P^{(2)}(p_2)$ for the outcome $p_2$ at the end of the second weak measurement, is given by $$P^{(2)}(p_2) =
|N^{(2)}(p_2,\{\alpha\})|^2=|N^{(1)}(p_2,\{\alpha^{(1)}\})|^2$$ Substituting from eqn.(\[eq:psiweakfirst\]), one gets $$P^{(2)}(p_2) = \frac{(N^2)^2}{P^{(1)}(p_1)}\,\sum_i\,|\alpha_i|^2\prod\limits_{j=1}^2e^{-\frac{(p_j-s_i)^2}{\Delta_p^2}}
\label{eq:weakprob2}$$ It is important to recognize that $P^{(2)}(p_2)$ is actually the *conditional probability* $P(p_2|p_1)$ of obtaining $p_2$ conditional to having already obtained $p_1$ (that is the reason for the explicit dependence on $p_1$ in eqn.(\[eq:weakprob2\])). The *joint probability* distribution $P(p_1,p_2)$ is therefore given by $P(p_2,p_1) = P(p_2|p_1)P(p_1)$ to give $$P(p_1,p_2) = (N^2)^2\,\sum_i|\alpha_i|^2\,\prod\limits_{j=1}^2\,e^{-\frac{(p_j-s_i)^2}{\Delta^2}}
\label{eq:probweak2}$$ The state after the second measurement is given by the exact analog of eqn.(\[eq:psiweakfirst\]): $$\alpha_i^{(2)} = \frac{N}{N^{(2)}(p_2,\{\alpha^{(1)}\})}\,e^{-\frac{(p_2-s_i)^2}{2\Delta_p^2}}\,\alpha_i^{(1)}
\label{eq:psiweaksec}$$ It is useful to explicitly write this state: $$|\psi(p_1,p_2,\{\alpha\}) = \frac{\sum\limits_i\,\prod\limits_{j=1}^2\,e^{-\frac{(p_j-s_i)^2
}{2\Delta_p^2}}\,\alpha_i|s_i\rangle_S}{\sqrt{\sum\limits_i\,|\alpha_i|^2\prod\limits_{j=1}^2 e^{-\frac{(p_j-s_i)^2}{\Delta_p^2}}}}
\label{eq:psiweak2}$$ It is remarkable that these results are all symmetric in the outcomes $p_i$. Eqns.(\[eq:probweak2\],\[eq:psiweaksec\]) readily generalize to the case of M repeated measurements: $$P(p_1,\ldots,p_M) = (N^2)^M\,\sum_i|\alpha_i|^2\,\prod\limits_{j=1}^M\,e^{-\frac{(p_j-s_i)^2}{\Delta^2}}
\label{eq:probweakN}$$ $$|\psi(p_1,\ldots,p_M,\{\alpha\}) = \frac{\sum\limits_i\,\prod\limits_{j=1}^M\,e^{-\frac{(p_j-s_i)^2
}{2\Delta_p^2}}\,\alpha_i|s_i\rangle_S}{\sqrt{\sum\limits_i\,|\alpha_i|^2\prod\limits_{j=1}^M e^{-\frac{(p_j-s_i)^2}{\Delta_p^2}}}}
\label{eq:psiweakN}$$ Quite a different approach is taken, for example, by Gurvitz [@gurvitz1997], and by Korotkov [@korotkovprb60; @korotkovprb63] from the formalism used here. It is important to understand the precise relationship between these. The schema used here has been experimentally realized in [@katz2006; @vijay2012].
Consequences
------------
The *intrinsic randomness* of quantum theory makes no aspect of a *particular realization* predictable. For ensemble measurements the variables are *independently* distributed and the *Central Limit Theorem* guarantees that as long as the number of trials is large enough, averages over even particular realizations converge nicely to the true mean. To see what happens in the present context, where the outcomes are clearly not independently distributed, let us study $y_M$, the average of the M outcomes. The expectation value of $y_M$ in the joint probability distribution $P(p_1,\ldots,p_M)$ is $${\bar y}_M = \frac{1}{M}\,\int\ldots\int\,\prod\limits_{i=1}^M\,\sum_i\,p_i\,P(\{p\}) = \sum_i\,|\alpha_i|^2\,s_i
\label{eq:weakrepeatmean}$$ Which is certainly a remarkable result. The variance in $y_M$ can likewise be calculated and it equals $\frac{\Delta_p}
{\sqrt{2M}}$. Thus M has to be chosen according to eqn.(\[eq:sizeweakmeas\]). The expectation values and variances are only the *tips of the iceberg* of a distribution. Let us calculate the distribution function P($y_M$). Though the outcomes are not independently generated, it is nevertheless possible to explicitly calculate this: $$P(y_M) = \int\ldots\int\,\prod\limits_{i=1}^Mdp_i\,P(\{p\})\delta(y_M-\frac{\sum\limits_i p_i}{M})
\label{eq:weakclt}$$ Using eqn.(\[eq:probweakN\]), this becomes $$P(y_M) = \sqrt{\frac{M}{\pi\Delta_p^2}}\,\sum\limits_i|\alpha_i|^2\,e^{-\frac{(y_M-s_i)^2M}{\Delta_p^2}}
\rightarrow \sum\limits_i\,|\alpha_i|^2\,\delta(y_M-s_i)
\label{eq:weakclt2}$$ where we have also displayed the limiting behaviour as $M\rightarrow\infty$.
Thus, unlike in the case of ensemble measurements(both strong and weak), the distribution of $y_M$ is no longer peaked at the true average, with errors decreasing as $M^{-1/2}$. Instead, it is a weighted sum of sharp distributions peaked around *the eigenvalues*, exactly as in the strong measurement case. In other words, averages over outcomes of a particular outcome will be eigenvalues, occurring randomly but with probability $|\alpha_i|^2$. It then follows that averages over outcomes of a particular realization do not give any information about the initial state! Ensemble measurements again become inevitable. The other consequence is that a very large number of repeated weak measurements on a single copy has the same invasive effect as a strong measurement. This can also be seen by examining the expectation value of the system reduced density matrix, $\rho_>^{rep}$: $$\rho_>^{rep} = \rho -\sum\limits_{i,j}\,\alpha_i\alpha_j^*\,(1-e^{-\frac{M(s_i-s_j)^2}{4\Delta_p^2}})|s_i\rangle\langle s_j|
\label{eq:weakreprho}$$ It is seen that as M gets larger and larger, there is significant change in the system state. In the limit $M\rightarrow \infty$, the off-diagonal parts of the density matrix get completely quenched, as in decoherence, and the density matrix takes the diagonal form in the eigenstate of S basis: $$\rho_>^{rep}\rightarrow \sum\limits_i\,|\alpha_i|^2|s_i\rangle\langle s_i|
\label{eq:weakrholimit}$$ Remarkably, this is exactly the post-measurement density matrix in the case of a strong measurement! This decoherence in eigenstate basis of the system has nothing to do with the environmental decoherence in the pointer state basis of the apparatus. It is a pure manifestation of the repeated measurements. Such an effect was also noted and discussed in [@gurvitz1997].
It is useful to view these results from the perspectives of error and disturbance. If we take ${\cal D} = 1-tr \rho\cdot\rho_>^{rep}$ as a measure of the disturbance, equivalently the invasiveness, we can quantify the disturbance in a precise way as a function of the *error* $\epsilon = \frac{\Delta_p}{\sqrt{2M}}$: $${\cal D}(\epsilon) = \sum\limits_{i,j}\,|\alpha_i|^2|\alpha_j|^2\,(1-e^{-\frac{(s_i-s_j)^2}{8\epsilon^2}})\rightarrow\sum\limits_i\,|\alpha_i|^2(1-|\alpha_i|^2)
\label{eq:weakerrdist}$$ Thus, attempts at reducing errors can only be at the cost of greater invasiveness. This error-disturbance relation is of a very different nature from those pioneered by Ozawa [@ozawa2014].
The sequence of system states of eqn.(\[eq:psiweakN\]) is a *random walk* on the state space of the system(see also [@korotkovprb60]). It follows from eqn.(\[eq:psiweakpost\]) that the eigenstates of S are the *fixed points* of the probabilistic map that generates this walk. Presumably each walk terminates in one of the eigenstates but which eigenstate it terminates in is unpredictable. The surprising value for the mean in eqn.(\[eq:weakrepeatmean\]) is the result of further ’super-averaging’ over a large ensemble of $y_M$. [*Note added*]{}: Alter and Yamomoto have obtained a number of very significant results on obtaining information about single quantum systems [@alterbook; @alterzeno; @alterqnd]. Based on an analysis of joint and conditional probabilities for *repeated weak QND* measurements [@alterqnd], as well as from connections with *Quantum Zeno Effect* [@alterzeno] they had also concluded that it is not possible to obtain any information on unknown single states from the statistics of repeated measurements. The degradation of the state and relation to projective measurements were not explicitly studied by them. Paraoanu has investigated the so called *partial measurements* [@sorinpartial; @sorinrepeat]. Using a combination of repeated measurements and the possibility of reversing such measurements, he too has concluded the impossibility of obtaining any information about single unknown states.
[0]{} Y.Aharonov,D.Z.Albert,L.Vaidman,Phys.Rev.Lett. 60 1351–1354(1988) Y. Aharonov, L. Vaidman, Phys.Rev. A 41 11–20(1990) O. Alter and Y. Yamomoto, [*Quantum measurement of a single system*]{}, Wiley-Interscience, 2001. M. Ozawa, arXiv:1402.5601\[quant-ph\] Howard M. Wisemann and Gerald. J. Milburn, [*Quantum Measurement and Control*]{}, Cambridge University A.G. Kofman, S. Ashab and F. Nori, Physics Reports 520 43-133(2012) Debmalya Das and Arvind, arXiv:1402.0447\[quant-ph\] A.J. Leggett and Anupam Garg, Phys.Rev.Lett 54 857-860(1985) Phys.Rev.Lett. 109, 100404 (2012) D. Gangopadhyay, D. Home and A. Sinha Roy, Phys.Rev. A 88 022115(2013) K. Jacobs and D.A. Steck, Contemporary Physics 47 279-303(2006) M.D. Srinivas, [*Measurements and Quantum Probabilities*]{}, Universities Press, Hyderabad, India, 2001. Press, 2010. G. Mitchison, R. Josza and S. Popescu, Phys.Rev. A 76 062105 (2007) S.A. Gurvitz, Phys.Rev. B 56 15215-15223(1997) A.N. Korotkov, Phys.Rev. B 63 115403(2001) A.N. Korotkov, Phys.Rev. B 60 5737(1999) N. Katz et al, Science 312 1498(2006) R. Vijay et al, Nature 490 77(2012) O. Alter and Y. Yamamoto, Phys.Rev. A 55(4) R2499(1997). O. Alter and Y. Yamomoto, Phys.Rev. Lett. 74 4106(1995). G.S. Paraoanu, Found. Phys. 41:1214(2011) G.S. Paraoanu, Phys.Rev. A83 044101(2011)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Constructing of molecular structural models from Cryo-Electron Microscopy (Cryo-EM) density volumes is the critical last step of structure determination by Cryo-EM technologies. Methods have evolved from manual construction by structural biologists to perform 6D translation-rotation searching, which is extremely compute-intensive. In this paper, we propose a learning-based method and formulate this problem as a vision-inspired 3D detection and pose estimation task. We develop a deep learning framework for amino acid determination in a 3D Cryo-EM density volume. We also design a sequence-guided Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) to thread over the candidate amino acids to form the molecular structure. This framework achieves 91% coverage on our newly proposed dataset and takes only a few minutes for a typical structure with a thousand amino acids. Our method is hundreds of times faster and several times more accurate than existing automated solutions without any human intervention.'
author:
- |
Kui Xu$^1$, Zhe Wang$^2$, Jianping Shi$^2$, Hongsheng Li$^3$, Qiangfeng Cliff Zhang$^1$\
$^1$Tsinghua University $^2$SenseTime Research $^3$The Chinese University of Hong Kong\
[email protected], {wangzhe, shijianping}@sensetime.com, [email protected], [email protected]
bibliography:
- 'aaai19-xk.bib'
title: '$A^2$-Net: Molecular Structure Estimation from Cryo-EM Density Volumes'
---
Introduction
============
Resolving the 3D atomic structures of macro molecules is of fundamental importance to biological and medical research. Single particle Cryo-EM has emerged as a revolutionary technique that images biomolecules frozen in their native (or native-like) states. With Cryo-EM, 2D projection images are firstly collected and then reconstructed into a volumetric data, *i.e.*, density volume, by software tools such as Relion [@cryoem-relion] and cryoSparc [@cryoem-cryospac-nmeth; @cryoem-cryospac-tpami; @cryoem-cryospac-cvpr]. Next, a molecular model that represents the atomic coordinates of each amino acid, the building blocks of protein molecules, is constructed and fitted into the 3D density volume (Fig. \[fig:overview\]).
![The overview of resolving 3D atomic structures. []{data-label="fig:overview"}](1_0_overview_small.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
Despite the steady progresses towards automatic Cryo-EM structure determination, molecular model building remains a bottleneck. This step is difficult to automate since it relies substantially on human expertise. Structural biology experts are needed to manually assign specific amino acids to a density volume, with the help of 3D visualization tools, such as Chimera [@cryoem-chimera] and Coot [@cryoem-coot]. These manual operations are also time-consuming and inevitably error-prone. Attempts to automate this process include Rosetta [@rosetta-denovo] (we named as Rosetta-denovo), RosettaES [@cryoem-rosettaes], Phinex [@cryoem-phenix] and EMAN2 [@cryoem-eman2]. However, their accuracy and coverage remain quite limited, often take hundreds of hours and frequently require human intervention.
We approached this task from a novel perspective, inspired by the great success of deep learning applications in image recognition [@krizhevsky2012imagenet], we choose to approach this task from a totally novel perspective. The molecular structure determination problem, in our view, can be considered as three sub-problems: 1) *amino acid detection* in the density volumes, 2) *atomic coordinates assignment* to determine the atomic coordinates of each amino acid and, 3) *main chain threading* to resolve the sequential order of amino acids that form each protein chain.
Leveraging the power of deep Convolutional Neural Network [@srivastava2015training], we reformulated the problem and developed a novel framework for amino acid detection that learns the distribution of conformational densities of individual amino acids. Moreover, we designed a sequence-guided neighbor loss in training step to encode prior knowledge of protein sequences into amino acid detection. We also propose an MCTS algorithm to search and thread over the amino acids to form the full molecular structure. Our approach to molecular structure determination does not require human intervention and, when tested on a newly proposed large-scale dataset, it runs hundreds of times faster, and more accurately than existing methods. Finally, to the best of our knowledge, there remains no publicly available large-scale labeled dataset for the research of molecular structure determination from Cryo-EM density volumes. The dataset we collected and used in this study, named as the $A^2$ dataset, includes 250K amino acid objects in 1,713 protein chains from 218 structures. It constitutes a useful resource for evaluating molecular structure determination methods.
To summarize, our contributions are four fold:
- This is the first attempt to formulate molecular structure determination from Cryo-EM density volumes with a deep learning approach.
- We adapt a novel 3D network architecture for amino acid detection and internal atom coordinate estimation in density volumes, and proposed an APRoI layer and neighbor loss for better performance.
- We design a sequence-guided MCTS algorithm for fast and accurate main chain threading.
- We will release a large scale, richly annotated dataset of protein density volumes, to facilitate research in this area.
Related Work
============
### Molecular Structure Determination
Structure determination of Cryo-EM maps is the process of generating a structure model with 3D coordinates for each atom in the macromolecule (e.g., proteins) that fits the map (Figure 1). The main approaches for molecular structure determination are $de$ $novo$ building and homology modeling, which its homologous structures in the Protein Database. In this work, we focus on the de novo approaches, where there are no previously solved structures of homologous proteins.
All recent molecular structure determination pipelines still rely on interactive tools with heavy hand labor. In principle, most available approaches, of which Rosetta-denovo is a typical example, use template matching and Monte Carlo sampling based on a library with millions of fragments from solved protein structures as templates for structural modeling. Briefly the target protein is divided into short fragments and structures of similar sequences in the library are identified for every fragment. And then candidate structure fragments are assembled by Monte Carlo simulated annealing to optimize a fitting score. Alternatively, RosettaES then uses a greedy conformational sampling algorithm to assemble the main chain of protein maximally consistent with sequence and density volume. The accuracy and coverage of these methods are often not satisfactory, due to limitations of the hand-crafted scoring functions and the sheer number of template structures.
### Object Detection
Approaches for object detection including Faster R-CNN, Cascade R-CNN, SNIPER, FishNet [@ren2015faster; @cai18cascadercnn; @sniper2018; @fishnet] have improved drastically in terms of performance and efficiency. These methods follow a similar framework in which the objects are extracted from a Region of Interest (RoI) and pooled to the same size before predicting their categories and coordinates. RoI pooling, RoI Warping and RoIAlign [@girshick2014rich; @dai2016instance; @mask-rcnn] are popular techniques for RoI extraction, all of which break the original aspect ratio of the objects to account for their variations in natural images filmed with different angles and distances. However, in some scenarios like in our work, aspect ratios of different types of amino acids should be preserved. To tackle this problem, we proposed an Aspect-Ratio Preserved RoI (APRoI) layer to capture the aspect ratio in amino acids.
3D object detection plays a key role in a variety of real-world applications, such as autonomous driving [@gomez2016pl], augmented/virtual reality and identification of disease diagnosis. MV3D [@cvpr17chen] focuses on very sparse data (LiDAR point cloud) and projects 3D data into 2D multi-view images. It is less effective in the amino acid detection task where difficulties may come from dense objects and the ambiguity in overlapping regions. VoxelNet [@zhou2017voxelnet] groups very sparse points for encoding voxel features to model point interactions. Frustum-PointNet [@qi2017frustum] extracts points within the frustum from 2D box to form a frustum point cloud, which may generate too much noise, especially in a dense object detection task. In this work, we designed a pure 3D detector.
### 3D Pose Estimation
Given well labeled 3D joint locations, 3D pose estimation aims to determine the precise joint locations in 3D space. For instance, 3D human pose estimation attempts to regress 16 key points in the human body based on 3D joint locations of a human skeleton from 2D images [@pose_Zhou_2017_ICCV; @pose_martinez_2017_3dbaseline]. However, the existing 3D pose estimation are based on 2D images. In this work, we introduce a pure 3D pose estimation module to produce atomic coordinates in volumetric data.
Inspired by these breakthroughs, we designed a multi-task 3D neural network that first detects amino acids and then estimates the atom positions. We also took advantage of the sequence information and introduced a sequence-guided neighbor loss to train the network, which has not been explored before. In addition, we added a postprocessing with superior tree searching algorithm – MCTS for main chain threading. We believe that this is the first attempt using MCTS to trace the boxes of amino acids guided by sequence.
Problem Definition
==================
Given a 3D Cryo-EM density volume and its protein sequence as inputs, our goal is to detect all the amino acids, estimate their pose and thread them into a protein chain in the 3D space. The density volume, obtained from 3D reconstruction of 2D microscope images, is represented as 3D matrices with continuous density value in each voxel. The sequential orders of amino acids, but not their locations, are known. Each amino acid can be represented by a class $C$ (20 types of standard amino acid), a 3D box and $N^C$ central locations of atoms in the amino acid. Each 3D box is parameterized by two coordinates: the front left top corner and the back right bottom corner. $N^C$ (4$\sim$14) is the number of the atoms in the amino acid, and it varies in different types.
$A^2$ Dataset
=============
As a benchmark for molecular structure determination, we built a large-scale Amino Acid ($A^2$) dataset of Cryo-EM density volumes. It contains 250,000 amino acids in 1713 simulated (by Chimera in 3 Å) electron density volumes and is annotated with rich information of amino acids. The amino acids are labeled with 3D boxes of 20 categories as well as the atomic coordinates. The amino acids in the dataset are dense, small objects that overlap each other, which makes the amino acid detection a very challenging task. To the best of our knowledge, the $A^2$ dataset is the first large-scale benchmark for learning automatic molecular structure determination.
3D Density Volume Annotation
----------------------------
The molecular structures and the corresponding density volumes in the $A^2$ dataset were collected from the RCSB Protein DataBase (PDB) and The Electron Microscopy Data Bank (EMDB). Firstly, we selected the volumes with resolution below 5 angstroms (Å). The PDB and EMDB databases contain some inconsistencies where some volumes do not match the ground-truth structure. We manually removed these problematic volumes. As a quality control step, we collected only the chains without any missing atom or amino acid. Ultimately, the $A^2$ dataset contained 250,000 amino acids in 1713 chains are kept to construct the $A^2$ dataset. Following random selection, we obtained a split of 1250 training and 463 validation chains.
Dataset Statistics
------------------
There are 20 categories of common amino acids and 367,929 pairs of overlapping amino acids in the dataset, which means the dataset is highly dense and challenging for detection. As shown in Fig. \[fig:dense\], the dataset has much denser 3D objects than the KITTI dataset [@Geiger2012CVPR].
![The significant object density difference between the proposed dataset and KITTI LiDAR detection dataset.[]{data-label="fig:dense"}](1_1_aa_kitti5_small.pdf){width="0.95\linewidth"}
Method {#sec:blind}
======
The framework of $A^2$-Net consists of two stages. Stage one represents the deep neural network for amino acid detection in 3D space and pose estimation, which determines the 3D coordinates of atoms in each amino acid. Stage two uses a Monte Carlo Tree Search strategy with tree pruning, based on the candidate amino acid proposals obtained in stage one to construct the main chains of amino acids, i.e., proteins.
{width="\linewidth"}
3D Amino Acid Detection {#sec:net}
-----------------------
As shown in Fig. \[fig:pipeline\], when given a density volume, our $A^2$-Net first obtains 3D feature volumes and generates 3D box proposals with the region proposal network (RPN) [@ren2015faster]. The 3D RPN consists of three 3D convolutional layers to generate proposals of amino acid locations. We used 3D anchors at each 3D location to cover the region of amino acids with various scales and aspect ratios. Next, one branch of RPN classified whether the anchors are valid amino acid proposals and the other branch estimates their coordinates. With the amino acid proposals, we used a newly designed Aspect-ratio Preserved RoI (*APRoI*) layer to extract the RoI in the input volume into a fixed cubic. Then the cubic went through several 3D convolutional layers to finally predict its amino acid category and coordinates.
### Aspect-ratio Preserved RoI Layer
In natural images, objects generally have completely different aspect ratios and conventional RoI pooling resizes the regions and abandons the original aspect ratio of the object. It can be seen as aspect-ratio augmentation, which is usually beneficial for the generalization ability of the deep model. However, aspect ratios of different amino acids should be maintained as they actually reflect different categories. We thus proposed an APRoI layer, which first crops the input at the RoI location, and then pads it with zero to a defined size of $W_T \times H_T \times L_T$. Despite its simplicity, the APRoI layer preserved the aspect ratio of the objects and proved to be vital for our amino acid classification.
The back-propagation passes derivatives through the APRoI layer. Let $x_{ijk} \in \mathbb{R}^3$ be the input of the APRoI layer, and $y_{rijk}$ be the layer’s output at voxel index $i,j,k$ from the $r$-th RoI. The APRoI layers back-propagate partial derivative of the loss with respect to each input $x_{ijk}$ as Eqn \[eqn:aproi2\]: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
& \frac{\partial L}{\partial x_{ijk}} = \sum_r [i_s\le i < i_e, j_s\le j < j_e, k_s\le k < k_e]\frac{\partial L}{\partial y_{rijk}} ,\\
&i_s =max \lbrace {0, \lfloor\frac{W_T-W_r}{2} \rfloor} \rbrace, i_e =i_s + min \lbrace \lceil W_r\rceil, W_T \rbrace ,\\
&j_s =max \lbrace {0, \lfloor\frac{H_T-H_r}{2} \rfloor} \rbrace, j_e =j_s + min \lbrace \lceil H_r\rceil, H_T \rbrace,\\
&k_s =max \lbrace {0, \lfloor\frac{L_T-L_r}{2} \rfloor} \rbrace, k_e =k_s + min \lbrace \lceil L_r\rceil, L_T \rbrace,
\end{split}\label{eqn:aproi2}\end{aligned}$$ where $W_r, H_r,L_r$ are the size of the $r$-th RoI. $\partial L / \partial y_{rijk}$ denotes the partial derivative computed by the layer on top of the APRoI layer. Intuitively, only the previously valid locations will receive the gradients for back propagation, while the locations with padded zeros are simply ignored.
### Loss for amino acid detection
To predict the 3D box size, we follow previous work [@qi2017frustum] and use a mixture of both regression and classification formulations instead of directly regressing the 3D box size. Firstly, we specifically pre-define 20 template size with ($w^c, h^c, l^c$). Our model classifies each input into one type and then regresses the residual of the box sizes of the type with highest probability. While for box center regression, we parametrize a 3D ground truth box as $(x^g, y^g, z^g, w^g, h^g, l^g)$, where $(x^g, y^g, z^g)$ represents the coordinates of the front left top corner of the box and $(w^g, h^g, l^g)$ represents width, height and length. We define the residual vector as $\textbf{u} \in \mathbb{R}^3$, which contains the 3 regression targets corresponding to center location $\Delta x, \Delta y$ and $\Delta z$, and define the residual vector as $\textbf{v} \in \mathbb{R}^3$ containing 3 dimensions ($\Delta w, \Delta h$, $\Delta l$). The residuals are computed as: $\Delta x = (x^g - x^a)/w_a, \Delta y = (y^g - y^a)/h_a$, $\Delta z =(z^g - z^a)/l_a, \Delta w = \log ((w^g-w^c)/w_a)$, $\Delta h = \log ((h^g-h^c)/h_a), \Delta l =\log ((l^g-l^c)/l_a)$.
The proposed loss function is defined as: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
Loss &= \frac{1}{N_{cls}} \sum_i^{N_{cls}} L_{neighbor}(p_i, p_i^*) +\\
\beta \frac{1}{N_{reg}} \sum_j^{N_{reg}} &p_j^* (L_{c-reg}(\textbf{u}_j, \textbf{u}_j^*)+ L_{s-reg}(\textbf{v}_j, \textbf{v}_j^*)),
\end{split}
\label{eqn:2}\end{aligned}$$ where $p_i, p_i^*$ are respectively the predicted probability of anchor $i$ and its label, $u_j, u_j^*$ are the box center regression output and ground truth for anchor $j$, $v_j, v_j^*$ are the box size residual regression output and ground truth. $L_{neighbor}$ is the classification loss reweighted by the guiding sequence, which will be introduced in the next section. $L_{c-reg}$, $L_{s-reg}$ are the center coordinates and residual box size regression loss (smooth $L_1$ loss), respectively. The two terms are normalized by $N_{cls}$ and $N_{res}$. $\beta$ is the balancing parameter.
### Neighbor Loss {#sec:neighborloss}
Since the sequential orders of the amino acids is provided in this task, the geometric constraints (distance, the overlapping region and sequential order) between amino acids should be integrated to regularize the detection results, as shown in [@gao2018question]. In most cases, the distance between an amino acid and one of its two neighbors, should be smaller than the distance between its two neighbors. To take advantage of this information, we introduced a novel neighbor loss. For each proposal, we checked both criteria: 1) it is a positive anchor, and 2) its distance to either neighbor of the associated ground truth, is smaller than the distance between the two neighbors. The qualified anchor will be assigned a higher weight as they are “better” samples in the view of the sequence. The additional weight $(1-p_i)^\lambda$ follows the spirit of focal loss [@lin2017focal], which down-weights the sample well classified by the model. We define the neighbor loss as: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
L_{neighbor}(p_i) = - ((1-p_i)^\lambda m_i + 1) log(p_i),
\end{split} \end{aligned}$$ where $m_i\in \{0,1\}$, and $m_i=1$ when object $i$ is one of the mined positive neighbor objects.
3D Amino Acid Pose Estimation
-----------------------------
After we obtained the proposal for an amino acid, we further estimated its pose by locating its forming atoms in 3D space. The Stacked hourglass Network [@pose_hg] is widely used to handle the human pose estimation task. In this work, a 3D stacked hourglass network, named as poseNet, is proposed to regress 3D coordinates of each atom in amino acids. The network stacks multiple ($H$) hourglass structures sequentially. Each hourglass has $R_b$ residual blocks and provides feature volumes with different semantic resolutions. Importantly, auxiliary losses were applied to the intermediate feature volumes for learning robust features.
For an amino acid with $N$ atoms, poseNet produces $H$ estimated heatmaps with $N$ channels. The Mean Squared Error loss is adopted: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
L_{pose} = \sum_{h}^{H} \sum_{n}^{N} \parallel y_h^*(n) - y_h(n) \parallel_{2}^{2},
\end{split} \end{aligned}$$ where $y_h^*$ denotes the predicted heatmap by the $h$-th stack, $n$ denotes the $n$-th atom, and $y_h$ is the ground-truth heatmap with the $N \times 8 $ locations labeled as 1. For each atom, the $2^3$ neighborhood locations are labeled as 1.
Monte Carlo Tree Search for Threading {#sec:threading}
-------------------------------------
### Main Chain Threading Problem
Given the predicted amino acid proposals and the ground truth sequential order, our next task is to select the same number of proposals as in the sequence and thread them over to form the complete protein chain. With $N_B$ predicted proposal set $B$ from the $A^2$-Net, and a sequence $S^*$ of length $T$ ($N_B > T$), our next task is to select $T$ boxes in sequence to form the complete protein chain. The categories and sequential orders of $S$ are given by $S^*$, and the proposals are selected from $B$. Each proposal is $S_t = (x_t, y_t, z_t, w_t, h_t, l_t, P_t)$, $P_t$ is the probability of different categories predicted by $A^2$-Net.
### Monte Carlo Tree Search
MCTS is a tree search algorithm in which a node is evaluated by performing random actions from the decision space until an outcome can be determined [@alphago; @ReinforceWalk]. Searching by MCTS is done by iteratively building a search tree where the nodes denotes different states, and the edges are the actions leading to one state from another. A node is recursively added to the tree during each iteration. Based on the reward of the new node, the reward values of all parent nodes are updated. A single iteration of the MCTS building process consists of four steps: 1) selection: a node to be expanded is selected; 2) expansion: the node is expanded by simulating the associated action; 3) simulation: the tracing is simulated following a random path until the terminal amino acid is reached; 4) back propagation: the result propagates back through the tree.
### Building KNN-Graph
Directly performing the MCTS algorithm to all the proposals may be time consuming, so we first built a graph based on $K$ nearest neighbors, where each node denotes a proposal and an edge connects two nodes if they are among the $K$ nearest neighbors, thus called KNN graph. Next, we determined the root node of the tree by finding $L$ proposals in $B$ which match the first $L$ amino acids in the sequence. Finally, we obtained several candidate fragments as the starting points. For each starting point, we ran the MCTS algorithm to obtain the optimal path. The optimal path was obtained by a control policy $\pi$ to maximize the total reward $R$, which is the sum of all the values $V_t$ in every following step $t$. The reward function $R$ thus is written as:
$$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
R &= \sum_{t=1}^{T} V_t, \\
V_t = t * ( P_{detection}(&S_t) + P_{compatible}(S_t, S_{t+1}) ),
\end{split}\label{eqn:reward}\end{aligned}$$
where $V_t$ is the sum of the detection score $P_{detection}$ and the compatible score $P_{compatibility}$ at action $t$, and weighted by the time $t$ which encourages the searching path to be long. $P_{detection}$ and $P_{compatibility}$ ensure that the selected boxes are reliable and compatible. $P_{detection}(t)$ is the detection probability of $S_t$, and $P_{compatibility} = dist(S_t, S_{t+1})$, where $dist(\cdot)$ is the IoU between two boxes. An optimal policy $\pi$ outputs an optimal action sequence, which is defined as a path with maximum reward from the root to a leaf. We seek a path that maximizes the reward function in Eqn. (\[eqn:reward\]).
After the root was created, Monte Carlo simulations selected actions and followed the sequence $S$ to create a new node. After a number of simulations, the tree was well populated, and the optimal path was selected. Each depth of the tree is the time step, with root at $t=1$ and leaves at $t = T$.
{height="7cm"}
### Next Action
At time $t+1$, we need to select a proposal $S_{t+1}$ close enough to $S_t$ while keeping the category same as $S_{t+1}^*$. Since there may be a few proposals for selection, we may face an exploration-exploitation dilemma, where the algorithm may fall into a local optimum. To balance this dilemma, we follow [@AIIDE1614003] to use the $Upper$ $Confidence$ $Bound$ $for$ $Trees$ (UCT) [@mcts] method to optimize the action selection.
The UCT method is designed for better action selection strategy. At step $t$, the next action $a_{t+1}$ is: $$\begin{aligned}
a_{t+1} & = \arg \max_{a} ( \frac{V_a}{n_a} + C \sqrt{\frac{2 \ln N_a}{n_a}}),\end{aligned}$$ where $V_{a}$ is the reward at action $a$. $N_a$ is the number of simulations that the node has been visited, and $n_a$ is the number of simulations that the node has been followed.
### Tree Pruning by Peptide Bond Recognition Network
Since protein structure is highly twisted, a pair of amino acids that are close to each other in 3D space might be far apart in primary in the sequence. Experienced biologists distinguish whether two amino acids are connected or not, by examining whether there is a peptide bond between them. We also designed a Peptide Bond Recognition Network (PBNet) to predict whether there is a peptide bond between two proposals. With PBNet, we can efficiently remove 50% edges in the KNN graph on average, which largely improves the search speed. PBNet has only three convolutional layers with batch normalization and max pooling, followed by three fully connected layers. The network is trained by $softmax$ loss.
Experiments
===========
Implementation Details
----------------------
Our network architecture can be divided into three parts: localization network (locNet), recognition network (recNet) and pose estimation network (poseNet). In locNet, the backbone network is a fully convolutional network with 12 3D convolutional layers including 4 residual blocks. Since amino acids have a very small volume, we only have one max pooling layer. We followed previous work [@ren2015faster] to design an anchor mechanism to cover various scales and aspect ratios of amino acids. We use 7 aspect ratios and 3 scales, yielding $k=21$ anchors at each position on the last $conv$ feature maps of the backbone network. We applied a $3\times 3\times 3$ convolutional layer to the $conv$ feature volumes, followed by two sibling $1\times 1\times 1$ convolution layers for classification and bounding box regression, respectively. Each anchor was assigned a binary label depending on whether it has an Intercession-over-Union (IoU) with a ground truth amino acid larger than a threshold 0.8. The recNet also has 4 residual blocks, and three fully connected layers while the poseNet has 4-stacked hourglass. All the convolutional layers adopt the $3\times 3\times 3$ kernel size. The $A^2$-Net was trained in three stages. We first trained the locNet and poseNet individually for 100 epochs, and then fixed them while training the recNet for 400 epochs. Finally, we jointly optimize the whole $A^2$-Net with sequence-guided neighbor loss for another 400 epochs. We used Adam [@KingmaB14Adam] optimizer to train the model, starting by a learning rate of 0.0001, a momentum of 0.9 and a weight decay of 0.0001. We fine-tune our models with BatchNorm. We found that BatchNorm may reduce over-fitting. For each density volume, we randomly cropped a $64\times 64\times 64$ cube and send it into the network. Limited by the GPU memory, we set the batch size to be 1.
Results on the $A^2$ dataset
----------------------------
### Amino Acid Detection
We first evaluated the effectiveness of APRoI layer and sequence-guided neighbor loss training. We adopted the commonly used mean Average Precision (mAP) for evaluation of detection. The quantitative amino acid detection results are reported in Table. \[table:det\].
-------------------------------- ----------- ----------
Methods mAP Coverage
MV3D(BV+FV) 0.118 0.15
Frustum-Pointnet-v1 0.407 0.45
Frustum-Pointnet-v2 0.425 0.48
3D-VGG+RoIpool8 0.360 0.32
3D-VGG+RoIpool8(w/o maxpool) 0.423 0.41
3D-ResNet+RoIpool8 0.416 0.44
3D-ResNet+RoIpool8(Raw volume) 0.610 0.55
$A^2$-Net (APRoI8) 0.711 0.67
$A^2$-Net w/o Neighbor Loss 0.865 0.72
$A^2$-Net **0.891** **0.91**
-------------------------------- ----------- ----------
: The results of detection and threading comparing with other 3D object detection methods. []{data-label="table:det"}
--------------- ---------- ---------
Methods Coverage RMSD
DFS$_o$ 0.65 3.5
DFS$_d$ 0.68 3.1
DFS$_d$+PBNet 0.89 2.6
MCTS 0.72 2.9
MCTS+PBNet **0.91** **2.0**
--------------- ---------- ---------
: The results of threading by DFS-based methods and the proposed MCTS+PBNet.[]{data-label="table:threading"}
We first directly applied 3D VGG with RoI pooling for amino acid detection, which only achieves 0.36 mAP, while 3D ResNet-10 [@he2015deep] achieves 0.416 mAP. The last $conv$ feature volumes were used for 3D region proposal. By analyzing the intermediate output, we found that the network seemed to be dominated by the 3D region proposal task, which made the last $conv$ feature volumes to be only sensitive to the existence of the amino acid. There was little category-specific information left in the feature volumes. So we directly performed RoI pooling on the raw input cube and trained the recNet, which achieved 0.610 mAP. This verified our assumption that the category-specific information may be discarded in the feature map of the locNet model.
We then replaced the RoI pooling with APRoI layer, which further improved mAP to 0.711. This indicates the importance of preserving the aspect ratio for detection in this task. We also found that the output size of APRoI layer is important, as mAP improved when we changed the target size from $8^3$ to $16^3$, the mAP has a large improvement. Finally, we used the sequence-guided neighbor loss training strategy and further improved the mAP to 0.891. Fig. \[fig:exp-detection\] shows a qualitative result of detection. Although the gain of mAP from neighbor loss was only marginal, the sequence coverage percentage of the threading result improved substantially.
### Main Chain Threading
We mainly compared the proposed MCTS algorithm with a Depth First Search (DFS) method. DFS$_o$ and DFS$_d$ represent using IoU and distance as the selection criterion, respectively. The proposed MCTS algorithm outperformed the DFS based methods. The PBNet can be applied to both DFS and MCTS algorithms, as it is used to prune the trees by examining the existence of peptide bonds. It can be seen in Table. \[table:threading\] shows that both threading algorithms are largely improved with PBNet. PBNet achieved 89.8% accuracy for peptide bond recognition. In Fig. \[fig:exp-threading\] shows some qualitative results of threading.
Table. \[table:Rosetta-denovo\] demonstrates that Rosetta-denovo is very time-consuming. We ran Rosetta-denovo in a cluster with 200 computational nodes for 2 rounds. The CPU time was calculated by summing up all the tasks. It took Rosetta-denovo hundreds of hours to finish one round of computation, whereas our approach took only a few minutes and outperformed Rosetta-denovo by a huge margin.
![An example of threading results by MCTS+PBNet.[]{data-label="fig:exp-threading"}](1_4_exp-threading_small.pdf){width="0.9\linewidth"}
-------------- ---------- ------------ ---------- -----------
Coverage Time Coverage
Rosetta (R1) 0.20 133 h 0.39 90 h
Rosetta (R2) 0.24 260 h 0.62 261 h
Ours (MCTS) **0.88** **11.3 m** **0.91** **6.8 m**
-------------- ---------- ------------ ---------- -----------
: Threading accuracy and efficiency compared with Rosetta-denovo. R1 and R2 denotes round 1 and 2. []{data-label="table:Rosetta-denovo"}
### Comparison with other 3D Detection Methods
We adapted MV3D and Frustum-PointNet to the amino acid detection task. For MV3D, we cropped and projected the volumes into the bird’s eye view and the front view (FV) and then trained MV3D. For Frustum-PointNet, we selected the voxels with density value is higher than the mean of the volumes as the points set. In the training step, we projected the 3D ground-truth boxes into their FV as the input. In the testing step, we projected the 3D boxes which were predicted by locNet into their FV as the input. Table. \[table:det\] shows that our method outperformed them by a large margin.
### Generic Features for 3D Detection
We pre-trained MV3D and Frustum-PointNet on the $A^2$ dataset, and fine-tuned them on KITTI dataset for 3D car bounding box regression. Table. \[table:improve\_3ddet\] summarizes the 3D car detection performance on the KITTI dataset. The $A^2$ dataset pre-trained model yielded an additional increase in performance, revealing that the $A^2$ dataset can provide generic features for 3D object detection task.
[lcccc]{} Methods &
----------
w/ $A^2$
----------
: The AP of different methods for 3D car detection on KITTI dataset w/ or w/o $A^2$ Dataset. []{data-label="table:improve_3ddet"}
& Easy & Moderate & Hard\
MV3D & & 65.53 &58.97 & 59.14\
MV3D &$\surd$ &**68.56** &**60.35** & **60.99**\
F-pointnet-v1 & & 83.26 & 69.28 & 62.56\
F-pointnet-v1 & $\surd$ &**84.89** & **71.97** & **64.07**\
F-pointnet-v2 & & 83.76 & 70.92 & 63.65\
F-pointnet-v2 & $\surd$ &**85.11** &**72.13** & **64.24**\
Conclusions
===========
In this work, we reformulate the challenging molecular structure determination problem and propose a learning-based framework. The newly designed $A^2$-Net predicts accurate amino acid proposals with our APRoI layer and the neighbor loss training strategy. With the predictions and the sequence, we propose a MCTS algorithm for efficient threading. Using the peptide bond recognition network, tree branches between candidate pairs of proposals without a real peptide bond can be easily removed, which simultaneously improves the searching efficiency and the sequence coverage. Our novel method is hundreds of times faster and more accurate than the previous method, and will play a vital role in molecular structure determination.
Acknowledgments
===============
This project is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grants No. 31671355, 91740204, and 31761163007), the Beijing Advanced Innovation Center for Structural Biology, the Tsinghua-Peking Joint Center for Life Sciences and the National Thousand Young Talents Program. We thank Chuangye Yan, Xingyu Zeng, Yao Xiao and Xinge Zhu for their helpful work and insightful discussions.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We analyse the twist-three amplitudes that can give rise to single-spin asymmetries in hadron-hadron scattering; in so doing we bring to light a novel factorisation property. As already known, the requirement of an imaginary part leads to consideration of twist-three contributions that are also related to transverse spin in deep-inelastic scattering. In particular, when an external line becomes soft in contributions arising from three-parton correlators, the imaginary part of an internal propagator may be exposed. As shown here, it is precisely this kinematical configuration that permits the factorisation. An important feature is the resulting simplification: the calculation of tens of Feynman diagrams normally contributing to such processes is reduced to the evaluation of products of the simple factors derived here and known two-body helicity amplitudes. We thus find clarifying relations between the spin-dependent and spin-averaged cross-sections and formulate a series of selection rules. In addition, the kinematical dependence of such asymmetries, is rendered more transparent.
PACS code: 13.88.+e, 13.60.Le, 12.39.-x
author:
- |
Philip G. Ratcliffe[^1]\
*Dipartimento di Scienze, Università dell’Insubria—sede di Como,*\
*via Lucini 3, 22100 Como, Italia*\
and\
*Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare—sezione di Milano, Italia*
date: revised November 1998
title: |
Factorisation in Higher-Twist\
Single-Spin Amplitudes\
(submitted to the *European Physical Journal* **C**)
---
Introduction: single-spin phenomenology
=======================================
A large body of information has now been gathered in regard of single-spin asymmetries in semi-inclusive hadronic processes [@DataG2], where the striking feature is the magnitude of such effects (up to $\sim$40%). Such phenomena present a theoretical challenge: to find sizeable interfering spin-flip and non-flip amplitudes with relative imaginary phases, a severe difficulty for a gauge theory with near-massless fermions [@KPR]. At the same time, although subject to some early confusion, there is now a clear understanding of the nature and rôle of three-parton twist-three correlators in the transverse-spin dependence of deep-inelastic scattering (DIS) [@Twist3; @ET-1; @PGR-1]. However, the distribution functions associated with such structures will be difficult to study comprehensively [@RLJ], especially if consideration is restricted to DIS. Indeed, although data are steadily becoming available [@DataSSA], further experimental knowledge will be necessary for a complete description of transverse-spin phenomena. Thus, single-spin asymmetries, which are intimately related to the same twist-three amplitudes, may be an invaluable integration of our knowledge in this area.
The experimental aspects of single-spin asymmetries are well documented [@KH]: the main point to stress is that the measured effects do not appear at all suppressed, even for values of $p_T$ where it might be hoped that perturbative QCD (pQCD) should be applicable. On the other hand, it has long been held that they would not be reproducible in pQCD [@KPR], although a satisfactory (but largely incomplete) description of such asymmetries is provided by a number of non-perturbative approaches.
One might question whether or not it even makes sense to apply pQCD to processes that, for the time being, have only been measured at relatively small values of $p_T$. However, recall that Anselmino .[@ABM] have made successful fits to the existing pion data, based on pQCD-inspired models. Moreover, the hyperon data does reach large values of $p_T$, where there is no hint of the polarisation disappearing. If these transverse-spin effects do have a common origin, then one might hope that a perturbative approach should give a *reasonable* description down to some typical hadronic scale. In this respect, although Teryaev [@OVT] has recently shown that twist-four effects must become important at large parton $x$, where twist-three contributions would otherwise induce positivity violation owing to their lower-power dependence on $(1{-}x)$, this is not an argument against the applicability of pQCD. Rather, it underlines the well-known fact that while higher twist is important for $x\to1$, there is an intermediate region where it is negligible even at very low scales. Indeed, just this type of process, being so-to-speak only *slightly* higher twist, may well provide clues to the transition between regions.
The basic hurdle lies then in the need for spin-flip amplitudes with relative imaginary phases; in a suitable helicity basis it can be shown that single transverse-spin effects are related to the imaginary part of the interference between spin-flip and non-flip amplitudes. Normally, in a gauge theory, spin-flip can only be generated via fermion masses, and phases by loop corrections. However, some time ago Efremov and Teryaev noted [@ET-1] that the loop implicit in diagrams containing an extra partonic leg (arising in higher-twist transverse-spin effects) naturally leads to an *unsuppressed* imaginary part with spin flip. To understand this, it is helpful to appreciate that the extra loop (na[ï]{}vely implying higher order in $\alpha_s$) is accompanied by a large logarithm. Thus, the associated distribution function is to be considered at the level of the usual leading-order densities. In other words, at leading-logarithmic level, the usual infinite sum of terms in $(\alpha_s\,\log{Q^2})^n$ is present; however, *just the very first term is missing* [@PGR-2]. In practice, the extra power of $\alpha_s$ inherent to these contributions is effectively absorbed into the hadron-parton correlator.
We note in passing that twist is best considered in terms of the power of $Q^2$ with which a given contribution appears in a hadronic cross-section [@RLJ]: in the single-spin case one expects asymmetries to behave as $$\label{eq:asym}
{\cal A} \; \propto \; \frac{\mu p_T}{\mu^2+p_T^2},$$ where $\mu$ is some typical hadronic mass scale. Again, Teryaev [@OVT] has discussed how the necessary inclusion of twist four leads to the form of the denominator in eq. (\[eq:asym\]). Thus, the usual suppression should be observed asymptotically while a roughly linear dependence is expected for low values of $p_T$. The intriguing implication of Teryaev’s analysis is that the point of maximum asymmetry should indicate the onset of the regime dominated by leading twist. If the hyperon data is typical then this already occurs at around 1GeV for intermediate values of $x$. However, the $p_T$ dependence would suggest that at the point where higher twist is reduced by a factor 10 the asymmetry will still be ${\sim}30\%$ of its maximum value.
Much progress has been made in the direction of interrelating the various aspects of polarisation phenomenology [@ET-1; @QS-1; @KT; @HES; @Drell-Yan; @Pion; @XJ]. In particular, in the case of twist-three contributions, the possibility that one of the hard-scattering propagators may generate an imaginary part in the soft limit has already been exploited as a possible mechanism for the large asymmetries mentioned above. Early work concentrated on prompt-photon production [@ET-1; @QS-1; @KT; @HES]; other processes that have been considered are pion production [@Pion] and Drell-Yan [@Drell-Yan].
Here we present a systematic analysis to demonstrate how the requirement of an imaginary part (and thus a soft internal propagator) greatly simplifies calculations owing to a novel factorisation property of the Feynman amplitudes involved. After some preliminary definitions in the next section and clarification of the spin-flip requirement at the partonic level, section \[sec:factor\] contains the main derivation and results, illustrating how the factorisation arises and the simple selection rules that follow therefrom. In the concluding section we present the resulting formal expression for the spin-dependent partonic cross-sections, together with some discussion.
While the technique presented opens the way to simpler and more rapid calculation, we do not consider it useful to present yet another evaluation of any particular process for two reasons: firstly, a model input for the unknown parton correlators would, in any case, be required and we have nothing new to add there; and, secondly, many calculations have already been published (as cited above) and this technique should not, of course, produce different results.
Preliminaries and definitions {#sec:prelim}
=============================
Some relevant twist-three diagrams are displayed in Fig.\[fig:t3diags\];
such diagrams may contribute to single-spin asymmetries owing to the imaginary parts implicit in the internal lines, according to the standard propagator prescription: $$\frac{1}{k^2\pm{i}\varepsilon}
\; = \;
I\!\!P \frac{1}{k^2} \mp i\pi\delta(k^2),$$ where $I\!\!P$ indicates the principal value. While the imaginary part is never exposed (for kinematical reasons) in the usual two-to-two lowest-order partonic scattering amplitudes, in those containing three-parton correlators it is possible for one internal line to become soft (along a boundary of the three-body phase space). The three boundaries of interest are given by the kinematical limits: $x_i\to0$, where $i=q$, $\bar{q}$ or $g$.
The strong flavour-spin correlation in the measured pion asymmetries prompts initial consideration of the diagrams of the $qqg$ amplitude (fig.\[fig:t3blobs\]a). This will certainly demonstrate the full potential of the approach. However, the triple-gluon correlator (fig.\[fig:t3blobs\]b) may also contribute [@XJ; @HES] and should be taken into account; the technique described here does not depend on the detailed form of the correlators and thus will suffice in this case too. Therefore, we shall concentrate on contributions arising from diagrams of the type shown in fig.\[fig:t3diags\] and, in particular, on those arising when either a gluon or quark line becomes soft [@ET-1; @QS-1]. These may be divided into three classes: gluon insertion into (*i*) initial external lines, (*ii*) final external lines and (*iii*) internal lines. We shall consider these in turn.
The first two classes can, in principle, both provide an imaginary part: the insertion into an on-shell external line leads to an additional internal propagator, which may reach the soft limit. However, the transversity (see later) of the gluon connected to the hadronic amplitudes in question forces a non-zero transverse momentum in the struck line. Thus, the collinearity of the initial lines forces such a contribution to be of even higher twist. On the other hand, the $p_T$ dependence of the final-state parton is just as suggested by the observed phenomena and only final-state external insertions give non-vanishing contributions. The last class leads to an imaginary part only when another external line becomes soft, , when the gluon line carries all the momentum of the polarised hadron ($x_g=\pm1$). These diagrams may also be written in a factorised form, viewing them in terms of soft fermionic insertions; although the final result is more complicated and both initial- and final-state insertions contribute.
There are two $qqg$ hadronic amplitudes (fig.\[fig:t3blobs\]a) for the twist-three contribution [@PGR-1]: $$\label{eq:blobs}
D^A(x_1,x_2) \, \gamma_5 \Slashed{p} s_T^\mu
\qquad \mbox{and} \qquad
D^V(x_1,x_2) \, \Slashed{p}
\frac{i\epsilon^{\mu p\bar{p}s_T}}{p.\bar{p}},$$ where $p$ and $s_T$ are the momentum and (purely transverse) spin vectors of the incoming polarised hadron while $\bar{p}$ belongs to the unpolarised state; typically one takes $p^\mu=E(1,0,0,1)$ and $\bar{p}^\mu=E(1,0,0,-1)$ in the partonic centre-of-mass frame. The parton correlators, $D^{A,V}(x_1,x_2)$, have the following symmetry properties under interchange of their arguments: $$\label{eq:symm}
D^A(x_1,x_2) \; = \; D^A(x_2,x_1)
\qquad \mbox{and} \qquad
D^V(x_1,x_2) \; = \; -D^V(x_2,x_1).$$
It is instructive to rewrite the hadron-parton amplitudes using a suitable helicity basis, in which the calculation simplifies. To do this we shall adopt a common and convenient notation [@MP] and ignore quark-mass contributions: $$u_\pm(p) \; = \; \ket{p\pm}
\qquad \mbox{and} \qquad
\bar u_\pm(p) \; = \; \bra{p\pm}.$$ We may thus write $$\begin{array}{rcl}
\Slashed{p}
& = & \ket{p+}\bra{p+} + \ket{p-}\bra{p-},\\
\gamma_5 \Slashed{p}
& = & \ket{p+}\bra{p+} - \ket{p-}\bra{p-}.
\end{array}$$ For the amplitudes (\[eq:blobs\]), the gluon is linearly polarised in a plane perpendicular to the beam (parallel and orthogonal to $\vec{s}_T$ respectively for the axial and vector amplitudes). Thus, the polarisation vectors take the following natural forms: $$\xi^\mu_A(p)
= s_T^\mu
\qquad \mbox{and} \qquad
\xi^\mu_V(p)
= -\frac{i\epsilon^{\mu p\bar{p}s_T}}{p.\bar{p}}.$$ A helicity basis may be constructed using these: $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde\xi^\mu_\pm(p)
& = &
\frac{p.\bar{p} \tilde\eta^\mu + \bar{p}.\tilde\eta p^\mu
- p.\tilde\eta \bar{p}^\mu \mp i\epsilon^{\mu p\bar{p}\tilde\eta}}
{2\sqrt{p.\bar{p} \, p.\tilde\eta \, \bar{p}.\tilde\eta}}
\nonumber
\\
& = &
\frac{1}{\sqrt2}
\left[ s_T^\mu \mp \frac{i\epsilon^{\mu p\bar{p}s_T}}{p.\bar{p}} \right]
\; = \; \frac{1}{\sqrt2}
\left[ \xi^\mu_A(p) \pm \xi^\mu_V(p) \strut\right],\end{aligned}$$ where the choice of auxiliary vector, $$\tilde\eta^\mu
= s_T^\mu + \frac{p^\mu+\bar{p}^\mu}{\sqrt{2p.\bar{p}}}
\qquad \mbox{with} \qquad
\tilde\eta^2 = 0,$$ implicitly fixes the phase convention for circular polarisation. A more conventional choice for the phase is to take $\vec\eta$ in the scattering plane and perpendicular to the beam axis; in terms of such a set (without the tilde) one has $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde\xi^\mu_\pm(p)
& = &
e^{\pm i\phi_{s\eta}} \, \xi^\mu_\pm(p),\end{aligned}$$ where $\phi_{s\eta}$ is the azimuthal angle between $\vec{s}_T$ and $\vec\eta$.
Expressions (\[eq:blobs\]) can thus be rewritten as $$\label{eq:blobs1}
\begin{array}{rl}
D^A(x_1,x_2) &
\left[ \ket{p+}\bra{p+} - \ket{p-}\bra{p-} \strut\right]
\frac{1}{\sqrt2}
\left[ e^{i\phi} \xi^\mu_+(p) + e^{-i\phi} \xi^\mu_-(p) \right],
\\[6pt]
D^V(x_1,x_2) &
\left[ \ket{p+}\bra{p+} + \ket{p-}\bra{p-} \strut\right]
\frac{1}{\sqrt2}
\left[ e^{i\phi} \xi^\mu_+(p) - e^{-i\phi} \xi^\mu_-(p) \right].
\end{array}$$ Note that, since $\xi_-=\xi_+^*$, the last factors in the two expressions above are respectively purely real and purely imaginary. One also clearly sees how the axial (vector) contributions are related to amplitudes involving quark (gluon) helicity differences. The necessary phases are generated by combinations of the propagator imaginary parts and the gluon polarisation-vector phases.
The triple-gluon amplitudes have been considered by Ji [@XJ] and lead to more complex expressions involving a number of correlation functions. However, the common simplifying characteristic is that the associated gluon polarisation projectors are restricted to the transverse plane and so can be represented by physical polarisation vectors.
Factorisation in single-spin amplitudes {#sec:factor}
=======================================
Let us consider first of all the case of soft-gluon insertions into external quark lines, as in the left-hand diagram of fig.\[fig:t3blobs\]a. Extracting the imaginary part of the quark line (marked $\bullet$ in the figure) to the left of the gluon vertex forces $x_g=0$; taking this into account, the vertex may be written as $$\label{eq:gfactor}
\xi^\mu_X(p) \bra{k,h_k} \gamma_\mu \slashed{k} \dots
= \bra{k,h_k} \slashed{\xi}_X \sum_h \ket{k,h} \bra{k,h} \dots
\qquad (X = A,V),$$ where the ellipsis indicates the rest of the amplitude to the left of the vertex, and colour factors have been suppressed. Including the remnant factors from the imaginary propagator part and factoring the $\bra{k,h}$ projector above into the rest of the amplitude, eq.(\[eq:gfactor\]) reduces to a simple factor: $$-i\pi \frac{k.\xi_X(p)}{k.p} \delta(x_g),$$ multiplying the now pure two-to-two amplitudes (see the right-hand diagram of fig.\[fig:qfactor\]a).
The complex-conjugate diagrams acquires a minus sign, arising from the opposite sign of the $i\varepsilon$ in the propagator.
Soft-gluon insertions into external gluon lines lead to expressions of the type: $$\sum_{\lambda}
V_{\mu\sigma\nu}
\xi_X^\mu(p)
\xi_{\lambda}^{*\sigma}(k)
\xi_{\lambda_k}^\nu(k)
\xi_{\lambda}^\rho(k) \dots,$$ where the rightmost *circular* gluon polarisation vector will be factored into the remaining amplitude (represented by the ellipsis), and $V_{\mu\sigma\nu}$ is just the three-gluon vertex here: $$V_{\mu\sigma\nu}
= g_{\mu\sigma}(p-k)_\nu
+ g_{\nu\mu}(-k-p)_\sigma
+ g_{\sigma\nu}2k_\mu.$$ Only the last term survives (owing to the gauge choice) and we obtain $$-i\pi \frac{k.\xi_X(p)}{k.p} \delta(x_g) \delta_{\lambda,-\lambda_k},$$ which has the same structure as the previous case, except that the gluon helicity is flipped ($\lambda=-\lambda_k$). And with the phase conventions adopted one has $$k.\xi_\pm(p)
= {\textstyle\frac{1}{\sqrt2}} |k_T| e^{\pm i\phi_{k\eta}},$$ where $\phi_{k\eta}$ is the azimuthal angle between $\vec{k}_T$ and $\vec\eta$. The particular phase dependence on $\phi_{k\eta}$ is just what is needed: in combination with that coming from the initial state gluon ($\phi_{s\eta}$, see above), it leads to the expected $\sin\phi_{ks}$ dependence of the final cross-section.
Three selection rules emerge:
1. The transverse nature of the gluon kills all contributions of initial-state insertions ($k=p$ or $\bar{p}$). Note that, for insertions into the incoming lines from the other (unpolarised) hadron, this depends on the choice of $p$ as the gauge-fixing vector for the gluons from the other hadron.
2. Unless the second hadron is also polarised, the $qqg$ axial contribution vanishes owing to parity conservation, as it is proportional to a helicity difference for the incoming quark from the first hadron.
3. Although proportional to a quark helicity sum, the $qqg$ vector contribution does not survive as it is multiplied by $D^V(x,x)$, which vanishes according to eq.\[eq:symm\].[^2]
Note also that the axial contribution, were it non-vanishing, would lead to a $\cos\phi$ dependence, , to an up-down asymmetry.
It is possible to treat the case of soft external quark lines similarly, as in the left-hand diagram of fig.\[fig:qfactor\]b. For want of better terminology, we shall call these *soft-quark* insertions; although a description in terms of insertion would be more pertinent to the case of a supersymmetric theory. The only subtlety is the change in nature of the resulting external particle: a fermionic insertion changes a fermion to a boson and *vice versa*. The imaginary piece of the gluon line to the left of the vertex forces $x_q=0$; taking this into account and explicitly including the effective soft-quark spinor, the vertex may be written as $$\label{eq:qfactor}
\sum_\lambda \bra{k,h_k} \gamma_\mu \ket{p,h} \; \xi^\mu_\lambda(k) \;
\xi^{\nu*}_\lambda(k) \dots,$$ where again the rightmost term will be factored into the remaining amplitude. Including the various factors from the denominator , eq.(\[eq:qfactor\]) reduces to: $$\label{eq:qfactor1}
-\frac{i \pi}{k.p}\delta(x_q) \cdot
i h \sqrt{2k.p} \; e^{i h \phi} \delta_{\lambda,-h},$$ where the factored gluon polarisation vector carries helicity $-h$ (see the right-hand diagram of fig.\[fig:qfactor\]b). Here the selection rule excluding initial-state insertions applies only to the partons from the same hadron.
We also see that both the axial and vector structures may contribute here, as they are proportional to $D^{A,V}(0,x)$. Moreover, the well-known helicity-conservation rules (forbidding the so-called maximally violating amplitudes [@MP; @BDK]) force the non-zero contributions to come only from the terms in eq.(\[eq:blobs1\]) with $(h_q,\lambda_g)=(\pm,\mp)$. Thus, the axial and vector contributions arise in simple linear combinations: $$\label{eq:dplusminus}
D^A(0,x) \pm D^V(0,x) = D^\pm(0,x) = \mp D^\mp(x,0),$$ see ref.[@PGR-1] for the relevant definitions. There only remains to calculate the case of insertions where the gluon is the external line and the quark, internal. This is, however, simply the complex conjugate of factor (\[eq:qfactor1\]).
It is worth making a few further observations. Factorisation of the amplitudes immediately clarifies the possibility of large asymmetries, where once they were believed to be suppressed. First of all, the colour overlap is only slightly modified while the phase-space is unaltered, and thus little is lost for reasons of mismatch; the (supersymmetric [@MP; @BDK]) Ward identities guarantee the close similarity between amplitudes where a fermion line is replaced by a gluon. Indeed, the interference is not between differing kinematical configurations (as often found in early analyses) but simply between spin-flip and non-flip amplitudes; the quark-insertion factor shown in eq.(\[eq:qfactor1\]) explicitly displays the spin-flip nature (between quark and gluon).
In the above we have ignored the possibility, discussed in the literature [@Pion], that the correlator $D^V(x_1,x_2)$ might be accompanied by an extra pole in $(x_1-x_2)$.[^3] Should this prove to be the case, then the requirement of an imaginary part would still force the $\delta$-function from the propagator. A Taylor expansion of $D^V(x_1,x_2)$ about the point $(x_1-x_2)=0$ would pick out the first derivative of the correlator but leave all other algebraic manipulations as before. Thus, the selection rule excluding terms in $D^V$ would be avoided while the factorisation property would remain unaltered.
Finally, the apparent higher order in $\alpha_s$ of the diagrams is removed by the absorption of the gluon propagator and vertices into the hadronic blob itself (as dictated by gauge invariance), leaving an *effective* tree-level leading-order graph. Moreover, the expressions may now be written in compact form and require little effort to calculate; all two-to-two pQCD amplitudes are already well known. Only the slightly modified colour factors remain to be evaluated, a task easily performed with the aid of a symbolic manipulation programme.
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
The resulting forms of the amplitudes given above greatly simplify the calculation of the asymmetries: the calculation of the tens of Feynman diagrams normally contributing is reduced to the evaluation of products of the simple factors derived here and known two-body helicity amplitudes. Since all two-body helicity amplitudes have indeed already been calculated in pQCD we shall merely present formal expressions for the asymmetries, as sums over a very limited number of amplitudes for fixed helicities. The soft-insertion factorisation thus allows the partonic cross-section to be expressed in the following compact form: $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta\hat\sigma
& = &
\sum_{i,j} C_{ij}
\, {\cal M}_i (x,\bar{x},k_T)
\, {\cal M}_j^\dagger(x,\bar{x},k_T) ,\end{aligned}$$ where $C_{ij}$ represents both the insertion factors given above and modified colour factors, and the ${\cal{M}}_i$, the individual two-body amplitudes. This much simplified form is ideal for the development of a computer programme (, MadGraph [@SL]) based on helicity-amplitude subroutines (, Helas [@MWH]) for the automatic generation of cross-sections for any twist-three single-spin asymmetry.
In concluding, let us first of all highlight a difference in the interpretation of the origin of the $x_F$ dependence with respect to ref.[@QS-1], where the presence of the derivative of a $qqg$ correlator was claimed responsible for the rise in polarisation effects towards the edges of parton phase-space. Here, in contrast, the remnant factors of $(-t)^{-\frac12}$, $(-u)^{-\frac12}$ are seen to lie at the origin of this behaviour. It should be stressed that this transparency is due to the factorisation procedure presented.
It is also worth pointing out that the triple-gluon contributions, being insensitive to flavour, are also suggested by the experimentally observed approximately equal magnitudes and opposite signs of the $\pi^+$ and $\pi^-$ asymmetries, where one might have expected a ratio of the order of three to one (with opposite signs), according to SU(6). The (flavour-blind) triple-gluon contribution could lead to just the required net shift of both asymmetries in the same direction.
With the above formulation in terms of four-body amplitudes, it will not be difficult to set up an analysis of the existing data, from which a general parametrisation of the partonic correlators may be determined in a manner similar to that of Anselmino . [@ABM]. On the other hand, the procedure adopted here is purely pQCD based and, in particular, requires no assumptions as to the nature of intrinsic $s_T$-$k_T$ correlations. Indeed, the factorisation property presented should help in clarifying the physical significance of the trade-off between the operator-product expansion description in terms of fields with only “good” components [@RLJ] and the $k_T$ dependence augmenting the parton picture [@ABM].
As an example process, we have considered left-right asymmetries for final-state hadrons produced in hadron-hadron collisions with a single initial state polarised. However, it is clear that the proposed factorisation may be extended to many other processes in straight-forward manner, including those involving polarised and unpolarised twist-three fragmentation functions. As remarked above, one could also consider measuring the up-down asymmetry predicted to exist for scattering involving one transverse polarisation and one longitudinal. While this asymmetry also contains twist-2 contributions, it would allow for a cross-check measurement of some of the distributions invoked here. The obvious advantage of the single-spin measurements (apart from their experimental accessibility) lies in their automatic and complete filtering of all twist-2 effects.
Acknowledgments
===============
The author wishes to express thanks to Bob Jaffe and George Sterman, for rekindling his interest in this subject and for useful discussions; and to Oleg Teryaev for many illuminating discussions, his encouraging comments and critical reading of the manuscript. Gratitude is also due to the Riken-BNL centre for hospitality during the germinal period of this study.
[99]{}
D.L. Adams *et al.* (FNAL-E704 collab.), *Phys. Lett.* **B264** (1991) 462;\
D.L. Adams *et al.* (FNAL-E581 collab.), *Z. Phys.* **C56** (1992) 181;\
A. Bravar *et al.* (FNAL-E704 collab.), *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **75** (1995) 3073.
G.L. Kane, J. Pumplin and W. Repko, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **41** (1978) 1689.
E.V. Shuryak and A.I. Vainshtein, *Nucl. Phys.* **B199** (1982) 451;\
A.P. Bukhvostov, É.A. Kuraev and L.N. Lipatov, *Sov. Phys. JETP* **60** (1984) 22;\
A.P. Bukhvostov, É.A. Kuraev, L.N. Lipatov and G.V. Frolov, *Nucl. Phys.* **B258** (1985) 601;\
A.V. Efremov and O.V. Teryaev, *Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.* **39** (1984) 962.
A.V. Efremov and O.V. Teryaev, *Yad. Fiz.* **39** (1984) 1517; *Phys. Lett.* **B150** (1985) 383.
P.G. Ratcliffe, *Nucl. Phys.* **B264** (1986) 493.
R.L. Jaffe, *Comm. Nucl. Part. Phys.* **14** (1990) 239.
K. Abe *et al.* (E143 collab.), *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **76** (1996) 587;\
K. Abe *et al.* (E154 collab.), *Phys. Lett.* **B404** (1997) 377;\
D. Adams *et al.* (SM collab.), *Phys. Lett.* **B336** (1994) 125.
K. Heller, in the proc. of *The XII Int. Symp. on High Energy Spin Physics* (Amsterdam, Sept. 1996), eds. C.W. de Jager, T.J. Ketel, P.J. Mulders, J.E.J. Oberski and M. Oskam-Tamboezer (World Sci., 1997), p. 23.
M. Anselmino, M. Boglione and F. Murgia, *Phys. Lett.* **B362** (1995) 164.
O.V. Teryaev, JINR preprint, e-print hep-ph/9808335 (1998).
P.G. Ratcliffe, in the proc. of *The 6th. Int. Symp. on High Energy Spin Physics* (Marseille, Sept. 1984), ed. J. Soffer; *J. de Phys. Suppl.* **46** (C2) (1985) 31.
J. Qiu and G. Sterman, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **67** (1991) 2264; *Nucl. Phys.* **B378** (1992) 52.
V.M. Korotkiian and O.V. Teryaev, *Phys. Rev.* **D52** (1995) 4775.
N. Hammon, B. Ehrnsperger and A. Sch[ä]{}fer, *J. Phys.* **G24** (1998) 991.
A.V. Efremov, V.M. Korotkiyan and O.V. Teryaev, *Phys. Lett.* **B348** (1995) 577;\
J. Qiu and G. Sterman, SUNY preprint ITP-SB-98-28, e-print hep-ph/9806356 (1998).
N. Hammon, O. Teryaev and A. Sch[ä]{}fer, *Phys. Lett.* **B390** (1997) 409;\
D. Boer, P.J. Mulders and O.V. Teryaev, *Phys. Rev.* **D57** (1997) 3057.
X. Ji, *Phys. Lett.* **B289** (1992) 137.
M.L. Mangano and S.J. Parke, *Phys. Rep.* **200** (1991) 301.
Z. Bern, L. Dixon and D.A. Kosower, *Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.* **46** (1996) 109.
T. Stelzer and W.F. Long, *Comp. Phys. Comm.* **81** (1994) 357.
H. Murayama, I. Watanabe and K. Hagiwara, KEK preprint KEK-91-11 (1991).
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: We shall comment later on the possible contribution of higher-order poles.
[^3]: The author is particularly indebted to Oleg Teryaev for clarifying discussions on this point.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this article we study weighted polynomial multiple ergodic averages. A sequence of weights is called universally good if any polynomial multiple ergodic average with this sequence of weights converges in $L^{2}$. We find a necessary condition and show that for any bounded measurable function $\phi$ on an ergodic system, the sequence $\phi(T^{n}x)$ is universally good for almost every $x$. The linear case was covered by Host and Kra.'
address: 'Université Paris-Est, Laboratoire d’Analyse et de mathématiques appliquées, UMR ´ CNRS 8050, 5 bd Descartes, 77454 Marne la Vallée Cedex 2, France'
author:
- Qing Chu
title: Convergence of weighted polynomial multiple ergodic averages
---
introduction
============
In his innovative proof of Szemerédi’s Theorem via ergodic theory, Furstenberg introduced certain multiple ergodic averages. There have been many results on these and other nonconventional ergodic averages, including the multiple ergodic theorems of Host and Kra [@hk1], [@hk2], Leibman [@Lei], Ziegler [@Z]. Recently Host and Kra studied weighted ergodic theorems for multiple averages along arithmetic progressions. We give a generalization of this result for polynomial averages, showing:
\[main0\] Let $(Y,\nu,S)$ be an ergodic system and $\phi\in L^\infty(\nu)$. Then there exists $Y_0\subset Y$ with $\nu(Y_0)=1$ such that, for every $y_0\in Y_0$, every system $(X,\mu,T)$, every $r\geq 1$, all integer polynomials $p_1,\dots,p_r$ and all functions $f_1,\dots,f_r\in L^\infty(\mu)$, the averages $$\frac 1N\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}\phi(S^ny_0)
T^{p_{1}(n)}f_{1}\cdots T^{p_{r}(n)}f_{r}$$ converge in $L^2(\mu)$ .
Throughout this article, by [*integer polynomial*]{} we mean a polynomial all of whose coefficients are integers.
The case of $p_{i}(n)= in$ was proved by Host and Kra [@hk].
One may wonder why in the theorem $S^n$ is not replaced by $S^{p(n)}$ for some integer polynomial $p(n)$. In fact, the latter would be much harder to prove, even in the simplest case that $r= 1$ and $p_1(n)= n$. This problem is equivalent to showing the convergence of the averages of $\phi(S^{p(n)} y_0)e^{2\pi int}$ for all $t\in \mathbb{T}$ and all $y_0 \in Y_0$, where $Y_0$ does not depend on $t$. But this problem reduces to a question of almost everywhere convergence of multiple ergodic averages along polynomials, and this question is out of reach for the moment.
Note that the set $Y_0$ does not depend on $X$ or on $f_{i},
i=1,\dots,r$. We say that for every $y_0\in Y_0$, the sequence $\phi(S^ny_0)$ is *universally good for the convergence in the mean of polynomial multiple ergodic averages*.
For $r=1$ and $p(n)=n$, the result follows immediately from the classical Wiener-Winter ergodic Theorem [@ww] and a corollary of the Spectral Theorem. We follow a similar strategy, generalizing the proof in [@hk] along arithmetic progressions to polynomial progressions, but need to address some deeper technical issues.
We first recall some definitions, see [@BHK] and [@hk] for details. Let $G$ be a $k$-step nilpotent Lie group and $\Gamma
\subset G$ be a discrete, cocompact subgroup of $G$. The compact manifold $X = G/\Gamma$ is called a *$k$-step nilmanifold*. The Haar measure $\mu$ of $X$ is the unique probability measure invariant under the left translations $x \mapsto g x$ of $G$ on $X$. Letting $T$ denote left multiplication by a fixed element $\alpha
\in G$, we call $(X, \mu, T )$ a *$k$-step nilsystem*. Let $f
\colon X \to C$ be a continuous function, $x_{0}\in X$, then the sequence $(f (\alpha^{n} x_0 ) : n \in \mathbb{Z})$ is called a *basic $k$-step nilsequence*. The family of basic $k$-step nilsequences forms a subalgebra of $l^\infty$. Under the uniform norm $|\!|\cdot|\!|_{\infty}$ of $l^{\infty}$, we call a uniform limit of basic $k$-step nilsequences a *k-step nilsequence*.
The proof of Theorem \[main0\] is broken down into two pieces. First we give a convergence criterion for weighted polynomial multiple ergodic averages.
\[main\] For any $r,b\in\mathbb{N}$, there exists an integer $K\geq 1$ with the following property: for any bounded sequence $\mathbf{c}=
(c_{n}: n\in \mathbb{Z})$, if the averages $$\frac{1}{N}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}c_{n}d_{n}$$ converge as $N\rightarrow \infty$ for every $K$-step nilsequence $\textbf{d}= (d_{n}: n\in\mathbb{Z})$. Then for every system $(X,
\mu,T)$, all $f_{1},\dots,f_{r}\in L^{\infty}(X)$, and all integer polynomials $p_{1},\dots,p_{r}$ of degree $\leq b$, the averages $$\begin{aligned}
\label{main1}
\frac{1}{N}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}c_{n}T^{p_{1}(n)}f_{1}\cdot
T^{p_{2}(n)}f_{2}\cdots T^{p_{r}(n)}f_{r}\end{aligned}$$ converge in $L^{2}(X)$.
The bulk of this paper is devoted to the proof of this theorem. Then our main result follows from the following Generalized Wiener-Wintner Theorem proved by Host and Kra in [@hk]. The case of a polynomial version of the Wiener-Wintner theorem was proved by Lesigne ( [@lesi1], [@lesi]).
\[GWW\] Let $(X, \mu, T )$ be an ergodic system and $\phi$ be a bounded measurable function on $X$. Then there exists $X_0 \subset X$ with $\mu (X_0) = 1$ such that for every $x \in X_0$, the averages $$\frac{1}{N}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}\phi(T^{n}x)b_{n}$$ converge as $N\rightarrow\infty$ for every $x\in X_0$ and every nilsequence $b = (b_{n} : n \in \mathbb{Z})$.
While nilsequences do not appear in the statement of Theorem \[main0\], they are used as tools in its proof. Both Theorems \[main\] and \[GWW\] are of interest on their own, as results on nilsequences.
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
---------------
We thank the referee for very useful remarks and the simplification of the proof.
proof of theorem \[main\]
=========================
Using a standard ergodic decomposition argument, it suffices to prove Theorem \[main\] for ergodic systems.
We first remind the reader of a definition from Leibman’s paper [@Lei2]. We call a sequence $\{g(n)\}_{n\in \mathbb{Z}}$ with values in a nilpotent group $G$ a *polynomial sequence*, if $g(n)$ is of the form $g(n)=
a_1^{p_1(n)}\ldots a_m^{p_m(n)}$, where $a_1,\dots,a_m \in G$ and $p_1,\dots,p_m$ are polynomials taking integer values on the integers.
Before stating the next proposition, we explain briefly its meaning: we can view the sequence of values of a continuous function along a polynomial sequence on a nilmanifold as the sequence of values of some other continuous function along an ordinary orbit of some other nilsystem.
\[nil\] Let $(X= G/\Gamma, T)$ be a nilsystem, $x_{0}\in X$, p be an *integer polynomial*, and $f\in \mathcal{C}(X)$. Then there exists a nilsystem $(Y , S)$, $y_{0}\in Y$, $h\in \mathcal{C}(Y)$, such that $f(T^{p(n)}x_{0})= h(S^{n}y_{0})$ for every $n$.
Let $(X= G/\Gamma, T)$ be a nilsystem. Suppose $Tx:= \alpha x$, for some $\alpha\in G$. Then $T^{p(n)}x= \alpha ^{p(n)}x$. Let $g(n):=
\alpha ^{p(n)}$, then $g$ is a polynomial sequence in $G$. Let $\pi:
G\rightarrow X$ be the factorization mapping. We will assume that $x_{0}= \pi (\textbf{1}_{G})$; otherwise if $x_0= \pi(\gamma),
\gamma \in G$, we write $g(n)x_0= g(n)\gamma \pi(\textbf{1}_{G})$, and replace $g(n)$ by $g(n)\gamma$.
Now we have a nilpotent Lie group $G$, a discrete cocompact subgroup $\Gamma$ and a polynomial sequence $g$ in $G$. By Proposition 3.14 in Leibman’s paper [@Lei2], there exist a nilpotent Lie group $\widetilde{G}$, a discrete cocompact subgroup $\widetilde{\Gamma}$, an epimorphism $\eta: \widetilde{G}\rightarrow G$ with $\eta(\widetilde{\Gamma})\subseteq \Gamma$, a unipotent automorphism $\widetilde{\tau}$ of $\widetilde{G}$ with $\widetilde{\tau}(\widetilde{\Gamma})= \widetilde{\Gamma}$, and an element $\tilde{c}\in \widetilde{G}$ such that $$g(n)=
\eta(\widetilde{\tau}^{n}(\tilde{c})), n\in \mathbb{Z}.$$
Let $\widetilde{X}= \widetilde{G}/\widetilde{\Gamma}$ and let $\widetilde{\pi}: \widetilde{G}\rightarrow \widetilde{X}$ be the factorization mapping.
The epimorphism $\eta: \widetilde{G}\rightarrow G$ factors to a map $\widetilde{X}\rightarrow X$, we also denote it by $\eta$, which is onto and satisfies, $$\pi\circ\eta= \eta\circ\widetilde{\pi} .$$
The map $\widetilde{\tau}$ induces a homomorphism $\widetilde X\to\widetilde X $, which we also denote it by $\widetilde{\tau}$. It satisfies, $$\widetilde{\tau}\circ\widetilde\pi=\widetilde\pi\circ\widetilde{\tau} .$$
Let $\widetilde {x}_{0}=
\widetilde{\pi}(\textbf{1}_{\widetilde{G}})$, then $$\eta(\widetilde{\tau}^{n}(\tilde{c}\ \widetilde {x}_{0}))=
g(n)x_{0},\ n\in \mathbb{Z} .$$
Let $\widehat{G}$ be the extension of $\widetilde{G}$ by $\widetilde{\tau}$, then $\widehat{G}$ is a nilpotent Lie group (see Proposition 3.9 in [@Lei2]). Let $\widehat{\tau}$ be the element in $\widehat{G}$ representing $\widetilde{\tau}$, so that $\widetilde{\tau}(\widetilde{\alpha})=
\widehat{\tau}\widetilde{\alpha}\widehat{\tau}^{-1}$ for any $\widetilde{\alpha}\in \widetilde{G}$, the multiplication of $\widehat{G}$ is given by this formula. We have $\widehat{G}= \{\widetilde{g}\widehat{\tau}^{n}\colon \widetilde{g}\in \widetilde{G}, n\in \mathbb{Z}\}$ and $\widetilde{G}$ is open in $\widehat{G}$.
Let $\widehat{\Gamma}$ be the subgroup of $\widehat G$ spanned by $\widetilde\Gamma$ and $\widehat\tau$. As $\widetilde{\tau}(\widetilde{\Gamma})= \widetilde{\Gamma}$, we have $\widehat{\Gamma}= \{\widetilde{\gamma}{\widehat{\tau}}^{n}\colon \widetilde{\gamma}\in \widetilde{\Gamma}, n\in\mathbb{Z}\}$ and $\widehat{\Gamma}\cap \widetilde{G}= \widetilde{\Gamma}$. By the definition of the relative topology, $\widehat{\Gamma}$ is a discrete subgroup of $\widehat{G}$. Moreover, $\widehat{G} / \widehat{\Gamma}= (\widetilde{G}\widehat{\Gamma}/\widehat{\Gamma})$ can be identified with $\widetilde{G}/(\widehat{\Gamma}\cap\widetilde{G})= \widetilde{G}/\widetilde{\Gamma}= \widetilde X $. We write $\widehat\pi\colon\widehat G\to\widetilde X$ for the quotient map.
Let $\widetilde x\in\widetilde X$ and $\tilde g\in\widetilde G$ with $\widetilde \pi(\tilde g)=\widetilde x$. We have $$\widetilde \tau(\widetilde x)=\widetilde \pi(\widetilde
\tau(\tilde g)) =\widehat\pi(\widehat\tau \tilde g
\widetilde\tau^{-1})=\widehat\pi(\widehat \tau \tilde g)
=\widehat\tau\widetilde x ,$$ because $\widehat\tau^{-1}\in\widehat\Gamma$. So for every $n$, $$g(n)x_{0}=
\eta(\widetilde{\tau}^{n}(\tilde{c}\ \widetilde {x}_{0}))=
\eta(\widehat{\tau^{n}}(\tilde{c}\ \widetilde {x}_{0})) .$$
Let $Y=(\widehat{G}/\widehat{\Gamma}, S)= (\widetilde{X}, S)$, $S\widetilde{x}= \widehat{\tau}\widetilde{x}$, and let $h= f\circ
\eta$, and $y_{0}= \tilde{c}\ \widetilde {x}_{0}$. This system and this function satisfy the announced properties.
{#nota}
We recall a few properties of the seminorms and the factors introduced in [@hk1]. Let $(X, \mu, T )$ be an ergodic system. For an integer $k\geq 0$, we write $X^{[k]}= X^{2^{k}}$ and $T^{[k]}
\colon X^{[k]}\rightarrow X^{[k]}$ for the map $T\times T\times
\ldots \times T$, taken $2^{k}$ times. We define by induction a probability measure $\mu^{[k]}$ on $X^{[k]}$ that is invariant under $T^{[k]}$. Set $\mu^{[0]}=\mu$. For $k\geq 0$, let $\mathcal{I}^{[k]}$ be the $\sigma$-algebra of $T^{[k]}$-invariant subsets of $X^{[k]}$. Then $\mu^{[k+1]}$ is the relatively independent product of $\mu^{[k]}$ over $\mathcal{I}^{k}$, which means for $F, F' \in L^{\infty}(X^{[k]})$, $$\int_{X^{[k+1]}}F\otimes F'\ d\mu^{[k+1]}= \int_{X^{[k]}}
\mathbb{E}(F|\mathcal{I}^{[k]})\mathbb{E}(F'|\mathcal{I}^{[k]}) \
d\mu^{[k]}.$$
For a bounded measurable function $f$, we define
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{semi}
|\!|\!|f|\!|\!|_{k} = \left(\int_{X^{[k]}}\prod_{\varepsilon \in \{0,
1\}^{k}} C^{|\varepsilon|}f(x_{\varepsilon})\
d\mu^{[k]}(x)\right)^{1/2^{k}},\end{aligned}$$
where $C\colon \mathbb C\rightarrow \mathbb C$ is the conjugacy map $z\mapsto \overline{z}$, $\varepsilon =
\varepsilon_1\varepsilon_2\dots\varepsilon_k$ with $\varepsilon_i
\in \{0,1\}$ and $|\varepsilon|=\varepsilon_1+\varepsilon_2+\dots+\varepsilon_k.$ It is shown in [@hk1] that for every $k \geq 1$, $|\!|\!| \cdot
|\!|\!|_{k}$ is a seminorm on $L^{\infty}(\mu)$.
Moreover, for every $k \geq 2$, $X$ admits a factor $Z_{k-1}$ such that, for every $f \in L^{\infty} (\mu)$, $|\!|\!|f|\!|\!|_{k} = 0 $ if and only if $\mathbb{E}(f|Z_{k-1}) = 0$. One of the main results of [@hk1] is that, for every $ k$, $Z_{k}$ is an inverse limit of $k$-step nilsystems. We call this result the Structure Theorem.
Let $(Z=Z_1(X), m, T)$ be the Kronecker factor of $(X, \mu, T)$. For $s\in Z$, we define a measure $\mu_s$ on $X\times X$ by $$\int_{X\times X}f(x)f'(x')\ d\mu_{s}(x,x')= \int_{Z} \mathbb{E}(f|Z)(z)
\cdot \mathbb{E}(f'|Z)(sz)\ d m(z).$$
For every $s\in Z$ the measure $\mu_s$ is invariant under $T\times T$ and is ergodic for $m$-almost every $s$. The ergodic decomposition of $\mu\times\mu$ under $T\times T$ is $$\mu\times\mu = \int_{Z}\mu_{s}\ d m(s).$$
For each $s\in Z$ such that $(X\times X, \mu_s, T\times T)$ is ergodic, and for each integer $k\geq 1$, a measure $(\mu_s)^{[k]}$ on $(X\times X)^{[k]}$ can be defined in the same way as $\mu^{[k]}$. Furthermore, a seminorm $|\!|\!|\cdot|\!|\!|_{k,s}$ on $L^{\infty}(\mu_s)$ can be associated to this measure in the same way as the seminorm $|\!|\!|\cdot|\!|\!|_k$ is associated to $\mu^{[k]}.$ It follows from the definition (\[semi\]) that for every $f\in
L^{\infty}(\mu)$,
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{relat}
|\!|\!|f|\!|\!|_{k+1}^{2^{k+1}}=\int_{Z} |\!|\!|f\otimes
\bar{f}|\!|\!|_{k,s}^{2^{k}}\ d m(s).\end{aligned}$$
{#section-1}
We return to the proof of theorem \[main\]. We may assume that the polynomials $p_{1},\dots,p_{r}$ are nonconstant and essentially distinct, that is $p_{i}-p_{j}\neq$ constant for $i\neq j$.
The following theorem will be proved in the next section.
\[chara\] For any $r,b\in\mathbb{N}$, there exists $k\in \mathbb{N}$, such that for any nonconstant essentially distinct polynomials $p_{1},\dots,p_{r}: \mathbb{Z}\rightarrow \mathbb{Z}$ of degree $\leq b$, for every ergodic system $(X, \mu,T)$, every $f_{1},\dots,f_{r}\in L^{\infty}(X)$ with $|\!|\!|f_{1}|\!|\!|_{k}=0$, and any bounded sequence $\mathbf{c}=
(c_{n}: n\in \mathbb{Z})$, one has $$\begin{aligned}
\label{chara1}
\lim_{N\rightarrow\infty}\left\|\frac{1}{N}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}c_{n}
T^{p_{1}(n)}f_{1}\cdots T^{p_{r}(n)}f_{r}\right\|_{L^{2}(X)}=0.\end{aligned}$$
{#section-2}
Now we give the proof of Theorem \[main\].
The proof is exactly the same as the proof of Theorem 2.24 in [@hk]. For any $r,b \in \mathbb{N}$, let $k\in \mathbb{N}$ be the integer in Theorem \[chara\], let $Z_{k-1}$ be the $(k-1)$-th factor of $(X,\mu,T)$, as given by the Structure Theorem. By definition, if $\mathbb{E}(f_{1}|Z_{k-1})= 0$, then $|\!|\!|f_{1}|\!|\!|_{k}= 0$, and by Theorem \[chara\], the averages (\[chara1\]) converge to zero in $L^{2}(X)$. We say that the factor $Z_{k-1}$ is the characteristic for the convergence of these averages. Therefore, it suffices to prove the result when the functions are measurable with respect to the factor $Z_{k-1}$.
Since $Z_{k-1}$ is an inverse limit of $(k-1)$-step nilsystems by density, we can assume that $(X,\mu,T)$ is a $(k-1)$-step nilsystem and that the functions $f_{1},\dots,f_{r}$ are continuous.
But in this case, by Proposition \[nil\], for every $x\in X$, and all polynomials $p_{1},\dots,p_{r}$, there exist nilsystems $(Y_{1},S_{1}),\dots,(Y_{r},S_{r})$, $y_{i}\in Y_{i}$, and $g_{i}\in
\mathcal{C}(Y_{i})$, such that $f_{i}(T^{p_{i}(n)}x)=
g_{i}(S_{i}^{n}y_{i})$, $i=1,\dots,r$.
Let $K$ be the maximal order of the nilsystems $(Y_{i},
S_{i}),i=1,\dots,r$. Then the system $(Y= Y_{1}\times\cdots\times
Y_{r}, S= S_{1}\times\cdots\times S_{r})$ is a $K$-step nilsystem. Let $g: Y_{1}\times\cdots\times Y_{r}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ be given by $g(y)= g (y_{1},\dots,y_{r})= g_{1}(y_{1})\cdot\ldots\cdot
g_{r}(y_{r})$. So the sequence $$\begin{aligned}
&\ \ \{f_{1}(T^{p_{1}(n)}x)\cdot f_{2}(T^{p_{2}(n)}x)\cdot\ldots
\cdot f_{r}(T^{p_{r}(n)}x)\}_{n\in \mathbb{Z}}\\&=
\{g_{1}(S_{1}^{n}y_{1})\cdot g_{2}(S_{2}^{n}y_{2})\cdot\ldots\cdot
g_{r}(S_{r}^{n}y_{r})\}_{n\in \mathbb{Z}}\\&= \{g(S^{n}y)\}_{n\in
\mathbb{Z}}\end{aligned}$$ is a $K$-step nilsequence and by hypothesis, the averages (\[main1\]) converge for every $x\in X$.
proof of theorem \[chara\]
==========================
Note that our goal is very similar to the main result in Leibman’s paper [@Lei], the only difference being that in our case we are dealing with the weighted averages. In fact, we can deduce Theorem \[chara\] by following very closely the arguments of Leibman in his paper to cover our weighted case with some modifications. But here we adopt another way that allows us to deduce it directly from Leibman’s result.
We prove the result by several steps. (i) The following assertion follows immediately from Theorem 3 in Leibman’s paper [@Lei]:
Let ${r,b} \in \mathbb{N}$ be fixed. There exists an integer $k= k(r, b)$ such that for every family of nonconstant essentially distinct polynomials $p_1,\dots,p_{r} : \mathbb{Z}^{2}\rightarrow \mathbb{Z}$ of degree $\leq b$, we have: for every ergodic system $(X, \mathcal{B}, \mu, T)$, and every $f_1,\dots, f_r\in L^{\infty}(X)$ with $|\!|\!|f_1|\!|\!|_{k} = 0$, one has $$\lim_{N\rightarrow \infty}\left \|\frac{1}{N^2}\sum_{0\leq {m,n} <N }T^{p_1 (m,n)}f_1 \cdots T^{p_{r}(m,n)}f_{r}\right\|_{L^{2}(X)} = 0.$$
\(ii) We use the notation of Section \[nota\]. It follows from (\[relat\]) that $|\!|\!|f_1|\!|\!|_{k+1} =
0$ implies $|\!|\!|f_1\otimes \bar{f_1}|\!|\!|_{k, s}= 0$ for $m$-almost every $s$. Using the previous result to the ergodic system $(X\times
X, \mu_s, T\times T)$, one gets: if $|\!|\!|f_1|\!|\!|_{k+1} = 0$, then $$\begin{aligned}
&\ \ \lim_{N\rightarrow \infty}\frac{1}{N^{2}}\sum_{0\leq m, n <N}\left|\int
T^{p_1(m,n)}f_1\cdots T^{p_r(m,n)}f_r\ d\mu \right|^2
\\&=\lim_{N\rightarrow \infty}\frac{1}{N^{2}}\sum_{0\leq m, n
<N}\left|\int_{Z}\int_{X\times X} (T\times T)^{p_1(m,n)}f_1\otimes
\bar{f_1}\cdots (T\times T)^{p_r(m,n)}f_r\otimes\bar{f_r}\
d\mu_{s}dm(s)\right|\\ &\leq \int_Z\lim_{N\rightarrow
\infty}\int_{X\times X}\left|\frac{1}{N^{2}}\sum_{0\leq m, n <N} (T\times
T)^{p_1(m,n)}f_1\otimes \bar{f_1}\cdots (T\times
T)^{p_r(m,n)}f_r\otimes\bar{f_r}\right|d\mu_{s}dm(s)\\ &\leq \int_Z \lim_{N\rightarrow
\infty}\left\|\frac{1}{N^{2}}\sum_{0\leq m, n <N} (T\times
T)^{p_1(m,n)}f_1\otimes \bar{f_1}\cdots (T\times
T)^{p_r(m,n)}f_r\otimes\bar{f_r}\right\|_{L^2(\mu_s)}d m(s)= 0.\end{aligned}$$
\(iii) Expanding the square, one sees that $$\left\|\frac{1}{N}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}c_nT^{p_1(n)}f_1\cdots T^{p_r(n)}f_r\right\|_{L^{2}}^2$$ is equal to $$\frac{1}{N^2}\sum_{0\leq m,n <N}c_n\bar{c}_{m}\int T^{p_1(n)}f_1\cdots T^{p_r(n)}f_r\
T^{p_1(m)}\bar{f_1}\cdots T^{p_r(m)}\bar{f_r}\ d\mu,$$ which is less than a constant times
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{last}
\frac{1}{N^2}\sum_{0\leq m,n <N}\left|\int T^{p_1(n)}f_1\cdots
T^{p_r(n)}f_r\ T^{p_1(m)}\bar{f_1}\cdots
T^{p_r(m)}\bar{f_r}\ d\mu\right|,\end{aligned}$$
since by our assumption the sequence $c_n$ is bounded. Notice that $p_1(n),\dots,p_r(n),p_1(m),\dots,p_r(m)$ is a family of $2r$ essentially distinct polynomials of degree at most $b$.
\(iv) Combining the previous parts we see that if $|\!|\!|f_1|\!|\!|_{k(2r,b)+1}= 0$, where $k(r,b)$ is defined in part (i), then for every family of nonconstant essentially distinct polynomials $p_{1},\dots,p_{r}:
\mathbb{Z}\rightarrow \mathbb{Z}$ of degree $\leq b$, we have that the average (\[last\]) converges to $0$. This proves Theorem \[chara\].
[99]{} V. Bergelson, B. Host and B. Kra, with an Appendix by I. Ruzsa. *Multiple recurrence and nilsequences.* Inventiones Math. **160** (2005), 261-303. B. Host and B. Kra. *Nonconventional ergodic averages and nilmanifolds.* Ann. Math. **161** (2005), 397-488. B. Host and B. Kra. *Convergence of polynomial ergodic averages.* Isr. J. Math. **149** (2005), 1-19. B. Host and B. Kra. *Uniformity seminorms on $l^{\infty}$ and applications.* Available at http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.3637v1. A. Leibman. *Convergence of multiple ergodic averages along polynomials of several variables.* Isr. J. Math. **146** (2005), 303-315. A. Leibman. *Pointwise convergence of ergodic averages for polynomial sequence of translation on a nilmanifold.* Erg. Th. and Dyn. Sys. **25** (2005), 201-213. E. Lesigne. *Un théorème de disjonction de systèmes dynamiques et une généralisation du théorème ergodique de Wiener-Wintner.* Erg. Th. and Dyn. Sys. **10** (1990), 513-521. E. Lesigne. *Spectre quasi-discret et théorème ergodique de Wiener-Wintner pour les polynômes.* Erg. Th. and Dyn. Sys. **13** (1993), 767-784. N. Wiener and A. Wintner. *Harmonic analysis and ergodic theory.* Amer. J. Math. **63** (1941), 415-426. T. Ziegler. *A non-conventional ergodic theorem for a nilsystem.* Erg. Th. and Dyn. Sys. **25** (2005), 1357-1370.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Quasi-periodic signals have yielded important constraints on the masses of black holes in galactic X-ray binaries, and here we extend this to active galactic nuclei (AGN). We employ a wavelet technique to analyze 19 observations of 10 AGN obtained with the [*XMM-Newton*]{} EPIC-PN camera. We report the detection of a candidate 3.3 kilosecond quasi-period in 3C 273. If this period represents an orbital timescale originating near a last stable orbit of 3 $R_S$, it implies a central black hole mass of $7.3\times 10^6$ M$_\sun$. For a maximally rotating black hole with a last stable orbit of 0.6 $R_S$, a central black hole mass of $8.1\times 10^7$ M$_\sun$ is implied. Both of these estimates are substantially lower than previous reverberation mapping results which place the central black hole mass of 3C 273 at about $2.35\times 10^8$ M$_\sun$. Assuming that this reverberation mass is correct, the X-ray quasi-period would be caused by a higher order oscillatory mode of the accretion disk.'
author:
- 'C. Espaillat, J. Bregman, P. Hughes, and E. Lloyd-Davies'
title: 'Wavelet Analysis of AGN X-ray Time Series: A QPO in 3C 273?'
---
Introduction
============
Quasi-periodic oscillations (QPOs) are thought to originate in the inner accretion disk of a black hole or neutron star in an X-ray binary (XRB) system [@vdk00]. Consequently, QPOs have been used in galactic XRBs to introduce important constraints on the masses of the central black holes of these systems.
Previous work has revealed that AGN and XRBs are alike: noise power spectra have shown that similar physical processes may be underlying the X-ray variability in both [@ede99; @utt02; @mar03; @vau03; @mchar04; @mchar05]. Taking this resemblance into account and assuming that accretion onto a stellar-mass black hole is comparable to accretion onto a supermassive black hole, one would expect some AGN to exhibit QPOs similar to those observed in XRBs. In supermassive black holes ($10^6$-$10^9$ M$_\sun$), these QPOs would be at much lower frequencies than those we find in stellar-mass black holes ($\sim$ 10 M$_\sun$). Low frequency quasi-periods (LF QPOs) in XRBs range from 50 mHz to 30 Hz; scaling from a $\sim 1$ Hz QPO in a 10 $M_\sun$ XRB, a LF QPO in an AGN would occur on timescales of days to months [@vau05], too long to be detectable for the AGN in our sample. On the other hand, high frequency QPOs (HF QPOs) in XRBs have values of $\geq$ 100 Hz and assuming a 1/$M_{BH}$ scaling of frequencies, $f_{HFQPO}\sim 3\times 10^{-3} (M_{BH}/ 10^{6} M_\sun)^{-1}$ Hz [@abram], corresponding to timescales greater than 400s for AGN.
While this parallel between AGN and XRBs seems promising, no claim of an X-ray quasi-period in an AGN has been found to be statistically robust. @vaub remark that a major source of false detections arise from assuming an inappropriate background noise power spectrum. X-ray variations of AGN have intrinsically red noise power spectra (i.e. the power spectra have a continuum resembling a power law with a steep slope; Press 1978), however many purported QPOs in AGN are compared against an assumed background of white noise (i.e. Poisson photon noise or a flat spectrum). For example, in a $\sim$5 day ASCA observation of IRAS 18325-5926 the significance of the candidate periodicity was estimated with white noise [@iwa98]. After including red noise in the periodogram fitting, @vau found that the candidate periodicity was no longer significant at the 95$\%$ level. @fiore also claimed high ($>99\%$) significance peaks in NGC 4151, however, after fitting red noise and Poisson photon noise components of the spectrum @vaub showed that the significances of the QPOs fell below the 95$\%$ confidence level. It is also difficult to constrain the significance of possible QPOs due to power spectra effects [@vaub]. EXOSAT data of NGC 5548 were reported to have a significant period [@pap93], but @tag96 later showed that the significance of the candidate QPO was lower than previously reported once the uncertainties in modeling the spectrum were taken into consideration.
This lack of statistically significant evidence for QPOs in AGN has led to questions of whether existing X-ray observations of AGN are sensitive enough to detect QPOs even if they are present [@vau05].
Here we use a different technique to search for significant periodic structures in the time variability data that have been collected for AGNs with XMM-Newton. We use a wavelet transform technique, which can have certain advantages relative to periodograms and Fourier power spectra, the methods that have previously dominated the literature. The wavelet technique, which has become widely used in other branches of science, is particularly useful in identifying signals where the period or its amplitude changes with time. This technique is applied to the XMM-Newton data from bright 10 AGNs, with special care taken to properly treat the noise characteristics and error analysis, and we find a candidate 3.3 ks quasi-period in 3C 273.
In Section 2, we present our observations and data reduction steps. In Section 3, we provide an overview of the two wavelet techniques used in our analysis: the continuous wavelet transform and the cross-wavelet transform. The results of these two techniques as well as significance tests are presented. We also discuss structure function analysis for the AGN in our sample. In Section 4 we argue that this 3.3 ks quasi-period in 3C 273 is consistent with what we would expect from oscillations in the accretion disk around the supermassive black hole based on current black hole mass estimates.
Observations and Data Reduction {#obssection}
===============================
The 10 AGN in our sample were selected because they are bright and have [*XMM-Newton*]{} EPIC-PN camera observations which exceed 30 kiloseconds (ks). In total, we have 19 observations and each observation’s ID, date, length, and average counts are listed in Table \[obslog\]. All observations are in the energy range 0.75 to 10 keV and most were taken in small window mode, which has a readout time of 6 milliseconds (ms). The only exception is NGC 4151 Observation ID (Obs. ID): 0112830201, which was taken in full frame mode with a readout time of 73.4 ms.
Observation Data Files (ODFs) were obtained from the on-line [*XMM-Newton*]{} Science Archive and later reduced with the [*XMM-Newton*]{} Science Analysis Software (SAS, v. 7.0.0, 6.1.0, 5.4.1). Source light curves, with 5 s bins, were extracted for a circular region centered on the source ($\sim$20$^\prime$$^\prime$). Background light curves were obtained from a nearby rectangular source-free region and subtracted from the source light curves. These rectangular background regions were larger than the source regions and were accordingly scaled down. Due to strong flaring, the last few kiloseconds of data are excluded from most observations. The count rates for the target sources are orders of magnitude greater than the background count rate in the detection cell, so a rise in the background is unimportant. We removed these last few kiloseconds of data from the data stream just to be very cautious. We note that in the observation of 3C 273 with the claimed detection, including the periods with flaring does not change our results.
Some of the observations in our sample are affected by pile-up. Pile-up occurs when more than one X-ray photon arrives in a pixel before the pixel is read out by the CCD, making it difficult to distinguish one high energy photon from two lower energy photons. Pile-up can also occur when photons striking adjacent pixels are confused with a single photon that deposits charge in more than one pixel. Depending on how many pixels are involved, this is called a single-, double-, triple-, or quadruple- pixel event. The SAS task EPATPLOT measures the pile-up in an observation and the results for our target with the highest count rate, MKN 421 (Table 1), are shown in Figure \[epatplot\]. When we compare the expected fractions of pixel events (solid lines) with those actually measured in the data (histograms) for the range 0.75 to 10 keV we see that a larger than expected fraction of double events (third histogram from top, dark blue in electronic edition) is measured as well as a larger fraction of triple and quadruple events (bottom two histograms), although to a lesser degree, while single events (second histogram from top) are lower than expected, indicating the presence of pile-up. Pile-up leads to a general reduction in the mean count rate as well as a reduction in the magnitude of variations. We will explore the influence of pile-up on our data in more detail when we discuss structure functions in Section \[sfpileupsection\].
Data Analysis and Results
=========================
Wavelet Analysis {#waveletanalysis}
----------------
### The Continuous Wavelet Transform
The continuous wavelet transform (CWT) is the inner product of a dilated and translated mother wavelet and a time series $f(t)$, the idea being that the wavelet is applied as a band-pass filter to the time-series. The continuous wavelet transform maps the power of a particular frequency (i.e. dilation) at different times in translation-dilation space, giving an expansion of the signal in both time and frequency. Hence, the continuous wavelet transform not only tells us which frequencies exist in the signal, but also when they exist, allowing us to see whether a timescale varies in time. This is the wavelet technique’s advantage over Fourier transforms in detecting quasi-periods. In addition, the Fourier transform is not suited for detecting quasi-periods since non-periodic outbursts will spread power across the spectrum and windowing will cause power to appear at low frequencies, potentially obscuring quasi-periodic signals.
Throughout this paper, we follow @hug98 and @kel03 and references within. In previous studies [@hug98; @kel03; @liu05; @kadler06] we have found the Morlet wavelet $$\psi_{Morlet} = \pi^{-1/4} e^{ik_{\psi}t} e^{-|t^{2}|/2},$$ with $k_{\psi}=6$ to be an excellent choice. The value of $k_{\psi}$ is a satisfactory compromise between a value small-enough that we have good resolution of temporal structures, and large-enough that the admissibility condition is satisfied, at least to machine accuracy [@far92]. The wavelet, being continuous and complex, permits a rendering in transform space that highlights temporally localized, periodic activity – oscillatory behavior in the real part and a smooth distribution of power in the modulus – and being progressive (zero power at negative frequency), is optimal for the study of causal signals. We have deliberately avoided any form of weighting, such as that introduced by @foster to allow for uneven sampling, or @johnson to rescale within the cone of influence, in order to facilitate our interpretation of the cross wavelet, and to allow the use of existing methods of significance analysis.
From this mother wavelet, we generate a set of translated ($t'$) and dilated ($l$) wavelets $$\psi_{lt^{'}}(t)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{l}} \psi (\frac{t-t^{'}}{l}), l \in \Re^{+}, t\in \Re$$ and we then take the inner product with the signal $F(t)$ to obtain the wavelet coefficients $$\label{coefficients}
\widetilde f (l,t^{'})= \int_{\Re}f(t)\psi^{*}_{lt'}(t) dt .$$ The wavelet coefficients are later mapped in wavelet space which has as coordinates translation and dilation, and so periodic behavior shows up as a pattern over all translations at a specific dilation.
By way of example, Figure \[sinecwt\] shows the real part and the power of the continuous wavelet transform (second and bottom panel, respectively) for a sinusoidal signal of varying frequency (top panel). Here, the real part of the transform shows oscillatory behavior corresponding to the two periodicities of the sinusoidal signal at dilations of 3s and 6s with a break in translation at 50s corresponding to the time where the change in frequency occurs. The bottom panel in Figure \[sinecwt\] shows that the power of the continuous wavelet transform is concentrated at these two frequencies as well.
The hatched area in both panels of Figure \[sinecwt\] represents the cone of influence: the region where edge effects become important. It arises because discontinuities at the beginning and end of a finite time series result in a decrease in the wavelet coefficient power. Also shown in the header of Figure \[sinecwt\] are the number of dilations used ($N_l$) and the ranges of dilations explored. We discuss $\alpha$ and the normalization of Figure \[sinecwt\] in the following section.
### Significance Tests {#sigtestsection}
Significance tests can be created for the continuous wavelet transform and here we follow @tor98. First, one compares the wavelet power with that of an appropriate background spectrum.
We use the univariate lag-1 auto-regressive \[AR(1)\] process given by $$\label{noiseeqn}
x_{n}=\alpha x_{n-1} + z_{n}$$ where $\alpha$ is the assumed lag-1 autocorrelation and $z_{n}$ is a random deviate taken from white noise. Note that $\alpha = 0$ gives a white noise process. Throughout this paper, we will use “white noise” to refer to an AR(1) process with $\alpha = 0$. Red noise is sometimes used to refer to noise with $\alpha = 1$, however, throughout this paper we apply the term to any non-zero $\alpha$.
The normalized discrete Fourier power spectrum of this process is $$\label{fouriereqn}
P_{j}=\frac{1-\alpha^{2}}{1 + \alpha^{2} - 2 \alpha \cos(2 \pi \delta t /\tau_{j})}$$ where $\tau_{j}$ is the associated Fourier period for a scale $l_{j}$. We use the above two equations to model a white noise or red noise spectrum.
The global wavelet power spectrum (GWPS) is obtained by averaging in time $$\widetilde f_{G}^{2}(l_{j})=\frac{1}{N_{j}} \Sigma^{i'_{j}}_{i=i_{j}}|\widetilde f(l_{j},t'_{j})|^{2}.$$ Here, $i_{j}$ and $i'_{j}$ are the indices of the initial and final translations $t'_{i}$ outside of the cone of influence at a given scale $l_{j}$. $N_{j}$ is the number of translations $t'_{i}$ outside the cone of influence at that scale. Assuming a background spectrum given by Eqn. \[fouriereqn\] we estimate the autocorrelation coefficient ($\alpha$) by calculating the lag-1 and lag-2 autocorrelations, $\alpha_{1}$ and $\alpha_{2}$. The autocorrelation coefficient is then estimated as $\alpha = (\alpha_{1} + \sqrt{\alpha_{2}})/2$. The background spectrum $P_{j}$ then allows us to compute the confidence levels. It is assumed that the time series has a mean power spectrum given by Eqn. \[fouriereqn\] and so if a peak in the wavelet power spectrum is significantly above this background spectrum, then the peak can be assumed to be a true feature. If the values in the time series $f(t)$ are normally distributed, we expect the wavelet power $|\widetilde f|^{2}$ to be $\chi^{2}$ distributed with two degrees of freedom ($\chi^{2}_{2}$). The square of a normally distributed variable is $\chi^{2}$ distributed with one degree of freedom and the second degree of freedom comes from the fact that both the real and imaginary parts of the complex $\widetilde f$ are normally distributed. For example, to determine the 95$\%$ confidence level, one multiplies the background spectrum (Eqn. \[fouriereqn\]) by the 95th percentile value for $\chi_{2}^{2}$. In Figure \[sinegwps\] we show the GWPS of a time series along with 99$\%$ and 95$\%$ confidence level for a red noise process and 99$\%$ confidence level for a white noise process.
The distribution for the local wavelet power spectrum is $$\frac{|\widetilde f(l_{j},t'_{i})|^2}{\sigma^{2}} \Rightarrow P_{j}\frac{\chi^{2}_{\nu}}{\nu}$$ where the arrow means “distributed as," $\sigma^{2}$ is the variance, and $\nu$ is the number of degrees of freedom, which is two here. The indices on the scale $l$ are $j$=1,2,...,$J$ where $J$ is the number of scales, and the indices on the translation $t'$ are $i$=1,2,...,$N_{data}$. We evaluate this equation at each scale to get 95$\%$ confidence contour lines and in this paper our continuous transforms are normalized to the 95$\%$ confidence level for the corresponding red noise process. Doing this allows one to see the strength of the wavelet coefficients relative to the 95$\%$ confidence level of a red noise process.
### The Cross-Wavelet Transform {#xwtsection}
Although the continuous wavelet transform is useful in examining how a time series varies in time and scale, it does not tell us how the time series varies in dilation over a range of scales when assigning a characteristic timescale. Since a quasi-periodic signal has no unique dilation we use the cross-wavelet transform (XWT) which filters out noise and reveals the QPO more clearly. Here we use the XWT introduced by @kel03.
After the continuous transform identifies that a periodic pattern exists in the data, the dilation that characterizes this period is obtained from the global wavelet power spectrum and is used to create a sinusoidal mock signal. The continuous wavelet transform coefficients of the data signal $f_{a}(t)$ are then multiplied by the complex conjugate of the continuous transform coefficients of a mock signal $f_{m}(t)$. The results are mapped out in wavelet space and analyzed for a correlation.
The cross-wavelet transform takes the form $$\widetilde f_{c} (l,t')= \widetilde f_a(l,t')\widetilde f^{*}_m(l,t')$$ where the continuous wavelet coefficients $\widetilde f_a$ and $\widetilde f_m$ are given by Equation \[coefficients\].
Figure \[sinecross\] shows the cross-wavelet for the same sinusoidal signal of varying frequency used in Figure \[sinecwt\]. The mock signal was calculated using the 6s period found in the wavelet power spectrum (see Fig. \[sinegwps\]) and as the concentrations in the real and power panels of Figure \[sinecross\] show, the cross-wavelet finds that this 6s period exists in the first half of the time series, illustrating the cross-wavelet’s ability to highlight a QPO.
The reader may refer to @kel03 for a full review of the cross-wavelet technique used here.
Structure Function Analysis {#sfanalysissection}
---------------------------
Since the global wavelet power spectrum compares the observed signal to expected levels of red noise and white noise, we created structure functions (SFs) for each of our observations to see which noise process dominates the signal at different times.
A structure function calculates the mean deviation of data points, providing an alternate method of quantifying time variations. Here we use a structure function of the first-order [@sim85]: $$SF(\delta t) = <[F(t) - F(t + \delta t)]^{2}>$$ where $F(t)$ is the flux at time $t$ and $\delta t$ is a time lag. The slope $\alpha$ of the SF curve in $log(SF)-log(\delta t)$ space depends on the noise processes underlying the signal, giving us an indication of the nature of the process of variation. If $\alpha = 1$ red noise dominates, and for flatter slopes of $\alpha = 0$ Poisson photon noise is significant. A plateau at short time lag is due to measurement noise. The transition from plateau to power-law in the structure function curve determines where the dominant underlying noise process changes in the object. The point of turnover from power-law to plateau at longer time lags corresponds to a maximum characteristic timescale.
### Effects of Pileup {#sfpileupsection}
We measure the presence of pile-up in our observations by using the SAS task EPATPLOT and find that the majority of our sources show varying degrees of pile-up. For example, as previously shown in Section \[obssection\], MKN 421 Obs. ID: 0099280101 has a modest amount of pile-up (see Figure \[epatplot\]). In the structure function of this observation (left panel, Figure \[structpileup\]), the flat portion of the structure function curve should have a value of $log(SF)=1$, which corresponds to the Poisson photon noise inherent in the photon statistics. However, here it falls below the Poisson photon noise level. To remove the pile-up we exclude the central core of the source in the event file since pile-up is more likely to occur here. For this subtracted data, the EPATPLOT output indicates that there is no pile-up and the SF curve is then at the expected value for Poisson photon noise (right panel, Figure \[structpileup\]). Pile-up affects the SF because it lowers the overall count rate and thereby Poisson photon noise is underreported.
We correct for pile-up in the rest of our data by adding a fixed value to $log(SF)$, moving the flat part of the structure function curve up to 1. All of our observations had less than 5$\%$ pile-up except for PKS 2155-304 Obs. ID 124930301 (6.5$\%$) and both observations of MKN 421 ($\sim 10\%$). Overall, the percentage of pile-up in our sample increases with the number of counts except for NGC 4151 Obs. ID 112830201 which is 5$\%$ piled-up and has an average of only 25 counts.
Results
-------
### Wavelet Analysis Results {#wavelet_results}
Of the observations that we analyzed, only one showed a quasi-period of interest (at 3.3 ksec), and this occurred in an observation of 3C 273 (ID 126700301). The continuous wavelet transform result for this observation is shown in Figure \[3ccwt\] with the quasi-period circled in the real and power plots (second and third panel, respectively). One can see that the quasi-period appears in the last two-thirds of the observation. In the real plot, the concentrations match up with peaks in the light curve, and the power is concentrated at $4.2\times10^{4}$ s. The wavelet is sampled with 220 dilations ($N_{l}$) ranging between $\sim 207.2$ s and $2.3\times10^{4}$ s. We note that the data in Figure \[3ccwt\] are binned from 5 s to 100 s for clarity and that we only show the first 56 ks due to background flaring at the end of the observation. We note that including the periods with background flaring does not change our results. The $\alpha$ found from autocorrelation analysis for the unbinned data is 0.14 and this value is used to reach the conclusions in this paper.
The 3.3 ks quasi-period is also evident in the Global Wavelet Power Spectrum (GWPS, Figure \[3cgwps\]), which is calculated by summing up the wavelet power spectra at all times. In searching for quasi-periodic behavior we excluded time scales above 25$\%$ of the time series length, where, using spectral methods, too few periods to provide a convincing result would be present, and where the cone of influence becomes important for the wavelet coefficients. On short time scales, experience has shown that sources often exhibit a broad distribution of power, with local maxima not well-separated from the mean power level. We selected a lower bound for our search, by visual identification of such behavior in the GWPS, in conjunction with a concomitant change in behavior of the SF. The solid line in Figure \[3cgwps\] is the power spectrum of the signal, which is compared to the power spectrum of white and red noise random processes (broken lines). One can see that the 3.3 ks detection exceeds the expected levels of white and red noise at the 99$\%$ significance level, i.e. the probability of the detection is higher than 99$\%$ of the noise random processes (the significance of this signal is 99.979$\%$ relative to red noise with $\alpha = 0.14$). The origins of the white and red noise power spectra were discussed in Section \[sigtestsection\].
The cross-wavelet analysis for 3C 273 (Fig. \[3ccross\]) supports the conclusion that a period of 3.3 ks is indeed present. Here, the XWT (see Section \[xwtsection\]) compares a mock sinusoidal signal with a period of 3282 s with the 3C 273 light curve. The concentration in the cross-wavelet transform shows that the 3.3 ks signal is present throughout the observation. As one can see, by comparing the crosswavelet signals in juxtaposed bands, the 3.3 ks periodicity can be traced over the entire interval. In the CWT (Figure \[3ccwt\]) the 3.3 ks signal is particularly strong at late times, and so, due to the limited dynamic range of the rendering, is not evident early in the time interval in that figure.
This periodicity is not detected in the other three observations of this object. In the 58 ks (Obs. ID 159960101) and 60 ks (Obs. ID 126700801) observations of 3C 273, there is a signal at 5000s, but it does not rise above the 99$\%$ red noise confidence level (Fig. \[gwpsall1\]). We note that a Fourier analysis of 3C 273 yielded a feature at 3.3 ks, but with a lower significance ($<$ 3$\sigma$) than is found with the wavelet technique.
We performed Monte Carlo simulations in order to estimate the probability that the wavelet technique would claim a spurious detection. As a baseline, we created one thousand simulated light curves for Poisson photon noise (Fig. 11) to represent random observational errors i.e. photon counting statistics. The simulated light curves were 56 ks long with 5 s intervals and we multiplied the mean deviate $z_{n}$ by 40 to produce an average spread in the y-axis of 40 counts to resemble the 3C 273 light curve. Most of the false detections occur at timescales less than 2000s which corresponds to 3.6 $\%$ the length of the observation and supports our earlier point that one can select the lower limit to search for periodicities by visual identification of broad distributions of power on short time scales in the GWPS. On average, the wavelet technique claims a detection (at or above the significance level reported by the wavelet analysis for 3C 273) 0.4$\%$ of the time (Fig. \[hist\]). The Monte Carlo simulations suggest a significantly higher rate of false detections than is implied by the statistics based on the GWPS. However, they are consistent with the latter estimates [*within the margin of error*]{}, given that only 1000 realizations of a time series were generated. Better simulation statistics could be achieved by increasing the number of time series realizations by several orders of magnitude, but devoting time and resources to this is not warranted. Visual inspection of the simulated light curves reveals that they differ qualitatively from the actual time series: a better correspondence can be achieved with the addition of randomly distributed Gaussian-profile bursts of fixed, small amplitude. Evidently, the process under study is not strictly a stationary, first order one, and the formal statistical measures of significance should be regarded as only indicative of the high likelihood of a quasi-periodic phenomenon in this source. A more detailed analysis, allowing for nonstationary processes, is beyond the scope of this paper. While we have performed 19 independent experiments and found only 1 detection we point out that of our 19 data sets only 7 have average counts (Table 1) equal to or more than the observation in which we find the QPO. One cannot expect to see with equal likelihood, a periodicity of equal strength in these weaker AGN.
We note that independently, the XWT finds evidence for power throughout the observation at 3.3 ks (Fig. 8). We measured the 3.3 ks signal strength across the time series from the power plot of Figure 8. The power of the 3.3 ks signal is $\sim$ 4000 times stronger than shorter and longer dilations, illustrating that the 3.3 ks period is well-constrained. We also ran the XWT on this time series with analyzing signals of 2.3 ks and 4.3 ks. The average power of these signals is $\sim$ 2 times less than the average power of the 3.3 ks signal. This demonstrates that the XWT is picking out a well-defined, persistent signal, and will not misleadingly suggest a signal where there is none.
We did not find any significant detections for the other nine AGN in our sample. No features had significances that exceeded the 99$\%$ confidence levels for both white noise and red noise processes (see Figs. \[gwpsall1\], \[gwpsall2\]) and appeared at either too short (i.e. at timescales shorter than 3.6$\%$ the length of the observation) or too long (i.e. at timescales greater than half the length of the observation) a timescale. Some of the AGN in our sample have been studied before and previous reports of QPOs exist in the literature. We will discuss those results in more detail in Section \[discussionprevious\].
### Structure Function Results {#sfanalysis}
After correcting for pile-up, we subtract a constant level corresponding to Poisson photon noise from the structure functions (Figures \[sfminus1\], \[sfminus2\]). The slopes are measured by fitting a power-law to the SF curve using the least-squares method in $log(SF)-log(\delta t)$ space. Slopes are listed in Table \[sftbl\] along with the characteristic time-scales of variability, which were measured by identifying the times of turnover from plateau to power-law and vice versa in the SF curve. All of our structure functions have a flat plateau at short timescales corresponding to Poisson photon noise, most have a power-law portion, and some have a plateau at long timescales. We include light curves in Figures \[lightcurves1\], \[lightcurves2\] for comparison with the structure functions.
The structure functions for all four observations of 3C 273 are shown in the first four panels of Figure \[sfminus1\]. The observation with the 3.3 ks quasi-period (upper left, Figure \[sfminus1\]) is dominated by whitish noise around 3000s, as inferred from its flat slope; however, the SF is unsuited to quantifying the autocorrelation coefficient precisely. Recall that the wavelet analysis finds an autocorrelation coefficient of $\alpha = 0.14$, relatively small, and consistent with a flattish structure function. We note that this observation also has the greatest excess of such noise above the photon noise, compared to the other three observations, consistent with this being a unique time series out of all those analyzed.
Discussion
==========
Mass Estimates of 3C 273
------------------------
There are several mass estimates for 3C 273 obtained from different methods. One method is reverberation mapping whereby one uses the time lag of the emission-line light curve with respect to the continuum light curve to determine the light crossing size of the broad line region (BLR) and then assumes Keplerian conditions in the broad line region gas motion (i.e. $M_{BH}=v^{2}R_{BLR}/G$) [@pet00].
Reverberation mapping results based on the optical continuum (i.e. Balmer lines) place the mass of the central black hole in 3C 273 at $2.35^{+0.37}_{-0.33}\times 10^8$ M$_\sun$ [@kas00]. In a different study, @pian use $Hubble$ $Space$ $Telescope$ UV luminosities to find the broad line region size. To do so, they derive a relationship between $R_{BLR}$ and UV luminosity using the empirical relationship found by @kas00 between $R_{BLR}$ and the optical luminosity. @pian obtain a mass of $4.0^{+2}_{-2}\times 10^{8}M_\sun$ for 3C 273, consistent with the @kas00 value within errors. In another study, @paltani look at the strongest broad emission UV lines (Ly$\alpha$ and C IV ) in archival $International$ $Ultraviolet$ $Explorer$ observations and obtain a mass of $6.59^{+1.86}_{-0.9}\times10^9M_\sun$ for the central supermassive black hole in 3C 273.
There are also mass estimates for 3C 273 that do not come from reverberation mapping. @lia03 find a black hole mass of $2\times 10^7$ M$_\sun$ by generalizing the Elliot-Shapiro relation to the Klein-Nishina regime for 3C 273’s gamma-ray flux obtained from EGRET. Another method is to use the @mclure correlation between host galaxy luminosity and black hole mass which obtains a mass of $1.6 \times 10^9$ M$_\sun$ with an uncertainty of 0.6 dex [@wang].
Underlying Physical Process for the QPO in 3C 273
-------------------------------------------------
If the 3.3 ks quasi-period in 3C 273 represents an orbital timescale originating near a last stable orbit, it implies a central black hole mass of $7.3\times 10^6$ M$_\sun$ for a non-rotating black hole or $8.1\times 10^7$ M$_\sun$ for a maximally rotating black hole. These numbers agree with the @lia03 mass estimate of $2\times 10^7$ M$_\sun$. However, these masses are substantially lower than those expected for supermassive black holes.
The @pian estimate for the mass of the black hole in 3C 273 at $4.0 \times 10^8$ M$_\sun$ points to an orbital period of $\sim 200$ ks for a last stable orbit of 3$R_S$ and a period of $\sim$16 ks for 0.6$R_S$ for a rotating black hole. @paltani estimate a mass for 3C 273 of $6.59 \times 10^{9}$ M$_\sun$, which points to an orbital period of 3000 ks for a last stable orbit of 3$R_S$ and a period of 270 ks for 0.6$R_S$. The 3.3 ks quasi-period we find here is only about 2-20$\%$ of the @pian orbital timescale and 0.1-1$\%$ of the @paltani orbital timescale, suggesting that this X-ray quasi-period is not caused by dynamical motion in the inner accretion disk. Furthermore, the inverse scaling between frequency and black hole mass yields an expected period of $t \sim 300 M_{BH}/10^{6}M_\sun$ based on the representative of HF QPOs in XRBs, GRO J1655-40 [@orosz; @remi99; @abram]. Using either the @pian or @paltani mass estimates yields a period that is one to two orders of magnitude higher than what we observe.
Previous work has suggested that oscillations can occur in the innermost region of relativistic accretion disks due to their instability against axisymmetric radial oscillations, possibly due to a magnetic field [@kato]. This has been proposed for X-ray binary systems, but the physical mechanism responsible for these oscillations can be applied to other accretion disk systems like AGN. @perez analyze modes of oscillation in terms of perturbations of the general relativistic equations of motion of perfect fluids within the Kerr metric. They look at the case of a thin accretion disk around a Kerr black hole in order to determine black hole mass and angular momentum for different trapped modes.
We propose that a g-mode oscillation of $m\geq3$ is responsible for the 3.3 ks quasi-period in 3C 273. A g-mode (inertial) oscillation can be characterized as a restoring force that is dominated by the net gravitational-centrifugal force. These modes are the most relevant observationally since they appear to occupy the largest area of the disk and hence should be the most observable trapped modes [@perez].
Equation 5.4 of @perez shows that the frequency of a quasi-period should be observed at $$f=714(M_\sun/M)F(a) Hz$$ where $a$ is the angular momentum parameter and $M=M_{AGN}$. For $m=0$ and $a=0$, $F(0)=1$, while $F(a_{max})=3.443$ where $a_{max}=0.998$. This gives a mass that is too low. For $m=3$, $F(a_{max})\sim~59$ (see Figure 5 of @perez) and this gives a mass for 3C 273 of $1.4 \times 10^8 M_\sun$. @perez do not look at modes higher than 3.
Previously Reported QPOs for AGN in Our Sample {#discussionprevious}
----------------------------------------------
@fiore report a QPO in NGC 4151 around 5.8 ks with $>99\%$ significance based on three EXOSAT observations. @vaub reanalyzed these data sets and found that after fitting the red noise significance and Poisson photon noise components of the spectrum, the QPOs fall below the 95$\%$ threshold. Our [*XMM-Newton*]{} observations show a $\sim$4.8 ks feature. This appears in our 57 ks observation (Obs. ID: 112830201) with 96$\%$ red noise significance and in our 30 ks observation (Obs. ID: 112310101) with 99.4$\%$ red noise (see Fig. \[gwpsall2\]). Even though this signal rises above the 99$\%$ red noise level in this observation, we discount it because it appears as part of a larger power structure in the GWPS and is not a well-defined peak.
For NGC 5548, @pap93 claim a 500s QPO in five out of eight EXOSAT observations. @tag96 reanalyzed the same data and found that one observation had detector problems. Also, in every case they found less than 95$\%$ significance by taking into account the uncertainties in modeling the spectrum. In our [*XMM-Newton*]{} data of NGC 5548, we report a 500s feature, but it has only a 93$\%$ red noise significance, and is seen in only one of our two observations (Obs. ID: 089960401, Fig. \[gwpsall2\]).
For MKN 766, @boller claim a $\sim$4200s QPO in a 30 ks [*XMM-Newton*]{} observation. In our 128 ks observation, taken a year later, we see a signal at 4200s with 99.5$\%$ red noise significance, but it is dwarfed in the global wavelet power by a much stronger, wider broad peak (see Fig. \[gwpsall2\]), possibly due to a secular change in flux over the observation.
We do not detect any significant feature for MCG-6-30-15 [@lee], MKN 421 or PKS 2155-304 [@osone], which have previously reported QPOs. To the best of our knowledge there are no published QPO claims for any of the other objects in our sample: 3C 273, IRAS 13349$+$2438, NGC 3516.
@hal03 reported the discovery of a 2.08 day quasi-period in the NLS1 galaxy TonS180 with a 33 day observation taken with the $Extreme$ $Ultraviolet$ $Explorer$ (EUVE). @vau suggest that this periodogram is oversampled and so the significance is overestimated. Our wavelet analysis of this data shows a $\sim~$2 d period in the global wavelet power spectrum which rises above the 99$\%$ white noise level, but it has only 89.5$\%$ red noise significance (Fig. \[gwpsall2\]). Our wavelet analysis finds an $\alpha$ of 0.8 for this observation and the structure function shows that red noise dominates, implying that this 2 d feature should be compared to red noise significance and so is not significant.
Summary & Conclusions
=====================
We applied the wavelet analysis technique to [*XMM-Newton*]{} observations of 10 AGN and detected a candidate 3.3 ks period in 3C 273. The cross wavelet transform shows that the 3.3 ks signal is present throughout the entire observation. If the 3.3 ks quasi-period in 3C 273 represents an orbital timescale originating near a last stable orbit, it implies a central black hole mass of at least $7.3\times 10^6$ M$_\sun$ which does not agree with reverberation mapping mass estimates. @kas00 estimate the mass of the black hole in 3C 273 at $2.35\times 10^8$ M$_\sun$ and @paltani find a mass of $6.59 \times10^{9}$ M$_\sun$. This suggests that this X-ray quasi-period is not caused by dynamical motion in the inner accretion disk.
We suggest that oscillations with modes of three or higher are occurring in the accretion disk of 3C 273, producing the detected 3.3 ks quasi-period. @perez shows that for $m\geq3$ and maximum angular momentum one can obtain a mass for 3C 273 of $1.4 \times 10^8$ M$_\sun$, consistent with the lower mass estimate obtained from reverberation mapping.
We thank the anonymous referee for constructive comments that helped improve the paper. We thank Margo Aller, Robert Fender, Luis Ho, Jereon Homan, Jon Miller, and Simon Vaughan for useful discussions. JNB would like to acknowledge support from NASA for these activities, through the Long Term Space Astrophysics grant NAG5-10765.
Abramowicz, M.A., Kluzniak, W., McClintock, J.E., Remillard, R. A. 2004, ApJ, 609, L63 Devereux, N., Ford, H., Tsvetanov, Z., & Jacoby, G. 2003, , 125, 1226 Boller, Th., et al. 2001, A&A, 365, L146 Edelson, R. & Nandra, K. 1999, , 514, 682 Farge, M. 1992, Ann. Rev. Fluid Mech., 24, 395 Fiore, F., et al. 1989, , 347, 171 Foster, G. 1996, , 112, 1709 Halpern, J.P., Leighly, K.M., & Marshall, H.L. 2003, , 585, 665 Hughes, P. A., Aller, H.D., & Aller, M.F. 1998, , 503, 662 Iwasawa, K., Fabian A.C., Brandt, W.N., et al. 1998, , 295, L20 Johnson, R. W. 2006, ArXiv Physics e-prints, arXiv:physics/0604211 Kadler, M., Hughes, P. A., Ros, E., Aller, M. F., & Aller, H. D. 2006, , 456, L1 Kaspi, S., Smith, P.S., Netzer, H., Maoz, D., Jannuzi, B. T., & Giveon, U. 2000, , 533, 631 Kato, S., & Fukue, J. 1980, , 32, 377 Kelly, B. C., Hughes, P.A., Aller, H.D., & Aller, M.F. 2003, , 591, 695 Lee, J.C., et al. 2000, , 318, 857 Liang, E. W. & Liu, H. T. 2003, , 340, 632 Liu, J.-F., Bregman, J. N., Lloyd-Davies, E., Irwin, J., Espaillat, C., & Seitzer, P. 2005, , 621, L17 Markowitz, A., Edelson, R., Vaughan, S., Uttley, P., George, I.M., Griffiths, R.E., Kaspi, S., Lawrence, A., McHardy, I., Nandra, K., Pounds, K., Reeves, J., Schurch, N., & Warwick, R. 2003, , 593, 96 McHardy, I.M., Papadakis, I.E., Uttley, P., Page, M.J., Mason, K.O. 2004, MNRAS, 348, 783 McHardy, I.M., Gunn, K.F., Uttley, P., & Goad, M.R. 2005, , 359, 1469 McLure, R.J., & Dunlop, J.S. 2001, MNRAS, 327, 199 Orosz, J.A., & Bailyn, C.D. 1997, , 477, 876 Osone, S., Teshima, M., & Mase, K., 2001, preprint(astro-ph/0106223) Paltani, S. & Tűrler, M., 2005, A&A, 435, 811 Papadakis I.E., Lawrence A., 1993, Nature, 361, 233 Perez, C.A., et al. 1997, , 476, 589 Peterson, B. M., Wandel, A. 2000, , 540, L13 Pian, E., Falamo, R., & Treves, A., 2005, , 361, 919 Press, W.H. 1978, Comments on Astrophysics, 7, 103 Remillard, R.A., Morgan, E.H., McClintock, J.E., Bailyn, C.D., & Orosz, J.A. 1999, , 522, 397 Remillard, R.A., Sobczak, G.J., Muno, M.P., & McClintock, J.E. 2002, , 564, 962 Simonetti, J.H., Cordes, J.M., & Heeschen, D.S. 1985, , 296, 46 Tagliaferri G., et al. 1996, , 465, 181 Torrence, C. & Compo, G. 1998, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 79, 61 Uttley, P., McHardy, I.M., Papadakis, I.E.,2002, MNRAS, 332, 231 van der Klis, M. 2000, , 38, 717 Vaughan, S., Fabian, A. C., & Nandra, K. 2003 , 339, 1237 Vaughan, S. 2005, A&A, 431, 391 Vaughan, S., & Uttley, P. 2005, , 362, 235 Vaughan, S., & Uttley, P. 2006, Advances in Space Research, 38, 1405 Wang, J., Luo, B., & Ho, L. 2004, , 615, L9 Woo, J. & Urry, C. M. 2002, , 579, 530
0.5in
0.5in
0.5in
![Effect of pile-up on structure functions of MKN 421 Obs. ID: 0099280101. The flat portion of the structure function curve affected by pile-up (left panel) falls below $log(SF)=1$, which corresponds to Poisson photon noise. In the right panel the central core of the source has been removed (i.e. pile-up is greatly reduced) and the SF curve is then at the expected value for Poisson photon noise (right panel).\[structpileup\]](fig5a.convert.eps "fig:") ![Effect of pile-up on structure functions of MKN 421 Obs. ID: 0099280101. The flat portion of the structure function curve affected by pile-up (left panel) falls below $log(SF)=1$, which corresponds to Poisson photon noise. In the right panel the central core of the source has been removed (i.e. pile-up is greatly reduced) and the SF curve is then at the expected value for Poisson photon noise (right panel).\[structpileup\]](fig5b.convert.eps "fig:")
0.5in
0.5in
![Lightcurves for the 10 AGN in our sample. All observations are in the energy range 0.75 to 10 keV. Most observations are binned to 100s except for MKN 421, NGC 5548 (Obs ID: 089960401) and IRAS 13349+2438 which are binned to 50s. \[lightcurves1\]](fig14a.convert.eps "fig:") ![Lightcurves for the 10 AGN in our sample. All observations are in the energy range 0.75 to 10 keV. Most observations are binned to 100s except for MKN 421, NGC 5548 (Obs ID: 089960401) and IRAS 13349+2438 which are binned to 50s. \[lightcurves1\]](fig14b.convert.eps "fig:")
![Light curves for the 10 AGN in our sample. All observations are in the energy range 0.75 to 10 keV. Most observations are binned to 100s except for MKN 421, NGC 5548 (Obs ID: 089960401) and IRAS 13349+2438 which are binned to 50s.\[lightcurves2\]](fig15a.convert.eps "fig:") ![Light curves for the 10 AGN in our sample. All observations are in the energy range 0.75 to 10 keV. Most observations are binned to 100s except for MKN 421, NGC 5548 (Obs ID: 089960401) and IRAS 13349+2438 which are binned to 50s.\[lightcurves2\]](fig15b.convert.eps "fig:")
[lcccc]{} 3C 373 & 126700301 & 2000-06-13 & 66 & 140\
3C 373 & 126700801 & 2000-06-17 & 60.6 & 120\
3C 373 & 136550101 & 2003-01-05 & 88.6 & 160\
3C 273 & 159960101 & 2003-07-07 & 58 & 230\
IRAS 13349+2438 & 096010101 & 2000-06-20 & 44.6 & 10\
M81 & 111800101 & 2001-04-22 & 130 & 20\
MCG-6-30-15 & 029740701 & 2001-08-02 & 127 & 70\
MCG-6-30-15 & 029740801 & 2001-08-04 & 125 & 120\
MKN 421 & 099280101 & 2000-05-25 & 32.5 & 740\
MKN 421 & 099280301 & 2000-11-13 & 46.6 & 1060\
MKN 766 & 109141301 & 2001-05-20 & 128.5 & 90\
NGC 3516 & 107460601 & 2001-04-10 & 129 & 20\
NGC 3516 & 107460701 & 2001-11-09 & 128 & 12\
NGC 4151 & 112310101 & 2000-12-21 & 30 & 20\
NGC 4151 & 112830201 & 2000-12-22 & 57 & 25\
NGC 5548 & 089960301 & 2001-07-09 & 93.4 & 75\
NGC 5548 & 089960401 & 2001-07-12 & 37 & 90\
PKS 2155-304 & 124930201 & 2000-05-31 & 59 & 280\
PKS 2155-304 & 124930301 & 2001-11-30 & 44.6 & 380\
[lcccc]{} 3C 373 & 126700301 & 1.23 & $1.5\times10^4$ & -\
3C 373 & 126700801 & 2.09 & $1.5\times10^4$ & -\
3C 373 & 136550101 & - & - & -\
3C 273 & 159960101 & 1.68 & $2\times10^4$& -\
IRAS 13349+2438 & 096010101 & 1.68 & 1000 & -\
M81 & 111800101 & 0.95 & 7000 & -\
MCG-6-30-15 & 029740701 & 0.82 & - & $10^4$\
MCG-6-30-15 & 029740801 & 1.11 & 200 & -\
MKN 421 & 099280101 & 1.25 & 400 & -\
MKN 421 & 099280301 & 1.13 & 350 & 7000\
MKN 766 & 109141301 & 0.67 & 100 & $3\times10^4$\
NGC 3516 & 107460601 & 1.18,1.39 & 2000 & -\
NGC 3516 & 107460701 & 1.86 & $2\times10^4$ &-\
NGC 4151 & 112310101 & - & - & -\
NGC 4151 & 112830201 & 1.19 & 7000 & -\
NGC 5548 & 089960301 & 0.99,1.64 & 1200 & -\
NGC 5548 & 089960401 & 0.097,2.75 & 1000 & -\
PKS 2155-304 & 124930201 & .99,.59,.45,1.69 & 2000 & -\
PKS 2155-304 & 124930301 & 1.59 & 1100 & -\
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
1 [[email protected]]{} 2 [[email protected]]{}
Introduction
============
The existence of the so-called exotic matter, violating the weak and null energy conditions, is favored by modern cosmological observations allowing for the ratio of pressure to energy density, $w = p/\rho < -1$ (see, e.g., [@planck15] and references therein). This is one of the reasons for the recent interest in the construction and properties of wormhole configurations in general relativity and its extensions (see, e.g., [@vis-book; @lobo-rev; @we-book; @we-14] for reviews), since, as is well known, it is the necessity of exotic matter that makes a fundamental problem in construction [@hoh-vis].
It has also been discovered that if one admits the existence of exotic matter, for example, in the form of phantom scalar fields, then, in addition to , there can appear quite a number of other interesting and unusual configurations, such as different types of regular black holes and, among them, the so-called . The latter look in the static region basically the same as “ordinary” in , but beyond the horizon, instead of a singularity, they contain an expanding universe which ultimately becomes isotropic and can be asymptotically de Sitter at large times [@bu1; @bu2].
Since no exotic matter or phantom fields have been detected under usual physical conditions, it is desirable to avoid the emergence of such fields in an asymptotic weak-field region. To that end, it has been suggested [@trap1; @trap2; @trap3] to use a special kind of fields, named “trapped ghosts”, which have phantom properties only in some restricted strong-field region and satisfy the standard energy conditions in the remaining part of space. With such a field, a variety of solutions have been obtained, including regular black holes, black universes and traversable wormholes.
In all these models, the kinetic energy density smoothly passes zero at some scalar field value $\phi= \phi_0$, being negative at $\phi> \phi_0$. This transition point has certain undesirable properties, in particular, if we consider perturbations of a configuration with such a field, the corresponding effective potential has a singularity which should in general lead to a violent instability.
Trying to avoid these problems, in this paper we consider wormhole and black universe models without a trapped ghost but use, instead, a superposition of two scalar fields, a phantom one and a canonical one, requiring a sufficiently rapid decay of the phantom field in the weak-field region. We call this design an “invisible ghost”.
We use the electromagnetic field as one more source of gravity. As in [@trap3], we deal with static, spherically symmetric space-times, therefore the only kinds of electromagnetic fields are a radial electric (Coulomb) field and a radial magnetic (monopole) field. For the latter, it is unnecessary to assume the existence of magnetic charges (monopoles): in both wormholes and black universes a monopole magnetic field can exist without sources due the space-time geometry. In the wormhole case it perfectly conforms to Wheeler’s idea of a “charge without charge” [@wheeler], and this charge can be both electric and magnetic.
One of the motivations for including the electromagnetic field into consideration is that by modern observations there can exist a global magnetic field up to $10^{-15}$ Gauss, causing correlated orientations of sources remote from each other [@o-mag], and some authors admit a possible primordial nature of such a magnetic field.
The results obtained here show that a superposition of phantom and canonical scalar fields combined with an electromagnetic field can support wormholes, black universes and other kinds of regular black holes without a center. Actually, the set of possible types of geometry coincides with that obtained previously with the aid of a pure phantom scalar [@pha-mag] or a trapped ghost [@trap3].
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we present the basic equations and make some general observations. In Section 3 we obtain examples of wormhole and regular configurations supported by a superposition of two scalar fields, a phantom one and a canonical one. The Appendix presents the form of the effective potential for radial perturbations of field systems, more general than considered here, including those with a trapped ghost.
Basic equations
===============
Consider a field system with the action \[1\] [S]{} = d\^4 x , in a space-time, where $R$ is the scalar curvature, $g = \det(g\mn)$, $F\mn$ is the electromagnetic field tensor, $\{\phi^a\}$ is a sigma-model type set of scalar fields, $h_{ab} = h_{ab}(\phi^a)$ is a nondegenerate target space metric, $(\d\phi^a,\d\phi^b) \equiv g^{ \mu \nu} \d_\mu\phi^a \d_\nu\phi^b$, and $V(\phi^a)$ is an interaction potential.
The metric can be written as \[2\] ds\^2 = A(u)dt\^2 - - r\^2(u)d \^2, where we use the so-called quasiglobal gauge $g_{00}g_{11}=-1$, and $d \Omega^2=(d \theta^2+\sin^2 \theta d \varphi^2)$ is the linear element on a unit sphere.
Our interest is in and solutions, describing nonsingular configurations without a center. Hence we assume that the range of $u$ is $u \in \mathbb{R}$, where both $A(u)$ and $r(u)$ are regular, $r > 0$ everywhere, and $r \to \infty$ at both ends. We also require $r(u)
\approx |u|$ as $u \to \pm \infty$, which is in agreement with possible flat, de Sitter or AdS symptotic behaviors at large $r$.
The existence of two asymptotic regions with $r \sim |u|$ implies that there is at least one regular minimum of $r(u)$ at some $u=u_0$, at which (the prime stands for $d/du$) \[3\] r = r\_0 > 0, r’=0, r”>0. The necessity of violating the weak and null energy conditions (WEC and NEC) at such minima follows from the Einstein equations. Indeed, one of them reads (see (\[11\]) below) \[4\] 2 A r”/r = -(T\^t\_t - T\^u\_u), where $T\mN$ are components of the stress-energy tensor (SET). If a minimum of $r$ occurs in an R-region (i.e., $A > 0$), it is a throat. The condition $r''> 0$ implies, according to (\[4\]), $T^t_t-T^u_u < 0$, or, in conventional terms, ($T^t_t = \rho$ and $-T^u_u = p_r$, the energy density and radial pressure, respectively) $\rho + p_r < 0$, which manifests NEC violation. It is a simple proof for static, spherically symmetric wormhole throats ([@thorne]; see also [@we-book]).
If a minimum of $r$ occurs in a T-region ($A < 0$), it is not a throat but a bounce in the time evolution of one of the scale factors in a cosmology (the other scale factor is $[-A(u)]^{1/2}$). In a T-region $t$ is a spatial coordinate, so $-T^t_t = p_t$ is the corresponding pressure, while $T^u_u = \rho$; however, the condition $r''> 0$ in (\[4\]) leads to $\rho + p_t < 0$, again violating the NEC. In the intermediate case of $A = 0$ (a horizon) at a minimum of $r$, the condition $r''> 0$ should also hold in its vicinity, with all its consequences. Thus a minimum of $r$ always implies a NEC (and hence WEC) violation.
The Einstein field equations can be written as \[7\] R= 2h\_[ab]{} \^a \_\^b - gV + T; where $T\mn[F]$ is the SET of the electromagnetic field. Nonzero components of $F\mn$ compatible with the metric (\[2\]) are $F_{01} = -F_{10}$ (a radial electric field) and $F_{23} = -F_{32}$ (a radial magnetic field), and the Maxwell equations lead to \[8\] F\_[01]{}F\^[01]{}=-q\_[e]{}\^2 /r\^4(u), F\_[23]{}F\^[23]{}=q\_m\^2/r\^4 (u), where the constants $q_{e}$ and $q_{m}$ are the electric and magnetic charges, respectively. The corresponding SET is ($q := \sqrt{q^2_e + q^2_m}$) \[9\] T= (1,1,-1,1).
As to the scalar fields, let us assume that there are two of them, a usual, canonical field $\phi(u)$, and a phantom one, $\psi(u)$, able to provide NEC and WEC violation, so that $h_{ab} = \diag (1, -1)$. For the potential we make the simplest assumption \[6\] V = V\_() + V\_(), thus both fields are self-interacting but do not directly interact with each other. Then the set of equations to be solved can be written as \[10\] (A’r\^2)’ = -2r\^2 V + 2 q\^2/r\^2, \[11\] r”/r = - ’\^2 + ’\^2, \[12\] A(r\^2)”-r\^2 A” = 2- 4q\^2/r\^2, \[s1\] 2= dV\_/d, \[s2\] 2= -dV\_/d, where $\square$ is the d’Alembert operator: for any $f(u)$, $\square f = -r^{-2} [A r^2 f']'$. The unknowns are $\phi(u)$, $\psi(u)$, $A(u)$, $r(u)$, as well as the potentials $V_{\phi}(\phi)$ and $V_{\psi}(\psi)$. (\[12\]) can be integrated giving \[14\] r\^4 B’(u) = -2u + 4q\^2 , B(u) .
Examples of models with an invisible ghost
==========================================
It is hard to solve (\[10\])–(\[s2\]) with given potentials $V_\phi$ and $V_\psi$. Instead, following the lines of [@bu1; @trap1; @trap2; @trap3; @pha-mag], we try to find examples of interest using the inverse problem method: specifying the functions $r(u)$ and $\phi(u)$, we find all other unknowns from the field equations. Given the function $r(u)$ and the charge $q$, the redshift function $A(u)$ is found from (\[12\]), and the summed potential $V(u)$ from (\[10\]). The phantom field $\psi(u)$ can be found from (\[11\]) provided $\phi(u)$ is known. Lastly, the separate potentials $V_\phi$ and $V_\psi$ are found using (\[s1\]) and (\[s2\]).
We can choose the function $r(u)$, providing the opportunity of and configurations, in the same form as in [@trap3]: \[15\] r(u)=a , n = > 2, where $x=u/a$, and $a > 0$ is an arbitrary constant with the dimension of length. Hence, \[16\] r”(u) = , so that $r'' > 0$ at $x^2 < n(2n-1)/(n-2)$ (a behavior compatible with a phantom scalar) and $r'' < 0$ at larger $|x|$. It is also clear that $r \approx a |x|$ at large $|x|$. This ensures a negative kinetic energy density (see the r.h.s. of (\[11\])) at low values of $x$ and a positive one in the rest of space. We will take $a=1$, which is in essence a choice of a length unit. The values of $r$, $q$, $m$ ($m$ is the Schwarzschild mass in our geometrized units), having the dimension of length, thus become dimensionless but are actually expressed in terms of $a$. The quantities $B(u)$ and $V(u)$ and others having the dimension (length)$^{-2}$, are expressed in units of $a^{-2}$. The quantities $A(u)$, $\phi(u)$, $\psi(u)$ are dimensionless.
From (\[14\]) it follows \[17\] B’(x) = ,
{width="55mm"} {width="55mm"} {width="55mm"}\
a b c\
where $p$ is an integration constant. Further integration can be performed analytically but the resulting expressions for $B(x)$ and other quantities are too cumbersome. For definiteness, we further choose $n = 4$ (one can check that other values $n > 3$ do not qualitatively change the solution), then \[18\] B(u)= - + + + + + q\^2 \^2 x + x (-3 m+2 q) - B\_0, with an integration constant $B_0$. Assuming asymptotic flatness as $x \to + \infty$, that is, $A \to 1$, we should require $B = A/r^2 \to 0$, which leads to \[19\] B\_0 = \^2 q\^2 - \^2 q + m Comparing the asymptotic expression $A(x) = 1 - 2m / x + o(1/x)$ with $A(x) = Br^2$ following from (\[17\]), the parameter $p$ is related to the Schwarzschild mass $m$ and the charge $q$: \[20\] p = m - q\^2 Thus $B$ is a function of $x$ and two parameters, the mass $m$ and the charge $q$. Furthermore, using (\[10\]), we find the potential $V(x)$ depending on the parameters $m$ and $q$.
{width="57mm"} {width="57mm"} {width="57mm"}\
a b c\
At the other extreme, $x \to -\infty$, possible values $B(-\infty) < 0$ correspond to de Sitter asymptotic behavior (dS), and, since it is a T-region, it is an expanding or contracting cosmology, in other words, we obtain a .
If $B(- \infty) = 0$, which happens if $p=0$, the metric is , and the whole solution is symmetric with respect to the surface $x=0$ since both $B(x)$ and $r(x)$, as well as the potential $V(x)$ are even functions. In this case, the mass and charge are related by $m = (2/3) \pi q^2$.
Lastly, we obtain an anti-de Sitter (AdS) asymptotic if $B(- \infty) > 0$. The resulting solutions can be classified according to the asymptotic behaviors at the two infinities and the number and kind of horizons that correspond to zeros of $B(x)$.
{width="60mm"} {width="60mm"}
{width="60mm"} {width="60mm"}\
{width="60mm"} {width="60mm"}
The possible kinds of geometries obtained have the same qualitative features as those discussed in [@pha-mag; @trap3], so we will not describe them here in full detail. In particular, we refer to [@pha-mag] for a description of the corresponding global causal structures and Carter-Penrose diagrams, which (since $r(x)\approx |x|$ at both infinities) are completely determined by the zeros of $B(x)$ and the signs of its asymptotic values.
In the case of symmetric, twice asymptotically flat solutions we have the following types of geometries (see Fig.1): (i) a ($0 \leq |q|
\lesssim 0.398$), (ii) an extremal regular black hole with a single horizon $(q \approx 0.398)$, and (iii) a non-extremal regular black hole with two simple horizons $(q \gtrsim 0.398)$ (Fig.1). It is of interest that small changes of $q$ near the critical value $\approx 0.398$ drastically change $B(x)$ whereas the function $V(x)$ changes very little. One can also note that at large $|x|$ the potential $V(x)$ has small negative values (Fig.1c) while it is comparatively large and positive at small $x$.
Asymmetric configurations, at $x=\infty$, are slightly more diverse. Fig.2 shows some of them under the assumption $m=1$ adopted for definiteness. Note that in both figures 1a and 2a all curves $B(x)$ approach $x = \infty$ from positive since there is an R-region and Schwarzschild asymptotic.
For the scalar field $\phi$, by analogy with [@trap3], we assume the form \[22\] (x) = K(Lx), where $K$ and $L$ are adjustable constants. By (\[22\]) and (\[11\]), \[23\] ’\^2 (x) = , \[25\] ’\^2 (x) = + .
Let us choose $K$ and $L$ in such a way as to make the phantom field $\psi$ decay at large $x$ more rapidly than $\phi$. From (\[25\]) we have ’\^2 (x) = + + O(x\^[-8]{}), hence taking \[KL\] K = 2/, L = , we obtain $\psi'\sim x^{-4}$ whereas $\phi' \sim x^{-2}$ at large $|x|$, as required. We use the values (\[KL\]) in our numerical calculations. The behavior of $\phi'(x)$ and $\psi'(x)$ is shown in Fig.3.
The field potential $V_{\phi}(x)$ is found from (\[s1\]) under the boundary condition $V_\phi (\infty) =0$. The other potential $V_\psi$ is obtained as \[32\] V\_= V - V\_, or it can be equivalently found from (\[s2\]). The expressions for the potentials are found analytically but are too bulky to be presented here, so we only show their plots for some values (Figs.4 and 5), again putting $m=1$. Other values of $m$ do not add any new qualitative features of the solution.
Summarizing, we have obtained examples of , regular and solutions to the field equations with two scalars $\phi$ (canonical) and $\psi$ (phantom), in which the phantom field comparatively quickly decays at infinity.
Appendix: linear perturbations {#appendix-linear-perturbations .unnumbered}
==============================
Consider an action with a single scalar field, but more general than (\[1\]) in that we admit a dilatonic-type interaction between the scalar and electromagnetic fields: \[L\] [S]{} = d\^4 x , where $h > 0$ for a normal scalar field with positive kinetic energy and $ h < 0$ for a phantom one; the function $S(\phi) > 0$, characterizing the scalar-electromagnetic interaction, is arbitrary. The field equations are 4 h \^\_ + S\_FF 0, \[Ephi\]\
\_(S() F) 0, \[EMax\]\
R- R - T, \[EE\] where $S_\phi \equiv dS/d\phi$ and $T\mN$ is the SET: T= T+ T, T= h()\[ 2\_\^- \^\_\] + V(), T= S() . \[SET\] The general metric may be written in the form \[ds1\] ds\^2 = \^[2]{} dt\^2 - \^[2]{}du\^2 - \^[2]{}d\^2, where $\gamma$, $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are functions of the radial coordinate $u$. There remains a coordinate freedom of choosing $u$. We also use the notation $r(u) \equiv \e^\beta$.
We are going to study linear perturbations of solutions to the field equations due to (\[L\]). So, the metric has the form (\[ds1\]) but now $\gamma(u,t) = \gamma(u) + \delta\gamma$ and similarly for other quantities, with small “deltas”; for the scalar field we have $\phi
(u,t) = \phi(u) + \delta\phi(u,t)$. The most general electromagnetic field compatible with spherical symmetry is described by the 4-potential A\_= \_\^0 A\_0 + \_\^3 q\_m + \_, where $q_m$ is a magnetic charge and $\Phi$ an arbitrary function. The electromagnetic field equations give \[F10\] S() \^[+2+]{} F\^[10]{} = q\_e, where $q_e$ is an electric charge. We thus have FF= 2 \^[-4]{} (-q\_e\^2/S\^2 + q\_m\^2). For the SETs we obtain \[SET-phi\] T\^[-2]{} ’\^2 (1, -1, 1, 1) + V,\
\[SET-F\] T\^[-4]{} Q() (1, 1, -1, -1). where $Q = Q(\phi) = q_e^2/S(\phi) + q_m^2 S(\phi)$. We will consider the equations governing linear radial perturbations of a solution to the field equations (\[Ephi\])–(\[EE\]), following the lines of [@we-book; @sta1; @sta2; @sta3].
Preserving only linear terms with respect to time derivatives, we can write all nonzero components of the Ricci tensor as R\^0\_0 \[R00\] \^[-2]{}(+ 2) -\^[-2]{}\[” +’(’-’+2’)\], R\^1\_1 \^[-2]{}\[R11\] - \^[-2]{}\[”+2” +’\^2 +2’\^2 - ’(’+2’)\], \[R22\] R\^2\_2 R\^3\_3 = \^[-2]{} +\^[-2]{} -\^[-2]{}\[”+’(’-’+2’)\], R\_[01]{} 2\[’ + ’ \[R01\] -’-’\], where dots and primes denote $\d/\d t$ and $\d/\d u$, respectively.
The zero-order (static) scalar, ${0\choose 0}$, ${1\choose 1}$, ${2\choose 2}$ components of (\[EE\]) are \[e-phi0\] 2h\[” + ’(’+2’-’)\] + h’’ = \^[2]{}P\_; \[00-0\] ” + ’(’+2’-’) = \^[2]{}(-V + Q\^[-4]{}); \[11-0\] ” + 2” + ’\^2 + 2’\^2 -’(’+2’) = -2h ’\^2 +\^[2]{}(-V + Q\^[-4]{}); \[22-0\] -\^[2-2]{} + ” + ’(’+2’-’)= -P\^[2]{}, where the subscript $\phi$ denotes $\d/\d\phi$ and \[def-P\] P := V() + Q\^[-4]{}, The first-order perturbed equations (scalar, $R_{01}=\ldots$, and $R^2_2 = \ldots$) read \[e-phi1\] 2\^[2-2]{} h - 2h\[” +’ (’+2’-’) +’(’ + 2’ -’)\] - 2h\[” + ’(2’+’-’)\] - h’ ’ - ’h’ + (\^[2]{}P\_) =0, \[01-1\] ’ + ’ - ’ - ’ = - h ’, \[22-1\] (\^[2-2]{}) + \^[2-2]{} -” -’(’+2’-’) -’(’ + 2’ -’) = (\^[2]{} P), (\[01-1\]) may be integrated in $t$; since we are interested in time-dependent perturbations, we omit the appearing arbitrary function of $u$ describing static perturbations and obtain \[01-1i\] ’ + (’-’) - ’= -h ’ .
Let us note that we have two independent forms of arbitrariness: one is the freedom of choosing a [*radial coordinate*]{} $u$, the other is a [ *perturbation gauge*]{}, or, in other words, a reference frame in the perturbed space-time, which can be expressed in imposing a certain relation for $\da,\ \db$, etc. In what follows we will employ both kinds of freedom. All the above equations have been written in the most universal form, without coordinate or gauge fixing.
Preserving the coordinate arbitrariness, we will now choose the simplest possible gauge $\db \equiv 0$. Then (\[01-1i\]) expresses $\da$ in terms of $\df$: \[da-df\] ’ = h() ’ . (\[22-1\]) expresses $\dg' - \da'$ in terms of $\da$ and $\df$: \[dg-df\] ’(’-’) = 2 \^[2-2]{} - (\^[2]{} P). Substituting all this into (\[e-phi1\]), we finally obtain the following wave equation: \[eq-df\] \^[2-2]{} -” - ’ (’+ 2’-’+ h’/h) + U =0, \[def-U\] U ’\^2 (-)+ \^[2]{}. This expression for $U$ directly generalizes the one obtained in [@sta3] for scalar-vacuum configurations. The latter is restored if we assume $h = \ep =\pm 1$ and $q_e = q_m =0$.
Passing on to the “tortoise” coordinate $x$ introduced according to du/dx = \^[-]{} \[to\_x\] and changing the unknown function $\df \mapsto \psi$ according to \[to\_psi\] = (x,t) \^[-]{}, ’ = ’ + , we reduce the wave equation to its canonical form, also called the master equation for radial perturbations: \[wave\] - \_[xx]{} + (x)=0, (the index $x$ denotes $d/dx$), with the effective potential \[Veff\] (x) = \^[2-2]{} \[U + ”+ ’(’ + ’-’)\]. A further substitution \[to\_y\] (x, t) = y(x) \^[it]{}, = , which is possible because the background is static, leads to the -like equation \[Schr\] y\_[xx]{} + \[\^2 - (x)\] y =0. If there is a nontrivial solution to (\[Schr\]) with $\im \omega <0$ satisfying some physically reasonable conditions at the ends of the range of $u$ (in particular, the absence of ingoing waves), then the static system is unstable since $\df$ can exponentially grow with $t$. Otherwise our static system is stable in the linear approximation. Thus, as usual in such studies, the stability problem is reduced to a boundary-value problem for (\[Schr\]) — see, e.g., .
Note that all the above relations are written without fixing the background radial coordinate $u$.
The gauge $\db = 0$ is technically the simplest one, but causes certain problems when applied to and other configurations with throats. The reason is that the assumption $\db = 0$ leaves invariable the throat radius, while perturbation must in general admit its time dependence [@we99; @gon08; @we-book]. It may even seem that the emergence of a pole in $\Veff$ due to $\db$ in the denominator in (\[def-U\]) is an artefact of the gauge. It turns out, however, that, by analogy with [@gon08; @sta3; @we-book], (\[Schr\]) is in fact gauge-invariant, while $\df$ is a representation of a gauge-invariant quantity in the gauge $\db =0$.
Therefore, singularities of the effective potential $\Veff$ are of objective nature. The singularity at $\beta'=0$ (e.g., a throat) can be regularized [@gon08; @sta3], and moreover, it can be shown that regular solutions to the regularized equations describe regular perturbations of both the scalar field and the metric. It was this procedure that made it possible to prove the instability of anti-Fisher (Ellis type [@kb73; @h_ell]) [@gon08] and other scalar field configurations in [@sta3; @kb-kon].
The effective potential $\Veff$ also possesses singularities at the values of the radial coordinate where $h=0$, which exist in the cases where the function $h(\phi)$ in (\[L\]) changes its sign. This happens in the framework of the trapped ghost concept. The existing experience [@sta1; @sta2; @gon08; @sta3; @kb-kon] shows that such singularities are in general an indication of instabilities, even if $\Veff \to \infty$ at such a singularity. As already mentioned, this was one of the reasons for our attempt to replace a “trapped ghost” in and models with an “invisible” one.
[99]{}
P. A. R. Ade et al. (Planck Collaboration), “Planck 2015 results. XIII. Cosmological parameters”, ArXiv: 1502.01589.
M. Visser, [*Lorentzian Wormholes: from Einstein to Hawking*]{} (AIP, Woodbury, 1995).
K. A. Bronnikov and S. G. Rubin, *Black Holes, Cosmology and Extra Dimansions* (World Scientific, Singapore, 2012).
Francisco S. N. Lobo, “Time machines and traversable wormholes in modified theories of gravity”, EPJ Web Conf. [**58**]{}, 01006 (2013), ArXiv: 1212.1006.
K. A. Bronnikov and M. V. Skvortsova, “Cylindrically and Axially Symmetric Wormholes. Throats in Vacuum?”, 171–175 (2014); ArXiv: 1404.5750.
D. Hochberg and M. Visser, Phys. Rev. D [**56**]{}, 4745 (1997); gr-qc/9704082.
K. A. Bronnikov and J. C. Fabris, “Regular phantom black holes”, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, 251101 (2006); gr-qc/0511109.
K. A. Bronnikov, V. N. Melnikov and H. Dehnen, “Regular black holes and black universes”, Gen. Rel. Grav. [**39**]{}, 973 (2007); gr-qc/0611022.
K. A. Bronnikov and S. V. Sushkov, “Trapped ghosts: a new class of wormholes”, Class. Quantum Grav. [**27**]{}, 095022 (2010); ArXiv: 1001.3511.
K. A. Bronnikov and E. V. Donskoy, “Black universes with trapped ghosts”, Grav. Cosmol. [**17**]{}, 176 (2011); ArXiv: 1110.6030.
K. A. Bronnikov, E. V. Donskoy and P. A. Korolev, “Magnetic wormholes and black universes with trapped ghosts”, Vestnik RUDN No. 2, 139–149 (2013).
S. V. Bolokhov, K. A. Bronnikov, and M. V. Skvortsova, “Magnetic black universes and wormholes with a phantom scalar”, , 245006 (2012); ArXiv: 1208.4619.
J. A. Wheeler, “Geons”, Phys. Rev. [**97**]{}, 511 (1955).
R. Poltis and D. Stojkovic, “Can primordial magnetic fields seeded by electroweak strings cause an alignment of quasar axes on cosmological scales?”, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**105**]{}, 161301 (2010); arXiv: 1004.2704.
M. S. Morris and K. S. Thorne, “Wormholes in space-time and their use for interstellar travel: a tool for teaching General Relativity”, Am. J. Phys. [**56**]{}, 395 (1988).
K. A. Bronnikov and A. V. Khodunov, “Scalar field and gravitational instability”, 13 (1979).
K. A. Bronnikov and Yu. N. Kireyev, “Instability of black holes with scalar charge”, 95 (1978).
K. A. Bronnikov, J. C. Fabris, and A. Zhidenko, “On the stability of scalar-vacuum space-times”, Euro Phys. J. C [**71**]{}, 1791 (2011); Arxiv: 1109.6576.
K. A. Bronnikov, C. P. Constantinidis, R. Evangelista, and J. C. Fabris, “Electrically charged cold black holes in scalar-tensor theory”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D [**8**]{}, 481 (1999); gr-qc/9903028.
K. A. Bronnikov and S. V. Grinyok, “Conformal continuations and instability in scalar-tensor gravity”, 237 (2004); gr-qc/0411063.
K. A. Bronnikov and S. V. Grinyok, “Electrically charged and neutral instability in scalar-tensor gravity”, 75 (2005); gr-qc/0509062.
J. A. Gonzalez, F. S. Guzman, and O. Sarbach, “Instability of supported by a ghost scalar field. I. Linear stability analysis”, , 015010 (2009); Arxiv: 0806.0608.
K. A. Bronnikov, R. A. Konoplya, and A. Zhidenko, “Instability of and regular supported by a phantom scalar field”, , 024028 (2012); ArXiv: 1205.2224.
K. A. Bronnikov, L. N. Lipatova, I. D. Novikov, and A. A. Shatskiy, “Example of a stable in ”, 269 (2013).
K. A. Bronnikov, “Scalar-tensor theory and scalar charge”, Acta Phys. Pol. [**B4**]{}, 251 (1973).
H. Ellis, “Ether flow through a drainhole: A particle model in general relativity”, J. Math. Phys. [**14**]{}, 104 (1973).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
address: 'Department of Physics, Ohio State University, Columbus OH 43210 USA'
author:
- 'E. Braaten'
title: 'INTRODUCTION TO THE NRQCD FACTORIZATION APPROACH TO HEAVY QUARKONIUM[^1]'
---
\#1\#2\#3\#4[[\#1]{} [**\#2**]{}, \#3 (\#4)]{}
Introduction {#sec:Int}
============
The NRQCD factorization approach is a systematic framework for analyzing annihilation decay rates and sufficiently inclusive production cross sections for heavy quarkonium.[@B-B-L] This method separates the effects of short distances that are comparable to or smaller than the inverse of the heavy quark mass from the effects of longer distance scales. Short-distance effects are calculated using perturbative QCD and long-distance effects are described by matrix elements in an effective field theory called [*nonrelativistic QCD*]{} (NRQCD). This paper is an introduction to the NRQCD factorization approach. In Section \[sec:NRQCD\], the effective lagrangian for NRQCD is constructed, the velocity-scaling rules that are used to estimate the magnitude of NRQCD matrix elements are derived, and perturbative matching methods for calculating short-distance coefficients are described. The application of NRQCD factorization methods to annihilation rates and to inclusive production rates are discussed in Sections \[sec:AnnDec\] and \[sec:IncProd\].
Heavy Quarkonium and NRQCD {#sec:NRQCD}
==========================
Scales in Quarkonium Physics {#sec:scales}
----------------------------
Heavy quarkonium is a meson containing a heavy quark and its antiquark. There are a number of different energy scales that play an important role in the quarkonium physics. While the many scales make the physics complex, they also make it interesting. The scales of quarkonium include the mass $M$ of the heavy quark, its typical momentum $M v$, and its typical kinetic energy $M v^2$. The quark mass $M$ sets the total energy scale for annihilation decays and the scale of the kinematic threshold for onium production. The inverse of the typical momentum $Mv$ is the length scale for the size of the onium state. The typical kinetic energy $Mv^2$ is the scale of the splittings between radial excitations and between orbital-angular-momentum excitations in the onium spectrum. For both charmonium and bottomonium, the splittings between the two lowest $^3S_1$ states ($J/\psi$ and $\psi'$ for charmonium, $\Upsilon$ and $\Upsilon'$ for bottomonium) are approximately 600 MeV. The splittings between the lowest $^3S_1$ and $^3P_J$ states ($J/\psi$ and $\chi_{cJ}$ for charmonium, $\Upsilon$ and $\chi_{bJ}$ for bottomonium) are approximately 400 MeV. We take 500 MeV as an estimate for the scale $Mv^2$. In Table \[tab:scales\], we give our estimates for the scales $M$, $Mv$, and $Mv^2$ for charmonium and bottomonium. The estimate for $M$ is half the mass of the lowest energy level of quarkonium. The estimate for the scale $Mv$ is the geometric mean of the estimates for $M$ and $Mv^2$. From Table \[tab:scales\], we see that $v^2$ is approximately 1/3 for charmonium and 1/9 for bottomonium. These values are small enough to justify a theoretical approach based on an expansion in powers of $v$.
-------- ------------ ------------ -------------------
$c \bar c$ $b \bar b$ $t \bar t \qquad$
$M$ 1.5 GeV 4.7 GeV 180 GeV
$Mv$ 0.9 GeV 1.5 GeV 16 GeV
$Mv^2$ 0.5 GeV 0.5 GeV 1.5 GeV
-------- ------------ ------------ -------------------
: Quarkonium energy scales \[tab:scales\]
Another important energy scale in quarkonium physics is $\Lambda_{QCD}$, the scale of nonperturbative effects involving gluons and light quarks. The potential energy $V(R)$ between a quark and antiquark separated by a distance $R$ varies from Coulombic at sufficiently short distances, $$V(R) \;\approx\; - {4 \over 3} {\alpha_s(1/R) \over R}
\quad {\rm as} \; R \to 0,
\label{V-smallR}$$ to linear at sufficiently long distances: $$V(R) \;\approx\; \kappa^2 R \quad {\rm as} \; R \to \infty,
\label{V-largeR}$$ where empirically $\kappa \simeq$ 450 MeV. Since $\kappa$ is independent of $M$, it must be proportional to $\Lambda_{QCD}$.
To clarify the relation between the scale $\Lambda_{QCD}$ and the other scales in quarkonium physics, we consider two limiting cases. The first case is a heavy quark whose mass $M$ is large enough that the onium wavefunction is dominated by the Coulombic term in the potential. The size of a bound state is determined by a balance between the kinetic energy and the potential energy, so we must have $$Mv^2 \;\sim\; {4 \over 3} {\alpha_s(1/R) \over R}.
\label{balance:largeM}$$ The size of the bound state is comparable to the inverse of the typical momentum $Mv$ of the heavy quark in the bound state. Setting $R \sim 1/(Mv)$ in (\[balance:largeM\]), we obtain $$v \;\sim\; \alpha_s (Mv) .
\label{v-estimate}$$ This equation can be solved self-consistently for $v$ as a function of $M$. If $M$ is sufficiently large, the resulting value of $Mv^2$ is much greater than $\Lambda_{QCD}$. For the top quark with mass $M = 180$ GeV, we obtain $v \simeq 0.18$. An alternative estimate for $v$, which is closer in spirit to the estimates used for charmonium and bottomonium in Table \[tab:scales\], is obtained by taking $Mv^2$ to be the splitting between the ground state and the first excited state in the potential (\[V-smallR\]). This splitting is approximately 1.5 GeV, which corresponds to $v \simeq 0.09$. This value for $Mv^2$ and the corresponding estimate for the scale $Mv$ are included in Table \[tab:scales\]. These would be the appropriate scales for toponium if the top quark were stable enough to form bound states.
The second limiting case is a heavy quark whose mass $M$ is small enough that the wavefunction is dominated by the linear term (\[V-largeR\]) in the potential, but still large enough that the onium is nonrelativistic. The balance between the kinetic and potential energies requires $$M v^2 \;\sim\; \kappa^2 R.
\label{balance:smallM}$$ Setting $R \sim 1/(Mv)$, we find that $\kappa \sim M v^{3/2}$. Identifying $\kappa$ with the scale $\Lambda_{QCD}$, we find that the typical velocity of the heavy quark is such that this scale is intermediate between the scales $Mv$ and $Mv^2$. If the Coulombic and linear regions of the potential were both equally important, then the relations (\[balance:largeM\]) and (\[balance:smallM\]) would be satisfied simultaneously. The fact that these relations are compatible suggests that the scaling relation (\[v-estimate\]) might be applicable even for rather low values of $M$.
It is a remarkable coincidence of quarkonium physics that the scales $Mv^2$ are almost identical for charmonium and bottomonium. The fact that this scale is so insensitive to the value of $M$ suggests that $\Lambda_{QCD}$ should be identified with the scale $M v^2$ for quark masses in this range. This identification is supported by the numerical value of the scale $Mv^2$ given in Table \[tab:scales\].
If any of the scales $M$, $M v$, and $M v^2$ is large enough compared to $\Lambda_{QCD}$, then the effects of that scale can be calculated using QCD perturbation theory. The values of the running coupling constant of QCD at the scales $M$, $M v$, and $M v^2$ are given in Table \[tab:alphas\] for charmonium, bottomonium, and toponium. All three scales are perturbative in the case of toponium. For charmonium and bottomonium, $\alpha_s(M)$ is small enough to justify perturbation theory at the scale $M$. The coupling constant $\alpha_s(Mv)$ is also small enough that perturbation theory seems reasonable. However, potential model calculations imply that the wavefunctions of charmonium and bottomonium have significant support in the linear region of the potential, and this suggests that nonperturbative effects may be significant at the scale $Mv$. As for the scale $M v^2$, it is hopelessly nonperturbative for charmonium and bottomonium.
------------------- ------------ ------------ ---------------
$c \bar c$ $b \bar b$ $t \bar t \;$
$\alpha_s(M)$ 0.35 0.22 0.11
$\alpha_s(M v)$ 0.52 0.35 0.16
$\alpha_s(M v^2)$ $\gg$ 1 $\gg$ 1 0.35
------------------- ------------ ------------ ---------------
: Value of the QCD coupling constant at the characteristic momentum scales for heavy quarkonium \[tab:alphas\]
In addition to the scales $M$, $M v$, $M v^2$, and $\Lambda_{QCD}$, there are also kinematic energy scales that can play an important role in quarkonium physics. For example, in the production of quarkonium, the total center-of-mass energy $\sqrt s$ and the transverse momentum $p_T$ of the onium can be important. Unravelling the effects of the various energy scales is essential in order to understand quarkonium physics. This is particularly important for charmonium and bottomonium, because the coupling constant $\alpha_s$ runs rather dramatically with the momentum at scales of order $M$ and smaller.
The NRQCD factorization approach is based on separating short-distance effects involving momenta of order $M$ or larger from those effects that involve the smaller momentum scales $Mv$, $Mv^2$, and $\Lambda_{QCD}$. The scale $M$ is assumed to be perturbative, so that short-distance effects can be calculated using perturbation expansions in $\alpha_s(M)$. No assumption is made about the validity of perturbation theory at the scale $Mv$. Instead, we exploit the fact that in a nonrelativistic bound state, the typical velocity $v$ provides a small expansion parameter.
Integrating out Relativistic Effects {#sec:IntRel}
------------------------------------
One way to separate the effects of the momentum scale $M$ from the lower momentum scales in a field theory is to integrate out all modes with momenta greater than some cutoff $\Lambda$ that is much less than $M$. The result of this renormalization group transformation is a Wilsonian effective field theory that describes the modes with momenta smaller than $\Lambda$. All effects of the scale $M$ are encoded in the parameters of the effective field theory. In our case, the original field theory is QCD with a heavy quark. It is described by the lagrangian $${\cal L}_{\rm QCD} \;=\;
{\cal L}_{\rm light} + \overline \Psi (i \gamma^\mu D_\mu - m_Q) \Psi,
\label{L-QCD}$$ where ${\cal L}_{\rm light}$ is the lagrangian that describe gluons and light quarks. The mass parameter $m_Q$ of the heavy quark can be identified with $M$. It is implicit in the Lorentz-invariant lagrangian (\[L-QCD\]) that the cutoff is much larger than $M$. Integrating out the momentum scale $M$ is equivalent to lowering the cutoff $\Lambda$ to a value lower than $M$. We will argue that if $\Lambda$ is in the range $Mv \ll \Lambda \ll M$, the resulting effective field theory can still be described by a local lagrangian. In other words, the effects of modes with momenta of order $M$ can be reproduced by local interactions among the lower momentum modes.
Suppose the onium is in a virtual state that includes a quark with relativistic momentum of order $M$. Then that state is off its energy-shell by an amount of order $M$, which is much larger than the scale $Mv^2$ of the splittings between onium energy levels. By the uncertainty principle, the lifetime of that highly virtual state is less than or of order $1/M$. In that short time, fields can propagate only over distances of order $1/M$ that are pointlike on the scale $1/(Mv)$ of onium structure. Thus the effects of virtual states that are excluded by a momentum cutoff in the range $Mv \ll \Lambda \ll M$ can be reproduced by local interactions involving low-momentum modes.
The above argument applies equally well to virtual states that contain a light parton with momentum of order $M$ in addition to the $Q \overline Q$ pair. However, it does not apply to virtual states obtained by the annihilation of the $Q \overline Q$ pair. Such states can contain light partons with momenta of order $M$ without being far off the energy shell. A momentum cutoff satisfying $\Lambda \ll M$ excludes these states, but their effects cannot be reproduced in detail by local interactions. For example, the annihilation decay of the onium produces light hadrons, some of which must have momenta of order $M$ and therefore parton constituents with momenta of order $M$. With such modes excluded by the cutoff, we cannot hope to describe the annihilation decays accurately. Nevertheless, as we shall see in Section \[sec:AnnDec\], the total annihilation width of an onium state can be described accurately. Thus the momentum cutoff $\Lambda$ can be extended to light partons at the expense of a restriction on the physical observables that can be described within the effective theory.
With a momentum cutoff $\Lambda$ that excludes relativistic $Q$ and $\overline Q$ states, it is convenient to describe the heavy quark and antiquark by separate 2-component Pauli fields $\psi$ and $\chi$, rather than by a single 4-component Dirac field $\Psi$. If we simply substitute $\Psi = {\psi \choose \chi}$ into the lagrangian (\[L-QCD\]), we obtain off-diagonal terms that couple $\psi^\dagger$ to $\chi$ and $\chi^\dagger$ to $\psi$, allowing the creation and annihilation of $Q \overline Q$ pairs. We will argue that terms that change the numbers of heavy quarks and antiquarks can be removed from the lagrangian and compensated by terms that conserve the numbers of $Q$’s and $\overline Q$’s. This is obvious for terms that create $Q \overline Q$ pairs, because a virtual state containing an additional $Q \overline Q$ must be off its energy shell by an amount of order $M$. As mentioned above, this is not completely true for terms that allow the $Q \overline Q$ pair in the onium to annihilate. The effects of states consisting of gluons and light $q \bar q$ pairs that are produced by $Q \overline Q$ annihilation cannot be reproduced in detail by local interactions. However, the effects of these states on sufficiently inclusive observables can be described accurately. Thus, with this restriction on physical observables, terms in the effective lagrangian that change the numbers of $Q$’s and $\overline Q$’s can be eliminated from the effective lagrangian.
For the Dirac term of the lagrangian (\[L-QCD\]), the decoupling of the fields $\psi$ and $\chi$ can be accomplished by a unitary transformation called the Foldy-Wouthuysen-Tani transformation. For the case of a background gauge field, it is straightforward to construct the transformation that diagonalizes the lagrangian to any desired order in the heavy quark velocity. The simplest form of this transformation in the Dirac representation is $$\Psi \;\to\;
\exp \left( -i \mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$} \cdot {\bf D}/2m_Q \right) \Psi.$$ After this transformation, the heavy-quark term in the lagrangian (\[L-QCD\]) can be approximated by $${\psi \choose \chi}^\dagger
\left( \begin{array}{cc}
-m_Q + iD_0 + {\bf D}^2/2m_Q & 0 \\
0 & m_Q + iD_0 - {\bf D}^2/2m_Q
\end{array} \right)
{\psi \choose \chi}.
\label{FWT}$$ If we take ${\bf D}$ to scale like $Mv$, the corrections to the entries in the matrix scaling like $M v^4$.
For the effective lagrangian with momentum cutoff $\Lambda$, the elimination of terms that change the numbers of $Q$’s and $\overline Q$’s is more complicated than simply applying a unitary transformation. In addition to the terms that are quadratic in $\psi$ and $\chi$, the effective lagrangian also includes terms that are quartic and higher in the heavy quark fields. A further complication is that gluon interactions modify the coefficients of the terms produced by the Foldy-Wouthuysen-Tani transformation. Nevertheless, by the general arguments presented above, one can describe the low-energy $Q \overline Q$ sector of QCD by an effective field theory in which the numbers of heavy quarks and antiquarks are strictly conserved.
Effective Field Theory
----------------------
One could in principle construct a nonrelativistic effective lagrangian that describes the low-energy $Q \overline Q$ sector of QCD by starting with the lagrangian (\[L-QCD\]) and carrying out the sequence of two transformations described in Section \[sec:IntRel\]. The first is a renormalization group transformation that removes modes with momenta greater than $\Lambda$. The second is a transformation that removes interactions that change the numbers of heavy quarks and antiquarks. Both of these steps would be extremely complicated to carry out in practice. Fortunately, there is an alternative to the explicit construction of the effective lagrangian and that is to use the strategy of “effective field theory”.[@Georgi] In this approach, the construction of the effective lagrangian proceeds through the following steps:
1. Identify the fields that are required to describe the low-energy excitations of the theory.
2. Identify the symmetries that one could maintain in the effective theory by using a suitable cutoff and making appropriate field redefinitions.
3. Specify the accuracy to which low energy observables in the original theory should be reproduced by the effective theory.
4. Write down the most general effective lagrangian that is consistent with the symmetries, including all terms that are required to reproduce the physics to the specified level of accuracy.
5. Determine the coefficients of those terms by matching low-energy observables of the effective theory with those of the full theory.
The effective field theory that is obtained by applying the above strategy to the low-energy $Q \overline Q$ sector of QCD is called [*nonrelativistic QCD*]{} (NRQCD).[@Caswell-Lepage] The fields that are required to describe the low energy degrees of freedom are the heavy quark and antiquark fields $\psi$ and $\chi$, the $SU(3)$ gauge fields $A_\mu$, and the Dirac fields for the light quarks. The symmetries of NRQCD are the following:
[$\bullet$]{}
[*$SU(3)$ gauge symmetry*]{}. This local symmetry requires that the gluon fields enter into the effective lagrangian only through the gauge-covariant derivatives $D_0$ and ${\bf D}$ and the QCD field strengths ${\bf E}$ and ${\bf B}$.
[*rotational symmetry*]{}. A nonrelativistic description of the heavy quark necessarily breaks the Lorentz symmetry of QCD down to its rotational subgroup.
[*charge conjugation*]{} and [*parity*]{}. These discrete symmetries of QCD are also symmetries of the effective theory. The charge conjugation transformations of the heavy quark and antiquark fields are $$\psi \;\to\; i \,(\chi^\dagger \sigma_2)^t, \qquad
\chi \;\to\; -i \,(\psi^\dagger \sigma_2)^t .$$ The parity transformations are $$\psi (t, {\bf r}) \;\to\; \psi (t, - {\bf r}), \qquad
\chi (t, {\bf r}) \;\to\; - \chi (t, - {\bf r}) .$$
[*heavy-quark phase symmetry*]{}. This symmetry guarantees the separate conservation of the number of heavy quarks and antiquarks. Its action on the fields is $$\psi \;\to\; e^{i \alpha} \psi, \qquad
\chi \;\to\; e^{i \beta} \chi .$$
Having identified the symmetries of NRQCD, we can write down the most general effective lagrangian that is consistent with these symmetries. It has the form $${\cal L}_{\rm NRQCD}
\;=\; {\cal L}_{\rm light}
\;+\; \psi^\dagger \left( iD_0 + {{\bf D}^2 \over 2M} \right) \psi
\;+\; \chi^\dagger \left( iD_0 - {{\bf D}^2 \over 2M} \right) \chi
\;+\; \delta {\cal L} ,
\label{L-NRQCD}$$ where ${\cal L}_{\rm light}$ is the usual lagrangian that describes gluons and light quarks. The desired level of accuracy is specified by the order in $v$ with which the onium energy levels must be reproduced by the effective theory. The heavy quark terms that are shown explicitly in (\[L-NRQCD\]) are those that are required to calculate the energy levels up to errors of order $Mv^4$. The term $\delta{\cal L}$ in (\[L-NRQCD\]) includes the correction terms that must be added to decrease the errors to order $M v^6$ or smaller.
The invariance of physical quantities under field redefinitions can be exploited to eliminate some terms in the NRQCD lagrangian. Gauge invariance requires that the gluon fields in $\delta {\cal L}$ appear only through the covariant derivatives $D_0$ and ${\bf D}$. However, a redefinition of the field $\psi$ can be used to eliminate terms in which $D_0$ acts on $\psi$, and similarly for $\chi$. Thus field redefinitions can be used to eliminate all occurences of $D_0$ in $\delta {\cal L}$ except in the combination $[D_0, {\bf D}] = i g {\bf E}$. Because of these field redefinitions, NRQCD will not reproduce the low-energy behavior of the Green’s functions of QCD. It will only agree with full QCD for on-shell physical quantities.
The minimal form of NRQCD is obtained by setting $\delta {\cal L} = 0$ in (\[L-NRQCD\]). It contains two parameters, the heavy-quark mass parameter $M$ and the gauge coupling constant $g$. These parameters can be tuned as functions of the QCD coupling constant $\alpha_s$, the heavy-quark mass parameter $m_Q$, and the ultraviolet cutoff $\Lambda$ of NRQCD so that the splittings between the onium energy levels are reproduced up to errors of order $Mv^4$. Since the energy splittings between radial excitations (such as $J/\psi$ and $\psi'$) and between orbital-angular-momentum excitations (such as $J/\psi$ and $\chi_{cJ}$) scale like $Mv^2$, these are reproduced up to errors of relative order $v^2$. Spin splittings in heavy quarkonium, such as the splitting between the lowest $^1S_0$ and $^3S_1$ states ($\eta_c$ and $J/\psi$ for charmonium), scale like $Mv^4$. These splittings vanish in minimal NRQCD due to the following symmetry:
[$\bullet$]{}
[*heavy-quark spin symmetry*]{}. Under this symmetry, the two spin components of the heavy quark and the two spin components of the antiquark are mixed by independent unitary transformations: $$\psi \;\to\; U \psi, \qquad
\chi \;\to\; V \chi,$$ where $U$ and $V$ are SU(2) matrices. This is only an approximate symmetry of the complete NRQCD lagrangian, holding up to corrections of relative order $v^2$.
If we wish to reduce the errors in the quarkonium energy levels to smaller than order $Mv^4$, it is necessary to add additional terms $\delta {\cal L}$ to the lagrangian in (\[L-NRQCD\]). Using the velocity-scaling rules that are discussed in Section \[sec:vscaling\], it can be shown that the terms that are necessary and sufficient to reduce the errors to order $M v^6$ are $$\begin{aligned}
\delta{\cal L}
&=& {c_1 \over 8M^3} \psi^\dagger ({\bf D}^2)^2 \psi
\;+\; {c_2 \over 8M^2}
\psi^\dagger ({\bf D} \cdot g {\bf E} - g {\bf E} \cdot {\bf D}) \psi
\nonumber \\
&& \;+\; {c_3 \over 8M^2}
\psi^\dagger (i {\bf D} \times g {\bf E}
- g {\bf E} \times i {\bf D}) \cdot \mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$} \psi
\;+\; {c_4 \over 2M}
\psi^\dagger (g {\bf B} \cdot \mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}) \psi
\nonumber \\
&& \;+\: {\rm \; charge \; conjugate \; terms} ,
\label{deltaL}\end{aligned}$$ where $c_1$, $c_2$, $c_3$, and $c_4$ are dimensionless coefficients. We will refer to the terms in (\[deltaL\]) as the [*$v^2$-improvement terms*]{} in the NRQCD lagrangian. The two terms in (\[deltaL\]) that contain the Pauli matrix $\mbox{\boldmath{$\sigma$}}$ break the spin symmetry of minimal NRQCD. They give spin splittings that scale like $Mv^4$ and are accurate up to errors of relative order $v^2$. Splittings between radial excitations and splittings between orbital-angular-momentum excitations are reproduced up to errors of relative order $v^4$.
Velocity-scaling rules {#sec:vscaling}
----------------------
The relative importance of the terms in the NRQCD lagrangian can be deduced from the self-consistency of the quantum field equations for minimal NRQCD and from the basic qualitative features of quarkonium.[@L-M-N-M-H] The results of this analysis are summarized by the velocity-scaling rules in Table \[tab:vscaling\]. The magnitude of a matrix element of a local gauge-invariant operator between quarkonium states can be estimated by multiplying the appropriate factors from Table \[tab:vscaling\]. The scaling with $M$ follows simply from dimensional analysis, so the nontrivial content of Table \[tab:vscaling\] is the scaling with $v$.
The first few lines in Table \[tab:vscaling\] can be derived very easily. The expectation value of the number operator $\int d^3x \; \psi^\dagger \psi$ in a quarkonium state $| H \rangle$ is very close to 1: $$\langle H| \int d^3 x \; \psi^\dagger \psi \; | H\rangle \;\approx\; 1.$$ We have normalized the quarkonium state so that $\langle H | H\rangle = 1$. From the fact that a quarkonium state can be localized to within a region $1/(Mv)^3$, we conclude that $\psi$ must scale like $(Mv)^{3/2}$. The expectation value of the kinetic energy term in the NRQCD hamiltonian scales like $Mv^2$: $$\langle H| \int d^3x \; \psi^\dagger ({\bf D}^2/2M) \psi \; |H\rangle
\;\sim\; M v^2.$$ This implies that ${\bf D}$ must scale like $Mv$. The fact that $D_0$ scales like $Mv^2$ when acting on $\psi$ then follows immediately from the field equation for $\psi$: $$\left( iD_0 - {{\bf D}^2 \over 2M}\right) \psi \;=\; 0.$$
Operator Estimate
------------------------------------ --------------
$\psi$ $(Mv)^{3/2}$
$\chi$ $(Mv)^{3/2}$
$D_0$ (acting on $\psi$ or $\chi$) $M v^2$
${\bf D}$ $M v$
$g {\bf E}$ $M^2v^3$
$g {\bf B}$ $M^2v^4$
$g A_0$ (in Coulomb gauge) $M v^2$
$g{\bf A}$ (in Coulomb gauge) $M v^3$
: Estimates of the magnitudes of NRQCD operators for matrix elements between heavy-quarkonium states. \[tab:vscaling\]
The estimates for $gA_0$ and $g{\bf A}$ in Table \[tab:vscaling\] are specific to Coulomb gauge, which is defined by $\mbox{\boldmath $\nabla$} \cdot {\bf A} = 0$. As shown below, the field equations in this gauge indicate that the effects of the vector potential ${\bf A}$ are suppressed by a factor of $v$ relative to the scalar potential $A_0$. The dominant terms in the field equations for $\psi$ and $A_0$ are therefore $$\begin{aligned}
\left( i \partial_0 - gA_0
+ {\mbox{\boldmath $\nabla$}^2 \over 2M} \right) \psi
& \approx & 0 ,
\label{feq-psi}
\\
\mbox{\boldmath $\nabla$}^2 g A_0 + g^2 \psi^\dagger \psi & \approx & 0.
\label{feq-A0}\end{aligned}$$ In (\[feq-psi\]), the balance between the kinetic energy and the potential energy represented by the $A_0$ term requires that $gA_0$ scale like $Mv^2$. On the other hand, assuming that a gradient acting on $A_0$ scales like $Mv$, (\[feq-A0\]) requires that $gA_0$ scale like $g^2Mv$. These two estimates are consistent if the effective coupling constant $\alpha_s = g^2/4\pi$ at the scale $Mv$ scales like $v$. This is identical to the naive estimate (\[v-estimate\]) that followed from balancing the kinetic energy and the Coulomb term in the potential energy. Since this scaling relation follows simply from the consistency of the field equations, it applies to charmonium and bottomonium even though perturbation theory at the scale $Mv$ is of questionable validity. The neglect of terms involving ${\bf A}$ in the field equations (\[feq-psi\]) and (\[feq-A0\]) is justified by the field equation for ${\bf A}$, for which the dominant terms are $$\left ( \partial_0^2 - \mbox{\boldmath $\nabla$}^2 \right) g{\bf A}
\;-\; g A_0 \mbox{\boldmath $\nabla$} gA_0
\;-\; { g^2 \over M} \psi^\dagger \mbox{\boldmath $\nabla$} \psi
\;\approx\; 0.
\label{feq-A}$$ The last two terms in (\[feq-A\]) scale like $M^3 v^5$ and $g^2 M v^4$, respectively, and they are comparable if $g^2$ scales like $v$. Assuming that a gradient acting on ${\bf A}$ scales like $Mv$, we obtain the estimate $M v^3$ for $g{\bf A}$ in Table \[tab:vscaling\].
Using the estimates for $gA_0$ and $g{\bf A}$ in Coulomb gauge, we can obtain estimates for the field strengths. In Coulomb gauge, the dominant term in the chromoelectric field strength ${\bf E}$ is $-\mbox{\boldmath $\nabla$}
A_0$, and the resulting estimate for $g {\bf E}$ is $M^2v^3$. The dominant term in the chromomagnetic field strength ${\bf B}$ is $\mbox{\boldmath $\nabla$} \times {\bf A}$, which leads to the estimate $M^2v^4$ for $g{\bf B}$. These estimates for $g{\bf E}$ and $g {\bf B}$, although derived in Coulomb gauge, hold in general for matrix elements of gauge-invariant operators.
According to the velocity-scaling rules in Table \[tab:vscaling\], the terms in the lagrangian density in (\[L-NRQCD\]) for minimal NRQCD scale like $M^4 v^5$. Multiplying by a volume factor of $1/(M v)^3$, we find that quarkonium energies scale like $Mv^2$. Each of the terms in $\delta{\cal L}$ given in (\[deltaL\]) scales like $M^4 v^7$ and therefore contributes to onium energies at order $Mv^4$. All other terms that can be added to the NRQCD lagrangian give contributions of order $M v^6$ or smaller.
The validity of the velocity-scaling relations has been demonstrated convincingly by nonperturbative calculations of the bottomonium and charmonium spectrum using Monte Carlo simulations of lattice NRQCD.[@NRQCD:spectrum] The two parameters of minimal NRQCD can be tuned to give the spin-averaged spectrum to an accuracy of about 30% for charmonium and about 10% for bottomonium. When the $v^2$-improvement terms are included, the errors decrease to about 10% for charmonium and to about 1% for bottomonium. These terms also give spin splittings that are accurate to about 30% for charmonium and to about 10% for bottomonium.
Fock state expansion {#sec:Fock}
--------------------
The simplest intuitive picture of quarkonium is that it is a bound state consisting of a $Q$ and $\overline Q$ with very little probability of containing additional gluons or $q \bar q$ pairs. This simple picture is in fact realized in Coulomb gauge. Using the velocity-scaling rules of section \[sec:vscaling\], one can quantify the probabilities of Fock states containing additional gluons by determining how they scale with $v$.
The Coulomb gauge ($\mbox{\boldmath $\nabla$} \cdot {\bf A} = 0$) is a physical gauge with no negative norm states, a necessary condition for a sensible Fock space. In this gauge, the scalar potential $A_0$ does not propagate. Dynamical gluons are created and destroyed by the vector potential ${\bf A}$. In Coulomb gauge, the lagrangian (\[L-NRQCD\]) can be reorganized as an expansion in powers of $v$. The powers of $v$ can be made explicit[@Luke-Manohar] by rescaling the space-time coordinates ${\bf r}$ and $t$ by $1/(Mv)$ and $1/(Mv^2)$, respectively, rescaling the fields $\psi$ and $\chi$ by $(Mv)^{3/2}$, and rescaling the fields $A_0$ and ${\bf A}$ by $Mv^{3/2}$. The terms in the NRQCD lagrangian that are of order $v^0$ after such a rescaling are $${\cal L}_0
\;=\; {\cal L}_{\rm light}
\;+\; \psi^\dagger \left( i \partial_0 - g A_0
+ { \mbox{\boldmath $\nabla$}^2 \over 2M } \right) \psi
%\nonumber \\
%&& \hspace{.5in}
\;+\; \chi^\dagger \left( i \partial_0 - g A_0
- { \mbox{\boldmath $\nabla$}^2 \over 2M } \right) \chi .
\label{LC-0}$$ This lagrangian in Coulomb gauge can be used to calculate quarkonium energy levels to the same accuracy as the gauge-invariant lagrangian of minimal NRQCD. The terms in the NRQCD lagrangian that are of order $v$ after the rescaling are $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal L}_1
&=& - {1 \over M}
\psi^\dagger (i g {\bf A} \cdot \mbox{\boldmath $\nabla$} ) \psi
\;+\; {c_4 \over 2M}
\psi^\dagger (\mbox{\boldmath $\nabla$} \times g {\bf A})
\cdot \mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$} \psi
\nonumber \\
&& \;+\; {\rm \; charge \; conjugate \; terms} .
\label{LC-1}\end{aligned}$$ At first order in perturbation theory, these terms give transitions from $Q \overline Q$ Fock states to states that contain a dynamical gluon. The expectation values of the terms in (\[LC-1\]) between $| Q \overline Q \rangle$ Fock states vanish, so ${\cal L}_1$ first contributes to quarkonium energy levels at second order in perturbation theory, giving shifts of order $Mv^4$. The terms in the Coulomb-gauge lagrangian that are of order $v^2$ after rescaling are $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal L}_2
&=& - {1 \over 2M}
\psi^\dagger (g {\bf A})^2 \psi
\;+\; {c_1 \over 8M^3} \psi^\dagger (\mbox{\boldmath $\nabla$}^2)^2 \psi
\nonumber \\
&& \;+\; {c_2 \over 8M^2}
\psi^\dagger ( - \mbox{\boldmath $\nabla$}^2 g A_0 ) \psi
\;-\; {c_3 \over 4M^2}
\psi^\dagger (\mbox{\boldmath $\nabla$} g A_0 ) \times
\mbox{\boldmath $\nabla$} \cdot \mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$} \psi
\nonumber \\
&& \;+\; {c_4 \over 2M}
\psi^\dagger (i g {\bf A} \times g {\bf A})
\cdot \mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$} \psi
\;+\: {\rm \; charge \; conjugate \; terms} .
\label{LC-2}\end{aligned}$$ The first term comes from expanding out the covariant derivative ${\bf D}$ in (\[L-NRQCD\]), while the last four terms in (\[LC-2\]) come from the $v^2$-improvement terms in (\[deltaL\]). Energy levels calculated in Coulomb gauge using the lagrangian ${\cal L}_0 + {\cal L}_1 + {\cal L}_2$ will differ only at order $Mv^6$ from the energy levels calculated using the gauge-invariant NRQCD lagrangian (\[L-NRQCD\]) with $\delta {\cal L}$ given by (\[deltaL\]).
We now consider the Fock state expansion in Coulomb gauge for a quarkonium state $|H\rangle$. It has the schematic form $$| H \rangle \;=\; \psi^H_{Q \overline Q} |Q \overline Q \rangle
\;+\; \psi^H_{Q \overline Qg} |Q \overline Qg\rangle
\;+\; \dots ,
\label{Fock}$$ where spin and color indices and momentum arguments have all been suppressed. The dominant Fock state $|Q\overline Q\rangle$ consists of a $Q$ and $\overline Q$ in a color-singlet state with definite angular momentum quantum numbers $^{2S + 1}L_J$. The higher Fock states, such as $| Q \overline Q g \rangle $, include dynamical gluons or light $q \bar q$ pairs. Since the lagrangian ${\cal L}_0$ in (\[LC-0\]) does not include any terms that couple ${\bf A}$ to $\psi$ or $\chi$, the probabilities for higher Fock states are suppressed by powers of $v$.
The $|Q \overline Q g\rangle$ states with the highest probabilities are those that couple to the dominant $|Q \overline Q \rangle$ state via the lagrangian ${\cal L}_1$ in (\[LC-1\]). We first consider the term $\psi^\dagger (i g {\bf A} \cdot \mbox{\boldmath $\nabla$}) \psi$. We refer to a transition that proceeds via this term or its charge conjugate as an [*electric transition*]{}. An electric transition from the dominant $|Q \overline Q \rangle$ Fock state produces $|Q \overline Q g \rangle$ states for which the angular-momentum quantum numbers of the $Q \overline Q$ pair satisfy the selection rules $\Delta L = \pm 1$ and $\Delta S = 0$. The simplest way to determine the probabilities of these Fock states is to use the fact that a second-order perturbation in ${\cal L}_1$ changes the mass of the onium state by an amount of order $Mv^4$. This mass shift can be expressed as the product of the energy $E$ of the virtual $|Q \overline
Qg\rangle$ state multiplied by its probability $P$. If the energy of the dynamical gluon is of order $Mv$, then $E \sim Mv$ and we find that $P \sim v^3$. If the gluon has energy of order $Mv^2$ or less, then $E \sim Mv^2$ and we obtain $P \sim v^2$. We conclude that $|Q \overline Qg\rangle$ states which satisfy the selection rules $\Delta L = \pm 1$ and $\Delta S = 0$ are dominated by very soft dynamical gluons with momenta of order $Mv^2$ or less and have probabilities of order $v^2$.
We next consider the term $\psi^\dagger(\mbox{\boldmath $\nabla$} \times g {\bf A})
\cdot \mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$} \psi$ in (\[LC-1\]). We refer to a transition that proceeds via this term or its charge conjugate as a [*magnetic transition*]{}. A magnetic transition from the dominant $| Q \overline Q \rangle$ Fock state produces $|Q \overline Q g \rangle$ states that satisfy the selection rules $\Delta L = 0$ and $\Delta S = \pm 1$. We can use the same argument as before to determine the probabilities of these Fock states, except that we must take into account the fact that the transition amplitude from the term $\psi^\dagger (\mbox{\boldmath $\nabla$} \times g{\bf A})
\cdot \mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$} \psi$ is weighted by the momentum of the gluon. If the gluon has energy of order $Mv$, the mass shift from a second-order perturbation in ${\cal L}_1$ is given correctly by the velocity-scaling rules to be of order $Mv^4$. Since the virtual $|Q \overline Q g \rangle$ state has energy $E \sim Mv$, we obtain a probability $P \sim v^3$. The contribution to the mass shift from a gluon with energy of order $Mv^2$ is suppressed by a factor of $v^2$ from the transition amplitudes and is therefore of order $Mv^6$. Taking $E \sim Mv^2$, we obtain $P \sim v^4$. We conclude that $|Q \overline Qg\rangle$ states which satisfy the selection rules $\Delta L = 0$ and $\Delta S = \pm 1$ are dominated by dynamical gluons with momenta of order $Mv$ and have probabilities of order $v^3$.
Similar arguments can be used to determine the magnitudes of the probabilities for other Fock states. Any such state can be reached by a sequence of electric transitions and zero or one magnetic transition. Electric transitions obey the selection rules $\Delta L = \pm 1$ and $\Delta S = 0$, while magnetic transitions satisfy $\Delta L = 0$ and $\Delta S = \pm 1$. Both electric and magnetic transitions change the color state of a color-singlet $ Q \overline Q$ pair to color-octet, and they change the color state of a color-octet $Q \overline Q$ pair to either color-singlet or color-octet. The probability of a particular Fock state is determined by the color and angular-momentum quantum numbers of the $Q \overline Q$ pair in that state. If that Fock state can be reached from the dominant $| Q \overline Q \rangle$ Fock state by a sequence of $E$ electric transitions, then its probability scales like $v^{2E}$. If it can be reached by a sequence of $E$ electric transitions and a magnetic transition, then its probability scales like $v^{2E+3}$.
Matching of NRQCD and QCD
-------------------------
The NRQCD lagrangian contains adjustable parameters that must be tuned in order that its predictions for low-energy observables in the $ Q \overline Q$ sector agree with those of QCD. In the minimal NRQCD lagrangian, there are two parameters: $g$ and $M$. In addition to these parameters, the definition of NRQCD requires an ultraviolet cutoff $\Lambda$ to remove ultraviolet divergences. In the $v^2$-improved lagrangian obtained by adding the terms in (\[deltaL\]), there are 6 parameters, $g$, $M$, $c_1$, $c_2$, $c_3$, and $c_4$, in addition to the ultraviolet cutoff. The determination of the parameters in the NRQCD lagrangian is called matching.
One could in principle determine the $N$ parameters in the NRQCD lagrangian by tuning them so that the masses of $N$ states in NRQCD match the corresponding masses in full QCD. For example, the parameters $g$ and $M$ of minimal NRQCD could be determined by matching the mass splittings between $J/\psi$ and $\psi'$ and between $J/\psi$ and $\chi_{cJ}$. Since the masses are sensitive to long-distance effects, they must be calculated nonperturbatively. The only reliable nonperturbative method that is currently available is Monte Carlo simulations of lattice NRQCD. While the masses in full QCD could in principle be computed nonperturbatively using lattice simulations, it is easier to take them directly from experiment. Using masses to tune the NRQCD parameters is an example of [*nonperturbative matching*]{}.
Nonperturbative matching would become increasingly difficult as we strive for higher accuracy by adding more improvement terms. The determination of the parameters in the $v^2$-improved lagrangian would require the nonperturbative calculation of 6 masses as functions of 6 independent parameters. Fortunately, the asymptotic freedom of QCD provides an alternative, and that is [*perturbative matching*]{}. This matching procedure is based on the fact that QCD and NRQCD are equivalent except on distance scales of order $1/M$ where perturbative QCD is by assumption accurate. The procedure for perturbative matching is the following:
1. Use perturbative QCD to calculate scattering amplitudes between asymptotic $Q$, $\overline Q$, and gluon states with momenta ${\bf k}$ much less than $M$ as functions of $\alpha_s$ and $m_Q$ and expand them in powers of ${\bf k}/m_Q$.
2. Use perturbative NRQCD to calculate the same scattering amplitudes in terms of the parameters in the NRQCD lagrangian and expand them in powers of ${\bf k}/M$.
3. Adjust the NRQCD parameters so that the scattering amplitudes match to the desired order in ${\bf k}/m_Q$, which we take to be of order $v$.
It is essential to match scattering amplitudes or other physical observables rather than Green functions, because the construction of NRQCD involves field redefinitions. Such redefinitions can change the off-shell Green functions of the theory, but they leave on-shell physical observables unchanged.
In present calculations in lattice NRQCD, the parameters are determined by a combination of nonperturbative and perturbative matching. The coefficients $c_1$, $c_2$, $c_3$, and $c_4$ of the $v^2$-improvement terms are generally determined by perturbative matching, while the parameters $g$ and $M$ are determined by the nonperturbative matching of masses in the onium spectrum. Perturbative matching calculations can be used to relate these parameters to the fundamental parameters of QCD. By combining these perturbative matching relations with lattice NRQCD calculations of the bottomonium spectrum, the QCD coupling constant $\alpha_s$ and the bottom quark mass $m_b$ have been determined with high precision.[@NRQCD:alphas]
The method of perturbative matching is somewhat paradoxical. We have assumed that $M$ is large enough that perturbation theory is accurate at the scale $M$. We allow for the scale $Mv$ to be small enough that perturbation theory is not reliable at that scale. If that is the case, perturbative calculations in NRQCD would never give accurate results for physical observables, since NRQCD only reproduces full QCD accurately at scales of order $Mv$ or less. Nevertheless, a comparison of perturbative calculations in NRQCD and full QCD can be used to accurately determine the parameters in the NRQCD lagrangian. The reason for this is that the tuning of the parameters of NRQCD that makes this theory equivalent to QCD at momenta of order $Mv$ or smaller also makes the perturbative approximations to these theories equivalent. Perturbation theory breaks down in precisely the same way for both theories, predicting among other things, the existence of asymptotic states consisting of isolated quarks and gluons. Since the parameters in the NRQCD lagrangian are sensitive only to momenta on the order of $M$ where perturbative QCD is accurate, they can be correctly determined by matching perturbative calculations in QCD and NRQCD.
As an illustration of perturbative matching, we consider the simplest perturbative observable. This is the energy-momentum relation for the heavy quark, which is given by the location of the pole in the heavy-quark propagator. At tree level in full QCD, the energy-momentum relation is $$E \;=\; \sqrt {m^2_Q + p^2}
\;=\; m_Q \;+\; {p^2 \over 2m_Q} \;-\; {p^4 \over 8 m^3_Q}
\;+\; \dots .
\label{E-QCD}$$ At tree level in NRQCD, we can read off the energy momentum relation from the lagrangian (\[L-NRQCD\]): $$E \;=\; {p^2 \over 2M} \;-\; c_1 {p^4 \over 8 M^3} \;+\; \dots .
\label{E-NRQCD}$$ By matching the expressions (\[E-QCD\]) and (\[E-NRQCD\]) we find $$M \;=\; m_Q, \qquad c_1\;=\; 1.
\label{M-cl}$$ If the energy-momentum relations are computed to higher order in perturbation theory, the matching will give perturbative corrections to the results in (\[M-cl\]). Since the parameters $M$ and $c_1$ are sensitive only to short distances of order $1/m_Q$ or smaller, the corrections can be expressed as power series in $\alpha_s(m_Q)$.
Annihilation Decays of Heavy Quarkonium {#sec:AnnDec}
=======================================
Decay of $\eta_c$ in the Color-Singlet Model
--------------------------------------------
A simple intuitive picture of the annihilation decay of a quarkonium state is that it proceeds through the annihilation of the $Q \overline Q$ pair in the dominant Fock state into gluons and light $q \bar q$ pairs. These light partons ultimately hadronize into the observed final states that consist of light hadrons. The inclusive annihilation rate of the $Q \overline Q$ pair can be plausibly calculated using perturbative QCD. By combining that perturbative calculation with a phenomenological wavefunction for the dominant $| Q \overline Q \rangle$ Fock state, we can calculate the annihilation decay rate of the quarkonium. This model for annihilation decays is called the [*color-singlet model*]{}.
The simplest illustration of the color-singlet model is the calculation of the decay rate of the $\eta_c$. In the color-singlet model, the $\eta_c$ is modeled by a $c \bar c$ pair in a color-singlet $^1S_0$ state. Its wavefunction is the product of a color factor $\delta_{ij}/\sqrt 3$, a spin factor $(\uparrow \downarrow - \downarrow \uparrow) / \sqrt 2$, and a coordinate-space wavefunction $\psi({\bf r})= R(r)/\sqrt{4 \pi}$. A $c \bar c$ pair in such a state can annihilate into two gluons. If we assume that the two gluons hadronize into light hadrons with probability 1, the decay rate can be written as $$\Gamma (\eta_c) \;=\;
{1 \over 2M_{\eta_c}} \int {d^3k \over (2{\pi})^3 2k} \,
{2 \pi \delta (M_{\eta_c} - 2|{\bf k}|) \over M_{\eta_c}} \,
\big| {\cal T} [ \eta_c \to g ({\bf k}) g (- {\bf k}) ] \big|^2.
\label{Gam-eta:0}$$ The T-matrix element for this decay can be expressed in terms of the momentum-space wavefunction $\psi({\bf q})$ of the $\eta_c$: $${\cal T} [ \eta_c \to g ({\bf k}) g (- {\bf k}) ] \;=\;
{1 \over \sqrt{2 M_{\eta_c}}} \int {d^3 q \over (2 \pi)^3} \;
\psi ({\bf q}) \; {\cal T} [ c({\bf q}) \bar c(-{\bf q})
\to g({\bf k}) g(-{\bf k}) ],
\label{T-eta}$$ where we have suppressed all color and spin indices. The $c \bar c$ annihilation amplitude ${\cal T}$ varies significantly with ${\bf q}$ only when $|{\bf q}|$ is on the order of $m_c$ or larger. The wavefunction has significant support only for $|{\bf q}|$ of order $m_c v$. Since ${\cal T}$ is almost independent of ${\bf q}$ for such small values of $|{\bf q}|$, we can set ${\bf q} = 0$ in the annihilation amplitude. The resulting expression for the decay rate has a factored form: $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma(\eta_c) &\approx&
{1 \over (2M_{\eta_c})^2}
\left| \int {d^3q \over (2 \pi)^3}
\psi({\bf q}) \right|^2
\nonumber \\
&& \hspace{-.2in} \times
\int{d^3k \over (2 \pi)^3 2 k} \;
{ 2 \pi \delta (M_{\eta_c} - 2 | {\bf k}|) \over M_{\eta_c} }\;
\big| {\cal T} [ c(0) \bar c(0) \to g({\bf k}) g(-{\bf k}) ] \big|^2.
\label{Gam-eta:2}\end{aligned}$$ The integral over ${\bf q}$ gives the wavefunction evaluated at the origin, $R(0)/\sqrt{4 \pi}$. The integral over ${\bf k}$ in (\[Gam-eta:2\]) can be calculated from the lowest order QCD Feynman diagrams for $c \bar c
\to g g$. The final expression for the decay rate is $$\Gamma (\eta_c) \;\approx\;
{8 \alpha_s^2 \over 3M_{\eta_c}^2} |R(0)|^2 .
\label{Gam-eta:3}$$
Decay of $\eta_c$ in NRQCD
--------------------------
The decay rate of the $\eta_c$ into individual final states consisting of light hadrons can not be described within the framework of NRQCD. One obstacle is that we have imposed a symmetry on the effective field theory that guarantees the separate conservation of the numbers of $c$’s and $\bar c$’s and therefore forbids the annihilation process $c \bar c \to g g$. Furthermore, in the construction of NRQCD, we have integrated out gluons with momenta on the order of $m_c$. Even if we relax the definition of the effective theory to allow gluons with momenta of order $m_c$ and interaction terms in the lagrangian that allow $c \bar c$ annihilation, we cannot described annihilation decays accurately, because the interaction of a $c$ or $\bar c$ with a gluon of momentum $m_c$ cannot be described accurately in a local nonrelativistic theory.
While the decay rate of the $\eta_c$ into a specific final state consisting of light hadrons cannot be described within NRQCD, the total decay rate can. The conservation of the number of $c$ and $\bar c$ is not an obstacle, because the optical theorem can be used to express the inclusive annihilation rate in terms of an amplitude that conserves the numbers of $c$ and $\bar c$. As an illustration, applying the optical theorem to the expression (\[Gam-eta:0\]), we find that the decay rate can be written $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma(\eta_c) &=& {1 \over (2 M_{\eta_c})^2}
\int {d^3q \over (2 \pi)^3} \int {d^3 q' \over (2 \pi)^3} \;
\nonumber \\
&& \hspace{.5in} \times
\psi({\bf q}) \;
2 \, {\rm Im} {\cal T} [ c({\bf q}) \bar c(-{\bf q})
\to c({\bf q}') \bar c(-{\bf q}') ] \; \psi^*({\bf q}').
\label{Gam-eta:4}\end{aligned}$$ The process $c \bar c \to c \bar c$ conserves the numbers of $c$’s and $\bar c$’s. The factored form (\[Gam-eta:2\]) is recovered by using the fact that the imaginary part of the T-matrix element for $c\bar c \to c \bar c$ is insensitive to momenta ${\bf q}$ and ${\bf q}'$ on the order of $Mv$ where the wavefunctions have their support: $$\Gamma (\eta_c)
\;\approx\; {1 \over (2 M_{\eta_c})^2}
\left| \int {d^3q \over (2 \pi)^3} \psi({\bf q}) \right|^2 \,
2 \, {\rm Im}{\cal T} [c(0) \bar c(0) \to c(0) \bar c(0)].
\label{Gam-eta:5}$$ The integral over ${\bf q}$ in (\[Gam-eta:5\]) gives the square of the wavefunction evaluated at the origin. This reflects the fact that the initial $c$ and $\bar c$ must have spacetime separations of order $1/M$ in order to annihilate, and this separation is small compared to the length scale $1/(Mv)$ of the wavefunction. That the $c \bar c$ pair must have a spacetime separation of order $1/M$ follows from the fact that the Feynman diagrams for the annihilation process involve a heavy quark propagator that is off its mass-shell by an amount of order $M$. The same argument implies that the final $c$ and $\bar c$ in the T-matrix element in (\[Gam-eta:5\]) must have a space-time separation of order $1/M$. While it is not quite as obvious, the space-time separation of the annihilation points for the initial $c \bar c$ pair and the final $c \bar c$ pair must also be of order $1/M$. This follows from the requirement that the wavefunctions of the annihilation gluons must overlap, which localizes the production point of a gluon to within its wavelength $1/M$.
The fact that $c \bar c$ annihilation occurs within a region whose size is of order $1/M$ provides a clue as to how the effects of annihilation can be taken into account in NRQCD. All modes with momenta of order $M$ that can be sensitive to the length scale $1/M$ have been removed from this effective theory. Thus the effects of the annihilation can be reproduced by including in the NRQCD lagrangian (\[L-NRQCD\]) a local 4-fermion interaction term that destroys a $c \bar c$ pair and creates it again. The specific term that is relevant to $\eta_c$ decay is $$\delta{\cal L}
\;=\; {f \over M^2} \psi^\dagger \chi \chi^\dagger \psi ,
\label{L-1S0}$$ where the coefficient $f$ is dimensionless. The term (\[L-1S0\]) annihilates a $c \bar c$ pair in a color-singlet $^1S_0$ state and then creates a $c \bar c$ pair in the same state.
The dimensionless coefficient $f$ in (\[L-1S0\]) can be determined by perturbative matching of the $c \bar c \to c \bar c$ scattering amplitudes in full QCD and NRQCD. In full QCD, the scattering amplitude includes box diagrams of order $\alpha_s^2$ in which the scattering proceeds through intermediate states consisting of two gluons. In NRQCD, this contribution to the scattering amplitude can only be reproduced by 4-fermion interactions such as those in (\[L-1S0\]). By matching the NRQCD scattering amplitude from the term (\[L-1S0\]) with the annihilation part of the scattering amplitude in full QCD, we can determine the coefficient $f$. Since the $c$ and $\bar c$ can annihilate into two on-shell gluons, the QCD scattering amplitude has an imaginary part. The coefficient $f$ in (\[L-1S0\]) must therefore have an imaginary part and it is particularly simple to calculate. The result is $${\rm Im} \, f \;=\; {2\pi \alpha_s^2(m_c) \over 9} .
\label{Imf}$$ Since this coefficient is sensitive only to distances of order $1/m_c$ or smaller, the running coupling constant is evaluated at the scale $m_c$. The fact that coefficients in the NRQCD lagrangian have imaginary parts implies that the hamiltonian for NRQCD is not hermitian. This is perfectly natural, since we have removed states from the theory that are essential for exact unitarity. In particular, we have eliminated the light partons with momenta on the order of $m_c$ that can be produced by the annihilation of the $c$ and $\bar c$.
We now consider the effect of the correction terms (\[L-1S0\]) on the energy of the $\eta_c$. If that term is treated as a first-order perturbation, the resulting correction to the energy of the $\eta_c$ is $$\Delta E_{\eta_c}
\;=\; -{f \over M^2}
{ \langle \eta_c | \psi^\dagger \chi \chi^\dagger \psi|\eta_c \rangle
\over 2 M_{\eta_c}},$$ where we have assumed that the state $|\eta_c \rangle$ has the standard relativistic normalization. Since the coefficient $f$ has an imaginary part, this energy shift has an imaginary part. A state whose energy has a small imaginary part $-\Gamma/2$ should be interpreted as a resonance of width $\Gamma$. Thus the width of the $\eta_c$ due to the term (\[L-1S0\]) is $$\Gamma(\eta_c)
\;=\; {1 \over 2 M_{\eta_c}}
{4 \pi \alpha_s^2(m_c) \over 9 m_c^2} \langle \eta_c | \psi^\dagger \chi
\chi^\dagger \psi|\eta_c\rangle
\label{Gam-eta}.$$ The connection with the result (\[Gam-eta:4\]) from the color-singlet model is made by inserting a complete set of states between $\chi$ and $\chi^\dagger$ in the matrix element. Assuming that the sum over states is dominated by the vacuum, we have $$\langle \eta_c | \psi^\dagger \chi\chi^\dagger \psi|\eta_c\rangle
\;\approx\; \left| \langle 0 | \chi^\dagger \psi | \eta_c \rangle \right|^2.
\label{VSA-eta}$$ In the color-singlet model, the $\eta_c$-to-vacuum matrix element on the right side of (\[VSA-eta\]) can be expressed in terms of the wavefunction: $$\langle 0 | \chi^\dagger \psi|\eta_c \rangle
\;\approx\; \sqrt{2 M_{\eta_c}} \, \sqrt{3 \over 2 \pi} R(0) .
\label{wf-eta}$$ Inserting (\[VSA-eta\]) into (\[Gam-eta\]) and identifying $M_{\eta_c}$ with $2 m_c$, we reproduce the result (\[Gam-eta:4\]) from the color-singlet model.
NRQCD Factorization Formula
---------------------------
In the expression (\[Gam-eta\]) for the decay rate of the $\eta_c$, short-distance and long-distance effects have been factored. Long-distance effects involving the quarkonium wavefunction appear only in the NRQCD matrix element, which scales like $M^4v^3$ according to the velocity-scaling rules in Table \[tab:vscaling\]. Short-distance effects involving the annihilation of the $Q \overline Q$ pair appear only in the coefficient $2 {\rm Im} f/M^2$, which is expressed in terms of the fundamental parameters $\alpha_s$ and $m_c$ of QCD. Thus the expression for the decay rate in (\[Gam-eta\]) scales like $\alpha_s^2 v^3$.
The formula (\[Gam-eta\]) can be generalized to all orders in $\alpha_s$ and to all orders in $v$. The general factorization formula for the annihilation decay rate of a quarkonium state $H$ is $$\Gamma(H)
\;=\; {1 \over 2 M_H}
\sum_{mn} C_{mn} \langle H | {\cal O}_{mn} | H \rangle ,
\label{Gam-fact}$$ where the onium state $| H \rangle = | H ({\bf P}=0) \rangle$ has the standard relativistic normalization. The sum in (\[Gam-fact\]) extends over all operators that can appear in the NRQCD lagrangian and that have the form $${\cal O}_{mn}
\;=\; \psi^\dagger {\cal K}_m \chi \chi^\dagger {\cal K}_n \psi .
\label{O-mn}$$ These operators must be gauge invariant, invariant under parity and charge-conjugation, and scalars under rotations. Each of the factors ${\cal K}_n$ and ${\cal K}_m$ is the product of a spin-matrix ($1$ or $\sigma^i$), a color matrix ($1$ or $T^a$), and a polynomial in ${\bf D}$ and $[D_0, {\bf D}]= g{\bf E}$. The operator ${\cal
O}_{mn}$ in (\[O-mn\]) annihilates a $Q \overline Q$ pair in a color and angular-momentum state determined by ${\cal K}_n$ and creates a $Q \overline
Q$ pair at the same point in a state determined by ${\cal K}_m$.
The NRQCD factorization formula (\[Gam-fact\]) untangles the effects of short distances of order $1/M$ from those of long distances of order $1/(Mv)$ or larger. All long-distance effects involving the quarkonium wavefunction are factored into the NRQCD matrix elements. Short-distance effects involving the annihilation of the $Q \overline Q$ pair are contained in the coefficients. The coefficient $C_{mn}$ in (\[Gam-fact\]) is twice the imaginary part of the coefficient of the operator ${\cal O}_{mn}$ in the NRQCD lagrangian. If that operator has scaling dimension $d_{mn}$, then $C_{mn}$ is $1/m_Q^{d_{mn}-4}$ multiplied by a power series in $\alpha_s(m_Q)$.
The coefficients $C_{mn}$ can be calculated using perturbative matching methods. A general matching prescription, called the [*threshold expansion method*]{}, has been developed by Braaten and Chen.[@Braaten-Chen] The matching calculations are carried out using perturbative asymptotic states $c \bar c = c \bar c({\bf q},\xi,\eta)$ that consist of a $c$ and a $\bar c$ with relative momentum ${\bf q}$ and in a spin/color state that is represented by the Pauli spinors $\xi$ and $\eta$. The matching prescription is $$\begin{aligned}
&&\sum_X \; (2 \pi)^4 \delta^4(P - k_X) \;
({\cal T}_{c \bar c' \to X})^*
{\cal T}_{c \bar c \to X} \Big|_{pQCD}
\nonumber \\
&& \hspace{1in} \;\approx\; \sum_{m n}
C_{mn}\; \langle c \bar c' | \psi^\dagger {\cal K}_m \chi \;
\chi^\dagger {\cal K}_n \psi | c \bar c \rangle \Big|_{pNRQCD} \,,
\label{TT-match}\end{aligned}$$ where $P = (2 \sqrt{m_c^2 + {\bf q}^2}, {\bf 0})$ is the four-momentum of the $c \bar c$ pair and ${\cal T}_{c \bar c \to X}$ is the T-matrix element for its annihilation into a final state $X$ consisting of light partons. The sum over $X$ on the left side of (\[TT-match\]) includes integration over the phase space of the light partons. The complete determination of the short-distance coefficients requires the use of different states $c \bar c$ and $c \bar c'$ in the T-matrix element and in its complex conjugate. In the matching procedure, the left side of (\[TT-match\]) is calculated using perturbative QCD, and then expanded in powers of the relative momenta ${\bf q}$ and ${\bf q}'$. The matrix elements on the right side are calculated using perturbative NRQCD, and then expanded in powers of ${\bf q}$ and ${\bf q}'$. The coefficients $C_{mn}$ are determined by matching these expansions order by order in $\alpha_s$.
The relative importance of the various terms in the factorization formula (\[Gam-fact\]) is determined by the order in $\alpha_s$ of the coefficient $C_{mn}$ and by the order in $v$ of the matrix element. The magnitude of the matrix element can be estimated using the velocity-scaling rules for operators given in Table \[tab:vscaling\] and the estimates for the probabilities of higher Fock states in Coulomb gauge given in Section \[sec:Fock\]. If the operator ${\cal O}_{mn}$ annihilates and creates a $Q\overline Q$ pair in the same color and angular-momentum state as in the dominant $|Q \overline Q \rangle$ Fock state of $H$, then the estimate for the matrix element is obtained by dividing the estimate for the operator ${\cal O}_{mn}$ from Table \[tab:vscaling\] by $M^2v^3$. Otherwise, we must take into account suppression factors from the transitions required to go from the dominant $|Q \overline Q \rangle$ state to a Fock state in which the $Q \overline Q$ pair can be annihilated by the operator ${\cal O}_{mn}$ and then back to the dominant $|Q \overline Q \rangle$ state. There is a suppression factor of $v$ for every electric transition and a suppression factor of $v^{3/2}$ for every magnetic transition. Let $E$ and $M$ be the total number of electric and magnetic transitions required. If ${\cal K}_m$ and ${\cal K}_n$ contain $D$ factors of the covariant derivative ${\bf D}$ but no factors of $g{\bf E}$ or $g {\bf B}$, then the matrix element $\langle H|{\cal O}_{mn}|H\rangle$ scales like $v^{3 + D + E + 3M/2}$. For each factor of $g{\bf E}$ or $g {\bf B}$, there is an additional suppression factor of $v^3$ or $v^4$, respectively.
Spin symmetry relates NRQCD matrix elements for quarkonium states that differ only in their spin quantum numbers. An example involving the $\eta_c$ and $J/\psi$ (the lowest $^1S_0$ and $^3S_1$ states of charmonium) is $$\langle J/\psi | \psi^\dagger \mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$} \chi \cdot
\chi^\dagger \mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$} \psi | J/\psi \rangle
\;\approx\;
\langle \eta_c | \psi^\dagger \chi \chi^\dagger \psi | \eta_c \rangle.
\label{HQSS}$$ Since spin symmetry is only an approximate symmetry of NRQCD that is broken at order $v^2$, the equality (\[HQSS\]) holds only up to corrections of relative order $v^2$.
The vacuum-saturation approximation can be used to express some of the matrix elements in the factorization formula (\[Gam-fact\]) in terms of vacuum-to-quarkonium matrix elements. This approximation can only be applied if the operator ${\cal O}_{mn}$ annihilates and creates $Q \overline Q$ pairs in the same color and angular-momentum state as in the dominant $|Q \overline Q \rangle$ Fock state of $H$. In this case, we can insert a complete set of states between $\chi$ and $\chi^\dagger$: $$\langle H | \psi^\dagger {\cal K}_m \chi
\chi^\dagger {\cal K}_n \psi | H \rangle
\;=\; \sum_X
\langle H | \psi^\dagger {\cal K}_m \chi | X \rangle
\langle X | \chi^\dagger {\cal K}_n \psi | H \rangle .
\label{sum-states}$$ The vacuum-saturation approximation consists of keeping only the vacuum term $| 0 \rangle \langle 0 |$ in the sum over states, as illustrated in (\[VSA-eta\]). The vacuum-saturation approximation is a controlled approximation with an error of relative order $v^4$. This follows from the fact that in Coulomb gauge, the next most important term in the sum over states in (\[sum-states\]) is a $ | g g \rangle$ Fock state, which contains two dynamical gluons. The leading contributions to the matrix elements in (\[sum-states\]) then come from $| Q \overline Q g g \rangle$ Fock states whose probabilities are of order $v^4$.
The NRQCD matrix elements are sensitive to long-distance effects, and therefore can only be calculated using nonperturbative methods. The only practical nonperturbative method that is presently available is Monte Carlo simulations of lattice NRQCD. The first such calculations have been carried out recently by Bodwin, Sinclair, and Kim.[@B-K-S] They demonstrated that the relation (\[VSA-eta\]) implied by the vacuum-saturation approximation holds to within numerical accuracy. They calculated the matrix elements $\langle 0 | \chi^\dagger \psi | \eta_c \rangle$ and $\langle 0 | \chi^\dagger {\bf D}^2 \psi | \eta_c \rangle$ and their analogues for bottomonium. These matrix elements contribute to decays of the lowest S-wave states at leading order in $v$ and at relative order $v^2$. They also calculated $\langle 0 | \chi^\dagger {\bf D}
\cdot \mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$} \psi | \chi_{c0} \rangle$ and $\langle \chi_{c0} | \psi^\dagger \mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$} T^a \chi
\cdot
\chi^\dagger \mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$} T^a \psi | \chi_{c0} \rangle$ and the analogues of these matrix elements for bottomonium. As discussed in Section \[sec:Pwaves\], these are the matrix elements that contribute to decays of the lowest P-wave states at leading order in $v$. Thus far, the calculations of NRQCD matrix elements have been carried out only in minimal NRQCD and without dynamical quarks.
Annihilation Decays of P-wave States {#sec:Pwaves}
------------------------------------
The NRQCD factorization formula for annihilation decay rates has dramatic implications for the decays of $P$-wave states, such as $h_c$ (the $^1P_1$ state of charmonium) and $\chi_{cJ}$, $J=0, 1, 2$ (the $^3P_J$ states). Calculations of their annihilation decay rates in the color-singlet model suffer from infrared divergences. The NRQCD factorization approach not only resolves the problem of the infrared divergences, but it also leads to new qualitative insights about $P$-wave charmonium.
We first consider the Fock state expansion of $h_c$ and $\chi_{cJ}$ in Coulomb gauge. The dominant $|c \bar c \rangle$ Fock state consists of a color-singlet $c \bar c$ pair in a $^1P_1$ state for $h_c$ and a $^3P_J$ state for $\chi_{cJ}$. An electric transition from the dominant Fock state produces a $|c \bar c g \rangle$ state, with the $c \bar c$ pair in a color-octet state with angular momentum quantum numbers $^1S_0$ or $^1D_2$ for $h_c$ and $^3S_1$, $^3D_1$, $^3D_2$, or $^3D_3$ for $\chi_{cJ}$. Therefore these Fock states have probabilities of order $v^2$. A magnetic transition from the dominant $|c \bar c \rangle$ Fock state produces a $|c \bar c g \rangle$ state, with the $c \bar c$ pair in a color-octet state with angular-momentum quantum numbers $^3P_J$ for $h_c$ and $^1P_1$ for $\chi_{cJ}$. This Fock state has a probability of order $v^3$. All other Fock states have probabilities of order $v^4$ or smaller.
We proceed to identify the most important matrix elements in the NRQCD factorization formula. The lowest dimension operator that can annihilate the $c \bar c$ pair in the dominant Fock state of the $h_c$ is $\psi^\dagger \boldtensorD \chi \cdot \chi^\dagger \boldtensorD \psi$, where $\boldtensorD$ is defined by $\chi^\dagger \boldtensorD \psi
\equiv \chi^\dagger ({\bf D} \psi) - ({\bf D} \chi)^\dagger \psi$. For $\chi_{cJ}$, the lowest dimension operator has the form $\psi^\dagger \tensorD {}^m \sigma^n \chi \chi^\dagger
\tensorD {}^i \sigma^j \psi$, where the indices are contracted in different ways for $J=0, 1$, and $2$. The matrix elements of these operators for $h_c,
\chi_{c0}, \chi_{c1}$, and $\chi_{c2}$ are related by spin symmetry. Up to corrections of relative order $v^2$, they satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
&&
\langle h_c | \psi^\dagger (-\mbox{$\frac{i}{2}$} \boldtensorD) \chi
\cdot
\chi^\dagger (-\mbox{$\frac{i}{2}$} \boldtensorD) \psi | h_c \rangle
\nonumber \\
&& \hspace{.5in}
\;\approx\; {1 \over 3}
\langle \chi_{c0} | \psi^\dagger (-\mbox{$\frac{i}{2}$} \boldtensorD
\cdot \, \mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}) \chi
\chi^\dagger (-\mbox{$\frac{i}{2}$} \boldtensorD
\cdot \, \mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}) \psi | \chi_{c0} \rangle
\nonumber \\
&& \hspace{.5in}
\;\approx\; {1 \over 2}
\langle \chi_{c1} | \psi^\dagger (-\mbox{$\frac{i}{2}$} \boldtensorD
\times \mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}) \chi \cdot
\chi^\dagger (-\mbox{$\frac{i}{2}$} \boldtensorD
\times \mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}) \psi | \chi_{c1} \rangle
\nonumber \\
&& \hspace{.5in}
\;\approx\;
\langle \chi_{c2} | \psi^\dagger (-\mbox{$\frac{i}{2}$} \tensorD)^{(m}
\sigma^{n)} \chi
\chi^\dagger (-\mbox{$\frac{i}{2}$} \tensorD)^{(m}
\sigma^{n)} \psi | \chi_{c2} \rangle \,,
\label{matel-Pwave}\end{aligned}$$ where $T^{(mn)}$ denotes the symmetric traceless part of a tensor $T^{mn}$. The vacuum-saturation approximation can be used to express these matrix element in a simpler form. Up to corrections of relative order $v^4$, the matrix element for the $\chi_{c0}$ can be written $$\langle \chi_{c0} | \psi^\dagger (-\mbox{$\frac{i}{2}$} \boldtensorD
\cdot \, \mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}) \chi
\chi^\dagger (-\mbox{$\frac{i}{2}$} \boldtensorD
\cdot \, \mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}) \psi | \chi_{c0} \rangle
\;\approx\;
\left| \langle 0 | \chi^\dagger (-\mbox{$\frac{i}{2}$} \boldtensorD
\cdot \, \mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}) \psi
| \chi_{c0} \rangle \right|^2 \,.
\label{VSA-chi}$$ In the color-singlet model, the vacuum-to-$\chi_{c0}$ matrix element on the right side of (\[VSA-chi\]) can be expressed in terms of the radial wavefunction $R(r)$ for the $P$-wave states: $$\langle 0 | \chi^\dagger (-\mbox{$\frac{i}{2}$} \boldtensorD
\cdot \, \mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}) \psi
| \chi_{c0} \rangle
\;\approx\; \sqrt{2 M_{\chi_{c0}}} \sqrt{ 9 \over 2 \pi} R'(0) .
\label{wf-h}$$ According to the velocity-scaling rules, the matrix elements in (\[matel-Pwave\]) scale like $v^5$. For a consistent analysis, we must also include all other matrix elements that scale like $v^5$. By enumerating the possibilities, one can see that the only other operators whose matrix elements scale like $v^5$ are $\psi^\dagger T^a \chi \chi^\dagger T^a \psi$ for $h_c$ and $\psi^\dagger \mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$} T^a \chi \cdot
\chi^\dagger \mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$} T^a \psi$ for $\chi_{cJ}$. These operators annihilate and create $c \bar c$ pairs in color-octet $^1S_0$ and $^3S_1$ states, respectively. Spin symmetry implies that the matrix elements for $h_c, \chi_{c0}$, $\chi_{c1}$, and $\chi_{2}$ are equal, up to corrections of relative order $v^2$: $$\langle h_c | \psi^\dagger T^a \chi \chi^\dagger T^a \psi | h_c \rangle
\;\approx\;
\langle \chi_{cJ} | \psi^\dagger \mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$} T^a \chi
\cdot
\chi^\dagger \mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$} T^a \psi | \chi_{cJ} \rangle ,
\qquad J = 0,1,2.$$
We have found that, up to corrections that are suppressed by $v^2$, the annihilation decay rates of the P-wave states can all be expressed in terms of the following two independent matrix elements: $$\begin{aligned}
\langle {\cal O}_1 \rangle &\equiv&
{ \left| \langle 0 | \chi^\dagger (-\mbox{$\frac{i}{2}$} \boldtensorD
\cdot \, \mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}) \psi | \chi_{c0} \rangle \right|^2
\over 2 M_{\chi_{c0}} } \,,
\\
\langle {\cal O}_8 \rangle &\equiv&
{\langle \chi_{c0} | \psi^\dagger \mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$} T^a \chi
\cdot
\chi^\dagger \mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$} T^a \psi | \chi_{c0} \rangle
\over 2 M_{\chi_{c0}} } \,.\end{aligned}$$ Their short-distance coefficients can be calculated as power series in $\alpha_s(m_c)$. The annihilation processes that contribute to the coefficients at order $\alpha_s^2$ are $c \bar c \to g g $ and $c
\overline c \to q \overline q$. If we keep only those terms in the short-distance coefficients, the annihilation decay rate are $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma(h_c) &\approx&
{5 \pi \alpha_s^2(m_c) \over 6 m_c^2} \langle {\cal O}_8 \rangle \,,
\\
\Gamma(\chi_{c0}) &\approx&
{4 \pi \alpha_s^2(m_c) \over m_c^4} \langle {\cal O}_1 \rangle
\;+\; {n_f \pi \alpha_s^2(m_c) \over 3 m_c^2} \langle {\cal O}_8 \rangle \,,
\\
\Gamma(\chi_{c1}) &\approx&
{n_f \pi \alpha_s^2(m_c) \over 3 m_c^2} \langle {\cal O}_8 \rangle \,,
\\
\Gamma(\chi_{c2}) &\approx&
{16 \pi \alpha_s^2(m_c) \over 45 m_c^4} \langle {\cal O}_1 \rangle
\;+\; {n_f \pi \alpha_s^2(m_c) \over 3 m_c^2} \langle {\cal O}_8 \rangle \,,\end{aligned}$$ where $n_f = 3$ is the number of flavors of light quarks. At this order in $\alpha_s$, the decay rates for $h_c$ and $\chi_{c1}$ receive contributions from $\langle {\cal O}_8 \rangle$ only, because Yang’s theorem forbids the annihilation process $c \bar c \to g g $ for a $c \bar c$ pair in a state with total angular momentum 1. At order $\alpha_s^3$, all of the P-wave states have contributions from $\langle {\cal O}_1 \rangle$. At this order in $\alpha_s$, the short-distance coefficients of $\langle {\cal O}_1 \rangle$ depend logarithmically on a factorization scale $\mu$ that can be interpreted as an infrared cutoff on the energy of soft gluons. The matrix element $\langle {\cal O}_8 \rangle$ also depends logarithmically on $\mu$, which in this case can be identified with the ultraviolet cutoff of NRQCD. The $\mu$-dependence cancels between $\langle {\cal O}_8 \rangle$ and the coefficient of $\langle {\cal O}_1 \rangle$.[@B-B-L:1] In the color-singlet model, the $\langle {\cal O}_8 \rangle$ terms are absent and the decay rate depends logarithmically on the infrared cutoff $\mu$. The NRQCD factorization approach provides a simple and natural solution to this problem.
The NRQCD factorization formula for a $P$-wave state has a simple interpretation in terms of the Fock state expansion in Coulomb gauge. The color-singlet terms proportional to $\langle {\cal O}_1 \rangle$ are contributions from the dominant $|c \bar c
\rangle$ Fock state, while the color-octet terms proportional to $\langle {\cal O}_8 \rangle$ are contributions from a $|c
\overline c g \rangle$ Fock state. The $| c \bar c g \rangle$ state has a small probability of order $v^2$, and its effects on most observables are small compared to those of the $|c \bar c \rangle$ state. However, in the case of the annihilation decay rate, the effects of the $| c \bar c \rangle$ state are suppressed by $v^2$ due to the orbital angular momentum of the $| c \bar c \rangle$ pair. The contribution of the $| c \bar c g \rangle$ Fock state has no angular-momentum suppression and therefore contributes at the same order in $v$. For the $h_c$ and $\chi_{c0}$, the effects of the $|c \bar c g \rangle$ Fock state actually dominate, because the short-distance coefficients of $\langle {\cal O}_1 \rangle$ are suppressed by a factor of $\alpha_s(m_c)$.
Inclusive Production of Heavy Quarkonium {#sec:IncProd}
========================================
Topological Factorization {#sec:Top-Fac}
-------------------------
The cross section for producing a quarkonium state $H$ in a high energy process necessarily involves both “short distances” of order $1/M$ or smaller and “long distances” of order $1/(M v)$ or larger. The creation of the $Q \overline Q$ pair involves short distances, because the parton processes that produce the $Q \overline Q$ pair always involve particles that are off their mass shells by amounts of order $M$ and can therefore propagate only over short distances. The binding of the $Q$ and $\overline Q$ into the state $H$ involves long distances, because gluons whose wavelengths are comparable to or larger than the size of the bound state, which is of order $1/(M v)$, play a large role in the binding.
The production of quarkonium in a high energy physics process typically involves another [*hard*]{} momentum scale $Q$ in addition to the scale $M$. If the production cross section is sufficiently inclusive, it can be described by an NRQCD factorization formula that separates short-distance effects involving the momentum scales $Q$ and $M$ from long-distance effects that involve lower momentum scales. It is convenient to separate the derivation of the factorization formula into two steps. In the first step, which we refer to as [*topological factorization*]{}, the standard factorization methods of perturbative QCD are used to separate the effects of the hard momentum scale $Q$ from those of the [*soft*]{} momentum scale $\Lambda_{QCD}$. These methods are applicable even if we identify the hard scale $Q$ with the heavy quark mass $M$. An additional step is required to separate the effects of the scale $M$ from those of the scale $Mv$.
The general expression for the inclusive cross section for the production of a quarkonium state $H$ with four-momentum $P$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_X d \sigma(12 \to H(P) + X) &=&
{1 \over 4 E_1 E_2 v_{12}}\; {d^3P \over (2 \pi)^3 2 E_P}
\nonumber \\
&& \hspace{-1in} \times
\sum_X \; (2 \pi)^4 \delta^4(k_1 + k_2 - P - k_X) \;
|{\cal T}_{1 2 \to H(P) + X}|^2 \,,
\label{dsig}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\cal T}_{1 2 \to H(P) + X}$ is a T-matrix element for producing $H$ and the additional particles $X$ and the sum on the right side includes integration over the phase space of the additional particles. At the parton level, both ${\cal T}_{12 \to H(P)+X}$ and its complex conjugate can be expressed as sums of Feynman diagrams. The product of a single diagram in ${\cal T}_{12 \to H(P)+X}$ and a single diagram in ${\cal T}^*_{12 \to
H(P)+X}$ is called a “cut Feynman diagram.” Using the factorization methods of perturbative QCD, one can identify the cut diagrams that dominate in the limit $Q \to \infty$. After taking into account cancellations between real and virtual soft gluons, the dominant cut diagrams have the following structure:
- a [*hard-scattering subdiagram*]{} ${\cal H}$ to the left of the cut. The outgoing lines include a $Q \overline Q$ pair with small relative momentum of order $Mv$ and additional hard partons. There can also be incoming hard-parton lines if the process involves hadrons in the initial state.
- a [*hard-scattering subdiagram*]{} ${\cal H}^*$ to the right of the cut that is just the mirror image of ${\cal H}$.
- a [*jet-like subdiagram*]{} ${\cal J}_i$ for each of the hard partons attached to ${\cal H}$. The subdiagram extends through the cut and is attached to ${\cal H}$ and to ${\cal H}^*$ by single hard parton lines.
- an [*onium subdiagram*]{} ${\cal O}$ that extends through the cut and is attached to ${\cal H}$ and to ${\cal H}^*$ by $Q$ and $\overline Q$ lines that have small relative momentum.
The cut diagrams that do not have the above structure are suppressed by powers of $1/Q$. With this topological factorization of the dominant cut diagrams, all effects involving the hard momentum scale $Q$ are factored into the hard-scattering subdiagrams ${\cal H}$ and ${\cal H}^*$, while all effects of the soft scale $\Lambda_{QCD}$ are factored into ${\cal O}$, ${\cal J}_1$, ${\cal J}_2$, $\ldots$. The gluon interactions that bind the $Q \overline Q$ pair into the onium state $H$ are also contained within the onium subdiagram ${\cal O}$.
The proofs of the factorization theorems of perturbative QCD are very difficult, and explicit proofs are available only for a very few processes, such as inclusive hadron production in $e^+e^-$ annihilation and the Drell-Yan process for lepton pair production in hadron collisions.[@Collins-Soper] However there is no apparent obstacle to extending these proofs to inclusive onium production.
NRQCD Factorization {#sec:NRQCD-Fac}
-------------------
After topological factorization, the effects of the scale $Mv$ are distributed in a complicated way between ${\cal H}$, ${\cal H}^*$, ${\cal O}$, and the $Q$ and $\overline Q$ propagators that connect them. The onium subdiagram ${\cal O}$ involves the scale $Mv$ because gluons with momentum of order $Mv$ play an important role in the binding of the $Q \overline Q$ pair into an onium state. The hard-scattering subdiagrams ${\cal H}$ and ${\cal H}^*$ involve the scale $Mv$, because the outgoing $Q$ and $\overline Q$ lines have relative momenta on the order of $Mv$. It is in factoring the scale $Mv$ out of ${\cal H}$ and ${\cal H}^*$ that NRQCD enters into the picture.
Consider the part of the cut diagram that includes ${\cal H}$, ${\cal O}$, and the $Q$ and $\overline Q$ propagators that connect them. If the $Q$ and $\overline Q$ have four-momenta ${1 \over 2} P + q$ and ${1 \over 2} P - q$, then the diagram also involves an integral over the relative momentum $q$. A simple way to disentangle the momentum scale $Mv$ from ${\cal H}$ is to expand it as a Taylor series in $q$ and absorb the factors of $q$ as well as the integration over $q$ into ${\cal O}$. Each term in the Taylor expansion corresponds to a local operator that creates a $Q \overline Q$ pair from the vacuum. By applying a similar procedure to disentangle the momentum scale $Mv$ from ${\cal H}^*$, the onium subdiagram is reduced to vacuum-expectation values of local operators that create and annihilate $Q \overline Q$ pairs. After a renormalization group transformation and appropriate field redefinitions, the matrix elements can be expressed as expectation values in the NRQCD vacuum of the form $$\langle {\cal O}^H_{mn} \rangle \;=\;
\langle 0 | \chi^\dagger {\cal K}_m \psi \; {\cal P}_H \;
\psi^\dagger {\cal K}_n \chi | 0 \rangle \,,
\label{O-H}$$ where ${\cal P}_H$ projects onto states that in the asymptotic future contain the quarkonium state $H$ plus soft partons $S$ whose total energy is less than the ultraviolet cutoff of NRQCD: $${\cal P}_H \;=\;
\sum_S | H + S \rangle \langle H + S | \,.
\label{P-H}$$ If we integrate the dominant cut diagrams over the phase space of all the hard partons in the process, we obtain the NRQCD factorization formula for the inclusive cross section: $$\sum_X d \sigma(12 \to H(P) + X) \;=\;
{1 \over 4 E_1 E_2 v_{12}}\; {d^3P \over (2 \pi)^3 2 E_P}
\sum_{mn} C_{mn}(k_1,k_2, P) \; \langle {\cal O}^H_{mn} \rangle \,.
\label{dsig-fact}$$ The sum in (\[dsig-fact\]) extends over all NRQCD matrix elements of the form (\[O-H\]). The product of the operators $\chi^\dagger {\cal K}_m \psi$ and $\psi^\dagger {\cal K}_n \chi$ must be gauge-invariant. It need not be rotationally invariant if the quarkonium state $H$ is polarized. In the factorization formula (\[dsig-fact\]), the hard-scattering subdiagrams ${\cal H}$ and ${\cal H}^*$ and the jet-like subdiagrams ${\cal J}_i$ have all been subsumed in the short-distance coefficients $C_{mn}$.
Since the coefficients $C_{mn}$ in (\[dsig-fact\]) involve only short distances of order $1/M$ or larger, they can be expressed as perturbation series in $\alpha_s(M)$. The [*threshold expansion method*]{} provides a general prescription for calculating the short-distance coefficients.[@Braaten-Chen] Denoting by $c \bar c(P)$ a state consisting of a $c$ and $\bar c$ with relative momentum ${\bf q}$ that has been boosted to four-momentum $P$, the matching prescription is $$\begin{aligned}
&&\sum_X \; (2 \pi)^4 \delta^4(k_1 + k_2 - P - k_X) \;
({\cal T}_{1 2 \to c \bar c'(P) + X})^*
{\cal T}_{1 2 \to c \bar c(P) + X} \Big|_{pQCD}
\nonumber \\
&& \hspace{.2in}
\;\approx\; \sum_{m n}
C_{mn}(k_1,k_2,P)
\langle 0 | \chi^\dagger {\cal K}_m \psi \;
{\cal P}_{c \bar c',c \bar c} \;
\psi^\dagger {\cal K}_n \chi | 0 \rangle \Big|_{pNRQCD} \,,
\label{TT-match:prod}\end{aligned}$$ where the projection operator in the NRQCD matrix element is $${\cal P}_{c \bar c',c \bar c} \;=\;
\sum_S | c \bar c' + S \rangle
\langle c \bar c + S | \,.
\label{P-ccbar}$$ The left side of (\[TT-match:prod\]) is to be calculated using perturbative QCD, and then expanded in powers of the relative momenta ${\bf q}$ and ${\bf q}'$ of the $c \bar c$ pairs. The matrix elements on the right side are to be calculated using perturbative NRQCD, and then expanded in powers of ${\bf q}$ and ${\bf q}'$. The coefficients $C_{mn}$ are then determined by matching these expansions order by order in $\alpha_s$.
The relative importance of the various terms in the factorization formula (\[Gam-fact\]) is determined by the magnitudes of the coefficients $C_{mn}$ and by the order in $v$ of the matrix elements $\langle {\cal O}^H_{mn} \rangle$. The size of the coefficient $C_{mn}$ is determined not only by the order in $\alpha_s$, but also by its dependence on dimensionless ratios of kinematic variables that are involved in the $c \bar c$ production process. The magnitudes of the matrix elements can be estimated by using the velocity-scaling rules for operators given in Table \[tab:vscaling\] and the scaling with $v$ of the rates for electric and magnetic transitions. If the operator ${\cal O}^H_{mn}$ creates and annihilates a $Q\overline Q$ pair in the same color and angular-momentum state as in the dominant $|Q \overline Q \rangle$ Fock state of $H$, then the magnitude of the matrix element $\langle {\cal O}^H_{mn} \rangle$ is estimated by multiplying the factors in Table \[tab:vscaling\] and dividing by $M^2v^3$. For other matrix elements, we must take into account suppression factors from the transitions required to go from the $Q \overline Q$ state created by the operator $\psi^\dagger {\cal K}_n \chi$ to a state in which the $Q \overline Q$ pair has the same quantum numbers as in the dominant $|Q \overline Q \rangle$ Fock state and then to a state in which the $Q \overline Q$ pair can be annihilated by the operator $\chi^\dagger {\cal K}_m \psi$. There is a suppression factor of $v$ for every electric transition that is required and a suppression factor of $v^{3/2}$ for every magnetic transition. The scaling of the production matrix element $\langle {\cal O}^H_{mn} \rangle$ with $v$ is identical to that of the corresponding decay matrix element $\langle H|{\cal O}_{mn}|H\rangle$.
The NRQCD matrix elements that appear in the NRQCD factorization formula (\[dsig-fact\]) can be simplified by using symmetries of NRQCD. Rotational symmetry is an exact symmetry of NRQCD. It implies, for example, that $$\langle \chi^\dagger \sigma^j T^a \psi \;
{\cal P}_{J/\psi}
\psi^\dagger \sigma^i T^a \chi \rangle \;=\;
{\delta_{ij} \over 3} \langle \chi^\dagger \sigma^k T^a \psi \;
{\cal P}_{J/\psi} \;
\psi^\dagger \sigma^k T^a \chi \rangle .
\label{rot-sym}$$ Spin symmetry is an approximate symmetry of NRQCD that holds up to corrections of order $v^2$. It implies, for example, that $$\langle \chi^\dagger \sigma^j T^a \psi \;
{\cal P}_{\psi(\lambda)}
\psi^\dagger \sigma^i T^a \chi \rangle \;\approx\;
U_{\lambda j} U^\dagger_{i \lambda}
\langle \chi^\dagger T^a \psi \;
{\cal P}_{\eta_c} \;
\psi^\dagger T^a \chi \rangle ,
\label{hqs-sym}$$ where $\lambda$ specifies the polarization of the $J/\psi$ and $U_{i \lambda}$ is the unitary matrix that transforms vectors from the spherical basis to the Cartesian basis.
The vacuum-saturation approximation can be used to simplify the matrix elements of operators that create and annihilate $c \bar c$ pairs in the dominant Fock state of the quarkonium. In the vacuum-saturation approximation, the projection operator $P_H$ defined in (\[P-H\]) is replaced by the single term $ | H \rangle \langle H|$. This is a controlled approximation in NRQCD, holding up to corrections that are of order $v^4$. It implies, for example, that $$\langle 0 | \chi^\dagger \sigma^i \psi \; {\cal P}_{\psi(\lambda)} \;
\psi^\dagger \sigma^j \chi | 0 \rangle
\;\approx\;
\langle 0 | \chi^\dagger \sigma^i \psi | \psi(\lambda) \rangle \;
\langle \psi(\lambda) | \psi^\dagger \sigma^j \chi | 0 \rangle \,.
\label{vsa-prod}$$ The matrix elements in the NRQCD factorization formula involve long-distance effects and therefore can only be calculated using nonperturbative methods. Unfortunately, in contrast to the decay matrix elements $\langle H | {\cal O}_{mn} | H \rangle$, there are no effective prescriptions for calculating the production matrix elements $\langle {\cal O}^H_{mn} \rangle$ using lattice NRQCD. The problem lies in implementing on the lattice the projection defined by (\[P-H\]). Thus these NRQCD matrix elements must be treated as phenomenological parameters to be determined by experiment. The only exceptions are the matrix elements to which the vacuum-saturation approximation can be applied. Vacuum-to-quarkonium matrix elements of the form $\langle H | \psi^\dagger {\cal K}_n \chi | 0 \rangle$ can be calculated using Monte-Carlo simulations of NRQCD.
Prompt Charmonium at the Tevatron {#sec:Prompt}
---------------------------------
The NRQCD factorization framework (\[dsig-fact\]) has many applications, some of which are described in a recent review.[@B-F-Y] One application for which the implications are particularly dramatic is the production of prompt charmonium at large transverse momentum in $p \bar p$ collisions. At sufficiently large transverse momentum $p_T$, the cross section for $p \bar p \to \psi + X$ is dominated by gluon fragmentation.[@Braaten-Yuan] It can be factored into the cross section for producing a gluon with transverse momentum $p_T/z$ and a fragmentation function $D_{g \to \psi}(z)$ that gives the probability that the jet initiated by the gluon includes a $\psi$ carrying a fraction $z$ of the gluon momentum: $$d \sigma (p \bar p \to \psi(P) + X) \;=\;
\int_0^1 dz \; d \hat{\sigma} (p \bar p \to g(P/z) + X) \;
D_{g \to \psi}(z) \,.
\label{dsig-frag}$$ Using the NRQCD factorization approach, the fragmentation function can be expressed in the form $$D_{g \to \psi}(z) \;=\;
\sum_{mn} d_{mn}(z) \langle {\cal O}_{mn}^\psi \rangle \,,
\label{frag-fact}$$ where all effects of the momentum scale $m_c$ have been factored into the short-distance coefficients $d_{mn}(z)$. The relative importance of the various terms in the fragmentation function is determined by the order in $v$ of the matrix element and the order in $\alpha_s$ of its coefficient.
The matrix element that is leading order in $v$ is $ \langle \chi^\dagger \sigma^k \psi {\cal P}_\psi
\psi^\dagger \sigma^k \chi \rangle$, which scales like $v^3$. This term corresponds to the formation of a $\psi$ from a $c \bar c$ pair that is created in a color-singlet $^3S_1$ state, and it is the only contribution in the color-singlet model. The leading contribution to the short-distance coefficient of this term in the gluon fragmentation function (\[frag-fact\]) is of order $\alpha_s^3$ and comes from the parton process $g^* \to c \bar c g g$. Keeping only this term in the fragmentation function (\[frag-fact\]), the cross section predicted by (\[dsig-frag\]) is about a factor of 30 below recent data on prompt $\psi$ production at the Tevatron.
The color-singlet-model term in the gluon fragmentation function scales like $\alpha_s^3 v^3$. All other terms have matrix elements that scale like $v^5$ or smaller. There are however terms whose short-distance coefficients are suppressed by fewer powers of $\alpha_s$. There is one coefficient in particular that is of order $\alpha_s$, because it receives a contribution from the parton process $g^* \to c \bar c$. The matrix element is $\langle \chi^\dagger \sigma^k T^a \psi {\cal P}_\psi
\psi^\dagger \sigma^k T^a \chi \rangle$ and it scales like $v^7$. This term corresponds to the formation of a $\psi$ from a $c \bar c$ pair that is created in a color-octet $^3S_1$ state. At leading order in $\alpha_s$, this term in the fragmentation function is $$D_{g \to \psi}(z) \;=\;
{\pi \alpha_s(m_c) \over 96 m_c^4} \delta(1-z) \;
\langle \chi^\dagger \sigma^k T^a \psi \; {\cal P}_\psi \;
\psi^\dagger \sigma^k T^a \chi \rangle \,.
\label{D-psi}$$ Braaten and Fleming proposed that the enhancement from the two fewer powers of $\alpha_s$ relative to the color-singlet model term can overcome the suppression by $v^4$, and that this term might dominate the gluon fragmentation function.[@Braaten-Fleming] The $p_T$-dependence predicted by this mechanism is in agreement with the Tevatron data. The normalization depends on the unknown matrix element in (\[D-psi\]), but the value of the matrix element required to fit the data is consistent with suppression by a factor of $v^4$ relative to the color-singlet-model matrix element $\langle \chi^\dagger \sigma^k \psi {\cal P}_\psi
\psi^\dagger \sigma^k \chi \rangle$.
Cho and Wise pointed out that this production mechanism has dramatic implications for the polarization of the $\psi$.[@Cho-Wise] At leading order in $\alpha_s$, the $\psi$’s produced by gluon fragmentation will be 100% transversely polarized. The radiative corrections to the fragmentration function were examined by Beneke and Rothstein, and they concluded that the spin alignment at large $p_T$ will remain greater than 90%.[@Beneke-Rothstein] The largest corrections to the spin alignment at values of $p_T$ that can be measured at the Tevatron come from nonfragmentation contributions that fall like $1/p_T^2$, and these contributions have recently been calculated by Beneke and Kraemer.[@Beneke-Kramer] An experimental measurement of the spin alignment in agreement with these predictions would constitute a dramatic triumph of the NRQCD factorization approach.
Conclusions {#sec:Conc}
===========
The NRQCD factorization formulas (\[Gam-fact\]) and (\[dsig-fact\]) provide a firm theoretical foundation for analyzing annihilation decay rates and inclusive production rates of heavy quarkonium. The short-distance coefficients can be calculated as power series in the running coupling constant $\alpha_s(M)$, and the long-distance factors are defined in terms of NRQCD matrix elements that scale in a definite way with $v$. This approach not only provides a framework for carrying out systematic quantitative calculations of quarkonium processes, but it also leads to new qualitative insights into quarkonium physics.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy, Division of High Energy Physics, under Grant DE-FG02-91-ER40684. I thank G.T. Bodwin and G.P. Lepage for valuable discussions and I. Maksymyk for a careful and critical reading of the manuscript. I would also like to thank the organizers of the Third International Workshop on Particle Physics Phenomenology for their hospitality.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[99]{}
G.T. Bodwin, E. Braaten, and G.P. Lepage, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D51**]{}, 1125 (1995); erratum in hep-ph/9407339.
H. Georgi, [*Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.*]{} [**43**]{}, 209 (1993).
W.E. Caswell and G.P. Lepage, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**167B**]{}, 437 (1986).
G.P. Lepage et al., [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D46**]{}, 4052 (1992).
C.T.H. Davies et al., [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**73**]{}, 2654 (1994); [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B345**]{}, 42 (1995).
C.T.H. Davies et al., [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D50**]{}, 6963 (1994); [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D52**]{}, 6519 (1995).
M. Luke and A.V. Manohar, hep-ph/9610534.
E. Braaten and Y.-Q. Chen, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D54**]{}, 3216 (1996); hep-ph/9610401 (to appear in [*Phys. Rev. D.*]{}); hep-ph/9701242.
G.T. Bodwin, D.K. Sinclair, and S. Kim, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**77**]{}, 2376 (1996).
G.T. Bodwin, E. Braaten, and G.P. Lepage, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D46**]{}, R1914 (1992).
J.C. Collins and D.E. Soper, [*Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.*]{} [**37**]{}, 383 (1987)
E. Braaten, S. Fleming, and T.C. Yuan, [*Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.*]{} [**46**]{}, 197 (1996).
E. Braaten and T.C. Yuan, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**71**]{}, 1673 (1993).
E. Braaten and S. Fleming, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**74**]{}, 3327 (1995).
P. Cho and M. Wise, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B346**]{}, 129 (1995).
M. Beneke and I.Z. Rothstein, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B372**]{}, 157 (1996).
M. Beneke and M. Kramer, hep-ph/9611218.
[^1]: based on a series of lectures presented at the Third International Workshop on Particle Physics Phenomenology in Taipei, November 1996.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study sharp low-energy resonance peaks in the local density of states (LDOS) induced by Zn impurities or possible Cu vacancies in superconducting Bi$_2$Sr$_2$CaCu$_2$O$_{8+\delta}$. The measured structure of these near-zero-bias resonances is quantitatively reproduced by an extended impurity potential without invoking internal impurity states or sophisticated tunneling models. The Zn potential extends at least to the nearest-neighbor Cu sites, and the range of order parameter suppression extends at least $8$ [Å]{} away from the Zn site. We further show that the local spin susceptibilities near Zn impurities increase rather than decrease with decreasing temperature in the superconducting state due to the sharp increase of LDOS near the Fermi level.'
author:
- 'Jian-Ming Tang'
- 'Michael E. Flatté'
title: 'Impurity induced low-energy resonances in Bi$_2$Sr$_2$CaCu$_2$O$_{8+\delta}$'
---
Recent scanning tunneling microscopy (STM) measurements on the high-$T_c$ superconductor Bi$_2$Sr$_2$CaCu$_2$O$_{8+\delta}$ (BSCCO) have revealed the detailed spectral and spatial structures of sharp resonances inside the superconducting gap induced by the impurities Zn [@Pan2000] and Ni [@Hudson2001], and by defects such as Cu vacancies.[@Hudson2003] The properties of these resonances depend on interactions at the atomic scale between impurity potentials and the coherent superconducting state. As work progresses to probe these defects in the underdoped regime, and above $T_c$, it is essential to understand whether the properties in the superconducting state can be understood within $d$-wave BCS theory, or whether vestiges remain of the exotic correlated state present at higher temperatures.[@Flatte2000; @Polkovnikov2001; @Zhu2001; @Martin2002] Detailed theoretical studies have shown that the resonances induced by a Ni impurity in BSCCO can be well described by Bogoliubov quasiparticles scattering off a potential in a $d$-wave superconductor with a small, but discernible, local order parameter suppression.[@Tang2002] On the other hand, theories based on pointlike potentials have failed to explain quantitatively both the spatial structure of the resonances and the equally important information yielded by the spatial structure of the “coherence peaks”, either for Zn impurities or Cu vacancies.[@Flatte2000; @Polkovnikov2001; @Zhu2001; @Martin2002]
Zn impurities induce a sharp resonance at an energy close to the Fermi level. Experimental results show that these resonances possess a large spectral weight of local density of states (LDOS) at the impurity site, whereas theories based on pointlike potentials predict that the spectral weight at the impurity site is strongly suppressed by the unrealistically large strength of the potential. This discrepancy in the spatial structure has led to various proposals. Some suggest the need for strongly correlated models, in which the internal states of the impurity are important,[@Polkovnikov2001; @Zhu2001] and others suggest that the spatial structure measured by STM is filtered by the surface Bi-O layer above the Cu-O planes.[@Zhu2001; @Martin2002] However, none of these proposals has provided a coherent quantitative account for the STM spectra, at both the resonance and the coherence peaks, for both Zn and Ni impurities. In this Letter, we show that the effects of Zn impurities over the entire spectrum can be quantitatively described by spatially extended potentials, and, therefore, render the potential model a fully quantitative description for both Zn and Ni impurities in BSCCO. A principal, and unexpected, conclusion is that the potentials required to model the Zn impurity are nonmagnetic and relatively weak ($< 100$ meV), comparable in strength to the potentials induced by the Ni impurity. Another important result is that the order parameter suppression near Zn is much more extensive than for Ni. We further report that the Cu vacancy [@Hudson2003] is well described within such a potential model, thus demonstrating that the potential model works for all three known defects probed by STM in BSCCO.
The appearance of near-zero-bias resonances is intrinsically important because they greatly influence the bulk response to external fields, such as conductivity and spin susceptibility. Here we also calculate the local spin susceptibilities near a Zn impurity. In the homogeneous bulk superconducting state, the spin susceptibility decreases with decreasing temperature due to the opening of a gap in LDOS around the Fermi level. However, in the presence of a sharp near-zero-bias resonance, the local spin susceptibilities near the impurity increase with decreasing temperature, and eventually the values peak at a low temperature scale set by the resonance energy. In other words, above this temperature scale, the local spin susceptibilities inversely scale with temperature, similar to the Curie behavior of a paramagnetic ion in an insulator. We find such behavior describes the Knight shifts on and near Zn in BSCCO.
We begin by describing the nature of the spatially-extended potential that quantitatively describes all of the local spectra near the Zn impurity (shown in Fig. \[fig:model\]). The failure of a pointlike potential to induce the correct spatial structure of Zn’s near-zero-bias resonance originates from the large value of the potential ($>1$ eV) required to draw states deep into the center of the gap. The strong on-site potential diminishes the spectral weight of the LDOS at the impurity site, and moves the largest spectral weights to the four nearest-neighbor sites. Experimentally the largest spectral weights, in order from largest to smallest, are at the impurity site, at the second-nearest-neighbor sites, and then at the third-nearest-neighbor sites (See Figs. \[fig:spectra\] and \[fig:spatial\]). Such a structure is consistent with a non-zero potential at the four nearest-neighbor sites. A key feature is that the potential at the impurity site is of the opposite sign to those at the nearest-neighbor sites, consistent with the structure of a screened charge perturbation. The presence of a nonmagnetic spatially extended potential and a short-ranged charge oscillation is consistent also with the results of nuclear quadruple resonance (NQR) measurements on Zn impurities in YBa$_2$Cu$_4$O$_8$ (YBCO).[@Williams2001] These potentials at the nearest-neighbor sites are much more effective than merely an on-site potential in inducing a sharp resonance close to the Fermi level. Unrealistically large values for the potential are no longer required. A moderate-range local suppression of the order parameter also further drives the resonance energy toward the Fermi level.[@Shnirman1999; @Tang2002] Thus a quantitative understanding of the experimental data requires careful consideration of the detailed potential structure. The same model, but with different values for the potentials, including a longer-range order parameter suppression, describes the Cu vacancy.
![ A schematic diagram showing the proposed model of a Zn impurity on the Cu–O plane. Parameters extracted from fitting to the data are listed on the right. The superconducting order parameters on the dashed links are completely suppressed. This model also works for the Cu vacancy with $V_0 = 110$ meV, $V_1 = -50$ meV, and $\delta t_{01} = 19$ meV. For the Cu vacancy the order parameter was suppressed to zero ($\delta\Delta_{ij} = -\Delta_{ij}$) within 8 [Å]{} of the vacancy, and by 70% ($\delta\Delta_{ij} =
-0.7\Delta_{ij}$) from 8 [Å]{} to 12 [Å]{} from the vacancy. []{data-label="fig:model"}](Zn-model.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
We use the Koster-Slater approach to calculate the LDOS around impurities.[@Flatte1997b; @Flatte1999; @Tang2002] Homogeneous BSCCO is modeled by a one-band tight-binding Hamiltonian, as described in Ref. . The Green’s function of the homogeneous system is first evaluated with an energy resolution $\delta$. The Green’s function with impurities is then calculated by solving the Gorkov (Dyson) equation. The impurity potential consists of site-diagonal matrix elements at the impurity site $(V_0)$ and at the nearest-neighbor sites $(V_1)$, and off-diagonal matrix elements corresponding to modifications of the hopping matrix elements ($\delta
t$), and of the superconducting order parameters ($\delta\Delta$) as described in Ref. for the Ni impurity. The full Hamiltonian that describes the one impurity problem takes the following form, $$\begin{aligned}
H & = & -\sum_{\bra i,j\ket,\,\sigma}(t_{ij}+\delta t_{ij})c^\dagger_{i\sigma}c_{j\sigma} \nonumber\\
&& +\sum_{\bra i,j\ket}\left[(\Delta_{ij}+\delta\Delta_{ij})c^\dagger_{i\uparrow}c^\dagger_{j\downarrow}+{\rm H.c.}\right] \nonumber\\
&& +\sum_{\sigma}\left[V_{0}c^\dagger_{0\sigma}c_{0\sigma}+V_1\sum_{k=1}^4c^\dagger_{k\sigma}c_{k\sigma}\right] \;,\label{eq:H}\end{aligned}$$ where $i$ and $j$ label the lattice sites (the impurity resides at site 0), and $\sigma$ labels spin. The hopping matrix elements, $t_{ij} = \{148.8, -40.9, 13, 14, -12.8\}$ meV, are based on a one-band parameterization of the angle-resolved photoemission data.[@Norman1995] The superconducting order parameters, $\Delta_{ij}$, of the homogeneous system are only non-zero on the bonds connecting two nearest-neighbor sites, $\Delta_{i,i+\hat
x}=-\Delta_{i,i+\hat y}=\Delta_0/4$, where $\Delta_0$ is the gap maximum. The momentum-dependent order parameter resulting from these $\Delta_{ij}$ has $d$-wave symmetry, $\Delta_\vk=(\Delta_0/2)(\cos
k_xL-\cos k_yL)$, where $L$ is the lattice spacing between two Cu atoms.
![ LDOS spectra per unit cell at various sites near a Zn impurity. The left panels show the spectra in the “normal state” (simply setting $\Delta_{ij}=0$) using the same impurity parameters. The right panels show the spectra in the superconducting state. Solid lines show the calculated results. (a) and (b) are the spectra at a site far away from the Zn impurity. (c) and (d) are the spectra right at the impurity site. (e) and (f) are the spectra at the 1st nearest-neighbor sites. (g) and (h) are the spectra at the 2nd nearest-neighbor sites. Open circles ([$\circ$]{}) show the STM differential conductance data.[@Pan2000] The data was rescaled by a constant factor identical for all the spectra. Note that the effective potential in the “normal state” could be very different. []{data-label="fig:spectra"}](BSCCO_Zn_Site_Plot.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
![ (color) Spatial structure of the LDOS near a Zn impurity at $-2$ meV in (a) 2D and (b) 3D view. We have spatially distributed the LDOS at each unit cell according to a normalized Gaussian with a width of half the lattice spacing ($L$). The LDOS is shown in logarithmic scale. The Cu-O lattice is rotated by $45^\circ$ so that the horizontal axis is aligned with the superlattice modulation. To demonstrate the effect of the band structure, we carried out similar calculations for tight-binding bands with (c) only the nearest-neighbor hopping ($\{t_1,\mu,V_0,V_1\}=\{150, 10, 100, -100\}$ meV) and with (d) only the nearest-neighbor and the second-nearest-neighbor hopping ($\{t_1,t_2,\mu,V_0,V_1\}=\{150, -40, -150, 75, -75\}$ meV). The chemical potential is chosen so that the Van Hove singularity is fixed at the same energy. The impurity potential is also slightly altered to keep the resonance energy at the same place. []{data-label="fig:spatial"}](SpatialMaps.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
To construct the effective potential for the Zn impurity, we relate important features in the LDOS data to different parts of the potential structure. First of all, it is known from STM that there is microscopic inhomogeneity of the LDOS gap, which appears to be related to the local doping concentration.[@Pan2001] Judging by the experimental LDOS spectrum at a site within the same local patch as the Zn impurity, but reasonably far away from the impurity, we determine that the gap maximum $\Delta_0$ is about $32$ meV in Ref. . The local chemical potential $\mu$ is shifted with respect to the optimal doping value ($-130.5$ meV)[@Norman1995] by $-20$ meV, which sets the Van Hove peak to be about $14$ meV below the Fermi level. The energy resolution $\delta$ is about $2$ meV, roughly judging by the widths of the coherence peaks and of the Zn resonance. The range of order parameter suppression is then determined by the closing in of the local gap edge. Because the amplitude of the remnant coherence peak is strongly suppressed and the appearance of mid-gap resonances contributes additional spectral weight inside the gap, our fit for the gap edge is not as quantitative as for other features of the resonance. Nevertheless, the minimum range of the order parameter suppression is determined to be about 2 lattice constants away from the impurity. That is, the order parameter is completely suppressed within a circle with a radius of approximately $8$ [Å]{}. This is a much more extensive order parameter suppression than seen around the Ni impurity, [@Tang2002] and suggests that Zn is more destructive to local superconductivity.
The matrix elements $V_0$, $V_1$ and $\delta t_{01}$ are then determined based on the resonance energy and the peak amplitudes at three different sites (the impurity site, the 1st and the 2nd nearest-neighbor sites). Although all 3 parameters jointly determine the spatial structure, $V_1$ is the most dominant component. $V_0$ is used to obtain the correct resonance energy and $\delta t_{01}$ is used to adjust the ratio between the peaks. Our procedure provides similar spatial structures if the sign of both $V_0$ and $V_1$ are reversed – we can only determine that they have opposite sign relative to each other.[@secondset] Motivated by the NQR experiments that suggest electron charge accumulation on the nearest-neighbor sites of Zn in YBCO, we choose the potential energy on the nearest-neighbor sites to have negative values (attractive to electrons).
Figure \[fig:spectra\] shows the detailed comparisons of our calculations with data. In general, we have a good fit for the spectra in a wide energy range inside the gap. The fit is less satisfactory for the energy range beyond the coherence peaks. Therefore, the determination of the gap edge is not as precise as the determination of other parameters based on the resonance energy and peak spectral weights. We note that for every midgap resonance one expects a feature on the nearest-neighbor sites which is on the opposite side from that on the impurity site itself.[@Flatte1998; @Flatte2000] For these spatially-extended potentials, however, the spectral weight of these resonance peaks is highly reduced and likely not visible.
The spatial structure of the resonance peak, suitable for direct comparison with Ref. , is shown in Fig. \[fig:spatial\]. Note that the spectral weight is most peaked along the $(1,1)$ direction of the Cu-O lattice in the near region around the impurity. Far from the impurity, the tails align with the Cu-O bond direction (This is also the case for Ni, but the signal is much weaker.) As our fit of the local potentials was constrained entirely by features near the impurity, obtaining good agreement with measured data for this orientation of the resonance tail suggests that we have a reasonable description of the BSCCO band structure near the Fermi level. For example, in a simple nearest-neighbor tight-binding model we find that the long-ranged tail of the resonance incorrectly follows the diagonal of the Cu-O lattice \[Fig. \[fig:spatial\](c)\]. The tail begins to rotate to follow correctly the Cu-O bond direction when the second-nearest-neighbor hopping is added \[Fig. \[fig:spatial\](d)\], and the proper orientation is obtained in the full tight-binding model for BSCCO. We have verified that this defect model, with the different potentials reported in Fig. \[fig:model\], also describes well the more limited Cu vacancy data in Ref. . The order parameter suppression even more extended around the Cu vacancy than around the Zn impurity; our model parameters are listed in the Fig. \[fig:model\] caption.
![ The local spin susceptibilities at the Zn site (solid line), at the 1st nearest-neighbor sites (dot-dashed line), at the 2nd nearest-neighbor sites (double dot-dashed line), and at a faraway site (dotted line). The susceptibilities near Zn show a Curie-like behavior in an intermediate temperature range (above $10$ K and below the superconducting transition temperature). The inset shows the corresponding susceptibilities near a Ni impurity, which simply increase with temperature. []{data-label="fig:susceptibility"}](susceptibilities.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
To show that the bulk response to fields can be dramatically changed by the appearance of the near-zero-bias resonance, we calculate the local spin susceptibilities (suitable for determining the Knight shifts) around the impurity using our results for the LDOS. The local spin susceptibility at site $j$ is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\chi_s & = & \frac{\mu_B^2}{k_BT} \int d\omega A_j(\omega)f(\omega)[1-f(\omega)] \;,\end{aligned}$$ where $\mu_B$ is the Bohr magneton, $k_B$ is the Boltzmann constant, $T$ is temperature, $A_j(\omega)$ is the LDOS at site $j$, and $f(\omega)$ is the Fermi-Dirac distribution function. We assume $g=2$. The results for both Zn and Ni impurities are shown in Fig. \[fig:susceptibility\]. For Zn the local spin susceptibility increases as the temperature decreases, and there is a maximum at a very low temperature, which is determined by the resonance energy. The strongest response is at the impurity site, and the signal strengths at the 1st and 2nd nearest-neighbor sites are approximately equal. Ni, which has a much higher resonance energy, does not show this low-temperature maximum, and thus does not appear to be paramagnetic in this type of experiment. Thus we find that the resonance induced by a completely nonmagnetic impurity potential for Zn generates a signal in spin susceptibility experiments that closely mimics the expected signal from a free spin (as suggested in Ref. ). This result may have implications for measurements of spin susceptibilities in YBa$_2$Ca$_3$O$_{7-\delta}$.[@Bobroff2001]
We have provided a reasonable nonmagnetic potential model that quantitatively reproduces the spatial structure of the Zn impurity resonance and the spatial structure of the coherence peaks near Zn. We have verified that the potential model also produces accurate results for the Cu vacancy. The model is based on the same BSCCO electronic structure as used previously to describe Ni, thus demonstrating that a consistent picture is possible that quantitatively describes all three defects in BSCCO. Surprisingly small effective potentials are required to describe the Zn resonance, even though it occurs near zero energy. The order parameter suppression we find near Zn is more extensive than near Ni, but not as extensive as near the Cu vacancy. We have also demonstrated that the resonance near Zn would respond in spin susceptibility measurements in a way that would mimic a free spin, whereas Ni would not. Finally, the potential for the vacancy, and to a lesser extent Zn, scatters quasiparticles most effectively for momentum transfer $(\pi,\pi)$. This may broaden quasiparticle signatures significantly at the $(\pi,0)$ points of the Brillouin zone. These results provide a foundation for better understanding of measurements that are likely to be made on these defects in the more exotic “pseudogap” state of BSCCO at higher temperatures.
We thank E. W. Hudson and J. C. Davis for providing data shown in Fig. \[fig:spectra\]. This work is supported by ONR Grant Nos. N00014-04-1-0046 and N00014-99-1-0313.
[15]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, in **, edited by (, , ), vol. , pp. .
, ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ****, ().
The STM data for Zn impurities can also be fitted using $V_0=-85$ meV and $V_1=60$ meV, and the other parameters are the same.
, ****, ().
J. L. Tallon, J. W. Loram, and G. V. M. Williams, **88**, 059701 (2002).
, , , , , , , ****, ().
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Internal continuous discharge can rapidly damage high-current ion sources and their extraction systems composed of several electrodes at high voltage. To prevent this continuous discharge inside the extraction system, a rapid prototype using an Experimental Physics and Industrial Control System (EPICS) software system for data acquisition has been implemented. During commissioning of the 140 mA deuterium electron cyclotron resonance ion source of the Linear IFMIF Prototype Accelerator (LIPAc), discharges were often observed during plasma tuning of the ion source and beam optics tuning of the extraction system. If such continuous discharge can be avoided, discharge-related damage such as melting electrode edges and holes in the boron nitride disk in the ion source can be minimized and thus an efficient machine operation can be achieved. A veto signal is output to the machine protection system, which is then in charge of the RF power shutdown of the ion source for a pre-determined time. The average reaction time of this system has been measured and is about 10 ms from discharge detection to RF power shutdown of the ion source with a 50 Hz sampling frequency. This is hundreds of times slower than hardware-based implementation. However, it prevents almost all continuous discharges at the LIPAc ion source and extraction system, and is still much faster than an operator’s reaction time.'
author:
- 'R. Ichimiya'
- 'A. Jokinen'
- 'A. Marqueta'
- 'B. Bolzon'
title: 'Software-based discharge suppressor using an EPICS data acquisition system as a rapid prototype at the LIPAc beam extraction system'
---
Introduction
============
The Linear IFMIF Prototype Accelerator (LIPAc) is a prototype accelerator to demonstrate 125 mA/9 MeV continuous-wave (CW) deuterium accelerator technologies [@Knaster_LIPAc]. Its objective is to realize an accelerator-driven neutron source: the International Fusion Materials Irradiation Facility (IFMIF) that provides neutron equivalent spectrum of deuterium–tritium fusion reactions and delivers adequate ($\mathrm{>\!\!10^{18}\, n/m^{2}/s}$) neutron flux to test materials to be used in future commercial fusion reactors [@Knaster_IFMIF].
To realize this 100 mA class CW hadron accelerator, the ion source of LIPAc is required to produce low beam emittance (maximum value of $\mathrm{0.25 \, \pi mm \cdot mrad}$) at the radio-frequency quadrupole (RFQ) entrance with well-matched Twiss parameters to minimize beam losses to less than 10% through the RFQ [@Michele]. These two points are to avoid damages during operation on downstream accelerator components and on the injector itself. A previous study showed that a boron nitride (BN) lining increases atomic ion fraction [@ChalkRiver_1991]. Therefore, the ion source of LIPAc employs a set of BN lining disks.
The injector of LIPAc is composed of a 2.45 GHz electron cyclotron resonance (ECR) ion source based on the CEA-Saclay SILHI source design [@SILHI] and a low energy beam transport (LEBT) line to transport and match the beam into the RFQ using a dual solenoid focusing system with integrated steerers. Figure \[Structure\_IS\] shows the LIPAc ECR ion source and its five-electrode beam extraction system in the accelerator column structure, while Table \[Param\_IS\] shows the required beam parameters at the exit of the LIPAc injector [@Gobin_LIPAc], [@Delferriere_LIPAc]. The LIPAc ion source uses an injection of gases ($\mathrm{D_2}$ and $\mathrm{H_2}$), a 2.45 GHz 1000 W magnetron RF generator, and two solenoids to generate plasma. To obtain optimum beam optics, a puller electrode is used in addition to a plasma electrode. A negative potential electrode (called a repeller) is inserted between two ground electrodes to prevent electron invasion into the ion source.
![LIPAc ion source and its five-electrode beam extraction system. Typical voltages for each power supply are shown.[]{data-label="Structure_IS"}](IonSource2){width="220pt"}
------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------
Particle type D+
D+ fraction 99%
Beam energy 100 keV
Beam current 140 mA
Beam current noise 1% rms
Duty factor CW
(pulse for commissioning tests)
Normalized rms transverse emittance $\mathrm{\leq 0.25 \pi \*mm \cdot mrad}$
------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------
: \[Param\_IS\]Beam parameters required at the exit of the LIPAc injector.
Discharge in the Beam Extraction System
=======================================
Discharge phenomena and consequences
------------------------------------
The beam from the ion source is injected into the LEBT line where many secondary electrons exist. They are produced by collision between the beam and residual gas [@footnote1] in the LEBT. They are also produced by the collision of the beam with other accelerator components located inside the LEBT. If some of these secondary electrons are attracted by the acceleration voltage, they rush into the ion source and damage it. They are therefore called back-streaming electrons. To prevent back-streaming electron invasion into the ion source, a repeller electrode is used (Figure \[Structure\_IS\] shows a repeller electrode installation). Applying a negative voltage to the repeller electrode creates a potential wall against the back-streaming electrons [@footnote2]. However, many high-current ion source facilities report damage or countermeasure of back-streaming electrons [@LEDA_1997], [@PSI_2011], [@IUCF_2004], [@China_2008]. Figure \[IS\_BN1\] shows a new BN disk (BN \#2 in Figure \[Structure\_IS\]), and Figure \[IS\_BN2\] shows a damaged BN \#2 disk in the LIPAc ion source. The central area is damaged, black colored, and slightly dipped. Once a hole is made, the performance is much reduced.
![A new BN disk (BN \#2 in Figure \[Structure\_IS\]) in the LIPAc ion source.[]{data-label="IS_BN1"}](IonSource_BN_20160603){width="160pt"}
![A damaged BN disk (BN \#2 in Figure \[Structure\_IS\]) in the LIPAc ion source.[]{data-label="IS_BN2"}](IonSource_BN_20171211){width="160pt"}
One possible scenario of this secondary electron invasion is that the secondary electrons are produced inside the extraction system itself. In fact, if the beam divergence becomes large in the extraction system due to bad beam optics, the beam can hit the electrodes (such as the puller electrode) of the extraction system. A large amount of secondary electrons can thus be produced, and they are then attracted to the ion source.
A second scenario is that the repeller electrode voltage decreases during operation and that the secondary electrons located in the LEBT then have sufficient energy to pass the potential of the repeller electrode. The drop in the repeller electrode voltage can be due to several reasons. For instance, it can be due to a Penning discharge between the repeller and one of the two ground electrodes, which is a consequence of electrons accelerated up to several kilovolts and trapped in one or several locations in the accelerator column by a combination of electric and magnetic field lines with enough energy to ionize the residual gas. The drop in the repeller electrode voltage can be also induced by collision of the beam with the repeller electrode. It has also been observed during LIPAc injector commissioning that a drop in the main high voltage (HV) sometimes induced a drop in the repeller electrode voltage, but more investigations are needed to understand such complex phenomena. External disturbances or bad grounding can also induce such a drop in the repeller electrode, as observed during the LIPAc injector commissioning.
To determine the minimum voltage to apply to the repeller electrode to repel all the secondary electrons from the LEBT, measurements of the emittance were performed with a 100 keV deuterium beam at the LIPAc injector as a function of the repeller electrode voltage ($\mathrm{{V_{RE}}}$), see Figure \[E\_vs\_VRE\].
![Emittance measured with a 100 keV deuterium beam at the LIPAc injector as a function of the repeller electrode voltage to determine the minimum voltage necessary to repel all the secondary electrons from the LEBT.[]{data-label="E_vs_VRE"}](Emittance_vs_VRE){width="240pt"}
The emittance measurements were performed using an Allison scanner [@Allison] installed just downstream of the extraction system. The results show that the emittance increases when the repeller electrode voltage $\mathrm{{V_{RE}}}$ is set below 3.9 kV. This observation shows that a minimum voltage of 3.9 kV on the repeller electrode is necessary to repel all the secondary electrons. If the voltage is just decreased by 100 V, the energy of the secondary electrons (same energy for all electrons) is then enough to pass the potential of the repeller electrode and all these electrons come back to the ion source. The emittance is thus increased as less secondary electrons are present to contribute to the space charge compensation of the beam. In addition, it was observed with an oscilloscope that the pulse of total extracted current was becoming unstable and that the level of this pulse was increasing for $\mathrm{{V_{RE}}}$ below 3.9 kV. The secondary electrons coming back to the source add a positive current to the extracted current and disturb the ion source.
Measurement of discharge at the LIPAc injector
----------------------------------------------
Figure \[discharge\_scope1\] shows the main and repeller HV monitor voltage outputs at a typical discharge event at the LIPAc ion source. A discharge occurred during the time that the RF pulse was off. The main HV dropped to 0 V due to this discharge. About 5 ms later, the repeller HV also dropped. Both HV outputs were recovering to the nominal voltage until the next RF pulse was ON. When the next RF pulse was ON, an improper electric field in the extraction system induced a large divergence of the extracted beam and a certain amount of beam hit the repeller electrode. This induced a radical change in the repeller electrode potential, which became +4.0 kV. After this event, the repeller HV only partially recovered as it never returned to the nominal voltage of $-3.8$ kV but stayed at $-1.8$ kV. This voltage was not sufficient to repel the incoming back-streaming electrons as shown previously with the data of Figure \[E\_vs\_VRE\]. This state is harmful for the ion source. To protect the ion source and its extraction system, the RF pulse should be turned off immediately when discharge-related voltage drops are observed.
![HVPS monitor outputs when a discharge event occurs.[]{data-label="discharge_scope1"}](discharge-scope2){width="240pt"}
Implementation of the Discharge Suppression System
==================================================
The objective of the discharge suppression system was to mitigate abnormal conditions and downtime of the accelerator. The policy of this discharge suppressor system implementation is:
- Implementation using the fast recovery mode of the machine protection system (MPS).
- Minimum hardware implementation.
- Reuse existing resources as much as possible.
- Implementation of core logics by the Experimental Physics and Industrial Control System (EPICS) code (software) [@EPICS].
Figure \[SparkSuppressor\_Impl2\] shows an overview of this discharge suppressor system. The elements of this system are represented inside the dashed rectangle. It continuously monitors voltage monitor outputs of the 100 kV high-voltage power supply (HVPS) and repeller HVPS. When its comparators detect a voltage drop for at least one monitor input, they send a pre-determined length of alert signal to the MPS input. The MPS system [@MPS_IPAC11] (below) stops the RF gate signal going to the RF generator of the ion source.
![Discharge suppressor system location in the LIPAc ion source and extraction system.[]{data-label="SparkSuppressor_Impl2"}](SparkSuppressor21){width="210pt"}
EPICS code implementation
-------------------------
All functionalities (Comparator, OR, and Delay) shown in Figure \[SparkSuppressor\_Impl2\] except the MPS interface were implemented by the EPICS database (DB) system. Comparator, OR, and Event counter were implemented with calc or calcout records. Delay functionality was implemented with the function bo record (HIGH field). For further details, see the Appendix.
Results
=======
Figure \[tek00013-3\] shows typical behavior with activation of the discharge suppressor system. The blue (ch.2: V\_Rep) line is the repeller HV monitor output voltage, the green (ch.4: V\_HV) line is the 100 kV HV monitor output voltage, and the magenta (ch.3: I\_HV) line is the total extraction current of the 100 kV HV power supply that corresponds to the beam output current from the ion source. The yellow line (ch1:I\_FC) is the current measured with the Faraday cup located in the LEBT [@FaradayCup].
At the beginning of the second I\_HV pulse, a 100 kV HV discharge occurred and its voltage dropped to 0 kV. The repeller HV (4.5 kV initially) dropped a few milliseconds later. This discharge suppression system prevented RF pulse injection (corresponding to the I\_HV pulse) for 640 ms, and no further HV drops were observed. In fact, this time interval of 640 ms allows the main HV and repeller HV to fully recover before the next beam pulse is generated.
![Typical behavior with activation of the discharge suppressor system.[]{data-label="tek00013-3"}](tek00013-3){width="220pt"}
![Discharge suppression system response time distribution.[]{data-label="ss-response-time"}](ss-response-time){width="220pt"}
Figure \[ss-response-time\] shows response time measurement of the discharge suppression system from the HV monitor drop to the MPS alert signal output. These data were obtained by injecting into the system a simulated repeller monitor drop signal and by measuring the input and output signal latency with an oscilloscope. The response time was randomly distributed from 1 ms to 19 ms.
The HV monitor output and repeller monitor output were independently sampled at 50 Hz and processed. Therefore, the dominant contribution of these response times was the sampling interval of the EPICS software. Generally, a minimum software sampling interval is determined by timer interruption period in the operating system. This means 50 Hz is the maximum sampling speed with the current VxWorks 6.9 real-time operating system [@VxWorks] default configuration.
Conclusion
==========
Continuous discharge at the repeller electrode can cause invasion of back-streaming electrons into the ion source, which is then damaged. To prevent continuous discharge at the ion source and the extraction system, immediate shut-off of the ion source RF power is mandatory. To realize this required functionality, a software-based ion source and beam extraction system suppression system has been implemented and tested. This system was implemented with an existing VME-based EPICS data acquisition system. All functionalities were implemented with the EPICS DB system. It effectively prevented fatal continuous discharge. This system is relatively slow for software implementation, but it has demonstrated its ability to suppress continuous discharge efficiently.
acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work was carried out as part of the IFMIF/EVEDA project based on Broader Approach activities.
APPENDIX:DETAILS OF IMPLEMENTATION {#appendixdetails-of-implementation .unnumbered}
==================================
As described in the EPICS code section, all functionalities in this system except the MPS interface were implemented by the EPICS DB system. Figure \[EPICS\_DB\_Diagram\] shows the implemented DB diagram.
### Input
ICV150 ADC device support was used, which scanned every 20 ms.
# HV monitor input
record(ai, LEBT:HV:Vmonitor){
field(DESC, "HV spark application input #1")
field(SCAN, ".02 second")
field(DTYP, "ICV150")
field(LINR, "LINEAR")
field(INP, "#C0 S14 @")
field(EGUF, "10")
field(EGUL, "-10")
field(EGU, "V")
field(HOPR, "10")
field(LOPR, "-10")
}
### Comparator and OR logic
The comparator and OR logic were implemented with the calcout record. CP input links forced the record routine to process when input variables were changed.
# HV comparator
record(calcout, LEBT:HV:Comparator){
field(DESC, "HV voltage comparator")
field(INPA, "LEBT:HV:Vmonitor CP")
field(INPB, "LEBT:HV:VThRatio CP")
field(CALC,"(A<B)")
field(OOPT, "Transition To Non-zero")
field(DOPT, "Use CALC")
field(OUT, "LEBT:HV:Counts PP")
}
# OR logic
record(calcout, LEBT:HVsparkSuppressor:OnOff){
field(DESC,"HV spark comparator")
field(OOPT, "When Non-zero")
field(DOPT, "Use CALC")
field(INPA,"LEBT:HV:Comparator CP")
field(INPB,"LEBT:Repeller:Comparator CP")
field(CALC,"((A=1)||(B=1))")
field(OUT, "LEBT:HVsparkSuppressor:IntCmd PP")
}
### Delay and output
When the VAL field was set to 1, if the HIGH field was greater than 0, the record routine process was reset to 0 after HIGH seconds [@EPICS-WIKI-DELAY]. The ICV196 digital output device support was used to output the digital signal.
# delay & output
record(bo, LEBT:MPS:HVsparkSuppressor:delay){
field(DESC, "HV spark output to MPS")
field(HIGH, "0.5")
field(DTYP, "ICV196")
field(OUT, "#C0 S47 @")
field(ZNAM, "OFF")
field(ONAM, "ON")
}
{width="\textwidth"}
[99]{} J. Knaster *et al.*, “The accomplishment of the engineering design activities of IFMIF/EVEDA", *Nucl. Fusion* **55**, 086003 (2015).\
<https://doi.org/10.1088/0029-5515/55/8/086003> J. Knaster and Y. Okumura, “Accelerators for Fusion Materials Testing", *Rev. Accl. Sci. Tech.* **08**, 115–142 (2015).\
<https://doi.org/10.1142/S1793626815300078> M. Comunian *et al.*, “Beam dynamics redesign of IFMIF-EVEDA RFQ for a larger input beam acceptance", in *Proc. Intl. Particle Accl. Conf.*, pp. 670–672 (2011).\
<https://accelconf.web.cern.ch/accelconf/IPAC2011/papers/mops031.pdf> T. Taylor and J.S.C. Wills, “A high-current low-emittance dc ECR proton source ", *Nucl. Instrum. Method Phys. Research A* **309**, 37–42 (1991).\
<https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-9002(93)91074-W> P-Y. Beauvais *et al.*, “The Saclay high-current proton and deuteron ECR source", in *Proc. LINAC 96*, pp. 205–207 (1996).\
<https://accelconf.web.cern.ch/accelconf/l96/PAPERS/MOP58.PDF> R. Gobin *et al.*, “A 140 mA cw deuteron electron cyclotron resonance source for the IFMIF-EVEDA project", *Rev. Sci. Instrum.* **79**, 02B303 (2008).\
<https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2801976> O. Delferrière *et al.*, “Electron cyclotron resonance 140mA D+ beam extraction optimization for IFMIF EVEDA accelerator", *Rev. Sci. Instrum.* **79**, 02B723 (2008).\
<https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2805626> Typical pressure in the LEBT is a few $\mathrm{\times 10^{-3}}$ Pa. Back-streaming electrons generated by beam collision at the extraction system cannot be protected by the repeller electrode potential. L. D. Hansborough *et al.*, “Mechanical Engineering of a 75-keV proton injector for the low energy demonstration accelerator", in *Proc. Particle Accl. Conf.*, pp. 2740–2742 (1997).\
<http://doi.org/10.1109/PAC.1997.752750> C. Baumgarten *et al.*, “A compact electron cyclotron resonance proton source for the Paul Scherrer Institute’s proton accelerator facility", *Rev. Sci. Instrum.* **82**, 053304 (2011).\
<https://doi.org/10.1142/S1793626815300078> Vladimir P. Derenchuk, “A continuous wave microwave proton source and low energy beam transport for the IUCF cyclotrons", *Rev. Sci. Instrum.* **75**, 053304 (2004).\
<https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1702110> S. X. Reng *et al.*, “The influence of magnetic field configuration on an electron cyclotron resonance ion source", *Rev. Sci. Instrum.* **79**, 02A310 (2008).\
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.2812343> P. D. Allison, J. D. Sherman and D. B. Holtkamp, “An Emittance Scanner for Intense Low-Energy Ion Beams", *IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci.* **30**, 2204–2206 (1983).\
<https://doi.org/10.1109/TNS.1983.4332762> Argonne National Laboratory web site:\
<http://www.aps.anl.gov/epics/> H. Takahashi *et al.*, “Development status of PPS, MPS and TS for IFMIF/EVEDA prototype accelerator", in *Proc. Intl. Particle Accl. Conf.*, pp. 1734–1736 (2011).\
<http://accelconf.web.cern.ch/AccelConf/IPAC2011/papers/tups084.pdf> No Faraday Cup current was observed at that time since the emittance meter was inserted at this time. Wind River web site:\
<https://www.windriver.com/products/vxworks/> Argonne National Laboratory EPICS Wiki RPM 3-14 Binary Output web site: <https://wiki-ext.aps.anl.gov/epics/index.php/RRM_3-14_Binary_Output>
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
bibliography:
- 'auto\_generated.bib'
title: 'Measurement of the underlying event activity in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 0.9$ and $7\TeV$ with the novel jet-area/median approach'
---
=1
$Revision: 73022 $ $HeadURL: svn+ssh://[email protected]/reps/tdr2/notes/QCD-10-021/trunk/QCD-10-021.tex $ $Id: QCD-10-021.tex.ex 73022 2011-08-02 12:24:41Z krabbert $
The CMS Collaboration \[app:collab\]
====================================
=5000=500=5000
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: 'Supplementary for Accelerated Alternating Minimization, Accelerated Sinkhorn’s Algorithm and Accelerated Iterative Bregman Projections'
---
Fixed-step Accelerated Alternating Minimization
===============================================
The algorithm we propose is listed below as Algorithm \[AAM-1\], which incorporates block-wise minimization steps into an accelerated gradient method written in the form known as linear coupling [@allen2014linear]. On each iteration, we perform an exact minimization over the block corresponding to the largest in norm block of the gradient at the current iterate. This block selection rule is also known as the Gauss-Southwell rule [@hong2016unified].
starting point $x_0$, initial estimate of the Lipschitz constant $L_0$. $x^k$ $x^0 = y^0= v^0$. Set $L_{k+1}=L_{k}/2$ Set $a_{k+1}=\frac{1}{2L_{k+1}}+\sqrt{\frac{1}{4L^2_{k+1}}+a_k^2\frac{L_k}{L_{k+1}}}$ Find $a_{k+1}$ s.t. $A_{k+1}:=a_{k+1}^2L_{k+1}=a_k^2L_k+a_{k+1}$. Set $\tau_k=\frac{1}{a_{k+1}L_{k+1}}$ Set $y^{k}=\tau_k v^k+(1-\tau_k)x^k$ Choose $i_k={\operatornamewithlimits{argmax}}\limits_{i\in\{1,\ldots,n\}} \|\nabla_i f(y^k)\|^2$ Set $x^{k+1}={\operatornamewithlimits{argmin}}\limits_{x\in S_{i_k}(y^k)} f(x)$ Set $v^{k+1} = v^{k} - a_{k+1}\nabla f(y^k)$ **break** Set $L_{k+1}=2L_{k+1}$. $k = k + 1$
Starting point $x^0$, initial guess $L_0 {\geqslant}0$ for $L$. $x^k$ Find the smallest $j_k {\geqslant}0$ s.t. for $L_{k+1}:=2^{j_k-1}L_{k}$ it holds that $f(x^{k+1})\leqslant f(y^{k})-\frac{\|\nabla f(y^k)\|^2}{2L_{k+1}}$, where $a_{k+1}$ s.t. $a_{k+1}^2L_{k+1}=a_k^2L_k+a_{k+1}$, $\tau_k=\frac{1}{a_{k+1}L_{k+1}}$ $y^{k}=\tau_k v^k+(1-\tau_k)x^k$ $x^{k+1}={\operatornamewithlimits{argmin}}\limits_{x\in S_{i_k}(y^k)} f(x)$ with $i_k={\operatornamewithlimits{argmax}}\limits_{i\in\{1,\ldots,n\}} \|\nabla_i f(y^k)\|^2$ $v^{k+1} = v^{k} - a_{k+1}\nabla f(y^k)$
The convergence rate of Algorithm \[AAM-1\] is given by the following theorem
\[AAM-1\_convergence\] If $L_0\leqslant 4nL$, then after $k$ steps of Algorithm \[AAM-1\] it holds that $$\label{eq:main_result}
f(x^{k})-f(x_*) \leqslant \frac{4nL\|x^0-x_*\|^2}{k^2}.$$
This convergence rate is $n$ times worse than that of an adaptive accelerated gradient method [@dvurechensky2018computational], or, equivalently, this means that in the worst case it may take $\sqrt{n}$ times more iterations to guarantee accuracy ${\varepsilon}$ compared to an adaptive accelerated gradient method. To prove the convergence rate of the method, we will need a technical result.
\[AAM-1\_lemma\_1\] For any $u\in\mathbb{R}^N$ $$\begin{gathered}
a_{k+1}\langle\nabla f(y^{k}),v^k-u\rangle
\\
\leqslant a_{k+1}^2L_{k+1}\left(f(y^{k})-f(x^{k+1})\right)
\\
+\frac{1}{2}\|v^k-u\|^2-\frac{1}{2}\|v^{k+1}-u\|^2. \end{gathered}$$
$$\begin{gathered}
a_{k+1} \langle\nabla f(y^{k}),v^k-u\rangle
= a_{k+1}\langle\nabla f(y^{k}),v^k-v^{k+1}\rangle
\\
+ a_{k+1}\langle\nabla f(y^{k}),v^{k+1}-u\rangle
= a_{k+1}^2\|\nabla f(y^k)\|
\\
+ {\langle}v^k-v^{k+1},v^{k+1}-u{\rangle}= a_{k+1}^2\|\nabla f(y^k)\|
+ \frac{1}{2}\|v^k-u\|^2
\\
\shoveright{
- \frac{1}{2}\|v^{k+1}-u\|^2
- \frac{1}{2}\|v^{k+1}-v^k\|^2
}
\leqslant a_{k+1}^2L_{k+1} \Big(f(y^{k})
\\
- f(x^{k+1})\Big)
+ \frac{1}{2}\|v^k-u\|^2
- \frac{1}{2}\|v^{k+1}-u\|^2.\end{gathered}$$
Here the last inequality follows from line 11 of Algorithm \[AAM-1\].
\[AAM-1\_lemma\_2\] For any $u\in\mathbb{R}^N$ and any $k\geqslant 0$ $$\begin{gathered}
a_{k+1}^2L_{k+1}f(x^{k+1})-\left(a^2_{k+1}L_{k+1}-a_{k+1}\right)f(x^k)
\\
+\frac{1}{2}\|v^{k}-u\|^2-\frac{1}{2}\|v^{k+1}-u\|^2\leqslant a_{k+1}f(u). \end{gathered}$$
$$\begin{gathered}
a_{k+1}(f(y^{k})-f(u))
{\leqslant}a_{k+1}\langle \nabla f(y^{k}), y^{k} - u\rangle
\\
= a_{k+1}\langle \nabla f(y^k), y^k - v^k\rangle + a_{k+1}\langle \nabla f(y^k), v^k - u\rangle
\\
\stackrel{\scriptsize{{\raisebox{.5pt}{\textcircled{\raisebox{-.9pt} {1}}}}}}{=} \frac{(1-\tau_k)a_{k+1}}{\tau_k}\langle \nabla f(y^k), x^k-y^k\rangle
\\
+a_{k+1}\langle \nabla f(y^k), v^k-u\rangle \stackrel{\scriptsize{{\raisebox{.5pt}{\textcircled{\raisebox{-.9pt} {2}}}}}}{\leqslant} \frac{(1-\tau_k)a_{k+1}}{\tau_k}(f(x^k)-f(y^k))
\\
+a^2_{k+1}L_{k+1}\left(f(y^k)-f(x^{k+1})\right)
+\frac{1}{2}\|v^{k}-u\|^2
\\
-\frac{1}{2}\|v^{k+1}-u\|^2
\stackrel{\scriptsize{{\raisebox{.5pt}{\textcircled{\raisebox{-.9pt} {3}}}}}}{=} (a^2_{k+1}L_{k+1}-a_{k+1})f(x^k)
\\
-a_{k+1}^2L_{k+1}f(x^{k+1})
+a_{k+1}f(y^k)
+\frac{1}{2}\|v^{k}-u\|^2
\\
-\frac{1}{2}\|v^{k+1}-u\|^2.\end{gathered}$$
Here, ${\raisebox{.5pt}{\textcircled{\raisebox{-.9pt} {1}}}}$ uses the fact that our choice of $y^k$ satisfies $\tau_k(y^k-v^k)=(1-\tau_k)(x^k-y^k)$. ${\raisebox{.5pt}{\textcircled{\raisebox{-.9pt} {2}}}}$ is by convexity of $f(\cdot)$ and Lemma \[AAM-1\_lemma\_1\] , while ${\raisebox{.5pt}{\textcircled{\raisebox{-.9pt} {3}}}}$ uses the choice of $\tau_k=\frac{1}{a_{k+1}L_{k+1}}$.
Note that $$a_{k+1} = \frac{1}{2L_{k+1}} + \sqrt{\frac{1}{4L^2_{k+1}} + a^2_k\frac{L_k}{L_{k+1}}}$$ satisfies the equation $a_{k+1}^2L_{k+1}=a_k^2L_k+a_{k+1}$. We also have $a_1=\frac{1}{L_{k+1}}$. With that in mind, we sum up the inequality in the statement of Lemma \[AAM-1\_lemma\_2\] for $k=0,\dots, T-1$ and set $u=x_*$: $$\begin{gathered}
L_Ta^2_Tf(x^{T}) +\frac{1}{2}\|v^{0}-x_*\|^2-\frac{1}{2}\|v^{T}-x_*\|^2
\\
{\leqslant}\sum_{k=0}^{T-1} a_k f(x_*)=L_Ta^2_T f(x_*).\end{gathered}$$ Denote $A_k=a_k^2L_k$. Since $v^0=x^0$, we now have that for any $T{\geqslant}1$ $$f(x^T)-f(x_*)\leqslant\frac{\|x^0-x_*\|^2}{2A_T}.$$ It remains to estimate $A_T$ from below. We will now show by induction that $A_k\geqslant\frac{nk^2}{8L}$. From the $L$-smoothness of the objective we have
$$\begin{gathered}
f(x^{k+1})={\operatornamewithlimits{argmin}}_{x\in S_{i_k}(y^k)} f(x) \leqslant f(y^k-\frac{1}{L}\nabla_{i_k} f(y^k))
\\
\leqslant f(y^k)-\frac{1}{2L}\|\nabla_{i_k} f(y^k)\|^2.\end{gathered}$$
Also, since $i_k$ is chosen by the Gauss–Southwell rule, it is true that $$\|\nabla_{i_k} f(y^k)\|^2\geqslant\frac{1}{n}\|\nabla f(y^k)\|^2.$$ As a result, $$f(x^{k+1})\leqslant f(y^k)-\frac{1}{2nL}\|\nabla f(y^k)\|^2.$$ This implies that the condition in line 11 of Algorithm \[AAM-1\] is automatically satisfied if $L_{k+1}\geqslant nL$. Combined with the fact that we multiply $L_{k+1}$ by 2 if this condition is not met, this means that if $L_{k+1}\leqslant 2Ln$ at the beginning of the while loop during iteration $k$, then it is sure to hold at the end of the iteration too. This is guaranteed by our assumption that $L_0\leqslant 4Ln$.
We have just shown that $L_{k}\leqslant 2Ln$ for $k\geqslant1$.The base case $k=0$ is trivial. Now assume that $A_k {\geqslant}\frac{k^2}{8nL}$ for some k. Note that $A_{k+1} = L_k a^2_k + a_{k+1} = A_k + a_{k+1}$ and $L_{k+1} = \frac{A_{k+1}}{a^2_{k+1}}$. $$\begin{gathered}
a_{k+1} = \frac{1}{2L_{k+1}} + \sqrt{\frac{1}{4L^2_{k+1}} + a^2_k\frac{L_k}{L_{k+1}}}
\\
\geqslant\frac{1}{4nL}+\sqrt{\frac{1}{16n^2L^2} + a^2_k\frac{L_k}{2nL}}\geqslant\\
\geqslant\frac{1}{4nL}\left(1+\sqrt{1+8A_knL}\right)\geqslant\frac{k+1}{4nL}.\end{gathered}$$ Finally, $$A_{k+1}=A_{k}+a_{k+1}\geqslant\frac{k^2+2(k+1)}{8nL}\geqslant\frac{(k+1)^2}{8nL}.$$ By induction, we have $\forall k\geqslant 1$ $$A_k\geqslant\frac{k^2}{8nL}\quad \label{A_k-AAM1}$$ and $$f(x^k)-f(x_*)\leqslant \frac{4nL\|x^0-x_*\|^2}{k^2}.$$
We also note that the assumption $L_0\leqslant 4nL$ is not really crucial. In fact, if $L_0>4nL$, then after $O(\log_2\frac{L_0}{4L})$ iterations $L_k$ is surely lesser than $4L$, so overestimating $L$ only results in a logarithmic in $\frac{L_0}{L}$ amount of additional iterations needed to converge. Unlike the AM algorithm, this method requires computing the whole gradient of the objective, which makes the iterations of this algorithm considerably more expensive. Also, even when the number of blocks is 2, the convergence rate of Algorithm \[AAM-1\] depends on the smoothness parameter $L$ of the whole objective, and not on the Lipschitz constants of each block on its own, which is the case for the AM algorithm [@beck2015convergence]. On the other hand, if we compare the AAM-1 algorithm to an adaptive accelerated gradient method, we will see that the theoretical worst-case time complexity of the AAM-1 method is only $\sqrt{n}$ times worse, while in practice block-wise minimization steps may perform much better than gradient descent steps simply because they directly use some specific structure of the objective.
Primal-dual extension
=====================
We consider the following minimization problem $$(P_1) \quad \quad \min_{x\in Q \subseteq E} \left\{ f(x) : Ax =b \right\},
\notag
$$ where $E$ is a finite-dimensional real vector space, $Q$ is a simple closed convex set, $A$ is a given linear operator from $E$ to some finite-dimensional real vector space $H$, $b \in H$ is given. The Lagrange dual problem to Problem $(P_1)$ is $$(D_1) \quad \quad \max_{\lambda \in \Lambda} \left\{ - {\langle}\lambda, b {\rangle}+ \min_{x\in Q} \left( f(x) + {\langle}A^T \lambda ,x {\rangle}\right) \right\}.
\notag
$$ Here we denote $\Lambda=H^*$. It is convenient to rewrite Problem $(D_1)$ in the equivalent form of a minimization problem $$\begin{aligned}
& (P_2) \quad \min_{\lambda \in \Lambda} \left\{ {\langle}\lambda, b {\rangle}+ \max_{x\in Q} \left( -f(x) - {\langle}A^T \lambda ,x {\rangle}\right) \right\}. \notag
$$ We denote $$\vp(\lambda) = {\langle}\lambda, b {\rangle}+ \max_{x\in Q} \left( -f(x) - {\langle}A^T \lambda ,x {\rangle}\right).
\label{eq:vp_def}$$ Since $f$ is convex, $\vp(\lambda)$ is a convex function and, by Danskin’s theorem, its subgradient is equal to (see e.g. [@nesterov2005smooth]) $$\nabla \vp(\lambda) = b - A x (\lambda)
\label{eq:nvp}$$ where $x (\lambda)$ is some solution of the convex problem $$\max_{x\in Q} \left( -f(x) - {\langle}A^T \lambda ,x {\rangle}\right).
\label{eq:inner}$$
In what follows, we make the following assumptions about the dual problem $(D_1)$
- The gradient of the objective function $\vp(\lambda)$ is $L$-Lipschitz.
- The dual problem $(D_1)$ has a solution $\lambda^*$ and there exist some $R>0$ such that $$\|\lambda^{*}\|_{2} \leqslant R < +\infty.
\label{eq:l_bound}$$
It is worth noting that the quantity $R$ will be used only in the convergence analysis, but not in the algorithm itself.
Our primal-dual algorithm based on Algorithm \[AAM-1\] for Problem $(P_1)$ is listed below as Algorithm \[PDAAM-1\].
initial estimate of the Lipschitz constant $L_0$. $A_0=a_0=0$, $\eta_0=\zeta_0=\lambda_0=0$. Set $L_{k+1}=L_{k}/2$ Set $a_{k+1}=\frac{1}{2L_{k+1}}+\sqrt{\frac{1}{4L^2_{k+1}}+a_k^2\frac{L_k}{L_{k+1}}}$ Set $\tau_k=\frac{1}{a_{k+1}L_{k+1}}$ Set $\lambda^{k}=\tau_k \zeta^k+(1-\tau_k)\eta^k$ Choose $i_k={\operatornamewithlimits{argmax}}\limits_{i\in\{1,\ldots,n\}} \|\nabla_i \varphi(\lambda^k)\|^2$ Set $\eta^{k+1}={\operatornamewithlimits{argmin}}\limits_{\eta\in S_{i_k}(\lambda^k)} \varphi(\eta)$ Set $\zeta^{k+1} = \zeta^{k} - a_{k+1}\nabla f(\lambda^k)$ $\hat{x}^{k+1} = \frac{a_{k+1}x(\lambda^{k})+L_ka^2_k\hat{x}^{k}}{L_{k+1}a^2_{k+1}}.$ **break**
Set $L_{k+1}=2L_{k+1}$. The points $\hat{x}^{k+1}$, $\eta^{k+1}$.
starting point $\lambda_0 = 0$. Set $k=0$, $A_0=a_0=0$, $\eta_0=\zeta_0=\lambda_0=0$. $\beta_k = {\operatornamewithlimits{argmin}}_{\beta \in \left[0, 1 \right]} \vp\left(\zeta^k + \beta (\eta^k - \zeta^k)\right)$; $\lambda^k = \zeta^k + \beta_k (\eta^k - \zeta^k)$ Set $i_k={\operatornamewithlimits{argmax}}\limits_{i} \|\nabla_{i}\vp(\lambda^k)\|^2$ $\eta^{k+1}={\operatornamewithlimits{argmin}}\limits_{S^{i_k}(\eta^k)} \vp(\lambda)$
Find greatest $a_{k+1}$ from the equation\
$\vp(\lambda^k)-\frac{a_{k+1}^2}{2(A_k+a_{k+1})}\|\nabla \vp(\lambda^k)\|^2=\vp(\eta^{k+1})$ Set $\zeta^{k+1}=\zeta^k-a_{k+1}\nabla\vp(\lambda^k)$ Set $$\hat{x}^{k+1} = \frac{1}{A_{k+1}}\sum_{i=0}^{k} a_{i+1} x(\lambda^i) = \frac{a_{k+1}x(\lambda^{k})+A_k\hat{x}^{k}}{A_{k+1}}.
\notag
$$ Set $k=k+1$. The points $\hat{x}^{k+1}$, $\eta^{k+1}$.
The key result for this method is that it guarantees convergence in terms of the constraints and the duality gap for the primal problem, provided that it is strongly convex.
\[Th:PD\_rate\] Let the objective $\vp$ in the problem $(P_2)$ be $L$-smooth and the solution of this problem be bounded, i.e. $\|\lambda^*\|_2 \leqslant R$. Then, for the sequences $\hat{x}_{k+1},\eta_{k+1}$, $k\geqslant 0$, generated by Algorithm \[PDAAM-1\], $$\hspace{-1em}\|\bm{A} \hat{x}^k - b \|_2 \leqslant \frac{16nLR}{k^2}, |\vp(\eta^k) + f(\hat{x}^k)| \leqslant\frac{16nLR^2}{k^2}.
$$
Once again, denote $A_k=a_k^2L_{k}$ and note that $A_{k+1}=A_k+a_{k+1}$. From the proof of Lemma \[AAM-1\_lemma\_2\] we have for all $\lambda\in H$ $$\begin{aligned}
a_{j+1}{\langle}\nabla &\varphi(\lambda^j),\lambda^j-\lambda{\rangle}\leqslant A_j\varphi(\eta^j)-A_{j+1}\varphi(\eta^{j+1})+\\&+a_{j+1}\varphi(\lambda^j)+\frac{1}{2}\|\zeta^{j}-\lambda\|^2-\frac{1}{2}\|\zeta^{j+1}-\lambda\|^2.\end{aligned}$$ We take a sum of these inequalities for $j=0,\ldots, k-1$ and rearrange the terms: $$\begin{aligned}
A_k\varphi(\eta^k)\leqslant \sum_{j=0}^{k-1}{?a_{j+1} \left( \vp(\lambda^j) + \langle \nabla \vp(\lambda^j), \lambda-\lambda^j \rangle \right) }+\\ ?+ \frac{1}{2} \|\zeta^0-\lambda\|_2^2-\frac{1}{2} \|\zeta^k-\lambda\|_2^2.\end{aligned}$$
If we drop the last negative term and notice that this inequality holds for all $\lambda\in H$, we arrive at $$\begin{aligned}
A_k \vp(\eta^k) &\leqslant \min_{\lambda \in \Lambda} \left\{\sum_{j=0}^{k-1}\{a_{j+1} ( \vp(\lambda^j)\right.\notag
\\
&+\left. \langle \nabla \vp(\lambda^j), \lambda-\lambda^j \rangle)
+ \frac{1}{2} \|\lambda\|_2^2 \vphantom{\sum_{j=0}^{k-1}}\right\},\label{eq:FGM_compl}\end{aligned}$$
From this point onwards, the proof mimics the proof of Theorem 3 of the main document word-for-word. The only difference is the different bound on $A_k$, which is $A_k \geqslant \frac{k^2}{8Ln}$ as in Theorem \[AAM-1\_convergence\]. Let us introduce the set $\Lambda_R =\{\lambda: \|\lambda\|_2 \leqslant 2R \}$ where $R$ is given in . Then, from , we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
A_k \vp(\eta^k) &\leqslant \min_{\lambda \in \Lambda} \left\{ \sum_{j=0}^{k-1}{a_{j+1} \left( \vp(\lambda^j) + \langle \nabla \vp(\lambda^j), \lambda-\lambda^j \rangle \right) } + \frac{1}{2} \|\lambda\|_2^2 \right\} \notag \\
&\leqslant \min_{\lambda \in \Lambda_R} \left\{ \sum_{j=0}^{k-1}{a_{j+1} \left( \vp(\lambda^j) + \langle \nabla \vp(\lambda^j), \lambda-\lambda^j \rangle \right) } + \frac{1}{2} \|\lambda\|_2^2 \right\} \notag \\
&\leqslant2R^2+\min_{\lambda \in \Lambda_R} \left\{ \sum_{j=0}^{k-1}{a_{j+1}(\vp(\lambda^j) + \langle \nabla \vp(\lambda^j), \lambda-\lambda^j) \rangle } \right\}.
\label{eq:proof_st_1}\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, from the definition of $\vp(\lambda)$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\vp(\lambda^i) & = \langle \lambda^i, b \rangle + \max_{x\in Q} \left( -f(x) - \langle A^T \lambda^i ,x \rangle \right) \notag \\
& = \langle \lambda^i, b \rangle - f(x(\lambda^i)) - \langle A^T \lambda^i ,x(\lambda^i) \rangle . \notag\end{aligned}$$ Combining this equality with , we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\vp(\lambda^i) - \langle \nabla \vp (\lambda^i), \lambda^i \rangle & = \langle \lambda^i, b \rangle - f(x(\lambda^i)) - \langle A^T \lambda^i ,x(\lambda^i) \rangle \notag \\
& \hspace{1em} - \langle b-A x(\lambda^i),\lambda^i \rangle = - f(x(\lambda^i)). \notag\end{aligned}$$ Summing these equalities from $i=0$ to $i=k-1$ with the weights $\{a_{i+1}\}_{i=0,...k-1}$, we get, using the convexity of $f$ $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i=0}^{k-1}{a_{i+1} \left( \vp(\lambda^i) + \langle \nabla \vp(\lambda^i), \lambda-\lambda^i \rangle \right) } &= -\sum_{i=0}^{k-1} a_{i+1} f(x(\lambda^i)) + \sum_{i=0}^{k-1} a_{i+1} \langle (b-A x(\lambda^i), \lambda \rangle \notag \\
& \leqslant -A_k f(\hat{x}^k) + A_{k} \langle b-A \hat{x}^{k}, \lambda\rangle . \notag\end{aligned}$$ Substituting this inequality into , we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
A_k \vp(\eta^k) \leqslant &-A_kf(\hat{x}^k) + \min_{\lambda \in \Lambda_R} \left\{ A_k\langle b-A \hat{x}^k, \lambda\rangle \right\} + 2R^2 \notag\end{aligned}$$ Finally, since $\max_{\lambda \in \Lambda_R} \left\{ \langle -b+A \hat{x}^k, \lambda \rangle \right\} = 2 R \|A \hat{x}^k - b \|_2$, we obtain $$A_k(\vp(\eta^k) + f(\hat{x}^k)) +2 RA_k \|A \hat{x}^k - b\|_2 \leqslant 2R^2.
\label{eq:vpmfxh}$$
Since $\lambda^*$ is an optimal solution of Problem $(D_1)$, we have, for any $x \in Q$ $$Opt[P_1]\leqslant f(x) + \langle \lambda^*, A x -b \rangle .$$ Using the assumption , we get $$f(\hat{x}^k) \geqslant Opt[P_1]- R \|A \hat{x}^k - b \|_2 .
\label{eq:fxhat_est}$$ Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
\vp(\eta^k) + f(\hat{x}^k) & = \vp(\eta^k) - Opt[P_2]+Opt[P_2] + Opt[P_1] - Opt[P_1] + f(\hat{x}^k) \notag \\
& =\vp(\eta^k) - Opt[P_2]-Opt[D_1]+Opt[P_1] - Opt[P_1] + f(\hat{x}^k)
\notag \\
& \geqslant - Opt[P_1] + f(\hat{x}^k) \stackrel{\eqref{eq:fxhat_est}}{\geqslant} - R \|A \hat{x}^k - b \|_2.
\label{eq:aux1}\end{aligned}$$ This and give $$R \|A_k(A \hat{x}^k - b) \|_2 \leqslant 2R^2.
\label{eq:R_norm_est}$$
Hence, we obtain $$A_k(\vp(\eta^k) + f(\hat{x}^k)) \stackrel{\eqref{eq:aux1},\eqref{eq:R_norm_est}}{\geqslant} -2R^2.
\label{eq:vppfxhatgeq}$$ On the other hand, we have $$A_k(\vp(\eta^k) + f(\hat{x}^k)) \stackrel{\eqref{eq:vpmfxh}}{\leqslant} 2R^2.
\label{eq:vppfxhatleq}$$ Combining , , , we conclude $$\begin{aligned}
\label{PD_A_k_bound}
&A_k\|A \hat{x}^k - b \|_2 \leqslant 2R, \notag \\
&A_k|\vp(\eta^k) + f(\hat{x}^k)| \leqslant2R^2. \end{aligned}$$ From Theorem \[AAM-1\_convergence\], for any $k\geqslant 0$, $A_k \geqslant \frac{k^2}{8Ln}$. Combining this and , we obtain the statement of the Theorem.
Accelerating IBP
================
Denote by $\Delta^n$ the $n$-dimensional probability simplex. Given two probability measures $p, q$ and a cost matrix $C \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times n}$ we define optimal transportation distance between them as $$W_{C}(p, q) = \min_{\pi\in\Pi(p,q)} \langle \pi, C\rangle.$$ For a given set of probability measures $p_i$ and cost matrices $C_i$ we define their weighted barycenter with weights $w \in \Delta^n$ as a solution of the following convex optimization problem:$$\min_{q\in\Delta^n} \sum_{i=1}^m w_iW_{C_i}(p_i
, q).$$ We use $c$ to denote $\max\limits_{i=1,\ldots,m} \|C_i\|_{\infty}$. We will also be using the notation $p=[p_1,\ldots,p_m]$. Using the entropic regularization we define the regularized OT-distance for $\gamma>0$: $$W_{C,\gamma}(p, q) = \min_{\pi\in\Pi(p,q)} \langle \pi, C\rangle + \gamma H(\pi),$$ where $H(\pi) :=\sum_{i, j=1}^{n} \pi_{i j}\left(\ln \pi_{i j}-1\right)=\left\langle\pi, \ln \pi- 11^{T}\right\rangle$. One may also consider the regularized barycenter which is the solution to the following problem:$$\label{entropy_bar}
\min _{q \in \Delta^n} \sum_{l=1}^{m} w_{l}\mathcal{W}_{C_i,\gamma}\left(p_{l}, q\right)$$
The following lemma is refering to Lemma 1 from [@kroshnin19a].
The dual (minimization) problem of is $$\label{entropy_bar_dual}
\min _{\sum_{l} w_{l}v_l=0} \vp(\mathrm{u}, \mathrm{v}),$$ where $$\begin{gathered}
\vp(\mathrm{u}, \mathrm{v}) :=\gamma\sum_{l=1}^{m} w_{l}\left\{ \ln\left(\mathbf{1}^T B_{l}\left(u_{l}, v_{l}\right)\mathbf{1}\right)-\left\langle u_{l}, p_{l}\right\rangle\right\}
\\
-m\gamma,\end{gathered}$$ $u = [u_1,\ldots , u_m], v = [v_1, \ldots , v_m], u_l,v_l\in\mathbb{R}^N$, and $$B_l(u_l, v_l) := \operatorname{diag}(e^{u_l}) K_l \operatorname{diag}(e^{v_l})$$ $$K_{l} =\exp \left(-\frac{C_{l}}{\gamma}\right)$$ Moreover, the solution $\pi^*_\gamma$ to is given by the formula $$\left[\boldsymbol{\pi}_{\gamma}^{*}\right]_{l}=B_{l}\left(u_{l}^{*}, v_{l}^{*}\right)/\left(\mathbf{1}^TB_l(u^*_l,v^*_l)\mathbf{1}\right),$$ where $(u^*, v^*)$ is a solution to the problem .
Set $Q=\{X\in \mathbb{R}^{N\times N}_+: \mathbf{1}^TX\mathbf{1}=1\}$. In its expanded form, the primal problem takes the following form: $$\begin{gathered}
\min_{ \substack{ \pi_l\in Q\\
\pi_l\mathbf{1}=p_l\\
\mathbf{1}^T\pi_1=\ldots=\mathbf{1}^T\pi_m=q\\
}
}
\sum_{l=1}^mw_l\left\{\langle \pi_l,C_l\rangle+\gamma \langle \pi_l,\ln{ \pi_l}-\mathbf{1}^T\mathbf{1}\rangle\right\}\
\end{gathered}$$ The above problem is equivalent to the problem
$$\begin{gathered}
\min_{\pi_l\in Q}\max_{\lambda_l,\mu_l}
\sum_{l=1}^mw_l\left\{\langle \pi_l,C_l\rangle+\gamma \langle \pi_l,\ln{ \pi_l}-\mathbf{1}^T\mathbf{1}\rangle\right\}
\\
+\langle\lambda_l,\pi_l\mathbf{1}-p_l\rangle+\langle\mu_{l-1}-\mu_l,\mathbf{1}^T\pi_l\rangle,\end{gathered}$$
Now we introduce new variables $u_l=-\frac{\lambda_l}{\gamma w_l},\ v_l=\frac{\mu_l-\mu_{l-1}}{\gamma w_l}$. Since $\mu_m=0$ and $\mu_0=0$, we have an additional constraint $$\sum\limits_{l=1}^m w_lv_l=\frac{1}{\gamma}\sum\limits_{l=1}^m \mu_l-\mu_{l-1}=\frac{\mu_m-\mu_0}{\gamma}=0.$$ We can now and manipulate each term in the sum above exactly as we did for the optimal transportation problem. This way we arrive at the dual problem
$$\begin{gathered}
\label{WB_dual}
\min_{
\substack{
u,v\\
\sum_{l=1}^m w_lv_l=0
}
}
\gamma\sum\limits_{l=1}^{m} w_{l}\left\{ \ln\left(\mathbf{1}^T B_{l}\left(u_{l}, v_{l}\right)\mathbf{1}\right)-\left\langle u_{l}, p_{l}\right\rangle\right\}
\\
-m\gamma
\end{gathered}$$
This objective can also be minimized exactly over the variables $u,v$.
Iterations $$u^{k+1}={\operatornamewithlimits{argmin}}_{u}\vp(u,v^k),\, v^{k+1}={\operatornamewithlimits{argmin}}_{v}\vp(u^k,v),$$may be written explicitly as $$u^{k+1}_l=u^{k}_l+\ln p_l-\ln \left(B_l\left(u_l, v_l\right) \mathbf{1}\right),$$ $$v^{k+1}_l=v^{k}_l+\sum_{j=1}^m w_j\ln(B_j(u^k_j,v^k_j)^T1)-\ln B_l(u_l,v_l)^T\mathbf{1}.$$
Since each term in the sum in the objective only depends on one pair of vectors $(u_l,v_l)$, minimizing over $u$ equivalent to minimizing over each $u_l$. We now have to find a solution of $$\min_{u_l} \ln{(\mathbf{1}B_l(u_l,v^k_l)\mathbf{1}) -\langle u_l,p_l\rangle}.$$
This is the same problem as in Lemma \[Sinkhorn=AM\] with $p_l$ instead of $r$, so the solution has the same form.
To minimize over $v$ we will use Lagrange multipliers: $$\begin{gathered}
L(u,v,\tau) =\gamma\sum\limits_{l=1}^{m} w_{l}\left\{ \ln\left(\mathbf{1}^T B_{l}\left(u_{l}, v_{l}\right)\mathbf{1}\right)-\left\langle u_{l}, p_{l}\right\rangle\right\}
\\
-m\gamma+\langle\tau,\sum_{l=1}^m w_lv_l\rangle
\\
= \gamma\sum\limits_{l=1}^{m} w_{l}\left\{ \ln\left(\mathbf{1}^T B_{l}\left(u_{l}, v_{l}\right)\mathbf{1}\right)-\left\langle u_{l}, p_{l}\right\rangle-\langle v_l,\frac{1}{\gamma}\tau\rangle\right\}
\\
-m\gamma.\end{gathered}$$
Again, we can minimize this Lagrangian independently over each $v_l$. By the results from Lemma \[Sinkhorn=AM\], we have $$v^{k+1}_l=v^{k}_l+\ln\frac{1}{\gamma}\tau-\ln B_l(u_l,v_l)^T\mathbf{1}.$$ This iterate needs to satisfy the constraint $\sum\limits_{l=1}^m w_lv^{k+1}_l=0$. Assuming that the previous iterate satisfies this constraint, we have an equation for $\tau$:
$$\sum_{l=1}^m w_l\ln\frac{1}{\gamma}\tau=\sum_{l=1}^mw_l\ln B_l(u_l,v_l)^T\mathbf{1}.$$
Since $\sum_{l=1}^m w_l=1$, we have
$$\ln\frac{1}{\gamma}\tau=\sum_{l=1}^mw_l\ln B_l(u_l,v_l)^T\mathbf{1}.$$
By plugging this into the formula for $v^{k+1}_l$ we obtain the explicit form of the alternating minimization iteration from the statement of the lemma.
Once again, we will require a bound on the norm of the dual solution.
\[WB\_dual\_solution\_bounds\] Any solution $(u^*,v^*)$ of the problem satisfies $$\max [u^*_l]_i-\min [u_l^*]_i\leqslant \frac{\|C_l\|\infty}{\gamma}-\ln\min_{i}[p_l]_i,$$ $$\max [v^*_l]_i-\min [v_l^*]_i\leqslant \frac{\|C_l\|\infty}{\gamma}+\sum_{k=1}^m w_k\frac{\|C_k\|_\infty}{\gamma}.$$
The proof of the first inequality is the same as in Lemma \[OT\_dual\_norm\], since the derivatives of the objective in the problem with respect to $u_l$ have the same form as in the problem .
For the dual iterates $v^{k+1}$ we have the formula $$\begin{gathered}
v^{k+1}_l=v^{k}_l+\sum_{j=1}^m w_j\ln(B_j(u^k_j,v^k_j)^T1)-\ln B_l(u_l,v_l)^T\mathbf{1}
\\
=v^{k}_l+\sum_{j=1}^m w_j \ln e^{v^k_j}+\sum_{j=1}^m w_j\ln(K_j^Te^{u^k})
\\
\shoveright{-\ln e^{v^k_l}-\ln K_l^Te^{u_l^k}}
\\
=\sum_{j=1}^m w_j\ln(K_j^Te^{u_j^k})-\ln K_l^Te^{u_l^k}.\end{gathered}$$ Since this was derived from the equality of the gradient to zero and holds for any $u^k$, which from now on we will denote as simply $u$, it must also hold for $v^*_l$. Denote $\nu_j=e^{-\frac{\|C_j\|_\infty}{\gamma}}.$ We then have $$\ln\nu_j\langle\mathbf{1},e^{u_j}\rangle\leqslant[\ln(K_j^Te^{u_j})]_i\leqslant \ln\langle\mathbf{1},e^{u_j}\rangle.$$
Then $$\begin{gathered}
\sum_{j=1}^m w_j\ln\nu_j\langle\mathbf{1},e^{u_j}\rangle-\ln\langle\mathbf{1},e^{u_l}\rangle
\\
\leqslant[v^*_l]_i\leqslant\sum_{j=1}^m w_j\ln\langle\mathbf{1},e^{u_j}\rangle-\ln\nu_l\langle\mathbf{1},e^{u_l}\rangle. \end{gathered}$$
Finally, $$\begin{gathered}
\max [v^*_l]_i-\min [v_l^*]_i
\\
\leqslant-\sum_{j=1}^m w_j\ln\nu_j-\ln\nu_l=\frac{\|C_l\|_\infty}{\gamma}+\sum_{j=1}^m w_j\frac{\|C_j\|_\infty}{\gamma}.\end{gathered}$$
Set $(u^0,v^0)$. Once again, we know the exact value of the smoothness parameter of the dual problem in terms of variables $\lambda_i,\mu_l$, where $i\in\{1,\ldots,m\},l\in\{1,\ldots,m-1\}$. Using the above Lemma we will now derive the bound on the distance to the dual solution in these variables.
With $(\lambda^0,\mu^0)=(0,0)$ there exists a solution of the dual problem in the coordinate space $(\lambda,\mu)$ such that $$\begin{gathered}
R=\|(\lambda^*,\mu^*)\|^2_2
\\
\leqslant N\Bigg(\left(\max_{j\in\{1,\ldots,m\}}\|C_j\|_\infty-\frac{\gamma}{2}\min_{l,i} [p_l]_i\right)^2
\\
+(m-1)\max_{j\in\{1,\ldots,m\}}\|C_j\|_\infty^2\Bigg).\end{gathered}$$
The coordinates $(\lambda,\mu)$ and $(u,v)$ are connected by the transformation $\lambda_l=-\gamma w_l u_l$, $\mu_l=\sum\limits_{k=1}^l \gamma w_k v_k$.
As a function of $(u,v)$ the dual objective $\phi(u,v)$ is invariant under transformations of the form $u_l\to u_l+t_l\mathbf{1}$ with arbitrary $t_l\in\mathbb{R}$, and $v_l\to v_l+s_l\mathbf{1}$ with $s_l$ such that $\sum_{l=1}^m w_ls_l=0$. Hence, there exists a solution $(u^*,v^*)$ such that for $l\in{1,\ldots,m}$ $$\max [u^*_l]_i=-\min [u_l^*]_i=\|u^*_l\|_\infty,$$ and for $j\in{1,\ldots,m-1}$ $$\max [v^*_j]_i=-\min [v_j^*]_i=\|v^*_j\|_\infty.$$
Using the result of the previous Lemma, we have now guaranteed the existence of a solution $(u^*,v^*)$ such that $$\|u^*_l\|_\infty\leqslant\frac{\|C_l\|_\infty}{2\gamma}-\frac{1}{2}\ln\min_{i}[p_l]_i,$$
$$\|v^*_j\|_\infty\leqslant\frac{\|C_j\|_\infty}{2\gamma}+\sum_{k=1}^m w_k\frac{\|C_k\|_\infty}{2\gamma}.$$
Using the correspondence between $(\lambda,\mu)$ and $(u,v)$, we have that
$$\begin{gathered}
\|\lambda^*_l\|_\infty=\gamma w_l\|u^*_l\|_\infty\leqslant w_l\left(\frac{\|C_l\|_\infty}{2}-\frac{\gamma}{2}\ln\min_{i}[p_l]_i\right)
\\
\leqslant w_l\left(\max_{j\in\{1,\ldots,m\}}\|C_j\|_\infty-\frac{\gamma}{2}\min_{l,i} [p_l]_i\right),\end{gathered}$$
$$\begin{gathered}
\|\mu^*_i\|_\infty=\left\|\sum\limits_{k=1}^l \gamma w_k v^*_k\right\|_\infty\leqslant\gamma\sum\limits_{k=1}^l w_k\left\|v^*_k\right\|_\infty
\\
\leqslant\gamma\max_{j\in\{1,\ldots,m-1\}} \|v^*_j\|_\infty\leqslant \max_{j\in\{1,\ldots,m\}}\|C_j\|_\infty.\end{gathered}$$
Finally, $$\begin{gathered}
\|(\lambda^*,\mu^*)\|_2^2 =\sum_{l=1}^m \|\lambda_l\|_2^2+\sum_{j=1}^{m-1} \|\mu_j\|_2^2
\\
\leqslant N\left(\sum_{l=1}^m \|\lambda_l\|_\infty^2+\sum_{j=1}^{m-1} \|\mu_j\|_\infty^2\right)
\\
\leqslant N\left(\Bigg(\max_{j\in\{1,\ldots,m\}}\|C_j\|_\infty-\frac{\gamma}{2}\min_{l,i} [p_l]_i\right)^2
\\
+(m-1)\max_{j\in\{1,\ldots,m\}}\|C_j\|_\infty^2\Bigg)\end{gathered}$$
Now we combine two approaches: Algorithm 1 which alternates between two affine convex sets from [@kroshnin19a] and accelerated alternating minimization algorithms \[PDAAM-1\] and its version with a line search. To apply the Accelerated Alternating Minimization Methods we need the dual problem in an unconstrained form.
Denote $\tilde{v} = [v_1, \ldots , v_{m-1}],$ $\tilde{\vp}(u,\tilde{v})=\vp(u,v)$ with $v= [v_1, \ldots , -\frac{1}{w_m}\sum\limits_{l=1}^{m-1} w_lv_l].$ Then $$\min_{u,\tilde{v}}\tilde{\vp}(u,\tilde{v})=\min_{u,v, \sum_{l} w_{l}v_l=0} \vp(u,v).$$
We also have $$\nabla_{u_l} \tilde{\vp}(u,\tilde{v})=\gamma w_l\{\frac{B(u_l,v_l)\vec{1}}{\vec{1}^TB(u_l,v_l)\vec{1}}-p_l\},$$ $$\begin{gathered}
\nabla_{v_l} \tilde{\vp}(u,\tilde{v})= \gamma \frac{w_l\vec{1}^TB(u_l,v_l))}{\vec{1}^TB(u_l,v_l)\vec{1}}
\\
-\gamma\frac{w_l\vec{1}^TB(u_m,-\frac{1}{w_m}\sum\limits_{l=1}^m w_lv_l)}{\vec{1}^TB(u_m, -\frac{1}{w_m}\sum\limits_{l=1}^m w_l v_l)\vec{1}}.\end{gathered}$$
starting point $x_0$, initial estimate of the Lipschitz constant $L_0$. $x^k = \begin{bmatrix} u^{k} & v^{k} \end{bmatrix}^T$ $x^0 = y^0= z^0$. Set $L_{k+1}=L_{k}/2$ Set $a_{k+1}=\frac{1}{2L_{k+1}}+\sqrt{\frac{1}{4L^2_{k+1}}+a_k^2\frac{L_k}{L_{k+1}}}$ Set $\tau_k=\frac{1}{a_{k+1}L_{k+1}}$ Set $y^{k}=\tau_k z^k+(1-\tau_k)x^k$ Set $ x^{k+1} =
\begin{bmatrix}
x^{k+1}_1 & x^{k+1}_2
\end{bmatrix}^T =
\begin{bmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
u^{k+1}_1 & \dots & u^{k+1}_m
\end{pmatrix}
&
\begin{pmatrix}
v^{k+1}_1 & \dots & v^{k+1}_m
\end{pmatrix}
\end{bmatrix}^T $ where $u^{k+1}, v^{k+1}$ s.t.: $u^{k+1}_l = u^{k}_l+\ln p_l-\ln \left(B_l\left(u^k_l, v^k_l\right) \mathbf{1}\right)$ $v^{k+1}_l = v^k_l$, $l=1,\dots,m$ $u^{k+1}_l = u^k_l$ $v^{k+1}_l = \sum_{j=1}^m w_j\ln(K_j^Te^{u_j^k})-\ln K_l^Te^{u_l^k}$, $l=1,\dots,m$ Set $\begin{pmatrix}z_1^{k+1} \\ \vdots \\ z_m^{k+1}\end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix}z_1^{k} \\ \vdots \\ z_m^{k}\end{pmatrix} - a_{k+1}\nabla_u\vp (y^k)$\
$\begin{pmatrix}z_{m+1}^{k+1} \\ \vdots \\ z_{2m-1}^{k+1}\end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix}z_{m+1}^{k} \\ \vdots \\ z_{2m-1}^{k} \end{pmatrix} - a_{k+1}\nabla_v \vp(y^k)$\
$z^{k+1}_{2m} = -\frac{1}{w_m}\sum\limits_{l=1}^{m-1} w_lz^{k+1}_{m+l}$,\
**break** Set $L_{k+1}=2L_{k+1}$.
Starting point $x_0$. $x^k$ Set $A_0=0$, $x^0 = z^0$. Set $\beta_k = {\operatornamewithlimits{argmin}}\limits_{\beta\in [0,1]} \vp\left(x^k + \beta (v^k - x^k)\right)$\
Set $y^k = x^k + \beta_k (z^k - x^k)\quad $ Set $ x^{k+1} =
\begin{bmatrix}
x^{k+1}_1 & x^{k+1}_2
\end{bmatrix}^T =
\begin{bmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
u^{k+1}_1 & \dots & u^{k+1}_l
\end{pmatrix}
&
\begin{pmatrix}
v^{k+1}_1 & \dots & v^{k+1}_l
\end{pmatrix}
\end{bmatrix}^T $ where $u^{k+1}, v^{k+1}$ s.t.: $u^{k+1}_l = u^{k}_l+\ln p_l-\ln \left(B_l\left(u^k_l, v^k_l\right) \mathbf{1}\right)$ $v^{k+1}_l = v^k_l$, $l=1,\dots,m$ $u^{k+1}_l = u^k_l$ $v^{k+1}_l = \sum_{j=1}^m w_j\ln(K_j^Te^{u_j^k})-\ln K_l^Te^{u_l^k}$, $l=1,\dots,m$ Find largest $a_{k+1}$ from the multline $$\vp(y^k)-\frac{a_{k+1}^2}{2(A_k+a_{k+1})}\|\nabla \vp(y^k)\|^2=\vp(x^{k+1})$$\
Set $A_{k+1} = A_{k} + a_{k+1}$ Set $\begin{pmatrix}z_1^{k+1} \\ \vdots \\ z_m^{k+1}\end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix}z_1^{k} \\ \vdots \\ z_m^{k}\end{pmatrix} - a_{k+1}\nabla_u\vp (y^k)$,\
$\begin{pmatrix}z_{m+1}^{k+1} \\ \vdots \\ z_{2m-1}^{k+1}\end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix}z_{m+1}^{k} \\ \vdots \\ z_{2m-1}^{k} \end{pmatrix} - a_{k+1}\nabla_v \vp(y^k)$,\
$z^{k+1}_{2m} = -\frac{1}{w_m}\sum\limits_{l=1}^{m-1} w_lz^{k+1}_{m+l}$,\
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Zhenning Cai[^1], Yuwei Fan[^2], Ruo Li[^3]'
bibliography:
- '../article.bib'
title: 'Globally Hyperbolic Regularization of Grad’s Moment System'
---
[^1]: School of Mathematical Sciences, Peking University, Beijing, China, email: [[email protected]]{}.
[^2]: School of Mathematical Sciences, Peking University, Beijing, China, email: [[email protected]]{}.
[^3]: CAPT, LMAM & School of Mathematical Sciences, Peking University, Beijing, China, email: [[email protected]]{}.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'There is an increasing interest in learning how the distribution of a response variable changes with a set of predictors. Bayesian nonparametric dependent mixture models provide a useful approach to flexibly address this goal. However, many formulations are characterized by difficult interpretation and intractable computational methods. Motivated by these issues, we define a class of predictor–dependent infinite mixture models, which relies on a formal representation of the stick–breaking construction via a continuation–ratio logistic regression, within an exponential family representation. This formulation maintains the same desirable properties of popular predictor–dependent stick-breaking priors, but leverages a recent Pólya-Gamma data augmentation to facilitate tractable inference under a broader variety of routine–use computational methods. These methods include Markov Chain Monte Carlo via Gibbs sampling, Expectation Maximization algorithms, and a variational Bayes routine for scalable inference. The algorithms associated with these methods are tested in a toxicology study.'
author:
- Tommaso Rigon
- Daniele Durante
bibliography:
- 'bibliography.bib'
date: 'Received: date / Accepted: date'
title: |
Tractable Bayesian density regression\
via logit stick–breaking priors
---
[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 {#sec1}
============
There is a growing interest in density regression methods which allow the entire distribution of a univariate response variable $y \in \mathcal{Y}$ to be unknown, and changing with a vector of predictors $\bf{x} \in \mathcal{X}$. Indeed, the increased flexibility provided by these procedures allows relevant improvements in inference and prediction compared to classical regression frameworks, as seen in several applications [e.g. @DP08; @GRI11; @WDPT14; @GUT16].
Within a Bayesian nonparametric framework, there is a wide set of alternative methodologies to provide flexible inference for conditional distributions. Most of these methods represent generalizations of the marginal density estimation problem for $f(y)$, which is commonly addressed via Bayesian nonparametric mixture models of the form $f(y)= \int_{\boldsymbol{\Theta}} K(y ; \boldsymbol{\theta}) \mbox{d} P( \boldsymbol{\theta})$, where $ K(y ; \boldsymbol{\theta})$ is a known parametric kernel indexed by $\boldsymbol{\theta} \in \boldsymbol{\Theta}$, and $P( \boldsymbol{\theta})$ denotes an unknown mixing measure which is assigned a flexible prior $\Pi$. Popular choices for $\Pi$ are the Dirichlet process [@FE73], the two-parameter Poisson–Dirichlet process [@PY97], and other almost surely discrete random measures having a stick-breaking representation [@IJ01]. This choice leads to the infinite mixture model $$\begin{aligned}
f(y)= \int_{\boldsymbol{\Theta}} K(y ; \boldsymbol{\theta}) \mbox{d} P( \boldsymbol{\theta})=\sum_{h=1}^{+\infty} \pi_h K(y ; \boldsymbol{\theta}_h),
\label{mix_intro}\end{aligned}$$ with $\pi_h=\nu_h \prod_{l=1}^{h-1}(1-\nu_l), \ h=1, \ldots, +\infty$. In , the kernel parameters $\boldsymbol{\theta}_h$, $h=1, \ldots, +\infty$ are distributed according to a base measure $P_0$, whereas the stick–breaking weights $\nu_h \in (0,1)$, $h=1, \ldots, +\infty$, have independent $\mbox{Beta}(a_h,b_h)$ priors, so that $\sum_{h=1}^{+\infty}\pi_h=1$ almost surely. Fixing $a_h=1$ and $b_h=a$ leads to a Dirichlet process mixture model, whereas the two-parameter Poisson–Dirichlet process mixture can be obtained letting $a_h=1-a$ and $b_h=b+ha$, $0 \leq a<1$ and $b>-a$.
Model has key computational benefits in allowing the implementation of simple Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods for posterior inference [e.g. @EW95; @NEA00], and provides a consistent procedure for density estimation [e.g. @GHO99; @TOK06; @GHO07]. This has motivated different generalizations of to incorporate the conditional density inference problem for $f(y \mid {\bf{x}})=f_{{\bf x}}(y)$, by allowing the unknown random mixing measure $P_{\bf{x} }(\boldsymbol{\theta})$ to change with $\bf{x} \in \mathcal{X}$, under a dependent stick-breaking characterization [@MC99; @MC00]. Popular representations consider predictor–independent mixing weights $\pi_h$, and incorporate changes with $\bf{x} \in \mathcal{X}$ in the atoms $\boldsymbol{\theta}_h(\bf{x} )$ [e.g. @DEI04; @GEL05; @CA06; @CRU07]. Although these constructions have desirable theoretical properties [@BAR2012; @PA013], as noted in [@MC00] and [@GS06], the predictor–independent assumption for the mixing weights can have limited flexibility in practice, thus requiring the introduction of many mixture components. This has motivated more general formulations allowing also $\pi_h(\bf{x} )$, to change with the predictors. Relevant examples include the order-based dependent Dirichlet process [@GS06], the kernel stick-breaking process [@DP08], the infinite mixture models with predictor-dependent weights [@AWW14], and more recent representations for Bayesian dynamic inference [@GUT16]. These formulations provide a broader class of priors for Bayesian density regression, and have desirable theoretical properties [@BAR2012; @PA013]. However their flexibility comes at a computational cost. In particular, the availability of simple algorithms for tractable posterior inference is limited by the specific construction and parameterization of these representations.
The above issues motivate alternative formulations which preserve the theoretical properties, but facilitate tractable posterior computation under a broader variety of standard algorithms in Bayesian inference, thus facilitating a wider implementation of nonparametric density regression. We address this goal via a logit stick-breaking prior (<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">lsbp</span>) which relates each stick-breaking weight $\nu_h({\bf{x}} ) \in (0,1)$, to a function $\eta_h(\bf{x} ) \in \Re$ of the covariates, using the logistic link. The proposed statistical model is partially related to the probit stick-breaking prior of [@RD11], which leverages the probit link and provides posterior inference via Markov Chain Monte Carlo (<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">mcmc</span>) algorithms. However, in large-scale applications—when either the number of observations or the dimension of the covariates is large—<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">mcmc</span> via Gibbs sampling could face scalability and mixing issues, thus motivating the development of alternative computational routines. As we will outline in Section \[Section3\], the logistic mapping allows simple posterior computation under a broader variety of routine–use algorithms beyond <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">mcmc</span>. These include a tractable Expectation Maximization (<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">em</span>) routine for point estimation, and simple variational Bayes (<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">vb</span>) for scalable posterior inference. We shall emphasize that the overarching focus of our contribution is not on developing a novel methodological framework for Bayesian density regression, but on providing alternative representations within this well–established class of models which are characterized by improved interpretability and computational tractability for a wider set of algorithms. To our knowledge this goal remains partially unaddressed, but represents a fundamental condition to facilitate routine implementation of Bayesian density regression by the practitioners.
As discussed in Section \[Section3\], there is also a formal connection between the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">lsbp</span> and the hierarchical mixtures of experts [@JJ94; @BS03], for which <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">vb</span> algorithms are available. [@RDC11] noticed a similar connection in their logistic stick-breaking process. However, their focus is exclusively on clustering of spatio–temporal data, and inference is only available via local <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">vb</span> routines based on the bound of @JJ00. Compared to the approaches mentioned above, our contribution is instead designed for a general class of density regression problems and provides additional algorithms—i.e. Gibbs sampling, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">em</span> and a global <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">vb</span>—combining the recent Pólya-Gamma data augmentation for Bayesian logistic regression [@PS13], and a continuation–ratio representation [@TU91] of the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">lsbp</span> which is described in Section \[Section2\]. The three routines are empirically compared in Section \[Section4\] using a real data toxicology study, previously considered in [@DP08]. Section \[Section5\] provides concluding remarks.
The logit stick-breaking prior (LSBP) {#Section2}
=====================================
This section presents a formal construction of the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">lsbp</span> via a continuation–ratio parameterization of the hierarchical mechanism assigning the units to mixture components. As a natural extension of model , we consider the general class of predictor–dependent infinite mixture models $$f_{\bf x}(y) =\int_{\boldsymbol{\Theta}} K_{{\bf x}}(y ; \boldsymbol{\theta}) \mbox{d} P_{\bf{x}}( \boldsymbol{\theta}) =\sum_{h=1}^{+\infty} \pi_h({\bf x}) K_{\bf x}(y ; \boldsymbol{\theta}_h),
\label{mix_dep}$$ where $\pi_h({\bf x})=\nu_h({\bf x}) \prod_{l=1}^{h-1}\{1-\nu_l({\bf x})\}$ are predictor–dependent mixing probabilities having a stick-breaking representation [@SE94], and $ K_{{\bf x}}(y ; \boldsymbol{\theta}) $ is a predictor–dependent kernel function indexed by $\boldsymbol{\theta}$.
{height="7.5cm" width="20cm"}
To provide a constructive representation of the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">lsbp</span>, let us first consider an equivalent formulation of the predictor–dependent mixture model in . In particular, following standard hierarchical representations of mixture models, independent samples $y_1, \ldots, y_n$ from the random variable with density function displayed in , can be obtained from $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
(y_i \mid G_i= h, {\bf x}_i )&\sim K_{{\bf x}_i}(y_i ; \boldsymbol{\theta}_h), \\
\mbox{pr}(G_i=h \mid {\bf x}_i)&=\pi_h({\bf x}_i)=\nu_h({\bf x}_i) \prod_{l=1}^{h-1}\{1-\nu_l({\bf x}_i)\}, \ \ \
\end{split}
\label{marg}\end{aligned}$$ for every unit $i=1, \ldots, n$, where $\boldsymbol{\theta}_h \sim P_0$ and $G_i \in \{1, 2, \ldots, +\infty\}$ the categorical variable denoting the mixture component associated with unit $i$. According to , every $G_i$ has probability mass function $\mbox{p}(G_i \mid {\bf x}_i)=\prod_{h=1}^{+\infty}\pi_{h}({\bf x}_i)^{\mathbbm{1}(G_i=h)}$, with $\pi_h({\bf x}_i)=\nu_h({\bf x}_i) \prod_{l=1}^{h-1}\{1-\nu_l({\bf x}_i)\}$ and $\mathbbm{1}(\cdot)$ denoting the indicator function. Thus, re–writing $\nu_1({\bf x}_i), \ldots, \nu_h({\bf x}_i), \ldots$ as a function of the mixing probabilities $\pi_1({\bf x}_i), \ldots, \pi_h({\bf x}_i), \ldots$ via $$\nu_h({\bf x}_i)=\frac{\pi_h({\bf x}_i)}{1-\sum_{l=1}^{h-1}\pi_l({\bf x}_i)}=\frac{\mbox{pr}(G_i=h \mid {\bf x}_i)}{\mbox{pr}(G_i>h-1 \mid {\bf x}_i)},
\label{cont_ratio}$$
for each $h=1, \ldots, +\infty$, allows each $\nu_h({\bf x}_i)$ to be easily interpreted as the probability of being allocated to component $h$, conditionally on the event of surviving to the previous $1, \ldots, h-1$ components—i.e. $\nu_h({\bf x}_i)=\mbox{pr}(G_i=h \mid G_i>h-1, {\bf x}_i)$. This result provides a formal characterization of the stick-breaking construction in as the continuation–ratio parameterization [@TU91] of the probability mass function for each component membership variable $G_i$, $i=1, \ldots, n$. This relevant connection with the literature on sequential inference for categorical data is common to all the stick-breaking priors, and provides substantial benefits for interpretation and inference. However, to our knowledge, this characterization—although implicit in some computational routines [e.g. @DP08; @RDC11; @RD11], and recently adopted in Bayesian multinomial regression [@LIND2015]—has not yet been explicitly discussed and fully exploited to facilitate interpretation and computation in Bayesian density regression—when $G_i$, $i=1, \ldots, n$ are latent variables. Indeed, as we describe in Section \[Section3\], this characterization facilitates the implementation of different routine–use algorithms in Bayesian inference, and provides a simple generative process for each $G_i$ which motivates the logistic link.
In particular, according to Figure \[F\_decision\], in the first step of this continuation–ratio generative mechanism, unit $i$ is either assigned to the first component with probability $\nu_1({\bf{x}}_i)$ or to one of the others with complement probability. If $G_i=1$ the process stops, otherwise it continues considering the reduced space $\{2, \ldots,+\infty\}$. A generic step $h$ is reached if $i$ has not been assigned to $1, \ldots, h-1$, and the decision at this step will be to either allocate $i$ to component $h$ with probability $\nu_h({\bf{x}}_i)$ or to one of the subsequent components $h+1, \ldots, +\infty$ with probability $1-\nu_h({\bf{x}}_i)$, conditioned on $G_i \in\{h, \ldots, +\infty\}$. Based on this representation, each indicator $\mathbbm{1}(G_i=h)=\zeta_{ih}$, $i=1, \ldots, n$—denoting the assignment to component $h$—can be expressed as $$\zeta_{ih}=z_{ih} \prod_{l=1}^{h-1}(1-z_{il}), \quad (z_{ih} \mid {\bf{x}}_i) \sim \mbox{Bern}\{\nu_h({\bf{x}}_i)\},
\label{bin_seq}$$ for each $h=1, \ldots, +\infty$, where $z_{ih}$ is a Bernoulli variable denoting the decision at the $h$th step to either allocate $i$ to component $h$ or to one of the subsequents $h+1, \ldots, +\infty$. Hence, according to , the sampling of each $G_i$, under the predictor–dependent stick-breaking representation for each $\pi_h({\bf{x}}_i)$ in , can be reformulated as a set of sequential Bernoulli choices with natural parameters $\eta_h({\bf x}_i )=\mbox{logit}\{\nu_h({\bf{x}}_i )\}=\log[\nu_h({\bf x}_i) /\{1-\nu_h({\bf x}_i)\}]$, $h=1, \ldots, +\infty$, and logistic canonical link, under an exponential family representation. This result motivates the logit stick-breaking factorization $$\pi_h({\bf x}_i)=\frac{\exp\{\eta_h({\bf x}_i )\}}{1+\exp\{\eta_h({\bf x}_i )\}} \prod_{l=1}^{h-1}\left[\frac{1}{1+\exp\{\eta_l({\bf x}_i )\}}\right], \label{logit_stick}$$ for each $h=1, \ldots, +\infty$, while allowing each $\eta_h({\bf x}_i )$ to be explicitly interpreted as the log-odds of the probability of being allocated to component $h$ or to one of the subsequents $h+1, \ldots, +\infty$, conditionally on the event of surviving to the first $1, \ldots, h-1$ components. This result facilitates prior specification and posterior inference for the stick-breaking weights, while allowing recent computational advances in Bayesian logistic regression [@PS13] to be inherited in our density regression problem.
To conclude our Bayesian representation, we require priors for the log-odds $\eta_h({\bf{x}}_i)$ of every $\nu_h({\bf{x}}_i)$, in the continuation–ratio logistic regressions. A natural choice—consistent with classical generalized linear models [e.g. @NW72]—is to define $\eta_h({\bf{x}}_i)$ as a linear combination of selected functions of the covariates $\boldsymbol{\psi}({\bf{x}}_i)=\{\psi_1({\bf{x}}_i), \ldots, \psi_R({\bf{x}}_i)\}^{\intercal}$ and consider Gaussian priors for the coefficients, obtaining $$\begin{aligned}
\eta_h({\bf{x}}_i)=\boldsymbol{\psi}({\bf{x}}_i)^\intercal\boldsymbol{\alpha}_h, \quad \mbox{with }\boldsymbol{\alpha}_h \sim \mbox{N}_{R}(\boldsymbol{\mu}_{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\Sigma}_{\alpha}),
\label{pred}\end{aligned}$$ for every $h=1, \ldots, +\infty$. Although the linearity assumption in may seem restrictive, note that flexible formulations for $\eta_h({\bf{x}}_i)$, including regression via splines and Gaussian processes, induce linear relations in the coefficients. Moreover, as we will outline in Section \[Section3\], the linearity assumption simplifies computations, while inducing a logistic-normal prior for each $\nu_h({\bf{x}}_i)$, with well defined moments [@AS80].
Based on the above discussion, the logit stick-breaking does not induce Beta distributed stick-breaking weights, and therefore cannot be included in the general class of stick-breaking priors discussed in [@IJ01]. However—as discussed in Section \[Sub2\]—adapting the theoretical results in [@DP08] and [@RD11] to our logistic link, it can be shown that many relevant properties characterizing the priors discussed in [@IJ01] are met also under our case. Hence, the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">lsbp</span> is highly similar in its probabilistic nature and properties to other popular predictor–dependent stick-breaking constructions [e.g. @DP08; @RD11]. However, as discussed in Section \[Section3\], differently from the current representations, the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">lsbp</span> facilitates tractable computations under a broad variety of algorithms for posterior inference.
Properties of the logit stick-breaking prior {#Sub2}
--------------------------------------------
Let $\boldsymbol{\Theta}$ be a complete and separable metric space endowed with the Borel $\sigma$-algebra $\mathcal{B}(\boldsymbol{\Theta})$, and let $\{P_{\bf{x} }: {\bf{x}} \in \mathcal{X}\}$ denote the class of predictor–dependent random probability measures on $\boldsymbol{\Theta}$, induced by the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">lsbp</span> $$\begin{aligned}
P_{\bf{x} }(\cdot) &=& \sum_{h=1}^{+\infty} \pi_h({\bf{x}} ) \delta_{\boldsymbol{\theta}_h}(\cdot), \label{stick} \\ \pi_h({\bf{x}} ) &=& \frac{\exp\{\boldsymbol{\psi}({\bf{x}}_i)^\intercal\boldsymbol{\alpha}_h\}}{1+\exp\{\boldsymbol{\psi}({\bf{x}}_i)^\intercal\boldsymbol{\alpha}_h\}} \prod_{l=1}^{h-1}\left[\frac{1}{1+\exp\{\boldsymbol{\psi}({\bf{x}}_i)^\intercal\boldsymbol{\alpha}_l\}}\right] \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ with independent atoms $\boldsymbol{\theta}_h \sim P_0$, $h=1, \ldots, +\infty$ from the space $\{\boldsymbol{\Theta}, \mathcal{B}(\boldsymbol{\Theta}) \}$, and $\boldsymbol{\alpha}_h \sim \mbox{N}_{R}(\boldsymbol{\mu}_{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\Sigma}_{\alpha})$ independently for every $h=1, \ldots, +\infty$. As discussed in Section \[Section2\], representation does not provide Beta distributed priors for the logit stick-breaking weights $\nu_h({\bf x})$, $h=1,\dots,+\infty$. However, in line with the random measure outlined in [@IJ01], also the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">lsbp</span> provides a well defined predictor–dependent random probability measure $P_{\bf{x} }$ at every $ {\bf{x}} \in \mathcal{X}$. This property is formalized in Proposition \[prop1\].
For any fixed $ {\bf{x}} \in \mathcal{X}$, $\sum_{h=1}^{+\infty} \pi_h({\bf{x}}) = 1$ almost surely, with $\pi_h({\bf{x}})$ factorized as in and $\boldsymbol{\alpha}_h \sim \mbox{\normalfont N}_{R}(\boldsymbol{\mu}_{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\Sigma}_{\alpha})$ independently for every $h=1, \ldots, +\infty$. \[prop1\]
**Proof:** [Recalling results in [@IJ01], $\sum_{h=1}^{+\infty} \pi_h({\bf{x}}) = 1$ almost surely if and only if the equality $\sum_{h=1}^{+\infty}\mbox{E} [\log\{1-\nu_h({\bf{x}}) \}] = -\infty$ holds. Since $\log\{1-\nu_h({\bf{x}}) \}$ is concave in $\nu_h({\bf{x}})$ for every ${\bf{x}} \in \mathcal{X}$ and $h=1, \ldots, +\infty$, by the Jensen inequality $\mbox{E} [\log\{1-\nu_h({\bf{x}}) \}] \leq \log[1-\mbox{E}\{ \nu_h({\bf{x}})\} ]$. Therefore, since $\nu_h({\bf{x}}) \in (0,1)$, from the usual properties of the expectation we have that $0<\mbox{E}\{ \nu_h({\bf{x}})\}=\mu_{1\nu}({\bf{x}})<1$, thereby providing $\log\{1-\mu_{1\nu}({\bf{x}})\} <0$. Leveraging these results, the proof of Proposition \[prop1\] follows after noticing that $\sum_{h=1}^{+\infty}\mbox{E} [\log\{1-\nu_h({\bf{x}}) \}] \leq \sum_{h=1}^{+\infty}\log\{1-\mu_{1\nu}({\bf{x}})\}= -\infty$. ]{}
Such property holds also for truncated models based on a finite number of components $H$. Indeed, consistent with [@IJ01], in this case it suffices to model the first $H-1$ weights $\nu_1({\bf{x}}), \ldots, \nu_{H-1}({\bf{x}})$ and let $\nu_H({\bf{x}})=1$ for any $ {\bf{x}} \in \mathcal{X}$, to ensure $\sum_{h=1}^{H} \pi_h({\bf{x}}) = 1$.
Results in Proposition \[prop1\] motivate further analyses of the logit stick-breaking prior. In particular, consistent with the theoretical studies on other stick-breaking priors not belonging to the class discussed in [@IJ01]—e.g. [@DP08; @RD11]—Proposition \[prop2\] provides additional insights on the moments of the predictor–dependent random probability measure induced by our logit stick-breaking prior.
For every $ {\bf{x}} \in \mathcal{X}$ and $B \in \mathcal{B}(\boldsymbol{\Theta})$ the expectation of $P_{\bf{x} }(B) $ is $\mbox{\normalfont E}\{P_{\bf{x} }(B) \}=P_0(B)$, whereas the variance of $P_{\bf{x} }(B)$ for any truncated version of $P_{\bf{x} }(\cdot)$ in with $H>1$—including the infinite case—is $$\begin{split}
&\mbox{\normalfont var}\{P_{\bf{x} }(B) \}=P_0(B)\{1 - P_0(B)\}\times \\
& \ \times \frac{\mu_{2\nu}({\bf x})\{ 1 - [1 - 2\mu_{1\nu}({\bf x}) + \mu_{2\nu}({\bf x})]^H\} }{2\mu_{1\nu}({\bf x}) - \mu_{2\nu}({\bf x})},
\end{split}$$ where $\mu_{1\nu}({\bf{x}})=\mbox{\normalfont E}\{ \nu_h({\bf{x}})\}$ and $\mu_{2\nu}({\bf{x}})=\mbox{\normalfont E}\{ \nu_h({\bf{x}})^2\}$ for every $h=1, \ldots, +\infty$. The covariance at two different predictor values $\bf{x}\in \mathcal{X}$ and $\bf{x}'\in \mathcal{X}$, $\bf{x} \neq \bf{x}'$, is instead $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
&\mbox{\normalfont cov}\{ P_{\bf{x}}(B),P_{\bf{x}'}(B)\} = P_0(B)\{1 - P_0(B)\} \times \\
&\ \times \frac{\mu_{2\nu}({\bf{x}},{\bf{x}}')\{ 1 - [1 - \mu_{1\nu}({\bf{x}}) - \mu_{1\nu}({\bf{x}}') + \mu_{2\nu}({\bf{x}},{\bf{x}}')]^H\} }{\mu_{1\nu}({\bf{x}}) + \mu_{1\nu}({\bf{x}}') - \mu_{2\nu}({\bf{x}},{\bf{x}}')}
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ with $\mu_{2\nu}({\bf{x}},{\bf{x}}')=\mbox{\normalfont E}\{ \nu_h({\bf{x}})\nu_h({\bf{x}}')\}$. \[prop2\]
**[Proof:]{}** Results are a direct consequence of the calculations in Appendix 2 and Appendix 6 in [@RD11], after replacing the probit link with the logistic one.
According to Proposition \[prop2\], the expectation of $P_{{\bf{x}}}(\cdot)$ coincides with the base measure $P_0(\cdot)$ which can be therefore interpreted as the prior guess for the mixing measure at any $ {\bf{x}} \in \mathcal{X}$. This quantity is predictor–independent, meaning that a priori we are not forcing particular dependence structure between the atoms $\boldsymbol{\theta}$ and the predictors. The variance changes instead with the predictors via a function of the first two moments of the logistic-normal stick-breaking weights. Note that, since each $\nu_h({\bf{x}})$ is bounded between $0$ and $1$, we have $\nu_h({\bf{x}})\geq\nu_h({\bf{x}})^2$ for every $h=1, \ldots, +\infty$ and $ {\bf{x}} \in \mathcal{X}$, implying $0< \mu_{2\nu}({\bf{x}}) \leq \mu_{1\nu}({\bf{x}}) <1$. These results provide the bound $1 - 2\mu_{1\nu}({\bf x}) + \mu_{2\nu}({\bf x})<1$, which leads to a well defined limiting variance for the infinite case $H \rightarrow +\infty$ equal to $P_0(B)\{1 - P_0(B)\} \mu_{2\nu}({\bf x})\{2\mu_{1\nu}({\bf x}) - \mu_{2\nu}({\bf x})\}^{-1}$. The limiting covariance is instead $P_0(B)\{1 - P_0(B)\} \mu_{2\nu}({\bf{x}},{\bf{x}}')\{\mu_{1\nu}({\bf{x}}) + \mu_{1\nu}({\bf{x}}') - \mu_{2\nu}({\bf{x}},{\bf{x}}')\}^{-1}$, after noticing that $\mu_{1\nu}({\bf{x}}) \geq \mu_{2\nu}({\bf{x}},{\bf{x}}')$, $\mu_{1\nu}({\bf{x}}') \geq \mu_{2\nu}({\bf{x}},{\bf{x}}')$ and $1 - \mu_{1\nu}({\bf{x}}) - \mu_{1\nu}({\bf{x}}') + \mu_{2\nu}({\bf{x}},{\bf{x}}')<1$. Hence the association is always positive and increases the closer ${\bf{x}}$ is to ${\bf{x}}'$.
Although Proposition \[prop2\] provides simple expressions for $\mbox{\normalfont E}\{P_{\bf{x} }(B) \}$, $\mbox{\normalfont var}\{P_{\bf{x} }(B) \}$ and $\mbox{\normalfont cov}\{ P_{\bf{x}}(B),P_{\bf{x}'}(B)\} $, the calculation of these quantities requires the moments of logistic-normal priors for the stick-breaking weights, induced by representation . Unfortunately these quantities are not available in explicit form [e.g. @AS80]. However, Proposition \[prop3\] provides a simple procedure to accurately approximate the moments of logit stick-breaking weights leveraging a connection with the probit stick-breaking priors.
The logit stick-breaking prior described in representation , can be accurately approximated by a probit stick-breaking process $\nu_h({\bf{x}})\approx \Phi\{\boldsymbol{\psi}({\bf{x}})^\intercal\bar{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}_h\}$, with $\bar{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}_h={\boldsymbol{\alpha}}_h\sqrt{\pi/8} \sim \mbox{\normalfont N}_{R}\{\sqrt{\pi/8}\boldsymbol{\mu}_{\alpha}, (\pi/8)\boldsymbol{\Sigma}_{\alpha}\}$, for every ${\bf{x}} \in \mathcal{X}$ and $h=1, \ldots, +\infty$. \[prop3\]
**[Proof:]{}** [Consistent with results in [@AM81], the logistic link $\{1+\exp(-\boldsymbol{\psi}({\bf{x}})^\intercal{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}_h)\}^{-1}$ can be accurately approximated by $\Phi\{\boldsymbol{\psi}({\bf{x}})^\intercal{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}_h\sqrt{\pi/8} \}$. Therefore $$\begin{aligned}
\nu_h({\bf{x}})=\{1+\exp(-\boldsymbol{\psi}({\bf{x}})^\intercal{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}_h)\}^{-1} &\approx& \Phi\{\boldsymbol{\psi}({\bf{x}})^\intercal{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}_h\sqrt{\pi/8} \}\\
&=&\Phi\{\boldsymbol{\psi}({\bf{x}})^\intercal\bar{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}_h\},\end{aligned}$$ with $\bar{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}_h \sim \sqrt{\pi/8}\mbox{\normalfont N}_{R}(\boldsymbol{\mu}_{\alpha},\boldsymbol{\Sigma}_{\alpha})$.]{}
According to Proposition \[prop3\], the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">lsbp</span> can be approximated by a <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">psbp</span>, up to a simple transformation of the prior for the coefficients $\boldsymbol{\alpha}_h$. This result allows simple approximation for the moments of the logistic-normal priors on the stick-breaking weights by rescaling those provided in [@RD11] for the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">psbp</span>. Moreover, a researcher considering a <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">psbp</span>, could perform inference leveraging our algorithms, after rescaling the prior for each $\boldsymbol{\alpha}_h$ by $\sqrt{8/\pi}$.
Bayesian computational methods {#Section3}
==============================
Although the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">lsbp</span> and the associated computational procedures apply to a wider set of dependent mixture models and kernels, we will mainly focus—for the sake of clarity—on the general class of predictor–dependent infinite mixtures of Gaussians
$$\begin{split}
f_{{\bf x}}(y)&=& \int\frac{1}{\sigma} \phi\left\{\frac{y -\boldsymbol{\lambda}({\bf x})^\intercal \boldsymbol{\beta}}{\sigma} \right\} \mbox{d} P_{\bf{x}}( \boldsymbol{\beta},\sigma), \\
&=&\sum_{h=1}^{+\infty} \pi_h({\bf x}) \frac{1}{\sigma_h} \phi\left\{\frac{y -\boldsymbol{\lambda}({\bf x})^\intercal \boldsymbol{\beta}_h}{\sigma_h} \right\},
\end{split}
\label{mix_dep_gaus}$$ with $\boldsymbol{\beta}_h=(\beta_{1h},\ldots,\beta_{Ph})^\intercal$ a vector of coefficients linearly related to selected functions of the observed predictors $\{\lambda_1({\bf x}), \ldots, \lambda_P({\bf x})\}^{\intercal}$, comprising the vector $\boldsymbol{\lambda}({\bf x})$. Formulation provides a flexible construction [@BAR2012; @PA013], and is arguably the most used in Bayesian density regression. Generalizations to other kernels will be also discussed.
Although we focus on density regression via , leveraging the prior for the mixing weights induced by –, we emphasize that the properties discussed in Section \[Section2\], and the algorithms derived in Section \[Section3\], hold under more general priors for the predictor–dependent log-odds of the stick-breaking weights. A relevant one can be obtained by replacing with a Gaussian process prior $\eta_h(\cdot) \sim \textsc{gp}(0,c_h)$ having squared exponential covariance function $c_h$, for $h=1, \ldots, +\infty$ [e.g. @RW06]. According to [@PA013], this assumption—combined with model —guarantees full support and posterior consistency as long as the stick-breaking weights are obtained by a monotone differentiable mapping of the Gaussian process prior $\eta_h(\cdot) \sim \textsc{gp}(0,c_h)$. This is the case of the logistic mapping characterizing our <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">lsbp</span> construction.
Besides the above desirable properties, it shall be noticed that under the Gaussian process prior and letting ${\bf{x}}_1^*, \ldots, {\bf{x}}_R^*$ the set of unique values of ${\bf{x}}_1, \ldots, {\bf{x}}_n$, each $\eta_h({\bf{x}}_i)$ can be easily rewritten as in , with $\boldsymbol{\alpha}_h \sim \mbox{N}_{R}(\boldsymbol{0}, \boldsymbol{\Sigma}_{\alpha})$, $\boldsymbol{\Sigma}_{\alpha[rr']}=c_h({\bf{x}}_r^*,{\bf{x}}_{r'}^*)$ and $\boldsymbol{\psi}({\bf{x}}_i)=\{\mathbbm{1}({\bf{x}}_i={\bf{x}}_1^*), \ldots, \mathbbm{1}({\bf{x}}_i={\bf{x}}_R^*) \}^\intercal$. This allows the properties discussed in Section \[Section2\], and the algorithms in Section \[Section3\] to be directly applied to the Gaussian process case.
As mentioned in Section \[sec1\], we provide here detailed derivation of three computational methods for Bayesian density regression under model , with logit stick-breaking prior for the mixing weights. In particular we consider a Gibbs sampler converging to the exact posterior, an Expectation Maximization (<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">em</span>) algorithm for fast estimation, and a global variational Bayes (<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">vb</span>) approximation for scalable inference. The algorithms associated with these methods are available at <https://github.com/tommasorigon/LSBP>, along with the code to reproduce the application in Section \[Section4\].
All the above computational methodologies exploit representation of model —with $K_{ {\bf x}_i}(y_i ; \boldsymbol{\theta}_h) =\mbox{N}(y_i;\boldsymbol{\lambda}({\bf x}_i)^\intercal \boldsymbol{\beta}_h, \sigma^2_h)$—and the continuation–ratio characterization of the logit stick-breaking prior in Section \[Section2\]. In fact, conditioned on the component membership variables ${\bf{G}}=(G_1, \ldots, G_n)$, the model reduces to a set of Gaussian linear regressions—one for every mixture component—allowing inference for the kernel parameters $\boldsymbol{\beta}_h$ and $ \sigma^{2}_h$, via standard methods when $\boldsymbol{\beta}_h \sim \mbox{N}_P(\boldsymbol{\mu}_{\beta},\boldsymbol{\Sigma}_{\beta})$ and $\sigma_h^{-2} \sim \mbox{Ga}(a_{\sigma},b_{\sigma})$, $h=1, \ldots, +\infty$. Moreover, exploiting ${\bf{G}}$, and the continuation–ratio representation, inference for the stick-breaking parameters $\boldsymbol{\alpha}_h$, $h=1, \ldots, +\infty$ in , proceeds as in a Bayesian logistic regression for the data $(z_{ih} \mid {\bf{x}}_i) \sim \mbox{Bern}[\nu_h({\bf x}_i )=\{1+\exp(-\boldsymbol{\psi}({\bf{x}}_i)^\intercal{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}_h)\}^{-1}]$ in , for each $i=1, \ldots, n$ and $h=1, \ldots, +\infty$. Adapting results from the recent Pólya-Gamma data augmentation scheme [@PS13] to our statistical model, the updating of $\boldsymbol{\alpha}_h$, $h=1, \ldots, +\infty$ can be easily accomplished exploiting the following result: $$\begin{split}
\mbox{p}_{{\bf{x}}_i}(z_{ih})&= \frac{0.5 \exp\{(z_{ih}-0.5)\boldsymbol{\psi}({\bf{x}}_i)^\intercal{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}_h \}}{\mbox{cosh}\{0.5\boldsymbol{\psi}({\bf{x}}_i)^\intercal{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}_h \}}, \\
f_{{\bf{x}}_i}(\omega_{ih})&=\frac{\exp[-0.5\{\boldsymbol{\psi}({\bf{x}}_i)^\intercal{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}_h\}^2\omega_{ih} ]f(\omega_{ih})}{[\mbox{cosh}\{0.5\boldsymbol{\psi}({\bf{x}}_i)^\intercal{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}_h \}]^{-1}},
\end{split}
\label{polya}$$ independently for every $i=1, \ldots, n$ and $h=1, \ldots, +\infty$, where $f_{{\bf{x}}_i}(\omega_{ih})$ and $f(\omega_{ih})$ are the density functions of the Pólya-Gamma random variables $\mbox{PG}\{1,\boldsymbol{\psi}({\bf{x}}_i)^\intercal{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}_h\}$, and $\mbox{PG}\{1,0\}$, respectively. Hence, based on , the contribution to the augmented likelihood for each pair $(z_{ih}, \omega_{ih})$ is proportional to a Gaussian kernel for transformed data $(z_{ih}-0.5)/\omega_{ih}$, given that $\mbox{p}_{{\bf{x}}_i}(z_{ih})f_{{\bf{x}}_i}(\omega_{ih})$ $\propto \exp[(z_{ih}-0.5)\boldsymbol{\psi}({\bf{x}}_i)^\intercal{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}_h -0.5\{\boldsymbol{\psi}({\bf{x}}_i)^\intercal{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}_h\}^2\omega_{ih}]$. This allows posterior inference under a classical Bayesian linear regression. Refer to [@CH13] for further theoretical properties of the Pólya-Gamma scheme.
Before providing a detailed derivation of the different algorithms available under the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">lsbp</span> construction, we first study how a truncated version of the random probability measure $P_{\bf{x} }(\boldsymbol{\theta})$ approximates the infinite process. Although there are some computational methods for the infinite representation, these algorithms are not necessarily more tractable than those relying on a finite truncation, and still require approximations. In line with [@RD11] and [@RDC11], we develop detailed routines based on a finite representation, and discuss generalizations to the infinite case. This choice allows more direct comparisons and—based on Theorem \[teo4\]—provides an accurate approximation of the infinite representation.
\[teo4\] For a sample ${\bf{y}}= (y_1,\dots,y_n)^\intercal$ with covariates ${\bf{X}} = \{{\bf{x}}_1, \ldots, {\bf{x}}_n\}^\intercal$, let $$\begin{split}
& f^{(H)}({\bf{y}} \mid{\bf{X}})=f_{\bf{X}}^{(H)}({\bf{y}}) =\mbox{\normalfont E}_{P^{(H)}_{{\bf{x}}_i}} \left\{\prod_{i=1}^n f_{{\bf{x}}_i}^{(H)}(y_i) \right\},\\
& \quad = \mbox{\normalfont E}_{P^{(H)}_{{\bf{x}}_i}}\left ( \prod_{i=1}^n \left[\int\frac{1}{\sigma} \phi\left\{\frac{y_i -\boldsymbol{\lambda}({\bf x}_i)^\intercal \boldsymbol{\beta}}{\sigma} \right\} \mbox{d} {P^{(H)}_{{\bf{x}}_i}}( \boldsymbol{\beta},\sigma) \right ] \right),
\end{split}$$ the marginal joint density of the data based on a truncated version of the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">lsbp</span> in – with $H$ components, and let $f_{\bf{X}}^{(\infty)}({\bf{y}})$ be the same quantity in the infinite case. Then $$||f_{\bf{X}}^{(H)}({\bf{y}}) - f_{\bf{X}}^{(\infty)}({\bf{y}})||_1 \leq 4\sum_{i=1}^n\{1-\mu_{1\nu}({\bf x}_i) \}^{H-1}.$$
**[Proof:]{}** [Adapting the proof of Theorem 1 in [@IJ02] to our representation we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
||f_{\bf{X}}^{(H)}({\bf{y}}) - f_{\bf{X}}^{(\infty)}({\bf{y}})||_1 &\le 4 \left[ 1 - \mbox{E}\left\{\prod_{i=1}^n \sum_{h=1}^{H-1}\pi_h({\bf x}_i)\right\}\right]\\
&=4 \mbox{E}\left[ 1 -\prod_{i=1}^n \sum_{h=1}^{H-1}\pi_h({\bf x}_i)\right].
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ Since $\sum_{h=1}^{H-1}\pi_h({\bf x}_i)\leq 1$, and $1=\prod_{i=1}^n1$, following Lemma 1 in page 358 of @BI94, we can write $ 1 -\prod_{i=1}^n \sum_{h=1}^{H-1}\pi_h({\bf x}_i)=\prod_{i=1}^n1 -\prod_{i=1}^n \sum_{h=1}^{H-1}\pi_h({\bf x}_i) \leq \sum_{i=1}^n\{1- \sum_{h=1}^{H-1}\pi_h({\bf x}_i) \}$. This result provides $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
||f_{\bf{X}}^{(H)}({\bf{y}}) - f_{\bf{X}}^{(\infty)}({\bf{y}})||_1 &\leq 4[n-\sum_{i=1}^n \sum_{h=1}^{H-1}\mbox{E}\{\pi_h({\bf x}_i)\}],\\
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ with $\sum_{h=1}^{H-1}\mbox{E}\{\pi_h({\bf x}_i)\}=\sum_{h=1}^{H-1}\mu_{1\nu}({\bf x}_i) \{1-\mu_{1\nu}({\bf x}_i) \}^{H-1}$ $= 1-\{1-\mu_{1\nu}({\bf x}_i) \}^{H-1}$. Substituting this quantity in $4[n-\sum_{i=1}^n \sum_{h=1}^{H-1}\mbox{E}\{\pi_h({\bf x}_i)\}]$, we obtain the final bound $4\sum_{i=1}^n\{1-\mu_{1\nu}({\bf x}_i) \}^{H-1}$. ]{}
According to Theorem \[teo4\], for fixed $n$ and ${\bf{X}}$, the total variation distance between $f_{\bf{X}}^{(H)}({\bf{y}})$ and $f_{\bf{X}}^{(\infty)}({\bf{y}})$ vanishes as $H \rightarrow +\infty$, meaning that $f_{\bf{X}}^{(H)}({\bf{y}})$ converges in distribution to $f_{\bf{X}}^{(\infty)}({\bf{y}})$ when $H \rightarrow +\infty$. This rate of decay is exponential in $H$, and therefore the number of components has not to be very large in practice to accurately approximate the infinite representation.
MCMC via Gibbs sampling {#gibbs}
-----------------------
In deriving the Gibbs sampling algorithm for the model in , with <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">lsbp</span> in –, we focus on a dependent mixture of Gaussians with fixed $H$. Although we do not derive it in detail here, the generalization to the infinite case is also possible, and can be easily incorporated leveraging the slice samplers of [@WA07] and [@KGW11], which introduce a set of augmented latent variables allowing each step of the Gibbs sampler to rely on a finite representation. Such strategy slices the infinite mixture model, reducing it to a finite dimensional problem with $\bar{H}$ mixture components, where $\bar{H}$ varies stochastically at each step.
Let $\boldsymbol{\Lambda}_h({\bf {x}})$ and $\boldsymbol{\Psi}_h({\bf {x}})$ denote the $n_h \times P$ and the $\bar{n}_h \times R$ predictor matrices in and having row entries $\boldsymbol{\lambda}({\bf x}_i)^\intercal$ and $\boldsymbol{\psi}({\bf x}_i)^\intercal$, for only those statistical units $i$ such that $G_i =h$ and $G_i > h-1$, respectively, the Gibbs sampler for the truncated representation of model alternates between the full conjugate updating steps in Algorithm \[algo1\]. Step [**\[1\]**]{} can be run in parallel across units $i=1, \ldots, n$, whereas parallel computing for the different mixture components $h=1, \ldots, H$ can be easily implemented in steps [**\[2\]**]{}, [**\[3\]**]{} and [**\[4\]**]{}.
EM algorithm {#em}
------------
In several situations, when either $P$ or $n$ are large, the Gibbs sampler described in Section \[gibbs\] could face computational bottlenecks. If a point estimate of model is the main quantity of interest—e.g. for prediction purposes—one possibility in these high-dimensional problems is to rely on a more efficient procedure specifically designed for this goal, such as the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">em</span> [@DL77]. The implementation of a simple <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">em</span> for a finite representation of model with <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">lsbp</span> –, greatly benefits from the Pólya-Gamma data augmentation, which has analytical expectation and allows direct maximization within a Gaussian linear regression framework. Note that, although the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">em</span> algorithm is commonly implemented for maximum likelihood estimation, it can be easily modified to estimate posterior modes [e.g. @DL77].
The <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">em</span> proposed in Algorithm \[algo2\] alternates between a maximization step for the parameters $(\boldsymbol{\alpha}_h, \boldsymbol{\beta}_h, \sigma_h^{2})$, $h=1, \ldots, H$, and an expectation step for the augmented data $(\boldsymbol{\zeta}_i,\bar{\boldsymbol{\omega}}_i)$, $i=1, \ldots, n$, with $\boldsymbol{\zeta}_{i}=\{\zeta_{i1}=\mathbbm{1}(G_i=1), \ldots, \zeta_{iH}=\mathbbm{1}(G_i=H) \}^\intercal$ the vector of binary indicators denoting membership to a mixture component, and $\bar{\boldsymbol{\omega}}_i=(\bar{\omega}_{i1}, \ldots, \bar{\omega}_{iH})^{\intercal}$ the corresponding Pólya-Gamma augmented data. Note that in this case we work directly with the component indicator variables $\boldsymbol{\zeta}_{i}$ instead of the binary vectors ${\bf{z}}_i=(z_{i1}, \ldots, z_{iH})^{\intercal}$ in , to facilitate simpler derivations. Indeed, also under this parameterization, the Pólya-Gamma data augmentation can be easily considered, provided that—according to —$\mbox{p}(G_i \mid {\bf x}_i)$ can be expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\mbox{p}(G_i \mid {\bf x}_i)&=\prod_{h=1}^{H}\pi_h( {\bf x}_i)^{\mathbbm{1}(G_i=h)}\\
&=\prod_{h=1}^{H} \nu_h( {\bf x}_i)^{\zeta_{ih}}\{ 1-\nu_h( {\bf x}_i)\}^{\sum_{l=h}^{H}\zeta_{il}-\zeta_{ih}},
\end{split}
\label{zeta}\end{aligned}$$ for every unit $i=1, \ldots, n$. Based on the above quantities, the complete log-posterior $\mbox{log} f_{{\bf{x}}}(\boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta}, \boldsymbol{\sigma}^{2}\mid {\bf{y}},\boldsymbol{\zeta},\bar{\boldsymbol{\omega}} )=\mbox{log} f_{{\bf{x}}}(\boldsymbol{\alpha}_1, \ldots, \boldsymbol{\alpha}_{H-1}, \boldsymbol{\beta}_1, \ldots, \boldsymbol{\beta}_H, \sigma_1^{2}, \ldots, \sigma_H^{2}\mid {\bf{y}},\boldsymbol{\zeta},\bar{\boldsymbol{\omega}} )$ underlying the proposed <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">em</span> routine, can be written—up to an additive constant—as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq::completeloglik}
\begin{split}
&\sum_{i=1}^n\ell(\boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta}, \boldsymbol{\sigma}^{2}; {y}_i,\boldsymbol{\zeta}_i,\bar{\boldsymbol{\omega}}_i, {\bf{x}}_i ) + \log{f(\boldsymbol{\alpha})f(\boldsymbol{\beta})f(\sigma^2)}
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where $\ell(\boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta}, \boldsymbol{\sigma}^{2}; {y}_i,\boldsymbol{\zeta}_i,\bar{\boldsymbol{\omega}}_i, {\bf{x}}_i )$ is the contribution of unit $i$ to the complete log-likelihood, whereas $f(\boldsymbol{\alpha})$, $f(\boldsymbol{\beta})$, and $f({\sigma}^2)$ are the prior density functions for the model parameters. Working on $\ell(\boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta}, \boldsymbol{\sigma}^{2}; {y}_i,\boldsymbol{\zeta}_i,\bar{\boldsymbol{\omega}}_i, {\bf{x}}_i )$ has relevant benefits. Indeed, exploiting equations and , and the results in [@PS13], [@CH13] summarized in , $\ell(\boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta}, \boldsymbol{\sigma}^{2}; {y}_i,\boldsymbol{\zeta}_i,\bar{\boldsymbol{\omega}}_i, {\bf{x}}_i )$, can be factorized as $\ell( \boldsymbol{\beta}, \boldsymbol{\sigma}^{2}; {y}_i,\boldsymbol{\zeta}_i, {\bf{x}}_i )+\ell{(\boldsymbol{\alpha}; \boldsymbol{\zeta}_i,\bar{\boldsymbol{\omega}}_i, {\bf{x}}_i )},$ where the first summand equals to $$\sum_{h=1}^H\zeta_{ih}\left[-\frac{\{y_i -\boldsymbol{\lambda}({\bf x}_i)^\intercal \boldsymbol{\beta}_h\}^2}{2\sigma_h^{2}} -\frac{1}{2}\log(\sigma_h^2)\right]+\mbox{const},$$ whereas the second coincides with $$\sum_{h=1}^{H-1}\bar{\kappa}_{ih}\boldsymbol{\psi}({\bf{x}}_i)^\intercal\boldsymbol{\alpha}_h+\sum_{h=1}^{H-1} \left[-\frac{\{\boldsymbol{\psi}({\bf{x}}_i)^\intercal\boldsymbol{\alpha}_h\}^2}{2\bar{\omega}_{ih}^{-1}}\right]+\mbox{const},$$ where $\bar{\kappa}_{ih}=\zeta_{ih}-0.5\sum_{l=h}^H\zeta_{ih}$. Hence, the contribution $\ell(\boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta}, \boldsymbol{\sigma}^{2}; {y}_i,\boldsymbol{\zeta}_i,\bar{\boldsymbol{\omega}}_i, {\bf{x}}_i )$ of unit $i$ to the complete log-likelihood is
$$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
&\sum_{h=1}^H\zeta_{ih}\left[-\frac{\{y_i -\boldsymbol{\lambda}({\bf x}_i)^\intercal \boldsymbol{\beta}_h\}^2}{2\sigma_h^2} -\frac{1}{2}\log(\sigma_h^2)\right]+ \\
& \quad + \sum_{h=1}^{H-1}\left[\bar{\kappa}_{ih}\boldsymbol{\psi}({\bf{x}}_i)^\intercal\boldsymbol{\alpha}_h -\bar{\omega}_{ih}\frac{\{\boldsymbol{\psi}({\bf{x}}_i)^\intercal\boldsymbol{\alpha}_h\}^2}{2}\right]+ \mbox{const},
\end{split}
\label{EM}\end{aligned}$$ where both terms in equation are linear in the augmented data $(\boldsymbol{\zeta}_i, \bar{\boldsymbol{\omega}}_i)$, and represent the sum of Gaussian kernels. This linearity property simplifies computations in the expectation step for the complete log-posterior in equation , whereas the Gaussian structure allows simple maximizations. Since the joint maximization of the expected complete log-posterior with respect to $(\boldsymbol{\beta},\boldsymbol{\sigma}^{2})$ is intractable, we rely on a conditional maximization procedure in the last step of Algorithm \[algo2\], which provides closed form solutions. This approach is referred as Expectation Conditional Maximization (<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ecm</span>) [@MR93].
Mean Field Variational Bayes {#vb}
----------------------------
Section \[em\] provides a scalable procedure for estimation of posterior modes in large-scale problems. However, an appealing aspect of the Bayesian approach is in allowing uncertainty quantification via inference on the entire posterior distribution. As discussed in Section \[em\], the Gibbs sampler represents an appealing procedure which converges to the exact posterior, but faces computational bottlenecks. This motivates scalable variational methods for approximate and tractable Bayesian inference [@BI06; @Blei2017].
We seek a variational distribution $q_{{\bf{x}}}(\boldsymbol{\alpha},\boldsymbol{\beta}, \boldsymbol{\sigma}^2, {\bf{z}}, \boldsymbol{\omega})$ that best approximates the joint posterior $f_{{\bf{x}}}( \boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta}, \boldsymbol{\sigma}^2, {\bf z }, $ $ \boldsymbol{\omega} \mid {\bf y})$, while maintaining simple computations. This can be obtained by minimizing the Kullback-Leibler divergence $\textsc{kl}\{q_{{\bf{x}}}(\boldsymbol{\alpha},\boldsymbol{\beta}, \boldsymbol{\sigma}^2, {\bf{z}}, \boldsymbol{\omega})\mid\mid f_{{\bf{x}}}(\boldsymbol{\alpha},\boldsymbol{\beta}, \boldsymbol{\sigma}^2, {\bf{z}}, \boldsymbol{\omega} \mid {\bf{y}})\}$ between the variational distribution and the full posterior, or alternatively by maximizing the evidence lower bound $\textsc{elbo}\{q_{{\bf{x}}}(\boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta}, \boldsymbol{\sigma}^2, {\bf{z}}, \boldsymbol{\omega} ) \}$ of the log-marginal density $\log f_{{\bf{X}}}^{(H)}({\bf{y}})$, provided that $\log f_{{\bf{X}}}^{(H)}({\bf{y}})$ can be analytically expressed as the sum of the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">elbo</span> and the positive <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">kl</span> divergence. This lower bound to be maximized, can be expressed as $$\mbox{E}_{\boldsymbol{\alpha},\boldsymbol{\beta}, \boldsymbol{\sigma}^2, {\bf{z}}, \boldsymbol{\omega}} \left[\log{\left\{ \frac{ f_{\bf{x}}({\bf{y}}, \boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta}, \boldsymbol{\sigma}^2,{\bf{z}}, \boldsymbol{\omega})}{q_{ {\bf{x}}}(\boldsymbol{\alpha},\boldsymbol{\beta}, \boldsymbol{\sigma}^2, {\bf{z}}, \boldsymbol{\omega})}\right\}} \right],$$ where the above expectation is taken with respect to the variational distribution $q_{{\bf{x}}}(\boldsymbol{\alpha},\boldsymbol{\beta}, \boldsymbol{\sigma}^2, {\bf{z}}, \boldsymbol{\omega})$.
Without further restrictions, the Kullback-Leibler divergence is minimized when the variational distribution is equal to the true posterior distribution, which is analytically intractable. To address this issue, a common strategy in <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">vb</span> inference [see e.g. @Blei2017] is to assume that the variational distribution belongs to a mean field variational family. This assumption forces a posteriori independence among distinct groups of parameters, implying that the variational distribution can be expressed as the product of the marginals distributions. Specifically, we let the variational distribution to factorize in distinct groups $$\label{mean_field}
q_{\bf{x}}(\boldsymbol{\alpha},\boldsymbol{\beta}, \boldsymbol{\sigma}^2, {\bf{z}},\boldsymbol{\omega}) = q_{\bf{x}}(\boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta} )q_{\bf{x}}(\boldsymbol{\sigma}^2)\prod_{h=1}^{H-1}q_{\bf{x}}({\bf{z}}_h,\boldsymbol{\omega}_h),$$ with ${\bf{z}}_h = (z_{1h},\dots,z_{nh})$ and $\boldsymbol{\omega}_h = (\omega_{1h},\dots,\omega_{nh})$. Note that we are not making any assumption about the functional form of the distributions $q_{\bf{x}}(\boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta} )$, $q_{\bf{x}}(\boldsymbol{\sigma}^2 )$ and $\prod_{h=1}^{H-1}q_{\bf{x}}({\bf{z}}_h,\boldsymbol{\omega}_h)$, neither we are imposing any additional independence structure between the parameters. However, a closer look at the augmented likelihood function $f_{\bf{x}}({\bf{y}}, {\bf{z}}, \boldsymbol{\omega} \mid \boldsymbol{\alpha},\boldsymbol{\beta}, \boldsymbol{\sigma}^2) = f_{\bf{x}}({\bf{y}} \mid {\bf{z}}, \boldsymbol{\beta}, \boldsymbol{\sigma}^2)f_{\bf{x}}({\bf{z}} \mid \boldsymbol{\alpha})f_{\bf{x}}(\boldsymbol{\omega} \mid \boldsymbol{\alpha}) $, defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
&\prod_{i=1}^n \prod_{h=1}^H \left(\frac{1}{\sigma_h}\phi\left\{\frac{y_i - \boldsymbol{\lambda}({\bf x}_i)^\intercal\boldsymbol{\beta}_h}{\sigma_h}\right\}\right)^{z_{ih}\prod_{l=1}^{h-1}(1-z_{il})} \times\\
&\quad \times \prod_{i=1}^n \prod_{h=1}^{H-1} f(\omega_{ih}) \frac{\exp{\left\{ (z_{ih} - 0.5)\boldsymbol{\psi}({\bf x}_i)^\intercal\boldsymbol{\alpha}_h \right\}}}{\exp{\left\{ 0.5 \omega_{ih}(\boldsymbol{\psi}({\bf x}_i)^\intercal\boldsymbol{\alpha}_h )^2\right\}}},
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ reveals that the variational distribution in equation can be furtherly factorized exploiting the conditional independence structure between the parameters—which is apparent from the above equation—and independence among prior distributions. This additional simplification is sometimes called induced factorization [@BI06 Ch. 10.2.5], since it arises from the assumed mean field approximation and the structure of the true posterior distribution. Combining with the factorization induced by the full posterior $f_{{\bf{x}}}(\boldsymbol{\alpha},\boldsymbol{\beta}, \boldsymbol{\sigma}^2, {\bf{z}}, \boldsymbol{\omega} \mid {\bf{y}})$, we obtain $$\begin{split}
&q_{\bf{x}}(\boldsymbol{\alpha},\boldsymbol{\beta}, \boldsymbol{\sigma}^2, {\bf{z}}, \boldsymbol{\omega}) = \prod_{h=1}^{H-1}q_{\bf{x}}(\boldsymbol{\alpha}_h)\prod_{h=1}^{H}q_{\bf{x}}(\boldsymbol{\beta}_h)\prod_{h=1}^{H}q_{\bf{x}}({\sigma}^2_h) \times \\
&\qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \quad \times \prod_{h=1}^{H-1}\prod_{i=1}^n q_{{\bf{x}}_i}(z_{ih})\prod_{h=1}^{H-1}\prod_{i=1}^n q_{{\bf{x}}_i}(\omega_{ih}).
\end{split}$$ Following @BI06 [Ch. 10], the optimal solutions for the variational distribution—under the factorization given in the equation above—have the following form $$\begin{split}
& \log{q_{{\bf{x}}}^{*}(\boldsymbol{\beta}_{h})}=\mbox{E}_{\boldsymbol{\sigma}^2,{\bf{z}}}[\log\{ f_{{\bf{x}}}({\bf{y}} \mid {\bf{z}}, \boldsymbol{\beta}, \boldsymbol{\sigma}^2)f(\boldsymbol{\beta}_h)\}] + c_{\boldsymbol{\beta}_h},\\
& \log{q_{{\bf{x}}}^{*}({\sigma}^2_{h})}=\mbox{E}_{\boldsymbol{\beta},{\bf{z}}}[\log\{ f_{{\bf{x}}}({\bf{y}} \mid {\bf{z}}, \boldsymbol{\beta}, \boldsymbol{\sigma}^2)f({\sigma}^2_h)\}] + c_{{\sigma}^2_h},
\end{split}$$ for every $h=1, \ldots, H$, and $$\begin{split}
& \log{q_{{\bf{x}}_i}^{*}(z_{ih})}=\mbox{E}_{\boldsymbol{\alpha},\boldsymbol{\beta},\boldsymbol{\sigma}^2, {\bf{z}}_{i,-h}}[\log f_{{\bf{x}}}({\bf{y}}, {\bf{z}} \mid \boldsymbol{\beta}, \boldsymbol{\sigma}^2 \boldsymbol{\alpha})] + c_{z_{ih}}, \\
& \log{q_{{\bf{x}}_i}^{*}(\omega_{ih})}=\mbox{E}_{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}[\log f_{{\bf{x}}}(\omega_{ih} \mid \boldsymbol{\alpha})] + c_{\omega_{ih}}, \ i=1, \ldots, n, \\
& \log{q_{{\bf{x}}}^{*}(\boldsymbol{\alpha}_{h})}=\mbox{E}_{ {\bf{z}},\boldsymbol{\omega}}[\log\{ f_{{\bf{x}}}({\bf{z}},\boldsymbol{\omega} \mid \boldsymbol{\alpha}) f(\boldsymbol{\alpha}_h)\}] + c_{\boldsymbol{\alpha}_h},
\end{split}$$ for every $h=1,\dots, H-1$, where ${\bf{z}}_{i,-h}$ denotes the vector of binary indicators ${\bf z}_i$ without considering the $h$th one, whereas $c_{\boldsymbol{\beta}_h}$, $c_{{\sigma}^2_h}$, $c_{\boldsymbol{\alpha}_h}$, $c_{z_{ih}}$ and $c_{\omega_{ih}}$, are additive constants with respect to the argument in the corresponding variational distribution. Each expectation in the above equations is evaluated with respect to the variational distribution of the other parameters and therefore we need to rely on some iterative method to find the optimal solution. We consider the coordinate ascent variational inference (<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">cavi</span>) iterative procedure—described in Algorithm \[algo3\]—which maximizes the variational distribution of each parameter based on the current estimate for the remaining ones [e.g. @BI06 Ch. 10]. This procedure generates a monotonic sequence of the $\textsc{elbo}\{q_{ {\bf{x}}}(\boldsymbol{\alpha},\boldsymbol{\beta}, \boldsymbol{\sigma}^2, {\bf{z}}, \boldsymbol{\omega}) \}$, which ensures convergence to a local joint maximum. As shown in Algorithm \[algo3\], the normalizing constants in the above equations have not to be computed numerically, since kernels of well known distributions can be recognized.
Finally, we shall emphasize that the novel <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">vb</span> proposed in Algorithm \[algo3\] is different from the one in [@RDC11]. Indeed—due to the apparent absence of conjugacy for the $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$ parameters—[@RDC11] rely on a connection with Bayesian hierarchical mixtures of experts [@BS03] and consider the lower bound of @JJ00 to allow simple computation, thus providing a local <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">vb</span> routine [e.g. @BI06 Ch. 10.5]. Leveraging the conjugacy induced by the Pólya-gamma data augmentation, we obtain instead a global mean field <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">vb</span> routine within an exponential family representation. This guarantees that the Kullback-Leibler divergence between the variational distribution and the true posterior is minimized, and allows recent theoretical properties for this class of computational methods [@Blei2017] to be valid also for our variational algorithm.
Epidemiology application {#Section4}
========================
We compare the performance of the three computational methods developed in Section \[Section3\], in a toxicology study. Consistent with recent interests in Bayesian density regression [e.g. @DP08; @HWA2014; @CA17], we focus on a dataset aimed at studying the relationship between the `DDE` concentration in maternal serum, and the gestational days at delivery [@LO01].
The `DDE` is a persistent metabolite of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ddt</span>, which is still used against malaria-transmitting mosquitoes in certain developing countries—according to the Malaria Report 2015 from the World Health Organization—thus raising concerns about its adverse effects on premature delivery. Popular studies in reproductive epidemiology address this goal by dichotomizing the gestational age at delivery (`GAD`) with a clinical threshold, so that births occurred before the $37$-th week are considered preterm. Although this approach allows for a simpler modeling strategy, it leads to a clear loss of information. In particular, a greater risk of mortality and morbidity is associated with preterm birth, which increases rapidly as the `GAD` decreases. This has motivated an increasing interest in modeling how the entire distribution of `GAD` changes with `DDE` exposure within a density regression framework [e.g. @DP08; @HWA2014; @CA17].
![Scatterplot of the $\texttt{DDE}$ concentration against the gestational age at delivery, expressed in days, for the $2{,}312$ women in the @LO01 study. The solid line is a loess estimate for the conditional mean, while the shaded area indicates $95\%$ pointwise confidence intervals. \[Fig::dde\]](plot1){width="47.00000%"}
{width="100.00000%"}
As shown in Figure \[Fig::dde\], data are composed by $n=2{,}312$ measurements $(x_i, y_i)$, for women $i=1,\dots,n$, where $x_i$ represents the `DDE` concentration, and $y_i$ is the gestational age at delivery for woman $i$. Our goal is to reproduce the analyses in @DP08 on this dataset, and compare the inference and computational performance of the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">mcmc</span> via Gibbs sampling, the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">em</span> algorithm, and the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">vb</span> routine proposed in Section \[Section3\]. Note that, consistent with the main novelty of this contribution, we do not attempt to improve the flexibility and the efficiency of the available statistical models for Bayesian density regression—such as the kernel stick-breaking [@DP08], and the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">psbp</span> [@RD11]. Indeed, as discussed in Sections \[sec1\] and \[Section2\], these representations are expected to provide a comparable performance to our <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">lsbp</span> in terms of inference. However, differently from current models for Bayesian density regression, inference under the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">lsbp</span> is available under a broader variety of computational methods, thus facilitating implementation of the same model in a wider range of applications—including large $P$ and $n$ settings. Due to this, the main focus is on providing an empirical comparison of the three algorithms proposed in Section \[Section3\], while using results in @DP08 as a benchmark to provide reassurance that inference under the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">lsbp</span> is comparable to alternative representations widely considered by the practitioners.
{width="96.00000%"}
We apply the predictor–dependent mixture of Gaussians with <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">lsbp</span> –, to a normalized version of the `DDE` and `GAD` $(\bar{x}_i,\bar{y}_i)$, $i=1, \ldots, n$, and then show results for $f_x(y)$ on the original scale of the data. Consistent with previous works [@DP08; @CA17], we let $P=2$, with $\lambda_1(\bar{x}_i)=1$ and $\lambda_2(\bar{x}_i) = \bar{x}_i$, for every $i=1, \ldots,n$, and rely instead on a flexible representation for $\eta_{h}(\bar{x}_i)$ to characterize changes in the stick-breaking weights with `DDE`. In particular, each $\eta_{h}(\bar{x}_i)$ is defined via a natural cubic spline basis $\boldsymbol{\psi}(\bar{x}_i) = \{1, \psi_1(\bar{x}_i),\dots, \psi_{5}(\bar{x}_i)\}^{\intercal}$, for every $h=1, \ldots, H-1$. Bayesian posterior inference—under the three computational methods developed in Section \[Section3\]—is instead performed with default hyperparameters $\boldsymbol{\mu}_{\beta}=(0,0)^{\intercal}$, $\boldsymbol{\Sigma}_{\beta}=\mbox{I}_{2\times2}$, $\boldsymbol{\mu}_{\alpha}=(0,\dots,0)^{\intercal}$, $\boldsymbol{\Sigma}_{\alpha}=\mbox{I}_{6\times 6}$ and $a_{\sigma}=b_{\sigma}=0.1$. For the total number of mixture components we consider $H=5$, and allow the shrinkage induced by the stick-breaking prior to adaptively delete redundant components not required to characterize the data. As shown in Figure \[Fig::conditional\], these choices allows accurate inference on $f_x(y)$.
In providing posterior inference under the Gibbs sampling algorithm described in Section \[gibbs\], we rely on $30{,}000$ iterations, after discarding the first $5{,}000$ as a burn-in. Analysis of the traceplots for the quantities discussed in Figures \[Fig::conditional\] and \[Fig::posterior\] showed that this choice is sufficient for good convergence. The <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">em</span> algorithm and the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">vb</span> procedures discussed in Sections \[em\] and \[vb\], respectively, are instead run until convergence to a modal solution. Since such modes could be only local, we run both the algorithms for different initial values, and consider the solutions having the highest log-posterior and the lowest bound of the marginal density, respectively. We also controlled the monotonicity of the sequences for these quantities, in order to further validate the correctness of our derivations. In this study, the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">em</span> and the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">vb</span> reach convergence in $2.1$ and $6.6$ seconds, respectively, whereas the Gibbs sampler requires $5$ minutes, using a MacBook Air (OS X Sierra) with a Intel Core i5.
Similarly to Figure 3 in @DP08, Figure \[Fig::conditional\] provides posterior inference for the conditional density $f_x(y)$ evaluated at the $0.1$, $0.6$, $0.9$, $0.99$ quantiles of `DDE`, for the three algorithms. Histograms for the `GAD`, are instead obtained by grouping the response data according to a binning of the `DDE` with cut-offs at the central values of subsequent quantiles, so that the conditional density can be plotted alongside the corresponding histogram. Results in Figure \[Fig::conditional\] confirm accurate fit to the data and suggest that the left tail of the `GAD` distribution—associated with preterm deliveries—increasingly inflates as `DDE` grows. Moreover, as seen in Figure \[Fig::conditional\], the three algorithms have similar results, thus providing empirical reassurance for the goodness of the proposed routines. As expected, the point estimate from the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">em</span> matches the posterior mean of the Gibbs sampler, whereas the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">vb</span> tends to over–smooth some modes of the conditional distribution. This is likely due to the fact that the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">vb</span> outputs a mean field approximation of the posterior distribution, instead of the exact one. However, differently from the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">em</span>, this routine allows uncertainty quantification, and provides a much scalable methodology compared to the Gibbs sampler, thus representing a valid candidate in high–dimensional inference when the focus is on specific functionals of $f_x(y)$. Indeed, as shown in Figure \[Fig::posterior\], when the aim is to exploit $f_x(y)$ to infer conditional preterm probabilities $$\mbox{pr}(y < y^{*} \mid x)=\int_{-\infty}^{y^{*}}f_x(y) \mbox{d}y$$ with $y^{*} \in (7{\cdot}33,7{\cdot}35,7{\cdot}37,7{\cdot}40)$ a clinical threshold, the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">vb</span> provides very similar results compared to the other methods.
Prior to conclude our analysis, note that the results in Figures \[Fig::conditional\] and \[Fig::posterior\] are similar to those obtained under the kernel stick-breaking prior in @DP08. This provides empirical guarantee that the flexibility and efficiency properties characterizing popular Bayesian nonparametric models for density regression are maintained also under our <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">lsbp</span>, which has the additional relevant benefit of facilitating computational implementation of these methodologies. Minor differences are found at extreme `DDE` exposures, but this is mainly due to the sparsity of the data in this subset of the predictor space, as shown in Figure \[Fig::dde\].
Discussion {#Section5}
==========
The focus of this paper has been on providing novel methodologies to facilitate computational implementation of Bayesian nonparametric models for density regression in a broad range of applications. To address this goal, we have proposed an alternative reparameterization of the predictor–dependent stick-breaking weights, which relies on a set of sequential logistic regressions. This constructive representation has relevant connections with continuation–ratio logistic regressions, and Pólya-Gamma data augmentation, thus allowing simple derivation of several algorithms of routine use in Bayesian inference. The proposed computational methods are empirically evaluated in a toxicology study, obtaining good results and reassurance that the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">lsbp</span> maintains the same flexibility and efficiency properties characterizing popular Bayesian nonparametric models for density regression.
Although our dependent mixture of Gaussians provides a flexible representation, it is worth considering extensions to other kernels. For example, all our algorithms can be easily adapted to predictor–independent kernels coming from an exponential family, when conjugate priors for their parameters are used. Similar derivations are also possible for predictor–dependent kernels within a generalized linear model representation, provided that conjugate priors for the coefficients can be found [e.g. @CHE03]. Theory and computational steps associated with the logit stick-breaking prior for the mixing probabilities are instead general and valid regardless the kernel choice.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper, we introduce a contextual grounding approach that captures the context in corresponding text entities and image regions to improve the grounding accuracy. Specifically, the proposed architecture accepts pre-trained text token embeddings and image object features from an off-the-shelf object detector as input. Additional encoding to capture the positional and spatial information can be added to enhance the feature quality. There are separate text and image branches facilitating respective architectural refinements for different modalities. The text branch is pre-trained on a large-scale masked language modeling task while the image branch is trained from scratch. Next, the model learns the contextual representations of the text tokens and image objects through layers of high-order interaction respectively. The final grounding head ranks the correspondence between the textual and visual representations through cross-modal interaction. In the evaluation, we show that our model achieves the state-of-the-art grounding accuracy of 71.36% over the Flickr30K Entities dataset. No additional pre-training is necessary to deliver competitive results compared with related work that often requires task-agnostic and task-specific pre-training on cross-modal dadasets. The implementation is publicly available at <https://gitlab.com/necla-ml/grounding>.'
author:
- |
Farley Lai[^1^]{}, Ning Xie[^2^]{}[^1], Derek Doran[^2^]{}, Asim Kadav[^1^]{}\
[[^1^]{}Machine Learning Department, NEC Laboratories America, Inc.]{}\
[[^2^]{}Department of Computer Science, Wright State University]{}\
[`[email protected]`]{}\
[`{xie.25, derek.doran}@wright.edu`]{}\
[`[email protected]`]{}\
title: Contextual Grounding of Natural Language Entities in Images
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
![Example image from Flickr30K Entities annotated with bounding boxes corresponding to entities in the caption “ wearing signs for wearing .”[]{data-label="fig:example"}](figures/example-img.png){width="0.5\linewidth"}
Cross-modal reasoning is challenging for grounding entities and objects in different modalities. Representative tasks include visual question answering (VQA) and image captioning that leverage grounded features between text and images to make predictions. While recent advances in these tasks achieve impressive results, the quality of the correspondence between textual entities and visual objects in both modalities is not necessarily convincing or interpretable [@Liu:2017ve]. This is likely because the grounding from one modality to the other is trained implicitly and the intermediate results are not often evaluated as explicitly as in object detection. To address this issue, @Plummer:2015ve created the *Flickr30K Entities* dataset with precise annotations of the correspondence between language phrases and image regions to ease the evaluation of visual grounding. In Figure\[fig:example\], two men are referred to in the caption as separate entities. To uniquely ground the two men in the image, the grounding algorithm must take respective context and attributes into consideration for learning the correspondence.
Over the years, many deep learning based approaches were proposed to tackle this localization challenge. The basic idea is to derive representative features for each entity as well as object, and then score their correspondence. In the modality of caption input, individual token representations usually start with the word embeddings followed by a recurrent neural network (RNN), usually Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) or Gated Recurrent Units (GRU), to capture the contextual meaning of the text entity in a sentence. On the other hand, the visual objects in image regions of interest (RoI) are extracted through object detection. Each detected object typically captures limited context through the receptive fields of 2D convolutions. Advanced techniques such as the *feature pyramid network* (FPN) [@Lin:2017vv] enhance the representations by combining features at different semantic levels w.r.t. the object size. Even so, those conventional approaches are limited to extracting relevant long range context in both text and images effectively. In view of this limitation, non-local attention techniques were proposed to address the long range dependencies in natural language processing (NLP) and computer vision (CV) tasks [@Vaswani:2017ul; @Wang:2018ut]. Inspired by this advancement, we introduce the contextual grounding approach to improving the representations through extensive intra- and inter-modal interaction to infer the contextual correspondence between text entities and visual objects.
#### Related Work. {#sec:related}
On the methodology of feature interaction, the *Transformer* architecture [@Vaswani:2017ul] for machine translation demonstrates a systematic approach to efficiently computing the interaction between language elements. Around the same time, *non-local networks* [@Wang:2018ut] generalize the transformer to the CV domain, supporting feature interaction at different levels of granularity from feature maps to pooled objects. Recently, the image transformer [@Parmar:2018vc] adapts the original transformer architecture to the image generation domain by encoding spatial information in pixel positions while we deal with image input at the RoI level for grounding. The following work in [@Devlin:2018uk] proposed BERT as a pre-trained transformer encoder on large-scale masked language modeling, facilitating training downstream tasks to achieve state-of-the-art (SOTA) results. Our work extends BERT to the cross-modal grounding task by jointly learning contextual representations of language entities and visual objects. Coincidentally, another line of work named *VisualBERT* [@Li:2019wy] also integrates BERT to deal with grounding in a single transformer architecture. However, their model requires both task-agnostic and task-specific pre-training on cross-modal datasets to achieve competitive results. Ours, on the contrary, achieves SOTA results without additional pre-training and allows respective architectural concerns for different modalities.
Contextual Grounding {#sec:design}
====================
![Contextual grounding architecture[]{data-label="fig:arch"}](figures/arch-ctx-grounding.png){width="\linewidth"}
The main approach of previous work is to use RNN/LSTM to extract high level phrase representations and then apply different attention mechanisms to rank the correspondence to visual regions. While the hidden representations of the entity phrases take the language context into consideration, the image context around visual objects is in contrast limited to object detection through 2D receptive fields. Nonetheless, there is no positional ordering as in text for objects in an image to go through the RNN to capture potentially far apart contextual dependencies. In view of the recent advances in NLP, the transformer architecture proposed by [@Vaswani:2017ul] addresses the long range dependency through pure attention techniques. Without RNN being incorporated, the transformer enables text tokens to efficiently interact with each other pairwise regardless of the range. The ordering information is injected through additional positional encoding. Enlightened by this breakthrough, the corresponding contextual representations of image RoIs may be derived through intra-modal interaction with encoded spatial information. We hypothesize that the grounding objective would guide the attention to the corresponding context in both the text and image with improved accuracy. Consequently, we propose the contextual grounding architecture as shown in Figure \[fig:arch\]. The model is composed of two transformer encoder branches for both text and image inputs to generate their respective contextual representations for the grounding head to decide the correspondence. The text branch is pre-trained from the BERT base model [@Devlin:2018uk] which trains a different positional embedding from the original transformer [@Vaswani:2017ul]. On the other hand, the image branch takes RoI features as input objects from an object detector. Correspondingly, we train a two layer MLP to generate the spatial embedding given the absolute spatial information of the RoI location and size normalized to the entire image. Both branches add the positional and spatial embedding to the tokens and RoIs respectively as input to the first interaction layer. At each layer, each hidden representation performs self-attention to each other to generate a new hidden representation as layer output. The self-attention may be multi-headed to enhance the representativeness as described in [@Vaswani:2017ul]. At the end of each branch, the final hidden state is fed into the grounding head to perform the cross-modal attention with text entity hidden states as queries and image object hidden representations as the keys. The attention responses serve as the matching correspondences. If the correspondence does not match the ground truth, the mean binary cross entropy loss per entity is back propagated to guide the interaction across the branches. We evaluate the grounding recall on the Flickr30K Entities dataset and compare the results with SOTA work in the next section.
Evaluation {#sec:evaluation}
==========
**Model** **Detector** **R@1** **R@5** **R@10** **Upper Bound**
------------------- ------------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------------
@Plummer:2015ve Fast RCNN 50.89 71.09 75.73 85.12
@Yeh:2017td YOLOv2 53.97 - - -
@Hinami:2017uz Query-Adaptive RCNN 65.21 - - -
BAN [@Kim:2018wu] Bottom-Up [@Anderson:2018ue] 69.69 84.22 86.35 87.45
Ours L1-H2-abs Bottom-Up [@Anderson:2018ue] **71.36** 84.76 86.49 87.45
Ours L1-H1-abs Bottom-Up [@Anderson:2018ue] 71.21 **84.84** **86.51** 87.45
Ours L1-H1 Bottom-Up [@Anderson:2018ue] 70.75 84.75 86.39 87.45
Ours L3-H2-abs Bottom-Up [@Anderson:2018ue] 70.82 84.59 86.49 87.45
Ours L3-H2 Bottom-Up [@Anderson:2018ue] 70.39 84.68 86.35 87.45
Ours L6-H4-abs Bottom-Up [@Anderson:2018ue] 69.71 84.10 86.33 87.45
: Accuracy on Flickr30K Entities test split where $L$, $H$ and $abs$ denote the number of layers, attention heads and whether the absolute spatial embedding is employed in the image branch.[]{data-label="table:performance"}
Our contextual grounding approach uses the transformer encoder to capture the context in both text entities and image objects. While the text branch is pre-trained from BERT [@Devlin:2018uk], the image branch is trained from scratch. In view of the complexity of the transformer, previous work [@Girdhar:2019uo] has shown the performance varies with different numbers of interaction layers and attention heads. Also, the intra-modal object interaction does not necessarily consider the relationship in space unless some positional or spatial encoding is applied. In our evaluation, we vary both the number of layers and heads, along with adding the spatial encoding to explore the performance variations summarized in Table \[table:performance\]. We achieve the SOTA results in all top 1, 5 and 10 recalls based on the same object detector as used by previous SOTA BAN [@Kim:2018wu]. The breakdown of per entity type recalls is given in Table \[table:breakdown\]. Six out of the eight entity type recalls benefit from our contextual grounding. Interestingly, the recall of the instrument type suffers. This may be due to the relative small number of instrument instances in the dataset preventing the model from learning the context well. On the other hand, compared with the text branch consisting of $12$ layers and $12$ heads with hidden size of $768$ dimensions, the best performance is achieved with the image branch having $1$ layer, $2$ attention heads and hidden size of $2048$ dimensions. Moreover, adding the spatial embedding consistently improves the accuracy by $0.5\%$ or so. This is likely because image objects, unlike word embedding requiring the context to produce representative hidden states for its meaning, may already capture some neighborhood information through receptive fields.
Finally, we compare the results with the recent work in progress, VisualBERT [@Li:2019wy], in Table \[table:comparison\] which also achieves improved grounding results based on a single transformer architecture that learns the representations by fusing text and image inputs in the beginning. Marginally, ours performs better in the top 1 recall. Note, our approach, unlike VisualBERT which requires task-agnostic and task-specific pre-training on COCO captioning [@Chen:2015ur] and the target dataset, needs no similar pre-training to deliver competitive results. Besides, our architecture is also flexible to adapt to different input modalities respectively.
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
This paper introduces contextual grounding, a higher-order interaction technique to capture corresponding context between text entities and visual objects. The evaluation shows the SOTA 71.36% accuracy of phrase localization on Flickr30K Entities. In the future, it would be worth investigating the benefits of grounding guided visual representations in other related and spatio-temporal tasks.
Supplementary Materials {#supplementary-materials .unnumbered}
=======================
Implementation {#sec:implementation .unnumbered}
--------------
Our implementation is based on [PyTorch-v1.1](https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/tree/v1.1.0) and [PyTorch Pretrained BERT-v0.6.2](https://github.com/huggingface/transformers/tree/v0.6.2). We follow the same training protocol as BAN [@Kim:2018wu] on the Flickr30K Entities dataset for fair comparison where the text entity representation is taken from the last word or subword in a phrase. It probably makes little sense for VisualBERT [@Li:2019wy] to choose the cross entropy to rank the correspondences instead of the binary cross entropy because one text entity such as a group of people can actually correspond to multiple person objects in the ground truth annotations. Apart from different number of transformer layers and attention heads used in the base BERT model, our image transformer branch uses gradient clipping of 0.25 and dropout probability 0.4 for the best performance. During training, the learning rate is set to 5e-5 and the batch size is set to 256 with 2 steps of gradient accumulation before back-propagation. The model is trained for at most 10 epochs with early stopping.
[^1]: Work performed as a NEC Labs intern
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'J.-L. Waldspurger'
date: 10 février 2009
title: ' Une formule intégrale reliée à la conjecture locale de Gross-Prasad '
---
[**Introduction**]{}
Soit $F$ un corps local non archimédien de caractéristique nulle. Soit $V$ un espace vectoriel sur $F$, de dimension finie $d$, muni d’une forme quadratique non dégénérée $q$. On suppose donnée une décomposition en somme directe de sous-espaces orthogonaux deux à deux $V=W\oplus D\oplus Z$. On suppose que $D$ est une droite et que $Z$ est muni d’une base $\{ v_{i}; i=\pm 1,...,\pm r\}$ telle que $q(v_{i},v_{j})=\delta_{i,-j}$ pour tous $i,j$, où $\delta_{i,-j}$ est le symbole de Kronecker. On note $G$, resp. $H$, le groupe spécial orthogonal de $V$, resp. $W$, et $U$ le radical unipotent du sous-groupe parabolique de $G$ qui conserve le drapeau de sous-espaces isotropes $$Fv_{r}\subset Fv_{r}\oplus Fv_{r-1}\subset ...\subset Fv_{r} \oplus ...\oplus Fv_{1}.$$ Fixons un élément non nul $v_{0}\in D$ et un caractère continu non trivial $\psi$ de $F$. Définissons un caractère $\xi$ de $U(F)$ par la formule $$\xi(u)=\psi(\sum_{i=0,...,r-1}q(uv_{i},v_{-i-1})).$$ Le groupe $H$ est le sous-groupe des éléments de $G$ qui agissent par l’identité sur $D\oplus Z$. Il normalise $U$ et la conjugaison par $H(F)$ conserve $\xi$ ($\xi$ est essentiellement le caractère de $U(F)$ le plus régulier possible qui soit conservé par cette conjugaison). Soient $\pi$, resp. $\sigma$, une représentation admissible irréductible de $G(F)$, resp. $H(F)$, dans un espace (complexe) $E_{\pi}$, resp. $E_{\sigma}$. Notons $Hom_{H,\xi}(\pi,\sigma)$ l’espace des applications linéaires $\varphi:E_{\pi}\to E_{\sigma}$ telles que $$\varphi(\pi(hu)e)=\xi(u)\sigma(h)\varphi(e)$$ pour tous $u\in U(F)$, $h\in H(F)$, $e\in E_{\pi}$. D’après \[AGRS\] théorème 1’ et \[GGP\] corollaire 20.4, cet espace est de dimension $0$ ou $1$. On note $m(\sigma,\pi)$ cette dimension.
Supposons maintenant que $G$ et $H$ sont quasi-déployés sur $F$ et affectons les données $V$, $W$, $q$, $G$ et $H$ d’un indice $i$ (pour “isotrope”). Dans cette introduction, supposons pour simplifier $dim(W_{i})\geq3$. On sait qu’à isomorphisme près, il existe un unique espace $V_{a}$ ($a$ pour “anisotrope”) de même dimension $d$ que $V_{i}$, muni d’une forme quadratique $q_{a}$ de même discriminant que $q_{i}$ mais qui n’est pas isomorphe à $q_{a}$ (c’est-à-dire d’indice de Witt opposé). Il existe de même un unique espace $W_{a}$ de même dimension que $W_{i}$, muni d’une forme quadratique de même discriminant que la restriction de $q_{i}$ à $W_{i}$, mais qui n’est pas isomorphe à cette restriction. On vérifie que $V_{a}$ est encore isomorphe à la somme directe orthogonale $W_{a}\oplus D\oplus Z$, où les formes quadratiques sur $D$ et $Z$ sont les m\^ emes que précédemment. On note $G_{a}$, resp. $H_{a}$, le groupe spécial orthogonal de $V_{a}$, resp. $W_{a}$. C’est une forme intérieure de $G_{i}$, resp. $H_{i}$.
La conjecture locale de Gross-Prasad suppose l’existence des $L$-paquets et certaines de leurs propriétés. On y reviendra ci-dessous. Gross et Prasad énoncent leur conjecture pour les $L$-paquets génériques. On se limite ici aux $L$-paquets tempérés. Soit $\Pi_{i}$, resp. $\Sigma_{i}$, un $L$-paquet de représentations tempérées de $G_{i}(F)$, resp. $H_{i}(F)$. Il peut lui correspondre un $L$-paquet $\Pi_{a}$, resp. $\Sigma_{a}$, de représentations tempérées de $G_{a}(F)$, resp. $H_{a}(F)$. Ce $L$-paquet est alors unique. Ou bien, il n’y a pas de tel $L$-paquet $\Pi_{a}$, resp. $\Sigma_{a}$. Dans ce cas, on pose $\Pi_{a}=\emptyset$, resp. $\Sigma_{a}=\emptyset$. En tout cas, pour $(\sigma,\pi)\in (\Sigma_{i}\times \Pi_{i})\cup (\Sigma_{a}\times \Pi_{a})$, la dimension $m(\sigma,\pi)$ est définie.
[0.3cm[**[Conjecture (Gross-Prasad)]{}**]{}. [ *[Il existe un unique couple $(\sigma,\pi)\in(\Sigma_{i}\times \Pi_{i})\cup (\Sigma_{a}\times \Pi_{a})$ tel que $m(\sigma,\pi)=1$.]{}*]{}0.3cm]{}
C’est une partie de la conjecture 6.9 de \[GP\]. Décrivons les propriétés des $L$-paquets tempérés que nous admettrons (on les énonce pour le couple $(\Pi_{i},\Pi_{a})$, mais on admet les propriétés similaires pour le couple $(\Sigma_{i},\Sigma_{a})$). Notons $\sharp$ l’un des indices $i$ ou $a$. Rappelons qu’à toute représentation admissible irréductible $\pi$ de $G_{\sharp}(F)$ est associé un caractère $\theta_{\pi}$ que l’on peut considérer comme une distribution ou comme une fonction localement intégrable sur $G_{\sharp}(F)$. Dans le cas du groupe $G_{i}$, on sait définir la notion de modèle de Whittaker de $\pi$. Plus exactement, il y a une notion de modèle de Whittaker relatif à ${\cal O}$ pour chaque orbite nilpotente régulière ${\cal O}\subset \mathfrak{g}_{i}(F)$ (pour tout groupe réductif $L$, on note $\mathfrak{l}$ son algèbre de Lie). On suppose
\(1) pour $\sharp=i$ ou $a$, $\Pi_{\sharp}$ est un ensemble fini, non vide si $\sharp=i$, et la distribution $\theta_{\Pi_{\sharp}}=\sum_{\pi\in \Pi_{\sharp}}\theta_{\pi}$ sur $G_{\sharp}(F)$ est stable;
\(2) le transfert à $G_{a}(F)$ de la distribution $\theta_{\Pi_{i}}$ est $(-1)^d\theta_{\Pi_{a}}$ (en particulier est nul si $\Pi_{a}=\emptyset$);
\(3) pour toute orbite nilpotente régulière ${\cal O}\subset \mathfrak{g}_{i}(F)$, il existe un et un seul élément de $\Pi_{i}$ qui admet un modèle de Whittaker relatif à ${\cal O}$.
On reviendra sur ces propriétés en 13.2. Notre résultat est le suivant.
[0.3cm[**[Théorème]{}**]{}. [ *[ Supposons vérifiées les propriétés ci-dessus. Supposons de plus que $\Pi_{i}$ et $\Pi_{a}$ soient formés uniquement de représentations supercuspidales. Alors la conjecture ci-dessus est vérifiée.]{}*]{}0.3cm]{}
Ce théorème résulte d’une formule intégrale qui calcule la dimension $m(\sigma,\pi)$ à l’aide des caractères de $\sigma$ et $\pi$, dans le cas où $\pi$ est supercuspidale. Revenons aux notations du début en abandonnant les indices $i$ et $a$. Considérons l’ensemble des sous-tores $T\subset H$ pour lesquels il existe une décomposition en somme directe orthogonale $W=W'\oplus W''$ de sorte que
- la dimension de $W'$ est paire et les groupes spéciaux orthogonaux $H''$ de $W''$ et $G''$ de $V''=W''\oplus D\oplus Z$ sont quasi-déployés sur $F$;
- le tore $T$ est un sous-tore maximal du groupe spécial orthogonal de $W'$ et il ne contient aucun sous-tore déployé non trivial.
On fixe un ensemble de représentants ${\cal T}$ des classes de conjugaison par $H(F)$ dans cet ensemble de tores. Soit $T\in {\cal T}$. On lui associe des groupes $H''$ et $G''$ comme ci-dessus. Soit $\pi$ une représentation admissible irréductible de $G(F) $. Harish-Chandra a décrit le comportement local du caractère $\theta_{\pi}$. Soit $x$ un élément semi-simple de $G(F)$. Notons $G_{x}$ la composante neutre du commutant de $x$ dans $G$. Alors, pour toute orbite nilpotente ${\cal O}$ dans $\mathfrak{g}_{x}(F)$, il existe un coefficient $c_{\pi,{\cal O}}(x)\in {\mathbb C}$ de sorte que, pour toute fonction $f\in C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathfrak{g}_{x}(F))$ dont le support soit contenu dans un voisinage assez petit de $0$, on ait l’égalité $$(4) \qquad \int_{\mathfrak{g}_{x}(F)}\theta_{\pi}(xexp(X))f(X)dX=\sum_{{\cal O}}c_{\pi,{\cal O}}(x)\int_{{\cal O}}\hat{f}(X)dX.$$ La somme porte sur les orbites nilpotentes dans $\mathfrak{g}_{x}(F)$ et le dernier terme est la transformée de Fourier de l’intégrale orbitale sur ${\cal O}$. Bien sûr, les mesures et la transformation de Fourier doivent être définies précisément. Supposons que $x$ est un élément de $T(F)$ en position générale. Alors $G_{x}=T\times G''$, en particulier les orbites nilpotentes de $\mathfrak{g}_{x}(F)$ sont celles de $\mathfrak{g}''(F)$. Supposons d’abord $d$ impair. Par hypothèse, $G''$ est quasi-déployé. En dimension impaire, cela implique qu’il est déployé. Son algèbre de Lie $\mathfrak{g}''(F)$ possède une unique orbite nilpotente régulière, on la note ${\cal O}_{reg}$ et on pose $c_{\pi}(x)=c_{\pi,{\cal O}_{reg}}(x)$. Supposons maintenant $d$ pair. Alors $\mathfrak{g}''(F)$ possède (en général) plusieurs orbites nilpotentes régulières. On peut les paramétrer par un sous-ensemble de $F^{\times}/F^{\times 2}$. Posons $\nu_{0}=q(v_{0})$. On montre que $\nu_{0}$ appartient à l’ensemble de paramètres, on lui associe une orbite ${\cal O}_{\nu_{0}}$ et on pose $c_{\pi}(x)=c_{\pi,{\cal O}_{\nu_{0}}}(x)$. On a ainsi défini une fonction $c_{\pi}$ sur un ouvert de Zariski de $T(F)$. Soit $\sigma$ une représentation admissible irréductible de $H(F)$. On définit de façon similaire une fonction $c_{\sigma}$ sur un ouvert de Zariski de $T(F)$. Posons $$(5) \qquad m_{geom}(\sigma,\pi)=\sum_{T\in {\cal T}}w(T)^{-1}\int_{T(F)}c_{\check{\sigma}}(x)c_{\pi}(x)D^H(x)\Delta(x)^rdx.$$ Les fonctions $D^H$ et $\Delta$ sont des déterminants élémentaires et $w(T)$ est le nombre d’éléments d’un certain normalisateur. La mesure sur $T(F)$ est de masse totale $1$. La représentation $\check{\sigma}$ est la contragrédiente de $\sigma$.
0.3cm[**[Théorème]{}**]{}.
**
\(i) Pour des représentations admissibles irréductibles $\sigma$ de $H(F)$ et $\pi$ de $G(F)$, l’expression ci-dessus est absolument convergente.
\(ii) Si $\pi$ est supercuspidale, on a l’égalité $m(\sigma,\pi)=m_{geom}(\sigma,\pi)$.
0.3cm
Ce théorème est, lui, indépendant de toute hypothèse sur les $L$-paquets. Indiquons comment on déduit le premier théorème du second. Rétablissons les indices $i$ et $a$, posons $$m(\Sigma_{i},\Pi_{i})=\sum_{(\sigma,\pi)\in \Sigma_{i}\times \Pi_{i}}m(\sigma,\pi)$$ et définissons de même $m(\Sigma_{a},\Pi_{a})$. A l’aide du second théorème, ces termes se calculent comme des sommes indexées par des ensembles de tores ${\cal T}_{i}$ et ${\cal T}_{a}$. On peut regrouper ces tores selon leur classe de conjugaison stable. Il y a une correspondance entre classes de conjugaison stable dans ${\cal T}_{a}$ et classes de conjugaison stable dans ${\cal T}_{i}$. Cette correspondance est en fait une injection du premier ensemble de classes dans le second et c’est presqu’une surjection: l’unique classe dans ${\cal T}_{i}$ qui n’est pas dans l’image est la classe réduite au tore $T=\{1\}\in {\cal T}_{i}$. Les formules de transfert de caractères de $L$-paquets contiennent des signes, dont le produit est $-1$. On en déduit que, pour toute classe de conjugaison stable $\{T\}_{a}\subset{\cal T}_{a}$, la contribution de cette classe à $m(\Sigma_{a},\Pi_{a})$ est l’opposé de la contribution à $m(\Sigma_{i},\Pi_{i})$ de la classe de conjugaison stable dans ${\cal T}_{i}$ image de $\{T\}_{a}$. Alors seul le tore $\{1\}\in {\cal T}_{i}$ contribue de façon non nulle à la somme $m(\Sigma_{a},\Pi_{a})+m(\Sigma_{i},\Pi_{i})$. A l’aide d’un résultat de Rodier, cette contribution du tore $\{1\}$ s’interprète comme le produit des nombres d’éléments de $\Sigma_{i}$, resp. $\Pi_{i}$ qui admettent un modèle de Whittaker relatif à une certaine orbite nilpotente régulière. D’après (3), ces nombres sont égaux à $1$. On obtient $$m(\Sigma_{a},\Pi_{a})+m(\Sigma_{i},\Pi_{i})=1$$ d’où le premier théorème. Remarquons que l’apparition d’un signe négatif dans les formules de transfert, qui est cruciale pour le calcul ci-dessus, est probablement réminiscente de fait que le produit des $L$-groupes ${^LH}\times{^LG}$ a une représentation naturelle qui est symplectique.
La preuve du second théorème est plus compliquée. Appelons quasi-caractère sur $G(F)$ une fonction $\theta$ définie presque partout sur $G(F)$, invariante par conjugaison et possédant un développement de la forme (4) au voisinage de tout point semi-simple. Pour une fonction $f\in C_{c}^{\infty}(G(F))$, disons que $f$ est très cuspidale si, pour tout sous-groupe parabolique propre $P=MU$ de $G$ (avec des notations standard), et pour tout $m\in M(F)$, on a l’égalité $$\int_{U(F)}f(mu)du=0.$$ Pour tout entier $N\in {\mathbb N}$, on définit une fonction $\kappa_{N}$ sur $G(F)$. C’est l’image réciproque de la fonction caractéristique d’un sous-ensemble compact de $H(F)U(F)\backslash G(F)$, qui devient de plus en plus grand quand $N$ tend vers l’infini. Soient $\theta$ un quasi-caractère sur $H(F)$ et $f\in C_{c}^{\infty}(G(F))$ une fonction très cuspidale. On pose $$I_{N}(\theta,f)=\int_{H(F)U(F)\backslash G(F)}\int_{H(F)}\int_{U(F)}\theta(h)f(g^{-1}hug)\xi(u)du\,dh\,\kappa_{N}(g)dg.$$ La plus grande partie de l’article consiste à prouver que cette expression a une limite quand $N$ tend vers l’infini et à calculer cette limite. Celle-ci est, comme l’expression (5) ci-dessus, une somme sur les tores $T\in {\cal T}$ d’intégrales sur $T(F)$ de fonctions déduites de $\theta$ et $f$. Cf. 7.8 pour un énoncé précis. L’expression $I_{N}(\theta,f)$ ressemble beaucoup à celles qui interviennent dans la partie géométrique de la formule des traces locale d’Arthur (\[A3\]). D’ailleurs, pour l’étudier, on s’inspire largement des méthodes d’Arthur. Il y a toutefois une différence importante entre les deux situations. Dans la formule des traces locale, il n’y a pas de problème de singularités. La formule finale ne fait intervenir que des points réguliers du groupe. En particulier, si on se limite à des fonctions dont le support est formé d’éléments elliptiques réguliers, la partie géométrique de la formule des traces locale est essentiellement triviale. Ici, il y a des singularités. Pour un élément semi-simple $x\in H(F)$, le groupe $G_{x}$ est en général plus gros que $H_{x}$ et on peut dire que la singularité du problème croît en même temps que $dim(G_{x})-dim(H_{x})$. L’étude de $I_{N}(\theta,f)$ passe donc par une étude locale. On commence par se ramener au cas où $\theta$ et $f$ ont des supports concentrés dans des voisinages invariants par conjugaison d’un point semi-simple $x\in H(F)$. Une méthode de descente imitée d’Harish-Chandra ramène alors le problème a un problème similaire, où les fonctions $\theta$ et $f$ vivent cette fois sur les algèbres de Lie $\mathfrak{h}_{x}(F)$ et $\mathfrak{g}_{x}(F)$. Parce que $\theta$ est un quasi-caractère, on peut ensuite exprimer l’avatar de $I_{N}(\theta,f)$ en fonction de la transformée de Fourier de $f$. Il s’avère qu’après cette transformation, l’expression converge beaucoup mieux. On peut maintenant prouver l’existence d’une limite et calculer celle-ci par des méthodes similaires à celles d’Arthur. Le second théorème ci-dessus s’en déduit en remplaçant $\theta$ par $\theta_{\check{\sigma}}$ et $f$ par un coefficient de $\pi$. On montre en effet facilement que $m(\sigma,\pi)$ est essentiellement la limite de $I_{N}(\theta,f)$ quand $N$ tend vers l’infini.
Les trois premières sections sont consacrées aux notations et à divers rappels d’analyse harmonique. Les sections 4 à 6 établissent les propriétés qui nous seront utiles des quasi-caractères et des fonctions très cuspidales. Les sections 7 à 12 sont consacrées à l’étude de l’expression $I_{N}(\theta,f)$ définie ci-dessus et au calcul de sa limite. La preuve des deux théorèmes est donnée dans la section 13.
Notations et premières définitions
==================================
Groupes
-------
Soit $F$ un corps local non archimédien de caractéristique nulle. On en fixe une clôture algébrique $\bar{F}$. On note $val_F$ et $\vert .\vert _F$ les valuation et valeur absolue usuelles de $F$ et on note de la même façon leurs prolongements à $\bar{F}$. On note$\mathfrak{o}_{F}$ l’anneau des entiers de $F$, ${\mathbb F}_{q}$ son corps résiduel et on fixe une uniformisante $\varpi_{F}$.
Tous les groupes algébriques sont supposés définis sur $F$. Soit $G$ un groupe algébrique réductif connexe. On note aussi $G$ son groupe de points sur $\bar{F}$, c’est-à-dire $G=G(\bar{F})$. On note $A_G$ le plus grand tore déployé central dans $G$, $X(G)$ le groupe des caractères définis sur $F$ de $G$, ${\cal A}_G=Hom(X(G),{\mathbb R})$ et ${\cal A}^*=X(G)\otimes_{\mathbb Z}{\mathbb R}$ le dual de ${\cal A}$. On définit l’homomorphisme $H_G:G(F)\to {\cal A}_G$ par $H_G(g)(\chi)=log(\vert \chi(g)\vert _F)$ pour tous $g\in G(F)$ et $\chi\in X(G)$. On note $\mathfrak{g}$ l’algèbre de Lie de $G$ et $$\begin{array}{ccc}G\times\mathfrak{g}&\to&\mathfrak{g}\\(g,X)&\mapsto&gXg^{-1}\\ \end{array}$$ l’action adjointe. On appelle Lévi de $G$ un sous-groupe $M$ tel qu’il existe un sous-groupe parabolique $P$ de $G$ (défini sur $F$) de sorte que $M$ soit une composante de Lévi de $P$. Pour un tel Lévi, on note ${\cal P}(M)$ l’ensemble des sous-groupes paraboliques de $G$ de composante de Lévi $M$, ${\cal L}(M)$ celui des Lévi de $G$ contenant $M$ et ${\cal F}(M)$ celui des sous-groupes paraboliques de $G$ contenant $M$. Pour $Q\in {\cal F}(M)$, on notera sans plus de commentaire $Q=LU$ la décomposition de $Q$ en sa composante de Lévi $L$ contenant $M$ et son radical unipotent $U$. Il y a une décomposition naturelle ${\cal A}_M={\cal A}_M^G\oplus{\cal A}_G$. On note $proj_M^G$ et $proj_G$ les projections sur chacun des facteurs. Le sous-espace ${\cal A}_M^G$ est engendré par l’ensemble $\check{\Sigma}_M$ des coracines indivisibles. A un élément $P$ de ${\cal P}(M)$ est associé une chambre positive ${\cal A}_P^+\subset {\cal A}_M$ et un sous-ensemble de coracines simples $\check{\Delta}_P\subset \check{\Sigma}_M$. Bruhat et Tits ont défini la notion de sous-groupe compact spécial de $G(F)$. Si $K$ est un tel sous-groupe et $M$ est un Lévi de $G$, on dit que $K$ est en bonne position relativement à $M$ s’il existe un sous-tore déployé maximal $A\subset M$ de sorte que $K$ fixe un point spécial de l’appartement associé à $A$ dans l’immeuble de $G$. Supposons qu’il en soit ainsi et soit $P=MU\in {\cal P}(M)$. On définit la fonction $H_P:G(F)\to {\cal A}_M$ par $H_P(g)=H_M(m)$ pour $g=muk\in G(F)$, avec $m\in M(F)$, $u\in U(F)$, $k\in K$. Suivant Harish-Chandra, on définit une fonction hauteur $\vert \vert .\vert \vert $ sur $G(F)$, à valeurs dans ${\mathbb R}_{\geq 1}=\{x\in {\mathbb R}; x\geq 1\}$ et (en modifiant légèrement la définition d’Harish-Chandra) une fonction $\sigma$ par $\sigma(g)=sup(1,log(\vert \vert g\vert \vert ))$. On définit une fonction sur $\mathfrak{g}(F)$, également notée $\sigma$, de la façon suivante. On fixe une base de $\mathfrak{g}(F)$ sur $F$. Pour $X\in \mathfrak{g}(F)$, on pose $\sigma(X)=sup(1,sup\{-val_{F}(X_{i})\})$, où les $X_{i}$ sont les coordonnées de $X$. Le cas échéant, on ajoutera des exposants $^{G}$ aux notations que l’on vient d’introduire pour préciser le groupe ambiant.
Soit $G$ un groupe. On note $Z_G$ son centre. Soit $A$ un ensemble muni d’une action de $G$. Pour un sous-ensemble $B\subset A$, on note $Z_G(B)$ le centralisateur de $B$ dans $G$ et $Norm_G(B)$ le normalisateur. Si $B=\{x\}$, on note simplement $Z_G(x)=Z_G(\{x\})$. Quand $A=G$, on suppose implicitement que l’action de $G$ est l’action par conjugaison. De même si $G$ est un groupe algébrique linéaire et $A=\mathfrak{g}$ est son algèbre de Lie. Pour une fonction $f$ sur $A$ et pour $g\in G$, on note $^gf$ la fonction $a\mapsto f(g^{-1}(a))$.
Quand $G$ est un groupe algébrique linéaire, on note $G^0$ sa composante neutre. Pour $x\in G$, resp. $X\in \mathfrak{g}$, on note $G_x=Z_G(x)^0$, resp. $G_{X}=Z_{G}(X)^0$, la composante neutre du centralisateur de $x$, resp. $X$.
Soit $G$ un groupe réductif connexe. On note $G_{ss}$ l’ensemble de ses éléments semi-simples et $G_{reg}$ le sous-ensemble des éléments semi-simples réguliers. On définit de même $\mathfrak{g}_{ss}$ et $\mathfrak{g}_{reg}$. Pour $x\in G_{ss}(F)$, l’opérateur $ad(x)-1$ est défini et inversible sur $\mathfrak{g}(F)/\mathfrak{g}_{x}(F)$, on pose: $$D^G(x)=\vert det(ad(x)-1)_{\vert \mathfrak{g}(F)/\mathfrak{g}_{x}(F)})\vert _{F}.$$ De même, pour $X\in \mathfrak{g}_{ss}(F)$, on pose: $$D^G(X)=\vert det(ad(X)_{\vert \mathfrak{g}(F)/\mathfrak{g}_{X}(F)})\vert _{F}.$$ Pour tout sous-ensemble $\Gamma\subset G(F)$, on pose $\Gamma^G=\{g^{-1}\gamma g; g\in G(F), \gamma\in \Gamma\}$. On dit qu’un sous-ensemble $\Omega\subset G(F)$ est compact modulo conjugaison s’il existe un sous-ensemble compact $\Gamma\subset G(F)$ tel que $\Omega\subset \Gamma^G$
Mesures
--------
On fixe pour tout l’article un caractère continu et non trivial $\psi:F\to {\mathbb C}^{\times}$. Soit $G$ un groupe réductif connexe. On munit $\mathfrak{g}(F)$ d’une forme bilinéaire symétrique non dégénérée $<.,.>$ invariante par conjugaison par $G(F)$. Pour tout ensemble topologique $X$ totalement discontinu, on note $C_{c}^{\infty}(X)$ l’espace des fonctions sur $X$, à valeurs dans ${\mathbb C}$, localement constantes et à support compact. On définit la transformation de Fourier $f\mapsto \hat{f}$ de $C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathfrak{g}(F))$ dans lui-même par $$\hat{f}(X)=\int_{\mathfrak{g}(F)} f(Y)\psi(<X,Y>)dY,$$ où $dY$ est la mesure de Haar autoduale, c’est-à-dire telle que $\hat{\hat{f}}(X)=f(-X)$. L’espace $\mathfrak{g}(F)$ sera toujours muni de cette mesure. Si $H$ est un sous-groupe réductif de $G$, le même procédé munit $\mathfrak{h}(F)$ d’une mesure.
On note $Nil(\mathfrak{g})$ l’ensemble des orbites nilpotentes. Soit ${\cal O}$ une telle orbite. Pour $X\in {\cal O}$, la forme bilinéaire $(Y,Z)\mapsto <X, [Y,Z] >$ sur $\mathfrak{g}(F)$ se descend en une forme symplectique sur $\mathfrak{g}(F)/\mathfrak{g}_{X}(F)$, c’est-à-dire sur l’espace tangent à ${\cal O}$ au point $X$. Ainsi, ${\cal O}$ est muni d’une structure de variété $F$-analytique symplectique et on en déduit une mesure “autoduale” sur ${\cal O}$. Cette mesure est invariante par conjugaison par $G(F)$.
Appelons $G$-domaine dans $G(F)$, resp. $\mathfrak{g}(F)$, un sous-ensemble de $G(F)$, resp. $\mathfrak{g}(F)$, qui est ouvert, fermé et invariant par conjugaison. On sait que l’on peut définir une application exponentielle $exp:\omega\to \Omega$, où $\omega$ est un certain $G$-domaine dans $\mathfrak{g}(F)$ contenant $0$ et $\Omega$ un certain $G$-domaine dans $G(F)$ contenant $1$. Cette application est un homéomorphisme équivariant pour les actions de $G(F)$. On a déjà muni $\mathfrak{g}(F)$ d’une mesure et on munit $G(F)$ de la mesure de Haar telle que le Jacobien de l’exponentielle soit égal à $1$ au point $0\in \mathfrak{g}(F)$. On définit de même une mesure de Haar sur $H(F)$ pour tout sous-groupe réductif $H$ contenu dans $G$. Si $K$ est un sous-groupe compact spécial de $G(F)$, on munit $K$ de la mesure de Haar de masse totale $1$. Soient $M$ un Lévi de $G$ et $P=MU\in {\cal P}(M)$. On doit munir $U(F)$ d’une mesure de Haar. On sera toujours dans l’une des situations suivantes. Ou bien le choix de la mesure sera sans importance et on ne la précisera pas. Ou bien sera fixé un sous-groupe compact spécial $K$ de $G(F)$ en bonne position relativement à $M$. Dans ce cas on choisira la mesure telle que, pour toute $f\in C_{c}^{\infty}(G(F))$, on ait l’égalité: $$\int_{G(F)}f(g)dg=\int_{K}\int_{U(F)}\int_{M(F)}f(muk)dm\,du\,dk.$$ Autrement dit, de sorte que l’on ait l’égalité: $$mes(K,dg)=mes(K\cap M(F),dm)mes(K\cap U(F),du),$$ avec une notation évidente. En inversant le procédé ci-dessus, on munit aussi $\mathfrak{u}(F)$ d’une mesure. Dans la situation ci-dessus, pour $f\in C_{c}^{\infty}(G(F))$, on définit $f_{P}\in C_{c}^{\infty}(M(F))$ par: $$f_{P}(m)=\delta_{P}(m)^{1/2} \int_{K}\int_{U(F)}f(muk)du\,dk,$$ où $\delta_{P}$ est le module usuel.
Soit $T$ un sous-tore de $G$. Le groupe $T(F)$ est muni d’une mesure par la définition ci-dessus, notons-la $dt$. Il y a une autre mesure de Haar qui intervient naturellement dans la théorie, que l’on note $d_{c}t$, et qui est définie de la façon suivante. Si $T$ est déployé, le sous-groupe compact maximal de $T(F)$ est de volume $1$ pour $d_{c}t$. En général, $d_{c}t$ est compatible avec la mesure que l’on vient de définir sur $A_{T}(F)$ et avec la mesure sur $T(F)/A_{T}(F)$ de masse totale $1$. Pour éviter les confusions, nous n’utiliserons que la mesure $dt$, mais il sera nécessaire d’introduire dans nos formules la constante $\nu(T)$ définie par $d_{c}t=\nu(T)dt$.
Soit $M$ un Lévi de $G$. On munit ${\cal A}_{M}^G$ de la mesure pour laquelle le quotient $${\cal A}_{M}^G/proj_{M}^G(H_{M}(A_{M}(F)))$$ est de volume $1$.
Intégrales orbitales pondérées
===============================
$(G,M)$-familles
-----------------
Un groupe réductif connexe $G$ est fixé pour toutes les sections 2 à 6. On fixe aussi une forme bilinéaire sur $\mathfrak{g}(F)$ comme en 1.2. Soit $M$ un Lévi de $G$. Arthur a introduit la notion de $(G,M)$-famille: c’est une famille $(c_{P})_{P\in {\cal P}(M)}$ de fonctions $C^{\infty}$ sur $i{\cal A}_{M}^*$ (où $i=\sqrt{-1}$) vérifiant une certaine condition de compatibilité (\[A1\] p.36). Considérons une telle $(G,M)$-famille. On sait lui associer un nombre complexe $c_{M}$ (\[A1\] p.37). On a besoin pour cela d’une mesure sur ${\cal A}_{M}$: on l’a fixée dans la section précédente. Soit $L\in {\cal L}(M)$. On déduit de notre $(G,M)$-famille une $(G,L)$-famille, on note $c_{L}$ le nombre qui lui est associé. Soit $Q\in {\cal P}(L)$. On déduit aussi de la famille de départ une $(L,M)$-famille dont on note $c_{L}^Q$ le nombre associé.
Soit $(Y_{P})_{P\in {\cal P}(M)}$ une famille d’éléments de ${\cal A}_{M}$. On dit qu’elle est $(G,M)$-orthogonale, resp. et positive, si elle vérifie la condition suivante. Soient $P$ et $P'$ deux éléments adjacents de ${\cal P}(M)$. Il y a une unique coracine $\check{\alpha}$ telle que $\check{\alpha}\in \check{\Delta}_{P}$ et $-\check{\alpha}\in \check{\Delta}_{P'}$. On demande que $Y_{P}-Y_{P'}\in {\mathbb R}\check{\alpha}$, resp. $Y_{P}-Y_{P'}\in {\mathbb R}_{\geq 0}\check{\alpha}$. Pour $P\in {\cal P}(M)$, définissons une fonction $c_{P}$ sur $i{\cal A}_{M}^*$ par $c_{P}(\lambda)=e^{-\lambda(Y_{P})}$. Supposons que la famille $(Y_{P})_{P\in {\cal P}(M)}$ soit $(G,M)$-orthogonale. Alors la famille $(c_{P})_{P\in {\cal P}(M)}$ est une $(G,M)$-famille. Soit $L\in {\cal L}(M)$. La $(G,L)$-famille déduite de cette $(G,M)$-famille est associée à la famille de points $(Y_{Q})_{Q\in {\cal P}(L)}$ ainsi définie: $Y_{Q}=proj_{L}(Y_{P})$ pour n’importe quel $P\in {\cal P}(M)$ tel que $P\subset Q$. De même, soit $Q\in {\cal P}(L)$. Alors la $(L,M)$-famille déduite de notre $(G,M)$-famille est associée à la famille de points $(Y_{P'})_{P'\in {\cal P}^L(M)}$ ainsi définie: $Y_{P'}=Y_{P}$, où $P$ est l’unique élément de ${\cal P}(M)$ tel que $P\subset Q$ et $P\cap L=P'$.
Formules de descente
--------------------
Soient $M$ un Lévi de $G$, $(c_{P})_{P\in {\cal P}(M)}$ et $(d_{P})_{P\in {\cal P}(M)}$ deux $(G,M)$-familles. Pour $P\in {\cal P}(M)$, posons $(cd)_{P}=c_{P}d_{P}$. Alors $((cd)_{P})_{P\in {\cal P}(M)}$ est encore une $(G,M)$-famille. On a une égalité (\[A2\] corollaire 7.4): $$(1)\qquad (cd)_{M}=\sum_{L,L'\in {\cal L}(M)}d_{M}^G(L,L')c_{M}^Qd_{M}^{Q'}.$$ Le terme $d_{M}^G(L,L')$ est un réel positif ou nul, qui est non nul si et seulement si $${\cal A}_{M}^G={\cal A}_{L}^G\oplus {\cal A}_{L'}^G.$$ On a $d_{M}^G(M,G)=d_{M}^G(G,M)=1$. On doit fixer un paramètre auxiliaire $\xi\in {\cal A}_{M}^G$, en position générale. Pour $L,L'$ vérifiant la condition précédente, notons $\xi_{L}$ et $\xi_{L'}$ les projections de $\xi$ sur chacun des facteurs. Alors $Q$ est l’unique élément de ${\cal P}(L)$ tel que $\xi_{L}\in {\cal A}_{Q}^+$ et $Q'$ est défini de façon similaire.
Supposons que $(d_{P})_{P\in {\cal P}(M)}$ est associée à une famille $(G,M)$-orthogonale de points $(Y_{P})_{P\in {\cal P}(M)}$. Alors: $$(2) \qquad (cd)_{M}=\sum_{Q\in {\cal F}(M)}c_{M}^Qu_{Q}(Y_{Q}),$$ où, pour $Q=LU$, $u_{Q}$ est une fonction sur ${\cal A}_{L}$, bien sûr indépendante de nos $(G,M)$-familles. La fonction $u_{G}$ est constante de valeur $1$. La formule résulte de \[A1\] (6.3) et lemme 6.3.
Pour une seule $(G,M)$-famille $(c_{P})_{P\in {\cal P}(M)}$ et pour $L\in {\cal L}(M)$, on a aussi: $$(3) \qquad c_{L}=\sum_{L'\in {\cal L}(M)}d_{M}^G(L,L')c_{M}^{Q'},$$ avec les mêmes définitions qu’en (1).
Intégrales orbitales pondérées
-------------------------------
Soient $M$ un Lévi de $G$ et $K$ et sous-groupe compact spécial de $G(F)$ en bonne position relativement à $M$. Pour $g\in G(F)$, la famille de points $(H_{P}(g))_{P\in {\cal P}(M)}$ est $(G,M)$-orthogonale et positive. On note $(v_{P}(g))_{P\in {\cal P}(M)}$ la $(G,M)$-famille associée et $v_{M}(g)$ le nombre associé à cette $(G,M)$-famille. La fonction $g\mapsto v_{M}(g)$ est invariante à gauche par $M(F)$ et à droite par $K$.
Soient $f\in C_{c}^{\infty}(G(F))$ et $x\in M(F)\cap G_{reg}(F)$. On définit l’intégrale orbitale pondérée $$J_{M}(x,f)=D^G(x)^{1/2}\int_{G_{x}(F)\backslash G(F)}f(g^{-1}xg)v_{M}(g)dg.$$ L’intégrale a un sens puisque $G_{x}=M_{x}\subset M$.
0.3cm[**[Lemme]{}**]{}.
**
\(i) Soit $f\in C_{c}^{\infty}(G(F))$. La fonction $x\mapsto J_{M}(x,f)$ définie sur $M(F)\cap G_{reg}(F)$ est localement constante et invariante par conjugaison par $M(F)$. L’adhérence dans $M(F)$ de son support est compacte modulo conjugaison.
\(ii) Il existe un entier $k\geq 0$ et, pour toute $f\in C_{c}^{\infty}(G(F))$, il existe $c>0$ de sorte que l’on ait l’inégalité: $$\vert J_{M}(x,f)\vert \leq c(1+\vert log\,D^G(x)\vert )^k$$ pour tout $x\in M(F)\cap G_{reg}(F)$.
0.3cm
Preuve. Le (i) est évident. Le (ii) est dû à Arthur mais nous allons rappeler la démonstration car nous l’utiliserons plus loin. D’après le (i), on peut fixer un sous-tore maximal $T$ de $M$, un sous-ensemble compact $\omega\subset T(F)$ et se contenter de majorer $\vert J_{M}(x,f)\vert $ pour $x\in \omega$. Fixons une norme sur ${\cal A}_{M}$. Il existe $c>0$ tel que, pour tout $P\in {\cal P}(M)$ et tout $g\in G(F)$, on ait l’inégalité $\vert H_{P}(g)\vert \leq c\sigma(g)$. Par construction, $v_{M}(g)$ est polynomial en les $H_{P}(g)$, il y a donc un entier $k\geq 0$ et $c>0$ tel que $v_{M}(g)\leq c\sigma(g)^k$. Posons $\sigma_{T}(g)=inf\{\sigma(tg); t\in T(F)\}$. Puisque $v_{M}(g)$ est invariante à gauche par $T(F)\subset M(F)$, on a même $v_{M}(g)\leq c\sigma_{T}(g)^k$. Rappelons le lemme 4.2 de \[A3\], qui précise un résultat de Harish-Chandra. Pour tous sous-ensembles compacts $\Omega\subset T(F)$ et $\Gamma\subset G(F)$, il existe $c>0$ de sorte que, pour tout $x\in \Omega$ et tout $g\in G(F)$ tels que $g^{-1}xg\in \Gamma$, on ait l’inégalité: $$(1) \qquad \sigma_{T}(g)\leq c(1+\vert log\,D^G(x)\vert ).$$ On applique cela à $\Omega=\omega$ et au support $\Gamma$ de $f$. Alors pour $x\in \omega\cap G_{reg}(F)$, on peut majorer le terme $v_{M}(g)$ intervenant dans la définition de $J_{M}(x,f)$ par $c(1+\vert log\,D^G(x)\vert )^k$, où $c$ dépend de $f$ mais pas $k$. On obtient: $$\vert J_{M}(x,f)\vert\leq c (1+\vert log\,D^G(x)\vert )^k D^G(x)^{1/2}\int_{G_{x}(F)\backslash G(F)}\vert f(g^{-1}xg)\vert dg$$ $$\qquad \leq c(1+\vert log\,D^G(x)\vert )^k J_{G}(x,\vert f\vert ).$$ D’après \[HCvD\] théorème 13, $J_{G}(x,\vert f\vert )$ est borné sur $\omega\cap G_{reg}(F)$ et cela conclut. $\square$
Formule des traces locale
--------------------------
Soient $M_{min}$ un Lévi minimal de $G$ et $K$ un sous-groupe compact spécial de $G(F)$ en bonne position relativement à $M_{min}$. Les définitions du paragraphe précédent se descendent à l’algèbre de Lie: pour tous $M\in {\cal L}(M_{min})$, $X\in \mathfrak{m}(F)\cap \mathfrak{g}_{reg}(F)$, $f\in C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathfrak{g}(F))$, on définit l’intégrale orbitale pondérée $J_{M}(X,f)$.
Soient $f,f'\in C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathfrak{g}(F))$. Pour $M\in {\cal L}(M_{min})$ et $X\in\mathfrak{m}(F)\cap \mathfrak{g}_{reg}(F)$, posons: $$J_{M}(X,f,f')=\sum_{L,L'\in {\cal L}(M)}d_{M}^G(L,L')J_{M}^L(X,f_{\bar{Q}})J_{M}^{L'}(X,f'_{Q'})$$ Les définitions sont les mêmes qu’en 2.2(1); $\bar{Q}$ est le sous-groupe parabolique opposé à $Q$. On note $W^M=Norm_{M}(M_{min})/M_{min}$, $a_{M}=dim(A_{M})$. Pour un sous-tore maximal $T$ de $M$, on pose $W(M,T)=Norm_{M(F)}(T)/T(F)$. On dit que $T$ est elliptique dans $M$ si $A_{T}=A_{M}$. On fixe un ensemble ${\cal T}_{ell}(M)$ de représentants des classes de conjugaison de sous-tores maximaux de $M$, elliptiques dans $M$. Posons: $$J(f,f')=\sum_{M\in {\cal L}(M_{min})}\vert W^M\vert \vert W^G\vert ^{-1}(-1)^{a_{G}-a_{M}}\sum_{T\in {\cal T}_{ell}(M)}\vert W(M,T)\vert ^{-1}\nu(T)^{-1}\int_{\mathfrak{t}(F)}J_{M}(X,f,f') dX.$$ Cette expression est absolument convergente en vertu du lemme 2.3(ii) et du lemme suivant.
[0.3cm[**[Lemme]{}**]{}. [ *[Soient $V$ un espace vectoriel de dimension finie sur $F$ et $(R_{i})_{i=1,...,n}$ une famille finie de polynômes non nuls sur $V$. Alors la fonction $v\mapsto \prod_{i=1,...,n}log(\vert R_{i}(v)\vert _{F})$ est localement intégrable sur $V$. $\square$]{}*]{}0.3cm]{}
[0.3cm[**[Théorème]{}**]{}. [ *[Pour toutes $f,f'\in C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathfrak{g}(F))$, on a l’égalité $J(\hat{f},f')=J(f,\hat{f}')$.]{}*]{}0.3cm]{}
Cf. \[W1\] théorème 5.2, qui reprenait \[A3\]. Il n’y a pas de $\nu(T)$ dans \[W1\], ce qui est dû au fait que les mesures sur les tores n’y sont pas les mêmes que les nôtres (il y a d’ailleurs aussi dans cette référence une erreur dans la définition des mesures sur les espaces ${\cal A}_{M}$).
La condition (H)
----------------
On conserve les mêmes hypothèses. Pour $\varphi\in C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathfrak{g}(F))$, considérons la condition:
[0.3cm[**[(H)]{}**]{}. [ *[pour tout $M\in {\cal L}(M_{min})$, il existe $\varphi_{M}\in C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathfrak{m}(F))$ telle que $\varphi_{P}=\varphi_{M}$ pour tout $P\in {\cal P}(M)$.]{}*]{}0.3cm]{}
En vertu de l’égalité $(\hat{\varphi})_{P}=(\varphi_{P}){\hat{}}$, $\varphi$ vérifie (H) si et seulement $\hat{\varphi}$ vérifie (H). En général, pour tout sous-ensemble $B$ d’un ensemble $A$, notons ${\bf 1}_{B}$ la fonction caractéristique de $B$ dans $A$. Si $\Omega$ est un $G$-domaine dans $\mathfrak{g}(F)$ et si $\varphi$ vérifie (H), alors $\varphi{\bf 1}_{\Omega}$ vérifie aussi (H) et on a $(\varphi{\bf 1}_{\Omega})_{M}=\varphi_{M}{\bf 1}_{\Omega\cap \mathfrak{m}(F)}$ pour tout $M$.
Pour tout sous-ensemble $B\subset \mathfrak{g}(F)$, posons $B^K=\{k^{-1}Xk; k\in K, X\in B\}$. Posons: $$\Omega=\bigcup_{M\in {\cal L}(M_{min})}\bigcup_{T\in{\cal T}_{ell}(M)}(\mathfrak{t}(F)\cap\mathfrak{g}_{reg}(F))^K.$$ C’est un ouvert de $\mathfrak{g}(F)$.
0.3cm[**[Lemme]{}**]{}.
**
Soit $\varphi\in C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathfrak{g}(F))$.
\(i) Supposons $Supp(\varphi)\subset \Omega$. Alors $\varphi$ vérifie (H).
\(ii) Supposons $Supp(\varphi)\subset \mathfrak{g}_{reg}(F)$. Alors il existe une familles finie $(\varphi_{i})_{i=1,...,n}$ d’éléments de $C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathfrak{g}(F))$ et une famille finie $(g_{i})_{i=1,...,n}$ d’éléments de $G(F)$ telles que $\varphi_{i} $ vérifie (H) pour tout $i$ et $\varphi=\sum_{i=1,...,n}{^{g_{i}}\varphi_{i}}$.
0.3cm
Preuve. Supposons $Supp(\varphi)\subset \Omega$. Soient $P=MU\in {\cal F}(M_{min})$ et $X\in \mathfrak{m}(F)\cap \mathfrak{g}_{reg}(F)$. Par un calcul familier, on a l’égalité: $$\varphi_{P}(X)=D^G(X)^{1/2}D^M(X)^{-1/2}\int_{K}\int_{U(F)}\varphi(k^{-1}u^{-1}Xuk)du\,dk.$$ Soit $u\in U(F)$ pour lequel il existe $k\in K$ tel que $\varphi(k^{-1}u^{-1}Xuk)\not=0$. Alors $u^{-1}Xu\in \Omega$ et on peut fixer $L\in {\cal L}(M_{min})$, $T\in {\cal T}_{ell}(L)$, $Y\in \mathfrak{t}(F)\cap \mathfrak{g}_{reg}(F)$ et $k\in K$ de sorte que $u^{-1}Xu=kYk^{-1}$. Posons $g=uk$. On a $gYg^{-1}=X$, donc $gTg^{-1}$ est le commutant $G_{X}$ de $X$. Le plus grand tore déployé de $gTg^{-1}$ est $gA_{L}g^{-1}$. Celui de $G_{X}$ contient $A_{M}$. Donc $A_{M}\subset gA_{L}g^{-1}\subset gA_{M_{min}}g^{-1}$. Puisque $M$ est le commutant de $A_{M}$, on a $gA_{M_{min}}g^{-1}\subset M$. Alors $A_{M_{min}}$ et $gA_{M_{min}}g^{-1}$ sont deux tores déployés maximaux de $M$, ils sont donc conjugués par un élément de $M(F)$. Fixons $m\in M(F)$ tel que $mgA_{M_{min}}g^{-1}m^{-1}=A_{M_{min}}$. D’après Bruhat et Tits, le normalisateur $Norm_{G(F)}(A_{M_{min}})$ est contenu dans $M_{min}(F)K$. Donc $mg\in M_{min}(F)K$, puis $g\in M(F)K$ et enfin $u\in M(F)K$. Parce que $K$ est en bonne position relativement à $M$, cela entraîne $u\in U(F)\cap K$. Donc: $$\varphi_{P}(X)=D^G(X)^{1/2}D^M(X)^{-1/2}\int_{K}\int_{U(F)\cap K}\varphi(k^{-1}u^{-1}Xuk)du\,dk.$$ L’intégrale sur $U(F)\cap K$ est absorbée par celle sur $K$, on obtient: $$\varphi_{P}(X)=D^G(X)^{1/2}D^M(X)^{-1/2}(mes(U(F)\cap K))\int_{K}\varphi(k^{-1}Xk)dk.$$ Comme on l’a remarqué en 1.2, $mes(U(F)\cap K)$ ne dépend pas du sous-groupe parabolique $P\in {\cal P}(M)$. L’expression ci-dessus n’en dépend donc pas non plus et c’est la condition pour que $\varphi$ vérifie (H).
Supposons maintenant que $Supp(\varphi)\subset \mathfrak{g}_{reg}(F)$. Pour tout $X\in Supp(\varphi)$, fixons $g_{X}\in G(F)$ tel que $$g_{X}^{-1}Xg_{X}\in \bigcup_{M\in {\cal L}(M_{min})}\bigcup_{T\in{\cal T}_{ell}(M)}\mathfrak{t}(F)\cap\mathfrak{g}_{reg}(F),$$ puis un voisinage $\omega_{X}$ de $X$ tel que $g_{X}^{-1}\omega_{X}g_{X}\subset \Omega$. Une partition de l’unité nous ramène au cas où $Supp(\varphi)$ est contenu dans un tel voisinage $\omega_{X}$. Dans ce cas, $\varphi={^{g_{X}}\varphi'}$, où $\varphi'={^{g_{X}^{-1}}\varphi}$. Mais $Supp(\varphi')\subset \Omega$, donc $\varphi'$ vérifie (H). $\square$
Transformées de Fourier d’intégrales orbitales, germes de Shalika
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pour tout ${\cal O}\in Nil(\mathfrak{g})$, on définit l’intégrale orbitale nilpotente $$J_{{\cal O}}(f)=\int_{{\cal O}}f(X) dX$$ pour $f\in C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathfrak{g}(F))$, et sa transformée de Fourier $$\hat{J}_{{\cal O}}(f)=J_{{\cal O}}(\hat{f}).$$ Pour $\lambda\in F^{\times}$, définissons $f^{\lambda}$ par $f^{\lambda}(X)=f(\lambda X)$. Notons $F^{\times 2} $ le groupe des carrés dans $F^{\times}$. On a l’égalité $$J_{{\cal O}}(f^{\lambda})=\vert \lambda\vert _{F}^{-dim({\cal O})/2}J_{{\cal O}}(f)$$ pour tout $\lambda\in F^{\times 2} $.
On pose $\delta(G)=dim(G)-dim(T)$, où $T$ est n’importe quel sous-tore maximal de $G$. On sait qu’il existe une unique fonction $\Gamma_{{\cal O}}$ sur $\mathfrak{g}_{reg}(F)$, le germe de Shalika associé à ${\cal O}$, vérifiant les deux conditions suivantes:
$$\Gamma_{{\cal O}}(\lambda X)=\vert \lambda\vert _{F}^{(\delta(G)-dim({\cal O}))/2}\Gamma_{{\cal O}}(X)$$ pour tous $X\in \mathfrak{g}_{reg}(F)$ et $\lambda\in F^{\times 2} $;
pour toute $f\in C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathfrak{g}(F))$, il existe un voisinage $\omega$ de $0$ dans $\mathfrak{g}(F)$ tel que: $$J_{G}(X,f)=\sum_{{\cal O}\in Nil(\mathfrak{g})}\Gamma_{{\cal O}}(X)J_{{\cal O}}(f)$$ pour tout $X\in \omega\cap \mathfrak{g}_{reg}(F)$.
Remarquons que $\Gamma_{{\cal O}}$ coïncide sur tout compact avec une intégrale orbitale, en particulier y est borné.
Il existe une unique fonction $\hat{j}$ sur $\mathfrak{g}(F)\times \mathfrak{g}(F)$, localement intégrable, localement constante sur $\mathfrak{g}_{reg}(F)\times \mathfrak{g}_{reg}(F)$, telle que, pour toute $f\in C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathfrak{g}(F))$ et tout $X\in \mathfrak{g}_{reg}(F)$, on ait l’égalité: $$J_{G}(X,\hat{f})=\int_{\mathfrak{g}(F)}f(Y)\hat{j}(X,Y)dY.$$ De même, pour ${\cal O}\in Nil(\mathfrak{g})$, il existe une unique fonction $Y\mapsto\hat{j}({\cal O},Y)$ sur $\mathfrak{g}(F)$, localement intégrable, localement constante sur $\mathfrak{g}_{reg}(F)$, telle que, pour toute fonction $f\in C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathfrak{g}(F))$ , on ait l’égalité: $$\hat{J}_{{\cal O}}(f)=\int_{\mathfrak{g}(F)}f(Y)\hat{j}({\cal O},Y) dY.$$
On a les égalités: $$(1) \qquad \hat{j}(\lambda X,Y)=\vert \lambda\vert_{F} ^{\delta(G)/2}\hat{j}(X,\lambda Y),\,\, \hat{j}({\cal O},\lambda Y)=\vert \lambda\vert _{F}^{-dim({\cal O})/2}\hat{j}({\cal O},Y)$$ pour tous $X,Y\in \mathfrak{g}_{reg}(F)$, ${\cal O}\in Nil(\mathfrak{g})$ et $\lambda\in F^{\times 2} $.
Soient $\omega$ et $\Omega$ deux $G$-domaines dans $\mathfrak{g}(F)$ compacts modulo conjugaison. La conjecture de Howe entraîne l’existence d’une famille finie $(X_{i})_{i=1,...,n}$ d’élements de $\Omega\cap \mathfrak{g}_{reg}(F)$ et d’une famille finie $(f_{i})_{i=1,...,n}$ d’éléments de $C_{c}^{\infty}(\omega)$ vérifiant la condition suivante. Pour toute distribution invariante $D$ dont la transformée de Fourier est à support dans $\Omega$ et toute $f\in C_{c}^{\infty}(\omega)$, on a l’égalité $$(2) \qquad D(f)=\sum_{i=1,...,n}J_{G}(X_{i},\hat{f})D(f_{i}).$$ Il en résulte que, pour $X\in \Omega\cap \mathfrak{g}_{reg}(F)$ et $Y\in \omega\cap \mathfrak{g}_{reg}(F)$, on a l’égalité $$(3) \qquad \hat{j}(X,Y)=\sum_{i=1,...,n}\hat{j}(X_{i},Y)J_{G}(X,\hat{f}_{i}).$$ Au voisinage de $0$, on a un résultat plus précis. Soit $\omega$ un $G$-domaine de $\mathfrak{g}(F)$ compact modulo conjugaison et contenant $0$. Alors il existe un $G$-domaine $\Omega$ de $\mathfrak{g}(F)$ compact modulo conjugaison et contenant $0$ tel que, pour $X\in \Omega\cap \mathfrak{g}_{reg}(F)$ et $Y\in \omega\cap \mathfrak{g}_{reg}(F)$, on ait l’égalité $$(4) \qquad\hat{j}(X,Y)=\sum_{{\cal O}\in Nil(\mathfrak{g})}\Gamma_{{\cal O}}(X)\hat{j}({\cal O},Y).$$
Soient $M$ un Lévi de $G$ et $X\in \mathfrak{m}(F)\cap \mathfrak{g}_{reg}(F)$. Pour $Y\in \mathfrak{g}_{reg}(F)$, fixons un ensemble de représentants $(Y_{i})_{i=1,...,r}$ des classes de conjugaison par $M(F)$ dans l’ensemble des éléments de $\mathfrak{m}(F)$ qui sont conjugués à $Y$ par un élément de $G(F)$. On vérifie l’égalité $$(5) \qquad \hat{j}^G(X,Y)D^G(Y)^{1/2}= \sum_{i=1,...,r}\hat{j}^M(X,Y_{i})D^M(Y_{i})^{1/2} .$$
Voisinages d’éléments semi-simples
==================================
Bons voisinages
---------------
On fixe pour toute la section un élément $x\in G_{ss}(F)$. On dira qu’un sous-ensemble $\omega\subset \mathfrak{g}_{x}(F)$ est un bon voisinage de $0$ s’il vérifie les conditions (1) à (7) ci-dessous.
\(1) L’ensemble $\omega$ est un $G_{x}$-domaine compact modulo conjugaison, invariant par $Z_{G}(x)(F)$ et contenant $0$.
\(2) L’exponentielle est définie sur $\omega$; c’est un homéomorphisme équivariant pour la conjugaison par $Z_{G}(x)(F)$ de $\omega$ sur un $G_{x}$-domaine $exp(\omega)$ de $G_{x}(F)$.
\(3) Pour tout $\lambda\in F^{\times}$ tel que $\vert \lambda\vert _{F}\leq 1$, on a $\lambda\omega\subset \omega$.
\(4) On a l’égalité $$\{g\in G(F); g^{-1}xexp(\omega)g\cap xexp(\omega)\neq\emptyset\}=Z_{G}(x)(F).$$
\(5) Pour tout sous-ensemble compact $\Gamma\subset G(F)$, il existe un sous-ensemble compact $\Gamma'\subset G(F)$ tel que l’on ait l’inclusion: $$\{g\in G(F); g^{-1}xexp(\omega)g\cap \Gamma\neq\emptyset\} \subset G_{x}(F)\Gamma'.$$
Fixons un réel $c_{F}>0$ tel que $c_{F}^k<\vert (k+1)!\vert _{F}$ pour tout entier $k\geq 1$.
\(6) Pour tout sous-tore maximal $T\subset G_{x}$, tout caractère algébrique $\chi$ de $T$ et tout élément $X\in \mathfrak{t}(F)\cap \omega$, on a l’inégalité $\vert \chi(X)\vert_{F}<c_{F}$.
Considérons un sous-espace propre $W\subset \mathfrak{g}(F)$ pour l’opérateur $ad(x)$. Notons $\lambda$ la valeur propre. Soit $X\in \omega$. Alors $ad(X)$ conserve $W$. Soit $W_{X}$ un sous-espace propre de $W$ pour l’opérateur $ad(X)$, de valeur propre $\mu$. Alors $W_{X}$ est aussi un espace propre pour l’opérateur $ad(xexp(X))$, de valeur propre $\lambda exp(\mu)$.
\(7) Supposons $\lambda\neq 1$. Alors $\vert \lambda exp(\mu)-1\vert _{F}=\vert \lambda-1\vert _{F}$.
De bons voisinages de $0$ existent, aussi petits que l’on veut en ce sens que, si $\omega_{0}$ est un voisinage de $0$ dans $\mathfrak{g}_{x}(F)$, il existe un bon voisinage $\omega$ de $0$ tel que $\omega\subset \omega_{0}^{G_{x}}$. Considérons un bon voisinage $\omega$ de $0$. Les conditions (1) et (2) entraînent que l’ensemble $\Omega=(xexp(\omega))^G$ est un $G$-domaine dans $G(F)$, compact modulo conjugaison. La condition (4) entraîne que, pour $X\in \omega$, $Z_{G}(xexp(X))(F)\subset Z_{G}(x)(F)$ et $G_{xexp(X)}=(G_{x})_{X}\subset G_{x}$. On note simplement $G_{x,X}=(G_{x})_{X}$. La condition (6) entraîne que l’exponentielle de $\omega$ sur $exp(\omega)$ préserve les mesures. Plus généralement, elle entraîne qu’un certain nombre de jacobiens qui interviendront plus tard sont égaux à $1$. Les conditions (6) et (7) entraînent que, pour tout $X\in \omega$, on a l’égalité $$D^G(xexp(X))=D^G(x)D^{G_{x}}(X).$$
Une conséquence de la propriété (4) est que, pour toute fonction $\varphi$ sur $\omega$, invariante par conjugaison par $Z_{G}(x)(F)$, il existe une unique fonction $f$ sur $G(F)$, invariante par conjugaison par $G(F)$, à support dans $\Omega$ et telle que $f(xexp(X))=\varphi(X)$ pour tout $\varphi\in \omega$. Si $\varphi$ est localement constante sur $\omega\cap\mathfrak{g}_{reg}(F)$, $f$ est localement constante sur $G_{reg}(F)$.
Le cas échéant, on peut renforcer les conditions imposées aux bons voisinages. Supposons par exemple que $G_{x}$ se décompose en le produit de deux groupes réductifs connexes $G_{x}=G'\times G''$, conservés chacun par $Z_{G}(x)(F)$. On peut imposer
\(8) $\omega=\omega'\times \omega''$, où $\omega'\subset \mathfrak{g}'(F)$ et $\omega''\subset \mathfrak{g}''(F)$ vérifient des conditions analogues à (1) et (2).
Ou bien, supposons fixée une représentation algébrique $\rho$ de $G$ dans un espace vectoriel $V$ de dimension finie sur $F$. Les conditions précédant (7) s’appliquent en remplaçant $\mathfrak{g}(F)$ par $V$ et les opérateurs $ad(x)$, $ad(X)$ et $ad(xexp(X))$ par $\rho(x)$, $\rho(X)$, $\rho(xexp(X))$. On peut imposer une condition $(7)_{\rho}$ analogue à (7) pour les ensembles de valeurs propres ainsi définis.
Correspondance des Lévi
-----------------------
Soit $M$ un Lévi de $G$ contenant $x$. On a l’égalité $M_{x}=M\cap G_{x}$ et ce groupe est un Lévi de $G_{x}$: c’est le commutant de $A_{M}\subset G_{x}$. On a $A_{M}\subset A_{M_{x}}$. Pour $P=MU\in {\cal P}(M)$, on a les égalités $P_{x}=P\cap G_{x}$, $U_{x}=U\cap G_{x}$, $P_{x}=M_{x}U_{x}$ et $P_{x}$ appartient à ${\cal P}(M_{x})={\cal P}^{G_{x}}(M_{x})$. Inversement, soit $R$ un Lévi de $G_{x}$. Notons ${\bf R}$ le commutant de $A_{R}$ dans $G$. C’est un Lévi de $G$. On a:
\(1) $x\in {\bf R}(F)$, ${\bf R}_{x}=M$ et $A_{{\bf R}}=A_{R}$.
Preuve. Puisque $x$ commute à $A_{R}$, $x$ appartient à ${\bf R}(F)$. On sait déjà que $A_{{\bf R}}\subset A_{{\bf R}_{x}}$. Le groupe $R$ commute à $A_{R}$, donc est inclus dans ${\bf R}$, puis dans ${\bf R}\cap G_{x}={\bf R}_{x}$. Cela entraîne $A_{{\bf R}_{x}}\subset A_{R}$. Enfin, par construction de ${\bf R}$, $A_{R}$ est inclus dans $A_{{\bf R}}$. Alors $A_{{\bf R}}=A_{{\bf R}_{x}}=A_{R}$, ce qui entraîne les deux dernières assertions de (1) $\square$
L’application $R\mapsto {\bf R}$ est une bijection de l’ensemble des Lévi de $G_{x}$ sur celui des Lévi $M$ de $G$ contenant $x$ et tels que $A_{M}=A_{M_{x}}$.
Descente des poids
------------------
Fixons un Lévi minimal $R_{min}$ de $G_{x}$, un sous-groupe compact spécial $K_{x}$ de $G_{x}(F)$ en bonne position relativement à $R_{min}$ et un sous-groupe compact spécial $K$ de $G(F)$ en bonne position relativement à ${\bf R}_{min}$. Remarquons que la bijection du paragraphe précédent se restreint en une bijection de ${\cal L}^{G_{x}}(R_{min})$ sur le sous-ensemble des $M\in {\cal L}^G({\bf R}_{min})$ tels que $A_{M}=A_{M_{x}}$. Le Lévi ${\bf R}_{min}$ n’a bien sûr aucune raison d’être minimal dans $G$.
[0.3cm[**[Lemme]{}**]{}. [ *[Soient $R\in {\cal L}(R_{min})$, $g\in G_{x}(F)$ et $y\in G(F)$. On a l’égalité: $$v_{{\bf R}}(gy)=\sum_{S\in{\cal L}(R)}\sum_{Q\in {\cal P}({\bf S})}v_{R}^{Q_{x}}(g)u_{Q}(H_{Q}(gy)-H_{Q_{x}}(g)).$$]{}*]{}0.3cm]{}
Preuve. Pour $P\in {\cal P}({\bf R})$ et $\lambda\in i{\cal A}_{{\bf R}}=i{\cal A}_{R}$, posons $c_{P}(g)(\lambda)=v_{P_{x}}(g)(\lambda)$. D’après \[A4\] p.233, la famille $(c_{P}(g))_{P\in{\cal P}({\bf R})}$ est une $(G,{\bf R})$-famille. Définissons la $(G,{\bf R})$-famille $(d_{P}(g,y))_{P\in {\cal P}({\bf R})}$ par $d_{P}(g,y)=c_{P}(g)^{-1}v_{P}(gy)$. Elle est associée à la famille de points $(H_{P}(gy)-H_{P_{x}}(g))_{P\in {\cal P}({\bf R})}$. On a $v_{P}(gy)=c_{P}(g)d_{P}(g,y)$. D’après 2.2(2), $$v_{{\bf R}}(gy)=\sum_{Q=LU\in {\cal F}({\bf R})}c_{{\bf R}}^Q(g)u_{Q}(H_{Q}(gy)-proj_{L}(H_{Q_{x}}(g))).$$ Soit $Q=LU\in {\cal F}({\bf R})$. D’après \[A4\], lemme 4.1, $$c_{{\bf R}}^Q(g)=\sum_{S\in {\cal L}(R)}d_{R}^L({\bf R},S)v_{R}^{Q_{S}}(g).$$ Le groupe $Q_{S}$ appartient à ${\cal P}(S)$ et est contenu dans $Q_{x}$. La constante $d_{R}^L({\bf R},S)$ est similaire à celle de 2.2. La condition $d_{R}^L({\bf R},S)\neq 0$ impose ${\cal A}_{R}^L={\cal A}_{{\bf R}}^L\oplus {\cal A}_{S}^L$. Or ${\cal A}_{R}={\cal A}_{{\bf R}}$. Donc ${\cal A}_{S}={\cal A}_{L}$. Mais alors $L={\bf S}$ et $Q_{S}=Q_{x}$. On obtient: $$c_{{\bf R}}^Q(g)=\left\lbrace\begin{array}{cc}v_{R}^{Q_{x}}(g),&\,\,{\rm si}\,\,L={\bf S}\,\,{\rm pour\,\,un}\,\,S\in {\cal P}(R),\\ 0,&\,\,{\rm sinon.}\\ \end{array}\right.$$ Dans le cas où $L={\bf S}$ pour un $S\in {\cal P}(R)$, on a $H_{Q_{x}}(g)\in {\cal A}_{S}={\cal A}_{L}$, donc $proj_{L}(H_{Q_{x}}(g))=H_{Q_{x}}(g)$. Toutes ces formules conduisent à celle de l’énoncé. $\square$
Quasi-caractères
================
Quasi-caractères de $G(F)$
--------------------------
Soit $\theta$ une fonction définie presque partout sur $G(F)$ et invariante par conjugaison. On dit que c’est un quasi-caractère si et seulement si, pour tout $x\in G_{ss}(F)$, il existe un bon voisinage $\omega$ de $0$ dans $\mathfrak{g}_{x}(F)$ et, pour tout ${\cal O}\in Nil(\mathfrak{g}_{x})$, il existe $c_{\theta,{\cal O}}(x)\in{\mathbb C}$ de sorte que l’on ait l’égalité $$(1) \qquad \theta(xexp(X))=\sum_{{\cal O}\in Nil(\mathfrak{g}_{x})}c_{\theta,{\cal O}}(x)\hat{j}({\cal O},X)$$ presque partout pour $X\in \omega$. Autrement dit, pour toute $f\in C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathfrak{g}_{x}(F))$ à support dans $\omega$, on a l’égalité $$\int_{\mathfrak{g}_{x}(F)}\theta(xexp(X))f(X)dX=\sum_{{\cal O}\in Nil(\mathfrak{g}_{x})}c_{\theta,{\cal O}}(x) \hat{J}_{{\cal O}}(f).$$ Les coefficients $c_{\theta,{\cal O}}(x)$ sont uniquement déterminés.
Soit $\theta$ un quasi-caractère. Alors $\theta$ est localement intégrable sur $G(F)$ et localement constant sur $G_{reg}(F)$. Pour tout $G$-domaine $\Omega$ dans $G(F)$, $\theta{\bf 1}_{\Omega}$ est un quasi-caractère. Soient $x\in G_{ss}(F)$ et $\omega$ un bon voisinage de $0$ dans $\mathfrak{g}_{x}(F)$. On dit que $\theta$ est développable dans $xexp(\omega)$ si l’égalité (1) est vérifiée pour $X\in \omega\cap \mathfrak{g}_{reg}(F)$.
Quasi-caractères de $\mathfrak{g}(F)$
-------------------------------------
La définition précédente s’adapte aux algèbres de Lie. Soit $\theta$ une fonction définie presque partout sur $\mathfrak{g}(F)$. On dit que c’est un quasi-caractère si et seulement si, pour tout $X\in \mathfrak{g}_{ss}(F)$, il existe un $G_{X}$-domaine $\omega$ dans $\mathfrak{g}_{X}(F)$, contenant $0$, et, pour tout ${\cal O}\in Nil(\mathfrak{g}_{X})$, il existe $c_{\theta,{\cal O}}(X)\in{\mathbb C}$ de sorte que l’on ait l’égalité $$(1) \qquad \theta(X+Y)=\sum_{{\cal O}\in Nil(\mathfrak{g}_{X})}c_{\theta,{\cal O}}(X)\hat{j}({\cal O},Y)$$ presque partout pour $Y\in \omega$. Les quasi-caractères de $\mathfrak{g}(F)$ ont des propriétés similaires à celles des quasi-caractères de $G(F)$.
Soit $\theta$ un quasi-caractère. On note simplement $c_{\theta,{\cal O}}=c_{\theta,{\cal O}}(0)$ les coefficients du développement de $\theta$ au point $0$. Soit $\lambda\in F^{\times 2} $. Alors $\theta^{\lambda}$ est un quasi-caractère. Soient $X\in \mathfrak{g}_{ss}(F)$ et $\omega$ comme ci-dessus, tel que $\theta$ soit développable dans $X+\omega$. Alors $\theta^{\lambda}$ est développable dans $\lambda^{-1}X+\lambda^{-1}\omega$. Remarquons que $\mathfrak{g}_{\lambda^{-1}X}=\mathfrak{g}_{X}$. Pour tout ${\cal O}\in Nil(\mathfrak{g}_{X})$, on a l’égalité $$(2) \qquad c_{\theta^{\lambda},{\cal O}}(\lambda^{-1}X)=\vert \lambda\vert _{F}^{-dim({\cal O})/2}c_{\theta,{\cal O}}(X).$$ Cela résulte immédiatement des formules de 2.6.
[0.3cm[**[Théorème]{}**]{}. [ *[Soit $D$ une distribution sur $\mathfrak{g}(F)$, invariante par conjugaison et à support compact modulo conjugaison. Alors sa transformée de Fourier est la distribution associée à une fonction localement intégrable $\theta$ qui est un quasi-caractère.]{}*]{}0.3cm]{}
C’est un résultat d’Harish-Chandra. La première assertion résulte du théorème 4.4 de \[HCDS\]. La dernière n’est pas très clairement énoncée dans cette référence mais résulte de la preuve du théorème 4.4, en particulier du théorème 5.11 et du corollaire 6.10.
Localisation
------------
On fixe un élément $x\in G_{ss}(F)$ et un bon voisinage $\omega$ de $0$ dans $\mathfrak{g}_{x}(F)$. Soit $\theta$ un quasi-caractère de $G(F)$. On définit une fonction $\theta_{x,\omega}$ sur $\mathfrak{g}_{x}(F)$ par $$\theta_{x,\omega}(X)=\left\lbrace\begin{array}{cc}\theta(xexp(X)),&\,\,{\rm si}\,\,X\in \omega,\\ 0,&\,\,{\rm sinon}.\\ \end{array}\right.$$ Alors $\theta_{x,\omega}$ est un quasi-caractère de $\mathfrak{g}_{x}(F)$. On a les égalités $c_{\theta,{\cal O}}(xexp(X))=c_{\theta_{x,\omega},{\cal O}}(X)$ pour tout $X\in \omega\cap \mathfrak{g}_{x,ss}(F)$ et tout ${\cal O}\in Nil(\mathfrak{g}_{x,X})$. En particulier $c_{\theta,{\cal O}}(x)=c_{\theta_{x,\omega},{\cal O}}$ pour tout ${\cal O}\in Nil(\mathfrak{g}_{x})$.
Inversement, soit $\theta$ un quasi-caractère de $\mathfrak{g}_{x}(F)$. Supposons que $\theta$ soit invariant par conjugaison par $Z_{G}(x)(F)$ et à support dans $\omega$. Soit $\boldsymbol{\theta}$ la fonction sur $G(F)$, invariante par conjugaison par $G(F)$, à support dans $\Omega=(xexp(\omega))^G$ et telle que $\boldsymbol{\theta}(xexp(X))=\theta(X)$ pour $X\in \omega$, cf. 3.1. Alors $\boldsymbol{\theta}$ est un quasi-caractère sur $G(F)$. On a l’égalité $\boldsymbol{\theta}_{x,\omega}=\theta$.
Fonctions très cuspidales
=========================
Définition
----------
Soit $f\in C_{c}^{\infty}(G(F))$. On dit que $f$ est très cuspidale si et seulement si, pour tout sous-groupe parabolique propre $P=MU$ de $G$ et pour tout $x\in M(F)$, on a l’égalité $$\int_{U(F)}f(xu)du=0.$$ Remarquons que l’intégrale ci-dessus est localement constante en $x$. Sa nullité sur $M(F)$ équivaut à sa nullité sur $M(F)\cap G_{reg}(F)$. Mais, pour $x\in M(F)\cap G_{reg}(F)$, on a l’égalité $$\delta_{P}(x)^{1/2}\int_{U(F)}f(xu) du=D^G(x)^{1/2}D^M(x)^{-1/2}\int_{U(F)}f(u^{-1}xu)du.$$ Alors $f$ est très cuspidale si et seulement si, pour tout sous-groupe parabolique propre $P=MU$ de $G$ et pour tout $x\in M(F)\cap G_{reg}(F)$, on a l’égalité $$\int_{U(F)}f(u^{-1}xu)du=0.$$
Disons qu’un élément $x\in G_{reg}(F)$ est elliptique si $A_{G_{x}}=A_{G}$. Si le support de $f$ est contenu dans l’ensemble des éléments réguliers elliptiques de $G(F)$, alors $f$ est très cuspidale. Si $\Omega$ est un $G$-domaine dans $G(F)$ et si $f$ est très cuspidale, alors $f{\bf 1}_{\Omega}$ est très cuspidale. Si $f$ est très cuspidale, $^gf$ l’est pour tout $g\in G(F)$.
Intégrales orbitales pondérées de fonctions très cuspidales
-----------------------------------------------------------
Soient $M$ un Lévi de $G$ et $K$ un sous-groupe compact spécial de $G(F)$ en bonne position relativement à $M$.
0.3cm[**[Lemme]{}**]{}.
**
Soient $f\in C_{c}^{\infty}(G(F))$ et $x\in M(F)\cap G_{reg}(F)$. On suppose $f$ très cuspidale.
\(i) L’intégrale orbitale pondérée $J_{M}(x,f)$ ne dépend pas de $K$.
\(ii) Pour tout $y\in G(F)$, on a l’égalité $J_{M}(x,{^yf})=J_{M}(x,f)$.
\(iii) Si $A_{G_{x}}\neq A_{M}$, alors $J_{M}(x,f)=0$.
0.3cm
Preuve. Soit $\tilde{K}$ un autre sous-groupe compact spécial en bonne position relativement à $M$. Soit $g\in G(F)$. En utilisant $K$, on a défini la famille de points $(H_{P}(g))_{P\in {\cal P}(M)}$ et la $(G,M)$-famille $(v_{P}(g))_{P\in {\cal P}(M)}$. En utilisant $\tilde{K}$, on définit de même une famille de points $(\tilde{H}_{P}(g))_{P\in {\cal P}(M)}$ et une $(G,M)$-famille $(\tilde{v}_{P}(g))_{P\in {\cal P}(M)}$. On définit la $(G,M)$-famille $(d_{P})_{P\in {\cal P}(M)}$ par $d_{P}(g)=v_{P}(g)\tilde{v}_{P}(g)^{-1}$. Elle est associée à la famille de points $(H_{P}(g)-\tilde{H}_{P}(g))_{P\in {\cal P}(M)}$. On a $v_{P}(g)=\tilde{v}_{P}(g)d_{P}(g)$, d’où, d’après 2.2(2) $$v_{M}(g)=\sum_{Q\in {\cal F}(M)}\tilde{v}_{M}^Q(g)u_{Q}(H_{Q}(g)-\tilde{H}_{Q}(g)).$$ Alors $$J_{M}(x,f)= D^G(x)^{1/2}\int_{G_{x}(F)\backslash G(F)}f(g^{-1}xg)v_{M}(g) dg$$ $$\qquad =D^G(x)^{1/2}\sum_{Q\in {\cal F}(M)}\int_{G_{x}(F)\backslash G(F)}f(g^{-1}xg)\tilde{v}_{M}^Q(g)u_{Q}(H_{Q}(g)-\tilde{H}_{Q}(g))dg$$ $$\qquad =D^G(x)^{1/2}\sum_{Q=LU\in {\cal F}(M)}\int_{L_{x}(F)\backslash L(F)}\int_{\tilde{K}}\int_{U(F)}f(k^{-1}u^{-1}l^{-1}xluk)$$ $$\qquad \qquad \tilde{v}_{M}^L(l)u_{Q}(H_{Q}(k))du\,dk\,dl.$$ Si $Q\neq G$, l’intégrale intérieure sur $U(F)$ est nulle puisque $f$ est très cuspidale. Le terme pour $Q=G$ est l’intégrale orbitale pondérée calculée à l’aide de $\tilde{K}$. Cela prouve (i).
Par changement de variable $$J_{M}(x,{^yf})=D^G(x)^{1/2}\int_{G_{x}(F)\backslash G(F)}f(g^{-1}xg)v_{M}(gy^{-1})dg.$$ La relation 2.2(2) permet d’exprimer $v_{M}(gy^{-1})$ à l’aide des $v_{M}^Q(g)$ pour $Q\in {\cal F}(M)$. Comme ci-dessus, les termes indexés par $Q\neq G$ ont une contribution nulle. Le terme pour $Q=G$ donne l’intégrale $J_{M}(x,f)$. Cela prouve (ii).
Soit $M(x)$ le commutant de $A_{G_{x}}$ dans $G$. C’est un Lévi de $M$. Quitte à changer de groupe $K$, ce qui est loisible d’après (i), on peut supposer que $K$ est en bonne position relativement à $M(x)$. La formule 2.2(3) appliquée aux poids conduit aisément à l’égalité $$J_{M}(x,f)=\sum_{L\in {\cal L}(M(x))}d_{M(x)}^G(M,L)J_{M(x)}^L(x,f_{Q}).$$ Supposons $A_{G_{x}}\neq A_{M}$. Alors $M(x)\neq M$ et tous les Lévi $L$ intervenant dans cette somme sont différents de $G$. Les fonctions correspondantes $f_{Q}$ sont nulles et on obtient l’assertion (iii). $\square$
La distribution invariante associée à une fonction très cuspidale
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Soit $f\in C_{c}^{\infty}(G(F))$. On suppose $f$ très cuspidale. Soit $x\in G_{reg}(F)$. Notons $M(x)$ le commutant de $A_{G_{x}}$ dans $G$. C’est un Lévi de $G$. On pose $$\theta_{f}(x)=(-1)^{a_{M(x)}-a_{G}}\nu(G_{x})^{-1}D^G(x)^{-1/2}J_{M(x)}(x,f),$$ l’intégrale orbitale pondérée étant calculée à l’aide d’un sous-groupe compact spécial de $G(F)$ en bonne position relativement à $M(x)$. Cette définition est loisible d’après le (i) du lemme précédent.
[0.3cm[**[Lemme]{}**]{}. [ *[La fonction $\theta_{f}$ est invariante par conjugaison, à support compact modulo conjugaison, localement intégrable sur $G(F)$ et localement constante sur $G_{reg}(F)$.]{}*]{}0.3cm]{}
Preuve. Soient $y\in G(F)$ et $x\in G_{reg}(F)$. On a $M(yxy^{-1})=yM(x)y^{-1}$. Par transport de structure, $$J_{M(x)}(x,f)=J_{yM(x)y^{-1}}(yxy^{-1},{^yf}).$$ Le second terme est égal à $J_{yM(x)y^{-1}}(yxy^{-1},f)$ d’après le (ii) du lemme précédent. Alors $\theta_{f}(x)=\theta_{f}(yxy^{-1})$, d’où la première assertion. Le support de $\theta_{f}$ est contenu dans $(Supp(f))^G$, d’où la deuxième assertion. Puisque $\theta_{f}$ est invariante par conjugaison, la locale intégrabilité et la locale constance se testent sur les tores maximaux de $G$. Soit $T$ un tel tore, notons $M(T)$ le commutant de $A_{T}$ dans $G$. Pour $x\in T(F)\cap G_{reg}(F)$, on a $M(x)=M(T)$. Les assertions à prouver résultent des assertions similaires pour la fonction $x\mapsto J_{M(T)}(x,f)$ sur $T(F)\cap G_{reg}(F)$. Celles-ci résultent du lemme 2.3. $\square$
Localisation: premières propriétés
----------------------------------
Soit $x\in G_{ss}(F)$. On suppose que $G_{x}$ est le produit de deux groupes réductifs connexes $G_{x}=G'\times G''$, conservés chacun par $Z_{G}(x)(F)$. Tout élément $X\in\mathfrak{g}_{x}(F)$ se décompose en somme d’un élément de $\mathfrak{g}'(F)$ et d’un élément de $\mathfrak{g}''(F)$. On notera sans plus de commentaire $X=X'+X''$ cette décomposition. De même, tout Lévi $R$ de $G_{x}$ se décompose en $R=R'\times R''$, où $R'$ est un Lévi de $G'$ et $R''$ un Lévi de $G''$. On note $f\mapsto f^{\sharp}$ la transformation de Fourier partielle dans $C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathfrak{g}_{x}(F))$ relative à la deuxième variable. C’est-à-dire que, pour $X=X'+X''\in \mathfrak{g}_{x}(F)$, $$f^{\sharp}(X)=\int_{\mathfrak{g}''(F)}f(X'+Y'')\psi(<Y'',X''>)dY''.$$ Si $R$ est un Lévi de $G_{x}$, on définit de même une transformation de Fourier partielle $f\mapsto f^{\sharp}$ dans $C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathfrak{r}(F))$. Soit $\omega$ un bon voisinage de $0$ dans $\mathfrak{g}_{x}(F)$, auquel on impose la condition (8) de 3.1. Cette situation sera conservée jusqu’en 5.8 inclus.
Soit $f\in C_{c}^{\infty}(G(F))$. Pour $g\in G(F)$, on définit $^gf_{x,\omega}\in C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathfrak{g}_{x}(F))$ par $$^gf_{x,\omega}(X)=\left\lbrace\begin{array}{cc}0,&\,\,{\rm si}\,\,X\not\in \omega,\\ f(g^{-1}xexp(X)g),&\,\,{\rm si}\,\,X\in \omega.\\ \end{array}\right.$$ On pose $^gf_{x,\omega}^{\sharp}=(^gf_{x,\omega})^{\sharp}$. Pour $y\in Z_{G}(x)(F)$ et $X\in \mathfrak{g}_{x}(F)$, on a les égalités $$(1) \qquad {^{yg}f}_{x,\omega}(X)={^gf}_{x,\omega}(y^{-1}Xy),\,\,^{yg}f^{\sharp}_{x,\omega}(X)={^gf}_{x,\omega}^{\sharp}(y^{-1}Xy).$$
Soient $M$ un Lévi de $G$ tel que $x\in M(F)$. On fixe un sous-groupe compact spécial $K$ de $G(F)$ en bonne position relativement à $M$. Soit $P=MU\in {\cal P}(M)$. Pour $f\in C_{c}^{\infty}(G(F))$, définissons des fonctions $\varphi[P,f]$, $\varphi^{\sharp}[P,f]$ et $J^{\sharp}_{M,x,\omega}(.,f)$ sur $\mathfrak{m}_{x}(F)\cap \mathfrak{g}_{x,reg}(F)$ par $$\varphi[P,f](X)=D^{G_{x}}(X)^{1/2}D^{M_{x}}(X)^{-1/2}\int_{U(F)}{^{u}f}_{x,\omega}(X)du,$$ $$\varphi^{\sharp}[P,f](X)=D^{G_{x}}(X)^{1/2}D^{M_{x}}(X)^{-1/2}\int_{U(F)}{^{u}f}^{\sharp}_{x,\omega}(X)du,$$ $$J^{\sharp}_{M,x,\omega}(X,f)=D^{G_{x}}(X)^{1/2}\int_{G_{x,X}(F)\backslash G(F)}{^gf}_{x,\omega}^{\sharp}(X)v_{M}(g) dg.$$
0.3cm[**[Lemme]{}**]{}.
**
\(i) Ces trois intégrales sont absolument convergentes.
\(ii) Les fonctions $\varphi[P,f]$ et $\varphi^{\sharp}[P,f]$ se prolongent en des éléments de $C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathfrak{m}_{x}(F))$ et on a l’égalité $\varphi^{\sharp}[P,f]=(\varphi[P,f])^{\sharp}$.
\(iii) La fonction $X\mapsto J^{\sharp}_{M,x,\omega}(X,f)$ est invariante par conjugaison par $M_{x}(F)$. Son support est compact modulo conjugaison. Elle est localement constante sur $\mathfrak{m}_{x}(F)\cap \mathfrak{g}_{x,reg}(F)$. Il existe $c>0$ et un entier $k\geq 0$ (d’ailleurs indépendant de $f$) tels que l’on ait l’inégalité $$\vert J^{\sharp}_{M,x,\omega}(X,f)\vert \leq c(1+\vert log(D^{G_{x}}(X))\vert )^k$$ pour tout $X\in \mathfrak{m}_{x}(F)\cap \mathfrak{g}_{x,reg}(F)$.
0.3cm
Preuve. Ecrivons $$(2) \qquad \varphi[P,f](X)=\int_{U_{x}(F)\backslash U(F)}D^{G_{x}}(X)^{1/2}D^{M_{x}}(X)^{-1/2}\int_{U_{x}(F)}{^{uv}f}_{x,\omega}(X)du\,dv,$$ $$(3) \qquad \varphi^{\sharp}[P,f](X)=\int_{U_{x}(F)\backslash U(F)}D^{G_{x}}(X)^{1/2}D^{M_{x}}(X)^{-1/2}\int_{U_{x}(F)}{^{uv}f}^{\sharp}_{x,\omega}(X)du\,dv.$$ D’après 2.1(5), on peut fixer un sous-ensemble compact $\Gamma$ de $G(F)$ tel que ${^gf}_{x,\omega}=0$ pour $g\in G(F)$, $g\not\in G_{x}(F)\Gamma$. On a donc aussi ${^gf}^{\sharp}_{x,\omega}=0$ pour un tel $g$. On vérifie que l’application $$U_{x}(F)\backslash U(F) \to G_{x}(F)\backslash G(F)$$ est d’image fermée et est un homéomorphisme de sa source sur son image. Il en résulte que les intégrales en $v\in U_{x}(F)\backslash U(F)$ dans les égalités (2) et (3) sont à support compact. Les expressions que l’on intègre étant localement constantes, il suffit de fixer $v\in U(F)$ et de prouver les assertions pour les expressions en question. Grâce à (1), celles-ci s’écrivent $$D^{G_{x}}(X)^{1/2}D^{M_{x}}(X)^{-1/2}\int_{U_{x}(F)}{^vf}_{x,\omega}(u^{-1}Xu)du,$$ $$D^{G_{x}}(X)^{1/2}D^{M_{x}}(X)^{-1/2}\int_{U_{x}(F)}{^vf}^{\sharp}_{x,\omega}(u^{-1}Xu)du.$$ Par un calcul familier, elles sont égales à $$\int_{\mathfrak{u}_{x}(F)}{^vf}_{x,\omega}(X+N)dN\,\,{\rm et}\,\,\int_{\mathfrak{u}_{x}(F)}{^vf}^{\sharp}_{x,\omega}(X+N)dN.$$ Les assertions sont maintenant faciles à prouver.
De même, pour démontrer les assertions relatives à la fonction $J^{\sharp}_{M,x,\omega}(.,f)$, on peut fixer $\gamma\in \Gamma$ et prouver les mêmes assertions pour la fonction $$X\mapsto D^{G_{x}}(X)^{1/2}\int_{G_{x,X}(F)\backslash G_{x}(F)}{^{g\gamma}f}^{\sharp}_{x,\omega}(X)v_{M}(g\gamma) dg,$$ ou encore $$X\mapsto D^{G_{x}}(X)^{1/2}\int_{G_{x,X}(F)\backslash G_{x}(F)}{^{\gamma}f}^{\sharp}_{x,\omega}(g^{-1}Xg)v_{M}(g\gamma)dg.$$ Il suffit alors de reprendre la preuve du lemme 2.3. $\square$
Localisation pour une fonction très cuspidale
---------------------------------------------
Les groupes $M$, $P$ et $K$ sont comme dans le paragraphe précédent.
0.3cm[**[Lemme]{}**]{}.
**
Soit $f\in C_{c}^{\infty}(G(F))$ une fonction très cuspidale.
\(i) Si $P\not=G$, les fonctions $\varphi[P,f]$ et $\varphi^{\sharp}[P,f]$ sont nulles.
\(ii) La fonction $J^{\sharp}_{M,x,\omega}(.,f)$ ne dépend pas du choix de $K$. Elle s’annule aux points $X\in \mathfrak{m}_{x}(F)\cap \mathfrak{g}_{x,reg}(F)$ tels que $A_{G_{x,X}}\not=A_{M}$. En particulier, elle est partout nulle si $A_{M_{x}}\neq A_{M}$. Pour tous $y\in G(F)$ et $X\in \mathfrak{m}_{x}(F)\cap \mathfrak{g}_{x,reg}(F)$, on a l’égalité $$J^{\sharp}_{M,x,\omega}(X,f)=J^{\sharp}_{M,x,\omega}(X,{^yf}).$$
0.3cm
Preuve. Soit $X\in \mathfrak{m}_{x}(F)\cap \mathfrak{g}_{x,reg}(F)$. Par définition, $\varphi[P,f](X)=0$ si $X\not\in \omega$. Supposons $X\in \omega$. Alors $$\varphi[P,f](X)=D^{G_{x}}(X)^{1/2}D^{M_{x}}(X)^{-1/2}\int_{U(F)}f(u^{-1}xexp(X)u)du.$$ On a $xexp(X)\in M(F)\cap G_{reg}(F)$. Si $P\neq G$, cette intégrale est nulle puisque $f$ est très cuspidale. Donc $\varphi[P,f]=0$. Puisque $\varphi^{\sharp}[P,f]=(\varphi[P,f])^{\sharp}$, on a aussi $\varphi^{\sharp}[P,f]=0$.
On démontre (ii) en reprenant la preuve du lemme 5.2. On y avait utilisé l’hypothèse de forte cuspidalité de $f$ pour annuler certaines intégrales. Maintenant, les intégrales similaires s’annulent d’après la nullité des fonctions $\varphi^{\sharp}[Q,f]$ pour tout $Q\in {\cal F}(M)$, $Q\neq G$. Cela conduit aux mêmes résultats. $\square$
Les distributions locales associées à une fonction très cuspidale
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Soit $f\in C_{c}^{\infty}(G(F))$ une fonction très cuspidale. On définit une fonction $\theta_{f,x,\omega}$ sur $\mathfrak{g}_{x,reg}(F)$ par $$\theta_{f,x,\omega}(X)=\left\lbrace\begin{array}{cc}0,&\,\,{\rm si}\,\,X\not\in \omega,\\ \theta_{f}(xexp(X)),&\,\,{\rm si}\,\,X\in \omega.\\ \end{array}\right.$$
Soit $X\in \mathfrak{g}_{x,reg}(F)$. Notons ${\bf M}(X)$ le commutant de $A_{G_{x,X}}$ dans $G$. On pose $$\theta^{\sharp}_{f,x,\omega}(X)=(-1)^{a_{{\bf M}(X)}-a_{G}}\nu(G_{x,X})^{-1}D^{G_{x}}(X)^{-1/2}J^{\sharp}_{{\bf M}(X),x,\omega}(X,f),$$ le dernier terme étant calculé à l’aide d’un sous-groupe compact spécial de $G(F)$ en bonne position relativement à ${\bf M}(X)$. Cette définition est loisible d’après le (ii) du lemme précédent.
[0.3cm[**[Lemme]{}**]{}. [ *[Les fonctions $\theta_{f,x,\omega}$ et $\theta^{\sharp}_{f,x,\omega}$ sont invariantes par conjugaison par $G_{x}(F)$, à support compact modulo conjugaison, localement intégrables sur $\mathfrak{g}_{x}(F)$ et localement constantes sur $\mathfrak{g}_{x,reg}(F)$.]{}*]{}0.3cm]{}
Preuve. Pour la fonction $\theta_{f,x,\omega}$, les assertions résultent du lemme 5.3. Pour la fonction $\theta^{\sharp}_{f,x,\omega}$, elles se prouvent comme dans ce lemme, en utilisant les lemmes 5.4(iii) et 5.5(ii). $\square$
Descente des intégrales orbitales pondérées
-------------------------------------------
On fixe un Lévi minimal $R_{min}$ de $G_{x}$ et un sous-groupe compact spécial $K_{x}$ de $G_{x}(F)$ en bonne position relativement à $R_{min}$. Rappelons l’application $R\mapsto {\bf R}$ de 3.2. On fixe un sous-groupe compact spécial $K$ de $G(F)$ en bonne position relativement à ${\bf R}_{min}$.
0.3cm[**[Lemme]{}**]{}.
**
Soit $f\in C_{c}^{\infty}(G(F))$ une fonction très cuspidale. Pour tout $S\in {\cal L}(R_{min})$, il existe une fonction $f^S\in C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathfrak{s}(F))$, à support dans $\omega\cap \mathfrak{s}(F)$, telle que, pour tout $R\in {\cal L}(R_{min})$, on ait les égalités
\(i) $J_{{\bf R}}(xexp(X),f)=D^G(x)^{1/2}\sum_{S\in {\cal L}(R)}J_{R}^S(X,f^S)$ pour tout $X\in \mathfrak{r}(F)\cap \mathfrak{g}_{x,reg}(F)\cap \omega$;
\(ii) $J^{\sharp}_{{\bf R},x,\omega}(X,f)=\sum_{S\in{\cal L}(R)}J_{R}^S(X,f^{S,\sharp})$ pour tout $X\in \mathfrak{r}(F)\cap \mathfrak{g}_{x,reg}(F)$, où $f^{S,\sharp}=(f^S)^{\sharp}$.
0.3cm
Preuve. Soient $R\in {\cal L}(R_{min})$ et $X\in \mathfrak{r}(F)\cap \mathfrak{g}_{x,reg}(F)\cap \omega$. On a les égalités $$J_{{\bf R}}(xexp(X),f)=D^G(xexp(X))^{1/2}\int_{G_{x,X}(F)\backslash G(F)}{^gf}_{x,\omega}(X)v_{{\bf R}}(g)dg,$$ $$(1) \qquad J_{{\bf R}}(xexp(X))=D^G(x)^{1/2}D^{G_{x}}(X)^{1/2}\int_{G_{x,X}(F)\backslash G(F)}{^gf}_{x,\omega}(X)v_{{\bf R}}(g)dg.$$ Fixons un sous-groupe ouvert compact $K'$ de $K$ tel que $f$ soit invariante par conjugaison par $K'$. Soit $\Delta$ un ensemble de représentants de $G_{x}(F)\backslash G(F)/K'$. On a l’égalité $$\int_{G_{x,X}(F)\backslash G(F)}{^gf}_{x,\omega}(X)v_{{\bf R}}(g) dg=\sum_{\delta\in \Delta}m(\delta)\int_{G_{x,X}(F)\backslash G_{x}(F)}{^{g\delta}f}_{x,\omega}(X)v_{{\bf R}}(g\delta)dg,$$ où $m(\delta)=mes(K')mes(G_{x}(F)\cap \delta K'\delta^{-1})^{-1}$. D’après 3.1(5), on peut fixer un sous-ensemble fini $\Delta_{0}\subset \Delta$ tel que ${^{g\delta}f}_{x,\omega}=0$ pour tout $g\in G_{x}(F)$ et tout $\delta\in \Delta$ tel que $\delta\not\in \Delta_{0}$. Le lemme 3.3 conduit à l’égalité suivante $$(2) \qquad J_{{\bf R}}(xexp(X),f)=D^G(x)^{1/2}\sum_{S\in{\cal L}(R)}\sum_{\delta\in \Delta_{0}}\sum_{Q\in {\cal P}({\bf S})}m(\delta)c^{Q,\delta}(X),$$ où $$c^{Q,\delta}(X)=D^{G_{x}}(X)^{1/2}\int_{G_{x,X}(F)\backslash G_{x}(F)}{^{\delta}f}_{x,\omega}(g^{-1}Xg)v_{R}^{Q_{x}}(g)u_{Q}(H_{Q}(g\delta)-H_{Q_{x}}(g))dg.$$ Un calcul familier remplace cette expression par $$c^{Q,\delta}(X)=D^S(X)^{1/2}\int_{G(x,X)(F)\backslash S(F)}\int_{K_{x}}\int_{\mathfrak{u}_{x}(F)}{^{k\delta}f}_{x,\omega}(l^{-1}Xl+N)v_{R}^S(l)u_{Q}(H_{Q}(k\delta))dN\,dk\,dl,$$ où $U_{x}$ est le radical unipotent de $Q_{x}$. Définissons une fonction $f^{Q,\delta}$ sur $\mathfrak{s}(F)$ par $$f^{Q,\delta}(Y)=\int_{K_{x}}\int_{\mathfrak{u}_{x}(F)}{^{k\delta}f}_{x,\omega}(Y+N)u_{Q}(H_{Q}(k\delta))dN\,dk.$$ Cette fonction appartient à $C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathfrak{s}(F))$ et on a l’égalité $$c^{Q,\delta}(X)=J_{R}^S(X,f^{Q,\delta}).$$ En posant $$f^S=\sum_{\delta\in \Delta_{0}}\sum_{Q\in {\cal P}({\bf S})}m(\delta)f^{Q,\delta},$$ l’égalité (2) devient celle du (i) de l’énoncé.
Pour tout $X\in \mathfrak{r}(F)\cap \mathfrak{g}_{x,reg}(F)$, le terme $J^{\sharp}_{{\bf R},x,\omega}(X,f)$ s’exprime par une formule analogue à (1): il suffit de supprimer le facteur $D^G(x)^{1/2}$ et de remplacer les fonctions $^gf_{x,\omega}$ par $^gf^{\sharp}_{x,\omega}$. On peut refaire le calcul ci-dessus. Les fonctions $f^{Q,\delta}$ sont remplacées par les fonctions $$Y\mapsto \int_{K_{x}}\int_{\mathfrak{u}_{x}(F)}{^{k\delta}f}_{x,\omega}^{\sharp}(Y+N)u_{Q}(H_{Q}(k\delta))dn\,dk.$$ On vérifie aisément que ce sont les images $f^{Q,\delta,\sharp}$ de $f^{Q,\delta}$ par transformation de Fourier partielle. Le (ii) de l’énoncé s’ensuit. $\square$
Transformées de Fourier des distributions locales
-------------------------------------------------
[0.3cm[**[Proposition]{}**]{}. [ *[Soit $f\in C_{c}^{\infty}(G(F))$ une fonction très cuspidale. Alors la fonction $\theta^{\sharp}_{f,x,\omega}$ est la transformée de Fourier partielle de $\theta_{f,x,\omega}$, c’est-à-dire que, pour toute $\varphi\in C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathfrak{g}_{x}(F))$, on a l’égalité $$\int_{\mathfrak{g}_{x}(F)}\theta^{\sharp}_{f,x,\omega}(X)\varphi(X)dX=\int_{\mathfrak{g}_{x}(F)}\theta_{f,x,\omega}(X)\varphi^{\sharp}(X)dX.$$]{}*]{}0.3cm]{}
Preuve. Soit $\varphi\in C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathfrak{g}_{x}(F))$. Notons $\theta^{\sharp}(\varphi)$ le membre de gauche de l’égalité de l’énoncé et $\theta(\varphi^{\sharp})$ celui de droite. D’après la formule de Weyl, on a $$\theta(\varphi^{\sharp})=\sum_{R\in {\cal L}(R_{min})}\vert W^R\vert \vert W^{G_{x}}\vert ^{-1}\sum_{T\in {\cal T}_{ell}(R)}\vert W(R,T)\vert ^{-1}\int_{\mathfrak{t}(F)}J_{G_{x}}(X,\varphi^{\sharp})\theta_{f,x,\omega}(X)D^{G_{x}}(X)^{1/2}dX.$$ Soient $R\in {\cal L}(R_{min})$, $T\in {\cal T}_{ell}(R)$ et $X\in \mathfrak{t}(F)\cap \mathfrak{g}_{x,reg}(F)$. Supposons d’abord $X\in \omega$. Alors $$\theta_{f,x,\omega}(X)=(-1)^{a_{M(xexp(X))}-a_{G}}\nu(T)^{-1}D^G(xexp(X))^{-1/2} J_{M(xexp(X))}(xexp(X),f).$$ On a $D^G(xexp(X))=D^G(x)D^{G_{x}}(X)$. On a aussi $M(xexp(X))={\bf R}$. Enfin $J_{{\bf R}}(xexp(X),f)$ est calculé par le lemme 5.7 et on obtient: $$\theta_{f,x,\omega}(X)=(-1)^{a_{R}-a_{G}}\nu(T)^{-1}D^{G_{x}}(X)^{-1/2}\sum_{S\in {\cal L}(R)}J^S_{R}(X,f^S).$$ Cette formule reste vraie pour $X\not\in \omega$ car ses deux membres sont nuls: par définition de $\theta_{f,x,\omega}$ pour celui de gauche; parce que les fonctions $f^S$ sont à support dans $\mathfrak{s}(F)\cap \omega$ pour celui de droite. D’où l’égalité $$\theta(\varphi^{\sharp})= \sum_{S\in {\cal L}(R)}\vert W^S\vert \vert W^{G_{x}}\vert ^{-1}(-1)^{a_{S}-a_{G}}\theta^S(\varphi^{\sharp},f^S),$$ où $$(1) \qquad \theta^S(\varphi^{\sharp},f^S)=\sum_{R\in {\cal L}^S(R_{min})}\vert W^R\vert \vert W^{G_{x}}\vert ^{-1}(-1)^{a_{R}-a_{S}}$$ $$\qquad \sum_{T\in {\cal T}_{ell}(R)}\vert W(R,T)\vert ^{-1}\nu(T)^{-1}\int_{\mathfrak{t}(F)}J_{G_{x}}(X,\varphi^{\sharp})J_{R}^S(X,f^S)dX.$$ Soient $S\in {\cal L}(R_{min})$, $\alpha$ et $\beta$ deux éléments de $C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathfrak{s}(F))$. Pour $R\in {\cal L}^S(R_{min})$, $T\in {\cal T}_{ell}(R)$ et $X\in \mathfrak{t}(F)\cap \mathfrak{g}_{x,reg}(F)$, posons $$(2) \qquad j_{R}^S(X,\alpha,\beta)=\sum_{S''_{1},S''_{2}\in {\cal L}^{S''}(R'')}d_{R''}^{S''}(S''_{1},S''_{2}) J_{S'\times R''}^{S'\times S''_{1}}(X,\alpha_{S'\times \bar{Q}''_{1}})J_{R}^{S'\times S''_{2}}(X,\beta_{S'\times Q''_{2}}).$$ Les sous-groupes paraboliques $Q''_{1}$ et $Q''_{2}$ sont déterminés par un paramètre auxiliaire $\xi''\in {\cal A}_{R''}^{S''}$. On pose $$j^S(\alpha,\beta)=\sum_{R\in {\cal L}^{S}(R_{min})}\vert W^R\vert \vert W^S\vert ^{-1}(-1)^{a_{R}-a_{S}}\sum_{T\in {\cal T}_{ell}(R)}\vert W(R,T)\vert ^{-1}\nu(T)^{-1}\int_{\mathfrak{t}(F)}j_{R}^S(X,\alpha,\beta)dX.$$ Revenons à la formule (2) et supposons que $\alpha$ vérifie l’hypothèse (H) de 2.5. On peut alors remplacer $\alpha_{S'\times \bar{Q}''_{1}}$ par $\alpha_{S'\times S''_{1}}$. Soit $S''_{1}\in {\cal L}^{S''}(M'')$. Pour tout $\gamma\in C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathfrak{s}'(F)\times \mathfrak{s}''_{1}(F))$, on a la formule de descente $$J_{S'\times R''}^{S'\times S''_{1}}(X, \gamma)=J_{R}^{R'\times S''_{1}}(X,\gamma_{Q'\times S''_{1}})$$ où $Q'$ est un élément quelconque de ${\cal P}^{S'}(R')$. Appliquée à $\gamma=\alpha_{S'\times S''_{1}}$, cette formule devient $$J_{S'\times R''}^{S'\times S''_{1}}(X,\alpha_{S'\times S''_{1}})=J_{R}^{R'\times S''_{1}}(X,\alpha_{R'\times S''_{1}}).$$ Alors $$j_{R}^S(X,\alpha,\beta)=\sum_{S''_{1}\in {\cal L}^{S''}(R'')}J_{R}^{R'\times S''_{1}}(X,\alpha_{R'\times S''_{1}})\sum_{S''_{2}\in {\cal L}^{S''}(R'')}d_{R''}^{S''}(S''_{1},S''_{2})J_{R}^{S'\times S''_{2}}(X,\beta_{S'\times Q''_{2}}).$$ Fixons $S''_{1}\in {\cal L}^{S''}(R'')$. L’application $S_{2}\mapsto S''_{2}$ est une bijection de l’ensemble des $S_{2}\in {\cal L}^S(R)$ tels que $d_{R}^S(R'\times S''_{1},S_{2})\neq 0$ sur l’ensemble des $S''_{2}\in {\cal L}^{S''}(R'')$ tels que $d_{R''}^{S''}(S''_{1},S''_{2})\neq 0$. La bijection réciproque est $S''_{2}\mapsto S'\times S''_{2}$. Fixons un paramètre auxiliaire $\xi\in {\cal A}_{R}^S$ dont la seconde composante soit $\xi''$. Pour $S_{2}$ et $S''_{2}$ se correspondant par la bijection ci-dessus, on a $d_{R}^S(R'\times S''_{1},S_{2})=d_{R''}^{S''}(S''_{1},S''_{2})$ et le parabolique $Q_{2}$ associé à $R'\times S''_{1}$, $S_{2}$ et $\xi$ n’est autre que $S'\times Q''_{2}$. Cela conduit à l’égalité $$j_{R}^S(X,\alpha,\beta)=\sum_{S''_{1}\in {\cal L}^{S''}(R'')}J_{R}^{R'\times S''_{1}}(X,\alpha_{R'\times S''_{1}})\sum_{S_{2}\in {\cal L}^S(R)}d_{R}^S(R'\times S''_{1},S_{2})J_{R}^{S_{2}}(X,\beta_{Q_{2}}),$$ ou encore, d’après 2.2(3), $$(3) \qquad j_{R}^S(X,\alpha,\beta)=\sum_{S''_{1}\in {\cal L}^{S''}(R'')}J_{R}^{R'\times S''_{1}}(X,\alpha_{R'\times S''_{1}})J_{R'\times S''_{1}}^S(X,\beta).$$ Supposons que la fonction $\varphi$ vérifie l’hypothèse (H). Une généralisation immédiate de ce que l’on a dit en 2.5 montre que $\varphi^{\sharp}$ vérifie aussi cette hypothèse et que $(\varphi_{S})^{\sharp}=(\varphi^{\sharp})_{S}$. On peut noter sans ambigüité $\varphi^{\sharp}_{S}$ cette fonction. Elle vérifie aussi (H) et $j_{R}^S(X,\varphi^{\sharp}_{S},f^S)$ se calcule par la formule (3). Remarquons que le terme de cette formule indexé par $S''_{1}=R''$ est $J_{R}^R(X,\varphi^{\sharp}_{R})J_{R}^S(X,f^S)$, égal à $J_{G_{x}}(X,\varphi^{\sharp})J_{R}^S(X,f^S)$, qui est précisément le terme intervenant dans (1). On en déduit $$j^S(\varphi^{\sharp}_{S},f^S)-\theta^S(\varphi^{\sharp},f^S)=\sum_{R\in {\cal L}^S(R_{min})}\vert W^R\vert \vert W^S\vert ^{-1}(-1)^{a_{R}-a_{S}}\sum_{T\in {\cal T}_{ell}(R)}\vert W(R,T)\vert ^{-1}$$ $$\qquad \nu(T)^{-1}\int_{\mathfrak{t}(F)}\sum_{S''_{1}\in {\cal L}^{S''}(R''),S''_{1}\not=R''}J_{R}^{R'\times S''_{1}}(X,\varphi^{\sharp}_{R'\times S''_{1}})J_{R'\times S''_{1}}^S(X,f^S)dX.$$ Posons $$j(\varphi^{\sharp})= \sum_{S\in {\cal L}(R_{min})}\vert W^S\vert \vert W^{G_{x}}\vert ^{-1}(-1)^{a_{S}-a_{G}}j^S(\varphi^{\sharp}_{S},f^S).$$ Alors $$j(\varphi^{\sharp})-\theta(\varphi^{\sharp})=\sum_{S\in {\cal L}(R_{min})}\vert W^S\vert \vert W^{G_{x}}\vert ^{-1}(-1)^{a_{S}-a_{G}}(j^S(\varphi^{\sharp}_S,f^S)-\theta^S(\varphi^{\sharp},f^S)),$$ $$j(\varphi^{\sharp})-\theta(\varphi^{\sharp})=\sum_{R\in {\cal L}(R_{min})}\vert W^R\vert \vert W^{G_{x}}\vert ^{-1}(-1)^{a_{R}-a_{G}}\sum_{T\in {\cal T}_{ell}(R)}\vert W(R,T)\vert ^{-1}\nu(T)^{-1}$$ $$\qquad \int_{\mathfrak{t}(F)}\sum_{S''_{1}\in {\cal L}^{G''}(R''), S''_{1}\neq R''}J_{R}^{R'\times S''_{1}}(X,\varphi^{\sharp}_{R'\times S''_{1}})\sum_{S\in {\cal L}^{G_{x}}(R'\times S''_{1})}J_{R'\times S''_{1}}^S(X,f^S)dX.$$ D’après le lemme 5.7, la dernière somme dans l’expression ci-dessus est $$D^G(x)^{-1/2}J_{{\bf S}_{1}}(xexp(X),f),$$ où on a posé $S_{1}=R'\times S''_{1}$. Or $xexp(X)\in {\bf R}\subsetneq {\bf S}_{1}$ puisque $R''\subsetneq S''_{1}$. D’après le lemme 5.2(iii), l’expression ci-dessus est nulle. D’où l’égalité $$\theta(\varphi^{\sharp})=j(\varphi^{\sharp}).$$ Définissons $j^{\sharp}(\varphi)$ en remplaçant $j^S(\varphi^{\sharp}_{S},f^S)$ par $j^S(\varphi_{S},f^{S,\sharp})$ dans la formule (4). Le même calcul conduit à l’égalité $$\theta^{\sharp}(\varphi)=j^{\sharp}(\varphi).$$ Il suffit en effet de remplacer l’usage du lemme 5.2(iii) par celui du lemme 5.5(ii).
L’égalité $\theta(\varphi^{\sharp})=\theta^{\sharp}(\varphi)$ que l’on veut prouver équivaut donc à $j(\varphi^{\sharp})=j^{\sharp}(\varphi)$. Il suffit de fixer $S\in {\cal L}(R_{min})$ et de prouver l’égalité $j^S(\varphi^{\sharp}_{S},f^S)=j^S(\varphi_{S},f^{S,\sharp})$. On va plus généralement prouver l’égalité $j^S(\alpha^{\sharp},\beta)=j^L(\alpha,\beta^{\sharp})$ pour toutes $\alpha,\beta\in C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathfrak{s}(F))$. Par linéarité, on peut supposer $\alpha=\alpha'\otimes \alpha''$, $\beta=\beta'\otimes \beta''$, où $\alpha',\beta'\in C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathfrak{s}'(F))$, $\alpha'',\beta''\in C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathfrak{s}''(F))$. Considérons l’expression (2). On a $$j_{R}^S(X,\alpha^{\sharp},\beta)=J_{S'}(X',\alpha')J_{R'}^{S'}(X',\beta')\sum_{S''_{1},S''_{2}\in {\cal L}^{S''}(R'')}d_{R''}^{S''}(S''_{1},S''_{2})J_{R''}^{S''_{1}}(X'',\hat{\alpha}''_{\bar{Q}''_{1}})J_{R''}^{S''_{2}}(X'',\beta''_{Q''_{2}}),$$ puis $$j_{R}^S(X,\alpha^{\sharp},\beta)=J_{S'}(X',\alpha')J_{R'}^{S'}(X',\beta')J_{R''}^{S''}(X'',\hat{\alpha}'',\beta''),$$ avec la notation de 2.4. On en déduit aisément $$j^S(\alpha^{\sharp},\beta)=k^{S'}(\alpha',\beta')J^{S''}(\hat{\alpha}'',\beta''),$$ où $$k^{S'}(\alpha',\beta')=\sum_{R'\in {\cal L}^{S'}(R'_{min})}\vert W^{R'}\vert \vert W^{S'}\vert ^{-1}(-1)^{a_{R'}-a_{S'}}\sum_{T'\in {\cal T}_{ell}(R')}\vert W(R',T')\vert ^{-1}$$ $$\qquad \nu(T')^{-1}\int_{\mathfrak{t}'(F)}J_{S'}(X',\alpha')J_{R'}^{S'}(X',\beta')dX'.$$ De même $$j^S(\alpha,\beta^{\sharp})=k^{S'}(\alpha',\beta')J^{S''}(\alpha'',\hat{\beta}'').$$ On déduit alors l’égalité cherchée $j^S(\alpha^{\sharp},\beta)=j^S(\alpha,\beta^{\sharp})$ du théorème 2.4.
Cela prouve l’égalité de l’énoncé pour les fonctions $\varphi$ vérifiant l’hypothèse (H). Puisque les deux distributions $\varphi\mapsto \theta^{\sharp}(\varphi)$ et $\varphi\mapsto \theta(\varphi^{\sharp})$ sont invariantes par conjugaison par $G_{x}(F)$, le lemme 2.5(ii) généralise leur égalité à toute fonction $\varphi$ à support dans $\mathfrak{g}_{x,reg}(F)$. Pour obtenir l’égalité pour toute $\varphi$, il suffit de prouver que les deux distributions sont localement intégrables. C’est vrai pour la première d’après le lemme 5.6. Considérons la seconde. Fixons deux $G$-domaines $\Gamma'\subset \mathfrak{g}'(F)$ et $\Gamma''\subset \mathfrak{g}''(F)$, compacts modulo conjugaison. D’après la conjecture de Howe (cf. 2.6(2) ), on peut fixer une famille finie $(X''_{i})_{i=1,...,n}$ d’éléments de $\omega''\cap \mathfrak{g}''_{reg}(F)$ et une famille finie $(\beta_{i})_{i=1,...,n}$ d’éléments de $C_{c}^{\infty}(\Gamma'')$ de sorte que, pour tout $X''\in \omega''\cap \mathfrak{g}''_{reg}(F)$ et toute $\beta\in C_{c}^{\infty}(\Gamma'')$, on ait l’égalité $$J_{G}(X'',\hat{\beta})=\sum_{i=1,...,n}J_{G''}(X''_{i},\hat{\beta})J_{G''}(X'',\hat{\beta}_{i}).$$ Soient $\alpha\in C_{c}^{\infty}(\Gamma')$ et $\beta\in C_{c}^{\infty}(\Gamma'')$. Posons $$\gamma=\alpha\otimes(\beta-\sum_{i=1,...,n}J_{G''}(X''_{i},\hat{\beta})\beta_{i}).$$ Alors $J_{G_{x}}(X,\gamma^{\sharp})=0$ pour tout $X\in \omega\cap\mathfrak{g}_{x,reg}(F)$. Puisque $\theta_{f,x,\omega}$ est à support dans $\omega$, il en résulte que $\theta(\gamma^{\sharp})=0$. Donc $$\theta(\alpha\otimes\hat{\beta})=\sum_{i=1,...,n}J_{G''}(X''_{i},\hat{\beta})\theta(\alpha\otimes \beta_{i}).$$ La fonction $\theta_{f,x,\omega}$ est localement intégrable. Il en résulte que la distribution $\alpha\mapsto \theta(\alpha\otimes \beta_{i})$ l’est aussi. D’après \[HCvD\] théorèmes 13 et 15, la distribution $\beta\mapsto J_{G''}(X''_{i},\hat{\beta})$ est aussi localement intégrable. Donc la distribution $\alpha\otimes \beta\mapsto \theta(\alpha\otimes \hat{\beta})$ est intégrable sur $\Gamma'\times \Gamma''$. Cela achève la démonstration. $\square$
Le quasi-caractère associé à une fonction très cuspidale
--------------------------------------------------------
[0.3cm[**[Corollaire]{}**]{}. [ *[Soit $f\in C_{c}^{\infty}(G(F))$. Supposons $f$ très cuspidale. Alors la fonction $\theta_{f}$ est un quasi-caractère.]{}*]{}0.3cm]{}
Preuve. Soit $x\in G_{ss}(F)$. On applique la proposition précédente au cas $G'=\{1\}$, $G''=G_{x}$. On obtient que la transformée de Fourier de $\theta_{f,x,\omega}$ est la fonction $\theta^{\sharp}_{f,x,\omega}$, que l’on peut d’ailleurs plutôt noter $\hat{\theta}_{f,x,\omega}$. Le support de cette fonction est compact modulo conjugaison. D’après le théorème 4.2, $\theta_{f,x,\omega}$ est donc un quasi-caractère sur $\mathfrak{g}_{x}(F)$. Alors $\theta_{f}$ coïncide au voisinage de $x$ avec un quasi-caractère. Cela étant vrai pour tout $x\in G_{ss}(F)$, la conclusion s’ensuit. $\square$
Fonctions très cuspidales sur les algèbres de Lie
=================================================
Premières propriétés
--------------------
La définition des fonctions très cuspidales s’adapte aux fonctions sur l’algèbre de Lie $\mathfrak{g}(F)$. Soit $f\in C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathfrak{g}(F))$. On dit qu’elle est très cuspidale si et seulement si, pour tout sous-groupe parabolique propre $P=MU$ de $G$ et tout $X\in \mathfrak{m}(F)$, on a l’égalité $$(1) \qquad \int_{\mathfrak{u}(F)}f(X+N)dN=0.$$ Ou encore si et seulement si, pour tout sous-groupe parabolique propre $P=MU$ de $G$ et tout $X\in \mathfrak{m}(F)\cap \mathfrak{g}_{reg}(F)$, on a l’égalité $$\int_{U(F)}f(u^{-1}Xu)du=0.$$ Les propriétés énoncées en 5.1 et 5.2 restent vraies. Il y a une propriété supplémentaire: si $f$ est très cuspidale, $\hat{f}$ l’est aussi. En effet, notons $f_{U}(X)$ l’intégrale (1). On vérifie que $(\hat{f})_{U}=(f_{U})\hat{}$ et l’assertion s’ensuit.
Soit $f\in C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathfrak{g}(F))$, supposons $f$ très cuspidale. On définit une fonction $\theta_{f}$ sur $\mathfrak{g}_{reg}(F)$ par $$\theta_{f}(X)=(-1)^{a_{M(X)}-a_{G}}\nu(G_{X})^{-1}D^G(X)^{-1/2}J_{M(X)}(X,f),$$ où $M(X)$ est le commutant de $A_{G_{X}}$ dans $G$. Elle a des propriétés similaires à celles énoncées au lemme 5.3.
0.3cm[**[Lemme]{}**]{}.
**
Soit $f\in C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathfrak{g}(F))$ une fonction très cuspidale.
\(i) La fonction $\theta_{\hat{f}}$ est la transformée de Fourier de $\theta_{f}$.
\(ii) La fonction $\theta_{f}$ est un quasi-caractère.
0.3cm
Preuve. La démonstration de la proposition 5.8 se simplifie grandement. En effet, fixons un Lévi minimal $M_{0}$ de $G$ et un sous-groupe compact spécial $K$ de $G(F)$ en bonne position relativement à $M_{0}$. Pour toute $\varphi\in C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathfrak{g}(F))$, on a simplement $$(2)\qquad J(\hat{\varphi},f)=\int_{\mathfrak{g}(F)}\hat{\varphi}(X)\theta_{f}(X)dX.$$ L’assertion (i) s’ensuit en appliquant le théorème 2.4. Pour prouver (2), soient $M\in {\cal L}(M_{0})$, $T\in {\cal T}_{ell}(M)$ et $X\in \mathfrak{t}(F)\cap \mathfrak{g}_{reg}(F)$. Parce que $f_{Q}=0$ pour tout sous-groupe parabolique propre $Q$ de $G$, on a $$J_{M}(X,\hat{\varphi},f)=J_{G}(X,\hat{\varphi})J_{M}(X,f).$$ Mais alors $J(\hat{\varphi},f)$ coïncide avec le membre de droite de (2) exprimé à l’aide de la formule de Weyl.
L’assertion (ii) résulte de (i) et du théorème 4.2. $\square$
Relèvement au groupe
--------------------
[0.3cm[**[Lemme]{}**]{}. [ *[Soient $x\in G_{ss}(F)$, $\omega$ un bon voisinage de $0$ dans $\mathfrak{g}_{x}(F)$ et $\varphi\in C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathfrak{g}_{x}(F))$. On suppose $\varphi$ très cuspidale et à support dans $\omega$. On suppose que $\theta_{\varphi}$ est invariant par $Z_{G}(x)(F)$ et que $x$ est elliptique, c’est-à-dire que $A_{G_{x}}=A_{G}$. Alors il existe $f\in C_{c}^{\infty}(G(F))$ telle que $f$ soit très cuspidale et $\theta_{f,x,\omega}=\theta_{\varphi}$.]{}*]{}0.3cm]{}
Preuve. Fixons un Lévi minimal $R_{min}$ de $G_{x}(F)$ et un sous-groupe compact spécial $K$ de $G(F)$ en bonne position relativement à ${\bf R}_{min}$. Fixons un sous-groupe ouvert compact $K'$ de $K$ tel que $\varphi$ soit invariante par conjugaison par $K'\cap Z_{G}(x)(F)$. Posons $\Sigma=\{k^{-1}xexp(X)k; k\in K', X\in \omega\}$. C’est un sous-ensemble ouvert et fermé de $G(F)$. Comme en 3.1, on peut définir une fonction $f$ sur $G(F)$ par $$f(g)=\left\lbrace\begin{array}{cc}0,&\,\,{\rm si}\,\,g\not\in \Sigma,\\ \varphi(X),&\,\,{\rm si}\,\,g=k^{-1}xexp(X)k,\,\,{\rm avec}\,\,k\in K',\,X\in \omega.\\ \end{array}\right.$$ Montrons que $f$ est très cuspidale. Soient $P=MU$ un sous-groupe parabolique propre de $G$ et $m\in M(F)\cap G_{reg}(F)$. Posons $$f(U,m)=\int_{U(F)}f(u^{-1}mu)du.$$ On veut prouver que $f(U,m)=0$. C’est évident si $\{u^{-1}mu; u\in U(F)\}\cap \Sigma=\emptyset$. Supposons cette intersection non vide. On peut fixer $v\in U(F)$, $k\in K'$ et $X\in \omega$ tels que $v^{-1}mv=k^{-1}xexp(X)k$. Posons $g=vk^{-1}$, $P'=g^{-1}Pg$, $M'=g^{-1}Mg$, $U'=g^{-1}Ug$ et $m'=g^{-1}mg$. Grâce au changement de variable $u\mapsto uv $ et à l’invariance de $f$ par $K'$, on a l’égalité $$f(U,m)=\int_{U(F)}f(kv^{-1}u^{-1}muvk^{-1})du,$$ puis $$f(U,m)=\int_{U(F)}f(g^{-1}u^{-1}mug)du=\int_{U'(F)}f(u^{_{'}-1}m'u')du'=f(U',m').$$ Cela nous ramène à la même question pour le sous-groupe parabolique $P'$ et l’élément $m'$ de $M'(F)$. Mais $m'=xexp(X)$. En oubliant les données $P'$ et $m'$, on peut donc supposer que $m=xexp(X)$, avec $X\in \omega$. Dans ce cas, on a $A_{M}\subset G_{m}\subset G_{x}$, donc $x\in M(F)$. De plus, puisque $P$ est propre, on a $A_{G}\subsetneq A_{M}$. Puisque $x$ est elliptique, on a aussi $A_{G_{x}}\subsetneq A_{M}\subset A_{M_{x}}$, donc $P_{x}=M_{x}U_{x}$ est un sous-groupe parabolique propre de $G_{x}$. Ecrivons $$f(U,m)=\int_{U_{x}(F)\backslash U(F)}\int_{U_{x}(F)}f(v^{-1}u^{-1}muv)du\,dv.$$ On peut fixer $v\in U(F)$ et prouver que $$\int_{U_{x}(F)}f(v^{-1}u^{-1}muv)du=0.$$ De nouveau, c’est évident si $\{v^{-1}u^{-1}muv; u\in U_{x}(F)\}\cap \Sigma=\emptyset$. Supposons cette intersection non vide. Alors il existe $w\in U_{x}(F)$ et $k\in K'$ tels que $v^{-1}w^{-1}mwv\in k^{-1}xexp(\omega)k$. Puisque $m\in xexp(\omega)$, la condition 3.1(4) entraîne que $wvk^{-1}\in Z_{G}(x)(F)$. Donc $v\in Z_{G}(x)(F)k$. Ecrivons $v=gk$, avec $g\in Z_{G}(x)(F)$. Pour $u\in U_{x}(F)$, on a $v^{-1}u^{-1}muv=k^{-1}xexp(g^{-1}u^{-1}Xug)k$. Donc $$f(v^{-1}u^{-1}muv)=\varphi(g^{-1}u^{-1}Xug)={^g\varphi}(u^{-1}Xu),$$ avec une définition évidente de $^g\varphi$. L’intégrale à calculer est égale à $$\int_{U_{x}(F)}{^g\varphi}(u^{-1}Xu)du.$$ Elle est nulle parce que $^g\varphi$ est très cuspidale et $P_{x}$ est propre.
Posons $$c=[G_{x}(F)\backslash Z_{G}(x)(F)K'/K']mes(K')mes(G_{x}(F)\cap K')^{-1}.$$ On va prouver que $\theta_{f,x,\omega}=c\theta_{\varphi}$. En explicitant les définitions, on voit qu’il s’agit de prouver l’assertion suivante. Soit $X\in \omega\cap \mathfrak{g}_{x,reg}(F)$. Notons $R$ le commutant de $A_{G_{x,X}}$ dans $G_{x}$. Alors on a l’égalité $$(1) \qquad J_{{\bf R}}(xexp(X),f)=cD^G(x)^{1/2}J_{R}(X,\varphi).$$ On peut supposer que $R$ contient $R_{min}$. Reprenons la preuve du lemme 5.7, où on prend pour $K'$ le groupe introduit ci-dessus. Par un raisonnement fait plusieurs fois, ${^gf}_{x,\omega}=0$ si $g\in G(F)$ et $g\not\in Z_{G}(x)(F)K'$. On peut prendre pour ensemble $\Delta_{0}$ un ensemble de représentants de $G_{x}(F)\backslash Z_{G}(x)(F)K'/K'$, inclus dans $Z_{G}(x)(F)$. Pour $\delta\in \Delta_{0}$, on a $^{\delta}f_{x,\omega}={^{\delta}\varphi}$. L’hypothèse que $\varphi$ est très cuspidale entraîne que pour $S\in {\cal L}(R_{min})$, $S\neq G_{x}$, la fonction $f^S$ est nulle. Pour $S=G_{x}$, on a ${\bf S}=G$ parce que $x$ est elliptique. Alors $$f^{G_{x}}=mes(K')mes(G_{x}(F)\cap K')^{-1}\sum_{\delta\in \Delta_{0}} {^{\delta}\varphi}.$$ D’après l’hypothèse d’invariance de $\theta_{\varphi}$ par $Z_{G}(x)(F)$, on a $$J_{R}(X,{^{\delta}\varphi})=J_{R}(X,\varphi),$$ pour tout $\delta\in \Delta_{0}$, et l’égalité (1) résulte du (i) du lemme 5.7. $\square$
Support des distributions associées aux fonctions très cuspidales
-----------------------------------------------------------------
0.3cm[**[Lemme]{}**]{}.
**
\(i) Soient $ \theta$ un quasi-caractère de $\mathfrak{g}(F))$ et $\omega$ un $G$-domaine dans $\mathfrak{g}(F)$ compact modulo conjugaison. On suppose la transformée de Fourier de $\theta$ à support compact modulo conjugaison. Alors il existe une famille finie $(X_{i})_{i=1,...,n}$ d’éléments de $\mathfrak{g}_{reg}(F)$ et une famille finie $(c_{i})_{i=1,...,n}$ de nombres complexes telles que, pour tout $Y\in \omega\cap \mathfrak{g}_{reg}(F)$, on ait l’égalité $$\theta(Y)=\sum_{i=1,...,n}c_{i}\hat{j}(X_{i},Y).$$
\(ii) Soient $X\in \mathfrak{g}_{reg}(F)$ et $\omega$ un $G$-domaine dans $\mathfrak{g}(F)$ compact modulo conjugaison. Alors il existe une fonction très cuspidale $f\in C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathfrak{g}(F))$ telle que, pour tout $Y\in \omega\cap \mathfrak{g}_{reg}(F)$, on ait l’égalité $$\theta_{f}(Y)=\hat{j}(X,Y).$$
\(iii) Soient $\omega$ un $G$-domaine dans $\mathfrak{g}(F)$ compact modulo conjugaison et ${\cal O}\in Nil(\mathfrak{g})$. Il existe une fonction $f\in C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathfrak{g}(F)$, très cuspidale, telle que, pour tout $Y\in \omega\cap \mathfrak{g}_{reg}(F)$, on ait l’égalité $$\theta_{f}(Y)=\hat{j}({\cal O},Y).$$
\(iv) Pour tout $Y\in \mathfrak{g}_{reg}(F)$, il existe une fonction très cuspidale $f\in C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathfrak{g}(F))$ telle que $\theta_{f}(Y)\not=0$.
0.3cm
Preuve. Soit $\theta$ comme en (i). Soit $\Omega$ un $G$-domaine de $\mathfrak{g}(F)$, compact modulo conjugaison et contenant le support de $\hat{\theta}$. Pour $\varphi\in C_{c}^{\infty}(\omega)$, on a, avec les notations de 2.6(2) , $$\theta(\varphi)=\sum_{i=1,...,n}J_{G}(X_{i},\hat{\varphi})\theta(f_{i}).$$ Autrement dit $$\int_{\mathfrak{g}(F)}\theta(Y)\varphi(Y)dY=\int_{\mathfrak{g}(F)}\sum_{i=1,...,n}\theta(f_{i})\hat{j}(X_{i},Y)\varphi(Y)dY.$$ L’assertion (i) s’ensuit.
Fixons un Lévi minimal $M_{min}$ de $G$. Soit $f'\in C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathfrak{g}(F))$, supposons $f'$ très cuspidale. Pour toute $\varphi\in \mathfrak{g}(F)$, on a l’égalité: $$\int_{\mathfrak{g}(F)}\theta_{\hat{f}'}(Y)\varphi(Y)dY=\int_{\mathfrak{g}(F)}\theta_{f'}(X)\hat{\varphi}(X) dX$$ $$(1) \qquad =\sum_{M\in {\cal L}(M_{min})}\vert W^M\vert \vert W^G\vert ^{-1}\sum_{T\in {\cal T}_{ell}(M)}\vert W(M,T)\vert ^{-1}\int_{\mathfrak{t}(F)}\theta_{f'}(X)J_{G}(X,\hat{\varphi})D^G(X)^{1/2}dX.$$ Soient $X$ et $\omega$ comme en (ii). On ne perd rien à supposer qu’il existe $M\in {\cal L}(M_{min})$ et $T\in {\cal T}_{ell}(M)$ de sorte que $X\in \mathfrak{t}(F)$. La formule 2.6(3) montre qu’il existe un voisinage $\omega'_{X}$ de $X$ dans $\mathfrak{g}(F)$ tel que, pour tout $Y\in \omega\cap \mathfrak{g}_{reg}(F)$, la fonction $X'\mapsto \hat{j}(X',Y)$ soit constante dans $\omega'_{X}$. Supposons
\(2) il existe $f'\in C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathfrak{g}(F))$, très cuspidale, telle que $\theta_{f'}(X)\neq 0$.
Fixons une telle fonction. On peut trouver un voisinage $\omega_{X}$ de $X$ dans $\mathfrak{t}(F)$ tel que
- $\omega_{X}$ est ouvert et compact;
- la fonction $X'\mapsto \theta_{f'}(X')D^G(X')^{1/2}$ soit constante dans $\omega_{X}$;
- pour $w\in Norm_{M(F)}(T)$ tel que $w\not\in T(F)$, $w^{-1}\omega_{X}w\cap \omega_{X}=\emptyset$.
Remplaçons $f'$ par son produit avec la fonction caractéristique du $G$-domaine $\omega_{X}^G$. La formule (1) devient $$\int_{\mathfrak{g}(F)}\theta_{\hat{f}'}(Y)\varphi(Y)dY=\theta_{f'}(X)D^G(X)^{1/2}\int_{\omega_{X}}J_{G}(X',\hat{\varphi})dX'$$ $$\qquad =\theta_{f'}(X)D^G(X)^{1/2}\int_{\omega_{X}}\int_{\mathfrak{g}(F)}\hat{j}(X',Y)\varphi(Y)dY\,dX'.$$ La double intégrale est bien sûr absolument convergente. On en déduit l’égalité $$(3) \qquad \theta_{\hat{f}'}(Y)=\theta_{f'}(X)D^G(X)^{1/2}\int_{\omega_{X}}\hat{j}(X',Y)dX'$$ pour tout $Y\in \mathfrak{g}_{reg}(F)$. Imposons de plus la condition $\omega_{X}\subset \omega'_{X}$. Alors l’égalité (3) devient $$\theta_{\hat{f'}}(Y)=\theta_{f'}(X)D^G(X)^{1/2}mes(\omega_{X})\hat{j}(X,Y)$$ pour tout $Y\in \omega\cap\mathfrak{g}_{reg}(F)$. En posant $$f=\theta_{f'}(X)^{-1}D^G(X)^{-1/2}mes(\omega_{X})^{-1}\hat{f'},$$ on obtient (ii), sous l’hypothèse (2).
Soit $Y\in \mathfrak{g}_{reg}(F)$. Appliquons 2.6(4) : on peut fixer un $G$-domaine $\Omega$ de $\mathfrak{g}(F)$ tel que $$(4)\qquad \hat{j}(X,Y)=\sum_{{\cal O}\in Nil(\mathfrak{g})}\Gamma_{{\cal O}}(X)\hat{j}({\cal O},Y)$$ pour tout $X\in \Omega\cap \mathfrak{g}_{reg}(F)$. On peut évidemment supposer $\lambda\Omega\subset \Omega$ pour tout $\lambda\in F^{\times}$ tel que $\vert \lambda\vert _{F}\leq 1$. Soit $X\in \Omega\cap \mathfrak{g}_{reg}(F)$ tel que $X$ soit elliptique. Alors l’hypothèse (2) est vérifiée car toute fonction à support régulier elliptique est très cuspidale. On peut donc trouver une fonction $f_{X}$ très cuspidale telle que $\theta_{f_{X}}(Y)=\hat{j}(X,Y)$. Soit $\lambda\in F^{\times 2} $ tel que $\vert \lambda\vert _{F}\leq 1$. Remplaçons $X$ par $\lambda X$. En utilisant (4) et les formules de 2.6, on a $$\theta_{f_{\lambda X}}(Y)=\sum_{{\cal O}\in Nil(\mathfrak{g})}\vert \lambda\vert _{F}^{(\delta(G)-dim({\cal O}))/2}\Gamma_{{\cal O}}(X)\hat{j}({\cal O},Y).$$ En prenant une combinaison linéaire convenable des fonctions $f_{\lambda X}$, on peut séparer les orbites selon leurs dimensions. On peut en particulier isoler l’orbite $\{0\}$ et trouver une fonction $f$ très cuspidale telle que $$\theta_{f}(Y)=\Gamma_{\{0\}}(X)\hat{j}(\{0\},Y).$$ La fonction $\hat{j}(\{0\},.)$ est constante de valeur $1$. D’après Harish-Chandra (\[HCDS\] lemme 9.6), le germe de Shalika $\Gamma_{\{0\}}$ ne s’annule pas sur l’ensemble des points elliptiques réguliers. Donc $\theta_{f}(Y)\neq 0$, ce qui démontre (iv).
On peut maintenant achever la démonstration de (ii): d’après (iv), l’hypothèse (2) est vérifiée pour tout point $X\in \mathfrak{g}_{reg}(F)$.
Soit $\omega$ un $G$-domaine de $\mathfrak{g}(F)$ compact modulo conjugaison. Choisissons $\Omega$ tel que (4) soit vérifiée pour tous $X\in \Omega\cap \mathfrak{g}_{reg}(F)$, $Y\in \omega\cap \mathfrak{g}_{reg}(F)$. Grâce à (ii), pour tout $X\in \Omega\cap \mathfrak{g}_{reg}(F)$,on peut trouver une fonction $f_{X}$ très cuspidale telle que $\theta_{f_{X}}(Y)=\hat{j}(X,Y)$ pour tout $Y\in \omega\cap \mathfrak{g}_{reg}(F)$. On sait que les germes de Shalika sont linéairement indépendants (\[HCDS\] lemme 9.5). Etant homogènes, leurs restrictions à $\Omega$ le sont aussi. En utilisant (4), on voit que, pour ${\cal O}\in Nil(\mathfrak{g})$, une combinaison linéaire convenable $f$ de fonctions $f_{X}$ va vérifier $\theta_{f}(Y)=\hat{j}({\cal O},Y)$ pour tout $Y\in \omega\cap \mathfrak{g}_{reg}(F)$. Cela prouve (iii). $\square$
Quasi-caractères à support compact modulo conjugaison
------------------------------------------------------
[0.3cm[**[Proposition]{}**]{}. [ *[Soit $\theta$ un quasi-caractère de $\mathfrak{g}(F)$ à support compact modulo conjugaison. Alors il existe une fonction $f\in C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathfrak{g}(F))$ très cuspidale telle que $\theta=\theta_{f}$.]{}*]{}0.3cm]{}
Preuve. On démontre la proposition par récurrence sur $dim(G)$. On suppose qu’elle est vraie pour tout groupe de dimension strictement inférieure à $dim(G)$. Soit $X\in \mathfrak{g}_{ss}(F)$. On va prouver
\(1) il existe un $G$-domaine $\omega$ dans $\mathfrak{g}(F)$ et une fonction très cuspidale $f\in C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathfrak{g}(F))$ tels que $X\in \omega$ et $\theta(Y)=\theta_{f}(Y)$ pour tout $Y\in \omega$.
Autrement dit, il existe une fonction très cuspidale $f\in C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathfrak{g}(F))$ telle que $\theta_{f}$ ait le même développement que $\theta$ au voisinage de $X$. Si $X=0$, cela résulte du lemme 6.3(iii). Si $X$ est central, cela résulte du cas $X=0$ par translation. Supposons $X$ non central, donc $dim(G_{X})<dim(G)$. Supposons d’abord $X$ elliptique. La notions de bon voisinage s’adapte au cas de l’algèbre de Lie. Soit $\omega_{X}$ un bon voisinage de $0$ dans $\mathfrak{g}_{X}(F)$. Soit $\theta_{X}$ la fonction sur $\mathfrak{g}_{X}(F)$ qui est nulle hors de $X+\omega_{X}$ et qui coïncide avec $\theta$ sur $X+\omega_{X}$. Alors $\theta_{X}$ est un quasi-caractère de $\mathfrak{g}_{X}(F)$ à support compact modulo conjugaison. Appliquant l’hypothèse de récurrence, on peut fixer une fonction très cuspidale $f_{X}\in C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathfrak{g}_{X}(F))$ telle que $\theta_{f_{X}}=\theta_{X}$. On peut reprendre la démonstration du lemme 6.2 et montrer qu’il existe une fonction très cuspidale $f\in C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathfrak{g}(F))$ telle que $\theta_{f}$ coïncide avec $\theta_{f_{X}}$ dans $X+\omega_{X}$ (remarquons que la condition d’invariance par $Z_{G}(x)(F)$ imposée en 6.2 disparaît car le commutant d’un élément semi-simple d’une algèbre de Lie est toujours connexe). En posant $\omega=(X+\omega_{X})^G$, $f$ et $\omega$ satisfont (1). Supposons maintenant $X$ non elliptique. Notons $M$ le commutant de $A_{G_{X}}$ dans $G$. On a $X\in \mathfrak{m}(F)$ et $G_{X}\subset M$. Soit $\omega_{X}$ un bon voisinage de $0$ dans $\mathfrak{g}_{X}(F)$. Posons $$\omega_{M}=(X+\omega_{X})^M,\,\,\omega_{G}=(X+\omega_{X})^G.$$ Les ensembles $\omega_{M}$ et $\omega_{G}\cap \mathfrak{m}(F)$ sont des $M$-domaines dans $\mathfrak{m}(F)$, compacts modulo conjugaison. Notons $\theta_{M}$ la fonction sur $\mathfrak{m}(F)$ qui est nulle hors de $\omega_{M}$ et coïncide avec $\theta$ sur $\omega_{M}$. C’est un quasi-caractère de $\mathfrak{m}(F)$, à support compact modulo conjugaison. En appliquant l’hypothèse de récurrence et le (i) du lemme 6.3, on peut fixer des familles finies $(X_{i})_{i=1,...,n}$ d’éléments de $\mathfrak{m}_{reg}(F)$ et $(c_{i})_{i=1,...,n}$ de nombres complexes de sorte que $$\theta_{M}(Y)=\sum_{i=1,...,n}c_{i}\hat{j}^M(X_{i},Y)$$ pour tout $Y\in \omega_{G}\cap \mathfrak{m}_{reg}(F)$. La preuve du (i) du lemme 6.3 montre que l’on peut aussi bien remplacer chaque $X_{i}$ par tout élément suffisamment proche. On peut donc supposer $X_{i}\in \mathfrak{g}_{reg}(F)$. La fonction $$Y\mapsto D^G(Y)^{1/2}D^M(Y)^{-1/2}$$ est constante sur $X+\omega_{X}$. Notons $c$ sa valeur. Montrons que $$(2) \qquad \theta(Y)=\sum_{i=1,...,n}cc_{i}\hat{j}^G(X_{i},Y)$$ pour tout $Y\in (X+\omega_{X})\cap \mathfrak{g}_{reg}(F)$. D’après 2.6(5), le membre de droite ci-dessus est égal à $$\sum_{Y'\in {\cal Y}}\sum_{i=1,...,n}cc_{i}\hat{j}^M(X_{i},Y')D^G(Y)^{-1/2}D^M(Y')^{1/2},$$ où ${\cal Y}$ est un ensemble de représentants des classes de conjugaison par $M(F)$ dans l’ensemble des éléments de $\mathfrak{m}(F)$ conjugués à $Y$ par un élément de $G(F)$. Cet ensemble ${\cal Y}$ est contenu dans $\omega_{G}\cap \mathfrak{m}(F)$. La somme ci-dessus vaut donc $$\sum_{Y'\in {\cal Y}}c\theta_{M}(Y')D^G(Y)^{-1/2}D^M(Y')^{1/2}.$$ On peut supposer $Y\in {\cal Y}$ et le terme indexé par $Y$ est égal à $\theta(Y)$. Soit $Y'\in {\cal Y}$, $Y'\not=Y$. Soit $g\in G(F)$ tel que $gYg^{-1}=Y'$. Cet élément n’appartient pas à $M(F)$. Si $Y'\in \omega_{M}$, il existe $m\in M(F)$ tel que $mgY(mg)^{-1}\in X+\omega_{X}$. Alors $mg\in G_{X}(F)$ puisque $\omega_{X}$ est un bon voisinage de $0$ dans $\mathfrak{g}_{X}(F)$. Puisque $G_{X}\subset M$, on en déduit $g\in M(F)$, contradiction. Donc $Y'\not\in \omega_{M}$ et $\theta_{M}(Y')=0$. Cela démontre (2).
D’après le lemme 6.3(ii), il existe une fonction très cuspidale $f\in C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathfrak{g}(F))$ telle que $\theta_{f}(Y)$ coïncide avec le membre de droite de (2) dans $\omega_{G}$. Alors $\theta_{f}(Y)=\theta(Y)$ pour $Y\in \omega_{G}$, ce qui achève la preuve de (1).
La preuve de la proposition est maintenant élémentaire. Pour tout $X\in \mathfrak{g}_{ss}(F)$, on fixe $\omega$ et $f$ vérifiant (1) et on les note plutôt $\omega_{X}$ et $f_{X}$. On fixe un sous-ensemble compact $\Gamma\subset \mathfrak{g}(F)$ tel que $Supp(\theta)\subset \Gamma^G$. On a $$\Gamma\subset \mathfrak{g}(F)\subset \bigcup_{X\in \mathfrak{g}_{ss}(F)}\omega_{X}.$$ On peut donc choisir une famille finie $(X_{i})_{i=1,...,n}$ d’éléments de $\mathfrak{g}_{ss}(F)$ telle que $$\Gamma\subset \bigcup_{i=1,...n}\omega_{X_{i}}.$$ Pour tout $i$, notons $\Delta_{i}$ le complémentaire dans $\mathfrak{g}(F)$ de $\bigcup_{j=1,...,i-1}\omega_{X_{i}}$, $\varphi_{i}$ la fonction caractéristique de $\omega_{X_{i}}\cap \Delta_{i}$ et posons$f_{i}=f_{X_{i}} \varphi_{i}$. Alors $f_{i}$ est très cuspidale et on a l’égalité $\theta=\sum_{i=1,...,n}\theta_{f_{i}}$. $\square$
Enoncé du théorème principal
============================
Groupes orthogonaux
-------------------
Soit $V$ un espace vectoriel sur $F$ de dimension finie $d$, muni d’une forme bilinéaire symétrique et non dégénérée $q$ (on dira parfois que $V$ est un espace quadratique,la forme $q$ étant sous-entendue). Pour $v\in V$, on pose $$q(v)=\frac{1}{2}q(v,v).$$ On appelle système hyperbolique dans $V$ une famille $(v_{i})_{i=\pm 1,...,\pm n}$ d’éléments de $V$ telle que $q(v_{i},v_{j})=\delta_{i,-j}$ pour tous $i,j$, où $\delta_{i,-j}$ est le symbole de Kronecker. On dit que $q$ est hyperbolique si et seulement s’il existe un système hyperbolique dans $V$ qui soit une base de $V$. On peut décomposer $V$ (de façon non unique) en somme orthogonale de deux sous-espaces $V_{hyp}$ et $V_{an}$ de sorte que la restriction de $q$ à $V_{hyp}$ soit hyperbolique et la restriction $q_{an}$ de $q$ à $V_{an}$ soit anisotrope. La classe d’équivalence de $q_{an}$ est uniquement définie, on l’appelle le noyau anisotrope de $q$ et on note $d_{an}(V)$ son rang, c’est-à-dire la dimension de $V_{an}$. Evidemment, $d_{an}(V)\equiv d\,\,mod\,\,2$.
On introduit le groupe orthogonal $O(V)$ de $(V,q)$ et son sous-groupe spécial orthogonal $SO(V)$. Notons-les ici $G^+$ et $G$, ainsi qu’on le fera souvent dans la suite. Le groupe $G^+(F)$ agit sur $V$, on note cette action $(g,v)\mapsto gv$. Le groupe $G$ est déployé sur $F$ si $d_{an}(V)=0$ ou $1$, quasi-déployé et non déployé si $d_{an}(V)=2$ et non quasi-déployé si $d_{an}(V)=3$ ou $4$. On définit la forme bilinéaire sur $\mathfrak{g}(F)$ $$<X,Y>=\frac{1}{2}trace(XY),$$ la trace étant la forme linéaire usuelle sur $End(V)$. C’est cette forme que l’on utilise pour normaliser les constructions de 1.2.
Si $W$ est un sous-espace non dégénéré de $V$, le groupe $H=SO(W)$ se plonge naturellement dans $G$: un élément de $H$ agit par l’identité sur l’orthogonal de $W$. De même, $\mathfrak{h}$ se plonge dans $\mathfrak{g}$.
Soient $v',v''\in V$. Définissons $c_{v',v''}\in End(V)$ par $$c_{v',v''}(v)=q(v,v')v''-q(v,v'')v'.$$ On vérifie que $c_{v',v''}$ appartient à $\mathfrak{g}(F)$ et que cette algèbre est engendrée en tant qu’espace vectoriel par de tels éléments.
On peut classifier les orbites unipotentes régulières de $\mathfrak{g}(F)$. Il n’y en a pas si $d_{an}(V)\geq 3$. Il y en a une seule si $d_{an}(V)=1$ ou si $d\leq 2$ et on la note ${\cal O}_{reg}$. Supposons $d\geq 4$ et $d_{an}(V)=0$ ou $2$. Introduisons le sous-ensemble ${\cal N}^V$ suivant:
- si $d_{an}(V)=0$, ${\cal N}^V=F^{\times}/F^{\times 2}$;
- si $d_{an}(V)=2$, ${\cal N}^V$ est le sous-ensemble des éléments de $F^{\times}/F^{\times 2}$ qui sont représentés par $q_{an}$.
Soit $\nu\in {\cal N}^V$, dont on fixe un relèvement dans $F^{\times}$. On peut décomposer $V$ en somme orthogonale $V=D\oplus W$, où $D$ est une droite et la restriction de $q$ à $W$ a pour noyau anisotrope la forme $x\mapsto \nu x^2$ de dimension $1$. Notons $H=SO(W)$. Il y a une unique orbite nilpotente régulière dans $\mathfrak{h}(F)$. Soit $N$ un élément de cette orbite, que l’on identifie à un élément de $\mathfrak{g}(F)$. On note ${\cal O}_{\nu}$ la $G(F)$-orbite de $N$. Elle ne dépend pas des choix et l’application $\nu\mapsto {\cal O}_{\nu}$ est une bijection de ${\cal N}^V$ sur l’ensemble des orbites nilpotentes régulières de $\mathfrak{g}(F)$.
Considérons une décomposition orthogonale $V=Z\oplus V_{an}$. Supposons la restriction de $q$ à $V_{an}$ anisotrope et la restriction de $q$ à $Z$ hyperbolique. Fixons une base hyperbolique $(v_{i})_{i=\pm 1,...\pm n}$ de $Z$. Si $V_{an}\not=\{0\}$, soit $c\in {\mathbb Z}$ tel qu’il existe $v\in V_{an}$ pour lequel $val_{F}(q(v))=c$. Si $V_{an}=\{0\}$, soit $c$ un élément quelconque de $ {\mathbb Z}$. Notons $R_{an}$ l’ensemble des $v\in V_{an}$ tels que $val_{F}(q(v))\geq c$. C’est un $\mathfrak{o}_{F}$-réseau de $V_{an}$. Notons $R_{Z}$ le $\mathfrak{o}_{F}$-réseau de $Z$ engendré par les éléments $v_{i}$ pour $i=1,...,n$ et par les $\varpi_{F}^cv_{-i}$ pour $i=1,...,n$. Posons $R=R_{Z}\oplus R_{an}$. Quand on fait varier la décomposition orthogonale, la base hyperbolique et l’entier $c$, le réseau $R$ parcourt un certain ensemble de $\mathfrak{o}_{F}$-réseaux de $V$. Par définition, c’est l’ensemble des réseaux spéciaux. Pour un tel réseau $R$ spécial, notons $K$ le stabilisateur de $R$ dans $G(F)$. C’est un sous-groupe compact spécial de $G(F)$. Inversement, si $K$ est un sous-groupe compact spécial de $G(F)$, il est le stabilisateur d’un réseau spécial $R$ (qui n’est pas unique).
Pour tout $\mathfrak{o}_{F}$-réseau $R$ de $V$, on définit une fonction $val_{R}$ sur $V$, à valeurs dans ${\mathbb Z}\cup\{\infty\}$ par $val_{R}(v)=sup\{i\in {\mathbb Z}; v\in \varpi_{F}^{i}R\}$.
La situation
------------
On conserve les données et notations du paragraphe précédent. Soit $r\in {\mathbb N}$ tel que $2r+1\leq d$. On suppose donnée une décomposition orthogonale $V=W\oplus D\oplus Z$, où $D$ est une droite et $Z$ un espace hyperbolique de dimension $2r$. On note $q_{W}$ la restriction de $q$ à $W$ et $d_{W}=d-2r-1$ la dimension de $W$. On pose $V_{0}=W\oplus D$. On note $H$, resp. $G_{0}$, le groupe spécial orthogonal de $W$, resp. $V_{0}$, et $H^+$ le groupe orthogonal de $W$. On identifie $H^+$ à un sous-groupe de $G$: un élément $h\in H^+$ s’identifie à l’élément de $G$ qui agit par $h$ sur $W$ et par $det(h)$ sur $D\oplus Z$. On fixe une base $v_{0}$ de $D$ et un système hyperbolique maximal $(v_{i})_{i=\pm 1,...,\pm r}$ de $Z$. On note $Z_{+}$, resp. $Z_{-}$, le sous-espace de $Z$ engendré par les $v_{i}$, $i=1,...,r$, resp. par les $v_{-i}$. On note $A$ le sous-tore maximal de $SO(Z)$ qui conserve chaque droite $Fv_{i}$. Pour $a\in A(F)$ et $i=1,...,r$, on note $a_{i}\in F^{\times}$ la valeur propre de $a$ sur $v_{i}$, c’est-à-dire que $av_{i}=a_{i}v_{i}$. On note $P$ le sous-groupe parabolique de $G$ formé des éléments qui conservent le drapeau $$Fv_{r}\subset Fv_{r}\oplus Fv_{r-1}\subset...\subset Fv_{r}\oplus...\oplus Fv_{1}$$ de $V$. On note $U$ le radical unipotent de $P$ et $M$ sa composante de Lévi qui contient $A$. On a $M=AG_{0}$. Remarquons que $A_{M}=A$, sauf dans le cas où $V_{0}$ est hyperbolique de dimension $2$, auquel cas $A_{M}=M$. Fixons une famille $(\xi_{i})_{i=0,...,r-1}$ d’éléments de $F^{\times}$. On définit une fonction $\xi$ sur $U(F)$ par $$\xi(u)=\psi(\sum_{i=0,...,r-1}\xi_{i}q(uv_{i},v_{-i-1})).$$ On vérifie que c’est un caractère de $U(F)$ invariant par conjugaison par le sous-groupe $H^+(F)$ de $M(F)$.
On fixe un réseau spécial $R_{0}$ de $V_{0}$. On peut choisir un réseau $R_{Z}$ de $Z$ ayant une base formée de vecteurs proportionnels aux $v_{i}$, de sorte que le réseau $R=R_{0}\oplus R_{Z}$ de $V$ soit spécial. On note $K_{0}$, resp. $K$, le stabilisateur de $R_{0}$ dans $G_{0}(F)$, resp. de $R$ dans $G(F)$. Ce sont des sous-groupes compacts spéciaux de $G_{0}(F)$, resp. $G(F)$. Le groupe $K$ est en bonne position relativement à $M$. On a $K\cap M(F)=(K\cap A(F))K_{0}$ et $K\cap A(F)$ est le plus grand sous-groupe compact de $A(F)$. Pour tout entier $N\in {\mathbb N}$, on définit une fonction $\kappa_{N}$ sur $G(F)$ de la façon suivante. Elle est invariante à droite par $K$, à gauche par $U(F)$. Sa restriction à $M(F)$ est la fonction caractéristique de l’ensemble des $ag_{0}$, avec $a\in A(F)$, $g_{0}\in G_{0}(F)$, tels que $\vert val_{F}(a_{i})\vert \leq N$ pour tout $i=1,...,r$ et $val_{R_{0}}(g_{0}^{-1}v_{0})\geq -N$. La fonction $\kappa_{N}$ est invariante à gauche par le sous-groupe $(K\cap A(F))H^+(F)$ de $M(F)$. L’image de son support dans $U(F)H(F)\backslash G(F)$ est compacte. Plus précisément
\(1) il existe $c>0$ tel que, pour tout entier $N\geq 1$ et tout $g\in G(F)$ pour lequel $\kappa_{N}(g)=1$, il existe $g'\in G(F)$ tel que $g\in U(F)H(F)g'$ et $\sigma(g')\leq cN$.
On peut écrire $g=uag_{0}k$, avec $u\in U(F)$, $a\in A(F)$, $g_{0}\in G_{0}(F)$ et $k\in K$. Les bornes sur les valuations des coordonnées de $a$ entraînent $\sigma(a)\leq cN$, pour $c$ convenable. Un raisonnement analogue à celui de la preuve du lemme III.5 de \[W2\] montre qu’il existe $c'>0$ tel que, pour tout $N\geq 1$ et tout $v\in \varpi_{F}^{-N}R_{0}$ tel que $q(v)=\nu_{0}=q(v_{0})$, il existe $y\in G_{0}(F)$ tel que $y^{-1}v_{0}=v$ et $\sigma(y)\leq c'N$. Appliquons cela à $v=g_{0}^{-1}v_{0}$. Alors $g_{0}y^{-1}$ appartient à $H(F)$. On a $g=ug_{0}y^{-1}g'$, avec $g'=ayk$ et ce dernier élément satisfait la majoration requise.
Les ingrédients de la formule intégrale
---------------------------------------
On définit une fonction $\Delta$ sur $H_{ss}(F)$ par $$\Delta(t)=\vert det((1-t)_{\vert W/W''(t)})\vert _{F},$$ où $W''(t)$ est le noyau de $1-t$ agissant dans $W$.
Notons $\underline{{\cal T}}$ l’ensemble des sous-tores $T$ de $H$, en général non maximaux, pour lesquels il existe une décomposition orthogonale $W=W'\oplus W''$ de sorte que les conditions (1) à (4) ci-dessous soient vérifiées. On note $H'$ le groupe spécial orthogonal de $W'$ et on pose $V''=W''\oplus D\oplus Z$.
\(1) $A_{T}=\{1\}$.
\(2) $dim(W')$ est pair.
\(3) $T$ est inclus dans $H'$ et c’en est un sous-tore maximal.
\(4) Si $d$ est pair, $d_{an}(W'')=1$; si $d$ est impair, $d_{an}(V'')=1$.
Evidemment, $W'$ et $W''$ sont déterminés par $T$: $W''$ est l’intersection des noyaux de $t-1$ agissant sur $W$, pour $t\in T$.
Pour $T\in \underline{\cal T}$, on pose $$W(H,T)=Norm_{H(F)}(T)/Z_{H(F)}(T).$$ On note $T_{\natural}$ le sous-ensemble des $t\in T$ tels que les valeurs propres de l’action de $t$ dans $W'$ soient toutes distinctes. C’est un ouvert de Zariski, non vide. Notons $H'=G'$, resp. $H''$, $G''$, les groupes spéciaux orthogonaux de $W'$, resp. $W''$, $V''$ et $H^{_{'}+}$ le groupe orthogonal de $W'$. Pour $t\in T_{\natural}$, $t$ est un élément semi-simple régulier dans $H'$ et même dans $H^{_{'}+}$ en ce sens que son commutant dans $H^{_{'}+}$ est réduit à $T$. Alors $Z_{H}(t)=TH''$, $Z_{G}(t)=TG''$. En particulier, les orbites nilpotentes de $\mathfrak{h}_{t}(F)$, resp. $\mathfrak{g}_{t}(F)$ sont les mêmes que celles de $\mathfrak{h}''(F)$, resp. $\mathfrak{g}''(F)$.
Soient $\theta$, resp. $\tau$, un quasi-caractère de $H(F)$, resp. $G(F)$. Soit $T\in \underline{\cal T}$, pour lequel on adopte les notations ci-dessus. Soit $t\in T_{\natural}(F)$. Supposons $d$ pair. Alors $dim(W'')$ est impair et l’hypothèse (4) dit que $H''$ est déployé. Donc $\mathfrak{h}''(F)$ possède une unique orbite nilpotente régulière ${\cal O}_{reg}$. On pose $c_{\theta}(t)=c_{\theta,{\cal O}_{reg}}(t)$. La dimension $dim(V'')$ est paire, nécessairement non nulle. Si elle est égale à $2$, $\mathfrak{g}''(F)$ possède une unique orbite nilpotente régulière ${\cal O}_{reg}$ et on pose $c_{\tau}(t)=c_{\tau,{\cal O}_{reg}}(t)$. Supposons $dim(V'')\geq 4$. Notons $q_{W'',an}$ le noyau anisotrope de la restriction de $q$ à $W''$ et $q_{D}$ la restriction de $q$ à $D$. Notons aussi $\nu_{0}=q(v_{0})$. La forme $q_{W'',an}$ est de rang $1$. Par construction, la restriction de $q$ à $V''$ a même noyau anisotrope que $q_{W'',an}\oplus q_{D}$. Elle est donc de rang $0$ ou $2$ et $G''$ est quasi-déployé. Puisque $q_{W'',an}\oplus q_{D}$ représente $\nu_{0}$, on a $\nu_{0}\in {\cal N}^{V''}$ et l’orbite ${\cal O}_{\nu_{0}}$ de $\mathfrak{g}''(F)$ est définie. On pose $c_{\tau}(t)=c_{\tau,{\cal O}_{\nu_{0}}}(t)$. Supposons maintenant $d$ impair. Alors $dim(V'')$ est impair et l’hypothèse (4) dit que $G''$ est déployé. De façon analogue à ci-dessus, on pose $c_{\tau}(t)=c_{\tau,{\cal O}_{reg}}(t)$. La dimension de $W''$ est paire. Si elle est inférieure ou égale à $2$, on pose encore $c_{\theta}(t)=c_{\theta,{\cal O}_{reg}}(t)$. Supposons $dim(W'')\geq 4$. Avec les mêmes notations que ci-dessus, la restriction de $q$ à $V''$ a encore même noyau anisotrope que $q_{W'',an}\oplus q_{D}$. Si $d_{an}(W'')$ était égal à $4$, le noyau anisotrope de $q_{W'',an}\oplus q_{D}$ serait de rang $3$, contrairement à (4). Donc $d_{an}(W'')=0$ ou $2$. On a $-\nu_{0}\in {\cal N}^{W''}$: c’est évident si $d_{an}(W'')=0$; si $d_{an}(W'')=2$, cela résulte du fait que $q_{W'',an}\oplus q_{D}$ n’est pas anisotrope puisque $d_{an}(V'')=1$. Donc l’orbite ${\cal O}_{-\nu_{0}}$ de $\mathfrak{h}''(F)$ est définie. On pose $c_{\theta}(t)=c_{\theta,{\cal O}_{-\nu_{0}}}(t).$
0.3cm[**[Proposition]{}**]{}.
**
\(i) Les fonctions $c_{\theta}$ et $c_{\tau}$ sont localement constantes sur $T_{\natural}(F)$.
\(ii) La fonction $t\mapsto c_{\theta}(t)c_{\tau}(t)D^{H}(t)\Delta(t)^r$ est localement intégrable sur $T(F)$.
0.3cm
La preuve est donnée dans les quatre paragraphes suivants. Le tore $T\in \underline{\cal T}$ est fixé pour ces paragraphes.
Fonctions localement intégrables sur un élément de $\underline{{\cal T}}$
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pour $t\in T(F)$, notons $E''(t)$ le noyau de $t-1$ dans $W'$ et $E'(t)$ son orthogonal dans $W'$. On note $J'(t)$, resp. $J''(t)$ le groupe spécial orthogonal de $E'(t)$, resp. $E''(t)$, $J'(t)_{t}$ la composante neutre du commutant de $t$ dans $J'(t)$ et $\mathfrak{z}_{t}$ le centre de l’algèbre de Lie $\mathfrak{j}'(t)_{t}$. Le groupe $H'_{t}$ préserve nécessairement les espaces propres de $t$, donc est inclus dans $J'(t)J''(t)$. Puisque $J''(t)$ est évidemment inclus dans ce commutant $H'_{t}$, on a l’égalité $$H'_{t}=J'(t)_{t}J''(t).$$ On aura besoin des résultats suivants.
\(1) $\mathfrak{z}_{t}$ est inclus dans le centre de $\mathfrak{h}_{t}$ et dans le centre de $\mathfrak{g}_{t}$.
\(2) Il existe un voisinage $\omega$ de $0$ dans $\mathfrak{t}(F)$ sur lequel l’exponentielle est définie et tel que, pour $X\in \omega$, on a $\mathfrak{z}_{t}\subset \mathfrak{z}_{texp(X)}$, avec égalité si et seulement si $X\in \mathfrak{z}_{t}(F)$.
Preuve. Le noyau de $t-1$ dans $W$ est $E''(t)\oplus W''$ et son orthogonal dans $W$ est $E'(t)$. On en déduit comme ci-dessus que $H_{t}$ est le produit de $J'(t)_{t}$ et du groupe spécial orthogonal de $E''(t)\oplus W''$.Donc le centre de $\mathfrak{h}_{t}$ est le produit de $\mathfrak{z}_{t}$ et du centre de l’algèbre de Lie du second groupe. Cela prouve que $\mathfrak{z}_{t}$ est inclus dans le centre de $\mathfrak{h}_{t}$. Un raisonnement analogue vaut en remplaçant $\mathfrak{h}_{t}$ par $\mathfrak{g}_{t}$.
Considérons un voisinage $\omega$ de $0$ dans $\mathfrak{t}(F)$ sur lequel l’exponentielle est définie et tel que $H'_{texp(X)}\subset H'_{t}$ pour tout $X\in \omega$. Soit $X\in \omega$. Puisque $X$ commute à $t$, il préserve les espaces propres de $t$, donc préserve $E'(t)$ et $E''(t)$. Notons $X'$ et $X''$ les restrictions de $X$ à chacun de ces deux espaces et posons $\tilde{t}=texp(X)$. Le groupe $H'_{\tilde{t}}$ est le commutant de $X$ dans $H'_{t}$. Donc $H'_{\tilde{t}}$ est le produit du commutant $J'(t)_{t,X'}$ de $X'$ dans $J'(t)_{t}$ et du commutant $J''(t)_{X''}$ de $X''$ dans $J''(t)$. En choisissant $\omega$ assez petit, on peut imposer que toutes les valeurs propres de $\tilde{t}$ dans $E'(t)$ soient différentes de $1$. Alors $E''(\tilde{t})\subset E''(t)$. Le groupe $J'(\tilde{t})_{\tilde{t}}$ est le sous-groupe des éléments de $H'_{\tilde{t}}$ qui agissent trivialement sur $E''(\tilde{t})$. Ce sous-groupe contient certainement $J'(t)_{t,X'}$ et est donc le produit de ce groupe et d’un certain sous-groupe de $J''(t)_{X''}$, que l’on note $\tilde{J}$. Donc $\mathfrak{z}_{\tilde{t}}$ est le produit du centre de $\mathfrak{j}'(t)_{t,X'}$ et du centre de $\tilde{\mathfrak{j}}$. L’algèbre $\mathfrak{j}'(t)_{t,X'}$ est le commutant dans $\mathfrak{j}'(t)_{t}$ de l’élément semi-simple $X'$ de cette algèbre. Sur une extension de $F$, c’est donc une sous-algèbre de Lévi de $\mathfrak{j}'(t)_{t}$ et son centre contient le centre de cette algèbre, c’est-à-dire contient $\mathfrak{z}_{t}$. Cela démontre l’inclusion $\mathfrak{z}_{t}\subset \mathfrak{z}_{\tilde{t}}$. Supposons qu’il y a égalité. Une sous-algèbre de Lévi étant le commutant de son centre, cela entraîne que $\mathfrak{j}'(t)_{t,X'}=\mathfrak{j}'(t)_{t}$. Donc $X'\in \mathfrak{z}_{t}$. De plus, il est clair que $X''$ appartient au centre de $\tilde{\mathfrak{j}}$, donc à $\mathfrak{z}_{\tilde{t}}=\mathfrak{z}_{t}$. Mais tout élément de $\mathfrak{z}_{t}$ agit trivialement sur $E''(t)$, donc $X''=0$. Alors $X=X'$ appartient à $\mathfrak{z}_{t}$. La réciproque est aisée. Cela prouve (2). $\square$
Pour un espace vectoriel $E$ sur $F$, de dimension finie, et pour $i\in {\mathbb Z}$, on note $C_{i}(E)$ l’espace des fonctions $\varphi:E\to {\mathbb C}$ telles que $$\varphi(\lambda e)=\vert \lambda\vert_{F} ^{i}\varphi(e)$$ pour tout $e\in E$ et tout $\lambda\in F^{\times 2}$. On note $C_{\geq i}(E)$ l’espace des combinaisons linéaires d’éléments $C_{j}(E)$ pour $j\geq i$. Remarquons que, si $E=\{0\}$, on a $C_{\geq i}(E)={\mathbb C}$ si $i\leq 0$, $C_{\geq i}(E)=\{0\}$ si $i>0$.
Soit $\delta:T(F)\to {\mathbb Z}$ une fonction. On note $C_{\geq \delta}(T)$ l’espace des fonctions $f$ définies presque partout sur $T(F)$ vérifiant la condition suivante. Soit $t\in T(F)$. Alors il existe un voisinage $\omega$ de $0$ dans $\mathfrak{t}(F)$, sur lequel l’exponentielle est définie, et il existe une fonction $\varphi\in C_{\geq \delta(t)}(\mathfrak{t}(F)/\mathfrak{z}_{t}(F))$ tels que l’on ait l’égalité $$f(texp(X))=\varphi(\bar{X})$$ presque partout pour $X\in \omega$, où $\bar{X}$ désigne la projection de $X$ dans $\mathfrak{t}(F)/\mathfrak{z}_{t}(F)$.Il revient au même de demander qu’il existe un supplémentaire $\mathfrak{s}$ de $\mathfrak{z}$ dans $\mathfrak{t}$, une fonction $\varphi\in C_{\geq \delta(t)}(\mathfrak{s}(F))$ et des voisinages $\omega_{z}$ de $0$ dans $\mathfrak{z}(F)$ et $\omega_{s}$ de $0$ dans $\mathfrak{s}(F)$ de sorte que l’on ait l’égalité $$(3) \qquad f(texp(X_{z}+X_{s}))=\varphi(X_{s})$$ presque partout pour $X_{z}\in \omega_{z}$ et $X_{s}\in \omega_{s}$.
[0.3cm[**[Lemme]{}**]{}. [ *[Supposons $\delta(t)=inf(dim(\mathfrak{z}_{t})-dim(\mathfrak{t})+1,0)$ pour tout $t\in T(F)$. Alors tout élément de $C_{\geq \delta}(T)$ est localement intégrable sur $T(F)$.]{}*]{}0.3cm]{}
Preuve. Pour tout $n\in {\mathbb N}$, posons $T_{n}=\{t\in T; dim(\mathfrak{z}_{t})\geq dim(\mathfrak{t})-n\}$. Cet ensemble est un ouvert de Zariski. On va prouver par récurrence
$(4)_{n}$ tout élément de $C_{\geq \delta}(T)$ est localement intégrable sur $T_{n}(F)$.
Soit $n\in {\mathbb N}$. Si $n>0$, on suppose $(4)_{n'}$ vraie pour tout $n'<n$. Soit $f\in C_{\geq\delta}(T)$. Pour prouver $(4)_{n}$, il suffit de fixer $t\in T(F)$ tel que $dim(\mathfrak{z}_{t})= dim(\mathfrak{t})-n$ et de prouver que $f$ est intégrable dans un voisinage de $t$. Si $n=0$, on a $\mathfrak{z}_{t}=\mathfrak{t}$ et $f$ est localement constante au voisinage de $t$. L’assertion s’ensuit. Supposons $n>0$. Fixons comme avant l’énoncé un espace $\mathfrak{s}$, une fonction $\varphi\in C_{\geq \delta(t)}(\mathfrak{s}(F))$ et des voisinages $\omega_{z}$ et $\omega_{s}$ de sorte que l’on ait l’égalité (3). On suppose aussi que $\omega_{z}$ et $\omega_{s}$ sont ouverts et compacts et que le voisinage $\omega=\omega_{z}\times\omega_{s}$ vérifie (2). On suppose enfin que l’exponentielle de $\omega$ sur son image préserve les mesures. Ecrivons $\varphi=\sum_{i\geq \delta(t)}\varphi_{i}$, où $\varphi_{i}\in C_{i}(\mathfrak{s}(F))$ et $\varphi_{i}=0$ sauf pour un nombre fini d’indices. On peut choisir une base $(e_{j})_{j=1,...,m}$ de $\mathfrak{s}(F)$ de sorte que le réseau engendré par cette base soit inclus dans $\omega_{s}$. On ne perd rien à supposer que $\omega_{s}$ est égal à ce réseau.
Pour $i\geq \delta(t)$, définissons une fonction $f_{i}$ sur $T(F)$ de la façon suivante. Elle est nulle hors de $texp(\omega)$. Pour $X_{z}\in \omega_{z}$ et $X_{s}\in \omega_{s}$, on pose $f_{i}(texp(X_{z}+X_{s}))=\varphi_{i}(X_{s})$. Montrons que $$(5) \qquad f_{i}\in C_{\geq \delta}(T).$$ Pour $\lambda\in F^{\times 2}$ tel que $\vert \lambda\vert _{F}\leq 1$, définissons une fonction $f[\lambda]$ sur $T(F)$ de la façon suivante. Elle est nulle hors de $texp(\omega)$. Pour $X\in \omega$, on pose $f[\lambda](texp(X))=f(texp(\lambda X))$. On a $f[\lambda]=\sum_{i\geq \delta(t)}\vert \lambda\vert _{F}^{i}f_{i}$. Par interpolation, chaque $f_{i}$ est combinaison linéaire de fonctions $f[\lambda]$. Il suffit donc de fixer $\lambda$ et de prouver que $f[\lambda]$ appartient à $C_{\geq \delta}(T)$. On fixe $X\in \omega$, on pose $t'=texp(X)$ et on doit étudier le comportement de la fonction $Y\mapsto f[\lambda](t'exp(Y))$ au voisinage de $0$. Posons $t''=texp(\lambda X)$ et introduisons la fonction $\varphi''\in C_{\geq\delta(t'')}(\mathfrak{t}(F)/\mathfrak{z}_{t''})$ telle que $f(t''exp(Y))=\varphi''(\bar{Y})$ pour $Y$ assez proche de $0$. On a alors $$(6) \qquad f[\lambda](t'exp(Y))=\varphi''(\lambda\bar{Y})=\varphi^{_{''}\lambda}(\bar{Y})$$ pour $Y$ assez proche de $0$. La fonction $ \varphi^{_{''}\lambda}$ appartient évidemment à $C_{\geq\delta(t'')}(\mathfrak{t}(F)/\mathfrak{z}_{t''})$. De plus, la preuve de (2) montre que $\mathfrak{z}_{t'}=\mathfrak{z}_{t''}$, d’où aussi $\delta(t')=\delta(t'')$. Alors l’égalité (6) est le développement requis pour que $f[\lambda]$ appartienne à $C_{\geq \delta}(T)$. Cela prouve (5).
Notons $\Omega_{s}$ l’ensemble des éléments de $\omega_{s}$ dont les coordonnées $(\lambda_{j})_{j=1,...,m}$ dans la base $(e_{j})_{j=1,...,m}$ vérifient la condition $inf\{val_{F}(\lambda_{j}); j=1,...,m\}=0$ ou $1$. C’est un sous-ensemble ouvert et compact de $\mathfrak{s}(F)$. L’ensemble $\omega$ est réunion disjointe de $\omega_{z}\times\{0\}$, qui est de mesure nulle, et des ensembles $\omega_{z}\times\varpi_{F}^{2k}\Omega_{s}$, pour $k\in {\mathbb N}$. Soit $k\in {\mathbb N}$. Puisque $\Omega_{s}$ ne contient pas $0$, tout élément $X\in \omega_{z}\times\varpi_{F}^{2k}\Omega_{s}$ appartient à $\omega$ mais pas à $\mathfrak{z}_{t}(F)$. D’après (2), on a donc $\mathfrak{z}_{t}\subsetneq \mathfrak{z}_{texp(X)}$. Il en résulte que $texp(X)\in \bigcup_{n'<n}T_{n'}(F)$. D’après l’hypothèse de récurrence et (5), toute fonction $f_{i}$ est intégrable sur $texp(\omega_{z}+\varpi_{F}^{2k}\Omega_{s})$. La fonction $f$ coïncide sur cet ensemble avec $\sum_{i\geq \delta(t)}f_{i}$ et est donc aussi intégrable. Pour prouver que $f$ est intégrable sur $texp(\omega)$, il reste à prouver que la série $$(7) \qquad \sum_{k\in {\mathbb N}}\int_{texp(\omega_{z}+\varpi_{F}^{2k}\Omega_{s})}\vert f(t')\vert dt'$$ est convergente. Elle est majorée par $$\sum_{i\geq\delta(t)}mes(\omega_{z})\sum_{k\in {\mathbb N}}\int_{\varpi_{F}^{2k}\Omega_{s}}\vert \varphi_{i}(X)\vert dX.$$ Cette dernière intégrale est égale à $$\int_{\Omega_{s}}\vert \varphi_{i}(\varpi_{F}^{2k}X)\vert q^{-2kdim(\mathfrak{s})}dX$$ ou encore $$q^{-2k(i+dim(\mathfrak{s}))}\int_{\Omega_{s}}\vert \varphi_{i}(X)\vert dX.$$ On a $$i+dim(\mathfrak{s})\geq \delta(t)+dim(\mathfrak{t})-dim(\mathfrak{z}_{t})\geq 1.$$ Donc la série $$\sum_{k\in {\mathbb N}}q^{-2k(i+dim(\mathfrak{s}))}$$ est convergente et aussi la série (7). Cela achève la démonstration. $\square$
Les fonctions déterminants
--------------------------
On définit une fonction $$\begin{array}{cccc}\delta_{0}:&T(F)&\to &{\mathbb Z}\\ &t&\mapsto& \delta(H_{t})-\delta(H'') +rdim(E''(t))\\ \end{array}$$ où les notations sont celles introduites dans le paragraphe précédent.
[0.3cm[**[Lemme]{}**]{}. [ *[La fonction $D^{H}\Delta^r$ appartient à $C_{\geq\delta_{0}}(T)$.]{}*]{}0.3cm]{}
Preuve. Soient $t\in T(F)$ et $X\in \mathfrak{t}(F)$. On note $X'$, resp. $X''$ la restriction de $X$ à $E'(t)$, resp. $E''(t)$. On suppose $texp(X)\in T_{\natural}(F)$. Si $X$ est assez proche de $0$, on a les égalités $$D^H(texp(X))=D^H(t)D^{H_{t}}(X),\,\,\Delta(texp(X))=\vert det((1-t)_{\vert E'(t)})\vert_{F} \vert det(X''_{\vert E''(t)})\vert_{F} .$$ La fonction $D^{H_{t}}$ est invariante par translations par le centre de $\mathfrak{h}_{t}(F)$, donc aussi par $\mathfrak{z}_{t}(F)$ d’après le (1) du paragraphe précédent. La seconde fonction est aussi invariante par translations par $\mathfrak{z}_{t}(F)$, ainsi que l’est toute fonction de $X$ ne dépendant que de $X''$. Cette seconde fonction est homogène de degré $dim(E''(t))$. On a l’égalité $$D^{H_{t}}(X)=lim_{Y\in \mathfrak{h}_{t,X}(F),Y\to 0}D^{H_{t}}(X+Y)D^{H_{t,X}}(Y)^{-1}.$$ On a $H_{t,X}=TH''$. Sur les éléments réguliers de $\mathfrak{h}_{t}(F)$, $D^{H_{t}}$ est homogène de degré $\delta(H_{t})$. De même, sur les éléments réguliers de $\mathfrak{h}_{t,X}(F)$, $D^{H_{t,X}}$ est homogène de degré $\delta(H_{t,X})=\delta(H'')$. Il en résulte que, sur un ouvert dense de $\mathfrak{t}(F)$, $D^{H_{t}}$ est homogène de degré $\delta(H_{t})-\delta(H'')$. Le résultat s’ensuit. $\square$
La fonction $c_{\tau}$
----------------------
On définit une fonction $\delta_{G,T}:T(F)\to {\mathbb Z}$ par les formules suivantes, pour $t\in T(F)$:
- si $d$ est impair et $E''(t)\not=\{0\}$, $\delta_{G,T}(t)=\frac{1}{2}(\delta(G'')-\delta(G_{t})+2)$;
- si $d$ est pair, ou si $d$ est impair et $E''(t)=\{0\}$, $\delta_{G,T}(t)=\frac{1}{2}(\delta(G'')-\delta(G_{t}))$.
[0.3cm[**[Lemme]{}**]{}. [ *[La fonction $c_{\tau}$ appartient à $C_{\geq \delta_{G,T}}(T)$.]{}*]{}0.3cm]{}
Preuve. Fixons $t\in T(F)$ et un bon voisinage $\omega$ de $0$ dans $\mathfrak{g}_{t}(F)$. Posons $\underline{\tau}=\tau_{t,\omega}$, cf. 4.3. C’est un quasi-caractère sur $\mathfrak{g}_{t}(F)$. Pour $X\in \omega\cap \mathfrak{t}(F)$ tel que $texp(X)\in T_{\natural}(F)$, on a l’égalité $$c_{\tau}(texp(X))=c_{\underline{\tau},{\cal O}}(X)$$ où ${\cal O}$ est une certaine orbite nilpotente régulière appartenant à $Nil(\mathfrak{g}_{t,X})=Nil(\mathfrak{g}'')$. Il s’agit donc d’étudier la fonction $c_{\underline{\tau},{\cal O}}$ sur un ouvert dense de $\mathfrak{t}(F)$, au voisinage de $0$. On peut généraliser la question à un quasi-caractère quelconque $\underline{\tau}$ de $\mathfrak{g}_{t}(F)$. On peut restreindre $\omega$ et supposer que $\underline{\tau}$ est développable dans $\omega$. En utilisant le lemme 6.3(iii), on peut fixer une orbite ${\cal O}_{t}\in Nil(\mathfrak{g}_{t})$ et supposer que $\underline{\tau}(Y)=\hat{j}({\cal O}_{t},Y)$ presque partout pour $Y\in \omega$. Cette fonction est localement invariante par translations par le centre de $\mathfrak{g}_{t}(F)$, donc aussi par $\mathfrak{z}_{t}(F)$ d’après 7.4(1). La fonction $c_{\underline{\tau},{\cal O}}$ sur $\mathfrak{t}(F)$ l’est donc aussi. Soit $\lambda\in F^{\times 2}$. D’après 4.2(2), le quasi-caractère $\underline{\tau}^{\lambda}$ coïncide avec $\vert \lambda\vert _{F}^{-dim({\cal O}_{t})/2}\underline{\tau}$ au voisinage de $0$. La même formule nous dit alors que la fonction $c_{\underline{\tau},{\cal O}}$ sur $\mathfrak{t}(F)$ est homogène de degré $(dim({\cal O})-dim({\cal O}_{t}))/2$. On a $dim({\cal O}_{t})\leq \delta(G_{t})$. Puisque ${\cal O}$ est régulière, on a $dim({\cal O})=\delta(G'')$. Si $d$ est pair, ou si $d$ est impair et $E''(t)=\{0\}$, le degré précédent est supérieur ou égal à $\delta_{G,T}(t)$ et cela achève la démonstration. Supposons $d$ impair et $E''(t)\not=\{0\}$. Si ${\cal O}_{t}$ n’est pas régulière, on a $dim({\cal O}_{t})\leq \delta(G_{t})-2$ et on conclut encore. Supposons ${\cal O}_{t}$ régulière. Le tore $T$ est un sous-tore maximal de $H'_{t}=J'(t)_{t}J''(t)$ et se décompose donc en $T=T'T''$, où $T'$ est un sous-tore maximal de $J'(t)_{t}$ et $T''$ un sous-tore maximal de $J''(t)$. L’hypothèse $A_{T}=\{1\}$ entraîne $A_{T''}=\{1\}$ et l’hypothèse $E''(t)\not=\{0\}$ entraîne $T''\not=\{1\}$. Notons $\tilde{G}$ le groupe spécial orthogonal de $E''(t)\oplus V''$. On a $T''\subset J''(t)\subset \tilde{G}$. Comme on l’a vu dans la preuve de 7.4(1), on a $G_{t}=J'(t)_{t}\tilde{G}$. L’orbite ${\cal O}_{t}$ se décompose en la somme d’une orbite nilpotente dans $\mathfrak{j}'(t)_{t}(F)$ et d’une orbite nilpotente $\tilde{{\cal O}}$ dans $\tilde{\mathfrak{g}}(F)$. Ces deux orbites sont régulières. Cela entraîne que $\tilde{G}$ est quasi-déployé. Or $dim(E''(t)\oplus V'')$ est impair, donc $\tilde{G}$ est déployé. Donc $\tilde{\mathfrak{g}}(F)$ possède une unique orbite nilpotente régulière, à savoir $\tilde{{\cal O}}$, qui est induite à partir de l’orbite $\{0\}$ d’une sous-algèbre de Lévi minimale, c’est-à-dire de l’algèbre de Lie d’un tore déployé maximal. Cela entraîne que la fonction $\hat{j}(\tilde{{\cal O}},.)$ est à support dans l’ensemble des éléments qui appartiennent à une sous-algèbre de Borel. Les propriétés de $T''$ montrent qu’un élément de $\mathfrak{t}''(F)$ en position générale possède un voisinage dans $\tilde{\mathfrak{g}}(F)$ dont aucun élément n’appartient à une telle algèbre. Donc $\hat{j}(\tilde{{\cal O}},.) $ s’annule au voisinage de presque tout élément de $\mathfrak{t}''(F)$. Il en résulte que $\underline{\tau}$ s’annule au voisinage de presque tout élément de $\mathfrak{t}(F)$. A fortiori, la fonction $c_{\underline{\tau},{\cal O}}$ est nulle sur $\mathfrak{t}(F)$. Cela achève la démonstration. $\square$
Preuve de la proposition 7.3
----------------------------
Evidemment, un lemme analogue au lemme 7.6 vaut si l’on remplace $G$ par $H$ et $\delta_{G,T}$ par une fonction $\delta_{H,T}$ définie de façon similaire (l’entier $d_{W}$ remplace $d$). Il résulte tout d’abord de ces lemmes que les fonctions $c_{\theta}$ et $c_{\tau}$ sont localement constantes sur $T_{\natural}(F)$. Evidemment, si $\delta_{i}$, $i=1,2,3$ sont trois fonctions sur $T(F)$ telles que $\delta_{1}+\delta_{2}\geq \delta_{3}$, on a $f_{1}f_{2}\in C_{\geq\delta_{3}}(T)$ pour toutes $f_{1}\in C_{\geq\delta_{1}}(T)$ et $f_{2}\in C_{\geq\delta_{2}}(T)$. En vertu des lemmes 7.4, 7.5 et 7.6, pour démontrer le (ii) de la proposition, il suffit de prouver que $$(1) \qquad \delta_{0}(t)+\delta_{G,T}(t)+\delta_{H,T}(t)\geq inf(dim(\mathfrak{z}_{t})-dim(\mathfrak{t})+1,0)$$ pour tout $t\in T(F)$. Posons $e=dim(E''(t))$. Puisque $d$ ou $d_{W}$ est impair, les définitions entraînent que le membre de gauche est égal à
$ \frac{1}{2}(\delta(G'')-\delta(G_{t})-\delta(H'')+\delta(H_{t}))+re$, si $e=0$;
$ \frac{1}{2}(\delta(G'')-\delta(G_{t})-\delta(H'')+\delta(H_{t}))+1+re$, si $e>0$.
On a déjà dit que $G_{t}$ était le produit de $J'(t)_{t}$ et du groupe spécial orthogonal $\tilde{G}$ de $E''(t)\oplus V''$. De même, $H_{t}$ est le produit de $J'(t)_{t}$ et du groupe spécial orthogonal $\tilde{H}$ de $E''(t)\oplus W''$. On peut remplacer $-\delta(G_{t})+\delta(H_{t})$ par $-\delta(\tilde{G})+\delta(\tilde{H})$ dans les formules précédentes. Il est facile de calculer $$(2) \qquad \delta(G)=\left\lbrace\begin{array}{cc}d(d-2)/2,&\,\,{\rm si}\,\,d\,\,{\rm est\,\,pair},\\ (d-1)^2/2,&\,\,{\rm si}\,\,d\,\,{\rm est\,\,impair}.\\ \end{array}\right.$$ On calcule de même $\delta(G'')$, $\delta(H'')$, $\delta(\tilde{G})$ et $\delta(\tilde{H})$ en remplaçant $d$ par $d''+1+2r$, $d''$, $d''+1+2r+e$, $d''+e$, où $d''=dim(W'')$. On obtient que le membre de gauche de (1) est supérieur ou égal à $$\left\lbrace\begin{array}{c}0,\text{\,\, si\,\,} e=0;\\ -e/2+1,\text{\,\,si\,\,} e>0.\\ \end{array}\right.$$ Dans le premier cas, il est clairement supérieur au membre de droite de (1). Supposons $e>0$. L’algèbre $\mathfrak{z}_{t}$ est celle d’un sous-tore de $J'(t)$, donc de dimension inférieure ou égale à $dim(E'(t))/2$, qui est égale à $dim(\mathfrak{t})-e/2$. Le membre de droite de (1) est donc inférieur ou égal à $-e/2+1$, donc au membre de gauche. Cela achève la preuve. $\square$
Le théorème
-----------
Soient $\theta$ un quasi-caractère sur $H(F)$ et $f\in C_{c}^{\infty}(G(F))$ une fonction très cuspidale. Pour $T\in \underline{\cal T}$, on définit la fonction $c_{\theta_{f}}$ sur $T_{\natural}(F)$ et on la note simplement $c_{f}$. Fixons un ensemble de représentants ${\cal T}$ des classes de conjugaison par $H(F)$ dans $\underline{\cal T}$. Posons $$I(\theta,f)=\sum_{T\in {\cal T}}\vert W(H,T)\vert ^{-1}\nu(T)\int_{T(F)}c_{\theta}(t)c_{f}(t)D^H(t)\Delta(t)^rdt.$$ D’après la proposition 7.3, cette expression est absolument convergente.
Pour $g\in G(F)$, on définit une fonction $^gf^{\xi}$ sur $H(F)$ par $$^gf^{\xi}(x)=\int_{U(F)}f(g^{-1}xug)\xi(u)du.$$ Elle appartient à $C_{c}^{\infty}(H(F))$. On pose $$I(\theta,f,g)=\int_{H(F)}\theta(x){^gf}^{\xi}(x)dx,$$ puis, pour un entier $N\in {\mathbb N}$, $$I_{N}(\theta,f)=\int_{U(F)H(F)\backslash G(F)}I(\theta,f,g)\kappa_{N}(g) dg.$$ Ces intégrales sont à supports compacts.
[0.3cm[**[Théorème]{}**]{}. [ *[Pour tout quasi-caractère $\theta$ sur $H(F)$ et toute fonction très cuspidale $f\in C_{c}^{\infty}(G(F))$, on a l’égalité $$lim_{N\to \infty}I_{N}(\theta,f)=I(\theta,f).$$]{}*]{}0.3cm]{}
Ce théorème sera démontré en 12.3. Contentons-nous ici de la remarque facile suivante. Supposons $d_{W}\geq 1$. Soit $y\in H^+(F)$ $y\not\in H(F)$, que l’on identifie comme on l’a dit en 7.2 à un élément de $G(F)$. Posons $\theta^+=(\theta+{^y\theta})/2$. Par de simples changements de variables, on vérifie les égalités $$I(\theta^+,f)=I(\theta,f),\,\,I_{N}(\theta^+,f)=I_{N}(\theta,f).$$ On peut donc remplacer $\theta$ par $\theta^+$ pour démontrer le théorème. Autrement dit, on peut supposer $\theta$ invariant par conjugaison par $H^+(F)$.
Le théorème pour les algèbres de Lie
------------------------------------
Soient $\theta$ un quasi-caractère sur $\mathfrak{h}(F)$ et $f\in C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathfrak{g}(F))$. Les définitions posées pour les groupes dans les paragraphes précédents se descendent aux algèbres de Lie. Ainsi, on a défini en 7.2 un caractère $\xi$ de $U(F)$. Il s’en déduit un caractère de $\mathfrak{u}(F)$, défini par la même formule qu’en 7.2 et que l’on note encore $\xi$. On définit une fonction $f^{\xi}$ sur $\mathfrak{h}(F)$ par $$f^{\xi}(Y)=\int_{\mathfrak{u}(F)}f(Y+N)\xi(N)dN.$$ Pour $g\in G(F)$, on pose $$I(\theta,f,g)=\int_{\mathfrak{h}(F)}\theta(Y){^gf}^{\xi}(Y)dY,$$ puis, pour un entier $N\in {\mathbb N}$, $$I_{N}(\theta,f)=\int_{U(F)H(F)\backslash G(F)}I(\theta,f,g)\kappa_{N}(g)dg.$$ On définit la fonction $\Delta$ sur $\mathfrak{h}(F)$ par $$\Delta(Y)=\vert det(Y\vert W/W''(Y))\vert _{F},$$ où $W''(Y) $ est le noyau de $Y$ agissant dans $W$. Pour $T\in {\cal T}$, on note $\mathfrak{t}_{\natural}$ le sous-ensemble des $X\in \mathfrak{t}$ tels que les valeurs propres de l’action de $X$ dans $W'$ soient toutes distinctes, où $W'$ est comme en 7.3. Supposons $f$ très cuspidale. On définit les fonctions $c_{\theta}$ et $c_{f}=c_{\theta_{f}}$ sur $\mathfrak{t}_{\natural}(F)$. On pose $$I(\theta,f)=\sum_{T\in {\cal T}}\vert W(H,T)\vert ^{-1}\nu(T)\int_{\mathfrak{t}(F)}c_{\theta}(Y)c_{f}(Y)D^{H}(Y)\Delta(Y)^rdY.$$ Une analogue de la proposition 7.3 entraîne l’absolue convergence de cette expression.
[0.3cm[**[Théorème]{}**]{}. [ *[Pour tout quasi-caractère $\theta$ sur $\mathfrak{h}(F)$ et toute fonction très cuspidale $f\in C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathfrak{g}(F))$, on a l’égalité $$lim_{N\to \infty}I_{N}(\theta,f)=I(\theta,f).$$]{}*]{}0.3cm]{}
Ce théorème sera démontré en 12.3.
Localisation
============
Un cas trivial
--------------
On fixe pour toute la section un quasi-caractère $\theta$ sur $H(F)$, invariant par conjugaison par $H^+(F)$, et une fonction très cuspidale $f\in C_{c}^{\infty}(G(F))$. Soit $x\in G_{ss}(F)$. Notons $V''$ le noyau de $x-1$ agissant dans $V$. Supposons que $x$ n’est conjugué à aucun élément de $H(F)$. Par le théorème de Witt, cette hypothèse équivaut à dire que $V''$ ne contient aucun sous-espace non dégénéré isomorphe (comme espace quadratique) à $D\oplus Z$. Soit $\omega$ un bon voisinage de $0$ dans $\mathfrak{g}_{x}(F)$, vérifiant la condition $(7)_{\rho}$ de 3.1, où $\rho$ est la représentation de $G$ dans $V$. Pour $X\in \omega$, le noyau de $xexp(X)-1$ est contenu dans $V''$ et vérifie a fortiori la même condition que $V''$. Donc $xexp(X)$ n’est conjugué à aucun élément de $H(F)$. Posons $\Omega=(xexp(\omega))^G$. Alors $\Omega\cap H(F)=\emptyset$. Supposons $f$ à support dans $\Omega$. Pour tout $t\in H_{ss}(F)$, le complémentaire de $\Omega$ dans $G(F)$ est un voisinage de $t$ invariant par conjugaison par $G(F)$ et sur lequel $f$ est nulle. Donc $\theta_{f}$ y est nul aussi et le développement de $\theta_{f}$ au voisinage de $t$ est nul. Il en résulte que $I(\theta,f)=0$. D’autre part, tout élément de $U(F)H(F)$ a pour partie semi-simple un élément conjugué à un élément de $H(F)$. Il en résulte que $^gf^{\xi}=0$ pour tout $g\in G(F)$, donc $I_{N}(\theta,f)=0$. Alors l’égalité du théorème est triviale.
Localisation de $I_{N}(\theta,f)$
---------------------------------
Soit $x\in H_{ss}(F)$. On note $W''$, resp. $V_{0}''$, $V''$, le noyau de $x-1$ agissant dans $W$, resp. $V_{0}$, resp. $V$. On a $V''_{0}=W''\oplus D$, $V''=W''\oplus D\oplus Z$. On note $W'$ l’orthogonal de $W''$ dans $W$. On note $H'=G'$, resp. $H''$, $G''_{0}$, $G''$, les groupes spéciaux orthogonaux de $W'$, resp. $W''$, $V''_{0}$, $V''$. On a les égalités $H_{x}=H'_{x}H''$, $G_{x}=G'_{x}G''$. On fixe un bon voisinage $\omega$ de $0$ dans $\mathfrak{g}_{x}(F)$, auquel on impose la condition (8) de 3.1, c’est-à-dire $\omega=\omega'\times\omega''$, où $\omega'\subset \mathfrak{g}'_{x}(F)$, $\omega''\subset \mathfrak{g}''(F)$. On pose $\Omega=(xexp(\omega))^G$. On suppose
[0.3cm[**[Hypothèse]{}**]{}. [ *[Le support de $f$ est contenu dans $\Omega$.]{}*]{}0.3cm]{}
La situation ci-dessus, les notations et cette hypothèse seront conservées jusqu’en 10.9.
On définit le quasi-caractère $\theta_{x,\omega}$ de $\mathfrak{g}_{x}(F)$, cf. 4.3, et, pour $g\in G(F)$, la fonction $^gf_{x,\omega}$ sur $\mathfrak{g}_{x}(F)$, cf. 5.4. Pour $g\in G(F)$, on définit une fonction $^gf_{x,\omega}^{\xi}$ sur $\mathfrak{h}_{x}(F)$ par $$^gf_{x,\omega}^{\xi}(X)=\int_{\mathfrak{u}_{x}(F)}{^gf}_{x,\omega}(X+N)\xi(N)dN.$$ Remarquons que $x$ appartient à $M(F)$ et que l’on a l’inclusion $\mathfrak{h}_{x}\subset \mathfrak{m}_{x}$. Posons $$I_{x,\omega}(\theta,f,g)=\int_{\mathfrak{h}_{x}(F)}\theta_{x,\omega}(X){^gf}_{x,\omega}^{\xi}(X)dX,$$ puis $$I_{x,\omega,N}(\theta,f)=\int_{U_{x}(F)H_{x}(F)\backslash G(F)}I_{x,\omega}(\theta,f,g)\kappa_{N}(g)dg.$$ Cette intégrale a un sens: la fonction $g\mapsto I_{x,\omega}(\theta,f,g)$ est invariante à gauche par $U_{x}(F)H_{x}(F)$. Elle est à support compact. En effet, d’après 3.1(5), il existe un sous-ensemble compact $\Gamma\subset G(F)$ tel que $^gf_{x,\omega}$ est nulle pour $g\in G(F)$,$g\not\in G_{x}(F)\Gamma$. D’autre part, on vérifie que, pour tout $\gamma\in G(F)$, la fonction $g\mapsto \kappa_{N}(g\gamma)$ sur $G_{x}(F)$ a un support d’image compacte dans $U_{x}(F)H_{x}(F)\backslash G_{x}(F)$. L’assertion en résulte.
Posons $$C(x)=\vert H^+(F)/H(F)\vert \vert Z_{H^+}(x)(F)/H_{x}(F)\vert ^{-1}\Delta(x)^r.$$
[0.3cm[**[Lemme]{}**]{}. [ *[On a l’égalité $$I_{N}(\theta,f)=C(x)I_{x,\omega,N}(\theta,f).$$]{}*]{}0.3cm]{}
Preuve. Pour tout groupe réductif connexe $L$, fixons un ensemble de représentants ${\cal T}(L)$ des classes de conjugaison par $L(F)$ dans l’ensemble des sous-tores maximaux de $L$. Soit $g\in G(F)$. D’après la formule de Weyl, on a $$(1) \qquad I(\theta,f,g)=\sum_{T\in {\cal T}(H)}\vert W(H,T)\vert ^{-1}\int_{T(F)}\theta(t)J_{H}(t,{^gf}^{\xi})D^H(t)^{1/2}dt.$$ Pour deux sous-tores (pas forcément maximaux) $T$ et $T'$ de $H$, notons $W^+(T,T')$ l’ensemble des isomorphismes de $T$ sur $T'$ induits par la conjugaison par un élément de $H^+(F)$. On va prouver les assertions suivantes.
\(2) Soient $T\in {\cal T}(H)$ et $t\in T(F)\cap H_{reg}(F)$. Alors $J_{H}(t,{^gf}^{\xi})=0$ si $t$ n’appartient pas à $$\bigcup_{T_{1}\in {\cal T}(H_{x})}\bigcup_{w\in W^+(T_{1},T)}w(xexp(\mathfrak{t}_{1}(F)\cap \omega)).$$
\(3) Soit $T\in {\cal T}(H)$ et, pour $i=1,2$, soient $T_{i}\in {\cal T}(H_{x})$ et $w_{i}\in W^+(T_{i},T)$. Alors les ensembles $w_{1}(xexp(\mathfrak{t}_{1}(F)\cap \omega))$ et $w_{2}(xexp(\mathfrak{t}_{2}(F)\cap \omega))$ sont disjoints ou confondus.
\(4) Soient $T\in {\cal T}(H)$, $T_{1}\in {\cal T}(H_{x})$ et $w_{1}\in W^+(T_{1},T)$. Le nombre des couples $(T_{2},w_{2})$ tels que $T_{2}\in {\cal T}(H_{x})$, $w_{2}\in W^+(T_{2},T)$ et $w_{2}(xexp(\mathfrak{t}_{2}(F)\cap \omega))=w_{1}(xexp(\mathfrak{t}_{1}(F)\cap \omega))$ est égal à $$\vert W(H_{x},T_{1})\vert \vert Z_{H^+}(x)(F)/H_{x}(F)\vert \vert Z_{H^+}(T_{1})(F)/T_{1}(F)\vert ^{-1}.$$
Soient $T$ et $t$ comme en (2). Supposons $J_{H}(t,{^gf}^{\xi})\not=0$. Alors il existe $u\in U(F)$ tel que la classe de conjugaison par $G(F)$ de $tu$ coupe le support de $f$. Elle coupe donc aussi $xexp(\omega)$. La partie semi-simple de $tu$ est conjuguée à $t$ et la partie semi-simple d’un élément de $xexp(\omega)$ reste dans cet ensemble. Donc la classe de conjugaison par $G(F)$ de $t$ coupe $xexp(\omega)$. Soient $X\in \omega$ et $y\in G(F)$ tels que $yty^{-1}=xexp(X)$. Le noyau de $t-1$ agissant dans $V$ contient $D\oplus Z$. D’après l’hypothèse $(7)_{\rho}$ de 3.1, celui de $xexp(X)-1$ est contenu dans $W''$. Donc $W''$ contient $y(D\oplus Z)$. Mais il contient aussi $D\oplus Z$. Ces deux espaces $D\oplus Z$ et $y(D\oplus Z)$ sont isomorphes et non dégénérés, en tant qu’espaces quadratiques. D’après le théorème de Witt, on peut trouver $y''\in G''(F)$ tel que $y''y(D\oplus Z)=D\oplus Z$. On a $G''\subset G_{x}$. Quitte à remplacer $y$ par $y''y$ et $X$ par $y''Xy^{_{''}-1}$, on est ramené au cas où $y$ conserve $D\oplus Z$. Dans ce cas, puisque $t$ agit trivialement sur $D\oplus Z$, $xexp(X)$ agit trivialement lui aussi, donc $X\in \mathfrak{h}_{x}(F)$. Quitte à multiplier encore $y$ à gauche par un élément de $H_{x}(F)$, on peut supposer que $X\in \mathfrak{t}_{1}(F)$ pour un élément $T_{1}\in {\cal T}(H_{x})$. L’élément $y$ conserve $W$. Notons $h$ sa restriction à cet espace. Alors $h\in H^+(F)$ et $hth^{-1}=xexp(X)$. Nécessairement, la conjugaison par $h$ envoie le commutant de $t$ dans $H$ sur celui de $xexp(X)$. Mais $t$ est régulier dans $H$, donc ces commutants sont $T$ et $T_{1}$. Si on note $w$ l’élément de $W^+(T_{1},T)$ induit par la conjugaison par $y^{-1}$, on a alors $t\in w(xexp(\mathfrak{t}_{1}(F)\cap \omega))$ ce qui prouve (2).
Passons à la preuve de (3). Pour $i=1,2$ soit $y_{i}\in H^+(F)$ tel que $w_{i}$ soit induit par la conjugaison par $y_{i}$. On identifie $y_{i}$ à un élément de $G(F)$. Posons $y=y_{2}^{-1}y_{1}$. Supposons que les ensembles $w_{1}(xexp(\mathfrak{t}_{1}(F)\cap \omega))$ et $w_{2}(xexp(\mathfrak{t}_{2}(F)\cap \omega))$ ne sont pas disjoints. Alors $y(xexp(\omega))y^{-1}\cap (xexp(\omega))\not=\emptyset$. D’après 3.1(4), $y$ appartient à $Z_{G}(x)(F)$. D’après 3.1(1), la conjugaison par $y$ conserve $\omega$. D’autre part, d’après la définition de $y$, cette conjugaison envoie $T_{1}$ sur $T_{2}$, donc aussi $\mathfrak{t}_{1}$ sur $\mathfrak{t}_{2}$. Elle envoie alors $xexp(\mathfrak{t}_{1}(F)\cap \omega)$ sur $xexp(\mathfrak{t}_{2}(F)\cap \omega)$ et les ensembles $w_{1}(xexp(\mathfrak{t}_{1}(F)\cap \omega))$ et $w_{2}(xexp(\mathfrak{t}_{2}(F)\cap \omega))$ sont confondus. Cela prouve (3).
Soient $T$, $T_{1}$ et $w_{1}$ comme en (4). Posons $${\cal Y}=\{y\in Z_{H^+}(x)(F); yT_{1}y^{-1}\in {\cal T}(H_{x})\}/Z_{H^+}(T_{1})(F).$$ La preuve de (3) montre que l’application $y\mapsto (T_{2}=yT_{1}y^{-1}, w_{2}=w_{1}ad(y^{-1}))$ est une surjection de ${\cal Y}$ sur l’ensemble des couples $(T_{2},w_{2})$ dont on veut calculer le nombre d’éléments. Cette application est aussi injective, le nombre à calculer est donc $\vert {\cal Y}\vert $. On vérifie que l’application naturelle $${\cal Y}\to H_{x}(F)\backslash Z_{H^+}(x)(F)/Z_{H^+}(T_{1})(F)$$ est surjective et que toutes ses fibres ont pour nombre d’éléments $\vert W(H_{x},T_{1})\vert $. Enfin, parce que $H_{x}(F)$ est un sous-groupe distingué de $Z_{H^+}(x)(F)$ et que $Z_{H^+}(T_{1})\cap H_{x}=T_{1}$, on a $$\vert H_{x}(F)\backslash Z_{H^+}(x)(F)/Z_{H^+}(T_{1})(F)\vert =\vert Z_{H^+}(x)(F)/H_{x}(F)\vert \vert Z_{H^+}(T_{1})(F)/T_{1}(F)\vert ^{-1}.$$ Cela prouve (4).
Ces trois propriétés permettent de transformer l’expression (1) de la façon suivante $$I(\theta,f,g)=\sum_{T_{1}\in {\cal T}(H_{x})}\sum_{T\in {\cal T}(H)}\sum_{w_{1}\in W^+(T_{1},T)}\vert W(H,T)\vert^{-1}w(T_{1})$$ $$\qquad \int_{\mathfrak{t}_{1}(F)\cap \omega} \theta(w_{1}(xexp(X)))J_{H}(w_{1}(xexp(X)),{^gf}^{\xi})D^H(w_{1}(xexp(X)))^{1/2}dX,$$ où $$w(T_{1})= \vert W(H_{x},T_{1})\vert^{-1} \vert Z_{H^+}(x)(F)/H_{x}(F)\vert^{-1} \vert Z_{H^+}(T_{1})(F)/T_{1}(F)\vert .$$ On a $D^H(w_{1}(xexp(X)))=D^H(xexp(X))$. On a $\theta(w_{1}(xexp(X)))=\theta(xexp(X))$ puisqu’on a supposé $\theta$ invariant par $H^+(F)$. Si $w_{1}$ était induit par la conjugaison par un élément de $H(F)$, on aurait aussi $J_{H}(w_{1}(xexp(X)),{^{g}f}^{\xi})=J_{H}(xexp(X),{^{g}f}^{\xi})$, et $w_{1}$ disparaîtrait de la formule ci-dessus. En général, on a seulement $J_{H}(w_{1}(xexp(X)),{^{g}f}^{\xi})=J_{H}(xexp(X),{^{yg}f}^{\xi})$, où $y\in H^+(F)$ dépend de $w_{1}$. Mais ce terme $y$ disparaît par changement de variables quand on calcule $I_{N}(\theta,f)$. Ces arguments conduisent à l’égalité $$(5) \qquad I_{N}(\theta,f)=\int_{U(F)H(F)\backslash G(F)}\sum_{T_{1}\in {\cal T}(H_{x})}w'(T_{1})$$ $$\qquad \int_{\mathfrak{t}_{1}(F)\cap \omega}\theta(xexp(X))J_{H}(xexp(X),{^gf}^{\xi} )D^H(xexp(X))^{1/2}dX\kappa_{N}(g)dg,$$ où $$w'(T_{1})=w(T_{1})\sum_{T\in {\cal T}(H)} \vert W^+(T_{1},T)\vert \vert W(H,T)\vert^{-1}.$$ Soit $T_{1}\in {\cal T}(H_{x})$. Remarquons que $W(H,T)$ a même nombre d’éléments que $W(H,T_{1})$ pour tout $T$ tel que $W^+(T_{1},T)$ est non vide. On a donc $$w'(T_{1})=w(T_{1})\vert W(H,T_{1})^{-1}\vert \vert {\cal Y}_{T_{1}}\vert ,$$ où $${\cal Y}_{T_{1}}=\{(T,w_{1}); T\in {\cal T}(H), w_{1}\in W^+(T_{1},T)\}.$$ Posons $${\cal Y}'_{T_{1}}=\{y\in H^+(F)/Z_{H^+}(T_{1})(F); yT_{1}y^{-1}\in {\cal T}(H)\}.$$ L’application $y\mapsto (T=yT_{1}y^{-1}, w_{1}=ad(y))$ est une bijection de ${\cal Y}'_{T_{1}}$ sur ${\cal Y}_{T_{1}}$. L’application naturelle $${\cal Y}'_{T_{1}}\to H(F)\backslash H^+(F)/Z_{H^+}(T_{1})(F)$$ est surjective et toutes ses fibres ont pour nombre d’éléments $\vert W(H,T_{1})\vert $. Enfin, parce que $H$ est un sous-groupe distingué de $H^+$ et $Z_{H^+}(T_{1})\cap H=T_{1}$, on a l’égalité $$\vert H(F)\backslash H^+(F)/Z_{H^+}(T_{1})(F)\vert =\vert H^+(F)/H(F)\vert \vert Z_{H^+}(T_{1})(F)/T_{1}(F)\vert ^{-1}.$$ Cela conduit à l’égalité $$w'(T_{1})=\vert H^+(F)/H(F)\vert\vert Z_{H^+}(x)(F)/H_{x}(F)\vert^{-1}\vert W(H_{x},T_{1})\vert ^{-1}.$$ Pour $X\in \omega\cap\mathfrak{h}_{x,reg}(F)$ et $g\in G(F)$, on a $$J_{H}(xexp(X),{^gf}^{\xi})=D^H(xexp(X))^{1/2}\int_{H_{x}(F)\backslash H(F)}\int_{T_{1}(F)\backslash H_{x}(F)}{^{yg}f}^{\xi}(xexp(h^{-1}Xh))dh\,dy.$$ D’autre part, on a $D^H(xexp(X))=D^H(x)D^{H_{x}}(X)$. Ces égalités transforment la formule (5) en $$(6) \qquad I_{N}(\theta,f)=C'(x)\int_{U(F)H_{x}(F)\backslash G(F)}\Phi(g)\kappa_{N}(g)dg,$$ où $$C'(x)=\vert H^+(F)/H(F)\vert\vert Z_{H^+}(x)(F)/H_{x}(F)\vert^{-1} D^H(x)$$ et $$\Phi(g)=\sum_{T_{1}\in {\cal T}(H_{x})}\vert W(H_{x},T_{1})^{-1}\int_{\mathfrak{t}_{1}(F)\cap \omega}\theta(xexp(X))\int_{T_{1}(F)\backslash H_{x}(F)} {^gf}^{\xi}(xexp(h^{-1}Xh))dh\,D^{H_{x}}(X)dX.$$ Définissons une fonction $\varphi_{g}$ sur $\mathfrak{h}_{x}(F)$ par $$\varphi_{g}(X)=\left\lbrace\begin{array}{cc}0,&\,\,{\rm si}\,\,X\not\in \omega,\\ \theta(xexp(X)){^gf}^{\xi}(xexp(X)),&\,\,{\rm si}\,\, X\in \omega.\\ \end{array}\right.$$ D’après la formule de Weyl, $$\Phi(g)=\int_{\mathfrak{h}_{x}(F)}\varphi_{g}(X) dX.$$ Soient $X\in \omega\cap \mathfrak{h}_{x,reg}(F)$ et $g\in G(F)$. On a $${^gf}^{\xi}(xexp(X))= \int_{U(F)}{^gf}(xexp(X)u)\xi(u)du$$ $$\qquad = \int_{U_{x}(F)\backslash U(F)}\int_{U_{x}(F)}{^gf}(xexp(X)uv)\xi(uv)du \,dv.$$ Pour $u\in U_{x}(F)$, l’application $v\mapsto (xexp(X)u)^{-1}v^{-1}xexp(X)uv$ est une bijection de $U_{x}(F)\backslash U(F)$ sur lui-même. Grâce à l’hypothèse $(7)_{\rho}$ de 3.1, son jacobien est égal à la valeur absolue du déterminant de $1-ad(x)^{-1}$ agissant sur $\mathfrak{u}(F)/\mathfrak{u}_{x}(F)$. Remarquons que, avec les notations de 7.1 et 7.2, l’application $$\begin{array}{ccc}W'\otimes Z_{+}&\to&\mathfrak{u}(F)\\ (w',z)&\mapsto&c_{w',z}\\ \end{array}$$ est une bijection de $W'\otimes Z_{+}$ sur un supplémentaire de $\mathfrak{u}_{x}(F)$ dans $\mathfrak{u}(F)$. Le jacobien ci-dessus est donc égal à $\Delta(x)^r$. D’autre part, on a $$\xi( (xexp(X)u)^{-1}v^{-1}xexp(X)uv)=1.$$ Cela conduit à l’égalité $${^gf}^{\xi}(xexp(X))=\Delta(x)^r \int_{U_{x}(F)\backslash U(F)}\int_{U_{x}(F)}{^gf}(v^{-1}xexp(X)uv)\xi(u)du\,dv$$ $$\qquad =\Delta(x)^r \int_{U_{x}(F)\backslash U(F)}\int_{U_{x}(F)}{^{vg}f}(xexp(X)u)\xi(u)du\,dv.$$ Grâce à la condition (6) de 3.1, l’application $$\begin{array}{ccc}\mathfrak{u}_{x}(F)&\to&U_{x}(F)\\N&\mapsto& exp(-X)exp(X+N)\\ \end{array}$$ est bijective et préserve les mesures. On a $\xi(exp(-X)exp(X+N))=\xi(N)$. On a donc aussi $${^gf}^{\xi}(xexp(X))=\Delta(x)^r \int_{U_{x}(F)\backslash U(F)}\int_{\mathfrak{u}_{x}(F)}{^{vg}f}(xexp(X+N))\xi(N)dN\,dv.$$ Remarquons que la partie semi-simple de $X+N$ est conjuguée à $X$ par un élément de $G_{x}(F)$, donc $X+N\in \omega$ et ${^{vg}f}(xexp(X+N))={^{vg}f}_{x,\omega}(X+N)$. Alors $${^gf}^{\xi}(xexp(X))=\Delta(x)^r \int_{U_{x}(F)\backslash U(F)}{^{vg}f}_{x,\omega}^{\xi}(X)dv.$$ Par ailleurs, on a $\theta(xexp(X))=\theta_{x,\omega}(X)$. Donc $$\varphi_{g}(X)=\Delta(x)^r\theta_{x,\omega}(X)\int_{U_{x}(F)\backslash U(F)}{^{vg}f}_{x,\omega}^{\xi}(X)dv.$$ Cette égalité reste vraie si $X\not\in \omega$ puisque les deux membres sont nuls. Alors on reconnaît $$\Phi(g)=\Delta(x)^r\int_{U_{x}(F)\backslash U(F)}I_{x,\omega}(\theta,f,vg)dv.$$ En remarquant que $C'(x)\Delta(x)^r=C(x)$, la formule (6) devient $$I_{N}(\theta,f)=C(x)\int_{U_{x}(F)H_{x}(F)\backslash G(F)}I_{x,\omega}(\theta,f,g)\kappa_{N}(g)dg$$ $$\qquad =C(x)I_{x,\omega,N}(\theta,f).\,\,\square$$
Localisation de $I(\theta,f)$
-----------------------------
Modifions les notations de 7.3: pour $T\in \underline{\cal T}$, on note maintenant $W'_{T}$, $W''_{T}$ et $V''_{T}$ les espaces que l’on avait notés $W'$, $W''$ et $V''$ dans ce paragraphe. On note $\underline{\cal T}_{x}$ le sous-ensemble des $T\in \underline{\cal T}$ tels que $T\subset H_{x}$ et $W'\subset W'_{T}$. Remarquons que ces conditions impliquent que $T$ se décompose en $T'T''$ où $T'$ est un sous-tore maximal de $H'$ et $T''$ est un sous-tore de $H''$. On a $x\in T'$. Pour $T\in \underline{\cal T}_{x}$, on a $xexp(X)\in T_{\natural}(F)$ pour tout $X\in \mathfrak{t}_{\natural}(F)\cap \omega$. On définit des fonctions $c_{\theta,x,\omega}$ et $c_{f,x,\omega}$ presque partout sur $\mathfrak{t}(F)$. Elles sont nulles hors de $\mathfrak{t}(F)\cap \omega$. Pour $X\in \mathfrak{t}_{\natural}(F)\cap \omega$, $$c_{\theta,x,\omega}(X)=c_{\theta}(xexp(X)),\,\,c_{f,x,\omega}(X)=c_{f}(xexp(X)).$$ En fait, les fonctions $\theta_{x,\omega}$ et $\theta_{f,x,\omega}$ sont des quasi-caractères et les fonctions ci-dessus sont associées à ces quasi-caractères comme en 7.9. On fixe un ensemble de représentants ${\cal T}_{x}$ des classes de conjugaison par $H_{x}(F)$ dans $\underline{\cal T}_{x}$. Enfin, on définit une fonction $\Delta''$ sur $\mathfrak{h}_{x}(F)$ par $$\Delta''(X)=\vert det(X\vert W''/W''(X))\vert _{F},$$ où $W''(X)$ est le noyau de $X$ agissant dans $W''$. Posons $$I_{x,\omega}(\theta,f)=\sum_{T\in {\cal T}_{x}}\vert W(H_{x},T)\vert ^{-1}\nu(T)\int_{\mathfrak{t}(F)}c_{\theta,x,\omega}(X)c_{f,x,\omega}(X)D^{H_{x}}(X)\Delta''(X)^rdX.$$ On pourrait montrer que cette intégrale est absolument convergente de la même façon qu’en 7.3. Cela va aussi résulter de la preuve suivante.
[0.3cm[**[Lemme]{}**]{}. [ *[On a l’égalité $I(\theta,f)=C(x)I_{x,\omega}(\theta,f)$.]{}*]{}0.3cm]{}
Preuve. On a les propriétés suivantes.
\(1) Soient $T\in {\cal T}$ et $t\in T_{\natural}(F)$. Alors $ c_{f}(t)=0$ si $t$ n’appartient pas à $$\bigcup_{T_{1}\in {\cal T}_{x}}\bigcup_{w\in W^+(T_{1},T)}w(xexp(\mathfrak{t}_{1}(F)\cap \omega)).$$
\(2) Soit $T\in {\cal T}$ et, pour $i=1,2$, soient $T_{i}\in {\cal T}_{x}$ et $w_{i}\in W^+(T_{i},T)$. Alors les ensembles $w_{1}(xexp(\mathfrak{t}_{1}(F)\cap \omega))$ et $w_{2}(xexp(\mathfrak{t}_{2}(F)\cap \omega))$ sont disjoints ou confondus.
\(3) Soient $T\in {\cal T}$, $T_{1}\in {\cal T}_{x}$ et $w_{1}\in W^+(T_{1},T)$. Le nombre des couples $(T_{2},w_{2})$ tels que $T_{2}\in {\cal T}_{x}$, $w_{2}\in W^+(T_{2},T)$ et $w_{2}(xexp(\mathfrak{t}_{2}(F)\cap \omega))=w_{1}(xexp(\mathfrak{t}_{1}(F)\cap \omega))$ est égal à $$\vert W(H_{x},T_{1})\vert \vert Z_{H^+}(x)(F)/H_{x}(F)\vert \vert Z_{H^+}(T_{1})(F)/Z_{H_{x}}(T_{1}) (F)\vert ^{-1}.$$
Soient $T$ et $t$ comme en (1). Supposons $c_{f}(t)\not=0$. Alors $\theta_{f}$ n’est nulle dans aucun voisinage de $t$. Le support de $\theta_{f}$ est inclus dans la clôture de $(Supp (f))^G$, donc dans $\Omega$. Donc $t\in \Omega$ et on peut fixer $y\in G(F)$ et $X\in \omega$ tels que $yty^{-1}=xexp(X)$. Puisque $t\in T_{\natural}(F)$, le noyau de $t-1$ agissant dans $V$ est $V''_{T}$. Grâce à la condition $(7)_{\rho}$ de 3.1, le noyau de $xexp(X)-1$ est contenu dans $V''$. Donc $y(V''_{T})\subset V''$. Comme dans la preuve de 8.2(2), on peut alors modifier $y$ et $X$ de telle sorte que $y$ conserve $D\oplus Z$. Cela entraîne que $xexp(X)$ agit sur cet espace par l’identité, donc $X\in \mathfrak{h}_{x}(F)$. L’élément $y$ conserve $W$. Notons $h$ sa restriction à cet espace, qui appartient à $H^+(F)$. Posons $T_{1}=hTh^{-1}$. On a $T\subset H_{t}$, donc $T_{1}\subset H_{xexp(X)}\subset H_{x}$. De plus, puisque $y(V''_{T})\subset V''$, on a $W'\subset h(W'_{T})$. Mais alors le tore $T_{1}$ appartient à $\underline{\cal T}_{x}$. Quitte à multiplier $h$ à gauche par un élément de $H_{x}(F)$, on peut supposer $T_{1}\in {\cal T}_{x}$. En notant $w\in W^+(T_{1},T)$ l’isomorphisme induit par la conjugaison par $h^{-1}$, on a $t\in w(xexp(\mathfrak{t}_{1}(F)\cap \omega))$, ce qui prouve (1).
Les assertions (2) et (3) se prouvent comme (3) et (4) de 8.2. Remarquons toutefois que le quotient $Z_{H^+}(T_{1})(F)/Z_{H_{x}}(T_{1}) (F)$ figurant dans (3) est fini car, puisque $x\in T_{1}(F)$, le groupe $Z_{H^+}(T_{1})$ est contenu dans $Z_{H^+}(x)$. On laisse les détails au lecteur.
Les trois assertions précédentes permettent d’écrire $$I(\theta,f)=\sum_{T_{1}\in {\cal T}_{x}}\sum_{T\in {\cal T}}\sum_{w_{1}\in W^+(T_{1},T)}w(T_{1})\vert W(H,T)\vert ^{-1}\nu(T)$$ $$\qquad\int_{\mathfrak{t}_{1}(F)\cap \omega}c_{\theta}(w_{1}(xexp(X)))c_{f}(w_{1}(xexp(X)))D^H(w_{1}(xexp(X)))\Delta(xexp(X))^rdX,$$ où $w(T_{1})$ est l’inverse du nombre de couples calculé en (3). Tous les termes contenant $w_{1}$ sont invariants par $H^+(F)$ et le $w_{1}$ disparaît. On a aussi $\nu(T)=\nu(T_{1})$ et $\vert W(H,T)\vert =\vert W(H,T_{1})$ si $W^+(T_{1},T)$ n’est pas vide. On a les égalités $c_{\theta}(xexp(X))=c_{\theta,x,\omega}(X)$, $c_{f}(xexp(X))=c_{f,x,\omega}(X)$ et, grâce aux hypothèses (7) et $(7)_{\rho}$ de 3.1, $$D^H(xexp(X))\Delta(xexp(X))^r=D^H(x)D^{H_{x}}(X)\Delta(x)^r\Delta''(X)^r.$$ On obtient $$(4) \qquad I(\theta,f)=D^H(x)\Delta(x)^r\sum_{T_{1}\in {\cal T}_{x}}w'(T_{1})\nu(T_{1})\int_{\mathfrak{t}_{1}(F)}c_{\theta,x,\omega}(X)c_{f,x,\omega}(X)D^{H_{x}}(X)\Delta''(X)^rdX,$$ où $$w'(T_{1})=w(T_{1})\vert W(H,T_{1})\vert ^{-1} \vert \{(T,w_{1}); T\in {\cal T}, w_{1}\in W^+(T_{1},T)\}\vert .$$ On calcule ce terme comme dans la preuve du lemme 8.2. On obtient $$D^H(x)\Delta(x)^rw'(T_{1})=C(x)\vert W(H_{x},T_{1})\vert ^{-1}.$$ Alors la formule (4) devient celle de l’énoncé. $\square$
Utilisation de la transformation de Fourier
===========================================
Position du problème
---------------------
Comme on l’a dit, on conserve la situation de 8.2. Posons $U''=U\cap G''$. Remarquons que $U''=U_{x}$. Soient $\theta''$ un quasi-caractère de $\mathfrak{h}''(F)$ et $\varphi\in C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathfrak{g}''(F))$. Appliquant les définitions de 7.9 où l’on remplace les espaces $V$ et $W$ par $V''$ et $W''$, on définit une fonction $\varphi^{\xi}$ sur $\mathfrak{h}''(F)$ et, pour $g\in G''(F)$, une intégrale $I(\theta'',\varphi,g)$. Remarquons que, si le support de $\varphi$ est contenu dans $\omega''$, celui de $\varphi^{\xi}$ est contenu dans $\omega''\cap \mathfrak{h}''(F)$. Soit $S\in \mathfrak{h}''(F)$. On suppose que $S$ est régulier et que le noyau de $S$ agissant dans $W''$ est de dimension au plus $1$. On suppose que, pour toute $\phi\in C_{c}^{\infty}( \mathfrak{h}''(F))$ à support dans $\omega''\cap \mathfrak{h}''(F)$, on a l’égalité $$\theta''(\phi)=J_{H''}(S,\hat{\phi}).$$ Soit enfin $\kappa''\in C_{c}^{\infty}(U''(F)H''(F)\backslash G''(F))$. Généralisant la définition de 7.8, on pose $$I_{\kappa''}(\theta'',\varphi)=\int_{U''(F)H''(F)\backslash G''(F)}I(\theta'',\varphi,g)\kappa''(g)dg.$$ Cette intégrale est à support compact. Le but de la section est d’exprimer $I_{\kappa''}(\theta'',\varphi)$ à l’aide de la transformée de Fourier $\hat{\varphi}$ de $\varphi$, quand $\varphi$ est à support dans $\omega''$.
Première transformation
-----------------------
Soit $\Xi$ l’élément de $\mathfrak{g}''(F)$ qui annule $W''$ et vérifie $\Xi v_{i+1}=\xi_{i}v_{i}$ pour tout $i=0,...,r-1$. Remarquons que l’on a $\Xi v_{0}=-2\nu_{0}\xi_{0}e_{-1}$, où $\nu_{0}=q(v_{0})$, $\Xi v_{-i}=-\xi_{i}v_{-i-1}$ pour $i=1,...,r-1$ et $\Xi v_{-r}=0$. On a aussi $\xi(N)=<\Xi,N>$ pour tout $N\in \mathfrak{u}''(F)$.
Posons $\Lambda_{0}=\{c(v_{0},v); v\in W''\}$. Cet espace est l’orthogonal de $\mathfrak{h}''(F)$ dans $\mathfrak{g}''_{0}(F)$. La forme bilinéaire $<.,.>$ est non dégénérée sur $\Lambda_{0}$. Posons $\Sigma=\mathfrak{a}(F) \oplus \Lambda_{0}\oplus \mathfrak{u}''(F)$. On munit les deux premiers espaces de la mesure autoduale. On a implicitement fixé une mesure sur $U''(F)$ dans le paragraphe précédent, dont le choix n’importe pas. On en déduit une mesure sur $\mathfrak{u}''(F)$, puis sur $\Sigma$.
[0.3cm[**[Lemme]{}**]{}. [ *[Pour tout $\varphi\in C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathfrak{g}''(F))$ et tout $Y\in \mathfrak{h}''(F)$, on a l’égalité $$(\varphi^{\xi})\hat{}(Y)=\int_{\Sigma}\hat{\varphi}(\Xi+Y+X)dX.$$]{}*]{}0.3cm]{}
Preuve. Introduisons le groupe unipotent $\bar{\mathfrak{u}}''$ opposé à $\mathfrak{u}''$. Les espaces $\bar{\mathfrak{u}}''(F)$ et $\mathfrak{u}''(F)$ sont en dualité. La mesure sur le second espace se dualise en une mesure sur le premier et la transformation de Fourier échange $C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathfrak{u}''(F))$ et $C_{c}^{\infty}(\bar{\mathfrak{u}}''(F))$. On a l’égalité $$\mathfrak{g}''=\bar{\mathfrak{u}}''\oplus \mathfrak{a}\oplus \mathfrak{h}''\oplus \Lambda_{0}\oplus \mathfrak{u}''.$$ Par linéarité, on peut supposer que $$\varphi=\varphi_{\bar{\mathfrak{u}}''(F)}\otimes \varphi_{\mathfrak{a}(F)}\otimes \varphi_{\mathfrak{h}''(F)}\otimes \varphi_{\Lambda_{0}}\otimes\varphi_{\mathfrak{u}''(F)},$$ où, pour chaque espace $E$ figurant en indice, $\varphi_{E}\in C_{c}^{\infty}(E)$. On a $$\hat{\varphi}=\hat{\varphi}_{\mathfrak{u}''(F)}\otimes \hat{\varphi}_{\mathfrak{a}(F)}\otimes \hat{\varphi}_{\mathfrak{h}''(F)}\otimes \hat{\varphi}_{\Lambda_{0}}\otimes\hat{\varphi}_{\bar{\mathfrak{u}}''(F)}.$$ Pour $Y\in \mathfrak{h}''(F)$, on calcule $$\varphi^{\xi}(Y)=\varphi_{\bar{\mathfrak{u}}''(F)}(0) \varphi_{\mathfrak{a}(F)}(0) \varphi_{\mathfrak{h}''(F)}(Y)\varphi_{\Lambda_{0}}(0)\hat{\varphi}_{\mathfrak{u}''(F)}(\Xi),$$ $$(\varphi^{\xi})\hat{}(Y)=\varphi_{\bar{\mathfrak{u}}''(F)}(0) \varphi_{\mathfrak{a}(F)}(0) \hat{\varphi}_{\mathfrak{h}''(F)}(Y) \varphi_{\Lambda_{0}}(0)\hat{\varphi}_{\mathfrak{u}''(F)}(\Xi),$$ $$\int_{\Sigma}\hat{\varphi}(\Xi+Y+X)dX=\hat{\varphi}_{\mathfrak{u}''(F)}(\Xi)\hat{\varphi}_{\mathfrak{h}''(F)}(Y)\int_{\Sigma}\hat{\varphi}_{\mathfrak{a}(F)}\otimes \hat{\varphi}_{\Lambda_{0}}\otimes \hat{\varphi}_{\bar{\mathfrak{u}}''(F)}(X)dX,$$ $$\qquad =\hat{\varphi}_{\mathfrak{u}''(F)}(\Xi)\hat{\varphi}_{\mathfrak{h}''(F)}(Y)\varphi_{\mathfrak{a}(F)}(0)\varphi_{\Lambda_{0}}(0)\varphi_{\bar{\mathfrak{u}}''(F)}(0).$$ Le lemme résulte de la comparaison des égalités ci-dessus. $\square$
Description de l’espace affine $\Xi+S+\Sigma$
---------------------------------------------
Notons $\Lambda_{\mathfrak{u}''}$ le sous-espace de $\mathfrak{u}''(F)$ engendré par les éléments $c(v_{i},v_{i+1})$ pour $i=0,...,r-1$. Si $d$ est impair ou si $r=0$, on pose $\Lambda=\Lambda_{0}\oplus \Lambda_{\mathfrak{u}''}$. Supposons $d$ pair, donc $ dim(W'')$ impair. Alors $S$, agissant dans $W''$, a un noyau de dimension $1$. On fixe un élément non nul $w_{S}$ de ce noyau et on note $W''_{S}$ son orthogonal dans $W''$. Supposons de plus $r>0$. On pose $$\Lambda_{0,S}=\{c(v_{0},v); v\in W''_{S}\},$$ $$\Lambda=\Lambda_{0,S}\oplus Fc(w_{S},v_{r})\oplus \Lambda_{\mathfrak{u}''}.$$ Dans les deux cas, $\Lambda$ est un sous-espace de $\Sigma$. Puisque $\Sigma$ et $\Lambda$ sont des espaces vectoriels sur $F$,on peut les considérer comme les ensembles de points sur $F$ de variétés sur $\bar{F}$ que, dans ce paragraphe, on note encore $\Sigma$ et $\Lambda$.
[0.3cm[**[Lemme]{}**]{}. [ *[L’espace affine $\Xi+S+\Sigma$ est stable par conjugaison par $U''$. L’application $$\begin{array}{ccc}U''\times (\Xi+S+\Lambda)&\to&\Xi+S+\Sigma\\ (u,X)&\mapsto&u^{-1}Xu\\ \end{array}$$ est un isomorphisme de variétés algébriques.]{}*]{}0.3cm]{}
Preuve. L’annulateur de $\Sigma$ dans $\mathfrak{g}''$ est l’espace $\mathfrak{h}''\oplus \mathfrak{u}''$. Pour prouver la première assertion, il suffit de prouver que, pour $u\in U''$, $X\in \Sigma$ et $Y\in \mathfrak{h}''\oplus \mathfrak{u}''$, on a l’égalité $$trace(u(\Xi+S+X)u^{-1}Y)=trace((\Xi+S)Y),$$ ou encore $$trace((\Xi+S+X)u^{-1}Yu)=trace((\Xi+S)Y).$$ Posons $u^{-1}Yu=Y+N$. On a $N\in \mathfrak{u}''$ et $$trace(u(\Xi+S+X)u^{-1}Y)=trace((\Xi+S)Y)+trace(\Xi N)+trace(XY)+trace((S+X)N).$$ Les deux derniers termes sont nuls: ce sont des traces d’éléments de $\mathfrak{u}''$. Il faut montrer que $trace(\Xi N)=0$, ou encore $\xi(N)=0$. Il suffit pour cela de prouver que $q(Nv_{i},v_{-i-1})=0$ pour $i=0,...,r-1$. Mais $u-1$ et $Y$ appartiennent à l’algèbre de Lie du radical unipotent du sous-groupe parabolique de $GL(V'')$ qui conserve le drapeau $$Fv_{r}\subset Fv_{r}\oplus Fv_{r-1}\subset...\subset Fv_{r}\oplus...\oplus F_{v_{0}}.$$ Donc $Nv_{i}$ appartient au sous-espace engendré par les $v_{j}$ pour $j\geq i+2$. Donc $q(Nv_{i},v_{-i-1})=0$, ce qui prouve la première assertion de l’énoncé.
Si $r=0$, on a $\Lambda=\Sigma$, $U''=\{1\}$ et la seconde assertion est tautologique. Supposons $r>0$. Introduisons le sous-groupe parabolique $P_{2}$ de $G''$ qui conserve le sous-espace totalement isotrope $Z_{+}$, sa composante de Lévi $M_{2}$ qui conserve $Z_{+}$ et $Z_{-}$ et son radical unipotent $U_{2}$. Le groupe $M_{2}$ s’identifie à $GL(Z_{+})\times G''_{0}$. Notons $U_{4}$ le centre de $U_{2}$. Les groupes $U_{4}$ et $U_{2}/U_{4}$ sont abéliens. Par l’application $(v,v')\mapsto exp( c(v,v'))$, ils s’identifient respectivement à $\bigwedge^2(Z_{+})$ et $Hom(V''_{0},Z_{+})$. Ce dernier espace se décompose en $Hom(W'',Z^+)\oplus Hom(D,Z^+)$. On note $U_{3}$ le sous-groupe de $U_{2}$ tel que $U_{3}/U_{4}$ s’identifie à $Hom(W'',Z_{+})$ et $U_{D}$ celui tel que $U_{D}/U_{4}$ s’identifie à $Hom(D,Z_{+})$. On pose $U_{1}=U''$, $U_{5}=\{1\}$. Remarquons que l’on a les inclusions $U_{2}\subset U''\subset P_{2}$. On a donc la chaîne de sous-groupes $$U_{5}\subset U_{4}\subset U_{3}\subset U_{2}\subset U_{1},$$ et chacun de ces sous-groupes est distingué dans $U_{1}$. Posons $\mathfrak{r}=\{c(v_{-1},v); v\in Z_{+}\}$. C’est un sous-espace de $\mathfrak{u}''$. Définissons les espaces $$\Sigma_{1}=\Sigma= \mathfrak{a}\oplus \Lambda_{0}\oplus \mathfrak{u}_{1};$$ $$\Sigma_{2}=\Lambda_{0}\oplus \mathfrak{r}\oplus \mathfrak{u_{2}};$$ $$\Sigma_{3}=\Lambda_{0}\oplus \mathfrak{u_{2}};$$ $$\Sigma_{4}=\left\lbrace\begin{array}{cc}\Lambda_{0}\oplus \mathfrak{u}_{D},&\,\,{\rm si}\,\,d\,\,{\rm est\,\,impair},\\ \Lambda_{0,S}\oplus \bar{F}c(w_{S},v_{r})\oplus \mathfrak{u}_{D},&\,\,{\rm si}\,\,d\,\,{\rm est\,\,pair};\\ \end{array}\right.$$ $$\Sigma_{5}=\Lambda.$$ On a les inclusions $$\Sigma_{5}\subset \Sigma_{4}\subset \Sigma_{3}\subset \Sigma_{2}\subset \Sigma_{1}.$$ Pour $i=2,...,4$, $\Sigma_{i}$ est l’ensemble des éléments $X\in\Sigma_{i-1}$ qui vérifient les conditions suivantes:
\(1) si $i=2$, $Xv_{j}=0$ pour $j=2,...,r$;
\(2) si $i=3$, $Xv_{1}=0$;
\(3) si $i=4$ et $d$ est impair, $X(W'')\subset Z_{+}\oplus D$; si $i=4$ et $d$ est pair, $X(W''_{S})\subset Z_{+}\oplus D$ et $X(w_{S})\in\bar{F}v_{r}$.
On a
\(4) pour $i=1,2,3$, les ensembles $\Sigma_{i}$ et $S+\Sigma_{i}$ sont stables par conjugaison par $U_{1}$; pour $i=4,5$, les ensembles $\Sigma_{i}$ et $S+\Sigma_{i}$ sont stables par conjugaison par $U_{4}$; l’ensemble $\Sigma_{4}$ est stable par conjugaison par $U_{2}$.
Posons $M''=M\cap G''$. En général, si $E$ est un sous-ensemble de $\mathfrak{m}''$, $E\oplus \mathfrak{u}_{1}$ est invariant par conjugaison par $U_{1}$. Si $E$ est un sous-ensemble de $\mathfrak{g}''_{0}$, $E\oplus \mathfrak{u}_{2}$ est stable par conjugaison par $U_{1}$. Si $E$ est un sous-ensemble de $\mathfrak{g}''_{0}\oplus \mathfrak{u}_{1}$, $E$ est stable par conjugaison par $U_{4}$. On en déduit que $\Sigma_{1}$, $S+\Sigma_{1}$, $\Sigma_{3}$ et $S+\Sigma_{3}$ sont stables par conjugaison par $U_{1}$, et $\Sigma_{4}$, $S+\Sigma_{4}$, $\Sigma_{5}$ et $S+\Sigma_{5}$ sont stables par conjugaison par $U_{4}$. On a $\Sigma_{2}=\Sigma_{3}\oplus \mathfrak{r}$. L’ensemble $\Sigma_{3}$ est stable par conjugaison par $U_{1}$. Pour prouver que $\Sigma_{2}$ l’est aussi, il suffit de prouver que, pour $u\in U_{1}$ et $X\in \mathfrak{r}$, on a $u^{-1}Xu\in \Sigma_{2}$. Il est clair que cet élément appartient à $\mathfrak{u}_{1}$, donc à $\Sigma_{1}$. On doit montrer qu’il vérifie la condition (1). C’est clair puisque $u$ conserve le sous-espace de base $(v_{j})_{j=2,...,r}$ tandis que $X$ annule ce sous-espace. Le même raisonnement s’applique à l’ensemble $S+\Sigma_{2}$. Soient $u\in U_{2}$ et $X\in \Sigma_{4}$. Puisque $\Sigma_{3}$ est stable par conjugaison par $U_{1}$, on $u^{-1}Xu\in \Sigma_{3}$. Pour prouver que cet élément appartient à $\Sigma_{4}$, on doit montrer qu’il vérifie (3). Soit $w\in W''$. On a $uw\in w+Z_{+}$, puis $Xuw=Xw$ car $X$ annule $Z_{+}$. On a $Xw\in Z_{+}\oplus D$ car $X\in \Sigma_{4}$. Or $u^{-1}$ conserve cet espace, donc $u^{-1}Xuw\in Z_{+}\oplus D$. Si $d$ est pair, on a $Xw_{S}\in \bar{F}v_{r}$ et $u^{-1}$ conserve cette droite, donc aussi $u^{-1}Xuw_{S}\in \bar{F}v_{r}$. Cela prouve (4).
On va montrer
\(5) pour $i=1,...,4$, l’ensemble $\Xi+S+\Sigma_{i}$ est stable par conjugaison par $U_{i}$.
Pour $i=1$, c’est la première assertion de l’énoncé. Supposons $i\geq 2$. On sait déjà par (4) que $S+\Sigma_{i}$ est stable par conjugaison par $U_{i}$. On doit donc prouver que, pour $u\in U_{i}$, on a $(u^{-1}\Xi u-\Xi)\in \Sigma_{i}$. En raisonnant par récurrence sur $i$, on peut supposer que l’on a en tout cas $(u^{-1}\Xi u-\Xi)\in \Sigma_{i-1}$ (pour $i=2$, cette hypothèse résulte de la première assertion de l’énoncé). On doit montrer que cet élément vérifie les conditions (1), resp. (2), (3), si $i=2$, resp. $i=3,4$. Supposons $i=2$. Soit $j=2,...,r$. On a $uv_{j}=v_{j}$ et $u^{-1}v_{j-1}=v_{j-1}$ par définition de $U_{2}$. On a aussi $\Xi v_{j}=\xi_{j-1}v_{j-1}$ et on déduit l’égalité $(u^{-1}\Xi u-\Xi)v_{j}=0$ que l’on cherchait à prouver. Supposons $i=3$. On a $uv_{1}=v_{1}$, $\Xi v_{1}=\xi_{0}v_{0}$, $u^{-1}v_{0}=v_{0}$ par définition de $U_{3}$, d’où encore l’assertion. Supposons $i=4$. Pour $w\in W''$, on a $uw=w$ et $\Xi w=0$. Donc $(u^{-1}\Xi u-\Xi)w=0$ et $u^{-1}\Xi u$ vérifie la condition requise. Cela démontre (5).
Grâce à (5), pour $i=1,...,4$, on peut former le quotient $U_{i}\times_{U_{i+1}}\Sigma_{i+1}$ de $U_{i}\times \Sigma_{i+1}$ par la relation d’équivalence $(u,X)\equiv (u',X')$ si et seulement s’il existe $v\in U_{i+1}$ tel que $(u',X')=(uv,v^{-1}Xv)$. On va montrer que
\(6) l’application $$\begin{array}{ccc}U_{i}\times(\Xi+S+ \Sigma_{i+1})&\to&\Xi+S+\Sigma_{i}\\ (u,X)&\mapsto &u^{-1}Xu\\ \end{array}$$ se descend en un isomorphisme de $U_{i}\times_{U_{i+1}}\Sigma_{i+1}$ sur $\Xi+S+\Sigma_{i}$.
Supposons $i=1$. Posons $U_{B}=U_{1}\cap M_{2}$. Ce groupe s’identifie au radical unipotent du sous-groupe de Borel $B$ de $GL(Z_{+})$ qui conserve le drapeau $$Fv_{r}\subset Fv_{r}\oplus Fv_{r-1}\subset...\subset Fv_{r}\oplus...\oplus Fv_{1}.$$ L’application produit de $U_{B}\times U_{2}$ sur $U_{1}$ est un isomorphisme. Il suffit de prouver que l’application $$\begin{array}{ccc}U_{B}\times (\Xi+S+ \Sigma_{2})&\to&\Xi+S+\Sigma_{1}\\ (u,X)&\mapsto &u^{-1}Xu\\ \end{array}$$ est un isomorphisme. On a $\Sigma_{1}=\mathfrak{b}\oplus \Sigma_{3}$, $\Sigma_{2}=\mathfrak{r}\oplus \Sigma_{3}$ et $\mathfrak{r}$ est le sous-ensemble des éléments de $\mathfrak{b}$ dont seuls les termes de la dernière colonne sont non nuls. Définissons $\underline{\Xi}\in \mathfrak{g}''$ par $\underline{\Xi}v_{j}=\xi_{j-1}v_{j-1}$ pour $j=2,...,r$, $\underline{\Xi}v_{1}=0$ et $\underline{\Xi}$ annule $V''_{0}$. On a $\underline{\Xi}\in End(Z_{+})\subset \mathfrak{m}_{2}$. Pour $u\in U_{B}$, l’image de $u-1$ est contenu dans le sous-espace de $V''$ engendré par les vecteurs $v_{j}$ pour $j=2,...,r$ et $v_{-j}$ pour $j=1,...,r-1$. L’élément $\Xi-\underline{\Xi}$ annule cet espace. Son image est contenue dans le plan engendré par $v_{0}$ et $v_{-1}$, lequel est annulé par $u^{-1}-1$. On en déduit que $u^{-1}\Xi u-\Xi=u^{-1}\underline{\Xi}u-\underline{\Xi}$. On est ramené à prouver que l’application $$\begin{array}{ccc}U_{B}\times (\underline{\Xi}+\mathfrak{r})&\to&\Xi+\mathfrak{b}\\ (u,X)&\mapsto &u^{-1}Xu\\ \end{array}$$ est un isomorphisme. Tout se passe dans $End(Z_{+})$. L’assertion est bien connue et se prouve en filtrant $U_{B}$ de la façon habituelle.
Supposons $i=2$. L’application $$\begin{array}{ccc}Hom(D,Z_{+})\times U_{3}&\to& U_{2}\\ (Y,u)&\mapsto &exp(Y)u\\ \end{array}$$ est un isomorphisme. On est ramené à prouver que l’application $$\begin{array}{ccc}Hom(D,Z_{+})\times(\Xi+S+ \Sigma_{3})&\to&\Xi+S+\Sigma_{2}\\ (Y,X)&\mapsto &exp(-Y)Xexp(Y)\\ \end{array}$$ est un isomorphisme. D’après (4), $S+\Sigma_{3}$ est stable par conjugaison par $exp(Y)$ pour tout $Y\in Hom(D,Z_{+})$. Cela nous ramène à prouver que l’application de $Hom(D,Z_{+})$ dans $\mathfrak{r}=\Sigma_{2}/\Sigma_{3}$ qui, à $Y\in Hom(D,Z_{+})$, associe l’image dans $\Sigma_{2}/\Sigma_{3}$ de $exp(-Y)\Xi exp(Y)-\Xi$, est un isomorphisme. L’espace $\mathfrak{r}$ s’identifie à $Z_{+}$ par $X\mapsto Xv_{1}$. Il s’agit donc de montrer que l’application $$\begin{array}{ccc}Hom(D,Z_{+})&\to &Z_{+}\\ Y&\mapsto& (exp(-Y)\Xi exp(Y)-\Xi)v_{1}\\ \end{array}$$ est un isomorphisme. On a $exp(Y)v_{1}=v_{1}$, $\Xi v_{1}=\xi_{0}v_{0}$, $exp(-Y)v_{0}=-Yv_{0}+v_{0}$. L’application est donc $Y\mapsto -Yv_{0}$, qui est bien un isomorphisme.
Supposons $i=3$. L’application $$\begin{array}{ccc}Hom(W'',Z_{+})\times U_{4}&\to& U_{3}\\ (Y,u)&\mapsto &exp(Y)u\\ \end{array}$$ est un isomorphisme. D’après (4), l’ensemble $\Sigma_{4}$ est invariant par conjugaison par $U_{2}$. Comme dans le cas $i=2$, on est ramené à prouver que l’application de $Hom(W'',Z_{+})$ dans $\Sigma_{3}/\Sigma_{4}$ qui, à $Y\in Hom(W'',Z_{+})$ associe l’image dans $\Sigma_{3}/\Sigma_{4}$ de $exp(-Y)(\Xi+S)exp(Y)-\Xi-S$, est un isomorphisme. Supposons $d$ impair. Notons $proj_{Z_{+}}$ la projection de $V''$ sur $Z_{+}$ de noyau $V''_{0}\oplus Z_{-}$. Alors $\Sigma_{3}/\Sigma_{4}$ s’identifie à $Hom(W'',Z_{+})$ par l’application qui à $X\in \Sigma_{3}$ associe la restriction à $W''$ de $proj_{Z_{+}}\circ X$. Soit $w\in W''$. On a $exp(Y)w=w+Yw$, $Sexp(Y)w=Sw$, $exp(-Y)Sexp(Y)w=Sw-YSw$, $\Xi w=0$, $\Xi exp(Y)w=\Xi Yw$. Ce dernier élément appartient à l’espace $Z_{+,0}$ de base $(v_{j})_{j=0,...,r-1}$. Puisque $Y$ annule $Z_{+,0}$, on a $exp(-Y)\Xi Yw=\Xi Yw$. Donc $$proj_{Z_{+}}((exp(-Y)(\Xi+S)exp(Y)-\Xi-S)w)=proj_{Z_{+}}(\Xi Yw-YSw).$$ On a introduit ci-dessus un élément $\underline{\Xi}$. On a $proj_{Z_{+}}\circ \Xi=\underline{\Xi}$ sur $Z_{+}$. La formule ci-dessus devient $$proj_{Z_{+}}((exp(-Y)(\Xi+S)exp(Y)-\Xi-S)w)=(\underline{\Xi}Y-YS)w,$$ et on est ramené à prouver que l’application $Y\mapsto \underline{\Xi}Y-YS$ de $Hom(W'',Z_{+})$ dans lui-même est un isomorphisme. Pour $k=0,...,r$, introduisons le sous-espace $Z_{+}^k$ de $Z_{+}$ de base $(v_{j})_{j=1,...,k}$. L’espace $Hom(W'',Z_{+})$ est filtré par les $Hom(W'',Z_{+}^k)$. L’application précédente respecte cette filtration et l’application du gradué qui s’en déduit est la même que celle déduite de $Y\mapsto YS$. Cette dernière est un isomorphisme puisque les valeurs propres de $S$ agissant dans $W''$ sont non nulles. Supposons maintenant $d$ pair. Notons $proj_{Z_{+,0}}$ la projection de $V''$ sur $Z_{+,0}$ de noyau $Fv_{r}\oplus W''\oplus Z_{-}$. Alors $\Sigma_{3}/\Sigma_{4}$ s’identifie à $Hom(W''_{S},Z_{+})\oplus Hom(\bar{F}w_{S},Z_{+,0})$ par l’application qui, à $X\in \Sigma_{3}$ associe la somme de la restriction à $W''_{S}$ de $proj_{Z_{+}}\circ X$ et de la restriction à $Fw_{S}$ de $proj_{Z_{+,0}}\circ X$. Soit $Y\in Hom(W'',Z_{+})$, que l’on décompose en $Y=Y_{1}+Y_{2}$ avec $Y_{1}\in Hom(W''_{S},Z_{+})$ et $Y_{2}\in Hom(\bar{F}w_{S},Z_{+})$. On vérifie comme ci-dessus que l’image de $exp(-Y)(\Xi+S)exp(Y)-\Xi-S $ dans $\Sigma_{3}/\Sigma_{4}$ est la somme de la restriction à $W''_{S}$ de $\underline{\Xi}Y_{1}-Y_{1}S$ et de $\underline{\Xi}Y_{2}$. Parce que les valeurs propres de $S$ dans $W''_{S}$ sont non nulles, l’application $Y_{1}\mapsto \underline{\Xi}Y_{1}-Y_{1}$ est un isomorphisme pour la même raison que ci-dessus. L’application $Y_{2}\mapsto \underline{\Xi}Y_{1}$ est un isomorphisme car $\underline{\Xi}$ se restreint en un isomorphisme de $Z_{+}$ sur $Z_{+,0}$.
Supposons $i=4$. Grâce à (4), on est encore ramené à prouver que l’application de $\mathfrak{u}_{4}$ dans $\Sigma_{4}/\Sigma_{5}$ qui, à $Y\in \mathfrak{u}_{4}$, associe l’image de $exp(-Y)\Xi exp(Y)$ dans $\Sigma_{4}/\Sigma_{5}$, est un isomorphisme. L’espace $\mathfrak{u}_{4}$, resp. $\mathfrak{u}_{D}$, $\Lambda_{\mathfrak{u}''}$, a pour base les $c(v_{j},v_{k})$ pour $1\leq j<k\leq r$, resp. pour $0\leq j<k\leq r$, pour $0\leq j<k=j+1\leq r$. L’injection de $\mathfrak{u}_{D}$ dans $\Sigma_{4}$ se quotiente en un isomorphisme de $\mathfrak{u}_{D}/\Lambda_{\mathfrak{u}''}$ sur $\Sigma_{4}/\Sigma_{5}$. Un calcul simple montre que l’application qui nous intéresse s’identifie à l’application $\tau:\mathfrak{u}_{4}\to\mathfrak{u}_{D}/\Lambda_{\mathfrak{u}''}$ ainsi définie: pour $1\leq j<k\leq r$, $\tau(c(v_{j},v_{k}))$ est l’image dans $\mathfrak{u}_{D}/\Lambda_{\mathfrak{u}''}$ de $c(v_{j},v_{k-1})-c(v_{j-1},v_{k})$. Pour $l\in \{0,...,r\}$ notons $E_{l}$ le sous-espace de $\mathfrak{u}_{D}$ engendré par les $c(v_{j},v_{k}$ tels que $0\leq j<k\leq l+j \leq r$. L’espace $\mathfrak{u}_{D}/\Lambda_{\mathfrak{u}''}$ est filtré par les espaces $E_{l}/E_{1}$. L’espace $\mathfrak{u}_{4}$ est filtré par les espaces $E_{l-1}\cap \mathfrak{u}_{4}$. On vérifie que $\tau$ est compatible avec ces filtrations et que l’application graduée qui s’en déduit est un isomorphisme. Cela achève la preuve de (6).
En appliquant (6) successivement pour $i=1,...,4$, on obtient la seconde assertion de l’énoncé. $\square$
Polynôme caractéristique
------------------------
On introduit un système hyperbolique maximal $(w_{\pm j })_{j=1,...,m}$ de $W''\otimes_{F}\bar{F}$ formé de vecteurs propres pour $S$. On note $s_{j}$ la valeur propre de $S$ sur $w_{j}$, pour $j>0$. Si $d$ est impair, resp. pair, $(w_{\pm j })_{j=1,...,m}$ est une base de $W''\otimes_{F}\bar{F}$, resp. $W''_{S}\otimes_{F}\bar{F}$. Si $d$ est pair, on pose $\nu_{S}=q(w_{S})$. On introduit des coordonnées sur $\Lambda$ en écrivant un élément $X\in \Lambda$ sous la forme suivante:
- si $d$ est impair, $$X=c(v_{0},\sum_{j=\pm 1,...,\pm m}z_{j}w_{j})+\sum_{i=0,...r-1}\lambda_{i}c(v_{i},v_{i+1});$$
-si $d$ est pair et $r>0$, $$X=c(v_{0},\sum_{j=\pm 1,...,\pm m}z_{j}w_{j})+z_{0}c(w_{S},v_{r})+\sum_{i=0,...r-1}\lambda_{i}c(v_{i},v_{i+1});$$
- si $d$ est pair et $r=0$, $$X=c(v_{0},z_{0 }w_{S}+\sum_{j=\pm 1,...,\pm m}z_{j}w_{j}) .$$
Notons $R_{S}$ le polynôme caractéristique de $S$ agissant dans $W''$. On a donc $$R_{S} (T)=\left\lbrace\begin{array}{cc}\prod_{j=1,...,m}(T^2-s_{j}^2),&\,\,{\rm si\,\,}d{\rm\,\,est\,\,impair,}\\ T \prod_{j=1,...,m}(T^2-s_{j}^2),&\,\,{\rm si\,\,}d{\rm\,\,est\,\,pair.}\\ \end{array}\right.$$ Pour $X\in \mathfrak{g}''$, on note $P_{X}$ le polynôme caractéristique de $X$ agissant dans $V''$.
0.3cm[**[Lemme]{}**]{}.
**
Soit $X\in \Lambda$, auquel on associe des coordonnées comme ci-dessus. On a les égalités suivantes:
- si $d$ est impair, $$P_{\Xi+S+X}(T)=T^{2r+1}R_{S}(T)+ \sum_{j=1,...,m}4\nu_{0}z_{j}z_{-j} \frac {R_{S}(T)T^{2r+1}}{T^2-s_{j}^2}$$ $$\qquad +\sum_{i=0,...,r-1}(-1)^{i+1}4\nu_{0}R_{S}(T)T^{2r-1-2i}\lambda_{i}\xi_{i}\prod_{i'=0,...,i-1}\xi_{i'}^2 ;$$
- si $d$ est pair et $r>0$, $$P_{\Xi+S+X}(T)=T^{2r+1}R_{S}(T)+ \sum_{j=1,...,m}4\nu_{0}z_{j}z_{-j}\frac{R_{S}(T)T^{2r+1}}{T^2-s_{j}^2}$$ $$\qquad +(-1)^{r}4\nu_{S}\nu_{0}z_{0}^2\frac{R_{S}(T)}{T}(\prod_{i=0,...,r-1}\xi_{i}^2)+\sum_{i=0,...,r-1}(-1)^{i+1}4\nu_{0}R_{S}(T)T^{2r-1-2i}\lambda_{i}\xi_{i}\prod_{i'=0,...,i-1}\xi_{i'}^2 ;$$
- si $d$ est pair et $r=0$, $$P_{\Xi+S+X}(T)=TR_{S}(T)+ \sum_{j=1,...,m}4\nu_{0}z_{j}z_{-j}\frac{R_{S}(T)T}{T^2-s_{j}^2} +4\nu_{S}\nu_{0}z_{0}^2\frac{R_{S}(T)}{T}.$$
0.3cm
Preuve. On écrit l’élément $\Xi+S+X$ comme une matrice. Les méthodes usuelles de développement selon les lignes ou les colonnes permettent d’exprimer son déterminant comme une somme de termes aisés à calculer et d’un déterminant analogue à celui de départ mais associé à des valeurs de $r$ ou $m$ strictement inférieures. En raisonnant par récurrence, on obtient l’assertion. On renonce à rédiger davantage la preuve. Indiquons simplement la forme de la matrice dans deux exemples.
Supposons $m=2$, $r=2$ et $d$ est impair. On choisit pour base ordonnée de $V''$ la famille $v_{2},v_{1},w_{2},w_{1},v_{0},w_{-1},w_{-2},v_{-1},v_{-2}$. Dans cette base, la matrice de $\Xi+S+X$ est $$\left(\begin{array}{ccccccccc}0&0&0&0&0&0&0&\lambda_{1}&0\\ \xi_{1}&0&0&0& 2\nu_{0}\lambda_{0}&0&0&0&-\lambda_{1}\\ 0&0&s_{2}&0&2\nu_{0}z_{2}&0&0&0&0\\ 0&0&0&s_{1}&2\nu_{0}z_{1}&0&0&0&0\\ 0&\xi_{0}&-z_{-2}&-z_{-1}&0&-z_{1}&-z_{2}&-\lambda_{0}&0\\0&0&0&0&2\nu_{0}z_{-1}&-s_{1}&0&0&0\\0&0&0&0&2\nu_{0}z_{-2}&0&-s_{2}&0&0\\ 0&0&0&0&-2\nu_{0}\xi_{0}&0&0&0&0\\0&0&0&0&0&0&0&-\xi_{1}&0\\ \end{array}\right)$$ Supposons $m=2$, $r=2$ et $d$ est pair. On choisit pour base ordonnée de $V''$ la famille $v_{2},v_{1},w_{2},w_{1}, w_{S},v_{0},w_{-1},w_{-2},v_{-1},v_{-2}$. Dans cette base, la matrice de $\Xi+S+X$ est $$\left(\begin{array}{cccccccccc}0&0&0&0&2\nu_{S}z_{0}&0&0&0&\lambda_{1}&0\\ \xi_{1}&0&0&0& 0&2\nu_{0}\lambda_{0}&0&0&0&-\lambda_{1}\\ 0&0&s_{2}&0&0&2\nu_{0}z_{2}&0&0&0&0\\ 0&0&0&s_{1}&0&2\nu_{0}z_{1}&0&0&0&0\\ 0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&-z_{0}\\
0&\xi_{0}&-z_{-2}&-z_{-1}&0&0&-z_{1}&-z_{2}&-\lambda_{0}&0\\0&0&0&0&0&2\nu_{0}z_{-1}&-s_{1}&0&0&0\\0&0&0&0&0&2\nu_{0}z_{-2}&0&-s_{2}&0&0\\ 0&0&0&0&0&-2\nu_{0}\xi_{0}&0&0&0&0\\0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&-\xi_{1}&0\\ \end{array}\right)$$ $\square$
Remarquons que les termes $z_{j}z_{-j}$, $\lambda_{i}$ et $z_{0}^2$ dans le cas où $d$ est pair sont déterminés par $P_{\Xi+S+X}$. On a en particulier $$(1) \qquad z_{j}z_{-j}=\frac{P_{\Xi+S+X}(s_{j})}{4\nu_{0}s_{j}^{1+2r}R_{S,j}(s_{j})}$$ pour $j=1,...m$, où $R_{S,j}(T)=\frac{R_{S}(T)}{T^2-s_{j}^2}$, $$(2) \qquad z_{0}^2=\left\lbrace\begin{array}{cc}\frac{P_{\Xi+S+X}(0)}{(-1)^{r} 4\nu_{S}\nu_{0}R_{S,0}(0)\prod_{i=0,...,r-1}\xi_{i}^2} ,&\,\,{\rm si}\,\,r>0,\\ \frac{P_{\Xi+S+X}(0)}{4\nu_{S}\nu_{0}R_{S,0}(0)},&,\,\, {\rm si}\,\,r=0,\\ \end{array}\right.$$ où $R_{S,0}(T)=\frac{R_{S}(T)}{T}$. Posons $d''=dim(V'')$ et notons $Pol_{d''}$ l’espace des polynômes de degré $d''$, à coefficients dans $F$, de coefficient dominant égal à $1$ et ne contenant que des puissances de l’indéterminée $T$ de même parité que $d''$. C’est exactement l’espace des polynômes caractéristiques des éléments de $\mathfrak{g}''(F)$. Introduisons le sous-ensemble $Pol_{d''}^S$ formés des polynômes $P$ tels que
$P$ est le polynôme caractéristique d’un élément de $Y\in\mathfrak{g}''_{reg}(F)$;
$P(s_{j})\not=0$ pour tout $j=1,...,m$ et $P(0)\not=0$ si $d$ est pair.
C’est un ouvert de Zariski non vide de $Pol_{d''}$. Notons $\Lambda^S$ le sous-ensemble des $X\in \Lambda$ tels que $\Xi+S+X\in \mathfrak{g}''_{reg}(F)$, $z_{j}\not=0$ pour tout $j\in\{\pm 1,...,\pm m\}$ et de plus, si $d$ est pair, $z_{0}\not=0$. C’est exactement l’image réciproque de $Pol_{d''}^S$ dans $\Lambda$ par l’application $X\mapsto P_{\Xi+S+X}$. Donc $\Lambda^S$ est un ouvert de Zariski non vide de $\Lambda$. Les formules du lemme montrent que l’application précédente restreinte à $\Lambda^S$ est une application $F$-analytique surjective et partout submersive de $\Lambda^S$ sur $Pol_{d''}^S$.
Orbites dans $\Xi+S+\Lambda$
----------------------------
Notons $\Sigma^S$ le sous-ensemble de $\Sigma$ tel que l’image de $U''(F)\times(\Xi+S+ \Lambda^S)$ par l’isomorphisme du lemme 9.3 soit $\Xi+S+\Sigma^S$
[0.3cm[**[Lemme]{}**]{}. [ *[Le groupe $H''_{S}(F)U''(F)$ agit par conjugaison dans $\Xi+S+\Sigma^S$ et cette action est libre. Deux éléments de $\Xi+S+\Sigma^S$ sont conjugués par un élément de $G''$ si et seulement s’ils le sont par un élément de $H''_{S}(F)U''(F)$.]{}*]{}0.3cm]{}
Preuve. Soient $Y\in \Xi+S+\Sigma^S$ et $g\in H''_{S}(F)U''(F)$ tels que $g^{-1}Yg=Y$. Par définition de $\Sigma^S$, on peut écrire $Y=u^{-1}Y'u$, avec $u\in U''(F)$ et $Y'\in \Xi+S+\Lambda^S$. Alors $ug^{-1}u^{-1}Y'ugu^{-1}=Y'$. Quitte à remplacer $Y$ par $Y'$ et $g$ par $ugu^{-1}$, on est ramené au cas où $Y\in \Xi+S+\Lambda^S$. On peut écrire $g=tu$, avec $t\in H''_{S}(F)$ et $u\in U''(F)$. La conjugaison par $t$ fixe $\Xi+S$ et conserve $\Lambda$. Plus précisément, introduisons des coordonnées sur $\Lambda$ comme en 9.4. L’élément $t$ agit par homothétie sur chaque droite $\bar{F}w_{j}$, pour $j=\pm 1,...\pm m$. Pour $j>0$, on note $t_{j}$ la valeur propre associée. Alors la conjugaison par $t$ laisse inchangées les coordonnées $\lambda_{i}$ et $z_{0}$ dans le cas où $d$ est pair. Elle agit sur les coordonnées restantes par $$(1) \qquad (z_{r},...,z_{1},z_{-1},...,z_{-r})\mapsto (t_{r}z_{r},...,t_{1}z_{1},t_{1}^{-1}z_{-1},...,t_{r}^{-1}z_{-r}).$$ Posons $Y'=t^{-1}Yt$. Alors $Y$ et $Y'$ sont deux éléments de $\Xi+S+\Lambda$ qui sont conjugués par l’élément $u\in U''(F)$. Le lemme 9.3 entraîne que $u=1$ et $Y=Y'$. Ecrivons $Y=\Xi+S+X$, avec $X\in \Lambda^S$. Les coordonnées $z_{j}$ de $X$ sont toutes non nulles et la formule ci-dessus montre que $X$ ne peut être fixé par $t$ que si tous les $t_{j}$ valent $1$, autrement dit $t=1$. Donc $g=tu=1$ et cela démontre la première assertion de l’énoncé.
Comme ci-dessus, on peut remplacer dans la seconde assertion l’ensemble $\Xi+S+\Sigma^S$ par $\Xi+S+\Lambda^S$. Soient $X,\underline{X}\in \Lambda^S$, notons comme en 9.4 les coordonnées de $X$ et notons par des lettres soulignées celles de $\underline{X}$. Supposons $\Xi+S+X$ et $\Xi+S+\underline{X}$ conjugués par un élément de $G''$. Alors $P_{\Xi+S+X}=P_{\Xi+S+\underline{X}}$. D’après les remarques du paragraphe précédent, on a $z_{j}z_{-j}=\underline{z}_{j}\underline{z}_{-j}$ pour tout $j=1,...,m$, $\lambda_{i}=\underline{\lambda}_{i}$ pour tout $i=0,...,r-1$ et $z_{0}^2=\underline{z}_{0}^2$ si $d$ est pair. Supposons d’abord $d$ impair. La formule (1) ci-dessus montre qu’il existe un unique $t\in H''_{S}(\bar{F})$ tel que $t^{-1}Xt=\underline{X}$. L’unicité de $t$ et le fait que $X$ et $\underline{X}$ sont tous deux définis sur $F$ entraînent que $t\in H''_{S}(F)$. Alors $\Xi+S+X$ et $\Xi+S+\underline{X}$ sont conjugués par un élément de $H''_{S}(F)$, ce que l’on voulait démontrer. Supposons maintenant $d$ pair. On trouve comme dans le cas $d$ impair un unique élément $t\in H''_{S}(F)$ tel que $t^{-1}Xt=\underline{X}$ ou $\underline{X}'$, ce dernier élément ayant les mêmes coordonnées que $\underline{X}$, à l’exception de $\underline{z}_{0}$ qui est changé en $-\underline{z}_{0}$. On a alors soit $t^{-1}(\Xi+S+X)t=\Xi+S+\underline{X}$, soit $t^{-1}(\Xi+S+X)t=\Xi+S+\underline{X}'$. Il suffit pour conclure de prouver que cette deuxième possibilité ne se produit pas. Considérons l’élément $\delta$ du groupe orthogonal $G^{_{''}+}(F)$ qui agit par multiplication par $-1$ sur la droite $Fw_{S}$ et qui fixe tout élément de l’orthogonal de cette droite. On vérifie que $\delta^{-1}(\Xi+S+\underline{X})\delta=\Xi+S+\underline{X}'$. On sait par hypothèse que $\Xi+S+X$ est conjugué à $\Xi+S+\underline{X}$ par un élément de $G''$. S’il était conjugué par $t$ à $\Xi+S+\underline{X}'$, les deux éléments $\Xi+S+\underline{X}$ et $\Xi+S+\underline{X}'$ seraient conjugués par un élément de $G''$ et l’ensemble $\delta G''$ couperait le centralisateur de $\Xi+S+\underline{X}$ dans $G^{_{''}+}$. Or ce centralisateur est contenu dans $G''$ parce que $\Xi+S+\underline{X}$ est régulier et n’a pas de valeur propre nulle (cela parce que son polynôme caractéristique n’est pas nul en $0$). Puisque $\delta\not\in G''$, on obtient une contradiction qui achève la preuve. $\square$
Mesures autoduales
------------------
Considérons l’application $$\mathfrak{g}''_{reg}(F)\to \bigsqcup_{T\in {\cal T}(G'')}(\mathfrak{t}(F)\cap \mathfrak{g}''_{reg}(F))/W(G'',T)$$ qui, à un élément de $\mathfrak{g}''_{reg}(F)$, associe l’unique élément de l’ensemble d’arrivée qui lui est conjugué par un élément de $G''(F)$. Elle est analytique. Pour tout sous-tore maximal $T$ de $G''$, on note $\mathfrak{t}(F)^S$ le sous-ensemble des éléments de $\mathfrak{t}(F)$ qui sont conjugués à un élément de $\Xi+S+\Sigma^S$ par un élément de $G(F)$. L’application précédente se restreint en une application analytique $$(1) \qquad \Xi+S+\Sigma^S\to \bigsqcup_{T\in {\cal T}(G'')}\mathfrak{t}(F)^S/W(G'',T).$$ Elle est surjective. Si on note $(\Xi+S+\Sigma^S)/H''_{S}(F)U''(F)$ l’ensemble des classes de conjugaison par $H''_{S}(F)U''(F)$ dans $\Xi+S+\Sigma^S$, le lemme précédent montre qu’elle se quotiente en une bijection $$(2) \qquad (\Xi+S+\Sigma^S)/H''_{S}(F)U''(F)\to \bigsqcup_{T\in {\cal T}(G'')}\mathfrak{t}(F)^S/W(G'',T).$$ On munit l’ensemble de départ de la mesure quotient des mesures déjà fixées sur $\Xi+S+\Sigma^S$ et $H''_{S}(F)U''(F)$. Les remarques de la fin du paragraphe 9.4 montrent que l’application (1) est partout submersive. La mesure sur l’ensemble de départ de (2) s’identifie donc à une mesure régulière sur l’ensemble d’arrivée. Pour tout $T\in {\cal T}(G'')$, l’ensemble $\mathfrak{t}(F)^S$ est ainsi muni d’une mesure que l’on note $d_{\Sigma}Y$. Rappelons que l’on note simplement $dY$ la mesure autoduale.
[0.3cm[**[Lemme]{}**]{}. [ *[Pour tout $T\in {\cal T}(G'')$, on a l’égalité $d_{\Sigma}Y=D^{H''}(S)^{-1/2}D^{G''}(Y)^{1/2}dY$ en tout point $Y\in \mathfrak{t}(F)^S$.]{}*]{}0.3cm]{}
Preuve. Fixons $T\in {\cal T}(G'')$. Un objet tel que $\mathfrak{t}(F)^S$ ou $\mathfrak{t}(F)^S/W(G'',T)$ n’a pas de structure algébrique naturelle. Commençons par algébriser la situation. On considère $\Sigma^S$ comme une variété algébrique (un ouvert d’un espace vectoriel). Notons $\bar{W}(G'',T)=Norm_{G''}(T)/T$, introduisons l’ensemble $\mathfrak{t}^S$ des éléments de $\mathfrak{t}$ qui sont conjugués à un élément de $\Xi+S+\Sigma^S$ puis le quotient $\mathfrak{t}/\bar{W}(G'',T)$. Ce sont des variétés algébriques. Il y a une application algébrique $$(3) \qquad \tau:\Xi+S+\Sigma^S\to \mathfrak{t}^S/\bar{W}(G'',T)$$ qui se quotiente en un isomorphisme $$(4) \qquad (\Xi+S+\Sigma^S)/H''_{S}U''\to \mathfrak{t}^S/\bar{W}(G'',T).$$ La structure algébrique sur $\mathfrak{t}^S/\bar{W}(G'',T)$ détermine une structure analytique sur $(\mathfrak{t}^S/\bar{W}(G'',T))(F)$. Il y a une application naturelle $$\iota:\mathfrak{t}(F)^S \to
(\mathfrak{t}^S/\bar{W}(G'',T))(F),$$ qui est localement un isomorphisme de variétés analytiques. Cela va nous permettre de remplacer l’application (2) par son avatar algébrique (4).
Rappelons que, une fois le corps $F$ muni de la mesure autoduale, pour toute variété algébrique lisse ${\cal X}$ définie sur $F$, une forme différentielle $\delta$ sur ${\cal X}$, définie sur $F$ et de degré maximal, définit une mesure $\vert \delta\vert _{F}$ sur ${\cal X}(F)$. Plus généralement, ne supposons plus $\delta$ définie sur $F$. Il existe une fonction algébrique $\alpha$ sur ${\cal X}$, non nulle et telle que $\alpha \delta$ soit définie sur $F$. Etendons la valeur absolue de $F$ à $\bar{F}$. On définit une mesure $\vert \delta\vert _{F}$ sur ${\cal X}(F)$ par $$\vert \delta\vert _{F}=\vert \alpha\vert _{F}^{-1}\vert \alpha\delta\vert _{F}.$$ Cela ne dépend pas du choix de $\alpha$.En particulier, soit $E$ un sous-$F$-espace de $\mathfrak{g}''(F)$ sur lequel la forme $<.,.>$ est non dégénérée. Fixons une base $(e_{k})_{k=1,...l}$ de $E$ sur $F$, notons $Q$ la matrice $l\times l$ telle que $Q_{k,k'}=<e_{k},e_{k'}>$ et écrivons tout élément de $E$ sous la forme $e=\sum_{k=1,...,l}x_{k}e_{k}$. Définissons la forme différentielle $\delta=\bigwedge_{k=1,...,l}dx_{k}$. On vérifie que la mesure autoduale sur $E$ est $$(5) \qquad \vert det(Q)\vert _{F}^{-1/2}\vert \delta\vert _{F}.$$ Supposons maintenant que $(e_{k})_{k=1,...,l}$ est une base de $E\otimes_{F}\bar{F}$. La forme différentielle $\delta=\bigwedge_{k=1,...,l} dx_{k}$ n’est pas, en général, définie sur $F$ mais il existe $\alpha\in \bar{F}^{\times}$ tel que $\alpha\delta$ le soit et on peut définir $\vert \delta\vert _{F}$ comme plus haut. Un simple calcul de changement de bases montre que la mesure autoduale sur $E$ est encore donnée par la formule (5).
Choisissons des formes linéaires $Y\mapsto y_{k}$, $k=1,...,l $, sur $\mathfrak{t}$ de sorte que, pour un élément $Y\in \mathfrak{t}$ en position générale, l’action de $Y$ dans $V''$ ait pour valeurs propres non nulles $(\pm y_{k})_{k=1,...,l}$. Avec des notations évidentes, on a l’égalité $$<Y,Y'>=\frac{1}{2}trace(YY')=\sum_{k=1,...,l}y_{k}y'_{k}.$$ Définissons la forme différentielle $\delta_{\mathfrak{t}}$ sur $\mathfrak{t}$ par $\delta_{\mathfrak{t}}=\bigwedge_{k=1,...,l}dy_{k}$. La formule (5) montre que la mesure autoduale sur $\mathfrak{t}(F)$ est $\vert \delta_{\mathfrak{t}}\vert _{F}$. Fixons un sous-ensemble positif de l’ensemble des racines de $T$ dans $\mathfrak{g}''$. Pour $Y\in \mathfrak{t}$, posons $$d^{G''}(Y)=\prod_{\alpha>0}\alpha(Y),$$ le produit étant pris sur cet ensemble de racines. On vérifie que la forme différentielle $d^{G''}\delta_{\mathfrak{t}}$ se descend en une forme différentielle sur $\mathfrak{t}/\bar{W}(G'',T)$, que l’on note $\delta_{\mathfrak{t}/W}$. Evidemment, la mesure autoduale sur $\mathfrak{t}(F)$ est $$(6) \qquad dY=\vert d^{G''}(Y)\vert _{F}^{-1} \vert \iota^*(\delta_{\mathfrak{t}/W})(Y)\vert _{F}=D^{G''}(Y)^{-1/2} \vert \iota^*(\delta_{\mathfrak{t}/W})(Y)\vert _{F}.$$
Introduisons comme en 9.4 un système hyperbolique maximal $(w_{\pm j})_{j=1,...,m}$ de $W''\otimes_{F}\bar{F}$ formé de vecteurs propres pour $S$, donc aussi pour $H''_{S}$. Pour $t\in H''_{S}$ et $j=1,...,m$, notons $t_{j}$ la valeur propre de $t$ sur $w_{j}$. Définissons $\delta_{H''_{S}}=(\prod_{j=1,...,m}t_{j})^{-1}\bigwedge_{j=1,...,m}dt_{j}$. La formule (5), remontée au groupe par l’exponentielle, montre que $\vert \delta_{H''_{S}}\vert _{F}$ est la mesure que nous avons fixée sur $H''_{S}(F)$. Fixons une base de $\mathfrak{u}''(F)$ sur $F$ et prenons pour $\delta_{\mathfrak{u}''}$ le produit, dans un ordre fixé, des différentielles des coordonnées relativement à cette base. On a implicitement fixé une mesure sur $\mathfrak{u}''(F)$, mais notre problème est insensible au choix de cette mesure. On peut donc supposer que cette mesure est $\vert \delta_{\mathfrak{u}''}\vert _{F}$. Via l’exponentielle, $\delta_{\mathfrak{u}''}$ définit une forme différentielle $\delta_{U''}$ sur $U''$ et la mesure de Haar sur $U''(F)$ n’est autre que $\vert \delta_{U''}\vert _{F}$. Introduisons des coordonnées sur $\Lambda_{0}$ (qui est vu ici comme une variété algébrique sur $F$) en écrivant tout élément $X$ de cet ensemble sous la forme
- si $d$ est impair, $X=c(v_{0},\sum_{j=\pm 1,...,\pm m}z_{j}w_{j})$;
- si $d$ est pair, $X=c(v_{0},z_{0}w_{S}+\sum_{j=\pm 1,...,\pm m}z_{j}w_{j})$.
Remarquons que l’éventuel terme $z_{0}$ n’est pas le même qu’en 9.4. Puisqu’on a ici étendu les scalaires, on peut supposer $q(v_{0})=1$ et, si $d$ est pair, $q(w_{S})=-1$. On vérifie alors que $$<X,X'>=\frac{1}{2}trace(XX')= [z_{0}z'_{0}]-\sum_{\pm 1,...,\pm m}z_{j}z'_{-j} ,$$ où, ici comme dans la suite, on indique symboliquement entre crochets les termes qui n’existent que dans le cas $d$ pair. On pose $$\delta_{\Lambda_{0}}= \bigwedge_{j=[0],\pm 1,...,\pm m}dz_{j} .$$ D’après (5), $\vert \delta_{\Lambda_{0}}\vert _{F}$ est la mesure autoduale sur $\Lambda_{0}$. Notons $(a_{i})_{i=1,...,r}$ les valeurs propres sur les vecteurs $(v_{i})_{i=1,...,r}$ d’un élément de $\mathfrak{a}$. Définissons $\delta_{\mathfrak{a}}=\bigwedge_{i=1,...,r}da_{i}$. D’après (5), $\vert \delta_{\mathfrak{a}}\vert _{F}$ est la mesure autoduale sur $\mathfrak{a}_{F}$. Rappelons que $\Sigma=\mathfrak{a}\oplus \Lambda_{0}\oplus \mathfrak{u}''$. On définit la forme différentielle $\underline{\delta}$ sur $\Xi+S+\Sigma^S$ qui, via la translation par $\Xi+S$, correspond à la forme différentielle $\delta_{\mathfrak{a}}\wedge \delta_{\Lambda_{0}}\wedge \delta_{\mathfrak{u}''}$ sur $\Sigma^S$. Alors $\vert \underline{\delta}\vert _{F}$ est la mesure que nous avons fixée sur $\Xi+S+\Sigma^S$. On vérifie que $\underline{\delta}$ est invariante par conjugaison par $H''_{S}U''$. Il y a alors une forme différentielle $\bar{\delta}$ sur le quotient $ (\Xi+S+\Sigma^S)/H''_{S}U''$ de sorte que, via le choix de sections locales, on ait l’égalité $\underline{\delta}=\delta_{H''_{S}}\wedge \delta_{U''}\wedge \bar{\delta}$. Par (4), $\bar{\delta}$ correspond à une forme $\beta \delta_{\mathfrak{t}/W}$ sur $\mathfrak{t}/\bar{W}(G'',T)$, où $\beta$ est une fonction algébrique sur cette variété. Remontons $\beta$ en une fonction sur $\mathfrak{t}$. En tenant compte de (6), on voit que l’on a l’égalité $$(7) \qquad d_{\Sigma}(Y)=D^{G''}(Y)^{1/2}\vert \beta(Y)\vert _{F}dY$$ pour tout $Y\in \mathfrak{t}(F)^S$.
Il s’agit de calculer la fonction $\beta$. Supposons d’abord $r=0$. Dans ce cas $\Xi=0$ et $U''=\{1\}$. Introduisons le sous-ensemble $\Lambda_{1}$ des éléments $X\in\Lambda_{0}$ écrits comme plus haut, tels que $z_{-j}=1$ pour $j=1,...,m$. L’action $(t,S+X)\mapsto S+X'=t(S+X)t^{-1}$ de $H''_{S}$ sur $S+\Sigma$ s’écrit, avec les systèmes de coordonnées que l’on a introduits, $$((t_{j})_{j=1,...,m},(z_{j})_{j=[0],\pm 1,...,\pm m})\mapsto (z'_{j})_{j=[0],\pm 1,...,\pm m},$$ où $z'_{j}=t_{j}z_{j}$ et $z'_{-j}=t_{j}^{-1}z_{-j}$ pour $j=1,...,m$, et $z'_{0}=z_{0}$ dans le cas $d$ pair. De cette action se déduit un isomorphisme de $H''_{S}\times S+\Lambda_{1}$ sur l’ensemble des $S+X\in S+\Lambda_{0}$ dont toutes les coordonnées $z_{-j}$ sont non nulles, lequel contient $S+\Sigma^S$. On peut identifier $(S+\Sigma^S)/H''_{S}$ avec un ouvert dense de $\Lambda_{1}$ et on vérifie que, modulo cette identification, $\bar{\delta}=\wedge_{j=[0],1,...,m}dz_{j}$. Soient $X\in \Lambda_{1}$ de coordonnées $(z_{j})_{j=[0],1,...,m}$ et $Y\in \mathfrak{t}$ de coordonnées $(y_{k})_{k=1,...,l}$. On suppose que l’image de $S+X$ par (4) est l’image de $Y$ dans $\mathfrak{t}/\bar{W}(G'',T)$. Supposons pour fixer les idées $d$ pair. On a $l=m+1$ et $$P_{S+X}(T)=P_{Y}(T)=\prod_{k=1,...,l}(T^2-y_{k}^2).$$ Les formules 9.4(1) et 9.4(2) deviennent $$z_{j}=\frac{\prod_{k=1,...,l}(s_{j}^2-y_{k}^2)}{2s_{j}^2\prod_{j'=1,...,m; j'\not=j}(s_{j}^2-s_{j'}^2)}$$ pour $j\not=0$ et $$z_{0}^2=\frac{\prod_{k=1,...,l}y_{k}^2}{\prod_{k=1,...,m}s_{j}^2}.$$ Cette dernière relation signifie qu’il existe $\epsilon\in \{\pm 1\}$ tel que $$z_{0}=\epsilon\frac{\prod_{k=1,...,l}y_{k}}{\prod_{k=1,...,m}s_{j}}.$$ En dérivant de façon usuelle, on obtient $$dz_{j}= -s_{j}^{-2}\prod_{j'=1,...,m; j'\not=j}(s_{j}^2-s_{j'}^2)^{-1}\sum_{k=1,...,l}A_{j,k} dy_{k}$$ pour $j\not=0$ et $$dz_{0}=\epsilon\prod_{k=1,...,m}s_{j}^{-1}\sum_{k=1,...,l}A_{0,k}dy_{k},$$ où $$A_{j,k}=\left\lbrace\begin{array}{cc}y_{k}\prod_{k'=1,...,l; k'\not=k}(s_{j}^2-y_{k'}^2),&\,\,{\rm si}\,\,j\not=0,\\ \prod_{k'=1,...,l; k'\not=k}y_{k'},&\,\,{\rm si}\,\,j=0.\\ \end{array}\right.$$ D’où $$\bigwedge_{j=0,...,m}dz_{j}=(-1)^m\epsilon\prod_{j=1,...,m}s_{j}^{-3}\prod_{j,j'=1,...,m; j\not=j'}(s_{j}^2-s_{j'}^2)^{-1}det(A)\bigwedge_{k=1,...,l}dy_{k},$$ où $A$ est la matrice carrée de coefficients $A_{j,k}$. Posons $s_{0}=0$ et $$B_{j,k}=\prod_{k'=1,...,l; k'\not=k}(s_{j}^2-y_{k'}^2).$$ On a $$A_{j,k}=\left\lbrace\begin{array}{cc}y_{k}B_{j,k},&\,\,{\rm si}\,\,j\not=0,\\ (-1)^my_{k}(\prod_{k'=1,...,l}y_{k'}^{-1})B_{0,k},&\,\,{\rm si}\,\,j=0.\\ \end{array}\right.$$ Donc $det(A)=(-1)^mdet(B)$. On laisse au lecteur le calcul élémentaire du déterminant de $B$, qui vaut $$det(B)=(-1)^{l(l-1)/2}\prod_{0\leq j<j'\leq m}(s_{j}^2-s_{j'}^2)\prod_{1\leq k<k'\leq l}(y_{k}^2-y_{k'}^2)$$ $$\qquad =(-1)^{m+l(l-1)/2}\prod_{j=1,...,m}s_{j}^2\prod_{1\leq j<j'\leq m}(s_{j}^2-s_{j'}^2) \prod_{1\leq k<k'\leq l}(y_{k}^2-y_{k'}^2).$$ D’où $$(8) \qquad \bigwedge_{j=0,...,m}dz_{j}=\epsilon' d^{H''}(S)^{-1}\prod_{1\leq k<k'\leq l}(y_{k}^2-y_{k'}^2) \bigwedge_{k=1,...,l}dy_{k},$$ où $\epsilon'=\pm 1$ et $$d^{H''}(S)=\prod_{j=1,...,m}s_{j}\prod_{1\leq j'<j\leq m}(s_{j}^2-s_{j'}^2).$$ Remarquons que le produit intervenant dans (8) est égal à $\pm d^{G''}(Y)$. Alors (8) devient $$\bar{\delta}(S+X)=\epsilon''d^{H''}(S)^{-1}\delta_{\mathfrak{t}/W}(Y),$$ avec $\epsilon''=\pm \epsilon$, d’où $\beta(Y)=\epsilon''d^{H''}(S)^{-1}$. Puisque $\vert d^{H''}(S)\vert _{F}=D^{H''}(S)^{1/2}$, la formule (7) devient celle de l’énoncé.
Passons au cas où $r\not=0$. Quitte à conjuguer $T$ par un élément de $G''$, on peut supposer $A\subset T$. On a alors $T=AT_{0}$ où $T_{0}$ est un sous-tore maximal de $G''_{0}$. On peut supposer que les coordonnées que l’on a introduites sur $\mathfrak{t}$ et $\mathfrak{a}$ sont compatibles. Précisément, soit $Y\in \mathfrak{t}$, écrivons $Y=Y_{\mathfrak{a}}+Y_{0}$, avec $Y_{\mathfrak{a}}\in \mathfrak{a}$ et $Y_{0}\in \mathfrak{t}_{0}$, et introduisons les coordonnées $(y_{k})_{k=1,...,l}$ de $Y$ et $(a_{i})_{i=1,...,r}$ de $Y_{\mathfrak{a}}$. On peut supposer $a_{i}=y_{i}$ pour tout $i=1,...,r$. En se plaçant dans $G''_{0}$, on définit la variété $\mathfrak{t}_{0}/\bar{W}(G''_{0},T_{0})$ munie de sa forme différentielle $\delta_{\mathfrak{t}_{0}/W}$, la forme différentielle $\bar{\delta}_{0}$ sur $(S+\Lambda_{0})/H''_{S}$ et la fonction $\beta_{0}$ telle que l’application $$(S+\Lambda_{0})/H''_{S}\to \mathfrak{t}_{0}/W$$ identifie $\bar{\delta}_{0}$ à $\beta_{0}\delta_{\mathfrak{t}_{0}/W}$, du moins sur un ouvert dense. Le calcul précédent s’applique: $\beta_{0}$ est constante, de valeur $\epsilon_{0}d^{H''}(S)^{-1}$, où $\epsilon_{0}\in \{\pm 1\}$. Considérons le diagramme $$\begin{array}{ccc}U''\times(\Xi+S+\mathfrak{a}+\Lambda_{0})&\stackrel{f_{1}}{\to}&\Xi+S+\Sigma\\ f_{2}\downarrow\,\,&&\downarrow \\ (S+\Lambda_{0})\times \mathfrak{a}&\to&(\Xi+S+\Sigma)/U''\\ \downarrow&&\downarrow\\ (S+\Lambda_{0})/H''_{S}\times \mathfrak{a}&\to&(\Xi+S+\Sigma)/U''H''_{S}\\ f_{3}\downarrow\,\,&&\downarrow\\ (\mathfrak{t}_{0}/\bar{W}(G''_{0},T_{0}))\times \mathfrak{a}&\stackrel{f_{4}}{\to} &\mathfrak{t}/\bar{W}(G'',T)\\ \end{array}$$ où $f_{1}(u'',\Xi+S+X_{\mathfrak{a}}+X_{\Lambda_{0}})=u^{_{''}-1}(\Xi+S+X_{\mathfrak{a}}+X_{\Lambda_{0}})u''$ et $f_{2}(u'',\Xi+S+X_{\mathfrak{a}}+X_{\Lambda_{0}})=(S+X_{\Lambda_{0}},X_{\mathfrak{a}})$, les autres applications étant évidentes. Ce diagramme est commutatif. Pour le voir, soient $u''\in U''$, $X_{\mathfrak{a}}\in \mathfrak{a}$ et $X_{\Lambda_{0}}\in \Lambda_{0}$. Soit $Y_{0}\in \mathfrak{t}_{0}$ tel que la partie semi-simple de $S+X_{\Lambda_{0}}$ soit conjuguée à $Y_{0}$ par un élément de $G''_{0}$. Soit $Y\in \mathfrak{t}$ tel que la partie semi-simple de $\Xi+S+X_{\mathfrak{a}}+X_{\Lambda_{0}}$ soit conjuguée à $Y$ par un élément de $G''$. L’image de $(u'',\Xi+S+X_{\mathfrak{a}}+X_{\Lambda_{0}})$ par le chemin sud-ouest du diagramme est l’image de $Y_{0}+X_{\mathfrak{a}}$ dans $\mathfrak{t}/\bar{W}(G'',T)$. Son image par le chemin nord-est est l’image de $Y$ dans cet ensemble. Mais $S+X_{\mathfrak{a}}+X_{\Lambda_{0}}$ appartient à $\mathfrak{m}''$ tandis que $\Xi$ appartient à $\bar{\mathfrak{u}}''$. Alors les parties semi-simples de $\Xi+S+X_{\mathfrak{a}}+X_{\Lambda_{0}}$ et de $S+X_{\mathfrak{a}}+X_{\Lambda_{0}}$ sont conjuguées par un élément de $G''$. Donc $Y$ est conjugué à $Y_{0}+X_{\mathfrak{a}}$ et ces deux éléments ont même image dans $\mathfrak{t}/\bar{W}(G'',T)$. Cela démontre la commutativité du diagramme. Ce raisonnement et le lemme 9.5 montrent que les flèches horizontales du diagramme sont des isomorphismes locaux, au moins si l’on se restreint à des ouverts denses de chaque variété, ce que l’on fait, ici et dans la suite. Du diagramme se déduit une application $$(U''\times(\Xi+S+\mathfrak{a}+\Lambda_{0}))/U''H''_{S}\stackrel{g}{\to}\mathfrak{t}/\bar{W}(G'',T),$$ qui est toujours un isomorphisme local. Munissons $\Xi+S+\mathfrak{a}+\Lambda_{0}\simeq \mathfrak{a}+\Lambda_{0}$ de la différentielle $\boldsymbol{\delta}=\delta_{\mathfrak{a}}\wedge \delta_{\Lambda_{0}}$. On en déduit une forme différentielle $\bar{\boldsymbol{\delta}}$ sur l’espace de départ de $g$. Calculons $g^*(\delta_{\mathfrak{t}/W})$ en utilisant le chemin sud-ouest du diagramme. D’après les définitions, $f_{4}^*(\delta_{\mathfrak{t}/W})=\pm d^{G''}(d^{G''_{0}})^{-1}\delta_{\mathfrak{t}_{0}/W}\wedge \delta_{\mathfrak{a}}$. Puis $f_{3}^*f_{4}^*(\delta_{\mathfrak{t}/W})=\pm \beta_{0}^{-1}d^{G''}(d^{G''_{0}})^{-1}\bar{\delta}_{0}\wedge \delta_{\mathfrak{a}}$. Les deux applications verticales restantes identifient $\bar{\boldsymbol{\delta}}$ à $\bar{\delta}_{0}\wedge \delta_{\mathfrak{a}}$ et on obtient $$(9) \qquad g^*(\delta_{\mathfrak{t}/W})=\pm \beta_{0}^{-1}d^{G''}(d^{G''_{0}})^{-1}\bar{\boldsymbol{\delta}}.$$ Utilisons le chemin nord-est. Par la suite d’applications verticales, $\delta_{\mathfrak{t}/W}$ se relève en la forme $\beta^{-1}\underline{\delta}$ sur $\Xi+S+\Sigma)$. Soit $\gamma$ la fonction telle que $f_{1}^*(\underline{\delta})=\gamma \delta_{U''}\wedge \boldsymbol{\delta}$. Alors $$(10) \qquad g^*(\delta_{\mathfrak{t}/W})=\pm \gamma \beta^{-1} \bar{\boldsymbol{\delta}}.$$ Soient $X_{\mathfrak{a}}\in \mathfrak{a}$ et $X_{\Lambda_{0}}\in \Lambda_{0}$. Posons $X=S+X_{\mathfrak{a}}+X_{\Lambda_{0}}$. La différentielle de $f_{1}$ au point $(1,\Xi+X)$ se calcule aisément. C’est l’application $$(11) \qquad \begin{array}{ccc}\mathfrak{u}''\times (\mathfrak{a}+\mathfrak{\Lambda_{0}})&\to& \Sigma=\mathfrak{a}+\mathfrak{\Lambda_{0}}+\mathfrak{u}''\\ (N,X'_{\mathfrak{a}}+X'_{\Lambda_{0}})&\mapsto&X'_{\mathfrak{a}}+X'_{\Lambda_{0}}-[N,\Xi+X]\\ \end{array}$$ Parce que $X$ appartient à $\mathfrak{m}''$ et $\Xi$ à $\bar{\mathfrak{u}}''$, on peut trouver une base de $\mathfrak{u}''$ telle que l’application $N\mapsto [N,X]$ soit diagonale, tandis que l’application composée de $N\mapsto [N,\Xi]$ et de la projection sur $\mathfrak{u}''$ soit nilpotente supérieure. Le déterminant de l’application (11), c’est-à-dire $\gamma(X)$, est donc le même que celui de l’application $N\mapsto [N,X]$ de $\mathfrak{u}''$ dans lui-même. Celui-ci est égal à $\pm d^{G''}(X)d^{G''_{0}}(X)^{-1}$. En reportant cette valeur dans (10) et en comparant avec (9), on obtient $\beta=\pm \beta_{0}=\pm \epsilon_{0}d^{H''}(S)^{-1}$. Comme dans le cas $r=0$, la formule (7) devient celle de l’énoncé. $\square$
Sections locales
----------------
L’application (1) de 9.6 est analytique. Le lemme 9.3 et la preuve du lemme 9.5 montrent qu’elle est partout submersive. Pour tout $T\in {\cal T}(G'')$, on peut donc fixer une application localement analytique $$\begin{array}{ccc} \mathfrak{t}(F)^S&\to& \Xi+S+\Sigma^S\\ Y&\mapsto&Y_{\Sigma}\\ \end{array}$$ de sorte que le diagramme $$\begin{array}{ccccc}\Xi+S+\Sigma^S&&\to&&\mathfrak{t}(F)^S/W(G'',T)\\&\nwarrow&&\nearrow&\\ &&\mathfrak{t}(F)^S&&\\ \end{array}$$ soit commutatif. Il existe une application $Y\mapsto \gamma_{Y}$ de $\mathfrak{t}(F)^S$ dans $T(F)\backslash G''(F)$, localement analytique, de sorte que $Y_{\Sigma}=\gamma_{Y}^{-1}Y\gamma_{Y}$. Mais l’application $G''(F)\to T(F)\backslash G''(F)$ admet elle-même des sections localement analytiques. On peut donc supposer que l’application $Y\mapsto \gamma_{Y}$ est localement analytique à valeurs dans $G''(F)$.
On va montrer
\(1) soit $\omega_{T}$ un sous-ensemble compact de $\mathfrak{t}(F)$; on peut choisir l’application $Y\mapsto Y_{\Sigma}$ telle que l’image de $\mathfrak{t}(F)^S\cap\omega_{T}$ soit contenue dans un sous-ensemble compact de $\Xi+S+\Lambda$.
D’après le lemme 9.3, on peut supposer que $Y_{\Sigma}\in\Xi+S+\Lambda^S$ pour tout $Y\in \mathfrak{t}(F)^S$. Soit $Y\in \mathfrak{t}(F)^S\cap \omega_{T}$, posons $Y_{\Sigma}=\Xi+S+X$ et introduisons les coordonnées de $X$ comme en 9.4. Les coordonnées $\lambda_{i}$ sont linéaires en les coefficients du polynôme caractéristique $P_{Y}(T)$, et sont donc bornées. De même, l’éventuelle coordonnée $z_{0}$ et les produits $z_{j}z_{-j}$, pour $j=1,...,m$, sont bornés. Montrons que l’on peut supposer chaque $z_{\pm j}$ borné. Considérons d’abord deux cas particuliers. Dans le premier, on suppose qu’il existe une extension $F_{1}$ de $F$ de degré $m$ et une extension quadratique $F_{2}$ de $F_{1}$ telle que $H''_{S}(F)$ soit le noyau de la norme de $F_{2}^{\times}$ dans $F_{1}^{\times}$. Dans ce cas, on peut identifier $W''$ à $F_{2}$ et l’action de $H''_{S}(F)$ sur $W''$ à la multiplication. Posons $w=\sum_{j=\pm 1,...,\pm m}z_{j}w_{j}\in W''=F_{2}$. En normalisant convenablement les vecteurs $w_{j}$, les coordonnées $z_{\pm j}$ sont les images de $w$ par les différents plongements de $F_{2}$ dans $\bar{F}$. Alors ces coordonnées ont toutes la même valeur absolue. Puisque les produits $z_{j}z_{-j}$ sont bornés, chaque terme $z_{\pm j}$ l’est aussi. Dans le deuxième cas particulier, on considère une extension $F_{1}$ comme ci-dessus et on suppose que $H_{S}(F)=F_{1}^{\times}$. Dans ce cas, on peut identifier $W''$ à $F_{1}\oplus F_{1}$ et l’action de $H''_{S}(F)$ sur $W''$ à l’application $(h,w_{+}\oplus w_{-})\mapsto hw_{+}\oplus h^{-1}w_{-}$. Définissons $w$ comme ci-dessus. On peut supposer que ses deux composantes $w_{+}$ et $w_{-}$ sont respectivement égales à $\sum_{j=1,...,m}z_{j}w_{j}$ et $\sum_{j=1,...,m}z_{-j}w_{-j}$. Parce que $X$ appartient à $\Lambda^S$, $w_{-}$ est un élément non nul de $F_{1}$. Posons $h=w_{-}\in H''_{S}(F)$. On peut remplacer $w$ par $hw$. Pour cet élément, les coordonnées $z_{-j}$ sont toutes égales à $1$ et on conclut encore que les autres coordonnées $z_{j}$ sont bornées. Dans le cas général, on peut décomposer $W''$ en somme directe de sous-espaces et décomposer conformément $H''_{S}$ en produit de tores de sorte que chaque composante soit de l’un des deux cas particuliers que l’on vient de considérer. On en déduit la propriété requise.
Supposons (1) vérifiée. En appliquant 2.3(1), on voit que l’on peut choisir l’application $Y\mapsto \gamma_{Y}$ de sorte qu’il existe $c>0$ tels que $$(2) \qquad \sigma(\gamma_{Y})\leq c(1+\vert log\,D^{G''}(Y)\vert )$$ pour tout $Y\in \mathfrak{t}(F)^S\cap \omega_{T}$.
Calcul de $I_{\kappa''}(\theta'',\varphi)$
------------------------------------------
Revenons à la situation de 9.1 et supposons que $\varphi$ est à support dans $\omega''$. Soit $g\in G''(F)$. D’après l’hypothèse sur $\theta''$, on a $$I(\theta'',\varphi,g)=J_{H''}(S,((^g\varphi)^{\xi})\hat{})=D^{H''}(S)^{1/2}\int_{H''_{S}(F)\backslash H''(F)}((^g\varphi)^{\xi})\hat{}(h^{-1}Sh)dh.$$ En utilisant le lemme 9.2, on obtient $$I(\theta'',\varphi,g)=D^{H''}(S)^{1/2}\int_{H''_{S}(F)\backslash H''(F)}\int_{\Sigma}(^g\varphi)\hat{}(\Xi+h^{-1}Sh+X)dX\, dh,$$ puis $$(1) \qquad I_{\kappa''}(\theta'',\varphi)=D^{H''}(S)^{1/2}\int_{H''(F)U''(F)\backslash G''(F)}\int_{H''_{S}(F)\backslash H''(F)}$$ $$\qquad \int_{\Sigma}(^g\varphi)\hat{}(\Xi+h^{-1}Sh+X)dX\, dh\kappa''(g)dg.$$ Remarquons que cette expression est absolument convergente: les trois intégrales sont à support compact. On transforme cette expression en $$I_{\kappa''}(\theta'',\varphi)=D^{H''}(S)^{1/2}\int_{H''(F)U''(F)\backslash G''(F)}\int_{H''_{S}(F)\backslash H''(F)}\int_{\Sigma}(^{hg}\varphi)\hat{}(\Xi+S+X)dX\, dh\kappa''(g)dg$$ $$\qquad =D^{H''}(S)^{1/2}\int_{H''_{S}(F)U''(F)\backslash G''(F)}\int_{\Sigma}(^g\varphi)\hat{}(\Xi+S+X)dX\kappa''(g)dg.$$ Le lemme 9.6 nous permet de remplacer l’intégrale intérieure par $$\sum_{T\in {\cal T}(G'')}\vert W(G'',T)\vert ^{-1}\int_{H''_{S}(F)U''(F)}\int_{\mathfrak{t}(F)^S}(^g\varphi)\hat{}(y^{-1}\gamma_{Y}^{-1}Y\gamma_{Y}y)D^{H''}(S)^{-1/2}D^{G''}(Y)^{1/2}dY dy$$ $$=\sum_{T\in {\cal T}(G'')}\vert W(G'',T)\vert ^{-1}\int_{H''_{S}(F)U''(F)}\int_{\mathfrak{t}(F)^S}(^{\gamma_{Y}yg}\varphi)\hat{}(Y)D^{H''}(S)^{-1/2}D^{G''}(Y)^{1/2}dY dy.$$ Un simple changement de variables conduit alors à l’égalité $$I_{\kappa''}(\theta'',\varphi)=\sum_{T\in {\cal T}(G'')}\vert W(G'',T)\vert ^{-1}\int_{\mathfrak{t}(F)^S}\int_{G''(F)}\hat{\varphi}(g^{-1}Yg)\kappa''(\gamma_{Y}^{-1}g)dgD^{G''}(Y)^{1/2}dY.$$ Pour $T\in {\cal T}(G'')$ et $Y\in \mathfrak{t}(F)^S$, définissons une fonction $\kappa''_{Y}$ sur $G''(F)$ par $$\kappa''_{Y}(g)=\nu(A_{T})\int_{A_{T}(F)}\kappa''(\gamma_{Y}^{-1}ag)da.$$ Remarquons que cette expression ne dépend pas du choix de l’application $Y\mapsto \gamma_{Y}$: tout autre choix remplace $\gamma_{Y}$ par $\gamma_{Y}y$, avec $y\in H''_{S}(F)U''(F)$, mais $\kappa''$ est invariante à gauche par ce groupe. On obtient: $$(2) \qquad I_{\kappa''}(\theta'',\varphi)=\sum_{T\in {\cal T}(G'')}\nu(A_{T})^{-1}\vert W(G'',T)\vert ^{-1}$$ $$\qquad \int_{\mathfrak{t}(F)^S}\int_{A_{T}(F)\backslash G''(F)}\hat{\varphi}(g^{-1}Yg)\kappa''_{Y}(g)dgD^{G''}(Y)^{1/2}dY.$$ Les transformations que l’on a effectuées sont justifiées par la convergence absolue de l’expression (1) de départ.
Calcul de la limite $lim_{N\to \infty}I_{x,\omega,N}(\theta,f)$
===============================================================
Convergence d’une première expression
-------------------------------------
On se place dans la situation de 8.2. D’après la proposition 6.4 et le lemme 6.3(i), on peut fixer une famille finie $(Y_{i})_{i=1,...,n}$ d’éléments de $\mathfrak{h}_{x,reg}(F)$ et une famille finie $(c_{i})_{i=1,...,n}$ de nombres complexes de sorte que $$\theta_{x,\omega}(X)=\sum_{i=1,...,n}c_{i}\hat{j}^{H_{x}}(Y_{i},X)$$ pour tout $X\in \omega\cap \mathfrak{h}_{x,reg}(F)$. Formulons cette propriété différemment, en utilisant les notations introduites en 5.4: pour $X\in \mathfrak{g}_{x}(F)$, on note $X=X'+X''$ la décomposition de $X$ en somme d’un élément $X'\in \mathfrak{g}'_{x}(F)$ et d’un élément $X''\in \mathfrak{g}''(F)$. Il existe alors une famille finie ${\cal S}$ d’éléments de $\mathfrak{h}''_{reg}(F)$ et une famille finie $(\hat{j}_{S})_{S\in {\cal S}}$ de fonctions définies presque partout sur $\mathfrak{h}'_{x}(F)$ de sorte que $$\theta_{x,\omega}(X)=\sum_{S\in {\cal S}}\hat{j}_{S}(X')\hat{j}^{H''}(S,X'')$$ pour tout $X\in \omega\cap \mathfrak{h}_{x,reg}(F)$. Les éléments $S$ sont les différentes projections $Y''_{i}$. La preuve du lemme 6.3(i) nous autorise à remplacer les $Y_{i}$ par des éléments assez voisins. On peut donc supposer que le noyau de chaque $S$ agissant dans $W''$ est de dimension au plus $1$. Les fonctions $\hat{j}_{S}$ sont combinaisons linéaires de fonctions $X'\mapsto \hat{j}^{H'_{x}}(Y'_{i},X')$ et héritent donc de leurs propriétés.
Rappelons que, par construction, on a l’égalité $H'_{x}=G'_{x}$. Pour $g\in G(F)$, on a $$I_{x,\omega}(\theta,f,g)=\int_{\mathfrak{g}'_{x}(F)\times\mathfrak{h}''(F)}\theta_{x,\omega}(X){^gf}^{\xi}_{x,\omega}(X)dX.$$ En utilisant la formule de Weyl pour l’intégrale sur $\mathfrak{g}'_{x}(F)$, on obtient $$I_{x,\omega}(\theta,f,g)=\sum_{S\in{\cal S}}\sum_{T'\in {\cal T}(G'_{x})}\vert W(G'_{x},T')\vert ^{-1}\int_{\mathfrak{t}'(F)} \hat{j}_{S}(X')D^{G_{x}'}(X')$$ $$\qquad \int_{T'(F)\backslash G'_{x}(F)} \int_{\mathfrak{h}''(F)}\hat{j}^{H''}(S,X''){^gf}^{\xi}_{x,\omega}(g^{_{'}-1}X'g'+X'')dX''\, dg'\, dX'.$$ D’où $$I_{x,\omega,N}(\theta,f)=\sum_{S\in{\cal S}}\sum_{T'\in {\cal T}(G'_{x})}\vert W(G'_{x},T')\vert ^{-1}\int_{\mathfrak{t}'(F)} \hat{j}_{S}(X')D^{G_{x}'}(X')$$ $$\qquad \int_{T'(F)H''(F)U_{x}(F)\backslash G(F)}\int_{\mathfrak{h}''(F)}\hat{j}^{H''}(S,X''){^gf}^{\xi}_{x,\omega}(X'+X'')dX''\kappa_{N}(g) dg\, dX'.$$ On peut écrire les deux dernières intégrales ci-dessus sous la forme $$\int_{T'(F)G''(F)\backslash G(F)}\int_{H''(F)U_{x}(F)\backslash G''(F)}\int_{\mathfrak{h}''(F)}\hat{j}^{H''}(S,X''){^{g''g}f}^{\xi}_{x,\omega}(X'+X'')dX''\kappa_{N}(g''g)dg''\, dg.$$ Les deux intégrales intérieures sont égales à $I_{\kappa''}(\theta'',\varphi)$, où $\theta''(X'')=\hat{j}^{H''}(S,X'')$, $\varphi(X'')={^gf}_{x,\omega}(X'+X'')$ et $\kappa''(g'')=\kappa_{N}(g''g)$. Utilisons la formule 9.8(2) qui calcule cette expression. La fonction $\hat{\varphi}$ qui y intervient est égale à ${^gf}_{x,\omega}^{\sharp}$, avec la notation de 5.4. Quelques remises en ordre conduisent alors à l’égalité $$(1) \qquad I_{x,\omega,N}(\theta,f)=\sum_{S\in{\cal S}}\sum_{T\in {\cal T}(G_{x})}\nu(A_{T''})^{-1}\vert W(G_{x},T)\vert ^{-1}\int_{\mathfrak{t}'(F)\times \mathfrak{t}''(F)^{S}}\hat{j}_{S}(X')D^{G_{x}'}(X')D^{G''}(X'')^{1/2}$$ $$\qquad \int_{T'(F)A_{T''}(F)\backslash G(F)}{^gf}_{x,\omega}^{\sharp}(X'+X'')\kappa_{N,X''}(g)dg\,dX''\,dX',$$ où $$\kappa_{N,X''}(g)=\nu(A_{T''})\int_{A_{T''}(F)}\kappa_{N}(\gamma_{X''}^{-1}ag)da.$$ Ces manipulations formelles sont justifiées par le lemme ci-dessous. Pour tout $S\in{\cal S}$ et tout $T\in {\cal T}(G_{x})$, fixons une famille finie ${\cal Q}_{S,T}$ de polynômes non nuls sur $\mathfrak{t}(F)$. Pour tout $\epsilon>0$, notons $\mathfrak{t}(F)[S;\leq \epsilon]$ l’ensemble des $X\in \mathfrak{t}(F)$ pour lesquels il existe $Q\in {\cal Q}_{S,T}$ tel que $\vert Q(X)\vert_{F} \leq \epsilon$, et notons $ \mathfrak{t}(F)[S;> \epsilon]$ l’ensemble des $X\in \mathfrak{t}(F)$ pour lesquels $\vert Q(X)\vert _{F }>\epsilon$ pour tout $Q\in {\cal Q}_{S,T}$. Notons $I_{N,\leq\epsilon}$, resp. $I_{N,>\epsilon}$, l’expression obtenue à partir de l’expression (1) en remplaçant les intégrales sur $\mathfrak{t}'(F)\times \mathfrak{t}''(F)^{S}$ par les intégrales sur $(\mathfrak{t}'(F)\times \mathfrak{t}''(F)^{S})\cap \mathfrak{t}(F)[S;\leq \epsilon]$, resp. $( \mathfrak{t}'(F)\times \mathfrak{t}''(F)^{S})\cap \mathfrak{t}(F)[S;> \epsilon]$. On a évidemment l’égalité $$I_{x,\omega,N}(\theta,f)=I_{N,\leq\epsilon}+I_{N,>\epsilon}.$$ Notons enfin $\vert I\vert _{x,\omega,N}(\theta,f)$ et $\vert I\vert _{N,\leq\epsilon}$ les expressions obtenues en remplaçant dans $I_{x,\omega,N}(\theta,f)$ (ou plus exactement dans l’expression (1)) et $I_{N,\leq\epsilon}$ toutes les fonctions par leurs valeurs absolues.
0.3cm[**[Lemme]{}**]{}.
**
\(i) Il existe $k\in {\mathbb N}$ et $c>0$ tel que $\vert I\vert _{x,\omega,N}(\theta,f)\leq cN^k$ pour tout $N\geq 1$.
\(ii) Il existe un entier $b\geq 1$ et $c>0$ tel que $\vert I\vert _{N,\leq N^{-b}}\leq cN^{-1}$ pour tout $N\geq 1$.
0.3cm
Preuve. Soit $S\in{\cal S}$. Notons $(\pm s_{j})_{j=1,...,m}$ les valeurs propres non nulles de l’action de $S$ sur $W''$. Pour $X''\in \mathfrak{g}''(F)$, posons $$Q_{S}(X'')=\left\lbrace\begin{array}{cc}\prod_{j=1,...,m}s_{j}^{-1}P_{X''}(s_{j}),&\,\,{\rm si\,\,}d{\rm\,\,est\,\,impair}\\ \prod_{j=1,...,m}P_{X''}(s_{j}),&\,\,{\rm si\,\,}d{\rm\,\,est\,\,pair}.\\ \end{array}\right.$$ Certainement, $Q_{S}$ est un polynôme non nul sur l’algèbre de Lie de tout sous-tore maximal de $G''$. Soient $T\in {\cal T}(G_{x})$ et $\omega_{T''}$ un sous-ensemble compact de $\mathfrak{t}''(F)$. On va montrer
\(2) il existe un entier $k\in {\mathbb N}$ et $c>0$ tels que $$\kappa_{N,X''}(g)\leq cN^k\sigma(g)^k(1+\vert log\vert Q_{S}(X'')\vert _{F}\vert )^k(1+\vert log\,D^{G''}(X'')\vert )^k$$ pour tout $X''\in \mathfrak{t}''(F)^S\cap\omega_{T''}$, tout $g\in G(F)$ et tout $N\geq 1$.
Commençons par déduire l’énoncé de (2). On peut fixer $S\in{\cal S}$ et $T\in {\cal T}(G_{x})$ et considérer l’intégrale $$\int_{\mathfrak{t}'(F)\times \mathfrak{t}''(F)^{S}}\vert \hat{j}_{S}(X')\vert D^{G_{x}'}(X')D^{G''}(X'')^{1/2}$$ $$\qquad \int_{T'(F)A_{T''}(F)\backslash G(F)}\vert {^gf}_{x,\omega}^{\sharp}(X'+X'')\vert \kappa_{N,X''}(g)dg\,dX''\,dX'.$$ Introduisons une notation imprécise mais commode. Soient deux nombres $a$ et $b$ dépendant de variables, ici $N$, $g$, $X'$ et $X''$. On écrit $a<<b$ pour dire qu’il existe $c>0$ tel que, quelles que soient ces variables, on ait $a\leq cb$. D’après la définition de $\hat{j}_{S}$ et un résultat de Harish-Chandra (\[HCvD\] théorème 13), on a $\vert \hat{j}_{S}(X')\vert <<D^{G'_{x}}(X')^{-1/2}$. D’après 3.1(5), on peut fixer un sous-ensemble compact $\Gamma\subset G(F)$ tel que ${^gf}_{x,\omega}^{\sharp}=0$ si $g\not\in G_{x}(F)\Gamma$. On peut donc fixer $\gamma\in \Gamma$ et remplacer l’intégrale sur $T'(F)A_{T''}(F)\backslash G(F)$ par celle sur $T'(F)A_{T''}(F)\backslash G_{x}(F)\gamma$. On peut majorer $\vert {^{\gamma}f}_{x,\omega}^{\sharp}\vert $ par une combinaison linéaire de fonction $f'\otimes f''$ où $f'\in C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathfrak{g}'_{x}(F))$, $f''\in C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathfrak{g}''(F))$ et $f'$ et $f''$ sont à valeurs positives ou nulles. On est ramené à majorer $$\int_{\mathfrak{t}'(F)\times \mathfrak{t}''(F)^{S}}D^{G_{x}'}(X')^{1/2}D^{G''}(X'')^{1/2}\int_{T'(F)\backslash G'_{x}(F)}$$ $$\qquad \int_{A_{T''}(F)\backslash G''(F)}f'(g^{_{'}-1}X'g')f''(g^{_{''}-1}X''g'')\kappa_{N,X''}(g'g''\gamma)dg''\,dg'\,dX''\,dX'.$$ On peut fixer un sous-ensemble compact $\omega_{T''}\subset \mathfrak{t}''(F)$ tel que, pour tout $g''$, la fonction $X''\mapsto f''(g^{_{''}-1}X''g'')$ sur $\mathfrak{t}''(F)$ soit à support dans $\omega_{T''}$. Grâce à 2.3(1), on peut supposer que les $g''$ intervenant dans l’intégrale vérifient $\sigma(g'')<<1+\vert log\,D^{G''}(X'')\vert $. Puisque $G'_{x}=H'_{x}\subset H$, on a $\kappa_{N,X''}(g'g''\gamma)=\kappa_{N,X''}(g''\gamma)$. En appliquant (2), on obtient $\kappa_{N,X''}(g'g''\gamma)<<N^k\varphi(X'')$ où $$\varphi(X'')=(1+\vert log\vert Q_{S}(X'')\vert _{F}\vert )^k(1+\vert log\,D^{G''}(X'')\vert )^{2k}.$$ L’expression à majorer devient $$N^k \int_{\mathfrak{t}'(F)\times \mathfrak{t}''(F)^{S}}D^{G_{x}'}(X')^{1/2}D^{G''}(X'')^{1/2}\int_{T'(F)\backslash G'_{x}(F)}$$ $$\qquad \int_{A_{T''}(F)\backslash G''(F)}f'(g^{_{'}-1}X'g')f''(g^{_{''}-1}X''g'') \varphi(X'')dg''\,dg'\,dX''\,dX'.$$ Elle est majorée par $$N^k\int_{\mathfrak{t}(F)}J_{G_{x}}(X'+X'',f'\otimes f'')\varphi(X'')dX''\,dX'.$$ D’après Harish-Chandra, l’intégrale orbitale est bornée. Elle est aussi à support compact, ce qui nous conduit à majorer $$N^k\int_{\omega_{T}}\varphi(X'')dX''\,dX',$$ où $\omega_{T}$ est un sous-ensemble compact de $\mathfrak{t}(F)$. Le lemme 2.4 nous dit que l’intégrale est convergente, ce qui entraîne la majoration du (i) de l’énoncé. Pour le (ii), on est de même conduit à majorer $$N^k\int_{\omega_{T}\cap \mathfrak{t}(F)[S;\leq N^{-b}]} \varphi(X'')dX''\,dX'.$$ D’après l’inégalité de Schwartz, il suffit de majorer $$N^k(\int_{\omega_{T}\cap \mathfrak{t}(F)[S;\leq N^{-b}]}dX)^{1/2}(\int_{\omega_{T}}\varphi(X'')^2dX''\,dX')^{1/2}.$$ Le dernier terme se majore comme ci-dessus. Pour $\epsilon>0$, on a $$\int_{\omega_{T}\cap \mathfrak{t}(F)[S;\leq\epsilon]}dX\leq \sum_{Q\in {\cal Q}_{S,T}}mes(\{X\in \omega_{T}; \vert Q(X)\vert _{F}\leq\epsilon\}).$$ D’après \[A5\], lemme 7.1, il existe un réel $r>0$ tel que chacun de ces termes soit $<< \epsilon^r$. On en déduit une majoration $$\vert I\vert _{N,\leq N^{-b}}<<N^{k-rb/2}.$$ En prenant $b>2(k+1)/r$, on obtient le (ii) de l’énoncé.
Prouvons (2). Remplaçons $V$ par $V''$ dans les définitions de 7.2. On fixe un réseau spécial $R''$ de $V''$ de même que l’on a fixé $R$, on note $K''$ son stabilisateur dans $G''(F)$ et on définit une fonction $\kappa''_{N}$ sur $G''(F)$. Posons $$\kappa''_{N,X''}(1)=\nu(A_{T''})\int_{A_{T''}(F)}\kappa_{N}(\gamma_{X''}^{-1}a)da.$$ On va montrer
\(3) il existe un entier $k\in {\mathbb N}$ et $c>0$ tels que $$\kappa''_{N,X''}(1)\leq cN^k(1+\vert log(\vert Q_{S}(X'')\vert _{F})\vert )^k(1+\vert log\,D^{G''}(X'')\vert )^k$$ pour tout $X''\in \mathfrak{t}''(F)^S\cap\omega_{T''}$ et tout $N\geq 1$.
Déduisons d’abord (2) de (3). Pour un réel $r>0$, posons $\kappa''_{r}=\kappa''_{N(r)}$, où $N(r)$ est le plus petit entier supérieur ou égal à $r$. On a
\(4) il existe $c>0$ tel que $\kappa_{N}(g''g)\leq \kappa''_{N+c\sigma(g)}(g'')$ pour tous $g\in G(F)$, $g''\in G''(F)$.
Ecrivons $g''=m''u''k''$, avec $m''\in M''(F)$, $u''\in U''(F)$, $k''\in K''$, puis $k''g=muk$, avec $m\in M(F)$, $u\in U(F)$, $k\in K$. On a $\kappa_{N}(g''g)=\kappa_{N}(m''m)$. Supposons ce terme non nul (donc égal à $1$), décomposons $m''$ et $m$ en $m''=a''g''_{0}$ et $m=ag_{0}$, où $a'',a\in A(F)$, $g''_{0}\in G''_{0}(F)$ et $g_{0}\in G_{0}(F)$. Alors $\vert val_{F}(a''_{i}a_{i})\vert \leq N$ pour tout $i=1,...,r$ et $g_{0}^{-1}g_{0}^{_{''}-1}v_{0}\in \varpi_{F}^{-N}R_{0}$. On a $\sigma(m)<< \sigma(g)$. Donc $\vert val_{F}(a_{i})\vert <<\sigma(g)$ pour tout $i=1,...,r$ et $\sigma(g_{0})<<\sigma(g)$. On en déduit d’abord qu’il existe $c_{1}>0$ tel que $\vert val_{F}(a''_{i})\vert \leq N+c_{1}\sigma(g)$ pour tout $i=1,...,r$. Il existe $c_{2}>0$ tel que $g_{0}R_{0}\subset \varpi_{F}^{-N(c_{2}\sigma(g_{0}))}R_{0}$. Il existe $c_{3}\in {\mathbb N}$ tel que $R_{0}\cap V''\subset \varpi_{F}^{-c_{3}}R''_{0}$. Alors $g_{0}^{_{''}-1}v_{0}\in \varpi_{F}^{-N'}R''_{0}$, où $N'\leq N+c_{4}\sigma(g)$, pour $c_{4}>0$ convenable. En prenant $c>c_{1},c_{4}$, on voit que $g''$ vérifie les conditions requises pour que $\kappa''_{N+c\sigma(g)}(g'')=1$. Cela prouve (4).
En utilisant (4), on a $$\kappa_{N,X''}(g)=\nu(A_{T''})\int_{A(T'')(F)}\kappa_{N}(\gamma_{X''}^{-1}ag)da$$ $$\qquad \leq\nu(A_{T''})\int_{A(T'')(F)}\kappa''_{N+c\sigma(g)}(\gamma_{X''}^{-1}a)da\leq \kappa''_{N+c\sigma(g),X''}(1).$$ La majoration (3) entraîne alors (2).
Prouvons maintenant (3). On suppose vérifiées les conditions (1) et (2) de 9.7 pour le compact $\omega_{T''}$. Soit $a\in A_{T''}(F)$ tel que $\kappa''_{N}(\gamma_{X''}^{-1}a)=1$. Grâce à 7.2(1), on peut écrire $\gamma_{X''}^{-1}a=vhy$, avec $v\in U''(F)$, $h\in H''(F)$, $y\in G''(F)$ et $\sigma(y)\leq cN$. On a $$(5) \qquad yX''y^{-1}=h^{-1}v^{-1}X''_{\Sigma}vh,$$ où $X''_{\Sigma}=\gamma_{X''}^{-1}X''\gamma_{X''}$. La condition imposée à $y$ implique que $\sigma(yX''y^{-1})<<N$ (cf. 1.1 pour la définition de la fonction $\sigma$ sur $\mathfrak{g}''(F)$). On a $h^{-1}v^{-1}X''_{\Sigma}vh\in \Xi+h^{-1}Sh+\Sigma$ et $h^{-1}Sh\in \mathfrak{h}''(F)$. Or $\mathfrak{h}''(F)$ et $\Sigma$ sont en somme directe. Alors (5) entraîne que $\sigma(h^{-1}Sh)<<N$. Donc il existe un entier $k>0$ tel que $\sigma(h^{-1}\varpi_{F}^{kN}Sh)<< 1$. En appliquant 2.3(1), on peut écrire $h=tz$, avec $t\in H''_{S}(F)$, $z\in H''(F)$ et $$\sigma(z)<<(1+\vert log\,D^{H''}(\varpi_{F}^{kN}S)\vert )<<N.$$ On peut récrire $vhy=tug$, avec $u\in U''(F)$ et $g=zy$, donc $\sigma(g)<<N$. L’égalité (5) se récrit $gX''g^{-1}=u^{-1}Yu$, où $Y=t^{-1}X''_{\Sigma}t$. On a $\sigma(gX''g^{-1})<<N$. D’après la condition (1) de 9.7, $Y$ appartient à $\Xi+S+\Lambda$. Le lemme 9.3 nous dit que $u$ et $Y$ dépendent algébriquement de $u^{-1}Yu$. Donc $\sigma(u)<<N$ et $\sigma(Y)<<N$. Posons $X''_{\Sigma}=\Xi+S+X$, $Y=\Xi+S+X^*$, introduisons les coordonnées de $X$ et $X^*$ comme en 9.4 (on affecte celles de $X^*$ d’un exposant $^*$) et, pour tout $j=1,...,m$, notons $t_{j}$ la valeur propre de $t$ sur $w_{j}$. On a $z_{j}^*=t_{j}^{-1}z_{j}$ et $z_{-j}^*=t_{j}z_{-j}$ pour tout $j=1,...,m$. La condition (1) de 9.7 et celle ci-dessus portant sur $Y$ nous disent qu’il existe $c>0$ tel que $$val_{F}(z_{j}^*)\geq -cN,\,\,val_{F}(z_{-j}^*)\geq -cN,\,\,val_{F}(z_{j})\geq -c,\,\,val_{F}(z_{-j})\geq -c$$ pour tout $j$. On en déduit $$\vert val_{F}(t_{j})\vert \leq c(N+1)+val_{F}(z_{j}z_{-j})\leq c(N+2m-1)+val_{F}(\prod_{j'=1,...,m}z_{j'}z_{-j'}).$$ La formule 9.4(1) montre qu’il existe $c'>0$ tel que le dernier terme soit majoré par $c'(1+\vert log\vert Q_{S}(X'')\vert _{F}\vert )$. On en déduit $\sigma(t)<< N+\vert log\vert Q_{S}(X'')\vert _{F}\vert $. Alors $$\sigma(\gamma_{X''}^{-1}a)=\sigma(tug)<<N+\vert log\vert Q_{S}(X'')\vert _{F}\vert .$$ En appliquant 9.7(2), on en déduit $$\sigma(a)<<N+\vert log(\vert Q_{S}(X'')\vert _{F})\vert +\vert log\,D^{G''}(X'')\vert .$$ Le terme $\kappa''_{N,X''}(1) $ est borné par la mesure de l’ensemble des $a$ vérifiant cette condition. Il est facile de montrer que, pour tout réel $r\geq 1$, $$mes(\{a\in A_{T''}(F); \sigma(a)\leq r\})<<r^k,$$ où $k=dim(A_{T''})$. On en déduit $$\kappa''_{N,X''}(1)<<N^k(1+\vert log\vert Q_{S}(X'')\vert _{F}\vert)^k(1+\vert log\,D^{G''}(X'')\vert )^k,$$ ce qui prouve (3) et achève la démonstration. $\square$
Pour tout $S\in{\cal S}$ et tout $T\in {\cal T}(G_{x})$, on note ${\cal Q}_{S,T}$ la famille des trois polynômes sur $\mathfrak{t}(F)$ suivants $$X\mapsto det(ad(X')_{\vert \mathfrak{g}'_{x}/\mathfrak{t}'}),\,\,X\mapsto det(ad(X'')_{\vert \mathfrak{g}''/\mathfrak{t}''}),\,\,X''\mapsto Q_{S}(X'')$$ où $Q_{S}$ a été défini ci-dessus. Appliqué à ces données, le (ii) du lemme nous fournit un entier $b$ que l’on fixe. On pose $$I^*_{x,\omega,N}(\theta,f)=I_{N,>N^{-b}}.$$ Le lemme entraîne que $$lim_{N\to \infty}(I_{x,\omega,N}(\theta,f)-I^*_{x,\omega,N}(\theta,f))=0.$$
Commutant d’un tore
-------------------
On fixe $T\in {\cal T}(G_{x})$. Notons $M_{\natural}$ le commutant de $A_{T''}$ dans $G$. C’est un Lévi de $G$, qui contient $G'$. Notons $V_{2}''$ l’intersection des noyaux des actions de $a$ dans $V''$, pour $a\in A_{T''}$.
[0.3cm[**[Lemme]{}**]{}. [ *[On a l’égalité $A_{T''}=A_{M_{\natural}}$ sauf dans le cas où les conditions suivantes sont satisfaites: $d$ est pair, $W'$ est hyperbolique et de dimension $2$, $V_{2}''=\{0\}$. Dans ce cas, on a $A_{M_{\natural}}=T'A_{T''}$.]{}*]{}0.3cm]{}
Preuve. Posons $V_{2}=W'\oplus V_{2}''$, notons $V_{1}$ son orthogonal dans $V$ et $G_{1}$, resp. $G_{2}$ les groupes spéciaux orthogonaux de $V_{1}$, resp. $V_{2}$. L’espace $V_{2}$ est l’intersection des noyaux des actions de $a$ dans $V$, pour $a\in A_{T''}$. Donc $M_{\natural}$ conserve $V_{2}$. Par conséquent, $M_{\natural}$ conserve aussi $V_{1}$, donc $M_{\natural}\subset G_{2}\times G_{1}$. Puisque $A_{T''}$ agit trivialement dans $V_{2}$, on a $A_{T''}\subset G_{1}$. Donc $M_{\natural}=G_{2}\times M_{1,\natural}$, où $M_{1,\natural}$ est le commutant de $A_{T''}$ dans $G_{1}$, puis $A_{M_{\natural}}=A_{G_{2}}\times A_{M_{1,\natural}}$. On a $V_{1}\subset V''$, donc $G_{1}\subset G''$. D’autre part $T''$ commute à $A_{T''}$, donc $T''\subset M_{\natural}$, donc $A_{M_{\natural}}$ commute à $T''$. Alors $A_{M_{1,\natural}}$ est contenu dans le commutant de $T''$ dans $G''$. Puisque $T''$ est un sous-tore maximal de $G''$, ce commutant est égal à $T''$. Donc $A_{M_{1,\natural}}\subset T''$, ce qui entraîne $A_{M_{1,\natural}}\subset A_{T''}$. L’inclusion opposée est immédiate puisque $A_{T''}$ est évidemment un tore déployé central dans $M_{1,\natural}$. Donc $A_{M_{1,\natural}}=A_{T''}$. On a $A_{G_{2}}=\{1\}$ sauf dans le cas où $V_{2}$ est hyperbolique de dimension $2$. Supposons cette condition vérifiée. Puisque $G_{1}$ contient un sous-tore $A_{T''}$ qui agit sans point fixe non nul dans $V$, $dim(V_{1})$ est paire et $d$ aussi. Si $W'=\{0\}$, on a $G=G''$ et $T''$ est un tore maximal de $G$. Le même raisonnement que ci-dessus montre que $A_{M_{\natural}}\subset A_{T''}$ contrairement à l’hypothèse $A_{G_{2}}\not=\{1\}$. Donc $W'\not=\{0\}$. Puisque $dim(W')$ est paire et $V_{2}=W'\oplus V_{2}''$, on a $W'=V_{2}$ et $ V_{2}''=\{0\}$. Inversement, si $W'$ est hyperbolique de dimension $2$ et $V_{2}''=\{0\}$, on a $G_{2}=G'$ et ce groupe est un tore déployé. Puisque $T'$ est un sous-tore maximal de $G'$, on a $T'=G'=A_{G_{2}}$ et la conclusion du lemme s’ensuit. $\square$
Définitions combinatoires
-------------------------
Appelons cas exceptionnel celui de l’énoncé précédent. Supposons tout d’abord que l’on n’est pas dans ce cas et rappelons quelques définitions d’Arthur. Soit ${\cal Y}=(Y_{P_{\natural}})_{P_{\natural}\in {\cal P}(M_{\natural})}$ une famille d’éléments de ${\cal A}_{M_{\natural}}$, $(G,M_{\natural})$-orthogonale et positive. Pour $Q=LU_{Q}\in {\cal F}(M_{\natural})$, on note $\zeta\mapsto\sigma_{M_{\natural}}^Q(\zeta,{\cal Y})$ la fonction caractéristique dans ${\cal A}_{M_{\natural}}$ de la somme de ${\cal A}_{L}$ et de l’enveloppe convexe de la famille $(Y_{P_{\natural}})_{P_{\natural}\in {\cal P}(M_{\natural}); P_{\natural}\subset Q}$. On note $\tau_{Q}$ la fonction caractéristique dans ${\cal A}_{M_{\natural}}$ de la somme ${\cal A}_{M_{\natural}}^L+{\cal A}_{Q}^+$. Rappelons que ${\cal A}^+_{Q}$ est la chambre positive ouverte de ${\cal A}_{L}$ associée à $Q$. On a
\(1) la fonction $$\zeta\mapsto\sigma_{M_{\natural}}^Q(\zeta,{\cal Y})\tau_{Q}(\zeta-Y_{Q})$$ sur ${\cal A}_{M_{\natural}}$ est la fonction caractéristique de la somme de ${\cal A}_{Q}^+$ et de l’enveloppe convexe de la famille $(Y_{P_{\natural}})_{P_{\natural}\in {\cal P}(M_{\natural}); P_{\natural}\subset Q}$;
$$(2) \qquad \sum_{Q\in {\cal F}(M_{\natural})} \sigma_{M_{\natural}}^Q(\zeta,{\cal Y})\tau_{Q}(\zeta-Y_{Q})=1$$ pour tout $\zeta\in {\cal A}_{M_{\natural}}$.
L’assertion (1) est immédiate et (2) est l’assertion 3.9 de \[A3\].
Considérons maintenant le cas exceptionnel. Alors ${\cal A}_{M_{\natural}}={\cal A}_{T'}\oplus {\cal A}_{T''}$ et ${\cal A}_{T'}$ est une droite. Conformément à cette décomposition, on définit la projection $\zeta\mapsto \zeta_{T''}$ de ${\cal A}_{M_{\natural}}$ sur ${\cal A}_{T''}$. On note $\tilde{{\cal F}}(M_{\natural})$ l’ensemble des $Q\in {\cal F}(M_{\natural})$ tels que ${\cal A}_{Q}^+\cap {\cal A}_{T''}\not=\emptyset$. On note $\tilde{{\cal P}}(M_{\natural})={\cal P}(M_{\natural})\cap\tilde{{\cal F}}(M_{\natural})$. Pour $Q=LU_{Q}\in \tilde{{\cal F}}(M_{\natural})$, on note $\zeta\mapsto\tilde{\sigma}_{M_{\natural}}^Q(\zeta,{\cal Y})$ la fonction caractéristique dans ${\cal A}_{T''}$ de la somme de ${\cal A}_{L}\cap {\cal A}_{T''}$ et de l’enveloppe convexe de la famille $(Y_{P_{\natural},T''})_{P_{\natural}\in \tilde{{\cal P}}(M_{\natural}); P_{\natural}\subset Q}$. On note $\tilde{\tau}_{Q}$ la fonction caractéristique dans ${\cal A}_{T''}$ de la somme $({\cal A}_{T''}\cap{\cal A}_{M_{\natural}}^L)+({\cal A}_{T''}\cap{\cal A}_{Q}^+)$. On a encore
\(3) la fonction $$\zeta\mapsto\tilde{\sigma}_{M_{\natural}}^Q(\zeta,{\cal Y})\tilde{\tau}_{Q}(\zeta-Y_{Q,T''})$$ sur ${\cal A}_{T''}$ est la fonction caractéristique de la somme de ${\cal A}_{T''}\cap {\cal A}_{Q}^+$ et de l’enveloppe convexe de la famille $(Y_{P_{\natural},T''})_{P_{\natural}\in \tilde{{\cal P}}(M_{\natural}); P_{\natural}\subset Q}$;
$$(4)\qquad \sum_{Q\in \tilde{\cal F}(M_{\natural})} \tilde{\sigma}_{M_{\natural}}^Q(\zeta,{\cal Y})\tilde{\tau}_{Q}(\zeta-Y_{Q,T''})=1$$ pour tout $\zeta\in {\cal A}_{T''}$.
Pour démontrer ces propriétés et à des fins ultérieures, introduisons un espace $\tilde{V}$ somme directe de $V''$ et d’une droite $\tilde{D}$, muni de la somme orthogonale $\tilde{q}$ de la restriction de $q$ à $V''$ et d’une forme quadratique non dégénérée sur $\tilde{D}$. On note $\tilde{G}$ son groupe spécial orthogonal. Le tore $T''$ est inclus dans $G''$, donc dans $\tilde{G}$. Notons $\tilde{M}$ son commutant dans $\tilde{G}$. Le lemme 10.2 s’applique à $\tilde{G}$ et montre que $A_{T''}=A_{\tilde{M}}$.
0.3cm[**[Lemme]{}**]{}.
**
\(i) Il existe une unique bijection $Q=LU_{Q}\mapsto \tilde{Q}=\tilde{L}U_{\tilde{Q}}$ de $\tilde{{\cal F}}(M_{\natural})$ sur ${\cal F}(\tilde{M})$ telle que, pour tout $Q\in \tilde{{\cal F}}(M_{\natural})$, on ait ${\cal A}_{T''}\cap {\cal A}_{M_{\natural}}^L={\cal A}_{\tilde{M}}^{\tilde{L}}$, ${\cal A}_{T''}\cap {\cal A}_{L}={\cal A}_{\tilde{L}}$ et ${\cal A}_{T''}\cap {\cal A}_{Q}^+={\cal A}_{\tilde{Q}}^+$. Cette bijection conserve la relation d’inclusion et envoie $\tilde{{\cal P}}(M_{\natural})$ sur ${\cal P}(\tilde{M})$.
\(ii) Pour $Q\in \tilde{{\cal F}}(M_{\natural})$, posons $Y_{\tilde{Q}}=Y_{Q,T''}$. La famille $\tilde{{\cal Y}}=(Y_{\tilde{P}})_{\tilde{P}\in {\cal P}(\tilde{M})}$ est $(\tilde{G},\tilde{M})$-orthogonale et positive. Pour tout $\tilde{Q}\in {\cal F}(\tilde{M})$, $Y_{\tilde{Q}}$ est associé à cette famille comme en 2.1.
\(iii) Pour tout $Q\in \tilde{{\cal F}}(M_{\natural})$ et tout $\zeta\in {\cal A}_{T''}={\cal A}_{\tilde{M}}$, on a les égalités $\tilde{\sigma}_{M_{\natural}}^Q(\zeta,{\cal Y})=\sigma_{\tilde{M}}^{\tilde{Q}}(\zeta,\tilde{{\cal Y}})$ et $\tilde{\tau}_{Q}(\zeta)=\tau_{\tilde{Q}}(\zeta)$.
0.3cm
Preuve. Les conditions imposées à $A_{T''}$ impliquent que $V''$ est hyperbolique et qu’il existe un système hyperbolique maximal $(e_{k})_{k=\pm 2,...,\pm d/2}$ dans $V''$ et une suite d’entiers $(d_{i})_{i=2,...,l}$ vérifiant les propriétés suivantes. On a $d_{i}\geq 1$ pour tout $i$ et $1+d_{2}+...+d_{l}=d/2$. Pour $\epsilon=\pm 1$ et $i=2,...,l$, notons $E_{\epsilon i}$ le sous-espace de $V''$ engendré par les $e_{\epsilon k}$ pour $1+d_{2}+...+d_{i-1}<k\leq 1+d_{2}+...+d_{i}$. Alors $A_{T''}$ est le sous-groupe des éléments de $G''$ qui conservent chaque $E_{\pm i}$ et y agissent par homothétie. Fixons une base hyperbolique $\{e_{1},e_{-1}\}$ de $W'$. Notons $E_{\pm 1}$ la droite portée par $e_{\pm 1}$. Posons $I=\{\pm 1,...,\pm l\}$. Alors $A_{M_{\natural}}$ est le sous-groupe des éléments de $G$ qui conservent chaque $E_{i}$ pour $i\in I$ et y agissent par homothétie. L’espace ${\cal A}_{M_{\natural}}$ est celui des familles $\zeta=(\zeta_{i})_{i\in I}$ de nombres réels telles que $\zeta_{-i}=-\zeta_{i}$ pour tout $i$. L’espace ${\cal A}_{T''}$ est le sous-espace des $\zeta$ tels que $\zeta_{1}=\zeta_{-1}=0$, ou encore, en posant $ \tilde{I}=\{\pm 2,...,\pm l\}$, ${\cal A}_{T''}$ est l’espace des familles $\zeta=(\zeta_{i})_{i\in \tilde{I}}$ de nombres réels telles que $\zeta_{-i}=-\zeta_{i}$ pour tout $i$.
On décrit l’ensemble ${\cal F}(\tilde{M})$ de la façon habituelle suivante. Notons $\Phi(\tilde{M})$ l’ensemble des applications $\varphi: \tilde{I}\to \{0,\pm 1,...,\pm j_{\varphi}\}$, où $j_{\varphi}$ est un élément quelconque de ${\mathbb N}$, telles que $\varphi(-i)=-\varphi(i)$ pour tout $i$ et $\varphi^{-1}(j)\not=\emptyset$ pour tout $j=\pm 1,...,\pm j_{\varphi}$. Pour une telle $\varphi$ et pour $j\in \{1,...,j_{\varphi}\}$, on pose $E_{\varphi,j}=\oplus_{\varphi^{-1}(j)}E_{i}$. On note $\tilde{Q}_{\varphi}=\tilde{L}_{\varphi}\tilde{U}_{\varphi}$ le sous-groupe parabolique de $\tilde{G}$ formé des éléments qui conservent le drapeau $$E_{\varphi,j_{\varphi}}\subset E_{\varphi,j_{\varphi}}\oplus E_{\varphi,j_{\varphi}-1}\subset...\subset E_{\varphi,j_{\varphi}}\oplus ...\oplus E_{\varphi,1}.$$ Alors $\varphi\mapsto \tilde{Q}_{\varphi}$ est une bijection de $\Phi(\tilde{M})$ sur ${\cal F}(\tilde{M})$. L’espace ${\cal A}_{\tilde{M}}^{\tilde{L}_{\varphi}}$ est formé des $\zeta=(\zeta_{i})_{i\in \tilde{I}}$ tels que, pour tout $j\in \{\pm 1,...,\pm j_{max}\}$, $\sum_{i\in \varphi^{-1}(j) }\zeta_{i}=0$. L’espace ${\cal A}_{\tilde{L}_{\varphi}}$ est formé des $\zeta=(\zeta_{i})_{i\in \tilde{I}}$ tels que, pour tout $j\in \{0,\pm 1,...,\pm j_{max}\}$, $\zeta_{i}$ est constant pour $i\in \varphi^{-1}(j)$. Notons $\zeta_{\varphi,j}$ cette valeur constante. Alors ${\cal A}_{\tilde{Q}_{\varphi}}^+$ est formé des $\zeta\in {\cal A}_{\tilde{L}_{\varphi}}$ tels que $$\zeta_{\varphi,j_{\varphi}}>...>\zeta_{\varphi,1}>0.$$
On décrit l’ensemble ${\cal F}(M_{\natural})$ de façon analogue. On définit $\Phi(M_{\natural})$ en remplaçant $\tilde{I}$ par $I$ dans la définition de $\Phi(\tilde{M})$. Pour $\varphi\in \Phi(M_{\natural})$, on définit de même un sous-groupe parabolique $Q_{\varphi}=L_{\varphi}U_{\varphi}$ de $G$. L’application $\varphi\mapsto Q_{\varphi}$ est une surjection de $\Phi(M_{\natural})$ sur ${\cal F}(M_{\natural})$. Les fibres ont $1$ ou $3$ éléments. Une fibre a $3$ éléments si et seulement si elle contient un élément $\varphi_{0}$ pour lequel $\varphi_{0}^{-1}(0)$ a deux éléments $\{i_{h},-i_{h}\}$ et $dim(E_{i_{h}})=1$. Alors les deux autres éléments de la fibre sont les applications $\varphi_{1}$ et $\varphi_{-1}$ ainsi définies. Pour $\epsilon=\pm 1$, $\varphi_{\epsilon}(i_{h})=\epsilon$, $\varphi_{\epsilon}(-i_{h})=-\epsilon$. Pour $i\in I\setminus \{i_{h},-i_{h}\}$, si $\varphi_{0}(i)=\pm j$, avec $j\in \{1,...,j_{\varphi_{0}}\}$, on a $\varphi_{\epsilon}(i)=\pm(j+1)$. Si $\varphi$ appartient à une fibre à $1$ élément, les espaces ${\cal A}_{M_{\natural}}^{L_{\varphi}}$, ${\cal A}_{L_{\varphi}}$ et l’ensemble ${\cal A}_{Q_{\varphi}}^+$ se décrivent comme ci-dessus, en remplaçant $\tilde{I}$ par $I$. Si $\varphi$ est l’un des éléments $\varphi_{\pm 1}$ d’une fibre à $3$ éléments, les espaces ${\cal A}_{M_{\natural}}^{L_{\varphi}}$ et ${\cal A}_{L_{\varphi}}$ se décrivent de même. L’ensemble ${\cal A}_{Q_{\varphi}}^+$ est formé des $\zeta\in {\cal A}_{\tilde{L}_{\varphi}}$ tels que $$\zeta_{\varphi,j_{\varphi}}>...>\zeta_{\varphi,2}, \,\,\zeta_{\varphi,2}+\zeta_{\varphi,1}>0,\,\,\zeta_{\varphi,2}-\zeta_{\varphi,1}>0.$$ Le sous-groupe parabolique $Q_{\varphi}$ appartient à $\tilde{{\cal F}}(M_{\natural})$ si et seulement si l’ensemble ${\cal A}_{Q_{\varphi}}^+$ contient un élément de ${\cal A}_{T''}$, c’est-à-dire un élément $\zeta$ pour lequel $\zeta_{1}=\zeta_{-1}=0$. La description ci-dessus montre que, si $\varphi$ appartient à une fibre à $1$ élément, cette condition équivaut à $\varphi(1)=\varphi(-1)=0$. Si $\varphi$ est un élément $\varphi_{\pm 1}$ d’une fibre à $3$ éléments, elle équivaut à $\varphi(1),\varphi(-1)\in \{\pm 1\}$. Il revient au même de dire que, si $\varphi$ est l’élément $\varphi_{0}$ d’une fibre à $3$ éléments, la condition équivaut à $\varphi(1)=\varphi(-1)=0$. Notons $\tilde{\Phi}(M_{\natural})$ le sous-ensemble des $\varphi\in \Phi(M_{\natural})$ tels que $\varphi(1)=\varphi(-1)=0$. Alors l’application $\varphi\mapsto Q_{\varphi}$ se restreint en une bijection de $\tilde{\Phi}(M_{\natural})$ sur $\tilde{{\cal F}}(M_{\natural})$. L’application qui à $\varphi$ associe sa restriction à $\tilde{I}$ est une bijection de $\tilde{\Phi}(M_{\natural})$ sur $\Phi(\tilde{M})$. Elle paramètre une bijection de $\tilde{{\cal F}}(M_{\natural})$ sur ${\cal F}(\tilde{M})$. En utilisant les descriptions ci-dessus, on vérifie qu’elle possède toutes les propriétés indiquées dans l’énoncé et c’est bien sûr la seule possible. $\square$
Grâce à ce lemme, les propriétés (3) et (4) ne sont autres que (1) et (2) pour le groupe $\tilde{G}$.
Dans le cas non exceptionnel, on pourra affecter d’un $\tilde{}$ les notations afin de les unifier avec celles du cas exceptionnel. Par exemple, on notera $\tilde{{\cal F}}(M_{\natural})={\cal F}(M_{\natural})$ et, pour un élément $Q$ de cet ensemble, on notera $\tilde{\tau}_{Q}=\tau_{Q}$. De même, on notera dans ce cas $\zeta\mapsto \zeta_{T''}$ l’application identité de ${\cal A}_{M_{\natural}}$.
Changement de fonction de troncature
------------------------------------
On fixe $S\in {\cal S}$ et $T\in {\cal T}(G_{x})$. On utilise les notations de 10.2 et 10.3. Fixons un Lévi minimal $M_{min}$ de $G$ contenu dans $M_{\natural}$ et contenant $A_{M_{\natural}}$. On fixe un sous-groupe compact spécial $K_{min}$ de $G(F)$ en bonne position relativement à $M_{min}$. Il nous sert à définir les fonctions $H_{Q}$ sur $G(F)$ pour $Q\in {\cal F}(M_{min})$. Fixons $P_{min}=M_{min}U_{min}\in {\cal P}(M_{min})$ et notons $\Delta_{min}$ l’ensemble des racines simples de $A_{M_{min}}$ dans $\mathfrak{u}_{min}$. Soit $Y_{P_{min}}\in {\cal A}_{P_{min}}^+$. Pour tout $P'\in {\cal P}(M_{min})$, il y a un unique $w\in W(G,M_{min})$ tel que $wP_{min}w^{-1}=P'$. On pose $Y_{P'}=wY_{P_{min}}$. La famille $(Y_{P'})_{P'\in {\cal P}(M_{min})}$ est $(G,M_{min})$-orthogonale et positive. Pour $g\in G(F)$, définissons la famille ${\cal Y}(g)=(Y(g)_{Q})_{Q\in {\cal P}(M_{\natural})}$ par $$Y(g)_{Q}=Y_{Q}-H_{\bar{Q}}(g).$$ Il est clair qu’il existe $c_{1}>0$ tel que
\(1) pour tout $g\in G(F)$ tel que $\sigma(g)<c_{1}inf\{\alpha(Y_{P_{min}});\alpha\in \Delta_{min}\}$, la famille ${\cal Y}(g)$ est $(G,M_{\natural})$-orthogonale et positive; de plus $Y(g)_{Q}\in {\cal A}_{Q}^+$ pour tout $Q\in {\cal F}(M_{\natural})$.
On fixe un tel $c_{1}$. Remarquons que, pour $m\in M_{\natural}(F)$, la famille ${\cal Y}(mg)$ se déduit de ${\cal Y}(g)$ par translations. Il en résulte que la famille ${\cal Y}(g)$ est $(G,M_{\natural})$-orthogonale et positive pour tout $$g\in M_{\natural}(F)\{g'\in G(F); \sigma(g')<c_{1}inf\{\alpha(Y_{P_{min}});\alpha\in \Delta_{min}\}\}.$$ Pour un tel $g$, on pose $$\tilde{v}(g)=\nu(A_{T''})\int_{A_{T''}(F)}\tilde{\sigma}_{M_{\natural}}^G(H_{M_{\natural}}(a),{\cal Y}(g))da.$$
On a défini en 2.3 la fonction $\sigma_{T}$. Montrons que
\(2) il existe $c_{2}>0$ et un sous-ensemble compact $\omega_{T}$ de $\mathfrak{t}(F)$ tels que les propriétés suivantes soient vérifiées; soient $g\in G(F) $ et $X\in \mathfrak{t}(F)[S;>N^{-b}]\cap(\mathfrak{t}'(F)\times \mathfrak{t}''(F)^{S})$ tels que ${^gf}^{\sharp}_{x,\omega}(X)\not=0$; alors $X\in \omega_{T}$ et $\sigma_{T}(g)<c_{2}log(N)$.
Preuve. Il suffit de reprendre la preuve du lemme 10.1. Les éléments $X'$ et $X''$ restent dans des sous-ensembles compacts de $\mathfrak{t}'(F)$ et $\mathfrak{t}''(F)$, ces sous-ensembles compacts, ainsi que les suivants étant bien sûr indépendants de $X$ et $g$. On peut écrire $g=g'g''\gamma$, où $\gamma$ appartient à un sous-ensemble compact de $G(F)$, $g'\in G'_{x}(F)$ et $g''\in G''(F)$ sont tels que $g^{_{'}-1}X'g'$ et $g^{_{''}-1}X''g''$ appartiennent à des sous-ensembles compacts de $\mathfrak{g}'_{x}(F)$ et $\mathfrak{g}''(F)$. D’après 2.3(1), quitte à multiplier $g$ à gauche par un élément de $T(F)$, on a $$\sigma(g)<<(1+\vert log\,D^{G'_{x}}(X')\vert )(1+\vert log\,D^{G''}(X'')\vert ).$$ Pour $X\in \mathfrak{t}(F)[S;>N^{-b}]$, on a $$\vert log\,D^{G'_{x}}(X')\vert << log(N),\,\,\vert log\,D^{G''}(X'')\vert <<log(N).$$ Donc $\sigma(g)<<log(N)$ et l’assertion s’ensuit. $\square$
On fixe de tels $\omega_{T}$ et $c_{2}$ et on suppose désormais $$c_{2}log(N)<c_{1}inf\{\alpha(Y_{P_{min}});\alpha\in \Delta_{min}\}.$$ Puisque $T\subset M_{\natural}$, $\tilde{v}(g)$ est défini pour tout $g$ satisfaisant la condition de (2). Le membre de droite de l’égalité de la proposition ci-dessous est donc bien défini.
[0.3cm[**[Proposition]{}**]{}. [ *[Il existe $c>0$ et un entier $N_{0}\geq1$ tels que, si $N\geq N_{0}$ et $$clog(N)<inf\{\alpha(Y_{P_{min}});\alpha\in \Delta_{min}\} ,$$ on ait l’égalité $$\int_{T'(F)A_{T''}(F)\backslash G(F)}{^gf}_{x,\omega}^{\sharp}(X)\kappa_{N,X''}(g)dg=\int_{T'(F)A_{T''}(F)\backslash G(F)}{^gf}_{x,\omega}^{\sharp}(X)\tilde{v}(g)dg$$ pour tout $X\in \mathfrak{t}(F)[S;>N^{-b}]\cap(\mathfrak{t}'(F)\times \mathfrak{t}''(F)^{S})$.]{}*]{}0.3cm]{}
Preuve. Soit $Z_{P_{min}}\in {\cal A}_{P_{min}}^+$. En remplaçant $Y_{P_{min}}$ par cet élément, on construit une famille ${\cal Z}(g)$ pour tout $g\in G(F)$. On impose $$(3) \qquad c_{2}log(N)<c_{1}inf\{\alpha(Z_{P_{min}});\alpha\in \Delta_{min}\}.$$ Soit $g\in G(F)$ tel que $\sigma_{T}(g)<c_{2}log(N)$. Pour $a\in A_{T''}$, on a l’égalité $$\sum_{Q\in \tilde{{\cal F}}(M_{\natural})}\tilde{\sigma}_{M_{\natural}}^Q(H_{M_{\natural}}(a),{\cal Z}(g))\tilde{\tau}_{Q}(H_{M_{\natural}}(a)-Z(g)_{Q,T''})=1,$$ cf. 10.3(4). En se rappelant la définition ci-dessus de $\tilde{v}(g)$, on peut écrire $$\tilde{v}(g)=\nu(A_{T''})\sum_{Q\in\tilde{{\cal F}}(M_{\natural})}\tilde{v}(Q,g),$$ où $$\tilde{v}(Q,g)=\int_{A_{T''}(F)}\tilde{\sigma}_{M_{\natural}}^G(H_{M_{\natural}}(a),{\cal Y}(g))\tilde{\sigma}_{M_{\natural}}^Q(H_{M_{\natural}}(a),{\cal Z}(g))\tilde{\tau}_{Q}(H_{M_{\natural}}(a)-Z(g)_{Q,T''})da.$$ De même, soit $X\in \mathfrak{t}'(F)\times \mathfrak{t}''(F)^{S}$. On a $$\kappa_{N,X''}(g)=\nu(A_{T''})\sum_{Q\in \tilde{{\cal F}}(M_{\natural})}\kappa_{N,X''}(Q,g),$$ où $$\kappa_{N,X''}(Q,g)=\int_{A_{T''}(F)} \kappa(\gamma_{X''}^{-1}ag)\tilde{\sigma}_{M_{\natural}}^Q(H_{M_{\natural}}(a),{\cal Z}(g))\tilde{\tau}_{Q}(H_{M_{\natural}}(a)-Z(g)_{Q,T''})da.$$ On a
\(4) les fonctions $g\mapsto \tilde{v}(Q,g)$ et $g\mapsto \kappa_{N,X''}(Q,g)$ sont invariantes à gauche par $T'(F)A_{T''}(F)$.
Soit $t\in T'(F) A_{T''}(F)$. On a $H_{P'}(tg)=H_{M_{\natural}}(t)+H_{P'}(g)$ pour tout $P'\in {\cal P}(M_{\natural})$. Supposons $t\in A_{T''}(F)$. Alors remplacer $g$ par $tg$ dans la définition de $\tilde{v}(Q,g)$ ou de $\kappa_{N,X''}(Q,g)$ revient à changer la variable d’intégration $a$ en $at$. Cela ne change pas l’intégrale. Soit maintenant $t\in T'(F)$. On a $T'\subset H$, donc $\kappa(\gamma_{X''}^{-1}atg)=\kappa(\gamma_{X''}^{-1}ag)$ pour tout $a$. On a $T'\subset {G_{2}}\subset M_{\natural}$, avec la notation de la preuve du lemme 10.2. Si l’on n’est pas dans le cas exceptionnel, $G_{2}$ est semi-simple et $H_{M_{\natural}}(t)=0$. On ne change donc rien en remplaçant $g$ par $tg$. Si l’on est dans le cas exceptionnel, ce ne sont pas les termes $H_{P'}(g)$ qui interviennent dans les définitions, mais leurs projections $H_{P'}(g)_{T''}$. Or $H_{M_{\natural}}(t)_{T''}=0$ et, de nouveau, remplacer $g$ par $tg$ ne change rien. Cela prouve (4).
Soit $X\in \mathfrak{t}'(F)\times \mathfrak{t}''(F)^{S}$. Grâce à (4), on peut écrire $$(5) \qquad \int_{T'(F)A_{T''}(F)\backslash G(F)}{^gf}_{x,\omega}^{\sharp}(X)\kappa_{N,X''}(g)dg=\nu(A_{T''})\sum_{Q\in\tilde{{\cal F}}(M_{\natural})}I(Q,X),$$ $$(6) \qquad \int_{T'(F)A_{T''}(F)\backslash G(F)}{^gf}_{x,\omega}^{\sharp}(X)\tilde{v}(g)dg =\nu(A_{T''})\sum_{Q\in\tilde{{\cal F}}(M_{\natural})}J(Q,X),$$ où $$I(Q,X)=\int_{T'(F)A_{T''}(F)\backslash G(F)}{^gf}_{x,\omega}^{\sharp}(X)\kappa_{N,X''}(Q,g)dg,$$ $$J(Q,X)=\int_{T'(F)A_{T''}(F)\backslash G(F)}{^gf}_{x,\omega}^{\sharp}(X)\tilde{v}(Q,g)dg.$$
Considérons d’abord les termes indexés par $Q=G$. Supposons $$(7)\qquad sup\{\alpha(Z_{min});\alpha\in \Delta_{min}\}\leq \left\lbrace\begin{array}{c}inf\{\alpha(Y_{min}); \alpha\in \Delta_{min}\},\\ log(N)^2.\\ \end{array}\right.$$ Fixons un sous-ensemble compact $\omega_{T''}$ de $\mathfrak{t}''(F)$ tel que $X''\in \omega_{T''}$ pour tout $X\in \omega_{T}$. L’ensemble $\mathfrak{t}(F)[S;>N^{-b}]$ a été défini comme celui des $X\in \mathfrak{t}(F)$ tels que $X'$ et $X''$ satisfassent certaines minorations. On définit $\mathfrak{t}''(F)^S[>N^{-b}]$ comme celui des $X''\in \mathfrak{t}''(F)^S$ vérifiant celles de ces minorations qui portent sur $X''$. On a
\(8) il existe un entier $N_{1}\geq 1$ tel que, pour tout $N\geq N_{1}$, pour tout $g\in G(F)$ tel que $\sigma_{T}(g)\leq c_{2}log(N)$ et tout $X''\in \omega_{T''}\cap\mathfrak{t}''(F)^S[>N^{-b}] $, on ait l’égalité $\kappa_{N,X''}(G,g)=\tilde{v}(G,g)$.
Il suffit de prouver que pour tout $a\in A_{T''}(F)$ tel que $\tilde{\sigma}_{M_{\natural}}^G(H_{M_{\natural}}(a),{\cal Z}(g))=1$, on a l’égalité $ \tilde{\sigma}_{M_{\natural}}^G(H_{M_{\natural}}(a),{\cal Y}(g))= \kappa_{N}(\gamma_{X''}^{-1}ag)$. La première inégalité de (5) entraîne que l’enveloppe convexe de la famille $(Z(g)_{P',T''})_{P'\in \tilde{{\cal P}}(M_{\natural})}$ est incluse dans celle de la famille $(Y(g)_{P',T''})_{P'\in \tilde{{\cal P}}(M_{\natural})}$. Alors l’hypothèse $\tilde{\sigma}_{M_{\natural}}^G(H_{M_{\natural}}(a),{\cal Z}(g))=1$ entraîne $\tilde{\sigma}_{M_{\natural}}^G(H_{M_{\natural}}(a),{\cal Y}(g))=1$. Munissons ${\cal A}_{M_{\natural}}$ d’une norme $ \vert . \vert $. La deuxième inégalité de (5) et l’hypothèse sur $g$ entraînent une majoration $\vert Z(g)_{P'} \vert << log(N)^2$ pour tout $P'\in {\cal P}(M_{\natural})$. L’hypothèse $\tilde{\sigma}_{M_{\natural}}^G(H_{M_{\natural}}(a),{\cal Z}(g))=1$ entraîne alors $\sigma(a)<< log(N)^2$. D’après 9.7(2), on a $\sigma(\gamma_{X''})<<1+\vert log\,D^{G''}(X'')\vert $. Puisque $X''\in \mathfrak{t}''(F)^S[>N^{-b}]$, cela entraîne $\sigma(\gamma_{X''})<<log(N)$. D’où $\sigma(\gamma_{X''}^{-1}ag)<<log(N)^2$. Mais on voit facilement qu’il existe $c_{3}>0$ tel que, pour tout $g'\in G(F)$ tel que $\sigma(g')<c_{3}N$, on a $\kappa_{N}(g')=1$. Si $N$ est assez grand, on a $\sigma(\gamma_{X''}^{-1}ag)<c_{3}N$, donc $\kappa_{N}(\gamma_{X''}^{-1}ag)=1$. Cela prouve (8).
De (2) et (8) résulte l’égalité $$(9) \qquad I(G,X)=J(G,X)$$ pour tout $N\geq N_{1}$ et tout $X\in \mathfrak{t}(F)[S;>N^{-b}]\cap(\mathfrak{t}'(F)\times \mathfrak{t}''(F)^{S})$.
Soit maintenant $Q=LU_{Q}\in \tilde{{\cal F}}(M_{\natural})$ avec $Q\not=G$. On décompose les intégrales $$I(Q,X)=\int_{K_{min}}\int_{T'(F)A_{T''}(F)\backslash L(F)}\int_{U_{\bar{Q}}(F)}{^{\bar{u}lk}f}_{x,\omega}^{\sharp}(X)\kappa_{N,X''}(Q,\bar{u}lk)d\bar{u}\delta_{Q}(l)dl\,dk,$$ $$J(Q,X)=\int_{K_{min}}\int_{T'(F)A_{T''}(F)\backslash L(F)}\int_{U_{\bar{Q}}(F)}{^{\bar{u}lk}f}_{x,\omega}^{\sharp}(X)\tilde{v}(Q,\bar{u}lk)d\bar{u}\delta_{Q}(l)dl\,dk.$$ Nous montrerons aux paragraphes 10.5 et 10.8 les propriétés suivantes.
\(10) Soient $g\in G(F)$ et $\bar{u}\in U_{\bar{Q}}(F)$ tels que $\sigma(g),\sigma(\bar{u}g)<c_{1}inf\{\alpha(Z_{P_{min}}); \alpha\in \Delta_{min}\}$. Alors on a l’égalité $\tilde{v}(Q,\bar{u}g)=\tilde{v}(Q,g)$.
\(11) Soit $c_{4}>0$. Il existe $c_{5}>0$ tel que si $c_{5}log(N)<inf\{\alpha(Z_{P_{min}}); \alpha\in \Delta_{min}\}$, les conditions suivantes soient vérifiées. Soient $X''\in \omega_{T''}\cap\mathfrak{t}''(F)^S[>N^{-b}] $, $g\in G(F)$ et $\bar{u}\in U_{\bar{Q}}(F)$. Supposons $\sigma(g), \sigma(\bar{u}), \sigma(\bar{u}g)<c_{4}log(N)$. Alors on a l’égalité $\kappa_{N,X''}(Q,\bar{u}g)=\kappa_{N,X''}(Q,g)$;
Admettons ces propriétés. Montrons
\(12) il existe $c_{5}>0$ tel que, si $c_{5}log(N)<inf\{\alpha(Z_{P_{min}}); \alpha\in \Delta_{min}\}$, on a les égalités $I(Q,X)=J(Q,X)=0$ pour tout $X\in \mathfrak{t}(F)[S;>N^{-b}]\cap(\mathfrak{t}'(F)\times \mathfrak{t}''(F)^{S})$.
Grâce à (2), on peut supposer $X\in \omega_{T}$. Considérons l’intégrale $I(Q,X)$. D’après (2), on peut limiter l’intégrale sur $T'(F)A_{T''}(F)\backslash L(F)$ aux éléments $l$ pour lesquels il existe $\bar{u}\in U_{\bar{Q}}(F)$ et $k\in K_{min}$ tels que $\sigma_{T}(\bar{u}lk)< c_{2}log(N)$. Un tel $l$ est représenté par un élément de $L(F)$ tel que $\sigma(l)<c_{6}log(N)$, pour une constante $c_{6}$ convenable. Il existe $c_{7}>0$ tel que, pour $l$ vérifiant l’inégalité précédente, pour $k\in K_{min}$ et pour $\bar{u}\in U_{\bar{Q}}(F)$, l’inégalité $\sigma(\bar{u}lk)<c_{2}log(N)$ entraîne $\sigma(\bar{u})<c_{7}log(N)$. Soit $c_{4}=c_{2}+c_{7}$ et prenons pour $c_{5}$ le nombre issu de (11). Fixons $k\in K_{min}$ et $l\in L(F)$ tel que $\sigma(l)<c_{6}log(N)$. On a alors $${^{\bar{u}lk}f}_{x,\omega}^{\sharp}(X)\kappa_{N,X''}(Q,\bar{u}lk)={^{\bar{u}lk}f}_{x,\omega}^{\sharp}(X)\kappa_{N,X''}(Q,lk)$$ pour tout $\bar{u}\in U_{\bar{Q}}(F)$. En effet, si $\sigma(\bar{u}lk)\geq c_{2}log(N)$, les deux termes sont nuls d’après (2). Si $\sigma(\bar{u}lk)<c_{2}log(N)$, on a aussi $\sigma(\bar{u})<c_{7}log(N)$, puis $\sigma(lk)<c_{4}log(N)$. La relation (11) s’applique à $g=lk$ et $u$. Donc $\kappa_{N,X''}(Q,\bar{u}lk)=\kappa_{N,X''}(Q,lk)$ et l’égalité affirmée s’ensuit. Il résulte de cette égalité que, dans $I(Q,X)$, l’intégrale intérieure est simplement $$\int_{U_{\bar{Q}}(F)}{^{\bar{u}lk}f}_{x,\omega}^{\sharp}(X)d\bar{u}.$$ Or cette intégrale est nulle d’après le lemme 5.5(i), puisque $Q\not=G$. Donc $I(Q,X)=0$. On prouve de même que $J(Q,X)=0$.
Le terme $Z_{P_{min}}$ est un terme auxiliaire. Il est clair qu’il existe $c>0$ et un entier $N_{2}\geq1$ tels que, si $N\geq N_{2}$ et $$clog(N)<inf\{\alpha(Y_{P_{min}});\alpha\in \Delta_{min}\} ,$$ on peut choisir $Z_{P_{min}}$ satisfaisant les hypothèses (3) et (7) et celle de la relation (12). Si on suppose de plus $N\geq N_{1}$, les conclusions de (9) et (12) s’appliquent. Alors les égalités (5) et (6) entraînent la conclusion de l’énoncé. $\square$
Preuve de la propriété 10.4(10)
-------------------------------
Soient $g$ et $\bar{u}$ comme dans cette relation. Rappelons que $$\tilde{v}(Q,g)=\int_{A_{T''}(F)}\tilde{\sigma}_{M_{\natural}}^G(H_{M_{\natural}}(a),{\cal Y}(g))\tilde{\sigma}_{M_{\natural}}^Q(H_{M_{\natural}}(a),{\cal Z}(g))\tilde{\tau}_{Q}(H_{M_{\natural}}(a)-Z(g)_{Q,T''})da.$$ Les fonctions $\zeta\mapsto \tilde{\sigma}_{M_{\natural}}^Q(\zeta,{\cal Y}(g))$ et $\zeta\mapsto \tilde{\tau}_{Q}(\zeta-Z(g)_{Q,T''})$ ne dépendent de $g$ que par l’intermédiaire des termes $H_{\bar{P}'}(g)$ pour des sous-groupes paraboliques $P'\in \tilde{{\cal F}}(M_{\natural})$ tels que $P'\subset Q$. Elles ne changent donc pas quand on remplace $g$ par $\bar{u}g$. On peut alors fixer $a\in A_{T''}(F)$ tel que $$\tilde{\sigma}_{M_{\natural}}^Q(H_{M_{\natural}}(a),{\cal Z}(g))\tilde{\tau}_{Q}(H_{M_{\natural}}(a)-Z(g)_{Q,T''})\not=0$$ et prouver que $$(1) \qquad \tilde{\sigma}_{M_{\natural}}^G(H_{M_{\natural}}(a),{\cal Y}(g))=\tilde{\sigma}_{M_{\natural}}^G(H_{M_{\natural}}(a),{\cal Y}(\bar{u}g)).$$ Supposons que l’on n’est pas dans le cas exceptionnel. Tout sous-groupe parabolique $P'\in {\cal P}(M_{\natural})$ tel que $P'\subset Q$ détermine une chambre ${\cal A}_{P'}^{L,+}$ dans ${\cal A}^L$. Posons $\zeta=H_{M_{\natural}}(a)$, fixons un tel $P'$ de sorte que $proj_{M_{\natural}}^L(\zeta)\in Cl({\cal A}_{P'}^{L,+})$, où, pour tout sous-ensemble $E$ de ${\cal A}_{M_{\natural}}$, $Cl(E)$ désigne sa clôture. Montrons que
\(2) $\zeta\in Cl({\cal A}_{P'}^+)$.
D’après 10.3(1), l’hypothèse sur $a$ signifie que $\zeta$ est la somme d’un élément $\zeta'\in {\cal A}_{Q}^+$ et d’un élément $\zeta''$ dans l’enveloppe convexe des $Z(g)_{P''}$, pour $P''\in {\cal P}(M_{\natural})$ tel que $P''\subset Q$. Soit $\alpha$ une racine de $A_{M_{\natural}}$ dans $\mathfrak{g}$, positive pour $P'$. Si $\alpha$ intervient dans $\mathfrak{u}_{Q}$, $\alpha$ est positive pour tous les $P''$ ci-dessus. Or $Z(g)_{P''}\in {\cal A}_{P''}^+$ d’après 10.4(1), donc $\alpha(Z(g)_{P''})>0$. Il en résulte que $\alpha(\zeta'')>0$. On a aussi $\alpha(\zeta')>0$, donc $\alpha(\zeta)>0$. Si maintenant $\alpha$ intervient dans $\mathfrak{u}_{P'}\cap \mathfrak{l}$, on a $\alpha(\zeta)=\alpha(proj_{M_{\natural}}^L(\zeta))\geq 0$ d’après le choix de $P'$. Cela prouve (2).
D’après \[A3\] lemme 3.1, pour $\zeta\in Cl({\cal A}_{P'}^+)$, la condition $\tilde{\sigma}_{M_{\natural}}^G(\zeta,{\cal Y}(g))=1$ équivaut à certaines inégalités portant sur $\zeta-Y(g)_{P'}$. Cette condition ne dépend de $g$ que par l’intermédiaire de $H_{\bar{P}'}(g)$. Comme ci-dessus, elle est donc insensible au changement de $g$ en $\bar{u}g$. Cela démontre (1).
Dans le cas exceptionnel, on utilise le lemme 10.3 pour interpréter nos fonctions comme leurs analogues pour le groupe $\tilde{G}$. dans ce groupe, on peut faire le même raisonnement que ci-dessus et on obtient la même conclusion. $\square$
Calcul d’un polynôme
--------------------
On aura besoin du lemme ci-dessous. Soient ${\mathbb F}$ un corps algébriquement clos, $l$ un entier tel que $l \geq 1$ et $R=R(T)$ un polynôme en une indeterminée, à coefficients dans ${\mathbb F}$, de degré $l-1$ et de coefficient dominant $1$. Introduisons le polynôme en $l+1$ indéterminées $$Q=Q(T,S_{1},...,S_{l})=\prod_{j=1,...,l}(T-S_{j}),$$ et la fraction rationnelle $$P=P(T,S_{1},...,S_{l})=1+\sum_{j=1,...,l}\frac{(T+S_{j})R(S_{j})}{(T-S_{j})\prod_{j'=1,...,l; j'\not=j}(S_{j}-S_{j'})}.$$
[0.3cm[**[Lemme]{}**]{}. [ *[On a l’égalité $$P(T,S_{1},...,S_{l})=\frac{2TR(T)}{Q(T,S_{1},...,S_{l})}.$$]{}*]{}0.3cm]{}
Preuve. Introduisons le polynôme $$\Delta=\Delta(S_{1},...,S_{l})=\prod_{j,j'=1,...,l; j<j'}(S_{j}-S_{j'}).$$ Par réduction au même dénominateur, $$P=\frac{P_{\flat}}{\Delta Q}$$ où $$P_{\flat}=P_{\flat}(T,S_{1},...,S_{l})=\Delta Q+$$ $$\qquad\sum_{j=1,...,l}(-1)^{j-1}(T+S_{j})R(S_{j})\prod_{j'=1,...,l; j'\not=j}(T-S_{j'})\prod_{j',j''=1,...,l;j'<j''; j',j''\not=j}(S_{j'}-S_{j''}).$$ La fraction rationnelle $P$ est symétrique en les $S_{j}$. Alors le polynôme $P_{\flat}$ est antisymétrique et donc divisible par $\Delta$: il existe un polynôme $P_{\natural}=P_{\natural}(T,S_{1},...,S_{l})$ tel que $P_{\flat}=P_{\natural}\Delta$. Le polynôme $P_{\flat}$ est de degré au plus $l$ en $T$. Le coefficient de $T^l$ est $$\Delta+\sum_{j=1,...,l}(-1)^{j-1}R(S_{j})\prod_{j',j''=1,...,l; j'<j''; j',j''\not=j}(S_{j'}-S_{j''}).$$ Ce polynôme en les $S_{j}$ est divisible par $\Delta$. Or son degré total est inférieur ou égal à celui de $\Delta$. Il est donc proportionnel à $\Delta$. On calcule le coefficient de proportionnalité en calculant le coefficient de $S_{1}^{l-1}S_{2}^{l-2}...S_{l-1}$. On obtient que ce coefficient est $2$. On en déduit que le polynôme $P_{\natural}$ est de degré $l$ en $T$ et que son coefficient dominant est $2$. Pour $T=S_{j}$, on calcule $$P_{\flat}(S_{j},S_{1},...,S_{l})=2S_{j}R(S_{j})\Delta.$$ Donc $$P_{\natural}(S_{j},S_{1},...,S_{l})=2S_{j}R(S_{j}).$$ Alors $P_{\natural}(T,S_{1},...,S_{j})$ et $2TR(T)$ sont des polynômes de degré $l$ en $T$, de même coefficient dominant, et prenant les mêmes valeurs aux $l$ points $T=S_{j}$. Ils sont donc égaux. On obtient $P_{\flat}=2TR(T)\Delta$ et la formule de l’énoncé s’ensuit. $\square$
Réseaux spéciaux et extension de corps de base
----------------------------------------------
Pour ce paragraphe, on oublie les définitions de l’espace $Z$ et du réseau $R$. Pour toute extension finie $F'$ de $F$, on note $V_{F'}=V\otimes_{F}F'$. La forme $q$ se prolonge en une forme $F'$-bilinéaire $q_{F'}$ sur $V_{F'}$. Si $R$ est un $\mathfrak{o}_{F}$-réseau de $V$, on note $R_{F'}=R\otimes_{\mathfrak{o}_{F}}\mathfrak{o}_{F'}$. Soient $R$ un $\mathfrak{o}_{F}$-réseau de $V$ et $R'$ un $\mathfrak{o}_{F'}$-réseau de $V_{F'}$. Notons $K$, resp. $K'$, le stabilisateur de $R$ dans $G(F)$, resp. de $R'$ dans $G(F')$. Disons que $R$ et $R'$ sont compatibles s’ils vérifient les deux conditions
\(1) $R'\cap V=R$;
\(2) $K'\cap G(F)=K$.
Remarquons que la première condition entraîne $K'\cap G(F)\subset K$: un élément de $K'\cap G(F)$ conserve $R'$ et $V$, donc aussi leur intersection $R$. On peut aussi bien remplacer (2) par
(2’) $K\subset K'$.
[0.3cm[**[Lemme]{}**]{}. [ *[Soit $R$ un réseau spécial de $V$. Il existe une extension finie $E$ de $F$ telle que, pour toute extension finie $F'$ de $E$, il existe un réseau spécial $R'$ de $V_{F'}$ qui soit compatible avec $R$.]{}*]{}0.3cm]{}
Preuve. On imagine qu’il y a une démonstration immobilière générale. Donnons une démonstration d’algèbre linéaire élémentaire. On a la propriété évidente
\(3) soient $F'$ une extension finie de $F$, $F''$ une extension finie de $F'$, $R'$ un réseau de $V_{F'}$ et $R''$ un réseau de $V_{F''}$; supposons $R'$ compatible avec $R$ et $R''$ compatible avec $R'$; alors $R''$ est compatible avec $R$.
On a d’autre part
\(4) si $d_{an}(V)\leq 1$, le lemme est vérifié pour $E=F$.
En effet, pour toute extension finie $F'$ de $F$, le réseau $R_{F'}$ est compatible avec $R$. Si $d_{an}(V)\leq 1$, $R_{F'}$ est spécial, d’où (4).
A l’aide de ces deux propriétés, un raisonnement par récurrence descendante sur $d_{an}(V)$ montre qu’il suffit de prouver l’assertion suivante
\(5) si $d_{an}(V)\geq2$, il existe une extension finie $F'$ de $F$ et un réseau spécial $R'$ de $V_{F'}$ tels que $d_{an}(V_{F'})<d_{an}(V)$ et $R'$ soit compatible avec $R$.
On choisit comme en 7.1 une décomposition orthogonale $V=Z\oplus V_{an}$, un entier $c$ tel qu’il existe $v\in V_{an}$ de sorte que $val_{F}(q(v))=c$, et une base hyperbolique $(v_{i})_{i=\pm1,...,\pm n}$ de sorte que $R$ soit la somme du réseau $R_{an}$ formé des éléments $v\in V_{an}$ tels que $val_{F}(q(v))\geq c$ et du réseau $R_{Z}$ engendré par les $v_{i}$ et les $\varpi_{F}^cv_{-i}$ pour $i=1,...,n$. Supposons $d_{an}(V)=2$. Il existe une extension quadratique $E$ de $F$ et un élément $\lambda\in F^{\times}$ tel que $val_{F}(\lambda)=c$, de sorte que l’on puisse identifier $V_{an}$ à $E$ et la restriction $q_{an}$ de $q$ à $V_{an}$ à la forme quadratique $(v,v')\mapsto \lambda Trace_{E/F}(\tau(v)v')$, où $\tau$ l’élément non trivial de $Gal(E/F)$. L’espace $V_{an,E}$ s’identifie à un espace de dimension $2$ sur $E$, muni d’une base $(w_{+},w_{-})$, et $q_{an,E}$ à la forme $$(x_{+}w_{+}+x_{-}w_{-},y_{+}w_{+}+y_{-}w_{-})=\lambda(x_{+}y_{-}+x_{-}y_{+}).$$ L’espace $V_{an}$ est formé des $x_{+}w_{+}+x_{-}w_{-}\in V_{an,E}$ tels que $x_{-}=\tau(x_{+})$. Posons $v_{n+1}=w_{+}$, $v_{-n-1}=\lambda^{-1}w_{-}$. Alors $(v_{i})_{i=\pm 1,...,\pm (n+1)}$ est une base hyperbolique de $V_{E}$. Notons $R'$ le $\mathfrak{o}_{E}$-réseau de $V_{E}$ engendré par les $v_{i}$ et les $\varpi_{F}^cv_{-i}$ pour $i=1,...,n+1$. Il est spécial. Montrons que $R'$ est compatible avec $R$. Remarquons que $R'$ est la somme de $R_{Z,E}$ et du réseau $R'_{an}$ engendré par $w_{+}$ et $w_{-}$. Pour prouver que $R'\cap V=R$, il suffit de prouver que $R'_{an}\cap V_{an}=R_{an}$. Le réseau $R'_{an}\cap V_{an}$, resp. $R_{an}$, est formé des $xw_{+}+\tau(x)w_{-}$, avec $x\in E$, tels que $x\in \mathfrak{o}_{E}$, resp. $val_{F}(x\tau(x))\geq0$. Ces deux dernières conditions sont équivalentes, d’où l’assertion. Montrons que $K\subset K'$. Soit $k\in K$. Il suffit de prouver que, pour tout élément $v$ de la base de $R'$, on a $kv\in R'$. Si $v=v_{i}$ ou $\varpi_{F}^cv_{-i}$ avec $i= 1,...,n$, on a $v\in R$, donc $kv\in R\subset R'$. On peut remplacer les deux éléments de base restants par $w_{+}$ et $w_{-}$. Ecrivons $$kw_{+}=x_{+}w_{+}+x_{-}w_{-}+\sum_{i=1,...,n}(x_{i}v_{i}+\varpi_{F}^cx_{-i}v_{-i}),$$ $$kw_{+}=y_{+}w_{+}+y_{-}w_{-}+\sum_{i=1,...,n}(y_{i}v_{i}+\varpi_{F}^cy_{-i}v_{-i}).$$ Soit $i=1,...,n$. On a $\varpi_{F}^cx_{-i}=q_{E}(kw_{+},v_{i})=q_{E}(w_{+},k^{-1}v_{i})$. On a déjà prouvé que $k^{-1}v_{i}$ appartenait à $R'$, donc $q_{E}(w_{+},k^{-1}v_{i})\in \varpi_{F}^c\mathfrak{o}_{E}$, puis $x_{-i}\in \mathfrak{o}_{E}$. De même $x_{i}$, $y_{-i}$ et $y_{i}$ appartiennent à $\mathfrak{o}_{E}$. On a $q_{E}(w_{+})=0$, donc $q_{E}(kw_{+})=0$, ce qui s’écrit $$\lambda x_{+}x_{-}+\sum_{i=1,...,n}\varpi_{F}^cx_{i}x_{-i}=0.$$ D’après ce que l’on vient de démontrer, cela entraîne $x_{+}x_{-}\in \mathfrak{o}_{E}$. De même, $y_{+}y_{-}\in \mathfrak{o}_{E}$. L’automorphisme galoisien $\tau$ de $E$ induit un automorphisme antilinéaire de $V_{E}$ que l’on note aussi $\tau$. On a $\tau(v_{\pm i})=v_{\pm i}$ pour $i=1,...,n$, $\tau(w_{+})=w_{-}$ et $\tau(w_{-})=w_{+}$. Puisque $k\in G(F)$, il commute à $\tau$, donc $kw_{-}=\tau(kw_{+})$, d’où $y_{-}=\tau(x_{+})$ et $y_{+}=\tau(x_{-})$. On a $q_{E}(w_{+},w_{-})=\lambda$, donc $q_{E}(kw_{+},kw_{-})=\lambda$, ce qui s’écrit $$\lambda (x_{+}\tau(x_{+})+x_{-}\tau(x_{-}))+\varpi_{F}^c\sum_{i=1,...,n}(x_{i}y_{-i}+x_{-i}y_{-})=\lambda.$$ Cela entraîne $x_{+}\tau(x_{+})+x_{-}\tau(x_{-})\in \mathfrak{o}_{E}$. Si par exemple $x_{+}\not\in \mathfrak{o}_{E}$, cette relation implique que $x_{-}$ n’appartient pas non plus à $\mathfrak{o}_{E}$. Alors, la relation $x_{+}x_{-}\in \mathfrak{o}_{E}$ n’est pas vérifiée, contrairement à ce que l’on a déjà prouvé. Cette contradiction prouve que $x_{+}\in \mathfrak{o}_{E}$. De même, $x_{-}$, $y_{+}$ et $y_{-}$ appartiennent à $\mathfrak{o}_{E}$. Alors $kw_{+}$ et $kw_{-}$ appartiennent à $R'$ comme on le voulait. Cela prouve (4) sous l’hypothèse $d_{an}(V)=2$.
Supposons $d_{an}(V)=3$. Soit $E$ l’extension quadratique non ramifiée de $F$ et $\tau$ l’élément non trivial de $Gal(E/F)$. On peut identifier $V_{an}$ à $E\oplus F$ et $q_{an}$ à une forme $$(w\oplus z,w'\oplus z')\mapsto \lambda\mu Trace_{E/F}(\tau(w)w')+2\lambda\nu zz',$$ où $\lambda,\mu,\nu\in F^{\times}$, $val_{F}(\lambda)=c$ et, ou bien $\mu=1$ et $val_{F}(\nu)=1$, ou bien $\nu=1$ et $val_{F}(\mu)=1$. Le réseau $R_{an}$ s’identifie à $\mathfrak{o}_{E}\oplus \mathfrak{o}_{F}$. L’espace $V_{an,E}$ s’identifie à un espace de dimension $3$ sur $E$ muni d’une base $(w_{+},w_{-},w_{0})$ de sorte que la forme $q_{an,E}$ s’écrive $$q(x_{+}w_{+}+x_{-}w_{-}+x_{0}w_{0},y_{+}w_{+}+y_{-}w_{-}+y_{0}w_{0})=\lambda\mu(x_{+}y_{-}+x_{-}y_{+})+2\lambda\nu x_{0}y_{0}.$$ Parce que $E$ est non ramifiée sur $F$, $R_{an,E}$ s’identifie au $\mathfrak{o}_{E}$-réseau engendré par les éléments de base. Posons $v_{n+1}=w_{+}$, $v_{-n-1}=\lambda^{-1}\mu^{-1}w_{-}$. La famille $(v_{i})_{i=\pm 1,...,\pm (n+1)}$ est un système hyperbolique maximal de $V_{E}$ et $w_{0}$ est une base de son orthogonal. Le réseau $R_{E}$ est engendré sur $\mathfrak{o}_{E}$ par les $v_{i}$ et les $\varpi_{F}^cv_{-i}$ pour $i=1,...,n$, les éléments $v_{n+1}$ et $w_{0}$ et l’élément $\varpi_{F}^c v_{-n-1}$, resp. $\varpi_{F}^{c+1}v_{-n-1}$, si $\mu=1$, resp. $\nu=1$. Il est compatible avec $R$ mais n’est pas spécial (dans le cas où $\mu=1$, la droite $Fw_{0}$ ne représente aucun élément de valuation $c$). Néanmoins, grâce à (3), il suffit de trouver une extension $F'$ de $E$ et un réseau spécial $R'$ de $V_{F'}$ qui soit compatible à $R_{E}$. Introduisons une racine carrée $z$ de $\mu\nu$, soit $F'=E(z)$ et $R'$ le réseau de $V_{F'}$ engendré par les $v_{i}$ et les $\varpi_{F}^cv_{-i}$ pour $i=1,...,n$ et par
- $v_{n+1}$, $\varpi_{F}^cv_{-n-1}$ et $z^{-1}w_{0}$ si $\mu=1$;
- $z^{-1}v_{n+1}$, $\varpi_{F}^czv_{-n-1}$ et $w_{0}$ si $\nu=1$.
Ce réseau est spécial. Il est clair que $R'\cap V_{E}=R_{E}$. Notons $K_{E}$ le stabilisateur de $R_{E}$ dans $G(E)$ et $K'$ celui de $R'$ dans $G(F')$. Il reste à prouver que $K_{E}\subset K'$. Introduisons le réseau $R_{F'}$, qui est aussi égal à $(R_{E})_{F'}$, et son dual $R_{F'}^*=\{v\in V_{F'}; \forall w\in R_{F'}, q_{F'}(v,w)\in \mathfrak{o}_{F'}\}$. On vérifie que $$R'=z^{-1}R_{F'}\cap \varpi_{F}^cR_{F'}^*\cap\{v\in V_{F'}; val_{F'}(q_{F'}(v))\geq val_{F'}(\lambda)\}.$$ Un élément de $K_{E}$ stabilise forcément $R_{F'}$, donc aussi son dual, et il stabilise aussi le dernier ensemble ci-dessus. Donc il stabilise $R'$ et appartient à $K'$. Cela prouve (4) sous l’hypothèse $d_{an}(V)=3$.
Supposons enfin $d_{an}(V)=4$. Avec les mêmes notations que dans le cas précédent, on peut identifier $V_{an}$ à $E\oplus E$ et $q_{an}$ à la forme $$(w_{1}\oplus w_{2},w'_{1}\oplus w'_{2})=\lambda Trace_{E/F}(\tau(w_{1})w'_{1})+\varpi_{F}\lambda Trace_{E/F}(\tau(w_{2})w'_{2}).$$ Introduisons une racine carrée $z$ de $\varpi_{F}$, posons $F'=E(z)$. On vérifie comme dans le cas précédent que le réseau $R'=z^{-1}R_{F'}\cap \lambda R_{F'}^*$ de $V_{F'}$ satisfait les conditions de (4). Cela achève la preuve. $\square$
Revenons au réseau $R$ que l’on a fixé en 7.2. On lui a imposé d’être somme d’un réseau de $V_{0}$ et d’un réseau de $Z$ engendré par des éléments proportionnels aux éléments $v_{i}$ pour $i=\pm 1,...,\pm r$. La preuve du lemme montre que l’on peut imposer aux réseaux $R'$ de l’énoncé de vérifier les mêmes conditions.
Preuve de la relation 10.4(11)
------------------------------
On va élargir les hypothèses sur la fonction $X''\mapsto \gamma_{X''}$. Celles que l’on impose dans ce paragraphe sont
\(1) il existe un sous-ensemble compact $\Omega$ de $\Xi+S+\Sigma$ tel que $X''_{\Sigma}=\gamma_{X''}^{-1}X''\gamma_{X''}\in \Omega$ pour tout $X''\in \omega_{T''}\cap\mathfrak{t}''(F)^S$;
\(2) il existe $c_{1}>0$ tel que $\sigma(\gamma_{X''})<c_{1}log(N)$ pour tout $X''\in \omega_{T''}\cap\mathfrak{t}''(F)^S[>N^{-b}]$.
La fonction que nous avons utilisée jusque-là vérifie ces hypothèses: (1) résulte de 9.7(1) et on a vu dans la preuve de 10.4(8) que 9.7(2) entraînait (2).
Soit $Q=LU_{Q}\in \tilde{{\cal F}}(M_{\natural})$. On note $\Sigma_{Q}^+$ l’ensemble des racines de $A_{M_{\natural}}$ dans $\mathfrak{u}_{Q}$.
[0.3cm[**[Lemme]{}**]{}. [ *[Soit $c>0$. Il existe $c'>0$ tel que la propriété suivante soit vérifiée. Soient $a\in A_{T''}(F)$, $g\in G(F)$, $\bar{u}\in U_{\bar{Q}}(F)$ et $X\in \omega_{T''}\cap\mathfrak{t}''(F)^S[>N^{-b}]$. On suppose $\sigma(g),\,\sigma(\bar{u}),\,\sigma(\bar{u}g)<clog(N)$ et $\alpha(H_{M_{\natural}}(a))>c'log(N)$ pour tout $\alpha\in \Sigma_{Q}^+$. Alors on a l’égalité $\kappa_{N}(\gamma_{X''}^{-1}a\bar{u}g)=\kappa_{N}(\gamma_{X''}^{-1}ag)$.]{}*]{}0.3cm]{}
Preuve. Soient $E$ une extension finie de $F$ vérifiant la condition du lemme précédent et $F'$ une extension finie de $E$. Fixons un réseau $R'$ de $V_{F'}$ vérifiant la conclusion de ce lemme. Comme on l’a dit, on peut supposer qu’il vérifie des propriétés analogues à celles que l’on a imposées à $R$. A l’aide de ce réseau, on construit la fonction $\kappa_{N}^{F'}$ sur $G(F')$ analogue à $\kappa_{N}$. On vérifie que la restriction à $G(F)$ de la fonction $\kappa_{Nval_{F'}(\varpi_{F})}^{F'}$ est égale à $\kappa_{N}$. Le lemme se déduit alors du même lemme où le corps des scalaires a été étendu à $F'$. On va maintenant oublier ces constructions, en retenant que l’on a le droit d’étendre le corps $F$. En particulier, on peut supposer les tores $T$ et $H_{S}''$ déployés.
Dans tout ce qui suit, les éléments $X''$ sont implicitement supposés appartenir à $ \omega_{T''}\cap \mathfrak{t}''(F)^{S}$. Montrons que l’on peut changer de fonction $X''\mapsto \gamma_{X''}$. Considérons une fonction $X''\mapsto \gamma_{X''}$ soumise aux conditions (1) et (2) ci-dessus, et notons ici $X''\mapsto \underline{\gamma}_{X''}$ la fonction initiale, soumise aux conditions de 9.7. On pose $X''_{\Sigma}=\gamma_{X''}^{-1}X''\gamma_{X''}$ et $\underline{X}''_{\Sigma}=\underline{\gamma}_{X''}^{-1}X''\underline{\gamma}_{X''}$. D’après le lemme 9.5, pour tout $X''\in \mathfrak{t}''(F)^{S}$, il y a d’uniques éléments $u(X'')\in U''(F)$ et $t(X'')\in H''_{S}(F)$ tels que $X''_{\Sigma}=u(X'')^{-1}t(X'')^{-1}\underline{X''}_{\Sigma}t(X'')u(X'')$. On a $t(X'')^{-1}\underline{X''}_{\Sigma}t(X'')\in \Xi+S+\Lambda$. D’après le lemme 9.3, les coefficients de $u(X'')$ et $t(X'')^{-1}\underline{X''}_{\Sigma}t(X'')$ sont polynomiaux en ceux de $X''_{\Sigma}$. Ce dernier terme reste dans un compact, donc $u(X'')$ et $t(X'')^{-1}\underline{X''}_{\Sigma}t(X'')$ sont bornés. Reprenons la preuve du lemme 10.1, précisément celle de l’assertion (3). On voit que le fait que $t(X'')^{-1}\underline{X''}_{\Sigma}t(X'')$ soit borné entraîne une majoration $\sigma(t(X''))<<1+\vert log\vert Q_{S}(X'')\vert _{F}\vert $. Pour $X''\in\mathfrak{t}''(F)^S[>N^{-b}]$, on a donc $\sigma(t(X''))<<log(N)$. Puisque les images de $X''$ par les conjugaisons par $\gamma_{X''}$ et par $\underline{\gamma}_{X''}t(X'')u(X'')$ sont égales, il existe $ y(X'')\in T''(F)$ tel que $\gamma_{X''}=y(X'')\underline{\gamma}_{X''}t(X'')u(X'')$. Les majorations (2) pour nos deux fonctions et celles que nous venons de démontrer impliquent $\sigma(y(X''))<<log(N)$ pour $X\in\mathfrak{t}(F)[S;>N^{-b}]$. Soient $c$, $a$, $g$, $\bar{u}$ et $X''$ comme dans le lemme. Puisque $\kappa_{N}$ est invariante à gauche par $U(F)H(F)$, on a $$\kappa_{N}(\gamma_{X''}^{-1}a\bar{u}g)=\kappa_{N}(\underline{\gamma}_{X''}^{-1}a\bar{u}'g'),$$ $$\kappa_{N}(\gamma_{X''}^{-1}ag)=\kappa_{N}(\underline{\gamma}_{X''}^{-1}ag'),$$ où $g'=y(X'')^{-1}g$, $\bar{u}'=y(X'')^{-1}\bar{u}y(X'')$. Il existe $\underline{c}>0$ (indépendant des variables) tel que $\sigma(g'),\,\sigma(\bar{u}')\,\sigma(u'g')<\underline{c}log(N)$. Supposons le lemme démontré pour la fonction $X''\mapsto \underline{\gamma}_{X''}$. A $\underline{c}$, ce lemme associe une constante $\underline{c}'$. Les égalités ci-dessus montrent que, pour la fonction $X''\mapsto \gamma_{X''}$, la conclusion du lemme est valide pour la constante $c'=\underline{c}'$. Le même calcul s’applique dans l’autre sens: la validité du lemme pour la fonction $X''\mapsto \gamma_{X''}$ entraîne sa validité pour la fonction $X''\mapsto \underline{\gamma}_{X''}$.
Démontrons maintenant le lemme dans le cas où $r=0$. Comme en 9.4, on introduit des coordonnées en posant $$X''_{\Sigma}=S+c(v_{0},[z_{0}w_{S}]+\sum_{j=\pm 1,...,\pm m}z_{j}w_{j}),$$ où, comme en 9.6, les termes entre crochets n’existent que si $d$ est pair. Le tore $T''$ étant déployé, on peut introduire un système hyperbolique maximal $(\epsilon_{\pm k})_{k=1,...,l}$ de $V''_{0}$ formé de vecteurs propres pour $T''$. On note $x_{k}$ la valeur propre de $X''$ sur $\epsilon_{k}$. Soit $k=1,...,l$, posons $$\gamma_{X''}^{-1}\epsilon_{k}=Y(2\nu_{0})^{-1}v_{0}+[y_{0}w_{S}]+\sum_{j=\pm 1,...\pm m}y_{j}w_{j},$$ $$\gamma_{X''}^{-1}\epsilon_{-k}=Y'(2\nu_{0})^{-1}v_{0}+[y'_{0}w_{S}]+\sum_{j=\pm 1,...\pm m}y'_{j}w_{j}.$$ Ces éléments sont vecteurs propres de $X''_{\Sigma}$, de valeurs propres $x_{k}$ et $-x_{-k}$. Cela se traduit par les égalités $$s_{j}y_{j}+z_{j}Y=x_{k}y_{j},\,\,-s_{j}y_{-j}+z_{-j}Y=x_{k}y_{-j},\,\,[z_{0}Y=x_{k}y_{0}],$$ $$s_{j}y'_{j}+z_{j}Y'=-x_{k}y'_{j},\,\,-s_{j}y'_{-j}+z_{-j}Y'=-x_{k}y'_{-j},\,\,[z_{0}Y'=-x_{k}y'_{0}],$$ où $j=1,...,m$ et les $s_{j}$ sont les valeurs propres de $S$. Supposons $X\in \mathfrak{t}(F)[S;>N^{-b}]$ Alors $Q_{S}(X'')\not=0$, a fortiori $x_{k}\pm s_{j}\not=0$ pour tous $j,k$ et les égalités ci-dessus impliquent $$y_{ j}=\frac{z_{j}Y}{x_{k}-s_{j}},\,\,y_{-j}=\frac{z_{-j}Y}{x_{k}+s_{j}}\,\,[y_{0}=\frac{z_{0}Y}{x_{k}}],$$ $$y'_{ j}=\frac{z_{j}Y'}{-x_{k}-s_{j}},\,\,y'_{-j}=\frac{z_{-j}Y'}{-x_{k}+s_{j}}\,\,[y'_{0}=\frac{z_{0}Y'}{-x_{k}}],$$ On a d’autre part l’égalité $q(\gamma_{X''}^{-1}\epsilon_{k},\gamma_{X''}^{-1}\epsilon_{-k})=1$. Les formules précédentes traduisent cette égalité par $YY'P(X'')=2\nu_{0}$, où $$P(X'')=1-[4\nu_{0}\nu_{S}\frac{z_{0}^2}{x_{k}^2}]-2\nu_{0}\sum_{j=1,...,m}z_{j}z_{-j}(\frac{1}{(x_{k}-s_{j})^2}+\frac{1}{(x_{k}+s_{j})^2}).$$ En utilisant les égalités 9.4(1) et (2), on obtient $$P(X'')=1+[ \frac{\prod_{k'=1,...,l; k'\not=k}x_{k'}^2}{\prod_{j=1,...,m}s_{j}^2}]-\sum_{j=1,...,m}\frac{(x_{k}^2+s_{j}^2)\prod_{k'=1,...,l; k'\not=k}(s_{j}^2-x_{k'}^2)}{(s_{j}^2-x_{k}^2)[s_{j}^2]\prod_{j'=1,...,m;j'\not=j}(s_{j}^2-s_{j'}^2)}.$$ Cette expression est calculée par le lemme 10.6. En effet, si $d$ est impair, on a $l=m$. On prend pour polynôme $R(T)=\prod_{k'=1,...,l; k'\not=k}(T- x_{k'}^2)$ et on remplace les indéterminées $T$, $S_{1}$, ...,$S_{l}$ de 10.6 par $x_{k}^2$, $s_{1}^2$,...,$s_{m}^2$. Si $d$ est pair, on a $l=m+1$. On prend le même polynôme $R(T)$ et on remplace les indéterminées par $x_{k}^2$, $0$, $s_{1}^2$,...,$s_{m}^2$. Le lemme 10.6 conduit ainsi à l’égalité $$(3) \qquad YY'=2\nu_{0}\frac{R_{1}(X'')}{R_{2}(X'')},$$ où $$(4)\qquad R_{1}(X'')=\prod_{j=1,...,m}(s_{j}^2-x_{k}^2),$$ $$R_{2}(X'')=\left\lbrace\begin{array}{cc}-2x_{k}^2\prod_{k'=1,...,l;k'\not=k}(x_{k'}^2-x_{k}^2),&\,\,\text{si}\,\,d\,\,\text{est impair,}\\ 2\prod_{k'=1,...,l;k'\not=k}(x_{k'}^2-x_{k}^2),&\,\,\text{si}\,\,d\,\,\text{est pair.}\\ \end{array}\right.$$ Rappelons que $$Q_{S}(X'')=\prod_{j=1,...,m; k'=1,...,l}(s_{j}^2-x_{k'}^2).$$ On peut donc aussi écrire $YY'Q(X'')=Q_{S}(X'')$, où $Q$ est un polynôme sur $\mathfrak{t}''(F)$. Puisque $X''$ reste dans un compact, $val_{F}(Q(X''))$ est minoré, donc $val_{F}(YY')<<val_{F}(Q_{S}(X''))$. Supposons $X''\in \mathfrak{t}''(F)^S[>N^{-b}]$. Alors $val_{F}(Q_{S}(X''))<<log(N)$. On a aussi $\sigma(\gamma_{X''})<<log(N)$, donc $val_{F}(Y), val_{F}(Y')>>-log(N)$. On en déduit $$val_{F}(Y), val_{F}(Y')<<log(N).$$ Remarquons que $Y=q(\gamma_{X''}^{-1}\epsilon_{k},v_{0})=q(\epsilon_{k},\gamma_{X''}v_{0})$ et de même $Y'=q(\epsilon_{-k},\gamma_{X''}v_{0})$. Cela démontre que
\(5) on a $val_{F}(q(\epsilon_{\pm k},\gamma_{X''}v_{0}))<<log(N)$ pour tout $k=1,...,l$ et tout $X\in \omega_{T''}\cap\mathfrak{t}''(F)^S[>N^{-b}]$.
Considérons l’ensemble $E_{N}$ des $a\in A_{T''}(F)$ tels qu’il existe $g\in G(F)$ et $X''\in \omega_{T''}\cap\mathfrak{t}''(F)^S[>N^{-b}]$ de sorte que $\sigma(g)<c\,log(N)$ et $\kappa_{N}(\gamma_{X''}^{-1}ag)=1$. Puisque $T''$ est déployé, on a $A_{T''}=T''$ et tout $a\in A_{T''}(F)$ est déterminé par ses valeurs propres $a_{k}$ sur les vecteurs $\epsilon_{k}$. Montrons que
\(6) on peut fixer $c_{2}>0$ tel que
\(i) $val_{R}(g^{-1}v)-val_{R}(v)>-c_{2}log(N)$ pour tout $v\in V$, $v\not=0$, et tout $g\in G(F)$ tel que $\sigma(g)<c\,log(N)$;
\(ii) $val_{R}(\gamma_{X''}v_{0})>-c_{2}log(N)$ pour tout $X''\in \omega_{T''}\cap \mathfrak{t}''(F)^S[>N^{-b}]$;
\(iii) $val_{R}(a^{-1}v)-val_{R}(v)>-N-c_{2}log(N)$ pour tout $v\in V$, $v\not=0$, et tout $a\in E_{N}$.
Les deux premières majorations sont aisées. Montrons la troisième. Soient $a\in E_{N}$, $g$ tel que $\sigma(g)<c\,log(N)$ et $X''\in \omega_{T''}\cap \mathfrak{t}''(F)^S[>N^{-b}]$ tels que $\kappa_{N}(\gamma_{X''}^{-1}ag)=1$. Cette condition signifie que $val_{R}(g^{-1}a^{-1}\gamma_{X''}v_{0})\geq -N$. Grâce à (6)(i), elle entraîne $val_{R}(a^{-1}\gamma_{X''}v_{0})+N>> -log(N)$. Donc $$val_{F}(q(a^{-1}\gamma_{X''}v_{0},\epsilon_{\pm k}))+N>>-log(N)$$ pour tout $k$. On a $$q(a^{-1}\gamma_{X''}v_{0},\epsilon_{\pm k})=q(\gamma_{X''}v_{0},a\epsilon_{\pm k})=a_{k}^{\pm 1}q(\gamma_{X''}v_{0},\epsilon_{\pm k}).$$ La majoration précédente et (5) entraînent $$\pm val_{F}(a_{k})+N >>-log(N),$$ et on en déduit la majoration (6)(iii).
Enfin
\(7) il existe $c'>0$ vérifiant la propriété suivante; pour tout $a\in A_{T''}(F)$ tel que $\alpha(H_{M_{\natural}}(a))>c'log(N)$ pour tout $\alpha\in \Sigma_{Q}^+$, pour tout $\bar{u}\in U_{\bar{Q}}(F)$ tel que $\sigma(\bar{u})<c\,log(N)$ et tout $v\in V$, $v\not=0$, on a $val_{R}(a\bar{u}a^{-1}v-v)>3c_{2}log(N)$.
En effet, les valuations des coefficients de $\bar{u}-1$, disons dans une base de $R$, sont minorés par $-c_{3}log(N)$, pour une constante $c_{3}$ convenable. On en déduit que les valuations des coeffients de $a\bar{u}a^{-1}-1$ sont minorés par $-c_{3}log(N)+inf\{\alpha(H_{M_{\natural}}(a)); \alpha\in \Sigma_{Q}^+\}$. L’assertion s’ensuit.
La constante $c'$ étant maintenant fixée, soient $a$, $g$, $\bar{u}$ et $X''$ comme dans l’énoncé. Si $a\not\in E_{N}$, on a $\kappa_{N}(\gamma_{X''}^{-1}a\bar{u}g)=\kappa_{N}(\gamma_{X''}^{-1}ag)=0$. Supposons $a\in E_{N}$. D’après la définition de $\kappa_{N}$, pour prouver l’égalité $\kappa_{N}(\gamma_{X''}^{-1}a\bar{u}g)=\kappa_{N}(\gamma_{X''}^{-1}ag)$, il suffit de prouver que $val_{R}(v)\geq -N$, où $$v=g^{-1}\bar{u}^{-1}a^{-1}\gamma_{X''}v_{0}-g^{-1}a^{-1}\gamma_{X''}v_{0}.$$ On pose $v_{1}=gv$, $v_{2}=av_{1}$, $v_{3}=\gamma_{X''}v_{0}$. On a $v_{2}=a\bar{u}^{-1}a^{-1}v_{3}-v_{3}$ et $$val_{R}(v)=val_{R}(v)-val_{R}(v_{1})+val_{R}(v_{1})-val_{R}(v_{2})+val_{R}(v_{2})-val_{R}(v_{3})+val_{R}(v_{3}).$$ Les minorations (6) et (7) entraînent la minoration $val_{R}(v)\geq -N$ cherchée.
Passons au cas général où on ne suppose plus $r=0$. On peut fixer un élément $P_{\natural}=M_{\natural}U_{\natural}\in \tilde{{\cal P}}(M_{\natural})$ et se borner à considérer des $a\in A_{T''}(F)$ tels que $H_{M_{\natural}}(a)\in Cl({\cal A}_{P_{\natural}}^+)$. Si $P_{\natural}$ n’est pas inclus dans $Q$, l’assertion à prouver est vide car il n’y a pas de tels $a$ pour lesquels $\alpha(H_{M_{\natural}}(a))>0$ pour tout $\alpha\in \Sigma_{Q}^+$. On suppose donc $P_{\natural}\subset Q$. Montrons que
\(8) il existe $\delta\in G''(F)$ tel que $ \delta P_{\natural}\delta^{-1}\subset \bar{P}$ et $A\subset \delta A_{T''}\delta^{-1}$.
Puisque $A\subset G''$ et $A_{T''}=T''$ est un sous-tore maximal de $G''$, on peut en tout cas trouver $\delta\in G''(F)$ tel que $\delta^{-1}A\delta \subset A_{T''}$. On a alors $\delta^{-1}\bar{P}\delta\in{\cal F}(M_{\natural})$. Supposons que l’on n’est pas dans le cas exceptionnel. Fixons un élément $P'\in {\cal P}(M_{\natural})$ tel que $P'\subset \delta^{-1}\bar{P}\delta$. Le Lévi $M_{\natural}$ a une forme particulière: il est produit d’un groupe spécial orthogonal et de groupes $GL(1)$. On sait qu’alors deux éléments de ${\cal P}(M_{\natural})$ sont conjugués par un élément de $Norm_{G(F)}(M_{\natural})$. Si $d$ est impair ou si $W'=\{0\}$, l’application naturelle $$Norm_{G''(F)}(A_{T''})\to Norm_{G(F)}(M_{\natural})/M_{\natural}(F)$$ est surjective. Donc $P_{\natural}$ et $P'$ sont conjugués par un élément de $Norm_{G''(F)}(A_{T''})$. Quitte à multiplier $\delta$ à droite par un élément de cet ensemble, on peut supposer $P'=P_{\natural}$ et la conclusion de (6) est vérifiée. Supposons $d$ pair et $W'\not=\{0\}$. Fixons $w'\in W'$ tel que $q(w')\not=0$. Identifions $G^{_{''}+}$ à un sous-groupe de $G$ en faisant agir un élément $g\in G^{_{''}+}$ par $det(g)$ sur $Fw'$ et par l’identité sur l’orthogonal de $w'$ dans $W'$. Alors l’application naturelle $$Norm_{G^{_{''}+}(F)}(A_{T''})\to Norm_{G(F)}(M_{\natural})/M_{\natural}(F)$$ est surjective, donc $P_{\natural}=g^{-1}P'g$ pour un élément $g\in Norm_{G^{_{''}+}(F)}(A_{T''})$. Si $g\in G''(F)$, on conclut comme ci-dessus. Sinon, on remarque que $A$ n’est pas un sous-tore maximal de $G''$, car $A$ fixe le vecteur $v_{0}\in V''$. L’inclusion $\delta^{-1}A\delta \subset A_{T''}$ est stricte et on voit qu’il existe un élément $y\in Norm_{G^{_{''}+}(F)}(A_{T''})$ tel que $det(y)=-1$ et la conjugaison par $y$ fixe tout point de $\delta^{-1}A\delta$. Cette conjugaison conserve donc $P'$ et on peut remplacer $g$ par $yg$, ce qui nous ramène au cas précédent.
Dans le cas exceptionnel, on vérifie que $\delta^{-1}\bar{P}\delta$ appartient à $\tilde{{\cal F}}(M_{\natural})$. On remplace dans la preuve ci-dessus les ensembles ${\cal P}(M_{\natural})$ et $Norm_{G(F)}(M_{\natural})$ par $\tilde{{\cal P}}(M_{\natural})$ et $Norm_{G(F)}(A_{T''})$. En utilisant le lemme 10.3, on voit que le raisonnement reste valable. Cela prouve (8).
Soient $\delta$ vérifiant (8) et $a$, $g$, $\bar{u}$ et $X''$ comme dans l’énoncé. On a $$\kappa_{N}(\gamma_{X''}^{-1}a\bar{u}g)=\kappa_{N}(\underline{\gamma}^{-1}_{\underline{X}''}\underline{a}\underline{\bar{u}}\underline{g}),$$ où $\underline{X}''=\delta X''\delta^{-1}$, $\underline{\gamma}_{\underline{X}''}=\delta\gamma_{X''}$, $\underline{a}=\delta a\delta^{-1}$, $\underline{\bar{u}}=\delta \bar{u}\delta^{-1}$, $\underline{g}=\delta g$. On remarque que ces termes vérifient les mêmes hypothèses que les termes de départ (avec une autre constante $c$), mais avec le tore $T''$ et le sous-groupe parabolique $P_{\natural}$ remplacés par $\delta T''\delta^{-1}$ et $\delta P_{\natural} \delta^{-1}$. Cela nous ramène à démontrer le lemme pour ces nouveaux termes.
On va plutôt oublier ces constructions, mais supposer que nos objets de départ vérifient les mêmes hypothèses que ceux que l’on vient de construire. C’est-à-dire que l’on suppose désormais $P_{\natural}\subset \bar{P}$ et $A\subset A_{T''}$. Le tore $T''$ se décompose en $T''=AT''_{0}$, où $T''_{0}$ est un sous-tore maximal de $G''_{0}$. En travaillant dans ce groupe $G''_{0}$, on définit l’ensemble $\mathfrak{t}''_{0}(F)^S$ et une fonction $X''_{0}\mapsto \gamma_{0,X''_{0}}\in G''_{0}(F)$ sur cet ensemble, vérifiant les analogues de (1) et (2). Pour $X''\in \mathfrak{t}''(F)^S$, écrivons $X''=X_{a}''+X''_{0}$, avec $X''_{a}\in \mathfrak{a}(F)$ et $X''_{0}\in \mathfrak{t}''_{0}(F)$. On vérifie que $X''_{0}\in \mathfrak{t}''_{0}(F)^S$. Posons $X''_{\Sigma}=\Xi+X''_{a}+\gamma_{0,X''_{0}}^{-1}X''_{0}\gamma_{0,X''_{0}}$. On a $X''_{\Sigma}\in \Xi+S+\Sigma$ et, comme dans la preuve du lemme 9.6, on montre que $X''_{\Sigma}$ est conjugué à $X''$ par un élément de $G''(F)$. D’autre part, considérons l’élément $\gamma_{0,X''_{0}}\Xi\gamma_{0,X''_{0}}^{-1}$. Il appartient à $ \bar{\mathfrak{u}}(F)$. Puisque $X''$ est un élément régulier de $\mathfrak{m}''(F)$, il existe $v_{X''}\in \bar{U}(F)$ tel que $\gamma_{0,X''_{0}}\Xi\gamma_{0,X''_{0}}^{-1}=v_{X''}^{-1}X''v_{X''}$. Cet élément $v_{X''}$ est unique. Ainsi qu’il est bien connu, ses coefficients sont des fractions rationnelles en les coefficients de $\gamma_{0,X''_{0}}\Xi\gamma_{0,X''_{0}}^{-1}$ et $X''$ et les dénominateurs de ces fractions rationnelles divisent le polynôme $det(X''\vert \mathfrak{g}''/\mathfrak{t}'')$. Pour $X''\in \omega_{T''}\cap\mathfrak{t}''(F)^S[>N^{-b}]$, on a donc une majoration $\sigma(v_{X''})<<log(N)$. Posons $\gamma_{X''}=v_{X''}\gamma_{0,X''_{0}}$. On a alors $\gamma_{X''}^{-1}X''\gamma_{X''}=X''_{\Sigma}$ et on voit que l’application $X''\mapsto \gamma_{X''}$ vérifie les propriétés (1) et (2). On peut travailler avec cette application. On a $v_{X''}\in U_{\natural}(F)$. Décomposons cet élément en $v_{X''}=n_{X''}\nu_{X''}$, avec $n_{X''}\in U_{\natural}(F)\cap L(F)$ et $\nu_{X''}\in U_{Q}(F)$. Soient $a$, $X''$, $g$ et $\bar{u}$ comme dans l’énoncé. On a $\gamma_{X''}^{-1}a\bar{u}g=\gamma_{0,X_{0}''}^{-1}a\bar{u}'g'k)$, où $\bar{u}'=(a^{-1}n_{X''}a)^{-1}\bar{u}(a^{-1}n_{X''}a)$, $g'=a^{-1}n_{X''}^{-1}ag$, $k=g^{-1}\bar{u}^{-1}a^{-1}\nu_{X''}a\bar{u}g$. Puisque $\nu_{X''}\in U_{Q}(F)$ et ainsi qu’on l’a vu au cours de la preuve du cas $r=0$, on peut fixer $c_{4}>0$ tel que la condition $inf\{\alpha(H_{M_{\natural}}(a)); \alpha\in \Sigma_{Q}^+\}>c_{4}log(N)$ entraîne que les valuations des coefficients de $k-1$ soient $>>log(N)$. On impose cette condition sur $a$. Alors $k\in K$. La conjugaison par $a^{-1}$ contracte $U_{\natural}(F)$, donc $\sigma(a^{-1}n_{X''}a)<<log(N)$ et aussi $\sigma(\bar{u}')<<log(N)$, $\sigma(g')<<log(N)$. On a donc $\kappa_{N}(\gamma_{X''}^{-1}a\bar{u}g)=\kappa_{N}(\gamma_{0,X''_{0}}^{-1}a\bar{u}'g')$ et de même $\kappa_{N}(\gamma_{X''}^{-1}ag)=\kappa_{N}(\gamma_{0,X''_{0}}^{-1}ag')$, où les éléments $\bar{u}'$ et $g'$ vérifient des conditions analogues à celles de départ. Soient $\bar{u}_{0}\in U_{\bar{Q}}(F)\cap G_{0}(F)$ tel que $\bar{u}'\in (U_{\bar{Q}}(F)\cap U(F))\bar{u}_{0}$, $y'\in A(F)$ et $g_{0}\in G_{0}(F)$ tels que $g'\in U(F)y'g_{0}K$ et enfin $y\in A(F)$ et $a_{0}\in A_{T''_{0}}(F)$ tels que $a=y a_{0}$. Alors $\gamma_{0,X''_{0}}^{-1}a\bar{u}'g'\in U(F)yy'\gamma_{0,X''_{0}}^{-1}a_{0}\bar{u}_{0}g_{0}K$, donc $$\kappa_{N}(\gamma_{X''}^{-1}a\bar{u}g)=\kappa_{N}(\gamma_{0,X''_{0}}^{-1}a\bar{u}'g')=\kappa_{N}(yy'\gamma_{0,X''_{0}}^{-1}a_{0}\bar{u}_{0}g_{0}).$$ De même $$\kappa_{N}(\gamma_{X''}^{-1}ag)=\kappa_{N}(\gamma_{0,X''_{0}}^{-1}ag')=\kappa_{N}(yy'\gamma_{0,X''_{0}}^{-1}a_{0}g_{0}).$$ Par définition de $\kappa_{N}$, ces expressions se récrivent $$\kappa_{A,N}(yy')\kappa_{0,N}(\gamma_{0,X''_{0}}^{-1}a_{0}\bar{u}_{0}g_{0})\text{, resp.} \,\,\kappa_{A,N}(yy')\kappa_{0,N}(\gamma_{0,X''_{0}}^{-1}a_{0}g_{0}),$$ où $\kappa_{A,N}$ est une certaine fonction sur $A(F)$ et $\kappa_{0,N}$ est l’analogue de $\kappa_{N}$ pour le groupe $G_{0}$. Mais les données affectées d’un indice $0$ vérifient des conditions similaires à celles de départ. Cela nous ramène au cas du groupe $G_{0}$, autrement dit au cas $r=0$ que nous avons déjà traité. Cela achève la démonstration. $\square$
Démontrons 10.4(11). Soit $c_{4}>0$. On impose à $Z_{P_{min}}$ la minoration $c_{4}log(N)<c_{1}inf\{\alpha(Z_{P_{min}}); \alpha\in \Delta_{min}\}$ pour que tous les termes ci-dessous soient définis. Comme en 10.5, pour $g$ et $\bar{u}$ comme en 10.4(11), la fonction $$\zeta\mapsto \tilde{\sigma}_{M_{\natural}}^Q(\zeta,{\cal Z}(g))\tilde{\tau}_{Q}(\zeta-Z(g)_{Q,T''})$$ est insensible au changement de $g$ en $\bar{u}g$. Alors $$\kappa_{N,X''}(Q,\bar{u}g)-\kappa_{N,X''}(Q,g)=\int_{A_{T''}(F)}\tilde{\sigma}_{M_{\natural}}^Q(H_{M_{\natural}}(a),{\cal Z}(g))\tilde{\tau}_{Q}(H_{M_{\natural}}(a)-Z(g)_{Q,T''})$$ $$\qquad (\kappa_{N}(\gamma_{X''}^{-1}a\bar{u}g)-\kappa_{N}(\gamma_{X''}^{-1}ag))da.$$ Il nous suffit que la condition $c_{5}log(N)<inf\{\alpha(Z_{P_{min}}); \alpha\in \Delta_{min}\}$ entraîne la propriété suivante. Soit $a\in A_{T''}(F)$ tel que $$(9) \qquad \tilde{\sigma}_{M_{\natural}}^Q(H_{M_{\natural}}(a),{\cal Z}(g))\tilde{\tau}_{Q}(H_{M_{\natural}}(a)-Z(g)_{Q,T''})\not=0.$$ Alors $\kappa_{N}(\gamma_{X''}^{-1}a\bar{u}g)=\kappa_{N}(\gamma_{X''}^{-1}ag)$. Prenons $c=c_{4}$ dans le lemme précédent. On en déduit une constante $c'$. Le même calcul qu’en 10.5 montre que (9) implique $$inf\{\alpha(H_{M_{\natural}}(a)); \alpha\in \Sigma_{Q}^+\}-inf\{\alpha(Z_{P_{min}}); \alpha\in \Delta_{min}\}>>-log(N).$$ Il existe donc $c_{5}>0$ (et $c_{5}>c_{4}/c_{1}$) tel que la condition $c_{5}log(N)<inf\{\alpha(Z_{P_{min}}); \alpha\in \Delta_{min}\}$ entraîne $inf\{\alpha(H_{M_{\natural}}(a)); \alpha\in \Sigma_{Q}^+\}>c'log(N)$. Alors l’égalité cherchée est la conclusion du lemme ci-dessus. $\square$
Apparition des intégrales orbitales pondérées
---------------------------------------------
On fixe $S\in {\cal S}$ et $T\in {\cal T}(G_{x})$. Soit $N_{0}$ l’entier déterminé par la proposition 10.4.
[0.3cm[**[Proposition]{}**]{}. [ *[Pour tout $N\geq N_{0}$ et tout $X\in \mathfrak{t}(F)[S;>N^{-b}]\cap(\mathfrak{t}'(F)\times \mathfrak{t}''(F)^S)$, on a les égalités $$\int_{T'(F)A_{T''}(F)\backslash G(F)}{^gf}^{\sharp}_{x,\omega}(X)\kappa_{N,X''}(g)dg=0$$ si $A_{T'}\not=\{1\}$; $$\int_{T'(F)A_{T''}(F)\backslash G(F)}{^gf}^{\sharp}_{x,\omega}(X)\kappa_{N,X''}(g)dg=\nu(T') \nu(A_{T''})\theta^{\sharp}_{f,x,\omega}(X)$$ si $A_{T'}=\{0\}$.]{}*]{}0.3cm]{}
Preuve. En 10.4, on avait fixé $Y_{P_{min}}$ et construit une fonction $g\mapsto \tilde{v}(g)$. Il convient maintenant de la noter plus précisément $g\mapsto \tilde{v}(g,Y_{P_{min}})$. Soit $X\in \mathfrak{t}(F)[S;>N^{-b}]\cap(\mathfrak{t}'(F)\times \mathfrak{t}''(F)^S)$. Dans les intégrales ci-dessus, on peut remplacer $\kappa_{N,X''}(g)$ par $\tilde{v}(g,Y_{P_{min}})$, pourvu que $Y_{P_{min}}$ vérifie la minoration de la proposition 10.4. Supposons que l’on n’est pas dans le cas exceptionnel. Alors $\tilde{v}(g,Y_{P_{min}})$ est la fonction introduite par Arthur dans \[A3\] p.30: avec les notations de cette référence, c’est $v_{M_{\natural}}(1,g,Y_{P_{min}})$ (il n’y a pas de $\nu(A_{T''})$ dans la définition d’Arthur, car sa mesure sur $A_{T''}(F)$ n’est pas la même que la nôtre). Remarquons que les intégrales de l’énoncé sont à support compact. On peut faire tendre $Y_{P_{min}}$ vers l’infini. Alors $\tilde{v}(g,Y_{P_{min}})$ est calculé en \[A3\] p.46: pour $Y_{P_{min}}$ dans un réseau convenable ${\cal R}\subset {\cal A}_{M_{min}}$, c’est une somme de fonctions $Y_{P_{min}}\mapsto q_{\zeta}(Y_{P_{min}})exp(\zeta(Y_{P_{min}}))$, où $q_{\zeta}$ est un polynôme et $\zeta\in Hom({\cal R},2\pi i{\mathbb Q}/2\pi i{\mathbb Z})$. De telles fonctions sont linéairement indépendantes. Puisque l’expression que l’on calcule est indépendante de $Y_{P_{min}}$, on peut aussi bien remplacer $\tilde{v}(g,Y_{P_{min}})$ par $q_{0}(0)$. Avec les notations d’Arthur, on a $$q_{0}(0)=\tilde{v}_{M_{\natural}}(1,g)=(-1)^{a_{M_{\natural}}}\sum_{Q\in {\cal F}(M_{\natural})}c'_{Q}v_{M_{\natural}}^Q(g),$$ cf. \[A3\] (6.6) et p.92. Les $c'_{Q}$ sont des constantes et on a $c'_{G}=1$. On a obtenu l’égalité $$(1) \qquad \int_{T'(F)A_{T''}(F)\backslash G(F)}{^gf}^{\sharp}_{x,\omega}(X)\kappa_{N,X''}(g)dg=(-1)^{a_{M_{\natural}}}\sum_{Q\in {\cal F}(M_{\natural})}c'_{Q}I(Q),$$ où $$I(Q)=\int_{T'(F)A_{T''}(F)\backslash G(F)}{^gf}^{\sharp}_{x,\omega}(X)v_{M_{\natural}}^Q(g)dg.$$ Pour $Q=LU_{Q}\not=G$, on décompose l’intégrale en produit d’intégrales sur $T'(F)A_{T''}(F)\backslash L(F)$, $K_{min}$ et $U_{Q}(F)$. On voit apparaître une intégrale $$\int_{U_{Q}(F)}{^{ulk}f}^{\sharp}_{x,\omega}(X)du.$$ Or cette intégrale est nulle d’après le lemme 5.5(i). Donc $I(Q)=0$. Pour $Q=G$, on peut remplacer l’intégration sur $T'(F)A_{T''}(F)\backslash G(F)$ par l’intégration sur $T(F)\backslash G(F)$, à condition de multiplier par $mes(T(F)/T'(F)A_{T''}(F))$. On obtient $$I(G)=mes(T(F)/T'(F)A_{T''}(F))D^{G_{x}}(X)^{-1/2}J^{\sharp}_{M_{\natural},x,\omega}(X,f)$$ avec la notation de 5.4. Si $A_{T'}\not=\{1\}$, on a $A_{M_{\natural}}=A_{T''}\subsetneq A_{G_{x,X}}=A_{T'}A_{T''}$. Donc $J^{\sharp}_{M_{\natural},x,\omega}(X,f)=0$ d’après le lemme 5.5(ii). Supposons $A_{T'}=\{1\}$. Alors $M_{\natural}$ est le Lévi noté ${\bf M}(X)$ en 5.6 et, en appliquant les définitions de ce paragraphe, on obtient $$I(G)=(-1)^{a_{M_{\natural}}}\nu(T)mes(T(F)/T'(F)A_{T''}(F))\theta^{\sharp}_{f,x,\omega}(X).$$ On vérifie que $\nu(T)mes(T(F)/T'(F)A_{T''}(F))=\nu(T')\nu(A_{T''})$ et la formule (1) devient celle de l’énoncé.
Supposons maintenant que l’on est dans le cas exceptionnel. Alors $T'=G'$ est un tore déployé de dimension $1$ et on peut supposer $T'\subset M_{min}$. Il faut remarquer que les fonctions d’Arthur que nous avons utilisées ci-dessus ne dépendent de $g$ et $Y_{P_{min}}$ que par l’intermédiaire des familles de points $(H_{P_{\natural}}(g))_{P_{\natural}\in{\cal P}(M_{\natural})}$ et $(Y_{P_{\natural}})_{P_{\natural}\in {\cal P}(M_{\natural})}$. On peut en fait associer de telles fonctions à deux familles $(G,M_{\natural})$-orthogonales de points de ${\cal A}_{M_{\natural}}$, la seconde étant “assez positive”. Introduisons le groupe $\tilde{G}$ de 10.3 et rappelons que le lemme de ce paragraphe nous permet d’identifier $\tilde{{\cal P}}(M_{\natural})$ et $\tilde{{\cal F}}(M_{\natural})$ à ${\cal P}(\tilde{M})$ et ${\cal F}(\tilde{M})$. En remplaçant $G$ par $\tilde{G}$, $M_{\natural}$ par $\tilde{M}$, la famille $(H_{P_{\natural}}(g))_{P_{\natural}\in{\cal P}(M_{\natural})}$ par $(H_{P_{\natural}}(g)_{T''})_{P_{\natural}\in \tilde{{\cal P }}(M_{\natural})}$ et la famille $(Y_{P_{\natural}})_{P_{\natural}\in {\cal P}(M_{\natural})}$ par $(Y_{P_{\natural},T''})_{P_{\natural}\in \tilde{{\cal P}}(M_{\natural})}$, on remplace la fonction $v_{M_{\natural}}(1,g,Y_{P_{min}})$ utilisée ci-dessus par une autre fonction, notons-la $v_{\tilde{M}}(1,g,Y_{P_{min}})$. Elle est égale à notre fonction $\tilde{v}(g,Y_{P_{min}})$. Les calculs d’Arthur restent valables pour cette fonction ainsi que les arguments ci-dessus. On obtient la formule (1) modifiée de la façon suivante: la somme est limitée aux $Q\in \tilde{{\cal F}}(M_{\natural})$; les fonctions $v_{M_{\natural}}^Q(g)$ sont remplacées par des fonctions, notons-les $v_{\tilde{M}}^{\tilde{Q}}(g)$ Ce terme est la constante associée à la $(\tilde{G},\tilde{M})$-famille de points $(H_{P_{\natural}}(g)_{T''})_{P_{\natural}\in\tilde{{\cal P}}(M_{\natural}); P_{\natural}\subset Q}$. Le sous-espace ${\cal A}_{T''}$ de ${\cal A}_{M_{\natural}}$ vérifie les conditions de \[A2\] paragraphe 7. Pour $Q=LU_{Q}\in \tilde{{\cal F}}(M_{\natural})$, on peut appliquer le corollaire 7.2 de \[A2\] et on obtient une égalité $$v_{\tilde{M}}^{\tilde{Q}}(g)=\sum_{L'\in {\cal F}^L(M_{\natural})}d(L')v_{M_{\natural}}^{Q'}(g).$$ Comme en 2.2(3), $Q'$ est un élément de ${\cal P}(L')$. La constante $d(L')$ est non nulle si et seulement si on a l’égalité $${\cal A}_{M_{\natural}}^L=proj_{M_{\natural}}^L({\cal A}_{T''})\oplus {\cal A}_{L'}^L.$$ Les $L'$ qui interviennent sont tous différents de $G$: c’est évident si $Q\not=G$ puisque $L'\subset L$; si $Q=G$, cela résulte de l’égalité ci-dessus et du fait que ${\cal A}_{T''}$ est strictement inclus dans ${\cal A}_{M_{\natural}}$. Le même argument que dans le cas non exceptionnel montre alors que tous les termes de la formule (1) sont nuls. $\square$
La proposition principale
-------------------------
Si $A_{G'_{x}}=\{1\}$, posons $$(1) \qquad J_{x,\omega}(\theta,f)= \sum_{S\in {\cal S}}\sum_{T=T'T''\in {\cal T}_{ell}(G'_{x})\times {\cal T}(G'')}\nu(T')\vert W(G_{x},T)\vert ^{-1}$$ $$\qquad \int_{\mathfrak{t}'(F)\times \mathfrak{t}''(F)^S}\hat{j}_{S}(X')D^{G'_{x}}(X')D^{G''}(X'')^{1/2}\theta^{\sharp}_{f,x,\omega}(X) dX.$$ Si $A_{G'_{x}}\not=\{1\}$, posons $$J_{x,\omega}(\theta,f)=0.$$
0.3cm[**[Proposition]{}**]{}.
**
\(i) L’expression (1) est absolument convergente.
\(ii) On a l’égalité $$lim_{N\to \infty}I_{x,\omega,N}(\theta,f)=J_{x,\omega}(\theta,f).$$
0.3cm
Preuve. Les intégrales de l’expression (1) sont à support compact. D’après le lemme 5.4(iii), on a une majoration $$D^{G_{x}}(X)^{1/2}\vert \theta^{\sharp}_{f,x,\omega}(X)\vert <<(1+\vert log(D^{G_{x}}(X))\vert )^k.$$ D’après \[HCvD\] théorème 13, la fonction $$X'\mapsto D^{G'_{x}}(X')^{1/2}\vert \hat{j}_{S}(X')\vert$$ est bornée. Le lemme 2.4 entraîne le (i) de l’énoncé.
Pour le (ii), on utilise la dernière formule de 10.1 qui nous ramène à prouver que $lim_{N\to \infty}I^*_{x,\omega,N}(\theta,f)=J_{x,\omega}(\theta,f)$. Le terme $I^*_{x,\omega,N}(\theta,f)$ est défini par la formule 10.4(1) où on limite les intégrales en $X$ aux ensembles $\mathfrak{t}(F)[S;>N^{-b}]\cap(\mathfrak{t}'(F)\times \mathfrak{t}''(F)^S)$. Pour $N$ assez grand, la proposition précédente nous permet de remplacer les intégrales intérieures de cette expression par
$$\left\lbrace\begin{array}{c} 0 \text{ si } A_{T'}\not=\{1\};\\
\nu(T')\nu(A_{T''})\theta^{\sharp}_{f,x,\omega}(X)\text{ si } A_{T'}=\{1\}.\\ \end{array}\right.$$
Si $A_{G'_{x}}\not=\{1\}$, il n’y a aucun $T'$ tel que $A_{T'}=\{1\}$ donc $I^*_{x,\omega,N}(\theta,f)=0$. Supposons $A_{G'_{x}}=\{1\}$. Alors $I^*_{x,\omega,N}(\theta,f)$ est égale à l’expression obtenue à partir de (1) ci-dessus en limitant les intégrales aux ensembles $\mathfrak{t}(F)[S;>N^{-b}]\cap(\mathfrak{t}'(F)\times \mathfrak{t}''(F)^S)$. Quand $N$ tend vers l’infini, cette expression tend vers $J_{x,\omega}(\theta,f)$. $\square$
Etude au voisinage de l’origine
===============================
Enoncé de la proposition
------------------------
Considérons l’hypothèse
[0.3cm[**[Hypothèse]{}**]{}. [ *[Pour tout quasi-caractère $\theta$ sur $\mathfrak{h}(F)$ et toute fonction très cuspidale $f\in C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathfrak{g}(F))$ dont le support ne contient aucun élément nilpotent, on a l’égalité $$lim_{N\to \infty}I_{N}(\theta,f)=I(\theta,f).$$]{}*]{}0.3cm]{}
Le but de la section est de prouver l’assertion suivante.
[0.3cm[**[Proposition]{}**]{}. [ *[ Sous cette hypothèse, on a l’égalité $$lim_{N\to \infty}I_{N}(\theta,f)=I(\theta,f).$$ pour tout quasi-caractère $\theta$ sur $\mathfrak{h}(F)$ et toute fonction très cuspidale $f\in C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathfrak{g}(F))$.]{}*]{}0.3cm]{}
Calcul de $lim_{N\to \infty}I_{N}(\theta,f)$
--------------------------------------------
Soient $\theta$ un quasi-caractère sur $\mathfrak{h}(F)$ et $f\in C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathfrak{g}(F))$ une fonction très cuspidale. On peut fixer un ensemble fini ${\cal S}$ d’éléments de $\mathfrak{h}_{reg}(F)$ et une famille finie $(c_{S})_{S\in {\cal S}}$ de nombres complexes de sorte que $$\theta(Y)=\sum_{S\in {\cal S}}c_{S}\hat{j}^H(S,Y)$$ pour tout $Y\in Supp(f)^G\cap \mathfrak{h}(F)$. On peut supposer que le noyau de l’action de chaque $S$ agissant sur $W$ est de dimension au plus $1$. Pour tout $T\in {\cal T}(G)$, on définit l’ensemble $\mathfrak{t}(F)^S$ en appliquant la définition de 9.6 au cas où $V''=V$. On pose $$J(\theta,f)=\sum_{S\in {\cal S}}\sum_{T\in {\cal T}(G)}c_{S}\vert W(G,T)\vert ^{-1}\int_{\mathfrak{t}(F)^S}D^G(X)^{1/2}\hat{\theta}_{f}(X)dX.$$ On a noté $\hat{\theta}_{f}$ la transformée de Fourier de $\theta_{f}$, cf. lemme 6.1. A priori, $J(\theta,f)$ dépend des choix des familles ${\cal S}$ et $(c_{S})_{S\in {\cal S}}$. Le lemme suivant montre que ce n’est pas le cas.
0.3cm[**[Lemme]{}**]{}.
**
\(i) Cette expression est absolument convergente.
\(ii) On a l’égalité $lim_{N\to \infty}I_{N}(\theta,f)=J(\theta,f)$.
0.3cm
Preuve. Cet énoncé n’est qu’une version relative aux algèbres de Lie de la proposition 10.10 . On peut arguer qu’une démonstration analogue à celle de cette proposition s’applique. Comme nous aurons besoin plus loin de la construction qui suit, expliquons plutôt comment on peut déduire le lemme de cette proposition. Soit $\omega\subset \mathfrak{g}(F)$ un bon voisinage de $0$ (au sens de 3.1 appliqué au cas $x=1$). Supposons d’abord $Supp(f)\subset \omega$. Posons $\theta_{\omega}=\theta{\bf 1}_{\omega\cap \mathfrak{h}(F)}$. On a $I_{N}(\theta,f)=I_{N}(\theta_{\omega},f)$. Par l’exponentielle, on relève $\theta_{\omega}$ et $f$ en des fonctions $\boldsymbol{\theta}_{\omega}$ sur $H(F)$ et ${\bf f}$ sur $G(F)$, à support dans $exp(\omega\cap\mathfrak{h}(F))$, resp. $exp(\omega)$. On a l’égalité $I_{N}(\boldsymbol{\theta}_{\omega},{\bf f})=I_{N}(\theta,f)$. On peut appliquer la proposition 10.10 aux fonctions $\boldsymbol{\theta}$ et ${\bf f}$ et au point $x=1$. Donc $lim_{N\to \infty}I_{N}(\theta,f)=J_{1,\omega}(\boldsymbol{\theta}_{\omega},{\bf f})$. Dans cette dernière expression figure une fonction $\theta^{\sharp}_{{\bf f},x,\omega}$ qui n’est autre que $\hat{\theta}_{f}$. En effet, d’après la proposition 5.8, $\theta^{\sharp}_{{\bf f},x,\omega}$ est la transformée de Fourier partielle de $\theta_{{\bf f},x,\omega}=\theta_{f}$. Mais, pour $x=1$, on a $V''=V$ et la transformation de Fourier partielle est simplement la transformée de Fourier. Alors $J_{1,\omega}(\boldsymbol{\theta}_{\omega},{\bf f})$ coïncide avec $J(\theta,f)$, ce qui prouve le lemme sous l’hypothèse $Supp(f)\subset \omega$.
En général, rappelons-nous que l’on a fixé au départ une famille $(\xi_{i})_{i=0,...,r-1}$ d’éléments de $F^{\times}$, dont dépendent le caractère $\xi$ et nos constructions. Soit $\lambda\in F^{\times }$. A la famille $(\lambda\xi_{i})_{i=0,...,r-1}$ est associée un caractère $\xi'$. Il convient d’affecter d’indices $\xi$, resp. $\xi'$, les objets construits à l’aide du caractère $\xi$, resp. $\xi'$. Posons $\theta'=\theta^{\lambda}$ et $f'=f^{\lambda}$. Comparons les termes $I_{\xi,N}(\theta,f)$ et $J_{\xi}(\theta,f)$ avec leurs analogues $I_{\xi',N}(\theta',f')$ et $J_{\xi'}(\theta',f')$. Pour $Y\in \mathfrak{h}(F)$, on a $$f^{_{'}\xi'}(Y)=\vert \lambda\vert _{F}^{-dim(U)}f^{\xi}(\lambda Y).$$ On en déduit $$(1) \qquad I_{\xi',N}(\theta',f')=\vert \lambda\vert _{F}^{-dim(U)-dim(H)}I_{\xi,N}(\theta,f).$$ Grâce à 2.6(1), on a $$\theta'(Y)=\sum_{S\in {\cal S}}c_{S}\hat{j}^H(S,\lambda Y)=\sum_{S\in {\cal S}}\vert \lambda\vert _{F}^{-\delta(H)/2}c_{S}\hat{j}^H(\lambda S,Y)$$ pour tout $Y\in Supp(f')^G\cap \mathfrak{h}(F)$. Pour définir $J_{\xi'}(\theta',f')$, on peut donc prendre pour famille ${\cal S}'$ la famille $(\lambda S)_{S\in {\cal S}}$ et pour constantes les $c_{\lambda S}=\vert \lambda\vert _{F}^{-\delta(H)/2}c_{S}$. Soient $T\in {\cal T}(G)$ et $S\in {\cal S}$. On vérifie que, quand on remplace $\xi$ par $\xi'$ et $S$ par $\lambda S$, l’ensemble $\mathfrak{t}(F)^S$ est remplacé par $\lambda \mathfrak{t}(F)^S$. Donc $$J_{\xi'}(\theta',f')=\sum_{S\in {\cal S}}\sum_{T\in {\cal T}(G)}c_{S}\vert \lambda\vert _{F}^{-\delta(H)/2}\vert W(G,T)\vert ^{-1}\int_{\lambda\mathfrak{t}(F)^S}D^G(X)^{1/2}\hat{\theta}_{f'}(X)dX.$$ On a $\hat{f}'(X)=\vert \lambda\vert _{F}^{-dim(G)}\hat{f}(\lambda^{-1}X)$, donc $\hat{\theta}_{f'} (X)=\vert \lambda\vert _{F}^{-dim(G)}\hat{\theta}_{f}(\lambda^{-1}X)$ grâce au lemme 6.1. On a aussi $D^G(\lambda X)^{1/2}=\vert \lambda\vert _{F}^{\delta(G)/2}D^G(X)^{1/2}$. Par changement de variable, on obtient $$(2) \qquad J_{\xi'}(\theta',f')=\vert \lambda\vert ^{-dim(G)+dim(T)+\delta(G)/2-\delta(H)/2}J_{\xi}(\theta,f).$$ On a $$-dim(G)+dim(T)+\delta(G)/2=-\delta(G)/2=-dim(U)-\delta(G_{0})/2.$$ A l’aide de 7.7(2), on vérifie que $\delta(G_{0})+\delta(H)=2dim(H)$ et l’égalité précédente devient $$J_{\xi'}(\theta',f')=\vert \lambda\vert _{F}^{-dim(U)-dim(H)}J_{\xi}(\theta,f).$$ En comparant avec (1), on voit que la relation $lim_{N\to \infty}I_{\xi,N}(\theta,f)=J_{\xi}(\theta,f)$ est équivalente à $lim_{N\to \infty}I_{\xi',N}(\theta',f')=J_{\xi'}(\theta',f')$. Prenons $\lambda$ tel que $Supp(f')\subset \omega$. Alors la deuxième relation a déjà été démontrée (la démonstration est insensible au changement de $\xi$ en $\xi'$). La première s’en déduit, ce qui achève la preuve. $\square$
Une première expression du terme d’erreur
-----------------------------------------
Dans ce paragraphe, on suppose vérifiée l’hypothèse du paragraphe 11.1. Considérons l’application $$(\theta,f)\mapsto E(\theta,f)=lim_{N\to \infty}I_{N}(\theta,f)-I(\theta,f)=J(\theta,f)-I(\theta,f),$$ définie sur l’espace des couples $(\theta,f)$ formés d’un quasi-caractère $\theta$ sur $\mathfrak{h}(F)$ et d’une fonction très cuspidale $f\in C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathfrak{g}(F))$. Elle est bilinéaire.
[0.3cm[**[Lemme]{}**]{}. [ *[L’application $E$ est combinaison linéaire des applications $(\theta,f)\mapsto c_{\theta,{\cal O}^H}c_{\theta_{f},{\cal O}}$, où ${\cal O}^H$, resp. ${\cal O}$, parcourt l’ensemble des orbites nilpotentes régulières de $\mathfrak{h}(F)$, resp. $\mathfrak{g}(F)$.]{}*]{}0.3cm]{}
Preuve. On commence par prouver
\(1) on a $E(\theta,f)=0$ si $c_{\theta,{\cal O}^H}=0$ pour tout ${\cal O}^H\in Nil(\mathfrak{h}(F))$ ou si $c_{\theta_{f},{\cal O}}=0$ pour tout ${\cal O}\in Nil(\mathfrak{g}(F))$.
Supposons $c_{\theta_{f},{\cal O}}=0$ pour tout ${\cal O}\in Nil(\mathfrak{g}(F))$. On peut alors fixer un $G$-domaine $\omega$ dans $\mathfrak{g}(F)$, compact modulo conjugaison et contenant $0$, tel que $\theta_{f}(X)=0$ pour tout $X\in \omega$. Posons $f'=f{\bf 1}_{\omega}$ et $f''=f-f'$. Ces fonctions sont très cuspidales. Le support de $f''$ ne contient pas de nilpotent donc $E(\theta,f'')=0$ d’après l’hypothèse de 11.1. On a $\theta_{f'}=0$ donc aussi $\hat{\theta}_{f'}=0$. Des définitions résultent les égalités $J(\theta,f')=0=I(\theta,f')$. D’où $E(\theta,f')=0$, puis $E(\theta,f)=0$. Supposons maintenant $c_{\theta,{\cal O}^H}=0$ pour tout ${\cal O}^H\in Nil(\mathfrak{h}(F))$. On peut fixer un $G$-domaine $\omega$ dans $\mathfrak{g}(F)$, compact modulo conjugaison et contenant $0$, tel que $\theta(X)=0$ pour tout $X\in \omega\cap \mathfrak{h}(F)$. Définissons $f'$ et $f''$ comme précédemment. Puisque $\theta$ est nul sur $Supp(f')^G\cap \mathfrak{h}(F)$, il résulte des définitions que $J(\theta,f')=0=I(\theta,f')$. On conclut comme précédemment. Cela prouve (1).
Soit $\lambda\in F^{\times 2}$, posons $\theta'=\theta^{\lambda}$, $f'=f^{\lambda}$. On a $\theta_{f'}=(\theta_{f})^{\lambda}$. Pour ${\cal O}^H\in Nil(\mathfrak{h}(F))$ et ${\cal O}\in Nil(\mathfrak{g}(F))$, on a l’égalité
$$(2) \qquad c_{\theta',{\cal O}^H}c_{\theta_{f'},{\cal O}}=\vert \lambda\vert ^{-dim({\cal O}^H)/2-dim({\cal O})/2}c_{\theta,{\cal O}^H}c_{\theta_{f},{\cal O}}$$ d’après 4.2(2).
Montrons que
\(3) $E(\theta',f')=\vert \lambda\vert _{F}^{-\delta(G)/2-\delta(H)/2}E(\theta,f)$.
Reportons-nous à l’égalité 11.2(2). Il y figure un terme $J_{\xi'}(\theta',f')$. En fait, il est égal à $J_{\xi}(\theta',f')$. En effet, ce terme ne dépend de $\xi$ que par la définition des ensembles $\mathfrak{t}(F)^S$, pour $T\in {\cal T}(G)$ et $S\in {\cal S}'$ (l’ensemble associé à $\theta'$). Cet ensemble est celui des éléments de $\mathfrak{t}(F)$ vérifiant certaines conditions de régularité et conjugués à un élément de $\Xi+S+\Sigma$, si le caractère utilisé est $\xi$, à un élément de $\lambda \Xi+S+\Sigma$, si le caractère utilisé est $\xi'$. Or, soit $a\in A(F)$ tel que $a_{i}=\lambda^{-i}$ pour tout $i=1,...,r$. Alors $a(\Xi+S+\Sigma)a^{-1}=\lambda \Xi+S+\Sigma$. Donc l’ensemble $\mathfrak{t}(F)^S$ est insensible au changement de $\xi$ en $\xi'$. L’égalité 11.2(2) nous dit alors que $$(4)\qquad J(\theta',f')=\vert \lambda\vert _{F}^{-\delta(G)/2-\delta(H)/2}J(\theta,f).$$
Soit $T\in {\cal T}$. Introduisons comme en 7.3 la décomposition $W=W'\oplus W''$ relative à $T$ et les notations afférentes. Soit $X\in \mathfrak{t}_{\natural}(F)$. D’après 4.2(2), on a les égalités $$c_{\theta'}(X)=\vert \lambda\vert _{F}^{-\delta(H'')/2}c_{\theta}(\lambda X),\,\,c_{f'}(X)=\vert \lambda\vert _{F}^{-\delta(G'')/2}c_{f}(\lambda X).$$ On calcule comme en 7.5 $$D^H(\lambda^{-1}X)=\vert \lambda\vert _{F}^{\delta(H'')-\delta(H)} D^H( X),\,\, \Delta(\lambda^{-1}X)=\vert \lambda\vert _{F}^{-dim(W')}\Delta(X).$$ Par changement de variable, on obtient $$\int_{\mathfrak{t}(F)}c_{\theta'}(X)c_{f'}(X)D^H(X)\Delta(X)^rdX=\vert \lambda\vert _{F}^{b}\int_{\mathfrak{t}(F)}c_{\theta}(X)c_{f}(X)D^H(X)\Delta(X)^rdX,$$ où $$b=-\delta(G'')/2-dim(T)+\delta(H'')/2-\delta(H)-rdim(W').$$ En utilisant 7.7(2), on vérifie que $b=-\delta(G)/2-\delta(H)/2$. De l’égalité précédente résulte alors l’égalité $$I(\theta',f')=\vert \lambda\vert ^{-\delta(G)/2-\delta(H)/2}I(\theta,f).$$ Jointe à (4), cette égalité démontre (3).
La relation (1) entraîne que la forme bilinéaire $E$ est combinaison linéaire des applications $(\theta,f)\mapsto c_{\theta,{\cal O}^H}c_{\theta_{f},{\cal O}}$, où ${\cal O}^H$, resp. ${\cal O}$, parcourt $Nil(\mathfrak{h}(F))$, resp. $Nil(\mathfrak{g}(F))$. Les relations (2) et (3) nous disent que $E$, ainsi que toutes ces applications, sont homogènes pour la transformation $(\theta,f)\mapsto (\theta^{\lambda},f^{\lambda})$. Il en résulte que $E$ est combinaison linéaire de celles des applications ci-dessus qui sont de même degré que $E$. On a toujours $dim({\cal O}^H)\leq \delta(H)$, $dim({\cal O})\leq \delta(G)$. L’égalité $dim({\cal O}^H)+dim({\cal O})=\delta(H)+\delta(G)$ est donc équivalente à la réunion des deux égalités $dim({\cal O}^H)= \delta(H)$ et $dim({\cal O})= \delta(G)$. Celles-ci sont vérifiées si et seulement si ${\cal O}^H$ et ${\cal O}$ sont régulières. $\square$
Calcul de germes de Shalika
---------------------------
Dans ce paragraphe, on suppose $G$ quasi-déployé. Soient $B$ un sous-groupe de Borel de $G$ et $T_{qd}$ un sous-tore maximal de $B$. Soit $X_ {qd}$ un élément de $\mathfrak{t}_{qd}(F)\cap \mathfrak{g}_{reg}(F)$.
Supposons $d$ pair et $d\geq4$. Pour toute extension quadratique $E$ de $F$, notons $\tau_{E}$ l’élément non trivial de $Gal(E/F)$ et $\chi_{E}$ le caractère quadratique de $F^{\times}$ associé à $E$. Si $d_{an}(V)=0$ (ou encore, si $G$ est déployé), on note $\chi_{V}$ le caractère trivial de $F^{\times}$ et on pose $\eta=1$. Si $d_{an}(V)=2$, il y a une extension quadratique $E$ de $F$ et un élément $\eta\in F^{\times}$ tel que le noyau anisotrope de $q$ soit la forme $\eta Norm_{E/F}$. L’élément $\eta$ n’est pas unique, on le fixe. On pose $\chi_{V}=\chi_{E}$. Soient $F_{1}$ et $F_{2}$ deux extensions quadratiques de $F$ telles que $\chi_{F_{1}}\chi_{F_{2}}=\chi_{V}$. Pour $i=1,2$, soient $a_{i}\in F_{i}^{\times}$ tel que $\tau_{F_{i}}(a_{i})=-a_{i}$. On suppose $a_{1}\not=\pm a_{2}$. Soit $c\in F^{\times}$ tel que $\chi_{V}(\eta cNorm_{F_{1}/F}(a_{1}))=1$. On peut identifier $V$, comme espace quadratique, à la somme orthogonale $F_{1}\oplus F_{2}\oplus \tilde{Z}$, où $F_{1}$ est muni de la forme $cNorm_{F_{1}/F}$, $F_{2}$ est muni de la forme $-cNorm_{F_{2}/F}$ et $\tilde{Z}$ est un espace hyperbolique de dimension $d-4$. Fixons une telle identification et un sous-tore déployé maximal $\tilde{T}$ du groupe spécial orthogonal de $\tilde{Z}$. Pour $\tilde{S}\in \tilde{\mathfrak{t}}(F)$, considérons l’élément $X_ {F_{1}}\in \mathfrak{g}(F)$ qui agit par multiplication par $a_{1}$, resp. $a_{2}$, sur $F_{1}$, resp. $F_{2}$, et par $\tilde{S}$ sur $\tilde{Z}$. Les éléments $a_{1}$ et $a_{2}$ étant fixés, on peut choisir $\tilde{S}$ tel que $X_ {F_{1}}$ soit régulier. On fixe un tel $\tilde{S}$. Les éléments $a_{1}$, $a_{2}$ et $\tilde{S}$ étant fixés, on peut faire varier $c$. La classe de conjugaison de $X_ {F_{1}}$ ne dépend que de $\chi_{F_{1}}(c)$. On note $X_ {F_{1}}^+$ l’élément correspondant à un $c=c^+$ tel que $\chi_{F_{1}}(c^+)=\chi_{F_{1}}(\eta)\chi_{F_{1}}(Norm_{F_{1}/F}(a_{1})-Norm_{F_{2}/F}(a_{2}))$ et $X_ {F_{1}}^-$ celui qui correspond à un $c=c^-$ tel que $\chi_{F_{1}}(c^-)=-\chi_{F_{1}}(c^+ )$.
On se rappelle que l’on a classifié les orbites nilpotentes régulières en 7.1.
0.3cm[**[Lemme]{}**]{}.
**
Soit ${\cal O}\in Nil(\mathfrak{g}(F))$.
\(i) On a les égalités $$\Gamma_{{\cal O}}(X_ {qd})=\left\lbrace\begin{array}{cc}0,&\,\,{\rm si}\,\,{\cal O}\,\,\text{ n'est pas\,\,r\'eguli\`ere;}\\ 1,&\,\,{\rm si}\,\,{\cal O}\,\,\text{ est\,\,r\'eguli\`ere.}\\ \end{array}\right.$$
\(ii) Supposons $d$ pair et $d\geq 4$. On a les égalités $$\Gamma_{{\cal O}}(X_ {F_{1}}^+)-\Gamma_{{\cal O}}(X_ {F_{1}}^-)=\left\lbrace\begin{array}{cc}0,&\,\,{\rm si}\,\,{\cal O}\,\,{\rm n'est\,\,pas\,\,r\acute{e}guli\grave{e}re;}\\ \chi_{F_{1}}(\nu \eta),&\,\,{\rm si}\,\,{\cal O}={\cal O}_{\nu}\,\,{\rm avec}\,\,\nu\in {\cal N}^V.\\ \end{array}\right.$$
0.3cm
Preuve. Le tore $T_{qd}$ est un Lévi de $G$ et la distribution $f\mapsto J_{G}(X_ {qd},f)$ est induite de la distribution $f\mapsto f(X_ {qd})$ sur $\mathfrak{t}_{qd}(F)$. On a évidemment $\Gamma_{\{0\}}^{T_{qd}}(X_ {qd})=1$. Alors $\Gamma_{{\cal O}} (X_ {qd})$ est non nul si et seulement si ${\cal O}$ intervient dans l’orbite induite de l’orbite $\{0\}$ de $\mathfrak{t}_{qd}(F)$. Cette condition équivaut à ce que ${\cal O}$ soit régulière. On en déduit la première égalité de (i).
Supposons $d$ pair et $d\geq4$ et reprenons les constructions qui précèdent l’énoncé. Notons $G_{1}$ le groupe spécial orthogonal de $F_{1}\oplus \tilde{Z}$ et $G_{2}$ celui de $F_{2}$. Ils sont quasi-déployés. Pour $i=1,2$, on fixe un sous-tore maximal $T_{i,qd}$ de $G_{i}$ inclus dans un sous-groupe de Borel (on a $T_{2,qd}=G_{2}$). Le groupe $G_{1}\times G_{2}$ est un groupe endoscopique de $G$. La distribution $$f\mapsto J_{G}(X^+_{F_{1}},f)-J_{G}(X^-_{F_{1}},f)$$ est le transfert endoscopique d’une distribution $$(f_{1},f_{2})\mapsto J_{G_{1}}(X_ {1},f_{1})J_{G_{2}}(X_ {2},f_{2})$$ sur $\mathfrak{g}_{1}(F)\times \mathfrak{g}_{2}(F)$, où, pour $i=1,2$, $X_ {j}$ est un certain élément de $\mathfrak{t}_{j,qd}(F)$. Il en résulte que le développement en germes de la première distribution s’obtient en transférant celui de la seconde distribution. Comme on vient de le voir, ce dernier ne contient que des orbites nilpotentes régulières de $\mathfrak{g}_{1}(F)\times \mathfrak{g}_{2}(F)$. Le transfert endoscopique d’une intégrale nilpotente régulière est combinaison linéaire de telles intégrales. On en déduit la première égalité de (ii).
Il ne reste plus qu’à calculer des germes relatifs à des orbites nilpotentes régulières. Ceux-ci ont été calculés par Shelstad (\[S\]). Il faut d’abord voir que les mesures utilisées par Shelstad sont compatibles avec les nôtres. Shelstad suppose les mesures sur les tores maximaux “algébiques” au sens suivant. On fixe une forme différentielle $\delta_{T_{qd}}$ de degré maximal sur $T_{qd}$, invariante par translations, et un réel $\lambda>0$. Pour sous-tore maximal $T$ de $G$, l’isomorphisme $T\simeq T_{qd}$ sur $\bar{F}$ permet de transférer $\delta_{T_{qd}}$ en une forme différentielle $\delta_{T}$ sur $T$. On prend alors pour mesure sur $T(F)$ la mesure $\lambda \vert \delta_{T}\vert _{F}$, cf. 9.6 pour la notation. Mais on a vu dans la preuve du lemme 9.6 que nos mesures autoduales s’obtenaient par ce procédé, pour $\delta_{T_{qd}}$ et $\lambda$ convenables. Soit ${\cal O}$ une orbite nilpotente régulière. La mesure sur ${\cal O}$ utilisée par Shelstad est définie de la façon suivante. Soit $N\in {\cal O}$. Considérons une suite $(Y_{j})_{j\in {\mathbb N}}$ d’éléments de $\mathfrak{g}_{reg}(F)$ telle que $lim_{j\to \infty}Y_{j}=N$. Alors, l’espace tangent $Tang_{Y_{j}}$ en $Y_{j}$ à la classe de conjugaison de $Y_{j}$ tend, en un sens que l’on va préciser, vers l’espace tangent $Tang_{N}$ en $N$ à ${\cal O}$. Notons $T_{j}=G_{Y_{j}}$. L’espace $Tang_{Y_{j}}$ est égal à $\mathfrak{g}(F)/\mathfrak{t}_{j}(F)$, sur lequel on a une mesure $m_{j}$. Alors les mesures $D^G (Y_{j})^{1/2}m_{j}$ tendent vers une mesure $m_{N}$ sur $Tang_{N}$. La mesure sur ${\cal O}$ est celle qui, en $N$, coïncide infinitésimalement avec $m_{N}$. Fixons un supplémentaire $\mathfrak{r}$ du noyau de $ad(N)$ dans $\mathfrak{g}(F)$. Pour $j$ assez grand, $\mathfrak{r}$ est encore un supplémentaire de $\mathfrak{t}_{j}(F)$ dans $\mathfrak{g}(F)$ et on peut identifier $Tang_{Y_{j}}=Tang_{N}=\mathfrak{r}$. Soit $\mathfrak{l}_{j}$ l’orthogonal de $\mathfrak{t}_{j}$ dans $\mathfrak{g}$. On a aussi $Tang_{Y_{j}}\simeq \mathfrak{l}_{j}(F)$. Modulo cette identification, la mesure $m_{j}$ est la mesure autoduale associée à la forme quadratique $(Y,Z)\mapsto \frac{1}{2}trace(YZ)$ sur $\mathfrak{l}_{j}(F)$. Mais le jacobien de $ad(Y_{j})$ agissant dans $\mathfrak{l}(F)$ est $D^G(Y_{j})$. Donc $D^G(Y_{j})^{1/2}m_{j}$ est aussi la mesure associée à la forme symplectique $(Y,Z)\mapsto \frac{1}{2}trace([Y_{j},Y]Z)$ sur $\mathfrak{l}_{j}(F)$. La même formule définit une forme antisymétrique sur tout $\mathfrak{g}(F)$, de noyau $\mathfrak{t}_{j}(F)$. On peut donc remplacer $\mathfrak{l}_{j}(F)$ par $\mathfrak{r}$ et la mesure $D^G(Y_{j})^{1/2}m_{j}$ est la mesure associée à la forme symplectique $(Y,Z)\mapsto \frac{1}{2}trace([Y_{j},Y]Z)$ sur $\mathfrak{r}$. Quand $Y_{j}$ tend vers $N$, cette forme tend vers $(Y,Z)\mapsto \frac{1}{2}trace([N,Y]Z)$ et $D^G(Y_{j})^{1/2}m_{j}$ tend vers la mesure associée à cette forme. Mais c’est précisément la façon dont nous avons défini notre mesure sur ${\cal O}$ en 1.2.
Cela étant, Shelstad montre qu’un germe $\Gamma_{{\cal O}}(S)$ associé à une orbite nilpotente régulière ${\cal O}$ vaut $1$ ou $0$, selon qu’un certain invariant est égal ou non à $1$. Pour l’élément $X_ {qd}$, il est facile de voir que l’invariant est $1$ et on en déduit la seconde égalité de (i). Considérons la situation de (ii). Pour un signe $\zeta=\pm $, notons $T^{\zeta}$ le sous-tore maximal de $G$ tel que $X_ {F_{1}}^{\zeta}\in \mathfrak{t}^{\zeta}(F)$. Soient $\nu\in {\cal N}^V$ et $N\in {\cal O}_{\nu}$. Shelstad note l’invariant $inv(X_ {F_{1}}^{\zeta})inv(T^{\zeta})/inv_{T^{\zeta}}(N)$. Tous ces éléments appartiennent au groupe de cohomologie $H^1(T^{\zeta})=H^1(Gal(\bar{F}/F),T^{\zeta})$. On a ici $H^1(T^{\zeta})=\{\pm 1\}\times \{\pm 1\}$. Les invariants dépendent du choix d’un épinglage. On effectue ce choix comme en \[W3\] X.3 en prenant pour élément $\eta$ de cette référence notre élément $\eta$ multiplié par $2(-1)^{d/2-1}$. Dans le lemme X.7 de \[W3\], nous avons calculé le produit $inv(X_ {F_{1}}^{\zeta})inv(T^{\zeta})$. On a $$(1) \qquad inv(X_ {F_{1}}^{\zeta})inv(T^{\zeta})=$$ $$\qquad (\chi_{F_{1}}(2(-1)^{d/2-1}\eta(c^{\zeta})^{-1}a_{1}^{-1}P'(a_{1})),\chi_{F_{2}}(2(-1)^{d/2}\eta(c^{\zeta})^{-1}a_{2}^{-1}P'(a_{2}))),$$ où $P$ est le polynôme caractéristique de $X_ {F_{1}}$ agissant dans $V$ et $P'$ est le polynôme dérivé. Notons $(\pm \tilde{s}_{j})_{j=3,...,d/2}$ les valeurs propres de l’action de $\tilde{S}$ dans $\tilde{Z}$. Elles appartiennent à $F^{\times}$ puisque $\tilde{T}$ est déployé. On a $$P(T)=(T^2+Norm_{F_{1}/F}(a_{1}))(T^2+Norm_{F_{2}/F}(a_{2}))\prod_{j=3,...,d/2}(T^2-\tilde{s}_{j}^2).$$ Donc $$a_{1}^{-1}P'(a_{1})=2(-Norm_{F_{1}/F}(a_{1})+Norm_{F_{2}/F}(a_{2}))\prod_{j=3,...,d/2}(-Norm_{F_{1}/F}(a_{1})-\tilde{s}^2_{j})$$ $$\qquad =2(-1)^{d/2-1}(Norm_{F_{1}/F}(a_{1})-Norm_{F_{2}/F}(a_{2}))\prod_{j=3,...,d/2}(Norm_{F_{1}/F}(a_{1})+\tilde{s}^2_{j}).$$ On a $\tilde{s}_{j}^2+Norm_{F_{1}/F}(a_{1})=Norm_{F_{1}/F}(\tilde{s}_{j}+a_{1})$, donc $\chi_{F_{1}}(\tilde{s}_{j}^2+Norm_{F_{1}/F}(a_{1}))=1$. Un calcul similaire vaut en échangeant les rôles de $F_{1}$ et $F_{2}$. La formule (1) se simplifie en $$inv(X_ {F_{1}}^{\zeta})inv(T^{\zeta})=$$ $$\qquad
(\chi_{F_{1}}(\eta(c^{\zeta})^{-1}(Norm_{F_{1}/F}(a_{1})-Norm_{F_{2}/F}(a_{2}))),\chi_{F_{2}}(\eta(c^{\zeta})^{-1}(Norm_{F_{1}/F}(a_{1})-Norm_{F_{2}/F}(a_{2}))).$$ D’après la définition de $c^{\zeta}$, on obtient $$inv(X_ {F_{1}}^{\zeta})inv(T^{\zeta})=(\zeta,\zeta),$$ où on identifie $\zeta$ à un élément de $\{\pm 1\}$. L’épinglage détermine un élément nilpotent régulier $N^*$: avec les notations de \[W3\] page 313, $N^*=\sum_{j=1,...,d/2}X_{\alpha_{j}}$. Notons $\nu^*$ l’élément de ${\cal N}^V$ tel que $N^*\in {\cal O}_{\nu^*}$. On définit un cocycle $d_{N}$ de $Gal(\bar{F}/F)$ dans $T^{\zeta}$ de la façon suivante. Si $\nu=\nu^*$, $d_{N}=1$. Si $\nu\not=\nu^*$, on pose $E_{N}=F(\sqrt{\nu/\nu^*})$. Alors, pour $\sigma\in Gal(\bar{F}/F)$, on a $d_{N}(\sigma)=1$ si $\sigma\in Gal(\bar{F}/E_{N})$ et $d_{N}(\sigma)=-1$ sinon. L’invariant $inv_{T^{\zeta}}(N)$ est l’image dans $H^1(T)$ du cocycle $d_{N}$. On calcule cette image $$inv_{T^{\zeta}}(N)=(\chi_{F_{1}}(\nu/\nu^*),\chi_{F_{2}}(\nu/\nu^*)).$$ En fait, on a forcément $\chi_{V}(\nu/\nu^*)=1$, donc $$inv_{T^{\zeta}}(N)=\chi_{F_{1}}(\nu/\nu^*),\chi_{F_{1}}(\nu/\nu^*)).$$ L’élément $N^*$ laisse stable l’hyperplan engendré par $e_{1},...,e_{d/2-1},e_{d/2}+e_{d/2+1},e_{d/2+2},...,e_{d}$, avec les notations de \[W\]. Le noyau anisotrope de la restriction de la forme $q$ à cet hyperplan est la restriction de $q$ à la droite portée par $e_{d/2}+e_{d/2+1}$. Or $q(e_{d/2}+e_{d/2+1})=\eta$, donc $\nu^*=\eta$. Finalement $$inv(X_ {F_{1}}^{\zeta})inv(T^{\zeta})/inv_{T^{\zeta}}(N)=(\zeta\chi_{F_{1}}(\nu\eta),\zeta\chi_{F_{1}}(\nu\eta)).$$ D’après Shelstad, on a donc $$\Gamma_{{\cal O}_{\nu}}(X_ {F_{1}}^{\zeta})=\left\lbrace\begin{array}{cc}1,&\,\,\text{si}\,\,\chi_{F_{1}}(\nu \eta)=\zeta,\\ 0,&\,\,\text{si}\,\,\chi_{F_{1}}(\nu\eta)=-\zeta.\\ \end{array}\right.$$ Cela entraîne la seconde égalité du (ii) de l’énoncé. $\square$
Preuve de la proposition 11.1 dans le cas $d$ impair
----------------------------------------------------
On suppose vérifiée l’hypothèse du paragraphe 11.1 et on suppose $d$ impair. On veut prouver $E(\theta,f)=0$ pour tout quasi-caractère $\theta$ sur $\mathfrak{h}(F)$ et toute fonction très cuspidale $f\in C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathfrak{g}(F))$. Si $G$ n’est pas déployé ou si $H$ n’est pas quasi-déployé, l’une des algèbres de Lie de ces groupes n’a pas d’élément nilpotent régulier et la conclusion résulte du lemme 11.3. Supposons $G$ déployé et $H$ quasi-déployé. Le même lemme nous dit que, si $d_{W}\leq2$, resp. $d_{W}\geq4$, il existe un nombre complexe $c_{reg}$, resp. une famille de nombres complexes $(c_{\nu})_{\nu\in {\cal N}^W}$, de sorte que $$E(\theta,f)=\left\lbrace\begin{array}{cc}c_{reg}c_{\theta,{\cal O}^H_{reg}}c_{\theta_{f},{\cal O}_{reg}},&\,\,\text{si}\,\,d_{W}\leq2,\\ \sum_{\nu\in {\cal N}^W}c_{\nu}c_{\theta,{\cal O}_{\nu}^H}c_{\theta_{f},{\cal O}_{reg}},&\,\,\text{si}\,\,d_{W}\geq4,\\ \end{array}\right.$$ pour tous $\theta$, $f$ (on a introduit des exposants $H$ pour préciser la notation). Les constantes sont uniquement déterminées d’après le lemme 6.3(iii).
Soient $T\in {\cal T}(G)$ et $X\in \mathfrak{t}(F)\cap \mathfrak{g}_{reg}(F)$. D’après 6.3(3), on peut construire un voisinage $\omega_{X}$ de $X$ dans $\mathfrak{t}(F)$ et une fonction très cuspidale $f[X]\in C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathfrak{g}(F))$ vérifiant les propriétés suivantes:
\(1) pour $T'\in {\cal T}(G)$ et $T'\not=T$, la restriction de $\hat{\theta}_{f[X]}$ à $\mathfrak{t}'(F)$ est nulle;
\(2) pour toute fonction localement intégrable $\varphi$ sur $\mathfrak{t}(F)$, invariante par $W(G,T_{d})$, $$\int_{\mathfrak{t}(F)}\varphi(X')D^G(X')^{1/2}\hat{\theta}_{f[X]}(X')dX'=mes(\omega_{X} )^{-1}\int_{\omega_{X}}\varphi(X')dX';$$
\(3) pour tout $Y\in \mathfrak{g}_{reg}(F)$, $$\theta_{f[X]}(Y)=mes(\omega_{X})^{-1}\int_{\omega_{X}}\hat{j}^G(X',Y)dX'$$ (avec les notations de 6.3(3), $f[X]=\theta_{f'}(X)^{-1}D^G(X)^{-1/2}mes(\omega_{X})^{-1}\hat{f}'$). Au voisinage de $0$, l’égalité (3) se simplifie en $$\theta_{f[X]}(Y)=\hat{j}^G(X,Y)=\sum_{{\cal O}\in Nil(\mathfrak{g})}\Gamma_{{\cal O}}(X)\hat{j}^G({\cal O},Y).$$ Donc $$(4) \qquad c_{\theta_{f[X]},{\cal O}}=\Gamma_{{\cal O}}(X)$$ pour tout ${\cal O}\in Nil(\mathfrak{g})$. Notons $T_{d}$ l’unique tore déployé dans ${\cal T}(G)$ et fixons $X_{d}\in \mathfrak{t}_{d}(F)\cap \mathfrak{g}_{reg}(F)$. On fixe $\omega_{X_{d}}$ et $f[X_{d}]$ comme ci-dessus et on pose $f=f[X_{d}]$. Grâce à (4) et au lemme 11.4(i), on a $c_{\theta_{f},{\cal O}_{reg}}=1$. Fixons un $G$-domaine $\omega$ dans $\mathfrak{g}(F)$, compact modulo conjugaison, contenant $0$ et $Supp(f)$. Soit $S\in \mathfrak{h}_{reg}(F)$. On suppose que l’action de $S$ dans $W$ est de noyau nul. D’après le lemme 6.3(ii), on peut choisir un quasi-caractère $\theta[S]$ sur $\mathfrak{h}(F)$ tel que $\theta[S](Y) =\hat{j}^H(S,Y)$ pour tout $ Y\in \omega$. Comme ci-dessus, on a $c_{\theta[S],{\cal O}^H}=\Gamma_{{\cal O}^H}(S)$ pour tout ${\cal O}^H\in Nil(\mathfrak{h})$. Remplaçons $G$ et $V$ par $H$ et $W$ dans les définitions de 11.4. On définit dans $\mathfrak{h}(F)$ un élément $X_{qd}$ et, si $d_{W}\geq4$, des éléments $X_{F_{1}}^{\pm}$.
Si $d_{W}\leq2$, posons $\theta=\theta[X_{qd}]$. On pose aussi ${\cal S}=\{X_{qd}\}$ et $c_{X_{qd}}=1$. On a $c_{\theta,{\cal O}_{reg}^H}=1$, donc $c_{reg}=E(\theta,f)$.
Supposons $d_{W}\geq4$ et fixons $\nu\in {\cal N}^W$. Si $H$ est déployé, notons ${\cal F}^V$ l’ensemble des extensions quadratiques de $F$. Si $H$ n’est pas déployé, soient $E$ et $\eta$ comme en 11.4. Les extensions quadratiques de $F$ distinctes de $E$ vont par paire: à $F_{1}$ est associé $F_{2}$ tel que $\chi_{F_{1}}\chi_{F_{2}}=\chi_{E}$. On fixe un sous-ensemble ${\cal F}_{V}$ qui contient un élément de chaque paire. Remarquons que, dans les deux cas, on a l’égalité $$\vert {\cal N}^V\vert =1+\vert {\cal F}^V\vert .$$ Posons $$\theta= \vert {\cal N}^V\vert ^{-1}(\theta[X_{qd}]+\sum_{F_{1}\in {\cal F}^V}\chi_{F_{1}}(\nu\eta)(\theta[X_{F_{1}}^+]-\theta[X_{F_{1}}^-])).$$ On note ${\cal S}$ l’ensemble des éléments $S$ tels que $\theta[S]$ intervienne dans ces formules et, pour $S\in {\cal S}$, $c_{S}$ le coefficient dont $\theta[S]$ y est affecté. Le lemme 11.4 entraîne que, pour $\nu'\in {\cal N}^W$, on a l’égalité $$c_{\theta,{\cal O}_{\nu'}^H}= \delta_{\nu,\nu'},$$ où ce dernier terme est le symbole de Kronecker. Donc $c_{\nu}=E(\theta,f)$.
Pour $X\in \omega_{X_{d}}$, la distribution $\varphi\mapsto J_{G}(X,\hat{\varphi})$ est induite d’une distribution sur $\mathfrak{t}_{d}(F)$. Cela entraîne que la fonction $Y\mapsto \hat{j}^G(X,Y)$ est à support dans l’ensemble des éléments appartenant à une sous-algèbre de Borel de $G$. D’après (3), c’est aussi le cas de la fonction $\theta_{f}$. Comme dans la preuve du lemme 7.6, cela entraîne que, si $T$ est un élément de ${\cal T}$ différent du tore $\{1\}$, la fonction $c_{f}$ est nulle sur $\mathfrak{t}(F)$. Donc $I(\theta,f)$ se réduit à la contribution de l’unique tore $T=\{1\}\in {\cal T}$. Par définition, celle-ci est $c_{\theta,{\cal O}_{reg}^H}c_{\theta_{f},{\cal O}_{reg}}$ si $d_{W}\leq2$, $c_{\theta,{\cal O}_{-\nu_{0}}^H}c_{\theta_{f},{\cal O}_{reg}}$ si $d_{W}\geq4$. Avec les calculs ci-dessus, on obtient $$I(\theta,f)=\left\lbrace\begin{array}{cc}1,&\,\,\text{si}\,\,d_{W}\leq2,\\ \delta_{\nu,-\nu_{0}},&\,\,\text{si}\,\,d_{W}\geq4.\\ \end{array}\right.$$
L’ensemble ${\cal S}$ et la famille $(c_{S})_{S\in {\cal S}}$ permettent de calculer $J(\theta,f)$, cf. 5.2. Pour tout $S\in {\cal S}$, posons $$m(S)=mes(\omega_{X})^{-1}mes(\omega_{X}\cap \mathfrak{t}_{d}(F)^S).$$ En utilisant les propriétés (1) et (2), on obtient $$(5) \qquad J(\theta,f)=\sum_{S\in {\cal S}}c_{S}m(S).$$ Soit $S\in {\cal S}$. On utilise les définitions et notations de 9.4, appliquées au cas $V''=V$. Soit $X\in \mathfrak{t}_{d}(F)\cap \mathfrak{g}_{reg}(F)$. On a
\(6) $X\in \mathfrak{t}_{d}(F)^S$ si et seulement s’il existe une famille $(z_{\pm j})_{j=1,...,d_{W}/2}$ d’éléments de $\bar{F}^{\times}$ telle que $$\left\lbrace\begin{array}{c}
z_{j}z_{-j}=\frac{P_{X}(s_{j})}{4\nu_{0}s_{j}^{1+2r}R_{S,j}(s_{j})}\text{ pour tout }j=1,...,d_{W}/2;\\ \sum_{j=\pm 1,...\pm d_{W}/2}z_{j}w_{j}\in W.\\ \end{array}\right.$$
En effet, $X$ appartient à $\mathfrak{t}_{d}(F)^S$ si et seulement s’il est conjugué par un élément de $G(F)$ à un élément de $\Xi+S+\Lambda^S$. Il n’y a pas d’indiscernabilité pour le tore déployé $T_{d}$. La condition équivaut donc à ce qu’il existe $Y\in \Xi+S+\Lambda^S$ tel que l’on ait l’égalité des polynômes caractéristiques $P_{X}=P_{Y}$. Cela équivaut à ce qu’il existe une famille $(\lambda_{i})_{i=0,...,r-1}$ d’éléments de $F$ et une famille $(z_{\pm j})_{j=1,...,d_{W}/2}$ d’éléments de $\bar{F}^{\times}$ telles que, d’une part, le polynôme $P_{X}$ soit égal à celui figurant dans l’énoncé du lemme 9.4, d’autre part, l’élément $\sum_{j=\pm 1,...\pm d_{W}/2}z_{j}w_{j}$ appartienne à $W$. D’après 9.4(1), les conditions sur les $z_{j}$ sont celles de (6). Les $\lambda_{i}$ sont ensuite déterminés par un système inversible d’équations linéaires à coefficients dans $F$. Cela prouve (6).
La condition (6) impose que $P_{X}(s_{j})\not=0$ pour tout $j$. On suppose cette condition vérifiée. Il existe
- une décomposition de $W$ en somme directe $$\oplus_{j=1,...,h}F_{j}\oplus \tilde{Z},$$ où $h\leq2$ et les $F_{j}$ sont des extensions quadratiques de $F$;
- des éléments $c_{j}\in F^{\times}$, pour $j=1,...,h$, de sorte que $q_{W}$ soit la somme directe orthogonale des formes $c_{j}Norm_{F_{j}/F}$ sur $F_{j}$ et d’une forme hyperbolique sur $\tilde{Z}$;
- des éléments $a_{j }\in F_{j}^{\times}$, pour $j=1,...,h$ tels que $\tau_{F_{j}}(a_{j})=-a_{j}$ et un élément $\tilde{S}$ appartenant à l’algèbre de Lie d’un sous-tore déployé maximal du groupe spécial orthogonal de $\tilde{Z}$, de sorte que $S$ agisse par multiplication par $a_{j}$ dans $F_{j}$ et par $\tilde{S}$ dans $\tilde{Z}$.
Pour $j=1,...,h$, soit $(e_{j},e_{-j})$ la base de $F_{j}\otimes_{F}\bar{F}$ telle que tout élément $x\in F_{j}$ soit égal à $xe_{j}+\tau_{F_{j}}(x)e_{-j}$. Elle est définie sur $F_{j}$ et on a l’égalité $\tau_{F_{j}}(e_{j})=e_{-j}$. On a l’égalité $q(e_{j},e_{-j})=c_{j}$. On peut donc supposer que $w_{j}=e_{j}$, $w_{-j}=c_{j}^{-1}e_{-j}$ pour $j=1,...,h$ et $(w_{j})_{j=\pm(h+1),...,\pm d_{W}/2}$ est une base hyperbolique de $\tilde{Z}$. On a $s_{j}=a_{j}$ pour $j\leq h$. La condition (6) se décompose en $d/2$ conditions $(6)_{j}$ portant sur les couples $(z_{j},z_{-j})$. Pour $j>h$, on satisfait $(6)_{j}$ en prenant $z_{-j}=1$ et $z_{j}$ égal au membre de droite de la première relation de (6). Pour $j\leq h$, la seconde relation de (6) équivaut à $z_{j}\in F_{j}^{\times}$ et $\tau_{F_{j}}(z_{j})=c_{j}^{-1}z_{-j}$. La condition $(6)_{j}$ équivaut donc à $$\chi_{F_{j}}(\frac{P_{X}(a_{j})}{c_{j}\nu_{0}a_{j}^{1+2r}R_{S,j}(a_{j})})=1.$$ On a $$R_{S,j}(a_{j})=\prod_{j'=1,...,d_{W}/2; j'\not=j}(a_{j}^2-s_{j'}^2)=(-1)^{d_{W}/2-1}(\prod_{j'=1,...,h; j'\not=j}(Norm_{F_{j}/F}(a_{j})-Norm_{F_{j'}/F}(a_{j'})))$$ $$\qquad \prod_{j'=h+1,...,d_{W}/2}(s_{j'}^2-a_{j}^2).$$ Notons $(\pm x_{k})_{k=1,...,(d-1)/2}$ les valeurs propres non nulles de $X$. On a $$P_{X}(a_{j})=a_{j}\prod_{k=1,...,(d-1)/2}(a_{j}^2-x_{k}^2)=(-1)^{(d-1)/2}a_{j}\prod_{k=1,...,(d-1)/2}(x_{k}^2-a_{j}^2).$$ Pour $j'=h+1,...,d_{W}/2$, $s_{j'}$ appartient à $F^{\times}$, donc $s_{j'}^2-a_{j}^2$ est la norme d’un élément de $F_{j}^{\times}$. De même, pour tout $k=1,...,(d-1)/2$, $x_{k}^2-a_{j}^2$ est une norme. Enfin $(-1)^ra_{j}^{2r}$ est aussi une norme. Ces termes disparaissent de notre calcul et la condition $(6)_{j}$ équivaut à $$(7)\qquad \chi_{F_{j}}(-c_{j}\nu_{0}\prod_{j'=1,...,h; j'\not=j}(Norm_{F_{j}/F}(a_{j})-Norm_{F_{j'}/F}(a_{j'})))=1.$$ Cette relation est indépendante de $X$. On a imposé à $X$ des conditions de non nullité qui sont vérifiées sur un ouvert dont le complémentaire est de mesure nulle. Cela démontre que $m(S)=1$ si la condition (7) est vérifiée pour tout $j=1,...,h$, $m(S)=0$ sinon.
Supposons $H$ déployé et $S=X_{qd}$. Alors $h=0$, donc $m(S)=1$. Supposons $H$ non déployé et $S=X_{qd}$. Alors $h=1$, $F_{1}=E$ et $c_{1}=\eta$ avec les notations de 11.4 appliquées à $W$. Le noyau anisotrope de $q$ est le même que celui de la forme quadratique sur $E\oplus D$ $$e\oplus xv_{0}\mapsto \eta Norm_{E/F}(e)+\nu_{0}x^2.$$ Puisqu’on a supposé $G$ déployé, cette forme n’est pas anisotrope donc $-\eta\nu_{0}$ est la norme d’un élément de $E^{\times}$. La condition (7) est vérifiée et $m(S)=1$. Supposons maintenant $d_{W}\geq4$ et $S=X_{F_{1}}^{\zeta}$, où $\zeta=\pm$, $F_{1}\in {\cal F}^V$. Alors $h=2$, et les termes $F_{1}$, $F_{2}$, $a_{1}$ et $a_{2}$ coïncident avec ceux de 11.4. On a $c_{1}=c^{\zeta}$ et $c_{2}=-c^{\zeta}$. D’après la définition de ces termes, la condition (7) équivaut à $\chi_{F_{1}}(-\eta \nu_{0})=\zeta$ pour $j=1$, resp. $\chi_{F_{2}}(-\eta \nu_{0})=\zeta$ pour $j=2$. Mais le calcul ci-dessus montre que $\chi_{V}(-\eta \nu_{0})=1$. Les conditions pour $j=1$ et $j=2$ sont donc équivalentes. On obtient que $m(S)=1$ si $\chi_{F_{1}}(-\eta \nu_{0})=\zeta$, $m(S)=0$ sinon. Reportons ces valeurs de $m(S)$ dans l’égalité (5). Dans le cas $d_{W}\leq2$, on obtient immédiatement la formule ci-dessous. Dans le cas $d_{W}\geq4$, celle-ci résulte d’une inversion de Fourier sur le groupe $F^{\times}/F^{\times 2}$ si $H$ est déployé, sur le groupe $Norm_{E/F}(E^{\times})/F^{\times 2}$ sinon. La formule est $$J(\theta,f)=\left\lbrace\begin{array}{cc}1,&\,\,\text{si}\,\,d_{W}\leq2,\\ \delta_{\nu,-\nu_{0}},&\,\,\text{si}\,\,d_{W}\geq4.\\ \end{array}\right.$$ Alors $J(\theta,f)=I(\theta,f)$ et $E(\theta,f)=0$. Donc $c_{reg}=0$ dans le cas $d_{W}\leq2$ et $c_{\nu}=0$ dans le cas $d_{W}\geq4$. Mais alors l’application bilinéaire $E$ est identiquement nulle, ce que l’on voulait démontrer.
Preuve de la proposition 11.1 dans le cas $d$ pair
--------------------------------------------------
On suppose vérifiée l’hypothèse du paragraphe 11.1 et on suppose $d$ pair. Eliminons le cas $d=2$. Dans ce cas, $G$ est un tore de dimension $1$. Il résulte des définitions que $$J(\theta,f)=\theta(0)\int_{\mathfrak{g}(F)}\hat{f}(X)dX$$ et $$I(\theta,f)=\theta(0)f(0).$$ Ces deux expressions sont égales par inversion de Fourier. On suppose maintenant $d\geq4$. En imitant ce que l’on a fait au paragraphe précédent, on peut supposer $G$ quasi-déployé et $H$ déployé. Il existe une unique famille de nombres complexes $(c_{\nu})_{\nu\in {\cal N}^V}$ de sorte que $$E(\theta,f)=\sum_{\nu\in {\cal N}^V}c_{\nu}c_{\theta,{\cal O}_{reg}^H}c_{\theta_{f},{\cal O}_{\nu}}$$ pour tous $\theta$, $f$. Fixons $\nu\in {\cal N}^V$. On introduit des éléments $X_{qd}$ et $X_{F_{1}}^{\pm}$ de $\mathfrak{g}(F)$ comme en 11.4. Soit $X$ un de ces éléments. On peut supposer qu’il appartient à un tore appartenant à ${\cal T}(G)$, que l’on note $T_{X}$. On introduit un voisinage $\omega_{X}$ de $X$ dans $\mathfrak{t}_{X}(F)$ et une fonction $f[X]$ vérifiant les conditions (1), (2) et (3) de 11.5. On pose $$f= \vert {\cal N}^V\vert ^{-1}(f[X_{qd}]+\sum_{F_{1}\in {\cal F}^V}\chi_{F_{1}}(\nu\eta)(f[X_{F_{1}}^+]-f[X_{F_{1}}^-])).$$ Les notations sont celles introduites dans le paragraphe 11.5, l’extension $E$ étant maintenant associée à $V$ et non plus à $W$. On note ${\cal X}$ l’ensemble des éléments $X$ tels que $f[X]$ apparaisse dans ces formules et, pour $X\in {\cal X}$, $c_{X}$ le coefficient dont il est affecté. On fixe un $G$-domaine $\omega$ dans $\mathfrak{g}(F)$, compact modulo conjugaison, contenant $0$ et $Supp(f)$. Notons $T_{d}$ l’unique tore déployé dans ${\cal T}(H)$et fixons un élément $S\in \mathfrak{t}_{d}(F)\cap \mathfrak{h}_{reg}(F)$. On choisit un quasi-caractère $\theta$ sur $\mathfrak{h}(F)$ tel que $\theta(Y)=\hat{j}^H(S,Y)$ pour tout $Y\in \omega\cap \mathfrak{h}_{reg}(F)$. Pour $T\in {\cal T}$, $T\not=\{1\}$, la fonction $c_{f}$ est nulle hors de $\omega$ tandis que $c_{\theta}$ est nulle sur $\mathfrak{t}(F)\cap \omega$ pour la même raison que $c_{f}$ l’était en 11.5. Donc $c_{\theta}c_{f}$ est nulle sur $\mathfrak{t}(F)$. Comme en 11.5, on calcule alors $$I(\theta,f)=\delta_{\nu,\nu_{0}}.$$
Pour $X\in {\cal X}$, on pose $$m(X)=mes(\omega_{X})^{-1}mes(\omega_{X}\cap \mathfrak{t}_{X}(F)^S).$$ On a $$(1) \qquad J(\theta,f)=\sum_{X\in {\cal X}}c_{X}m(X),$$ et on est ramené à calculer ces termes $m(X)$.
On utilise les définitions et notations de 9.4 appliqées au cas $W''=W$. Puisque $T_{d}$ est déployé, on peut supposer que les vecteurs $w_{\pm j}$ appartiennent à $W$. Soit $X\in \mathfrak{g}_{reg}(F)$. Supposons $P_{X}(s_{j})\not=0$ pour tout $j=1,...,m$ et $P_{X}(0)\not=0$. Soit $X_{1},...,X_{l}$ un ensemble de représentants des classes de conjugaison par $G(F)$ dans la classe de conjugaison stable de $X$. Montrons que
\(2) il existe un unique $i\in \{1,...,l\}$ tel que $X_{i}$ soit conjugué à un élément de $\Xi+S+\Sigma^S$ par un élément de $G(F)$.
La forme bilinéaire $(v,v')\mapsto q(v,Xv')$ est symplectique. Son déterminant est donc un carré dans $F^{\times}$. Ce déterminant est $det(q)det(X)$. On a $det(X)=P_{X}(0)$ et $det(q)=(-1)^{d/2-1}4\nu_{0}\nu_{S}$. On a $R_{S,0}(0)=(-1)^{m}\prod_{j=1,...,m}s_{j}^2$ et $m=(d_{W}-1)/2$. On en déduit que $$(3) \qquad \frac{P_{X}(0)}{(-1)^r\nu_{S}\nu_{0}R_{S,0}(0)}\in F^{\times 2}.$$ On peut choisir des coordonnées $(\lambda_{i})_{i=1,...,r}$, $(z_{\pm j})_{j=1,...,m}$ et $z_{0}$, avec $\lambda_{i}\in F$ et $z_{j}\in F^{\times}$ pour $j=0,\pm 1,...,\pm m$, de sorte que $P_{X}$ soit le polynôme du lemme 3.4. En effet, on pose $z_{-j}=1$ pour $j=1,...,m$ et, grâce à (3), on peut choisir les $z_{j}$, pour $j=0,...,m$, de sorte que les égalités 9.4(1) et 9.4(2) soient vérifiées. Ensuite, les $\lambda_{i}$ sont déterminés par un système inversible d’équations linéaires à coefficients dans $F$. Cela montre qu’il existe $Y\in \Xi+S+\Lambda^S$ tel que $P_{Y}=P_{X}$. Un tel $Y$ est conjugué à $X$ par un élément de $G^+$. Comme on l’a dit dans la preuve du lemme 9.5, quitte à changer $z_{0}$ en $-z_{0}$, on peut assurer que $Y$ est conjugué à $X$ par un élément de $G$. Donc $Y$ appartient à la classe de conjugaison stable de $X$ et est conjugué à l’un des $X_{i}$ par un élément de $G(F)$. L’unicité de cet élément $X_{i}$ est assurée par le lemme 9.5: deux éléments de $\Xi+S+\Sigma^S$ ne peuvent être conjugués par un élément de $G$ que s’ils le sont par un élément de $G(F)$. D’où (2).
On a choisi un élément $S$. On peut supposer que les hypothèses de non-nullité imposées ci-dessus à $X$ sont vérifiées pour tout élément de $ \bigcup_{X\in {\cal X}}\omega_{X}$. Pour $X\in \omega_{X_{qd}}$, la classe de conjugaison stable de $X$ se réduit à sa classe de conjugaison par $G(F)$. Donc $X\in \mathfrak{t}_{X_{qd}}(F)^S$, puis $m(X_{qd})=1$. Soit $F_{1}\in {\cal F}^V$. Pour $\zeta=\pm$, posons $X^{\zeta}=X_{F_{1}}^{\zeta}$. Alors $X^+$ et $X^-$ sont stablement conjugués et ces deux éléments sont un ensemble de représentants des classes de conjugaison par $G(F)$ dans leur classe de conjugaison stable. L’assertion (3) nous dit qu’il y a un unique $\zeta$ tel que $X^{\zeta}$ appartienne à $\mathfrak{t}_{X^{\zeta}}(F)^S$. Notons $\boldsymbol{\zeta}$ cet $\zeta$. On va le déterminer. Dans ce qui suit, on fixe $F_{1}$ et $\zeta=\pm$, on pose $X=X^{\zeta}$. Comme dans le paragraphe précédent (en changeant $W$ en $V$), on décompose $V$ en somme directe orthogonale $$V=F_{1}\oplus F_{2}\oplus \tilde{Z}$$ et, pour $j=1,2$, on introduit la base $(e_{j},e_{-j})$ de $F_{j}$.
Supposons d’abord $d_{W}\geq3$ et $r=0$. Pour $j=1,2$, posons $\epsilon_{j}=e_{j}$ et $\epsilon_{-j}=c_{j}^{-1}e_{-j}$. Choisissons une base hyperbolique $(\epsilon_{\pm k})_{k=3,...,d/2}$ de $\tilde{Z}$. Supposons $\zeta=\boldsymbol{\zeta}$ et choisissons un élément $\gamma\in G(F)$ tel que $\gamma^{-1}X\gamma\in S+\Lambda^S$. Pour $k=1,...,d/2$, on a étudié dans la preuve de 10.8 les coordonnées de $\gamma^{-1}\epsilon_{\pm k}$ dans la base $\{v_{0},w_{S},w_{\pm 1},...,w_{\pm m}\}$ de $V$. En notant $Y_{\pm k}$ sa coordonnée sur $v_{0}$, les formules 10.8(3) et 10.8(4) nous disent que $$Y_{k}Y_{-k}=\nu_{0}\frac{\prod_{j=1,...,m}(s_{j}^2-x_{k}^2)}{\prod_{k'=1,...,d/2;k'\not=k}(x_{k'}^2-x_{k}^2)}.$$ Appliquons cela à $k=1$. On a $\tau_{F_{1}}(\epsilon_{1})=c^{\boldsymbol{\zeta}}\epsilon_{-1}$, donc aussi $\tau_{F_{1}}(\gamma^{-1}\epsilon_{1})=c^{\boldsymbol{\zeta}}\gamma^{-1}\epsilon_{-1}$ puis $\tau_{F_{1}}(Y_{1})=c^{\boldsymbol{\zeta}}Y_{-1}$. Alors $\chi_{F_{1}}(c^{\boldsymbol{\zeta}}Y_{1}Y_{-1})=1$. On a $x_{1}=a_{1}$ et on déjà utilisé plusieurs fois que $y^2-a_{1}^2$ était la norme d’un élément de $F_{1}^{-1}$ pour tout $y\in F$. On déduit de la formule ci-dessus que $$\chi_{F_{1}}(Y_{1}Y_{-1})=\chi_{F_{1}}(\nu_{0}(x_{2}^2-x_{1}^2))=\chi_{F_{1}}(\nu_{0}(Norm_{F_{1}/F}(a_{1})-Norm_{F_{2}/F}(a_{2}))).$$ D’après la définition de $c^{\boldsymbol{\zeta}}$, on en déduit $\boldsymbol{\zeta}=\chi_{F_{1}}(\eta\nu_{0})$.
Passons au cas $d_{W}\geq3$ et $r>0$. On peut supposer que $Z\subset \tilde{Z}$ et que $\epsilon_{\pm k}=v_{\pm(k+r-d/2)}$ pour $k=d/2+1-r,...,d/2$. On peut écrire $X=X_{0}+X_{a}$, avec $X_{0}\in \mathfrak{g}_{0}(F)$ et $X_{a}\in \mathfrak{a}(F)$. L’élément $X_{0}$ vérifie les mêmes conditions que $X$, relativement à l’espace $V_{0}$. Supposons $\zeta=\chi_{F_{1}}(\eta\nu_{0})$. On vient de voir que $X_{0}$ est conjugué à un élément de $S+\Sigma_{0,\flat}$ par un élément de $G_{0}(F)$. Par un argument que l’on a déjà utilisé plusieurs fois, $X$ est conjugué à un élément de $\Xi+S+\Sigma^S$ par un élément de $G(F)$. Donc $\boldsymbol{\zeta}=\zeta=\chi_{F_{1}}(\eta\nu_{0})$.
Considérons enfin le cas $d_{W}=1$. Dans ce cas, $S=0$, $\Xi$ est un élément nilpotent régulier et $\Xi+\Lambda$ est une section de Kostant relative à cet élément. D’après \[Kot\] théorème 5.1, si $X$ est conjugué à un élément de $\Xi+\Lambda$ par un élément de $G(F)$, on a l’égalité $$inv(X)inv(T_{X})=inv_{T}(\Xi),$$ avec les notations de 11.4. L’élément $\Xi$ laisse stable l’hyperplan $D\oplus Z$. Le noyau anisotrope de la restriction de $q$ à cet hyperplan est la restriction de $q$ à $D$. Donc $\Xi\in {\cal O}_{\nu_{0}}$. L’égalité ci-dessus jointe à 11.4(2) entraîne $\boldsymbol{\zeta}=\chi_{F_{1}}(\eta\nu_{0})$.
Le raisonnement ci-dessus s’étend à tout élément de $\omega_{X^+}\cup \omega_{X^-}$. En effet, tout élément de cet ensemble est du même type que $X^{\pm}$, avec des valeurs propres différentes. On obtient alors $$m(X^{\zeta})=\left\lbrace\begin{array}{cc}1,&\,\,\text{si}\,\,\zeta=\chi_{F_{1}}(\eta\nu_{0}),\\ 0,&\,\,\text{si}\,\,\zeta=-\chi_{F_{1}}(\eta\nu_{0}).\\ \end{array}\right.$$ En reportant ces valeurs dans l’égalité (1), on obtient $J(\theta,f)=\delta_{\nu,\nu_{0}}$. Donc $J(\theta,f)=I(\theta,f)$ et $E(\theta,f)=0$. Comme dans le paragraphe précédent, cela implique que $E$ est identiquement nulle. $\square$
Preuve des théorèmes 7.8 et 7.9
===============================
Du groupe à l’algèbre de Lie
----------------------------
Considérons les assertions suivantes [0.3cm[**[$(th)_{G}$]{}**]{}. [ *[Pour tout quasi-caractère $\theta$ sur $H(F)$ et toute fonction très cuspidale $f\in C_{c}^{\infty}(G(F))$, on a l’égalité $lim_{N\to \infty}I_{N}(\theta,f)=I(\theta,f)$.]{}*]{}0.3cm]{} [0.3cm[**[$(th')_{G}$]{}**]{}. [ *[Pour tout quasi-caractère $\theta$ sur $H(F)$ et toute fonction très cuspidale $f\in C_{c}^{\infty}(G(F))$, dont le support ne contient pas d’élément unipotent, on a l’égalité $lim_{N\to \infty}I_{N}(\theta,f)=I(\theta,f)$.]{}*]{}0.3cm]{} [0.3cm[**[$(\mathfrak{th})_{\mathfrak{g}}$]{}**]{}. [ *[Pour tout quasi-caractère $\theta$ sur $\mathfrak{h}(F)$ et toute fonction très cuspidale $f\in C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathfrak{g}(F))$, on a l’égalité $lim_{N\to \infty}I_{N}(\theta,f)=I(\theta,f)$.]{}*]{}0.3cm]{} [0.3cm[**[$(\mathfrak{th}')_{\mathfrak{g}}$]{}**]{}. [ *[Pour tout quasi-caractère $\theta$ sur $\mathfrak{h}(F)$ et toute fonction très cuspidale $f\in C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathfrak{g}(F))$, dont le support ne contient pas d’élément nilpotent, on a l’égalité $lim_{N\to \infty}I_{N}(\theta,f)=I(\theta,f)$.]{}*]{}0.3cm]{} [0.3cm[**[Lemme]{}**]{}. [ *[ L’assertion $(th)_{G}$ entraîne $(\mathfrak{th})_{\mathfrak{g}}$. L’assertion $(th')_{G}$ entraîne $(\mathfrak{th}')_{\mathfrak{g}}$. ]{}*]{}0.3cm]{}
Preuve. Supposons vérifiée $(th)_{G}$. Soient $\theta$ un quasi-caractère sur $\mathfrak{h}(F)$ et $f\in C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathfrak{g}(F))$ une fonction très cuspidale. On veut montrer que $E(\theta,f)=0$, avec la notation de 11.3. Dans la preuve de ce paragraphe, on a vu que $E$ était homogène pour la transformation $(\theta,f)\mapsto (\theta^{\lambda},f^{\lambda})$. Cela permet de supposer que le support de $f$ est contenu dans un bon voisinage $\omega$ de $0$ dans $\mathfrak{g}(F)$. Comme dans la preuve du lemme 11.2, on introduit un quasi-caractère $\boldsymbol{\theta}_{\omega}$ sur $H(F)$ et une fonction ${\bf f}\in C_{c}^{\infty}(G(F))$ très cuspidale. On vérifie que $J(\theta,f)=J_{1,\omega}(\boldsymbol{\theta}_{\omega},{\bf f})$ et $I(\theta,f)=I_{1,\omega}(\boldsymbol{\theta}_{\omega},{\bf f})$. D’après les lemmes 8.2 et 8.3 et la proposition 10.9, on a $J_{1,\omega}(\boldsymbol{\theta}_{\omega},{\bf f})=lim_{N\to \infty}I_{N}(\boldsymbol{\theta}_{\omega},{\bf f})$, $I_{1,\omega}(\boldsymbol{\theta}_{\omega},{\bf f})=I(\boldsymbol{\theta}_{\omega},{\bf f})$. D’après $(th)_{G}$, ces deux termes sont égaux. La conclusion $E(\theta,f)=0$ s’ensuit.
La preuve de la seconde assertion est identique: si le support de $f$ ne contient pas d’élément nilpotent, celui de ${\bf f}$ ne contient pas d’élément unipotent. $\square$
La récurrence
--------------
On va raisonner par récurrence sur $d$. Considérons des données $V''$, $W''$, $d''$ analogues à $V$, $W$, $d$ (avec le même $r$). Pour ces données, il y a une assertion $(th)_{G''}$ analogue à $(th)_{G}$. Considérons l’assertion
[0.3cm[**[$(th)_{<d}$]{}**]{}. [ *[L’assertion $(th)_{G''}$ est vérifiée si $d''<d$.]{}*]{}0.3cm]{}
[0.3cm[**[Lemme]{}**]{}. [ *[L’assertion $(th)_{<d}$ entraîne $(th')_{G}$. Les assertions $(th)_{<d}$ et $(\mathfrak{th})_{\mathfrak{g}}$ entraînent $(th)_{G}$. ]{}*]{}0.3cm]{}
Preuve. Supposons vérifiée $(th)_{<d}$, soient $\theta$ un quasi-caractère sur $G(F)$ et $f\in C_{c}^{\infty}(G(F))$ une fonction très cuspidale, dont le support ne contient pas d’élément unipotent. Soient $x\in G_{ss}(F)$ et $\omega_{x}$ un bon voisinage de $0$ dans $\mathfrak{g}_{x}(F)$. Posons $\Omega_{x}=(xexp(\omega_{x}))^G$. On impose à $\omega_{x}$ les conditions suivantes. Si $x=1$, on suppose que $\Omega_{1}\cap Supp(f)=\emptyset$ (c’est loisible d’après l’hypothèse sur $f$). Si $x$ n’est conjugué à aucun élément de $H_{ss}(F)$, on impose à $\omega_{x}$ les conditions de 8.1. Si $x$ est conjugué à un élément de $H_{ss}(F)$, on fixe un tel élément $x'$, on choisit un bon voisinage $\omega_{x'}$ de $0$ dans $\mathfrak{g}_{x'}(F)$ vérifiant les conditions de 8.2 et on définit $\omega_{x}$ comme l’image par conjugaison de $\omega_{x'}$. Le même procédé qu’à la fin de la preuve de la proposition 6.4 permet de choisir un sous-ensemble fini ${\cal X}\subset G_{ss}(F)$ et de décomposer $f$ en somme finie $f=\sum_{x\in {\cal X}}f_{x}$, de sorte que, pour tout $x\in {\cal X}$, $f_{x}$ soit le produit de $f$ et de la fonction caractéristique d’un $G$-domaine inclus dans $\Omega_{x}$. Par linéarité, on peut aussi bien fixer $x\in {\cal X}$ et supposer $f=f_{x}$. Si $x=1$, cette fonction est nulle d’après le choix de $\omega_{1}$. L’assertion à prouver est triviale. D’après 8.1, c’est aussi le cas si $x$ n’est conjugué à aucun élément de $H(F)$. Supposons que $x\not=1$ et $x$ est conjugué à un élément de $H(F)$. On peut aussi bien supposer $x\in H_{ss}(F)$. Les lemmes 8.2 et 8.3 nous ramènent à prouver l’égalité $$(1) \qquad lim_{N\to \infty}I_{x,\omega,N}(\theta,f)=I_{x,\omega}(\theta,f).$$ On utilise les notations des sections 8 à 10. Si $A_{G'_{x}}\not=\{1\}$, le membre de gauche est nul d’après la proposition 10.9. L’ensemble $\underline{\cal T}_{x}$ est vide et le membre de droite est nul lui-aussi. Supposons $A_{G'_{x}}=\{1\}$. En 10.1, on a décomposé $\theta_{x,\omega}$ en une somme finie $$\theta_{x,\omega}(X)=\sum_{S\in {\cal S}}\hat{j}_{S}(X')\hat{j}^{H''}(S,X'')$$ pour $X\in \omega\cap \mathfrak{h}(F)$. On peut aussi bien écrire $$\theta_{x,\omega}(X)=\sum_{S\in {\cal S}}\theta'_{S}(X')\theta''_{S}(X'')$$ pour tout $X\in \mathfrak{h}_{x}(F)$, où $\theta'_{S}(X')={\bf 1}_{\omega'}\hat{j}_{S}(X')$ et $\theta''_{S}(X'')={\bf 1}_{\omega''\cap \mathfrak{h}''(F)}\hat{j}^{H''}(S,X'')$. Remarquons que $\theta'_{S}$, resp. $\theta''_{S}$, est un quasi-caractère sur $\mathfrak{g}'_{x}(F)=\mathfrak{h}'_{x}(F)$, resp. $\mathfrak{h}''(F)$, à support compact modulo conjugaison. On peut de même décomposer $\theta_{f,x,\omega}$ en somme $$\theta_{f,x,\omega}(X)=\sum_{b\in B}\theta'_{f,b}(X')\theta''_{f,b}(X'')$$ où $B$ est un ensemble fini d’indices et, pour tout $b\in B$, $\theta'_{f,b}$, resp. $\theta''_{f,b}$, est un quasi-caractère sur $\mathfrak{g}'_{x}(F)$, resp. $\mathfrak{g}''(F)$, à support compact modulo conjugaison. D’après la proposition 6.4, pour tout $b\in B$, on peut choisir une fonction $f''_{b}\in C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathfrak{g}''(F))$, très cuspidale et telle que $\theta''_{f,b}=\theta_{f''_{b}}$. En comparant les formules de 7.9 et 8.3, on obtient l’égalité $$I_{x,\omega}(\theta,f)=\sum_{S\in {\cal S}, b\in B} I'(S,b)I(\theta''_{S},f''_{b})$$ où $$I'(S,b)=\sum_{T'\in {\cal T}_{ell}(G'_{x})}\vert W(G'_{x},T')\vert ^{-1}\nu(T')\int_{\mathfrak{t'}(F)}\theta'_{S}(X')\theta'_{f,b}(X')D^{G'_{x}}(X')dX'.$$ De même, en comparant les formules de 10.9 et 11.2, on obtient $$J_{x,\omega}(\theta,f)=\sum_{S\in{\cal S},b\in B}I'(S,b)J(\theta''_{S},f''_{b}).$$ Puisque $x\not=1$, on a $dim(W'')<d$. L’assertion $(th)_{<d}$ et le lemme 12.1 entraînent que $(\mathfrak{th})_{\mathfrak{g''}}$ est vérifiée. Donc $J(\theta''_{S},f''_{b})=I(\theta''_{S},f''_{b})$ grâce au lemme 11.2. Alors les formules ci-dessus et la proposition 10.9 impliquent l’égalité (1) qu’il fallait prouver.
La seconde assertion de l’énoncé se démontre de même. On ne peut plus éliminer le point $x=1$. Mais, pour ce point, l’égalité $J(\theta''_{S},f''_{b})=I(\theta''_{S},f''_{b})$ provient de l’assertion $(\mathfrak{th})_{\mathfrak{g}}$ que l’on suppose vérifiée. $\square$
Finale
------
Pour prouver le théorème 7.8, et aussi le théorème 7.9 d’après le lemme 12.1, il suffit de prouver que l’assertion $(th)_{<d}$ entraîne $(th)_{G}$. Or $(th)_{<d}$ entraîne $(th')_{G}$ (lemme 12.2), qui entraîne $(\mathfrak{th}')_{\mathfrak{g}}$ (lemme 12.1). Cette dernière assertion entraîne $(\mathfrak{th})_{\mathfrak{g}}$: c’est une reformulation de la proposition 11.1. Jointe à $(th)_{<d}$, cette dernière assertion entraîne $(th)_{G}$ (lemme 12.2). Cela achève la preuve.
Un cas de la version faible de la conjecture locale de Gross-Prasad
===================================================================
Définition des multiplicités
----------------------------
Soit $G$ un groupe réductif connexe défini sur $F$. Une représentation de $G(F)$ est un couple $(\pi,E_{\pi})$, où $E_{\pi}$ est l’espace de la représentation (pour nous, un espace vectoriel complexe), et $\pi$ un homomorphisme de $G(F)$ dans $GL_{{\mathbb C}}(E_{\pi})$. On oubliera souvent l’un des termes en la notant simplement $\pi$ ou $E_{\pi}$. On notera aussi une classe d’isomorphie de représentations comme une représentation dans cette classe. On note $\check{\pi}$ la représentation contragrédiente de $\pi$. On note $Irr(G)$ l’ensemble des classes d’isomorphie de représentations admissibles irréductibles de $G(F)$ et $Temp(G)$ le sous-ensemble des représentations qui sont aussi tempérées. A tout élément $\pi\in Irr(G)$ est associé un caractère $\theta_{\pi}$, que l’on peut considérer comme une distribution sur $G(F)$ ou comme une fonction définie presque partout. Dans cette dernière interprétation, $\theta_{\pi}$ est un quasi-caractère sur $G(F)$ d’après un théorème de Harish-Chandra (\[HCDS\] théorème 16.2).
Considérons la situation de 7.2, soient $(\pi,E_{\pi})\in Irr(G)$ et $(\sigma,E_{\sigma})\in Irr(H)$. Notons $Hom_{H,\xi}(\pi,\sigma)$ l’espace des applications linéaires $\varphi:E_{\pi}\to E_{\sigma}$ telles que $$\varphi(\pi(hu)e)=\xi(u)\sigma(h)\varphi(e)$$ pour tous $h\in H(F)$, $u\in U(F)$, $e\in E_{\pi}$. Cet espace dépend des constantes $\xi_{i}$ qui nous ont permis de définir $\xi$, mais de façon inessentielle. En effet, si on associe un caractère $\xi'$ à d’autres constantes, on vérifie qu’il existe $a\in A(F)$ tel que l’application $\varphi\mapsto \varphi\circ\pi(a)$ soit un isomorphisme de $Hom_{H,\xi}(\pi,\sigma)$ sur $Hom_{H,\xi'}(\pi,\sigma)$. Tout ce qui suit est donc essentiellement indépendant des constantes $\xi_{i}$.
On a $$(1) \qquad dim_{{\mathbb C}}(Hom_{H,\xi}(\pi,\sigma))\leq1.$$ Si $r=0$, c’est le théorème 1’ de \[AGRS\]. Ce résultat est généralisé à tout $r$ dans \[GGP\] corollaire 20.4 (pour les groupes unitaires, mais la preuve est la même pour les groupes spéciaux orthogonaux). On pose $$m(\sigma,\pi)=dim_{{\mathbb C}}(Hom_{H,\xi}(\pi,\sigma)).$$ Soit $T\in {\cal T}$. En appliquant les définitions de 7.3 aux quasi-caractères $\theta=\theta_{\check{\sigma}}$ et $\tau=\theta_{\pi}$, on définit les fonctions $c_{\theta_{\check{\sigma}}}$ et $c_{\theta_{\pi}}$ sur $T(F)$, que l’on note simplement $c_{\check{\sigma}}$ et $c_{\pi}$. On pose $$m_{geom}(\sigma,\pi)=\sum_{T\in {\cal T}}\vert W(H,T)\vert ^{-1}\nu(T)\int_{T(F)}c_{\check{\sigma}}(t)c_{\pi}(t)D^H(t)\Delta(t)^rdt.$$ Cette expression est absolument convergente d’après la proposition 7.3.
[0.3cm[**[Proposition]{}**]{}. [ *[Supposons $\pi\in Irr(G)$, $\sigma\in Irr(H)$ et $\pi$ supercuspidale. Alors on a l’égalité $m(\sigma,\pi)=m_{geom}(\sigma,\pi)$.]{}*]{}0.3cm]{}
Preuve. Si $V$ est hyperbolique de dimension $2$, on vérifie directement que les deux termes de l’égalité valent $1$. On exclut ce cas. Introduisons les représentations de $G(F)$: $\boldsymbol{\rho}=Ind_{H(F)U(F)}^{G(F)}(\sigma\otimes \bar{\xi})$ et $\rho=ind_{H(F)U(F)}^{G(F)}(\check{\sigma}\otimes \xi)$. La première est l’induite lisse de la représentation $\sigma\otimes \bar{\xi}$ de $H(F)U(F)$, où $\bar{\xi}$ est le conjugué complexe de $\xi$, la seconde est l’induite à supports compacts de la représentation $\check{\sigma}\otimes \xi$. Par réciprocité de Frobenius pour la première égalité et d’après un résultat standard pour la seconde, on a $$Hom_{H,\bar{\xi}}(\pi,\sigma)=Hom_{G(F)}(\pi,\boldsymbol{\rho})=Hom_{G(F)}( \rho,\check{\pi}).$$ Puisque $\check{\pi}$ est supercuspidale et le centre de $G(F)$ est fini, la théorie de Bernstein nous dit que $ \rho$ se décompose en somme d’une représentation $\tau$ dont aucun sous-quotient n’est isomorphe à $\check{\pi}$ et d’un certain nombre de facteurs tous isomorphes à $\check{\pi}$. Le nombre de ces facteurs est précisément $m(\sigma,\pi)$. Soit $f$ un coefficient de $\pi$. On a l’égalité $$trace(\check{\pi}(f)\vert E_{\check{\pi}})=f(1)d(\pi)^{-1}$$ où $d(\pi)$ est le degré formel de $\pi$. L’opérateur $\tau(f)$ est nul. Donc $\rho(f)$ est de rang fini et $$(2) \qquad trace(\rho(f))=m(\sigma,\pi)f(1)d(\pi)^{-1}.$$ Montrons que, si $N$ est un entier assez grand, $$(3)\qquad trace(\rho(f))=I_{N}(\theta_{\check{\sigma}},f).$$ Fixons un sous-groupe ouvert compact $K'\subset K$ tel que $f$ soit biinvariante par $K'$. Notons $\Omega_{N}$ le support de la fonction $\kappa_{N}$ et $E_{\rho,N}$ le sous-espace de $E_{\rho}$ formé des fonctions à support dans $\Omega_{N}$. Selon l’usage, notons $E_{\rho,N}^{K'}$ le sous-espace des éléments invariants par l’action de $K'$. Puisque l’image de $\rho(f)$ est de dimension finie, elle est contenue dans $E_{\rho,N}^{K'}$ si $N$ est assez grand. Alors $trace(\rho(f))$ est la trace de la restriction de $\rho(f)$ à $E_{\rho,N}^{K'}$. Fixons un ensemble de représentants $\Gamma_{N}$ des doubles classes $H(F)U(F)\backslash \Omega_{N}/K'$. Notons $\Gamma'_{N}$ le sous-ensemble des $\gamma\in \Gamma_{N}$ tels que $\xi$ soit trivial sur $\gamma K' \gamma^{-1}\cap U(F)$. Pour $\gamma\in \Gamma_{N}$, posons $K^H[\gamma]=\gamma K'\gamma^{-1}\cap H(F)$ et fixons une base ${\cal B}[\gamma]$ de l’espace $E_{{\sigma}}^{K^H[\gamma]}$. Notons $\{\check{b}; b\in {\cal B}[\gamma]\}$ la base duale de $E_{\check{\sigma}}^{K^H[\gamma]}$. Pour $\gamma\in \Gamma'_{N}$ et $b\in {\cal B}[\gamma]$, il existe un unique élément $\varphi[b,\gamma]\in E_{\rho}$, à support dans $H(F)U(F)\gamma K'$, invariant à droite par $K'$ et tel que $\varphi[b,\gamma](\gamma)=\check{b}$. L’ensemble $\{\varphi[b,\gamma]; \gamma\in \Gamma'_{N},b\in {\cal B}[\gamma]\}$ est une base de $E_{\rho,N}^{K'}$. Alors, la trace de $\rho(f)$ agissant dans $E_{\rho,N}^{K'}$ est $$\sum_{\gamma\in \Gamma'_{N}, b\in {\cal B}[\gamma]}<(\rho(f)\varphi[b,\gamma])(\gamma),b>.$$ On a $$<(\rho(f)\varphi[b,\gamma])(\gamma),b>=\int_{G(F)}<\varphi[b,\gamma](\gamma g),b>f(g)dg$$ $$\qquad =mes(H(F)U(F)\backslash H(F)U(F)\gamma K')\int_{H(F)U(F)}<\check{\sigma}(h)\check{b},b>\xi(u)f(\gamma^{-1}hu\gamma)du\,dh$$ $$\qquad =mes(H(F)U(F)\backslash H(F)U(F)\gamma K')\int_{H(F)}<\check{\sigma}(h)\check{b},b>{^{\gamma}f}^{\xi}(h)dh.$$ La somme sur $b\in {\cal B}[\gamma]$ de cette intégrale est $trace(\check{\sigma}(^{\gamma}f^{\xi}))$, ou encore $I(\theta_{\check{\sigma}},f,\gamma)$. On vérifie que ce terme est nul pour $\gamma\in \Gamma_{N}$, $\gamma\not\in \Gamma'_{N}$ et on obtient $$trace(\rho(f))=\sum_{\gamma\in \Gamma_{N}}mes(H(F)U(F)\backslash H(F)U(F)\gamma K')I(\theta_{ \check{\sigma}},f,\gamma)$$ $$\qquad =\int_{H(F)U(F)\backslash G(F)}I(\theta_{\check{\sigma}},f,g)\kappa_{N}(g)dg,$$ d’où (3).
La fonction $f$ est très cuspidale. On calcule son quasi-caractère associé $$(4) \qquad \theta_{f}=f(1)d(\pi)^{-1}\theta_{\pi}.$$ En effet, cela résulte de notre définition 5.3 de $\theta_{f}$ et de \[A6\] théorème p.3 (il y a un problème de passage à la contragrédiente dans ce théorème).
Grâce à (3) et au théorème 7.8, on a $trace(\rho(f))=I(\theta_{\check{\sigma}},f)$. Grâce à (4), $I(\theta_{\check{\sigma}},f)=f(1)d(\pi)^{-1}m_{geom}(\sigma,\pi)$. Alors la proposition résulte de (2). $\square$
Les $L$-paquets
---------------
Considérons de nouveau la situation de 7.2. On suppose désormais que $G$ et $H$ sont quasi-déployés, autrement dit que $d_{an}(V)\leq2$, $d_{an}(W)\leq2$. On affecte les notations d’un indice $i$: $V_{i}$, $W_{i}$, $G_{i}$, $H_{i}$ etc...
A équivalence près, il existe au plus un couple $(V',q')$ analogue à $(V_{i},q_{i})$, tel que $dim(V')=d$, le discriminant de $q'$ soit égal à celui de $q_{i}$, mais $(V',q')$ ne soit pas équivalent à $(V_{i},q_{i})$. Un tel couple vérifie $d_{an}(V')+d_{an}(V_{i})=4$. Le couple $(V',q')$ existe si et seulement si $d+d_{an}(V_{i})\geq 4$. S’il existe, on le note $(V_{a},q_{a})$ et on introduit pour ce couple les mêmes objets que pour $(V_{i},q_{i})$, affectés d’un indice $a$. On introduit de même un couple $(W_{a},q_{W_{a}})$, s’il existe, c’est-à-dire si $d_{W_{i}}+d_{an}(W_{i})\geq4$. Quand ces deux couples existent, on a l’égalité $V_{a}=W_{a}\oplus D$ et $q_{a}$ est la somme orthogonale de $q_{W_{a}}$ et de la forme déjà fixée sur $D$.
[**Remarque.**]{} Les indices $i$ et $a$ signifient “isotrope” et “anisotrope”, les données affectées de l’indice $i$ ayant tendance à être “plus isotropes” que celles affectées de l’indice $a$. Précisément, on a $d_{an}(V_{i})+d_{an}(W_{i})<d_{an}(V_{a})+d_{an}(W_{a})$.
Pour simplifier, si le couple $(V_{a},q_{a})$, resp. $(W_{a},q_{W_{a}})$, n’existe pas, on pose $Temp(G_{a})=\emptyset$, resp. $Temp(H_{a})=\emptyset$. Selon une conjecture due essentiellement à Langlands, les ensembles de représentations $Temp(G_{i})$ et $Temp(G_{a})$ se décomposent en réunions disjointes de $L$-paquets, qui possèdent les propriétés (1), (2) et (3) ci-dessous.
\(1) Soit $\Pi$ un $L$-paquet de $Temp(G_{i})$ ou $Temp(G_{a})$. L’ensemble $\Pi$ est fini. Posons $\theta_{\Pi}=\sum_{\pi\in \Pi}\theta_{\pi}$. Alors $\theta_{\Pi}$ est une distribution stable.
\(2) Il existe une application qui, à un $L$-paquet dans $Temp(G_{a})$, associe un $L$-paquet dans $Temp(G_{i})$, et satisfait les conditions suivantes. Elle est injective. Soient $\Pi_{a}$ un $L$-paquet dans $Temp(G_{a})$ et $\Pi_{i}$ son image. Alors $(-1)^d\theta_{\Pi_{a}}$ est le transfert à $G_{a}(F)$ de la distribution $\theta_{\Pi_{i}}$ sur $G_{i}(F)$. Soit $\Pi_{i}$ un $L$-paquet dans $Temp(G_{i})$ qui n’est pas dans l’image de l’application. Alors le transfert à $G_{a}(F)$ de $\theta_{\Pi_{i}}$ est nul (si le groupe $G_{a}$ existe).
[**Remarque.**]{} Le signe $(-1)^d$ s’interprète comme $(-1)^{rang_{F}(G_{a})-rang_{F}(G_{i})}$, où $rang_{F}(G_{a})$, resp. $rang_{F}(G_{i})$, est la dimension d’un sous-tore déployé maximal de $G_{a}$, resp. $G_{i}$.
On sait définir la notion de modèle de Whittaker d’une représentation dans $Irr(G_{i})$. Plus précisément, une telle notion est associée à chaque orbite nilpotente régulière ${\cal O}$ de $\mathfrak{g}_{i}(F)$. Soient ${\cal O}$ une telle orbite et $\bar{N}\in {\cal O}$. On peut compléter $\bar{N}$ en un $\mathfrak{sl}_{2}$-triplet qui détermine un sous-tore maximal $T$ et un sous-groupe de Borel $B $ de $G_{i}$ de sorte que $T\subset B$ et $\bar{N}\in \bar{\mathfrak{b}}(F)$. Notons $U_{B}$ le radical unipotent de $B$ et définissons une fonction $\xi_{\bar{N}}$ sur $U_{B}(F)$ par $\xi_{\bar{N}}(exp(N))=\psi(<\bar{N},N>)$. C’est un caractère. Pour $\pi\in Irr(G_{i})$, on dit que $\pi$ admet un modèle de Whittaker relatif à ${\cal O}$ s’il existe une forme linéaire $l$ sur $E_{\pi}$, non nulle et telle que $l(\pi(u)e)=\xi_{\bar{N}}(u)l(e)$ pour tous $u\in U_{B}(F)$, $e\in E_{\pi}$. La dernière propriété des $L$-paquets est
\(3) pour tout $L$-paquet $\Pi$ dans $Temp(G_{i})$ et toute orbite nilpotente régulière ${\cal O}$ dans $\mathfrak{g}_{i}(F)$, il existe un et un seul élément de $\Pi$ qui admet un modèle de Whittaker relatif à ${\cal O}$.
[**Remarques.**]{} La propriété (1) pour le groupe $G_{i}$ est annoncée par Arthur. Il n’y a guère de doute que, dans un avenir proche, les travaux d’Arthur démontreront également cette propriété pour le groupe $G_{a}$ et la propriété (2). Konno a montré que des résultats également annoncés par Arthur entraînaient la propriété (3) (\[Konno\] théorème 3.4). Signalons que cette propriété (3) est une conjecture de Shahidi.
[**Dans la suite de l’article, on admet l’existence de $L$-paquets possédant ces propriétés**]{}. Bien évidemment, on les admet aussi pour les groupes $H_{i}$ et $H_{a}$ (l’entier $d$ étant changé en $d_{W}$).
Un résultat en direction de la conjecture locale de Gross-Prasad
----------------------------------------------------------------
Soient $\Pi_{i}$ un $L$-paquet dans $Temp(G_{i})$ et $\Sigma_{i}$ un $L$-paquet dans $Temp(H_{i})$. Si $\Pi_{i}$ est dans l’image de l’application 13.2(2), on note $\Pi_{a}$ le $L$-paquet dans $Temp(G_{a})$ dont il est l’image. Sinon, on pose $\Pi_{a}=\emptyset$. On définit de même $\Sigma_{a}$. Pour $(\sigma,\pi)\in (\Sigma_{i}\times\Pi_{i})\cup(\Sigma_{a}\times\Pi_{a})$, on définit la multiplicité $m(\sigma,\pi)$.
[0.3cm[**[Théorème]{}**]{}. [ *[Supposons que tout élément de $\Pi_{i}\cup \Pi_{a}$ soit supercuspidal. Alors il existe un unique couple $(\sigma,\pi)\in (\Sigma_{i}\times\Pi_{i})\cup(\Sigma_{a}\times\Pi_{a})$ tel que $m(\sigma,\pi)=1$.]{}*]{}0.3cm]{}
Sous les hypothèses indiquées, c’est une partie de la conjecture 6.9 de \[GP\]. La démonstration sera donnée au paragraphe 13.6.
Calcul de fonctions $\hat{j}$
-----------------------------
On considère la situation du paragraphe 11.4 dont on reprend les notations. On reprend aussi la notation ${\cal F}_{V}$ introduite en 11.5. Dans le cas où $d$ est pair et $d\geq4$, on a défini des éléments $X_{F_{1}}^{\pm}$. On pose $\epsilon_{F_{1}}=\chi_{F_{1}}(-Norm_{F_{2}/F}(a_{2}))$. En fait, ce terme ne dépend pas de $a_{2}$ puisque l’image de $Norm_{F_{2}/F}(a_{2})$ dans $F^{\times}/F^{\times 2}$ est uniquement déterminée. On note $T_{F_{1}}$ le commutant de $X_{F_{1}}^+$ dans $G$.
0.3cm[**[Lemme]{}**]{}.
**
\(i) Supposons $d$ impair ou $d\leq 2$. On a l’égalité $$\hat{j}({\cal O}_{reg},X_{qd})=\vert W^G\vert D^G(X_{qd})^{-1/2}.$$
\(ii) Supposons $d$ pair, $d\geq4$. Soit $\nu\in {\cal N}^V$. On a l’égalité $$\hat{j}({\cal O}_{\nu},X_{qd}) =\vert {\cal N}^V\vert ^{-1}\vert W^G\vert D^G(X_{qd})^{-1/2}.$$ Pour $F_{1}\in {\cal F}^V$, on a l’égalité $$\hat{j}({\cal O}_{\nu},X_{F_{1}}^+)=-\hat{j}({\cal O}_{\nu},X_{F_{1}}^-)=\epsilon_{F_{1}}\chi_{F_{1}}(\nu\eta)\frac{\vert W(G,T_{F_{1}})\vert }{2\vert {\cal N}^V\vert }D^G(X_{F_{1}}^+)^{-1/2}.$$
0.3cm
Preuve. Supposons $d$ impair ou $d\leq2$. D’après 2.6(4) et le lemme 11.4, on a l’égalité $$\hat{j}({\cal O}_{reg},X_{qd})=\hat{j}(\lambda X_{qd},X_{qd})$$ pour tout $\lambda\in F^{\times 2}$ assez voisin de $0$. Le commutant $T_{qd}$ de $X_{qd}$ dans $G$ est un Lévi minimal. La formule 2.6(5) exprime $\hat{j}^G(\lambda X_{qd},X_{qd})$ à l’aide de la fonction $\hat{j}^{T_{qd}}$. Mais, pour tout tore $T$, la fonction $(X,Y)\mapsto \hat{j}^T(X,Y)$ est constante de valeur $1$, ainsi qu’il résulte de sa définition. D’autre part, un élément de $\mathfrak{t}_{qd}(F)$ est conjugué à $X_{qd}$ par un élément de $G(F)$ si et seulement s’il l’est par un élément de $Norm_{G(F)}(T_{qd})$. Il y a $\vert W^G\vert $ tels éléments. Alors, la formule 2.6(5) conduit à l’égalité du (i) de l’énoncé.
Dans la situation du (ii), notons ${\cal X}$ l’ensemble formé des éléments $X_{qd}$ et $X_{F_{1}}^{\pm}$, pour $F_{1}\in {\cal F}^V$. La formule 2.6(4) et le lemme 11.4 entraînent que pour $\lambda\in F^{\times 2}$ assez voisin de $0$, on a l’égalité $$(1) \qquad \hat{j}({\cal O}_{\nu},Y)=\vert {\cal N}^V\vert ^{-1}(\hat{j}(\lambda X_{qd},Y)+\sum_{F_{1}\in{\cal F}^V}\chi_{F_{1}}(\nu \eta)(\hat{j}(\lambda X_{F_{1}}^+,Y)-\hat{j}(\lambda X_{F_{1}}^-,Y)))$$ pour tout $Y\in {\cal X}$. Fixons un tel $\lambda$.
Comme ci-dessus, on a $$\hat{j}(\lambda X_{qd},X_{qd})=\vert W^G\vert D^G(X_{qd})^{-1/2}.$$ D’autre part, pour $F_{1}\in {\cal F}^V$, l’élément $X_{F_{1}}^{\pm}$ n’est conjugué à aucun élément de $\mathfrak{t}_{qd}(F)$ et la formule 2.6(5) entraîne $$\hat{j}(\lambda X_{qd},X_{F_{1}}^{\pm})=0.$$
Soit $F_{1}\in {\cal F}^V$. Il nous faut calculer $\hat{j}(\lambda X_{F_{1}}^{+},Y)-\hat{j}(\lambda X_{F_{1}}^{-},Y)$ pour $Y\in {\cal X}$. On va d’abord supposer $d=4$. Pour $j=1,2$, notons $G_{i}$ le groupe spécial orthogonal de $F_{j}$ muni de la forme $Norm_{F_{j}/F}$. C’est un tore de dimension $1$. Le groupe $G'=G_{1}\times G_{2}$ est un groupe endoscopique elliptique de $G$. La classe de conjugaison stable de $X_{F_{1}}^{\pm}$ dans $\mathfrak{g}(F)$ est l’image de la classe de conjugaison stable d’un élément $X'\in \mathfrak{g}'(F)$, cette dernière classe se réduisant à $\{X'\}$ puisque $G'$ est un tore. On peut normaliser le facteur de transfert $\Delta_{G,G'}$ de sorte que $\Delta_{G,G'}(X',X_{F_{1}}^{\zeta})=\zeta$ pour $\zeta=\pm=\pm 1$. Grâce à Ngo Bao Chau, la conjecture 1.2 de \[W4\] est maintenant démontrée. La fonction $\hat{i}^{G}(X,Y)$ de \[W4\] est égale à $\hat{j}^G(X,Y)D^G(Y)^{1/2}$. La fonction $\hat{i}^{G'}$ est constante de valeur $1$ puisque $G'$ est un tore. Avec les notations de cette référence, on a donc l’égalité $$\gamma_{\psi}(\mathfrak{g})(\hat{j}^G(\lambda X_{F_{1}}^+,Y)-\hat{j}^G(\lambda X_{F_{1}}^-,Y))D^G(Y)^{1/2}=\gamma_{\psi}(\mathfrak{g}')\sum_{Z\in \mathfrak{g}'(F)}\Delta_{G,G'}(Z,Y)$$ pour tout $Y\in \mathfrak{g}_{reg}(F)$. La classe de conjugaison stable de l’élément $X_{qd}$ n’est l’image d’aucun élément de $\mathfrak{g}'(F)$. Il n’y a donc aucun $Z$ pour lequel $\Delta_{G,G'}(Z,X_{qd})\not=0$. On obtient $$\hat{j}^G(\lambda X_{F_{1}}^+,X_{qd})-\hat{j}^G(\lambda X_{F_{1}}^-,X_{qd})=0.$$ Soit $F'_{1}\in {\cal F}^V$. Si $F'_{1}\not=F_{1}$, la classe de conjugaison stable d’un élément $X_{F'_{1}}^{\zeta}$, pour $\zeta=\pm$, n’est l’image d’aucun élément de $\mathfrak{g}'(F)$ et on obtient de même $$\hat{j}^G(\lambda X_{F_{1}}^+,X_{F'_{1}}^{\zeta})-\hat{j}^G(\lambda X_{F_{1}}^-,X_{F'_{1}}^{\zeta})=0.$$ Si $F_{1}\not=F_{2}$, la classe de conjugaison stable de $X_{F_{1}}^{\zeta}$ est l’image d’un unique élément de $\mathfrak{g}'(F)$, à savoir $X'$ et on connaît la valeur $\Delta_{G,G'}(X',X_{F_{1}}^{\zeta})=\zeta$ (en identifiant $\zeta$ à un élément de $\{\pm 1\}$). Si $F_{1}=F_{2}$, la classe de conjugaison stable de $X_{F_{1}}^{\zeta}$ est l’image de deux éléments de $\mathfrak{g}'(F)$: $X'$ et l’élément $X''$ obtenu en échangeant les deux facteurs de $X'$. Un argument général nous dit que, parce que $G$ est quasi-déployé, le facteur de transfert est insensible à l’action d’un automorphisme du groupe endoscopique $G'$. Donc $\Delta_{G,G'}(X'',X_{F_{1}}^{\zeta})=\Delta_{G,G'}(X',X_{F_{1}}^{\zeta})=\zeta$. On obtient $$\hat{j}^G(\lambda X_{F_{1}}^+,X_{F_{1}}^{\zeta})-\hat{j}^G(\lambda X_{F_{1}}^-,X_{F_{1}}^{\zeta})=\zeta (1+\delta_{F_{1},F_{2}})\gamma_{\psi}(\mathfrak{g}')\gamma_{\psi}(\mathfrak{g})^{-1}D^G(X_{F_{1}}^{\pm})^{-1/2}.$$ Remarquons que $D^G(X_{F_{1}}^+)=D^G(X_{F_{1}}^-)$. Si $F_{1}\not= F_{2}$, le groupe $W(G,T_{F_{1}})$ a deux éléments: l’action de l’élément non trivial de ce groupe envoie $X_{F_{1}}^{\zeta}$ sur un élément analogue où les valeurs propres $a_{1}$ et $a_{2}$ sont changées en $-a_{1}$ et $-a_{2}$. Si $F_{1}=F_{2}$, le groupe $W(G,T_{F_{1}})$ a $4$ éléments: on peut de plus permuter les deux facteurs. Donc $$1+\delta_{F_{1},F_{2}}=\frac{\vert W(G,T_{F_{1}})\vert }{2}.$$ Il reste à calculer les facteurs $\gamma_{\psi}$. Ces facteurs sont les “constantes de Weil” associées à $\psi$ et aux formes quadratiques $(X,Y)\mapsto trace(XY)/2$ sur $\mathfrak{g}(F)$ et $\mathfrak{g}'(F)$. Fixons $\xi_{1},\xi_{2}\in F^{\times}$ tels que $F_{j}=F(\sqrt{\xi_{j}})$ pour $j=1,2$. Si $G$ est déployé, posons $\xi=1$. Si $G$ n’est pas déployé, soit $\xi\in F^{\times}$ tel que $E=F(\sqrt{\xi})$. La forme quadratique sur $\mathfrak{g}(F)$ a même noyau anisotrope que la forme $x^2+\xi y^2$ de dimension $2$. La forme quadratique sur $\mathfrak{g}'(F)$ est équivalente à la forme $\xi_{1}x^2+\xi_{2}y^2$. Ces deux formes ont même déterminant. Elles sont équivalentes si et seulement si $\chi_{F_{1}}(\xi_{2})=1$, ou, ce qui revient au même, si $\epsilon_{F_{1}}=1$. On en déduit l’égalité $$\gamma_{\psi}(\mathfrak{g}')\gamma_{\psi}(\mathfrak{g})^{-1}=\epsilon_{F_{1}},$$ puis $$(2)\qquad \hat{j}^G(\lambda X_{F_{1}}^+,X_{F_{1}}^{\zeta})-\hat{j}^G(\lambda X_{F_{1}}^-,X_{F_{1}}^{\zeta})=\zeta\epsilon_{F_{1}}\frac{\vert W(G,T_{F_{1}})\vert }{2}D^G(X_{F_{1}}^+)^{-1/2}.$$
[**Remarque.**]{} Le calcul serait le même si l’on remplaçait $X_{F_{1}}^{\zeta}$ par un élément similaire, mais de valeurs propres différentes. Par exemple si l’on remplaçait $X_{F_{1}}^{\zeta}$ par un conjugué par un élément du groupe $G^+(F)$.
Levons l’hypothèse $d=4$. Dans la construction de 11.4 des éléments $X_{F_{1}}^{\pm}$, on a fixé un espace hyperbolique $\tilde{Z}$ et un sous-tore déployé maximal $\tilde{T}$ du groupe spécial orthogonal de cet espace. Notons $M$ le commutant de $\tilde{T}$ dans $G$. On a $M=\tilde{T}G'$, où $G'$ est le groupe spécial orthogonal de l’espace quadratique $F_{1}\oplus F_{2}$ de dimension $4$. Soit $X\in {\cal X}$ et $Y$ un élément de $ \mathfrak{m}(F)$ conjugué à $X$ par un élément de $G(F)$. Il est clair que $Y=Y_{\tilde{T}}+Y'$, où $Y_{\tilde{T}}\in \tilde{\mathfrak{t}}(F)$ et $Y'$ est un élément de $\mathfrak{g}'(F)$ construit de la même façon que $X$, éventuellement conjugué par un élément du groupe $G^{_{'}+}(F)$. Comme on l’a dit ci-dessus, la fonction $\hat{j}^{\tilde{T}}$ est constante de valeur $1$. La formule 2.6(4) et nos résultats ci-dessus appliqués au groupe $G'$ conduisent à l’égalité $$\hat{j}^G(\lambda X_{F_{1}}^+,X)-\hat{j}^G(\lambda X_{F_{1}}^-,X)=0$$ pour $X\in {\cal X}$, $X\not=X_{F_{1}}^{\pm}$. Pour $X=X_{F_{1}}^{\pm}$, on doit calculer le nombre de classes de conjugaison par $M(F)$ contenues dans l’intersection de $\mathfrak{m}(F)$ et de la classe de conjugaison par $G(F)$ de $X$. Parce que $X$ est elliptique dans $\mathfrak{m}(F)$, tout élément $g\in G(F)$ tel que $gXg^{-1}\in\mathfrak{m}(F)$ normalise $M$. Le nombre cherché est donc le nombre d’éléments du groupe $Norm_{G(F)}(M)/M(F) $. On vérifie que tout élément de ce quotient a un représentant dans $Norm_{G(F)}(T_{F_{1}})$. Le nombre cherché est donc $\vert W(G,T_{F_{1}})\vert \vert W(M,T_{F_{1}})\vert ^{-1}$. Le deuxième facteur est l’inverse de celui qui apparaît dans l’égalité (2) appliquée au groupe $G'$. On obtient alors la même égalité (2) pour notre groupe $G$.
On a maintenant calculé tous les termes intervenant dans la formule (1). Cette formule conduit à l’égalité du (ii) de l’énoncé. $\square$
Classes de conjugaison stable de tores
--------------------------------------
Dans ce paragraphe, on travaille soit avec l’une des séries de données $V_{i}$, $W_{i}$, $G_{i}$ etc.. ou $V_{a}$, $W_{a}$, $G_{a}$ etc..., soit avec les deux. Dans le premier cas, pour simplifier, on note $\flat$ l’indice $i$ ou $a$. On a défini l’ensemble $\underline{\cal T}_{\flat}$ en 7.3. A $T\in \underline{\cal T}_{\flat}$, on a associé des espaces $W'_{\flat}$ etc... et des groupes $H'_{\flat}$ etc... On précise la notation en les notant plutôt $W'_{\flat,T}$, $H'_{\flat,T}$ etc... Pour $T\in \underline{{\cal T}}_{\flat}$, on introduit le groupe de cohomologie $H^1(T)=H^1(Gal(\bar{F}/F),T)$. Puisque $A_{T}=\{1\}$, ce groupe est un produit de facteurs ${\mathbb Z}/2{\mathbb Z}$ et il est non trivial si $T\not=\{1\}$. On pose $$h(T)=\left\lbrace\begin{array}{cc}\vert H^1(T)\vert /2,&\,\,\text{si}\,\,T\not=\{1\},\\ 1,&\,\,\text{si}\,\,T=\{1\}.\\ \end{array}\right.$$ On introduit le groupe $\bar{W}(H_{\flat},T)=Norm_{H_{\flat}}(T)/Z_{H_{\flat}}(T)$. Le groupe de Galois $Gal(\bar{F}/F)$ agit sur $\bar{W}(H_{\flat},T)$, on note $\bar{W}_{F}(H_{\flat},T)$ le sous-groupe des points fixes.
Fixons un isomorphisme $\Phi:W_{a}\otimes_{F}\bar{F}\to W_{i}\otimes_{F}\bar{F}$ tel que $q_{W_{i}}(\Phi(w),\Phi(w'))=q_{W_{a}}(w,w')$ pour tous $w,w'\in W_{a}\otimes_{F}\bar{F}$. Pour $h\in H_{a}$, notons $\phi(h)=\Phi\circ h\circ\Phi^{-1}$. C’est un élément de $H_{i}$ et l’isomorphisme $\phi$ ainsi défini de $H_{a}$ sur $H_{i}$ est un torseur intérieur. Soient $T, T'\in \underline{\cal T}_{a}\cup \underline{\cal T}_{i}$. On dit que $T$ et $T'$ sont stablement conjugués si et seulement si l’une des conditions suivantes (1) ou (2) est vérifiée.
\(1) Il existe un indice $\flat$ tel que $T,T'\in \underline{\cal T}_{\flat}$. Il existe $h\in H_{\flat}$ tel que $hTh^{-1}=T'$ et l’homomorphisme $t\mapsto hth^{-1}$ de $T$ sur $T'$ est défini sur $F$.
\(2) Quitte à échanger $T$ et $T'$, on a $T\in \underline{\cal T}_{a}$ et $T'\in \underline{\cal T}_{i}$. Il existe $h\in H_{i}$ de sorte que $h\phi(T_{a})h^{-1}=T_{i}$ et l’homomorphisme $t\mapsto h\phi(t)h^{-1}$ de $T_{a}$ sur $T_{i}$ est défini sur $F$.
On note $T\sim_{st}T'$ cette relation. On vérifie que c’est une relation d’équivalence.
0.3cm[**[Lemme]{}**]{}.
**
\(i) Soient $T$ et $T'$ deux éléments de $ \underline{\cal T}_{a}\cup\underline{\cal T}_{i}$ stablement conjugués. Dans la situation de (1), l’espace quadratique $W'_{\flat,T}$, resp. $W''_{\flat,T}$, est isomorphe à $W'_{\flat,T'}$, resp. $W''_{\flat,T'}$ et on peut choisir $h$ vérifiant (1) de sorte que la restriction de $h$ à $W''_{\flat,T}$ soit un isomorphisme défini sur $F$ de $W''_{\flat,T}$ sur $W''_{\flat,T'}$. Dans la situation de (2), les espaces quadratiques $W''_{a,T}$ et $W''_{i,T'}$ sont isomorphes et on peut choisir $h$ vérifiant (1) de sorte que la restriction de $h\circ \Phi$ à $W''_{a,T}$ soit un isomorphisme défini sur $F$ de $W''_{a,T}$ sur $W''_{i,T'}$.
\(ii) Soit $T\in \underline{\cal T}_{\flat}$. On a l’égalité $$\sum_{T'\in {\cal T}_{\flat}; T'\sim_{st}T}\vert W(H_{\flat},T')\vert ^{-1}=h(T)\vert \bar{W}_{F}(H_{\flat},T)\vert ^{-1}.$$ Les nombres $h(T) $ et $\vert \bar{W}_{F}(H_{\flat},T)\vert $ ne dépendent que de la classe de conjugaison stable de $T$.
\(iii) Toute classe de conjugaison stable dans $\underline{\cal T}_{a}\cup\underline{\cal T}_{i}$ coupe $\underline{\cal T}_{i}$. La seule classe de conjugaison stable qui ne coupe pas $\underline{\cal T}_{a}$ est la classe réduite au tore $\{1\}\in \underline{\cal T}_{i}$.
0.3cm
Preuve. Soient $T$ et $T'$ deux éléments de $ \underline{\cal T}_{\flat}$ stablement conjugués et $h$ vérifiant (1). Supposons $d_{W_{\flat}}$ impair. On a $h(W''_{\flat,T}\otimes_{F}\bar{F})=W''_{\flat,T'}\otimes_{F}\bar{F}$. Notons $h'':W''_{\flat,T}\otimes_{F}\bar{F}\to W''_{\flat,T'}\otimes_{F}\bar{F}$ la restriction de $h$. L’application $\phi'':x\mapsto h''xh^{_{''}-1}$ est un isomorphisme de $H''_{\flat,T}$ sur $H'_{\flat,T}$. Ces deux groupes étant quasi-déployés, on peut fixer dans chacun d’eux un sous-groupe de Borel, un sous-tore maximal de ce groupe et un épinglage, ces données étant définies sur $F$. Quitte à multiplier $h''$ à droite par un élément de $H''_{\flat,T}$, ce qui est loisible, on peut supposer que $\phi''$ envoie ces données du groupe $H''_{\flat,T}$ sur celles du groupe $H''_{\flat,T'}$. Soit $\sigma\in Gal(\bar{F}/F)$. La condition (1) entraîne que $\sigma(h)^{-1}h$ appartient au commutant de $T$ dans $H_{\flat}$, c’est-à-dire à $T\times H''_{\flat,T}$. Donc $\sigma(h'')^{-1}h''\in H''_{\flat,T}$. Cet élément conserve le sous-groupe de Borel, le tore maximal et l’épinglage de $H''_{\flat,T}$. Donc il appartient au centre de $H''_{\flat,T}$, qui est réduit à $\{1\}$ puisque $dim(W''_{\flat})$ est impaire. Donc $h''$ est défini sur $F$ et c’est un isomorphisme de $W''_{\flat,T}$ sur $W''_{\flat,T'}$. Supposons $d_{W_{\flat }}$ pair. On considère $h$ comme un élément de $G$ et on remplace les espaces $W''_{\flat,T}$ et $W''_{\flat,T'}$ par $V''_{\flat,T}$ et $V''_{\flat,T'}$ dans le raisonnement précédent. On conclut de même que ces deux derniers espaces sont isomorphes. Puisque $W''_{\flat,T}$ et $W''_{\flat,T'}$ sont les orthogonaux dans ces espaces de l’espace commun $D\oplus Z$, ils sont eux-aussi isomorphes. De même, maintenant que l’on a prouvé que $W''_{\flat,T}$ et $W''_{\flat,T'}$ étaient isomorphes, $W'_{\flat,T}$ et $W'_{\flat,T'}$ le sont aussi. On peut remplacer $h$ par un élément qui a même restriction à $W'_{\flat,T}\otimes_{F}\bar{F}$ et qui est un isomorphisme défini sur $F$ de $W''_{\flat,T}$ sur $W''_{\flat,T'}$ (on peut choisir ce dernier tel que $h$ soit dans $H_{\flat}$ et non seulement dans $H_{\flat}^+$). Un tel $h$ vérifie encore (1) et la condition du (i) de l’énoncé.
Soient $T\in \underline{\cal T}_{a}$ et $T'\in \underline{\cal T}_{i}$ deux éléments stablement conjugués et $h$ vérifiant (2). Dans le cas $d_{W_{i}}$ impair, le même raisonnement s’applique en remplaçant l’application $h''$ par la restriction de $h\circ\Phi$ à $W''_{a,T}\otimes_{F}\bar{F}$ et $\phi''$ par la restriction à $H''_{a,T}$ de $x\mapsto h\phi(x)h^{-1}$. Dans le cas $d_{W_{i}}$ pair, on étend $\Phi$ en un isomorphisme de $V_{a}\otimes_{F}\bar{F}$ sur $V_{i}\otimes_{F}\bar{F}$ qui est l’identité sur $D\oplus Z$. On en déduit un prolongement de $\phi$ en un torseur intérieur de $G_{a}$ sur $G_{i}$. On remplace alors $h''$ par la restriction de $h\circ\Phi$ à $V''_{a,T}\otimes_{F}\bar{F}$ et $\phi''$ par la restriction à $G''_{a,T}$ de $x\mapsto h\phi(x)h^{-1}$. Cela prouve (i)
Soit $T\in \underline{\cal T}_{\flat}$. Notons ${\cal H}_{T}$ l’ensemble des $h\in H_{\flat}$ tels que $\sigma(h)^{-1}h\in T$ pour tout $\sigma\in Gal(\bar{F}/F)$. On vient de voir que, pour tout élément $T'\in \underline{\cal T}_{\flat}$ stablement conjugué à $T$, il existait $h\in {\cal H}_{T}$ tel que $hTh^{-1}=T'$. Inversement, pour $h\in {\cal H}_{T}$, le tore $T'=hTh^{-1}$ est défini sur $F$. La restriction de $h$ à $W''_{\flat,T}$ est définie sur $F$ et le tore $T'$ appartient à $\underline{\cal T}_{\flat}$: on a $W''_{\flat,T'}=h(W''_{\flat,T})$ et $W'_{\flat,T'}$ est l’orthogonal de cet espace dans $W_{\flat}$. A tout $h\in {\cal H}_{T}$, associons l’unique élément $T_{h}\in {\cal T}_{\flat}$ tel que $hTh^{-1}$ soit conjugué à $T_{h}$ par un élément de $H_{\flat}(F)$. L’application $h\mapsto T_{h}$ se quotiente en une surjection de $H_{\flat}(F)\backslash{\cal H}_{T}/T$ sur l’ensemble des $T'\in {\cal T}_{\flat}$ tels que $T'\sim_{st}T$. Pour $h\in H_{\flat}(F)\backslash{\cal H}_{T}/T$, notons $n(h)$ le nombre d’éléments de la fibre de cette application au-dessus de $T_{h}$. Le membre de gauche de l’égalité du (ii) de l’énoncé est égal à $$\sum_{h\in H_{\flat}(F)\backslash{\cal H}_{T}/T}n(h)^{-1}\vert W(H_{\flat},T_{h})\vert ^{-1}.$$ Soit $h\in H_{\flat}(F)\backslash{\cal H}_{T}/T$, que l’on relève en un élément de ${\cal H}_{T}$ tel que $hTh^{-1}=T_{h}$. Notons ${\cal H}_{h,T}$ l’ensemble des $x\in {\cal H}_{T}$ tels que $xTx^{-1}=T_{h}$. L’entier $n(h)$ est le nombre d’éléments de l’image de ${\cal H}_{h,T}$ dans $H_{\flat}(F)\backslash{\cal H}_{T}/T$. On vérifie que ${\cal H}_{h,T}=h({\cal H}_{T}\cap Norm_{H_{\flat}}(T))$. Donc $n(h)$ est le nombre d’éléments de l’image de l’application $$\begin{array}{ccc}{\cal H}_{T}\cap Norm_{H_{\flat}}(T)&\to&H_{\flat}(F)\backslash{\cal H}_{T}/T\\ n&\mapsto &H_{\flat}(F)hnT.\\ \end{array}$$ On vérifie que cette application se quotiente en une bijection de $Norm_{H_{\flat}(F)}(T_{h})\backslash ({\cal H}_{T}\cap Norm_{H_{\flat}}(T))/TH''_{\flat,T}(F)$ sur son image. Le groupe $TH''_{\flat,T}(F)$ est un sous-groupe distingué de ${\cal H}_{T}\cap Norm_{H_{\flat}}(T)$ et son intersection avec $Norm_{H_{\flat}(F)}(T_{h})$ est $Z_{H_{\flat}(F)}(T_{h})$. Donc $n(h)=n_{1}\vert W(H_{\flat},T_{h})\vert ^{-1}$, où $n_{1}$ est le nombre d’éléments de $({\cal H}_{T}\cap Norm_{H_{\flat}}(T))/TH''_{\flat,T}(F)$. Le membre de gauche de l’égalité du (ii) de l’énoncé est donc égal à $n_{2}n_{1}^{-1}$, où $n_{2}$ est le nombre d’éléments de $H_{\flat}(F)\backslash{\cal H}_{T}/T$. On vérifie que l’application qui, à $h\in {\cal H}_{T}$, associe le cocycle $\sigma\mapsto \sigma(h)^{-1}h$, se quotiente en une bijection de $H_{\flat}(F)\backslash{\cal H}_{T}/T$ sur le noyau de l’application $H^1(T)\to H^1(H_{\flat})$. On sait bien que ce noyau a $h(T)$ éléments. Donc $n_{2}=h(T)$. Considérons l’application naturelle $$(3) \qquad ({\cal H}_{T}\cap Norm_{H_{\flat}}(T))/TH''_{\flat,T}(F)\to \bar{W}(H_{\flat},T).$$ On vérifie qu’elle est injective et que son image est contenue dans $\bar{W}_{F}(H_{\flat},T)$. Inversement, soit $n\in Norm_{H_{\flat}}(T)$ dont l’image dans $\bar{W}(H_{\flat},T)$ appartient à $\bar{W}_{F}(H_{\flat},T)$. Tout élément de $Norm_{H_{\flat}}(T)$ conserve les espaces $W'_{\flat,T}\otimes_{F}\bar{F}$ et $W'_{\flat,T}\otimes_{F}\bar{F}$. Notons $n'$ et $n''$ les restrictions de $n$ à ces espaces. Choisissons $n''_{0}\in H^{_{''}+}_{\flat,T}(F)$ de même déterminant que $n''$. Considérons l’élément $n_{0}\in H_{\flat}$ de restriction $n'$ à $W'_{\flat,T}\otimes_{F}\bar{F}$ et de restriction $n''_{0}$ à $W''_{\flat,T}\otimes_{F}\bar{F}$. Il appartient à $Norm_{H_{\flat}}(T)$ et a même image que $n$ dans $\bar{W}(H_{\flat},T)$. Puisque cette image appartient à $\bar{W}_{F}(H_{\flat},T)$, on a $\sigma(n_{0})^{-1}n_{0}\in T\times H''_{\flat,T}$ pour tout $\sigma\in Gal(\bar{F}/F)$. Par construction, la restriction de $\sigma(n_{0})^{-1}n_{0}$ à $W''_{\flat,T}\otimes_{F}\bar{F}$ est l’identité. Donc cet élément appartient à $T$ et $n_{0}$ appartient à ${\cal H}_{T}\cap Norm_{H_{\flat}}(T)$. L’image de l’injection (3) est donc égale à $\bar{W}_{F}(H_{\flat},T)$ et $n_{1}$ est le nombre d’éléments de cet ensemble. Cela prouve l’égalité du (ii) de l’énoncé.
Deux tores $T$ et $T'$ stablement conjugués sont isomorphes sur $F$, donc $h(T)=h(T')$. Dans la situation de (2), on vérifie que l’application $n\mapsto h\phi(n)h^{-1}$ est un isomorphisme de $\bar{W}_{F}(H_{a},T)$ sur $\bar{W}_{F}(H_{i},T')$ d’où l’égalité du nombre d’éléments de ces ensembles. Un résultat analogue vaut dans la situation de (1). Cela prouve (ii).
Soit $T\in \underline{\cal T}_{a}$. Puisqu’au moins l’un des groupes $H_{a}$ ou $G_{a}$ n’est pas quasi-déployé, on a $W'_{a,T}\not=\{0\}$. Cet espace est de dimension paire. S’il est de dimension $2$, on a $T=H'_{a,T}$ et, puisque $A_{T}=\{1\}$, $W'_{a,T}$ n’est pas hyperbolique. Il existe donc un espace quadratique, notons-le $W'_{i,T}$, qui a même dimension que $W'_{a,T}$, dont la forme quadratique a même déterminant que celle de $W'_{a,T}$, mais qui n’est pas isomorphe à $W'_{a,T}$. Il est clair que la somme orthogonale $W'_{i,T}\oplus W''_{a,T}$ est isomorphe à $W_{i}$. Puisque $T$ est un sous-tore maximal elliptique de $H'_{a,T}$, on peut le transférer en un sous-tore maximal elliptique $T'$ du groupe spécial orthogonal $H'_{i,T}$ de l’espace $W'_{i,T}$. Par l’isomorphisme précédent, $T'$ devient un sous-tore de $H_{i}$. Ce tore $T'$ appartient à $\underline{\cal T}_{i}$ et est stablement conjugué à $T$. Donc la classe de conjugaison stable de $T$ coupe $\underline{\cal T}_{i}$. Si $T\in \underline{\cal T}_{i}$ et $T\not=\{1\}$, un raisonnement analogue montre que la classe de conjugaison stable de $T$ coupe $\underline{\cal T}_{a}$. Par contre, si $T=\{1\}$, sa classe de conjugaison stable se réduit à $T$ lui-même. Le seul sous-tore de $H_{a}$ qui pourrait lui correspondre est le sous-tore $\{1\}$ de $H_{i}$. Mais celui-ci n’appartient pas à $\underline{\cal T}_{a}$ puisque l’un des groupes $H_{a}$ ou $G_{a}$ n’est pas quasi-déployé. $\square$
Démonstration du théorème 13.3
------------------------------
Pour un indice $\flat=i$ ou $a$, considérons la somme $$m(\Sigma_{\flat},\Pi_{\flat})=\sum_{\sigma\in \Sigma_{\flat},\pi\in \Pi_{\flat}}m(\sigma,\pi).$$ D’après l’hypothèse du théorème, toutes les représentations $\pi$ qui interviennent sont supercuspidales. D’après la proposition 13.1,on peut remplacer les multiplicités $m(\sigma,\pi)$ par $m_{geom}(\sigma,\pi)$. On obtient $$(1) \qquad m(\Sigma_{\flat},\Pi_{\flat})=\sum_{T\in {\cal T}_{\flat}}\vert W(H_{\flat},T)\vert ^{-1}\nu(T)\int_{T(F)}c_{\check{\Sigma}_{\flat}}(t)c_{\Pi_{\flat}}(t)D^H(t)\Delta(t)^rdt,$$ où $$c_{\Pi_{\flat}}(t)=\sum_{\pi\in \Pi_{\flat}}c_{\pi}(t),$$ et $c_{\check{\Sigma}_{\flat}}(t)$ est défini de façon analogue. Fixons $T\in {\cal T}_{\flat}$, introduisons les espaces $W''_{T}$ et $V''_{T}$ et les groupes $H''_{\flat,T}$ et $G''_{\flat,T}$ qui lui sont associés. Pour $\pi\in \Pi_{\flat}$, $t\in T_{\sharp}(F)$ et $X\in \mathfrak{g}''_{\flat,T,reg}(F)$, avec $X$ assez proche de $0$, on a un développement $$\theta_{\pi}(texp(X))D^{G''_{\flat,T}}(X)^{1/2}=\sum_{{\cal O}\in Nil(\mathfrak{g}''_{\flat,T})}c_{\theta_{\pi},{\cal O}}(t)\hat{j}^{G''_{\flat,T}}({\cal O},X)D^{G''_{\flat,T}}(X)^{1/2}.$$ Le terme $c_{\pi}(t)$ est égal à $c_{\theta_{\pi},{\cal O}_{reg}}(t)$ si $d$ est impair ou si $dim(V''_{\flat,T})\leq2$, à $c_{\theta_{\pi},{\cal O}_{\nu_{0}}}(t)$ si $d$ est pair et $dim(V''_{\flat,T})\geq4$. Remplaçons $X$ par $\lambda X$, avec $\lambda\in F^{\times 2}$ et faisons tendre $\lambda$ vers $0$. D’après 2.6(1), la fonction $$\lambda\mapsto \hat{j}^{G''_{\flat,T}}({\cal O},\lambda X)D^{G''_{\flat,T}}(\lambda X)^{1/2}$$ tend vers $0$ si ${\cal O}$ n’est pas régulière. Supposons d’abord $d$ impair ou $dim(V''_{\flat,T})\leq2$. Choisissons pour $X$ un élément de la forme $X_{qd}$. D’après le lemme 13.4, la fonction ci-dessus est constante de valeur $\vert W^{G''_{\flat,T}})\vert $ pour ${\cal O}={\cal O}_{reg}$. On obtient $$c_{\pi}(t)=\vert W^{G''_{\flat,T}})\vert^{-1}lim_{\lambda\to 0}\theta_{\pi}(texp(\lambda X_{qd}))D^{G''_{\flat,T}}(\lambda X_{qd})^{1/2}.$$ Si maintenant $d$ est pair et $dim(V''_{\flat,T})\geq4$, on introduit dans l’algèbre $\mathfrak{g}''_{\flat,T}(F)$ des éléments $X_{F_{1}}^{\pm}$. Le lemme 13.4 conduit alors à l’égalité $$c_{\pi}(t)=lim_{\lambda\to 0}(\vert W^{G''_{\flat,T}})\vert^{-1}\theta_{\pi}(texp(\lambda X_{qd}))D^{G''_{\flat,T}}(\lambda X_{qd})^{1/2}$$ $$+\sum_{F_{1}\in {\cal F}^{V''_{\flat,T}}}\vert W(G''_{\flat,T},T_{F_{1}})\vert ^{-1}\epsilon_{F_{1}}\chi_{F_{1}}(\nu_{0}\eta)(\theta_{\pi}(texp(\lambda X_{F_{1}}^+))-\theta_{\pi}(texp(\lambda X_{F_{1}}^-))) D^{G''_{\flat,T}}(\lambda X_{F_{1}})^{1/2}.$$ Pour calculer $c_{\Pi_{\flat}}(t)$, on somme ces expressions sur $\pi\in \Pi_{\flat}$. Cela revient à remplacer les caractères $\theta_{\pi}$ par $\theta_{\Pi_{\flat}}$. Dans le cas où $d$ est pair et $dim(V''_{\flat,T})\geq4$, on remarque que, pour $F_{1}\in {\cal F}^{V''_{\flat,T}}$, les points $texp(\lambda X_{F_{1}}^+)$ et $texp(\lambda X_{F_{1}}^-)$ sont stablement conjugués. Or $\theta_{\Pi_{\flat}}$ est une distribution stable. Donc $$\theta_{\Pi_{\flat}}(texp(\lambda X_{F_{1}}^+))-\theta_{\Pi_{\flat}}(texp(\lambda X_{F_{1}}^-))=0.$$ En tout cas, on obtient l’égalité $$(2) \qquad c_{\Pi_{\flat}}(t)=\vert W^{G''_{\flat,T}})\vert^{-1}lim_{\lambda \to 0}\theta_{\Pi_{\flat}}(texp(\lambda X_{qd}))D^{G''_{\flat,T}}(\lambda X_{qd})^{1/2}.$$ Soit $T'\in{\cal T}_{\flat}$ stablement conjugué à $T$. D’après le lemme 13.5(i), on peut choisir un élément $h\in H$ vérifiant la condition 13.5(1) et tel que sa restriction à $V''_{\flat,T}$ soit un isomorphisme défini sur $F$ de cet espace sur $V''_{\flat,T'}$. La conjugaison par $h$ identifie $T$ à $T'$, $V''_{\flat,T}$ à $V''_{\flat,T'}$ et $G''_{\flat,T}$ à $G''_{\flat,T'}$. Soit $t'=hth^{-1}$. Posons $X'_{qd}=hX_{qd}h^{-1}$. C’est un élément de $\mathfrak{g}''_{\flat,T'}(F)$ qui a les mêmes propriétés que $X_{qd}$. On peut calculer $c_{\Pi_{\flat}}(t')$ en remplaçant $t$ par $t'$ et $X_{qd}$ par $X_{qd}'$ dans la formule (2). Mais les éléments $texp(\lambda X_{qd})$ et $t'exp(\lambda X'_{qd})$ sont stablement conjugués. Puisque $\theta_{\Pi_{\flat}}$ est stable, cette fonction prend la même valeur en ces deux éléments et on en déduit $c_{\Pi_{\flat}}(t)=c_{\Pi_{\flat}}(t')$. On démontre de même l’égalité $c_{\check{\Sigma}_{\flat}}(t)=c_{\check{\Sigma}_{\flat}}(t)$. On a aussi $D^H(t)\Delta(t)^r=D^H(t')\Delta(t)^r$. Alors l’intégrale indexée par $T'$ dans la formule (1) a la même valeur que celle indexée par $T$.
Notons ${\cal T}_{\flat,st}$ un sous-ensemble de représentants dans ${\cal T}_{\flat}$ des classes de conjugaison stable coupant $\underline{\cal T}_{\flat}$. Alors $$m(\Sigma_{\flat},\Pi_{\flat})=\sum_{T\in {\cal T}_{\flat,st}} m(T)\nu(T)\int_{T(F)}c_{\check{\Sigma}_{\flat}}(t)c_{\Pi_{\flat}}(t)D^H(t)\Delta(t)^rdt,$$ où $$m (T)=\sum_{T'\in {\cal T}_{\flat}; T'\sim_{st}T}\vert W(H_{\flat},T')\vert ^{-1}.$$ Le lemme 13.5(iii) définit une injection ${\cal T}_{a,st}\to {\cal T}_{i,st}$. Soient $T_{a}\in {\cal T}_{a,st}$ et $T_{i}\in {\cal T}_{i,st}$ son image. Choisissons $h\in H_{i}$ vérifiant la condition 13.5(2) et tel que la restriction de $h\circ \Phi$ à $W''_{a,T_{a}}$ soit définie sur $F$ (lemme 13.5(i)). Soit $t\in T_{a,\sharp}(F)$, posons $t'=h\phi(t)h^{-1}$. Un argument similaire à celui ci-dessus montre que $$c_{\Pi_{a}}(t)=(-1)^dc_{\Pi_{i}}(t'),\,\,c_{\check{\Sigma}_{a}}(t)=(-1)^{d_{W}}c_{\check{\Sigma}_{i}}(t').$$ Les signes proviennent de la relation 13.2(2). Leur produit est $-1$. On a aussi $m(T_{a})=m(T_{i})$ d’après le lemme 13.5(ii) et, bien sûr, $D^{H_{a}}(t)\Delta(t)^r=D^{H_{i}}(t')\Delta(t')^r$. Alors la contribution de $T_{a}$ à $m(\Sigma_{a},\Pi_{a})$ est l’opposée de celle de $T_{i}$ à $m(\Sigma_{i},\Pi_{i})$. La somme $m(\Sigma_{a},\Pi_{a})+m(\Sigma_{i},\Pi_{i})$ se réduit donc à la contribution de l’unique classe de conjugaison stable qui ne coupe pas ${\cal T}_{a,st}$, c’est-à-dire à la contribution du tore $\{1\}$ de ${\cal T}_{i}$. On obtient $$(3) \qquad m(\Sigma_{a},\Pi_{a})+m(\Sigma_{i},\Pi_{i})=c_{\check{\Sigma}_{i}}(1)c_{\Pi_{i}}(1).$$ Rappelons un résultat de Rodier (\[R\] théorème p.161 et remarque 2 p.162). Soient $\pi$ une représentation admissible irréductible de $G_{i}(F)$ et ${\cal O}$ une orbite nilpotente régulière de $\mathfrak{g}_{i}(F)$. Alors $c_{\theta_{\pi},{\cal O}}(1)$ vaut $1$ si $\pi$ possède un modèle de Whittaker relatif à ${\cal O}$ et $0$ sinon. On a $$c_{\Pi_{i}}(1)=\sum_{\pi\in \Pi_{i}}c_{\theta_{\pi},{\cal O}}(1),$$ où ${\cal O}={\cal O}_{reg}$ ou ${\cal O}_{\nu_{0}}$ selon le cas. Le résultat ci-dessus et la propriété 13.2(3) entraînent que cette somme ne contient qu’un terme non nul, qui vaut $1$. Donc $c_{\Pi_{i}}(1))=1$ et, de même, $c_{\check{\Sigma}_{i}}=1$. Le membre de gauche de (3) est la somme des $m(\sigma,\pi)$ pour $(\sigma,\pi)\in (\Sigma_{i}\times \Pi_{i})\cup(\Sigma_{a}\times \Pi_{a})$. Puisqu’elle vaut $1$, il y a un unique couple $(\sigma,\pi)$ pour lequel $m(\sigma,\pi)=1$. $\square$
\[AGRS\] A. Aizenbud, D. Gourevitch, S. Rallis, G. Schiffmann: [*Multiplicity one theorems*]{}, prépublication 2007
\[A1\] J. Arthur: [*The trace formula in invariant form*]{}, Annals of Math. 114 (1981), p.1-74
\[A2\] ...............: [*The invariant trace formula I. Local theory*]{}, J. AMS 1 (1988), p.323-383
\[A3\] ...............: [*A local trace formula*]{}, Publ. Math. IHES 73 (1991), p.5-96
\[A4\] ...............: [*On the transfer of distributions: weighted orbital integrals*]{}, Duke Math. J. 99 (1999), p.209-283
\[A5\] .............: [*The local behaviour of weighted orbital integrals*]{}, Duke Math. J. 56 (1988), p.223-293
\[A6\] .............: [*The characters of supercuspidal representations as weighted orbital integrals*]{}, Proc. Indian Acad. Sci . 97 (1987), p.3-19
\[GGP\] W. T. Gan, B. Gross, D. Prasad: [*Symplectic local root numbers, central critical $L$-values and restriction problems in the representation theory of classical groups*]{}, prépublication 2008
\[GP\] B. Gross, D. Prasad: [*On irreducible representations of $SO_{2n+1}\times SO_{2m}$*]{}, Can. J. Math. 46 (1994), p.930-950
\[HCDS\] Harish-Chandra: [*Admissible invariant distributions on reductive $p$-adic groups*]{}, notes par S. DeBacker et P. Sally, University Lecture series 16, AMS (1999)
\[HCvD\] .........................: [*Harmonic analysis on reductive $p$-adic groups*]{}, notes par G. van Dijk, Springer Lecture Notes 162 (1970)
\[Konno\] T. Konno: [*Twisted endoscopy implies the generic packet conjecture*]{}, Isra" el J. of Math. 129 (2002), p.253-289
\[Kot\] R. Kottwitz: [*Transfer factors for Lie algebras*]{}, Representation Th. 3 (1999), p.127-138
\[R\] F. Rodier: [*Modèle de Whittaker et caractères de représentations*]{}, in Non commutative harmonic analysis, J. Carmona, J. Dixmier, M. Vergne ed. Springer LN 466 (1981), p.151-171
\[W1\] J.-L. Waldspurger: [*Une formule des traces locale pour les algèbres de Lie $p$-adiques*]{}, J. f. reine u. ang. Math. 465 (1995), p.41-99
\[W2\] ................................: [*Démonstration d’une conjecture de dualité de Howe dans le cas $p$-adique,$p\not=2$*]{}, in Festschrift in honor of I.I. Piatetski-Shapiro, S. Gelbart, R. Howe, P. Sarnak ed., the Weizmann science press of Isra" el (1990)
\[W3\] ................................: [*Intégrales orbitales nilpotentes et endoscopie pour les groupes classiques non ramifiés*]{}, Astérisque 269 (2001)
\[W4\] ............................... : [*Le lemme fondamental implique le transfert*]{}, Compositio Mathematica 105 (1997), p.153-236
Institut de mathématiques de Jussieu- CNRS
175 rue du Chevaleret
75013 Paris
e-mail: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Non notherian Formal schemes of perfectoid type (for example $\ds{Z}_p[p^{1/p^\infty}]\lr{X^{1/p^\infty} }$ and its multivariate version) with rational degree are constructed and are shown to be admissible. These formal schemes are non Notherian avatar of Tate affinoid algebras. The corresponding notion of topologically finite presentation are constructed and Gabber’s Lemma, admissible blow ups (Raynaud’s approach) are shown to hold under certain assumptions. A new notion of rings called $\eka^d$ are introduced, which recover most examples of perfectoid affinoid algebras, without resorting to Huber’s construction, Witt vectors or Frobenius.'
author:
- 'Harpreet Singh Bedi [[email protected]]{}'
title: Formal Schemes of Rational Degree
---
[In honor of Michel Raynaud $\ldots$ one year later.]{}
Introduction
============
Results
-------
This paper constructs new Non Notherian formal schemes of rational degree. These formal schemes cover the case of non notherian Perfectoidish formal schemes (inspired by [@scholze_1]) of rational degree, but completely avoids Witt Vectors and Frobenius, by adopting a much simpler approach of attaching $d$th power roots (called $\eka^d$ in this paper). The rings are restricted power series of the form $R\lr{X,X^{1/p},X^{1/p^2},\ldots}$ often denoted as $R\lr{X^{1/p^\infty}}$ (in this paper $R\lr{X}_\infty$). The elements are of the form $$\sum_{i\in{\ds{N}[1/p]}^n}c_iX^i\in R[[X,X^{1/p},X^{1/p^2},\ldots]],\qquad c_i\in R,\qquad\lim_{i\ra\infty}c_i=0.$$ The multivariate version is defined similarly as $R\lr{X_1^{1/p^\infty},X_2^{1/p^\infty},\ldots,X_n^{1/p^\infty} }$ (in this paper $R\lr{X_1,X_2,\ldots, X_n}_\infty$). $R$ itself can be non notherian, for example, $\ds{Z}_p[p^{1/p^\infty}]$. The degree is often $\ds{Z}[1/p]$, but formal schemes of degree $\ds{Q}$ are also constructed (see section \[ratBun\]).
In lemma \[admissible1\] the admissibility of such schemes is proved.
Let $R$ be an admissible ring with ideal of definition $\id{a}$, then the ring $A=R\lr{X_1,\ldots,X_r}_\infty$ is admissible.
The above lemma makes it possible to do algebraic geometry on perfectoidish schemes in a natural manner. Furthermore, this allows to pass from $R$ to its fraction field using Raynaud’s generic fibre approach.
The construction of $\eka^d$ rings is done section \[rat1\], and a ton of examples are given. The lemma \[admissible1\] again holds in the setting of $\eka^d$ rings. In section 7, an analogue of topologically finite type and topologically finite presentation for the rings $R\lr{X_1,\ldots,X_n}_\infty$ are constructed and called topologically finite eka type and topologically finite eka presentation.
The coherence of the rings $R[T^{1/p^\infty}]$ and $R\lr{T}_\infty$ is proved in Proposition \[coherent1\] and Corollary \[coherent2\].
Let $A$ be a Noetherian admissible ring with ideal of definition generated by a single element $a$ and $R=A[a^{1/p},a^{1/p^2},\ldots]$ ($R$ is $\eka^p$), then $R[T^{1/p^\infty}]$ is coherent.
$R\lr{T^{1/p^\infty}}$ is coherent.
Finally, the following flatness results shown in Lemma \[G1\] are needed to prove Gabber’s Lemma.
1. The canonical map $A[T^{1/p^\infty}]\ra A\lr{T^{1/p^\infty}}$ is flat for $A$ Notherian.
2. The canonical map $K[T^{1/p^\infty}]\ra K\lr{T^{1/p^\infty}}$ is flat for $K$ where $K$ is a field.
3. The canonical map $R[T^{1/p^\infty}]\ra R\lr{T^{1/p^\infty}}$ is flat for $R$ $\eka^p$.
4. Let $B=K\lr{\zeta^{1/p^\infty}}$, then the canonical map $B[T]\ra B\lr{T}$ is flat.
5. Let $B=K\lr{\zeta^{1/p^\infty}}$, then the canonical map $B[T^{1/p^\infty}]\ra B\lr{T^{1/p^\infty}}$ is flat.
The above mentioned three results form the backbone of the paper. The rest of the results can then be obtained using standard results mentioned in Chapter 7 and 8 of [@bosch2014lectures].
Furthermore, the following Proposition \[7.3/8\] , Corollary \[coro13\] and Proposition \[7.4/2\] are proved, along with other supporting results.
Let $A$ be a $R$ algebra of topologically eka type and $M$ a finite $A$ module. Then $M$ is $I$ adically complete and separated.
Let $A$ be an $R$ algebra that is $I$ adically complete and separated, and let $f_1,\ldots,f_r\in A$ generate the unit ideal. Then the following are equivalent
1. $A$ is of topologically finite eka presentation (resp. admissible).
2. $A\lr{f_i^{-1}}$ is of topologically finite eka presentation (resp. admissible).
Let $A$ be an $R$ algebra that is $I$ adically complete and separated, and let $X=\spf A$ be the associated formal $R$ scheme. Then the following are equivalent
1. $X$ is locally of topologically finite eka presentation (resp. admissible).
2. $A$ is topologically finite eka presentation (resp. admissible) as $R$ algebra.
In the section \[coherence1\] the coherent properties are discussed, and the following Corollary \[8rem4\] is shown.
Let $\curly{M}$ be an $\Os_\id{X}$ module, where $\id{X}$ is a formal $R$ scheme of topologically finite eka presentation, then the following are equivalent
1. $\curly{M}$ is coherent.
2. $\curly{M}$ is of finite presentation.
3. $\curly{M}{\vert_{X_i}}$ is associated to coherent $\Os_{X_i}$ module, where $(X_i)_{i\in J}$ is a covering of $\id{X}$.
Admissible formal blow ups are discussed in section \[blowup1a\]. Finally, the following proposition \[8.2/7\] is shown, which answers the question raised by Peter Scholze about perfectoid spaces and their description as Raynaud Blow Up (at Arizona Winter School 2017) in the setting of $\eka^d$ rings.
Let $A$ be topologically finite eka presentation and $\id{a}=\lr{f_0,\ldots,f_r}\subset A$ a coherent open ideal. Suppose $\id{X}=\spf A$ is the admissible formal affine $R$ scheme with coherent open ideal $\mathscr{A}=\id{a}^\Delta$ and $\id{X}_\mathscr{A}$ is formal blowing up of $\mathscr{A}$ on $\id{X}$. Then the following hold
1. The ideal $\scr{A}$ is a line bundle.
2. Let the ideal $\scr{A}$ be generated by $f_i, i=0,\ldots, r$ and $U_i$ be the corresponding locus in $\id{X}_\scr{A}$, then $\{U_i\}$ defines an open affine covering of $\id{X}_\scr{A}$.
3. With $C_i$ as given below, denote $A_i=C_i/(I\mathrm{-torsion})_{C_i}$ then $U_i=\spf A_i$ and the $I$ torsion of $C_i$ is same as the $f_i$ torsion. $$C_i=A\lr{\frac{f_j}{f_i}}=\frac{A\lr{\xi_j}}{(f_i\xi_j-f_j)}\quad\text{where}\quad j\neq i$$
Acknowledgement
---------------
I am grateful to Matthew Morrow and Peter Scholze for pointing out errors in the earlier draft. These errors are now fixed and any remaining errors are my own.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In a rather general setting of Itô-Lévy processes we study a class of transforms (Fourier for example) of the state variable of a process which are holomorphic in some disc around time zero in the complex plane. We show that such transforms are related to a system of analytic vectors for the generator of the process, and we state conditions which allow for holomorphic extension of these transforms into a strip which contains the positive real axis. Based on these extensions we develop a functional series expansion of these transforms in terms of the constituents of the generator. As application, we show that for multidimensional affine Itô-Lévy processes with state dependent jump part the Fourier transform is holomorphic in a time strip under some stationarity conditions, and give log-affine series representations for the transform.'
address: |
Weierstrass Institute for Applied Analysis and Stochastics\
Mohrenstr. 39\
10117, Berlin, Germany\
\
\
author:
-
-
-
title: Holomorphic transforms with application to affine processes
---
,
,
Introduction
============
Transforms are an important tool in the theory of (ordinary and partial) differential equations and in stochastic analysis. In probability theory the Fourier transform of a random variable, which represents the characteristic function of the corresponding distribution, is widely used. Fourier (and Laplace) transforms have become increasingly popular in mathematical finance as well. On the one hand, for example, via a complex Laplace transform and the convolution theorem one may derive pricing formulas for one dimensional European options (e.g., see [@EP]). On the other hand, Laplace and Fourier transforms are known in closed form for many classes of processes. A famous example is the so-called Lévy-Khintchine formula which provides an explicit expression for the characteristic function of a Lévy process. More recent financial literature goes well beyond Lévy processes and attempts to establish explicit or semi-explicit formulas for derivatives where underlyings are modelled, for instance, by affine processes (see among others [@DPS],[@F] and [@DFS]) or more general Itô-Lévy processes (e.g. see [@OS]). Theoretical analysis of affine processes is done in the seminal paper by Duffie, Filipović and Schachermayer [@DFS] and has led to a unique characterization of affine processes. In particular, it is shown that the problem of determining the (conditional) Fourier transform of an affine process $X_s$ corresponds to the problem of solving a system of generalized Riccati differential equations in the time variable $s$ (see [@DFS]). Although closed form solutions of this system can be found in important cases, there is no generic approach to solve such a system in the general multi-dimensional case. In this article we establish some kind of functional series representation for the Fourier transform, hence the characteristic function of the process under consideration and, in principle, for more general transforms. The most natural one is a Taylor expansion in time $s$ around $s_0=0$. This approach leads to expansions where the coefficients can be recursively computed without solving linear or non-linear differential equations as, for instance, in the case of the so called WKB expansions for transition densities (e.g. see [@K]). Unfortunately, it turns out that in many cases the resulting power series converges only in $s=s_0=0.$ This problem corresponds to a difficulty which is well known in semi-group theory and in the theory of parabolic differential equations: small time expansions for the solutions of parabolic equations are usually possible in a neighborhood of some $s_0 >0,$ while an expansion around $s_0=0$ may have zero convergence radius. In this paper we prove that for a generator with affine coefficients the Fourier transform extends holomorphically into a disc around $s_0=0$ and a strip containing the positive real axes, under some mild regularity conditions. Then, for multi-dimensional affine processes we obtain convergent expansions for the Fourier transform and its logarithm on the whole time line. Hence, we have (affine) series representations for the exponent of the characteristic function of a general multi-dimensional affine process. More generally, we develop a framework based on a concept of analytic vectors which allows for functional series expansions for a class of holomorphic transforms which covers the standard Fourier transform.
The outline of the paper is as follows. The basic setup is described in Section \[BS\]. In Section \[AVT\] we introduce the notion of analytic vectors associated with a given generator and study functional series expansions for the corresponding transform. Section \[genA\] is devoted to the Cauchy problem for affine generators. In Section \[LAFF\] we derive series representations for the logarithm of the Fourier transform corresponding to a generator with affine coefficients. Section \[EX\] gives an explicit representation for these expansions in a one-dimensional case. Finally, Section \[ItoLevy\] contains results for affine Itô-Lévy processes which mainly follow from previous sections. More technical proofs are given in the Appendix.
Basic setup {#BS}
===========
Let $(\Omega, \mathcal{F}, (\mathcal{F}_{t})_{t\ge0},P)$ be a standard filtered probability space where the filtration $(\mathcal{F}_{t})$ satisfies ‘the usual conditions’. On this space we consider for each $x\in\mathbb{R}^{n}$ a compensated Poisson random measure $\widetilde{N}(x,dt,dz,\omega)=N(x,dt,dz,\omega)-v(x,dz)dt$ on $\mathbb{R}_{+}\times\mathbb{R}^{n},$ where $N$ is a Poisson random measure with (deterministic) intensity kernel of the form $v(x,dz)dt=\mathbb{E}\, N(x,dt,dz)$ satisfying $v(x,B)<\infty$ for any $B\in\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R}^{n})$ such that $0\notin\overline{B}$ (closure of $B$). Hence $N$ is determined by $$P\left[ N(x,(0,t],B)=k\right] =\exp(-tv(x,B))\frac{t^{k}v^{k}(x,B)}{k!},\quad k=0,1,2,...$$ In particular, for any $B\in\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R}^{})$ with $0\notin$ $\overline{B}$ and $x\in\mathbb{R}^n,$ the process $M_{t}^{B,x}:=\widetilde{N}(x,(0,t],B)$ is a (true) martingale. Further, by assumption, the kernel $v$ satisfies,$$v(x,\{0\})=0,\quad\int_{\mathbb{R}^{n}}(|z|^{2}\wedge
|z|)v(x,dz)<\infty,\quad x\in\mathbb{R}^{n}.$$ and for any $B\in\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R}^{n}),$ $0\notin$ $\overline{B},$ the function $x\rightarrow v(x,B)$ has bounded derivatives of any order.
Let us assume $W(t)$ to be a standard Brownian motion in $\mathbb{R}^{m}$ living on our basic probability space, and consider the Itô-Lévy SDE: $$dX_{t}=b(X_{t})dt+\sigma(X_{t})dW(t)+\int_{\mathbb{R}^{n}} z\widetilde{N}(X_{t-},dt,dz),\quad X_0=x, \label{ItoLev}$$ for deterministic functions $b:\mathbb{R}^{n}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{n},$ $\sigma:\mathbb{R}^{n}\rightarrow
\mathbb{R}^{n}\times\mathbb{R}^{m},$ which satisfy sufficient regularity and/or mutual consistency conditions such that (\[ItoLev\]) has a unique strong solution $t\rightarrow X_t,$ called an Itô-Lévy process, which can be regarded as a strong Markov process (e.g., see [@P], [@OS]).
As a well-known fact, the above process $X$ can be connected to some kind of evolution equation in a natural way. As a sufficient additional condition we may assume, for example, that the uniform ellipticity condition holds: there exists $\alpha>0$ such that$$\Bigl\| (\sigma\sigma^{\top})^{-1}(x) \Bigr\|\le \alpha^{-1},$$ or, as another example, that $b(x),$ $(\sigma\sigma^{\top})(x),$ $v(x,dz)$ are affine in $x$ and satisfy the mutual admissibility conditions of [@DFS] in the framework of affine processes. In this context we consider a ’pseudo generator’ $$A^\sharp:\mathcal{D}(A^\sharp)\subset \mathcal{C}^{(2)}\subset \mathcal{C}
\longrightarrow\mathcal{C}, \label{PSG}$$ where $\mathcal{C}:=C(\mathbb{R}^{n})$ is the space of continuous functions $f:$ $\mathbb{R}^{n}\rightarrow \mathbb{C},$ equipped with the topology of uniform convergence on compacta, and $\mathcal{C}^{(2)}$ is the space of functions $f$ $\in$ $\mathcal{C}$ which are two times continuously differentiable. Further, $f\in\mathcal{D}(A^\sharp)$ iff $f\in\mathcal{C}^{(2)},$ and $$\begin{aligned}
A^\sharp f(x) & :=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i,j=1}^{n}a_{ij}(x)\frac{\partial^{2}f}{\partial
x_{i}\partial x_{j}}+\sum_{i=1}^{n}b_{i}(x)\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_{i}}\label{Gen}\\
& +\int_{\mathbb{R}^{n}}\left[ f(x+z)-f(x)-\frac{\partial
f}{\partial x}\cdot z\right] v(x,dz),\ \rm{with}\ a:=\sigma\sigma^{\top},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ exists and is such that $A^\sharp f\in\mathcal{C}.$ In this respect we assume that the building blocks $b(x),$ $\sigma(x),$ $v(x,dz)$ of SDE (\[ItoLev\]) have bounded derivatives of any order with respect to $x.$ Clearly, $\mathcal{D}(A^\sharp)$ is dense in $\mathcal{C}$ and it can be shown that the operator $A^\sharp$ thus defined is closable. The closure of $A^\sharp$ is denoted by $$\label{clA}
A:\mathcal{D}(A)\subset \mathcal{C}
\longrightarrow\mathcal{C}.$$ As such $A$ can be seen as a relaxation of the notion of a generator of a strongly continuous Feller-Dynkin semigroup associated with the process $X,$ for which the Hille-Yosida theorem applies. This semigroup is usually defined on the Banach space $C_0(\mathbb{R}^{n}),$ i.e. the set of continuous functions on $\mathbb{R}^{n}$ which vanish at infinity, equipped with the supremum norm, and its generator coincides literally with $A^\sharp$ on a dense subdomain of $C_0(\mathbb{R}^{n}).$ By slight abuse of terminology however, we will also refer to $A$ as ’generator’ when $A$ is considered in connection with the process $X$ given via (\[ItoLev\]). Let now $\mathfrak{F}:=\{f_{u},$ $u\in I\}$ $\subset$ $\mathcal{C}$ be a dense subset of bounded continuous functions $f_{u}:\mathbb{R}^{n}\rightarrow\mathbb{C}$ which have bounded derivatives of any order. With respect to the (closed) generator (\[clA\]) we consider for each $f_u$ $\in$ $\mathfrak{F}$ the (generalized) Cauchy problem $$\begin{aligned}
\label{FBK1}
\frac{\partial\widehat{p}}{\partial s}(s,x,u)&=& A\widehat{p}\, (s,x,u),
\\
\nonumber
\widehat{p}(0,x,u)&=&f_{u}(x),\quad s\ge0,\quad x\in \mathfrak{X}\subset\mathbb{R}^{n},\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathfrak{X}$ is some open (maximal) domain, and assume that problem (\[FBK1\]) has a unique solution. For instance, see [@AM] for mild conditions which guarantee existence of unique global solutions of integro-differential evolution problems. In particular, if some ellipticity condition is satisfied we may have $\mathfrak{X}$ $=$ $\mathbb{R}^{n}.$ For mixed type generators, such as affine generators, existence, uniqueness, and the maximal domain $\mathfrak{X}$ has to be considered case by case. For example, if $b(x),$ $(\sigma\sigma^{\top})(x),$ $v(x,dz)$ are affine in $x$ and satisfy the admissibility conditions in [@DFS], existence and uniqueness are ensured in a domain of the form $\mathfrak{X}$ $=$ $\mathbb{R}^{l}\times\mathbb{R}^{n-l}_+\subset\mathbb{R}^{n}$ (for details see [@DFS]). We underline, however, that in this article the main focus is on functional series representations for the solution of , and we therefore merely assume that sufficient regularity conditions for the coefficients in (\[Gen\]) (hence (\[ItoLev\])) are fulfilled.
\[AX\][In our analysis we often consider the pseudo generator (\[Gen\]) and it’s closure (\[clA\]) on $\mathcal{C}:=C(\mathfrak{X})$, for an open domain $\mathfrak{X}\subset \mathbb{R}^{n}$, rather than $C(\mathbb{R}^{n}).$ For notational convenience (while slightly abusing notation) we will denote these respective operators with $A^\sharp$ and $A$ also. ]{}
If $A$ is the generator of the process (\[ItoLev\]), the solution $\widehat{p}(s,x,u)$ has the probabilistic representation$$\widehat{p}(s,x,u)=\mathbb{E}\left[\,f_{u}(X_{s}^{0,x})\right],$$ where $X^{0,x}$ is the unique strong solution of (\[ItoLev\]) with $X_{0}^{0,x}=x$ a.s. We refer to $\widehat{p}(s,x,u)$ as *generalized transform* of the process $X_{s}^{0,x}$ associated with $\mathfrak{F}$. As a canonical example we may consider $$f_{u}(x):=e^{\mathfrak{i}u^{\top}x},\quad u\in\mathbb{R}^{n},\label{SF}$$ in which case (\[FBK1\]) yields the characteristic function $\widehat
{p}(s,x,u)={\mathbb{E}}[e^{\mathfrak{i}u^{\top}X_{s}^{0,x}}].$
By using multi-index notation, the integral term in (\[FBK1\]) may be formally expanded as$$\begin{aligned}
& \int_{\mathbb{R}^{n}}\left[ f(x+z)-f(x)-\frac{\partial
f}{\partial x}\cdot z\right] v(x,dz)=\\
&
\sum_{|\alpha|\geq2}\frac{1}{\alpha!}\partial_{x^{\alpha}}f(x)\int
z^\alpha v(x,dz)
=:\sum_{|\alpha|\geq2}\frac{1}{\alpha!}m_{\alpha}(x)\partial_{x^{\alpha}}f.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, we may write formally the generator as an infinite order differential operator $$A=\sum_{|\alpha|>0}\mathfrak{a}_{\alpha}(x)\partial_{x^{\alpha}}\label{FBK2}$$ with obvious definitions of the coefficients $\mathfrak{a}_{\alpha}(x)$ for $\alpha>0.$
Analytic vectors and transforms {#AvT}
===============================
\[AVT\] First we introduce the notion of a set of analytic vectors associated with an operator $A.$
\[AV\] $\mathfrak{F}=\{f_{u},$ $u\in I\}$ is a set of analytic vectors for an operator $A$ in an open region $\mathfrak{X,}$ if
$A^{k}f_{u}$ exists for any $u\in I$ and $k\in \mathbb{N},$
for every $u\in I$ there exists $R_{u}>0$ such that for all $x\in\mathfrak{X,}$ $$\label{exp}
\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\frac{s^{k}}{k!}\left\vert A^{k}f_{u}(x)\right\vert
<\infty,\quad0\leq s<R_{u},$$ where the convergence is uniform in $x$ over any compact subset of $\mathfrak{X.}$
Thus, if $\mathfrak{F}$ is a set of analytic vectors in the sense of Definition \[AV\] then for all $x\in\mathfrak{X}$ the map $$\label{ConvP}
s\rightarrow P_{s}f_{u}(x):=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\frac{s^{k}}{k!}A^{k}f_{u}(x), \quad \left\vert s\right\vert <R_{u}$$ is holomorphic in the complex disc $D_{0}:=\left\{ s\in\mathbb{C}:\left\vert
s\right\vert <R_{u}\right\} $ and the series converges uniformly in $x$ over any compact subset of $\mathfrak{X.}$ In fact, $ P_{s}f_{u}(x) $ coincides with $ \widehat{p}(s,x,u) $ for $0\le s<R_{u}$.
\[propa\]$\ $ If $\mathfrak{F}$ is a set of analytic vectors, the map $(s,x)\rightarrow P_{s}f_{u}(x)$ defined in [(\[ConvP\])]{} satisfies [(\[FBK1\])]{} for all $s,$ $\left\vert
s\right\vert <R_{u}$ and $x\in\mathfrak{X.}$ In particular we have $P_{s}f_{u}(x)=\widehat{p}(s,x,u)$, $0\le s<R_{u}.$
Obviously, $P_{0}f_{u}(x)=f_{u}(x)$ for $x\in\mathfrak{X.}$ Set (see Remark \[AX\]) $$P_{s}^{(N)}f_{u}(x):=\sum_{k=0}^{N}\frac{s^{k}}{k!}A^{k}f_{u}(x),$$ then both $P_{s}^{(N)}f_{u}(x)$ and $$AP_{s}^{(N)}f_{u}(x):=\sum_{k=0}^{N}\frac{s^{k}}{k!}A^{k+1}f_{u}(x)$$ converge uniformly for any $x$ in a compact subset of $\mathfrak{X}$ and for any $s$ satisfying $\left\vert s\right\vert <R_{u}-\varepsilon$ with arbitrary small $ \varepsilon $. Hence, since $A$ is closed,$$AP_{s}f_{u}(x)=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\frac{s^{k}}{k!}A^{k+1}f_{u}(x)=\frac
{\partial}{\partial s}\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\frac{s^{k}}{k!}A^{k}f_{u}(x)=\frac{\partial}{\partial s}P_{s}f_{u}(x).$$
In order to study generalized transforms associated with a set of analytical vectors $\mathfrak{F}$ in domains containing the non-negative real axis we introduce for $\eta>0$ the sequence $$\begin{aligned}
q_{k}^{(\eta)}(x,u) & :=\frac{1}{k!}\prod\limits_{r=0}^{k-1}
(\eta^{-1}A+rI)f_{u}(x)
\label{qprod}\\
& =:\frac{1}{k!}\sum_{r=0}^{k}c_{k,r}\eta^{-r}A^{r}f_{u}(x),\quad
x\in\mathfrak{X,}\quad u\in I,\quad k=0,1,2,...\label{qseq}$$ In (\[qseq\]) the coefficients $c_{k,r},$ $0\leq r\leq k,$ are determined by the identity $${\displaystyle\prod\limits_{r=0}^{k-1}}
(z+r)=z(z+1)\cdot\ldots\cdot(z+k-1)\equiv\sum_{r=0}^{k}c_{k,r}z^{r},$$ and are usually called unsigned Stirling numbers of the first kind. These numbers satisfy $c_{0,0}=1$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
c_{k,0} & \equiv0,\quad c_{k,k}\equiv1,\\
\label{ck}
c_{k+1,j} & =kc_{k,j}+c_{k,j-1},\quad1\leq j\leq k,\end{aligned}$$ if $k\geq1$. Obviously, the following recursion is equivalent to (\[qprod\]), $$(k+1)q^{(\eta)}_{k+1}(x,u)=\eta^{-1}Aq^{(\eta)}_{k}(x,u)+kq^{(\eta)}_{k}(x,u),\quad k\geq0,\quad\text{
}x\in\mathfrak{X}. \label{rec}$$ The next theorem provides a functional series representation for the solution of for all $s\ge0,$ under certain conditions.
\[analth\] Let $\mathfrak{F}$ be a set of analytic vectors in the sense of Definition \[AV\], $u\in I$ be fixed, and the sequence $(q_{k}^{(\eta)})$ be defined as in (\[qseq\]). Let $\widehat{p}$ be the solution of the Cauchy problem (\[FBK1\]). Then the following statements are equivalent:
$(i)$ There exists a constant $R_{u}>0$ such that for each $x\in\mathfrak{X},$ the map $
s\rightarrow\widehat{p}(s,x,u)
$ has a holomorphic extension to the domain$$G_{R_{u}}:=\left\{ z:\left\vert z\right\vert <R_{u}\right\}
\cup\left\{ z:\operatorname{Re}z>0\ \wedge\ |\operatorname{Im}z|<R_{u}\right\},$$ see Figure \[Perform\].
![ Domain $G_{R_{u}} $ on the complex plane []{data-label="Perform"}](metapost_test.1)
$(ii)$ There exists an $\eta_{u}>0$ such that for each $x\in\mathfrak{X}$ the following series representation holds: $$\widehat{p}(s,x,u)=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}q_{k}^{(\eta_{u})}(x,u)\left(
1-e^{-\eta_{u}s}\right) ^{k},\quad 0\le s<\infty.$$ Moreover, the series converges uniformly for $(x,s)$ running through any compact subset of $\mathfrak{X} $ $\times$ $\left\{ s\in\mathbb{R}:0\le s< R_u\right\}.$
$(iii)$ The solution $\widehat{p}$ of the Cauchy problem (\[FBK1\]) is holomorphically extendable to $[0,\infty),$ there exists $\eta_{u}>0$ such that $$\label{convratio}
\overline{\lim}_{k\rightarrow\infty}\sqrt[k]{\left\vert q_{k}^{(\eta_{u})}(x,u)\right\vert }\le1,\quad x\in \mathfrak{X},$$ and, there exists $\varepsilon_u,$ $0$ $<$ $\varepsilon_u$ $<$ $1,$ such that the series $$\label{eps3}
\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}q_{k}^{(\eta_{u})}(x,u)w^{k}$$ converges uniformly for $(x,w)$ running through any compact subset of $\mathfrak{X} $ $\times$ $\left\{ w\in\mathbb{C}:\left\vert w\right\vert
<1-\varepsilon_u\right\}.$
See Appendix.
The implication $(iii)'$ $\Rightarrow$ $(i),$ where statement $(iii)'$ consists of (\[convratio\]), and (\[eps3\]) with $\varepsilon_u=0$ holds as well. That is, loosely speaking, if in $(iii)$ series (\[eps3\]) converges uniformly on all compact subsets of $\mathfrak{X} $ $\times$ $\left\{ w\in\mathbb{C}:\left\vert w\right\vert
<1\right\},$ the holomorphy assumption on $\widehat p$ can be dropped.
In order to use the representation in $ (ii) $ one has to choose $ \eta_{u} $. In fact, $ \eta_{u} $ can be related to $ R_{u} $ via $ \eta_{u}=\pi/R_{u} $ and hence increases with decreasing $ R_{u} $.
It is important to note Theorem \[analth\] concerns the solution of the Cauchy problem (\[FBK1\]) connected with a general operator $A.$ In particular, all criteria in this theorem are of pure analytic nature and via (\[qprod\]), respectively (\[qseq\]), exclusively formulated in terms of the $A^k f_u (x)$, i.e. coefficients in Definition \[AV\]. In the case where $A$ is the generator of a Feller Dynkin process one can formulate a sufficient [*probabilistic*]{} criterion for Theorem \[analth\][*-(i)*]{}:
\[probcrit\] Let $ \mathfrak{F} $ be a set of analytic vectors in the sense of Definition \[AV\] and let the Markov process $ \{X_{t}\} $ be associated with the generator $ A $. If in addition, for every $u\in I$ there exists a radius $R_{u}$ such that for any $ t\geq 0 $ $$\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\frac{s^{k}}{k!}\left\vert A^{k} {\mathbb{E}}[f_{u}(X^{0,x}_{t})]\right\vert <\infty,\quad0\leq s<R_{u},\label{AV1}$$ uniformly in $x$ over any compact subset of $\mathfrak{X}$, then Theorem \[analth\][*-(i)*]{} holds.
The statement is a direct consequence of the following “quasi” semi-group property of the transition operator $ P_{t} $.
Let $\mathfrak{F}$ be a set of analytic vectors satisfying (\[AV1\]). Then, for all $x\in\mathfrak{X}$ and all $t\geq 0,$ the generalized transform $ \widehat p({t+s},x,u) $ can be represented as $$\widehat p({t+s},x,u)=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\frac{s^{k}}{k!}A^{k}{\mathbb{E}}[f_{u}(X_{t}^{0,x})] ,\quad 0\leq s<R_{u}, \label{ConvP1}$$ where the series converges uniformly in $x$ over any compact subset of $\mathfrak{X}.$
Denote the right-hand-side of by $ {\widetilde p}(t,s,x,u) $. Obviously, ${\widetilde p}(t,0,x,u)={\mathbb{E}}[f_{u}(X_{t}^{0,x})].$ Set $${\widetilde p}^{(N)}(t,s,x,u):=\sum_{k=0}^{N}\frac{s^{k}}{k!}A^{k}{\mathbb{E}}[f_{u}(X_{t}^{0,x})],$$ then both ${\widetilde p}^{(N)}(t,s,x,u)$ and $$A{\widetilde p}^{(N)}(t,s,x,u)=\sum_{k=0}^{N}\frac{s^{k}}{k!}A^{k+1}{\mathbb{E}}[f_{u}(X_{t}^{0,x})]$$ converge for $N\rightarrow\infty$ uniformly over any compact subset of $\mathfrak{X,}$ and $s$ with $\left\vert s\right\vert $ $<R_{u}-\varepsilon,$ for an arbitrary small $\varepsilon>0$. Hence, for $\left\vert s\right\vert $ $<R_{u}-\varepsilon,$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial}{\partial
s}{\widetilde p}^{(N)}(t,s,x,u)&=\sum_{k=0}^{N-1}\frac{s^{k}}{k!}A^{k+1}{\mathbb{E}}[f_{u}(X_{t}^{0,x})]=A{\widetilde p}^{(N-1)}(t,s,x,u),\\
{\widetilde p}(t,0,x,u) & =\widehat{p}(t,x,u)\end{aligned}$$ and thus, by closeness of the operator $A$ and uniqueness of the Cauchy problem (\[FBK1\])-(\[FBK2\]), we have $ {\widetilde p}(t,s,x,u)=\widehat{p}(t+s,x,u). $
The following proposition provides a situation in a semigroup context where a much stronger version of the condition (i) in Theorem \[analth\] applies. It also sheds light on the connection between semi-group theory and holomorphic properties of generalized transforms.
\[SG\_AV\] Let $C_0(\mathbb{R}^n)$ be the Banach space of continuous functions $f:$ $\mathbb{R}^{n}\rightarrow\mathbb{C}$ which vanish at infinity, equipped with supremum norm: $||f||:=\sup_{x\in \mathbb{R}^n}|f(x)|.$ Let $A:$ $\mathfrak{D}(A)\subset C_0(\mathbb{R}^n)\rightarrow C_0(\mathbb{R}^n)$ be the generator of the Feller-Dynkin semi-group $(P_{s})_{s\geq0}$ associated with the process $X,$ i.e. $P_{s}f(x)=$ ${\mathbb{E}}\,[f(X_{s}^{0,x})],$ $f\in C_0(\mathbb{R}^n).$ Suppose that the family $\mathfrak{F}$ is such that $f_{u}\in\mathfrak{D}(A^{k})$ for each $u\in I$ and all integer $k\geq 0,$ and that for each $u\in I,$ $$\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\frac{s^{k}}{k!}\left\Vert A^{k}f_{u}\right\Vert
<\infty,\quad0\leq s<R_{u}.$$ Then for each $u\in I,$ $$P_{s}f_{u}=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\frac{s^{k}}{k!}A^{k}f_{u},\quad0\leq
s<R_{u},\label{HG}$$ with convergence in $C_0(\mathbb{R}^n).$ Thus, the map $s\rightarrow P_{s}f_{u}$ for $0\leq s<R_{u}$ extends via (\[HG\]) to the complex disc $D_{0}:=\left\{ s\in\mathbb{C}:\left\vert s\right\vert <R_{u}\right\} .$ In particular, for each $x$ $\in\mathbb{R}^{n}$ the map $s\rightarrow P_{s}f_{u}(x)$ is holomorphic in $D_{0}.$ Moreover, for each $t\geq 0,$ we may extend the map $s\rightarrow P_{t+s}f_{u},$ $0\leq s<R_{u}$ to the disc $D_{0}$ via, $$P_{s+t}f_{u}=P_{t}P_{s}f_{u}=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\frac{s^{k}}{k!}P_{t}A^{k}f_{u}=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\frac{s^{k}}{k!}A^{k}P_{t}f_{u},\quad s\in
D_{0}.\label{HG1}$$
See Appendix.
Thus, under the conditions of Proposition \[SG\_AV\], $\mathfrak{F}=\{f_{u},$ $u\in I\}$ is a set of analytic vectors for the generator $A$ in the sense of Definition \[AV\] with $\mathfrak{X}=\mathbb{R}^n$. Moreover, due to Proposition \[SG\_AV\] the map $$s\rightarrow P_{s+t}f_{u}(x)=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\frac{s^{k}}{k!}P_{t}A^{k}f_{u}(x)=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\frac{s^{k}}{k!}A^{k}E[f_{u}(X_{t}^{0,x})],$$ is holomorphic in $D_{0}$ for each $x\in\mathbb{R}^{n}$ and hence Theorem \[analth\]-(i) is fulfilled.
In this paper we do not stick to the semigroup framework because we want to avoid the narrow corset conditions of Proposition \[SG\_AV\]. We also want to consider operators $ A $ with unbounded (for instance, affine) coefficients and sets $\mathfrak{F}$ of functions that do not vanish at infinity (for example, (\[SF\])). Such situations may lead to the violation of condition $ f_{u}\in\mathfrak{D}(A^{k}),\, k\in \mathbb{N} $ in the sense of Proposition \[SG\_AV\]. In particular, in the next Sections \[genA\]-\[LAFF\] we will focus on general operators $A$ with affine coefficients and in Section \[ItoLevy\] on affine processes related to affine generators satisfying a kind of admissibility conditions.
Affine generators {#genA}
=================
Let us now consider generators of the form (\[Gen\]) with affine coefficients. It is important to note that in this section $A$ may or may not be a generator of some Feller-Dynkin process. The next theorem and its corollaries say that the Fourier basis $ \mathfrak{F}=\{ f_{u}(x):=e^{iu^{\top}x},\ u\in \mathbb{R}^n \} $ is a set of analytical vectors for an operator $A$ of the form (\[FBK2\]), where the coefficients $\mathfrak{a}_\alpha(x)$ are affine functions of $x$ and satisfy certain growth conditions for $|\alpha|\rightarrow\infty.$ Moreover, an explicit estimate for the radius of convergence is given.
\[affthm\] Let $ A $ be a generator of the form (\[FBK2\]) with affine coefficients $\mathfrak{a}_\alpha(x),$ i.e. for all multi-indexes $\alpha,$ $$\mathfrak{a}_{\alpha}(x)=:c_{\alpha}+x^{\top}d_{\alpha}\label{a-c-d}, \quad x\in\mathfrak{X},$$ where $\mathfrak{X}\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ is an open region, $c_{\alpha}$ is a scalar constant, and $d_{\alpha}\in\mathbb{R}^{n}$ is a constant vector. Assume that the series $$\sum_{\left\vert \alpha\right\vert >0}\mathfrak{a}_{\alpha}(x)\left(
\mathfrak{i}u\right)^{\alpha}
\label{momres}$$ converges absolutely for all $u\in\mathbb{R}^{n}.$ Then, for every $u\in \mathbb{R}^{n}$ and $x\in\mathfrak{X}$ it holds $$\label{coefest}
\left\vert A^{r} f_u(x)\right\vert\leq (r+1)!\, 2^{nr}(1+\| x \|)^{r}\theta^{r}(\|u\|)
$$ with $\Vert x\Vert=\displaystyle\max_{i=1,\ldots,n}|x_{i}|$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{theta}
\theta(v):=\sum_{k\geq1}2^k(1+v)^{k}\mathcal{D}_{k}^{\mathfrak{a}}, \quad v\in \mathbb{R}_{+}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\mathcal{D}_{k}^{\mathfrak{a}}:=\sup_{x\in \mathfrak{X}}\,
\max_{|\alpha|=k,\,|\beta|\leq1}\frac{|
\partial_{x^{\beta}}\mathfrak{a}_{\alpha}(x)|}{1+\|x\|}.$$
The proof of Theorem \[affthm\] is given in the Appendix.
If in Theorem \[affthm\] the region $\mathfrak{X}$ is bounded, the Fourier basis $ \mathfrak{F} $ constitutes a set of analytic vectors for the affine operator $A$ in $\mathfrak{X}.$
If in Theorem \[affthm\] there exists for any $\varsigma>0$ a constant $M$ (which may depend on $\varsigma>0$) such that $$\mathcal{D}_{k}^{\mathfrak{a}}\leq M\varsigma^{k}/k!\quad
k\geq 1,$$ then$$\theta(v)\leq M\exp\left( 2\varsigma(1+v)\right).$$
If in Theorem \[affthm\] it holds that $ \mathfrak{a}_{\alpha}(x)\equiv 0 $ for $ |\alpha|>2 $ (generator of diffusion type) then$$\theta(v)\leq C(1+v)^{2}, \quad C>0.$$
The requirement that converges for all $ u $ imposes restrictions only on the tails of the measure $ \nu $ and so does not exclude infinite activity processes.
For an affine operator $A$ the sequence (\[qprod\]) can be explicitly constructed via the next proposition, which is proved in the Appendix.
\[affprop\] Let $A$ be an affine generator as in Theorem \[affthm\] and define $$\begin{aligned}
\mathfrak{b}_{\beta}(x,u) &:=\partial_{u^\beta} \frac{Af_u(x)}{f_u(x)}=
\sum_{\alpha\ge0}\mathfrak{a}_{\alpha+\beta}(x)
\frac{(\alpha+\beta)!}{\alpha!}(\mathfrak{i}u)^{\alpha}\\
&=:
\mathfrak{b}_{\beta}^{0}(u)+\sum_{\kappa,\,\left\vert \kappa\right\vert
=1}\mathfrak{b}_{\beta,\kappa}^{1}(u)\,x^{\kappa},\end{aligned}$$ with $\mathfrak{a}_0:=0.$ We set $A^r f_u(x)$ $=:$ $g_r(x,u) f_u(x) $ and, for fixed $\eta$ $>$ $0,$ $q^{(\eta)}_r(x,u)=:h_r(x,u) f_u(x),$ where both $g_r$ and $h_r$ are polynomials in $x$ of degree $r.$ It holds $$\label{ghpol}
g_{r}(x,u)=:\sum_{\left\vert \gamma\right\vert \leq r}g_{r,\gamma}(u)x^{\gamma},\quad
h_{r}(x,u)=:\sum_{\left\vert \gamma\right\vert \leq r}h_{r,\gamma}(u)x^{\gamma},$$ where $g_r$ and $h_r$ satisfy $g_0$ $\equiv$ $g_{0,0}$ $\equiv$ $h_0$ $\equiv$ $h_{0,0}$ $\equiv$ $1,$ and for $r\ge0,$ respectively, $$\begin{aligned}
g_{r+1,\gamma}&=& \label{grecu}
\sum_{\left\vert \beta\right\vert \leq r-\left\vert \gamma\right\vert
}\binom{\gamma+\beta}{\beta}g_{r,\gamma+\beta}\mathfrak{b}_{\beta}^{0}\\
&+&\sum_{\left\vert \kappa\right\vert =1,\, \kappa\leq\gamma}\ \sum_{\left\vert
\beta\right\vert \leq r+1-\left\vert \gamma\right\vert }\binom{\gamma-\kappa+\beta}{\beta}
g_{r,\gamma
-\kappa+\beta}\mathfrak{b}_{\beta,\kappa
}^{1},\ {\rm and,} \notag\\
(r+1)h_{r+1,\gamma}&=& \notag
\sum_{\left\vert \beta\right\vert \leq r-\left\vert \gamma\right\vert
}\eta^{-1}\binom{\gamma+\beta}{\beta}h_{r,\gamma+\beta}\mathfrak{b}_{\beta
}^{0} \\
&+&\!\! \!\! \!\! \sum_{\left\vert \kappa\right\vert =1,\, \kappa\le\gamma}\ \sum_{
\left\vert \beta\right\vert \leq r+1-\left\vert \gamma\right\vert }\!\! \! \eta^{-1}\binom{\gamma-\kappa+\beta}{\beta}
h_{r,\gamma-\kappa+\beta}\mathfrak{b}_{\beta,\kappa}^{1}+rh_{r,\gamma}(u) , \notag\end{aligned}$$ where $\left\vert \gamma\right\vert \leq r+1,$ and empty sums are defined to be zero.
\[trans\][Depending on the open set $\mathfrak X$ we may consider instead of (\[ghpol\]) for an $x_0$ $\in$ $\mathfrak X$ expansions in $x-x_0$ rather than in $x.$ For simplicity we henceforth assume $\{ 0 \}\in \mathfrak X$ which, if necessary, may be realized by a translation of the state space. ]{}
A natural question is whether affine generators are the only ones for which the Fourier basis constitutes a set of analytic vectors. For this paper we leave this issue as an open problem but the following proposition shows that at any case the set of such generators is rather “thin”.
Let us put $\mathfrak{X}=[-\pi,\pi]$ and $$A=\frac{1}{2}a(x)\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2}+
b(x) \frac{\partial}{\partial x}.$$
\[thin\] The set of coefficients $ (a(x),b(x)) $ such that for an arbitrary $ M>0 $ $$\|A^{N}f_{u} \|_{L^{2}(\mathfrak{X})}\gtrsim M^{N}N!\,,\quad N\to \infty,$$ is dense in $ L^{2}(\mathfrak{X})\times L^{2}(\mathfrak{X}) $.
Without loss of generality let us assume that $ b(x)\equiv 0 $ and $u>0.$ The general case can be considered along the same ideas and is only formally more complicated. Any $a\in L^ 2(\mathfrak{X})$ may be approximated (in $L^2$-sense) by a finite Fourier series $$a(x)\approx\sum_{l=1}^ n a_le^ { il x}.$$ Thus, for given $\varepsilon >0$ we can find natural $ n $ and amplitudes $a_l$ ($ a_{n}\neq 0$) such that $$\left\|a(x)-\sum_{l=1}^n a_le^ {il x}\right\|_{L^ 2(\mathfrak{X})}\leq \varepsilon .$$ The corresponding approximative operator is given by $$\widetilde A:=\sum_{l=1}^ n \widetilde A_l= \sum_{l=1}^ n a_le^ {i l x}\frac{\partial^ 2}{\partial x^
2}.$$ Using the fact that for any $ s_{1},\ldots,s_{k}\in \mathbb{N}, $ $$\widetilde A_{s_1}\cdots \widetilde A_{s_k}e^ {iux}=(-1)^ ka_{s_1}\cdots a_{s_k} \prod_{l=0}^ {k-1}
\left(u+\sum_{j=0}^ {l} s_{j}\right)^ 2 e^ {i(u+\sum_{j=1}^ ks_{j})x},$$ and setting $$F_k :=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi} e^ {-i k x}f_{u}^{-1}(x)\widetilde{A}^{N}f_{u}(x) dx, \quad k\in
\mathbb{N},$$ we have $ F_{k}=0 $ for $ k>nN, $ and for $N\to \infty$ $$F_{nN}=(-1)^ N a_n^ {N}\prod_{l=0}^{N-1}(u+nl)^ 2
\sim (-1)^ N a_n^ {N}n^{2N}((N-1)!)^2(N-1)^{2u/n}.$$ Further, by Parseval’s identity it holds $$\| \widetilde{A}^{N}f_{u} \|_{L^{2}(\mathfrak{X})}=
\left[ 2\pi\sum_{k=0}^{nN} |F_{k}|^{2} \right]^{1/2},$$ and then we are done.
Obviously, Proposition \[thin\] may be formulated with respect to any compact interval.
Log-affine representations for the affine Cauchy problem {#LAFF}
========================================================
Let us consider the Cauchy problem (\[FBK1\]) for affine generators $A$ of the form (\[FBK2\]), under the assumption (\[momres\]). As in (\[a-c-d\]) we set $\mathfrak{a}(x)$ $=$ $c_\alpha$ $+$ $x^\top d_\alpha.$ The ansatz $$\widehat{p}(s,x,u)=\exp\left( C(s,u)+x^{\top}D(s,u)\right) , \label{AnsatzA}$$ for scalar $C(s,u)$ and vector valued $D(s,u)$, where $C(0,u)=0$ and $D(0,u)=\mathfrak{i}u,$ for the Cauchy problem (\[FBK1\]) yields, $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_{s}C+x^{\top}\partial_{s}D & =\sum_{\left\vert \alpha
\right\vert >0}\mathfrak{a}_{\alpha}(x)D^{\alpha}
=\sum_{\left\vert \alpha\right\vert >0}c_{\alpha}D^{\alpha}+\sum
_{\left\vert \alpha\right\vert >0}x^{\top}d_{\alpha}D^{\alpha},\end{aligned}$$and so $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_{s}C =\sum_{\left\vert \alpha\right\vert >0}c_{\alpha}D^{\alpha
},\quad
\partial_{s}D =\sum_{\left\vert \alpha\right\vert >0}d_{\alpha}D^{\alpha
},\\
C(0,u) =0,\quad D(0,u)=\mathfrak{i}u.\end{aligned}$$ We thus have a system of ordinary differential equations (ODEs), which reads component-wise$$\begin{aligned}
\partial_{s}C =\sum_{\left\vert \alpha\right\vert >0}c_{\alpha}D^{\alpha
},\quad
\partial_{s} D_{j} =\sum_{\left\vert \alpha\right\vert >0}d_{\alpha}^{(j)}D^{\alpha},\quad j=1,...,n,\nonumber\\
C(0,u) =0,\quad D_{j}(0,u)=\mathfrak{i}u_{j}\label{Ricatti}.\end{aligned}$$ By assumption (\[momres\]), the series $$\label{cda}
\sum_{\left\vert \alpha\right\vert >0}c_{\alpha}y^{\alpha},\quad
\sum_{\left\vert \alpha\right\vert >0}d_{\alpha}^{(j)}y^{\alpha},\quad
j=1,...,n,$$ are absolutely convergent for all $y\in\mathbb{R}^{n},$ and thus define terms-wise differentiable $C^{(\infty)}(\mathbb{R}^{n})$ functions. In particular, they are locally Lipschitz and so according to standard ODE theory the system (\[Ricatti\]) has for fixed $u\in\mathbb{R}^{n}$ a unique solution $(C(s,u),D(s,u))$ for $0\leq s<s_{u}^{\infty}\leq\infty,$ where $(s,C(s,u),D(s,u))$ leaves any compact subset of $\mathbb{R}\times
\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^{n},$ when $s\uparrow s_{u}^{\infty}.$
By a general theorem from analysis (e.g., see [@D]), it follows that the solution of (\[Ricatti\]) extends component-wise holomorphically in $s$ into a disc around $s=0,$ due to the analyticity of (\[cda\]). This implies that (\[AnsatzA\]) is holomorphic in $s.$ So, besides Theorem \[affthm\], also along this line one may show that (\[AnsatzA\]) can be represented as a power series of the form (\[ConvP\]). I.e., in particular, the Fourier basis (\[SF\]) constitutes a set of analytic vectors for the affine operator $A.$ However, the direct approach in the proof of Theorem \[affthm\] (see Appendix) leads to an explicit estimate and allows for investigating possible extensions of $ \widehat p(s,x,u) $ into a strip containing the real axis in the complex plane (see Theorem \[affineD\]). Moreover, it also suggests the line to follow in cases where $A$ is not affine and/or the function base is not of the form (\[SF\]).
Let us suppose that for fixed $u\in\mathbb{R}^{n}$ the statements of Theorem \[analth\] hold. Then we obtain for $0\le s<s^\infty_u\le\infty,$ $x\in\mathfrak{X,}$ $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{p}(s,x,u)&=\exp\left( C(s,u)+x^{\top}D(s,u)\right) \label{logC}\\
&=\sum
_{k=0}^{\infty}q_{k}^{(\eta_{u})}(x,u)(1-e^{-\eta_{u}s})^{k}.
\notag\end{aligned}$$ [Since $q_{0}^{(\eta_{u})}(x,u)=f_{u}(x)=\exp\left(
\mathfrak{i}u^{\top}x\right) \neq0$ we have, taking into account the boundary conditions for $C$ and $D,$ at least for small enough $\varepsilon>0,$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{epsi}
C(s,u)+x^{\top}D(s,u) & =\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\rho_{k}^{(\eta_{u})}(x,u)(1-e^{-\eta_{u}s})^{k}, \quad 0\le s<\varepsilon,\end{aligned}$$ where by a standard lemma on the power series expansion of the logarithm of a power series, $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{0}^{(\eta_{u})}(x,u) & =\ln q_{0}^{(\eta_{u})}(x,u)=\mathfrak{i}u^{\top}x,\label{rhoaff}\\
\rho_{k}^{(\eta_{u})}(x,u) & =\frac{1}{f_{u}(x)}\left[ q_{k}^{(\eta_{u})}(x,u)-\frac{1}{k}\sum_{j=1}^{k-1}j\rho_{j}^{(\eta_{u})}(x,u)q_{k-j}^{(\eta_{u})}(x,u)\right], \quad k\geq1.\notag\end{aligned}$$ Thus by (\[epsi\]), the $\rho_{k}^{(\eta_{u})}$ are necessarily affine in $x$! ]{}
[It is possible to prove directly that the functions $\rho_{k}^{(\eta
_{u})}$ defined above are affine in $x$ using Proposition \[affprop\] via a (rather laborious) induction procedure, so without using a local solution of (\[Ricatti\]). ]{}
\[logbran\] Suppose that for fixed $u\in I$ the statement of Theorem \[analth\]-(i) holds for an open region $\mathfrak{X}$ and, in addition, for $s\in G_{R_u}$ and $x\in\mathfrak{X}$ it holds $\widehat p(s,x,u)\neq0.$ Then, with $\rho_{k}^{(\eta_{u})}(x,u)=:\rho_{k}^{(\eta_{u},0)}(u)+x^\top\rho_{k}^{(\eta_{u},1)}(u)$ determined by (\[rhoaff\]), we have $$\widehat p(s,x,u)=\exp\left[\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\left(\rho_{k}^{(\eta_{u},0)}
+x^\top \rho_{k}^{(\eta_{u},1)}(u)\right)(1-e^{-\eta_{u}s})^k\right],\quad 0\le s<\infty.$$
Let $u\in I$ and $x\in\mathfrak{X}$ be fixed. Since $G_{R_u}$ is simply connected and $s\rightarrow\widehat p(s,x,u)$ is holomorphic and non-zero in $G_{R_u}$, there exists a branch $s\rightarrow L(s,x,u)$ of the logarithm such that $\widehat p(s,x,u)=\exp(L(s,x,u))$ for all $s\in G_{R_u}.$ Along the same line as in Theorem \[analth\] we then argue that there exists an $\eta_u>0$ such that $w\rightarrow L(\Phi_{\eta_u}(w),x,u) $ (see the proof of Theorem \[analth\]) is holomorphic in the unit disc $\{w:\mid w\mid<1\},$ hence, there exists $\widetilde\rho_{k}(x,u)$ such that $$L(\Phi_{\eta_u}(w),x,u)=\sum_{k\ge0}\widetilde\rho_{k}(x,u)w^k, \quad 0\le |w|<1,\quad {\rm and\ so}$$ $$L(s,x,u)=\sum_{k\ge0}\widetilde\rho_{k}(x,u)(1-e^{-\eta_{u}s})^k,\quad 0\le s<\infty.$$ Since the later expansion must coincide with (\[epsi\]) for small $s,$ it follows that necessarily $\widetilde\rho_{k}(x,u)$ $=$ $\rho^{(\eta_u)}_{k}(x,u)$ and the theorem is proved.
Let us now pass to another interesting log-affine representation for the characteristic function. From (\[ghpol\]) and (\[grecu\]) we derive formally $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{r\geq0}q_{r}^{(\eta)}(x,u)(1-e^{-\eta s})^{r}&=e^{\mathfrak{i}u^{\top}x}\sum_{r\geq0}\sum_{\gamma\geq
0}h_{r,\gamma}(u)x^{\gamma}(1-e^{-\eta s})^{r}1_{\left\vert \gamma\right\vert
\leq r}\\
& =e^{\mathfrak{i}u^{\top}x}\sum_{\gamma\geq0}x^{\gamma}\sum_{r\geq
0}h_{\left\vert \gamma\right\vert +r,\gamma}(u)(1-e^{-\eta s})^{\left\vert
\gamma\right\vert +r}.$$ Suppose that the requirements of Theorem \[logbran\] hold. Then, using Theorem \[affthm\], it is easy to show that for small enough $\varepsilon>0$, $$\sum_{\gamma\geq0}\|x\|_\infty^{|\gamma|}\sum_{r\geq
0}|h_{\left\vert \gamma\right\vert +r,\gamma}(u)||w|^{\left\vert
\gamma\right\vert +r}<\infty, \quad {\rm if}\ \quad |w|<\varepsilon,\quad \|x\|_\infty<\varepsilon$$ (see Remark \[trans\]). Thus, for $|s|$ and $\|x\|_\infty$ small enough we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\ln\widehat{p}(s,x,u)&=&\mathfrak{i}u^{\top}x+\ln\left(\sum_{\gamma\geq0}x^{\gamma}\sum_{r\geq0}h_{\left\vert \gamma\right\vert
+r,\gamma}(u)(1-e^{-\eta s})^{\left\vert \gamma\right\vert +r}\right)\\
&=&C(s,u)+x^{\top}D(s,u),$$ with (in multi-index notation) $$\begin{aligned}
C(s,u) & =\ln\left(\sum_{r\geq0}h_{r,0}(u)(1-e^{-\eta_{u}s})^{r}\right),\label{Comp}\\
D^{\kappa}(s,u) & =\mathfrak{i}u^{\kappa}+\frac{\sum
_{r\geq1}h_{r,\kappa}(u)(1-e^{-\eta_{u}s})^{r}}{\sum_{r\geq0}h_{r,0}(u)(1-e^{-\eta_{u}s})^{r}},\quad\left\vert \kappa\right\vert =1.\notag\end{aligned}$$ However, the left- and right-hand-sides of (\[Comp\]) are holomorphic for all $s$ $\in$ $G_{R_u}$ and we so arrive at the representation $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{p}(s,x,u) & =\exp\left[ \ln\left(\sum_{r\geq0}h_{r,0}(u)(1-e^{-\eta_{u}s})^{r}\right)+\mathfrak{i}u^{\top}x\right. \label{logseries} \\
& +\left. x^{\top} \frac{\sum_{r\geq1}h_{r}(u)\,(1-e^{-\eta_{u}s})^{r}}{\sum_{r\geq0}h_{r,0}(u)(1-e^{-\eta_{u}s})^{r}}\right],\quad s\in G_{R_u,}\ x\in\mathfrak{X,}\notag\end{aligned}$$ with$$h_{r}(u):=\left[ h_{r,i}(u)\right] _{i=1,...,n},$$ where for $1\leq i\leq n,$ the multi-index $(\delta_{ij})_{j=1,...,n}$ is identified with $i.$ \
Particularly due to the explicit estimate (\[coefest\]) for affine generators in Theorem \[affthm\], we may proof the next theorem (which is a non-probabilistic version of Proposition \[probcrit\] in the situation where $A$ is affine).
\[affineD\] Let $ \mathfrak{X} $ be a bounded domain. Assume that the system [(\[Ricatti\])]{} is non-exploding, i.e. $s_{u}^{\infty}$ $=$ $\infty,$ and that for any fixed $u\in\mathbb{R}^n$ the solution $D(s,u)$ remains bounded as $s$ $\rightarrow$ $\infty.$ Then, there exists a radius $R_u>0$ such that for any $t\ge 0$ the map $s$ $\rightarrow$ $\widehat{p}(t+s,x,u),$ $0\le s<R_u$ has a holomorphic extension to the disc $\{s\in \mathbb{C}:\vert s\vert<R_u\}.$ Moreover, it holds $$\widehat p({t+s},x,u)=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\frac{s^{k}}{k!}A^{k}\widehat p({t},\cdot,u)\,(x),\quad |s|<R_{u},\quad x\in \mathfrak{X} .
\label{ConvP1'}$$
\[RLB\] The maximal extension radius $ R_{u} $ satisfies $$\label{RU}
R_u\geq \frac{1}{2^{n}\,\theta(\|D^{*}(u)\|)}\inf_{x\in \mathfrak{X}}\frac{1}{1+\|x\|},$$ where function $ \theta$ is defined in and $ \|D^{*}(u)\|=\sup_{s>0}\|D(s,u)\| $.
Denote the right-hand-side of by $ {\widetilde p}(t,s,x,u) $. Obviously, ${\widetilde p}(t,0,x,u)={\widehat p}(t,0,x,u).$ Let us define $${\widetilde p}^{(N)}(t,s,x,u):=\sum_{k=0}^{N}\frac{s^{k}}{k!}A^{k}\widehat
p({t},\cdot,u)\,(x).$$ Since $\widehat p({t},x,u)$ $=$ $\exp(C(t,u)+x^\top D(t,u)),$ Theorem \[affthm\] implies that the series $$\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\frac{s^{k}}{k!}A^{k}\widehat p({t},\cdot,u)\,(x)$$ is absolutely and uniformly convergent on any compact subset of $\mathfrak{X}\times\{s\in \mathbb{C}:\vert s\vert<R_u\}$ if $ R_{u} $ satisfies . So, both ${\widetilde p}^{(N)}(t,s,x,u)$ and $$A{\widetilde p}^{(N)}(t,s,x,u)=\sum_{k=0}^{N}\frac{s^{k}}{k!}A^{k+1}\widehat p({t},\cdot,u)\,(x)$$ converge for $N\rightarrow\infty$ uniformly over any compact subset of $\mathfrak{X}$ and $s$ with $\left\vert s\right\vert <R_{u}-\varepsilon$ for any $\varepsilon>0$. Hence, for $\left\vert s\right\vert <R_{u}-\varepsilon$ $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial}{\partial
s}{\widetilde p}^{(N)}(t,s,x,u)&=\sum_{k=0}^{N-1}\frac{s^{k}}{k!}A^{k+1}\widehat p(t,\cdot,u)=A{\widetilde p}^{(N-1)}(t,s,x,u),\\
{\widetilde p}(t,0,x,u) & =\widehat{p}(t,x,u),\end{aligned}$$ and thus, by closeness of the operator $A$ and uniqueness of the Cauchy problem (\[FBK1\])-(\[FBK2\]), we have $ {\widetilde p}(t,s,x,u)=\widehat{p}(t+s,x,u). $
Full expansion of a specially structured one dimensional affine system {#EX}
======================================================================
Let us consider Cauchy problem for $n=1$ with $f_{u}(x)=\exp(\mathfrak{i}ux),$ where the jump-kernel in the generator $A$ (see ) has a special affine structure of the form$$v(x,dz)=:(\lambda_{0}+\lambda_{1}x)\mu(dz),$$ and where the diffusion coefficients have a similar structure,$$b(x)=(\lambda_{0}+\lambda_{1}x)\theta,\quad a(x)=(\lambda_{0}+\lambda
_{1}x)\vartheta,$$ for some constants $\lambda_{0},\lambda_{1},\theta,\vartheta\in\mathbb{R},$ and measure $\mu.$ So, in Proposition \[affprop\] the $\mathfrak{a}_{\alpha}$ have the form $\mathfrak{a}_{l}$ $=:$ $(\lambda_{0}+\lambda_{1}x)\eta_{l}$ where$$\eta_{0}:=0,\quad\eta_{1}=\theta,\quad\eta_{2}:=\frac{1}{2}\left(
\vartheta+\int z^{2}\mu(dz)\right) ,\quad\eta_{l}:=\frac{1}{l!}\int z^{l}\mu(dz),\quad l>2.$$ Hence, in Proposition \[affprop\], the $\mathfrak{b}_{\beta}$ in have the form$$\begin{aligned}
\mathfrak{b}_{r}(x,u) & =\mathfrak{b}_{r}^{0}(u)+x\mathfrak{b}_{r}^{1}(u)\\
& =:(\lambda_{0}+\lambda_{1}x)\sum_{l\geq0}\eta_{l+r}\frac{(l+r)!}{l!}(\mathfrak{i}u)^{l}=:(\lambda_{0}+\lambda_{1}x)\frac{d^{r}}{du^{r}}\mathfrak{h}(u)
\quad r\geq 0,\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathfrak{h}(u):=\sum_{l\geq0}\eta_{l}(\mathfrak{i}u)^{l}.$ It is now possible to show via that for $r\geq1,$$$\begin{gathered}
\label{GR}
g_{r}(x,u)=\sum_{\substack{p>0,\,q\geq0\\ 0<n_{1}<...<n_{q},\,\,m_{1},...,m_{q}\geq0,\\r=p+n_{1}m_{1}+\cdot\cdot\cdot+n_{q}m_{q}}}\frac{1}{r!}\pi_{(n_{1},m_{1}),\cdot\cdot\cdot,(n_{q},m_{q})}^{(p)}\lambda_{1}^{r-p}(\lambda_{0}+\lambda_{1}x)^{p}\\
\times\ \mathfrak{h}^{p}(u)\
\prod\limits_{j=1}^{q}
\left( \mathfrak{h}^{n_{j}-1}(u)\frac{d^{n_{j}}}{du^{n_{j}}}\mathfrak{h}(u)\right) ^{m_{j}},\end{gathered}$$ with the following integer recursion procedure:
Initialization:
: $\pi^{(p)}\equiv1,\quad\pi_{(n_{1},m_{1}),\cdot\cdot
\cdot,(n_{q},m_{q})}^{(0)}\equiv0,\quad p,q\geq1.$
For all $ n_{i}>0, \, m_{i}\geq 0,$ with $ 1\leq i\leq q, \, p,q\geq 1 $:
Reduction rule I:
: If $m_{j}=0,$ for some $ j $, $1\leq j\leq q,$ then $$\pi_{(n_{1},m_{1}),\cdot\cdot\cdot,(n_{q},m_{q})}^{(p)}=\pi_{(n_{1},m_{1}),\cdot\cdot\cdot,(n_{j-1},m_{j-1}),(n_{j+1},m_{j+1}),\cdot\cdot
\cdot,(n_{q},m_{q})}^{(p)}.$$
Reduction rule II:
: $$\begin{gathered}
\qquad\pi_{(n_{1},m_{1}),\cdot\cdot\cdot,(n_{q-1},m_{q-1}),(n_{q},m_{q})}^{(p)}=
\\
\sum_{j=1}^{q}\binom{p+n_{j}-1}{n_{j}}\pi_{(n_{1},m_{1}),\cdot\cdot\cdot,(n_{j},m_{j}-1),\cdot\cdot\cdot
,(n_{q},m_{q})}^{(p+n_{j}-1)}
+\pi_{(n_{1},m_{1}),\cdot\cdot\cdot,(n_{q},m_{q})}^{(p-1)}.$$
In fact, the above recursion procedure follows automatically after substituting as ansatz into .
Note that $$\begin{aligned}
\mathfrak{h}(u) & =\mathfrak{i}u\theta-\frac{1}{2}\vartheta u^{2}+\sum
_{l\geq2}\frac{(\mathfrak{i}u)^{l}}{l!}\int z^{l}\mu(dz)\\
& =\phi(u)-1+\left( \mathfrak{i}\theta-\phi^{\prime}(0)\right) u-\frac
{1}{2}\vartheta u^{2},\end{aligned}$$ where $\phi$ is the characteristic function of the measure $\mu.$ Hence, $\mathfrak{h}$ and all its derivatives may be computed from $\phi.$ Subsequently we obtain the $q_{k}^{(\eta)}$ for the series expansion in Theorem \[analth\] by , i.e.$$q_{k}^{(\eta)}(x,u)=:\frac{1}{k!}\sum_{r=0}^{k}c_{k,r}\eta^{-r}g_{r}$$
Application to affine processes {#ItoLevy}
===============================
Affine processes have become very popular in recent years due to their analytical tractability in the context of option pricing, and their rather rich dynamics. Many well-known models such as Heston and Bates models fall into the class of affine jump diffusions. Option pricing in these models is usually done via the Fourier method which requires knowledge of the Fourier transform of the process in closed form (see e.g. [@DPS]). The functional series representations for affine generators developed in this paper, in particular (\[logseries\]), can be directly applied to affine processes. Let us recall the characterization of a regular affine process as given in [@DFS].
We call a strong Markov process $ \{ X_{t} \} $ with generator $ A $ a regular affine process if $ A $ is of the form and all functions $$a_{ij}(x),\ b_{i}(x),\ v(x,dz)\quad i,j=1,\ldots,m$$ are affine in $ x $ (see ), and satisfy the set of admissability conditions spelled out in [@DFS Definition 2.6]. These conditions guarantee that $A$ is the generator of a Feller-Dynkin (strong) Markov process $X$ in a subspace of the form $ \mathbb{R}^l\times\mathbb{R}^{n-l}_{+}\subset \mathbb{R}^{n} $ for some $ 0\leq l\leq n $.
The next theorem provides a sufficient condition for convergence of the series representation in Theorem \[analth\]-(ii), hence representation , for regular affine processes.
Let $ \{ X_s \} $ be a regular affine process which has a non-degenerated limiting distribution for $s\rightarrow\infty$, and has a generator $ A $ which satisfies the moment condition (\[momres\]). Then the (conditional) characteristic function $\widehat p(s,x,u)$ $=$ ${\mathbb{E}}[f_u(X^{0,x}_s)],$ with $f_u(x)$ $=$ $e^{\mathfrak i u^\top x},$ has a representation according to Theorem \[analth\]-(ii): $$\widehat{p}(s,x,u)=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}q_{k}^{(\eta_{u})}(x,u)\left(
1-e^{-\eta_{u}s}\right) ^{k},\quad 0\le s<\infty.$$ Moreover, the scaling factor $ \eta_{u} $ may be chosen according to the inequality: $$\eta_{u}\geq C\, \theta(L(1+\|u\|^{2}_{2})),$$ where the (monotonic) function $ \theta$ is defined in , $L>0$ is a constant independent of $x$, and $ C $ is a constant generally depending on $ x $.
Following [@DFS], $\widehat p(s,x,u)$ has representation of the form (\[AnsatzA\]) for $0\le s<\infty.$ The existence of a limiting distribution implies in particular that $D(s,u)$ in (\[AnsatzA\]) is bounded for all $s\ge0.$ Moreover, as shown in [@DFS Section 7], $\widehat p(s,x,u)$ is the characteristic function of some infinitely divisible distribution for all $ s>0 $ (hence also in the limit $ s\to \infty $). As a consequence (see [@SA]), there exists an $ M>0 $ independent of $ s $ such that $$\lim_{\| u \|_2\to \infty}\| u \|^{-2}_{2}\left|\log \widehat p(s,x,u) \right|<M.$$ This implies that $\| D(s,u) \|\leq L (1+\| u \|^{2}_{2})$ for some constant $ L>0 $ not depending on $ x $ and $ s\geq 0 $. Now we apply Theorem \[affineD\] and Remark \[RLB\].
The existence of a limiting stationary distribution is a sufficient condition for the boundedness of $ D(s,u) $. In fact, there are affine processes which have no limit distribution but bounded $ D(s,u) $ (a trivial example is standard Brownian motion). The study of existence of limiting (and stationary) distributions for affine processes is currently under active research, e.g. see [@KS] or [@KU].
Appendix
========
Proof of Theorem \[analth\] {#proof-of-theorem-analth .unnumbered}
---------------------------
$(i)\Longrightarrow(ii):$ Let $\mathcal{U}$ $:=$ $\left\{ z\in\mathbb{C}:\left\vert z\right\vert
<1\right\}$ be the unit disc in the complex plane. Consider for $\eta>0$ the map$$\Phi_{\eta}:z\longrightarrow-\frac{1}{\eta}\text{Ln}(1-z).$$ Obviously, there exists an $\eta_{u}>0$ such that$$(0-,\infty)\subset\Phi_{\eta_{u}}(\mathcal{U})\subset G_{R_{u}}.$$ Moreover, the map $\Phi_{\eta_{u}}$ is injective on $\mathcal{U}.$ Thus, (denoting the extension in $(i)$ with $\widehat{p}$ as well) for each $x\in\mathfrak{X},$ the function $\widehat{p}(\Phi_{\eta_{u}}(w),x,u)$ is holomorphic in $\mathcal{U}$ and has a series expansion $$w\longrightarrow\widehat{p}(\Phi_{\eta_u}(w),x,u)=:\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\widetilde{q}_{k}(x,u)w^{k},\quad\left\vert w\right\vert <1\mathfrak{,}$$ and as a consequence, $$\widehat{p}(z,x,u)=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\widetilde{q}_{k}(x,u)(1-e^{-\eta
_uz})^{k},\quad z\in\Phi_{\eta_u}(\mathcal{U}),\quad x\in\mathfrak{X.}\label{cons}$$ Since (\[cons\]) holds in particular for $z\in(0-,\infty),$ we have in a (possibly small) $\varepsilon$-disk around $z=0,$ $$\widehat{p}(z,x,u)=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\widetilde{q}_{k}(x,u)(1-e^{-\eta
_uz})^{k}=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\frac{z^{k}}{k!}A^{k}f_{u}(x),\quad
0\leq\left\vert z\right\vert <\varepsilon,\label{qA}$$ due to Proposition \[propa\]. By taking $z=0$ we have $$\widehat{p}(0,x,u)=\widetilde{q}_{0}(x,u)=f_{u}(x).$$ Taking derivatives at $ z=0 $ yields $$\begin{aligned}
\left. \frac{\partial^{k}}{\partial z^{k}}\sum_{l=0}^{\infty}\widetilde{q}_{l}(x,u)(1-e^{-\eta_u z})^{l}\right\vert _{z=0} & =\left. \sum_{l=0}^{k}\widetilde{q}_{l}(x,u)\frac{\partial^{k}}{\partial z^{k}}\sum_{j=0}^{l}\binom{l}{j}(-1)^{j}e^{-j\eta_u z}\right\vert _{z=0}\\
& =\left. \sum_{l=0}^{k}\widetilde{q}_{l}(x,u)\sum_{j=0}^{l}\binom{l}{j}(-1)^{j}e^{-j\eta_u z}(-j\eta_u)^{k}\right\vert _{z=0},$$ hence $$\sum_{l=0}^{k}\widetilde{q}_{l}(x,u)\sum_{j=0}^{l}\binom{l}{j}(-1)^{j}(-j)^{k}=\eta^{-k}
_uA^{k}f_{u}(x).\label{qsys}$$ In Lemma \[TeLe\] it is proved that the solution of system (\[qsys\]) is given by $\widetilde{q}_{l}(x,u)={q}_{l}^{(\eta_u)}(x,u)$ with ${q}_{l}^{(\eta_u)}$ defined in (\[qseq\]).\
Next we prove the uniform convergence as stated in (ii). A well known property of Stirling numbers implies that the series $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{r=1}^{\infty}\left\vert \eta_u^{-r}A^{r}f_{u}(x)\right\vert \sum
_{k=r}^{\infty}c_{k,r}\frac{\left\vert w\right\vert ^{k}}{k!} & =\sum_{r=1}^{\infty}\left\vert
\frac{A^{r}f_{u}(x)}{r!}\right\vert \eta_u^{-r} \left\vert \log(1-|w|)\right\vert ^{r}\end{aligned}$$ converges uniformly on any compact subset of $\mathfrak{X}\times\{w:\left\vert w\right\vert < 1-e^{-\eta_u R_{u}}\}.$ Thus, by a Fubini argument the series $$\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\frac{(1-e^{-\eta_u s})^{k}}{k!}\sum_{r=1}^{k}c_{k,r}\eta_u^{-r}A^{r}f_{u}(x)=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}q_k^{({\eta}_{u})}(x,u)(1-e^{-\eta_u s})^{k}$$ is also uniformly convergent on any compact subset of $\mathfrak{X} $ $\times$ $\left\{ s: 0\le s< R_u\right\}.$\
$(ii)\Longrightarrow(iii):$ Is obvious, take $\varepsilon_u:=1-e^{-\eta_u R_{u}}.$\
\
$(iii)\Longrightarrow(i)$ Let $\eta_u$ and $\varepsilon_u$ be such that $(iii)$ holds. We may then define (see the proof of (ii)) $$\widetilde{p}(z,x,u)=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}{q}^{(\eta_u)}_{k}(x,u)(1-e^{-\eta
_uz})^{k},\quad x\in\mathfrak{X},\label{cons1}$$ which is holomorphic in $z\in\Phi_{\eta_u}(\mathcal{U}).$ We first note that $\widetilde{p}(0,x,u)=f_{u}(x).$ Next we consider for $0\leq s<-\eta_u^{-1}\ln\varepsilon_u,$$$\widetilde{p}^{(N)}(s,x,u)=\sum_{k=0}^{N}q_{k}^{(\eta_{u})}(x,u)(1-e^{-\eta
_{u}s})^{k},$$ which satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial}{\partial s}\widetilde{p}^{(N)}(s,x,u) & =\sum_{k=1}^{N}kq_{k}^{(\eta_{u})}(x,u)(1-e^{-\eta_{u}s})^{k-1}\eta_{u}e^{-\eta_{u}s}\nonumber\\
& =-\eta_{u}\sum_{k=1}^{N}kq_{k}^{(\eta_{u})}(x,u)(1-e^{-\eta_{u}s})^{k}\nonumber\\
&+\eta_{u}\sum_{k=0}^{N-1}(k+1)q_{k+1}^{(\eta_{u})}(x,u)(1-e^{-\eta_{u}s})^{k}\label{van0}\\
& =-\eta_{u}Nq_{N}^{(\eta_{u})}(x,u)(1-e^{-\eta_{u}s})^{N}\notag\\
&+\sum_{k=0}^{N-1}Aq_{k}^{(\eta_{u})}(x,u)(1-e^{-\eta_{u}s})^{k}\label{van}$$ by some rearranging and using (\[rec\]). Since due to $(iii)$ the first term in (\[van\]) vanishes for $N\rightarrow\infty,$ we obtain $$\frac{\partial}{\partial s}\widetilde{p}(s,x,u)=\lim_{N\rightarrow\infty}\frac{\partial
}{\partial s}\widetilde{p}^{(N)}(s,x,u)=\lim_{N\rightarrow\infty}A\widetilde{p}^{(N-1)}(s,x,u),$$ together with$$\lim_{N\rightarrow\infty}\widetilde{p}^{(N)}(s,x,u)=\widetilde{p}(s,x,u).$$ From the uniform convergence as stated in (iii) it follows easily that the two series in (\[van0\]), the first term in (\[van\]), and so also the second term in (\[van\]) converge uniformly in the same sense. Thus, the above limits are uniform on compacta accordingly. Since the operator $A$ is closed, we so obtain $$\frac{\partial}{\partial s}\widetilde{p}(s,x,u)=A\widetilde{p}(s,x,u),\quad
0\leq s<-\eta_u^{-1}\ln\varepsilon_u,$$ and by uniqueness of the Cauchy problem associated with the operator $A$ we thus have $$\widehat{p}(s,x,u)=\widetilde{p}(s,x,u)=\sum_{k=0}^{N}q_{k}^{(\eta_{u})}(x,u)(1-e^{-\eta_{u}s})^{k},\quad0\leq s<-\eta_u^{-1}\ln\varepsilon_u.$$ Because of the assumption that $\widehat{p}(s,x,u)$ is holomorphically extendable in each $s,$ $0\le s<\infty,$ we then must have $\widehat{p}(s,x,u)$ $=$ $\widetilde{p}(s,x,u)$ for $0\le s<\infty.$ Finally, it is not difficult to see that there exists $R'_u>0$ such that $G_{R'_u}$ $\subset$ $\Phi_{\eta_u}(\mathcal{U})$, hence $(i)$ is proved. $\Box$
\[TeLe\] The solution of $$\label{indp}
\sum_{l=0}^{k}{q}_{l}(x,u)\sum_{j=0}^{l}\binom{l}{j}(-1)^{j}(-j)^{k}=B^{k}f_{u}(x)$$ satisfies (\[qprod\]), and (\[rec\]) respectively, where $B:=\eta^{-1}A.$
Suppose that the solution $q_l$ of (\[indp\]) satisfies $(l+1)q_{l+1}$ $=$ $Bq_l+lq_l,$ see (\[rec\]), for $0\leq l\leq k,$ $k>0.$ Then (note that summations may be started at $l,j=1$ for $k>0$),$$\sum_{l=1}^{k+1}q_{l}(x,u)\sum_{j=1}^{l}\binom{l}{j}(-1)^{j}(-j)^{k+1}=B^{k+1}f_{u}(x) \label{COEFK1}$$ transforms to $$\begin{gathered}
q_{k+1}(x,u)\sum_{j=1}^{k+1}\binom{k+1}{j}(-1)^{j}(-j)^{k+1}+\\
\sum_{l=1}^{k}\sum_{j=1}^{l}\binom{l}{j}(-1)^{j}(-j)^{k+1}\frac{1}{l!}{\displaystyle\prod\limits_{r=0}^{l-1}}
\left(B+rI\right)f_{u}(x)=B^{k+1}f_{u}(x),\end{gathered}$$ and after some straightforward algebra to $$\begin{gathered}
q_{k+1}(x,u)(-1)^{k+1}\sum_{j=1}^{k+1}\binom{k+1}{j}(-1)^{j}j^{k+1}=\\
B^{k+1}f_{u}(x)-\sum_{l=1}^{k}\sum_{j=1}^{l}\binom{l}{j}(-1)^{j}(-j)^{k+1}\frac{1}{l!}\left(B+rI\right)f_{u}(x).\end{gathered}$$ [*Claim:*]{} For any $ k>0 $ $$\label{COEFL1}
(-1)^{k}\sum_{j=0}^{k}\binom{k}{j}(-1)^{j}j^{k}=k!.$$ This claim is easily proved by considering $h(s):=(1-e^{-s})^{k}$. On the one hand, $$\frac{d}{ds^{k}}h(s)=\frac{d}{ds^{k}}\sum_{j=0}^{k}(-1)^{j}e^{-js}=\sum
_{j=0}^{k}\binom{k}{j}(-1)^{j}(-j)^{k}e^{-js},$$ and on the other, for $\left\vert s\right\vert $ small enough, $h(s)=(s-\frac
{1}{2}s^{2}+...)^{k}=s^{k}+....$ Therefore,$$\left. \frac{d}{ds^{k}}h(s)\right\vert _{s=0}=k!=\sum_{j=0}^{k}\binom{k}{j}(-1)^{j}(-j)^{k}.$$ Using (\[COEFL1\]), is equivalent to $$\begin{gathered}
q_{k+1}(x,u)(k+1)!=B^{k+1}f_{u}(x)-\\
(-1)^{k+1}\sum_{l=1}^{k}\sum_{j=1}^{l}\binom{l}{j}(-1)^{j}j^{k+1}\frac{1}{l!}{\displaystyle\prod\limits_{r=0}^{l-1}}
\left(B+rI\right)f_{u}(x)\end{gathered}$$ The rest follows from the next claim.\
[*Claim:*]{} For any $k>0$ and $ x\in \mathbb{R} $ it holds$$x^{k+1}-(-1)^{k+1}\sum_{l=1}^{k}\sum_{j=1}^{l}\binom{l}{j}(-1)^{j}j^{k+1}\left[ \frac{1}{l!}\prod_{r=0}^{l-1}(x+r)\right]={\displaystyle\prod_{r=0}^{k}}(x+r).
\label{BIN2}$$ In order to prove this claim it is enough to show for $x=-k,-k+1,...,0.$ Since for any natural $ m $, $$\frac{1}{l!}\prod_{r=0}^{l-1}(r-m)=
\begin{cases}
(-1)^{l}\binom{m}{l},&\,l\leq m\\
0,&\,l>m,
\end{cases}$$ we have to show that for $ m\leq k $, $$\sum_{l=1}^{m}\binom{m}{l}(-1)^{l}\left[ \sum_{j=1}^{l}\binom{l}{j}(-1)^{j}j^{k+1}\right] =m^{k+1}.$$ For $k=0$ the above equality is obvious. Assume that we have proved the claim for $k\leq n$. Then it follows that $$\begin{gathered}
\sum_{l=1}^{m}\binom{m}{l}(-1)^{l}\left[ \sum_{j=1}^{l}\binom{l}{j}(-1)^{j}j^{n+1}\right] \\
=m\sum_{l=1}^{m-1}\binom{m-1}{l}(-1)^{l}\left[
\sum_{j=1}^{l}\binom{l}{j}(-1)^{j}(j+1)^{n}\right]
\\
=m\sum_{s=0}^{n}\binom{n}{s}\sum_{l=1}^{m-1}\binom{m-1}{l}(-1)^{l}\left[
\sum_{j=1}^{l}\binom{l}{j}(-1)^{j} j^{s}\right]
\\
=m\sum_{s=0}^{n}\binom{n}{s}(m-1)^{s}=m^{n+1}.\end{gathered}$$
Proof of Theorem \[SG\_AV\] {#proof-of-theoremsg_av .unnumbered}
---------------------------
From the Taylor formula for semi-groups it follows that$$P_{s}f_{u}=\sum_{k=0}^{r}\frac{s^{k}}{k!}A^{k}f_{u}+\frac{1}{r!}\int_{0}^{s}(s-\tau)^{r}P_{\tau}A^{r+1}f_{u}d\tau.$$ Due to (\[HG\]), for $0\leq\tau\leq s<R_{u}$ we have$$\left\Vert P_{\tau}A^{r+1}f_{u}\right\Vert \leq\sup_{0\leq\tau\leq
s}\left\Vert P_{\tau}\right\Vert \,\left\Vert A^{r+1}f_{u}\right\Vert \leq
\sup_{0\leq\tau\leq s}\left\Vert P_{\tau}\right\Vert \,\left( \frac{1}{R_{u}}+\varepsilon\right) ^{r+1}(r+1)!$$ for any $\varepsilon>0.$ It thus follows that $$\left\Vert P_{s}f_{u}-\sum_{k=0}^{r}\frac{s^{k}}{k!}A^{k}f_{u}\right\Vert
\leq\left( \frac{1}{R_{u}}+\varepsilon\right) ^{r+1}s^{r+1}\sup_{0\leq\tau\leq
s}\left\Vert P_{\tau}\right\Vert,$$ which converges to zero when $r\rightarrow\infty,$ if $\left\vert s\right\vert
<R_{u}/(1+\varepsilon R_{u}).$ Since $\varepsilon>0$ is arbitrary, the first statement is proved.
The commutation property $A^{k}P_{t}f_{u}=P_{t}A^{k}f_{u}$ and the boundedness of $P_{t}$ for $t\geq0$ imply that for $\left\vert
s\right\vert <R_{u}$,$$\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\frac{\left\vert s\right\vert ^{k}}{k!}\left\Vert
A^{k}P_{t}f_{u}\right\Vert =\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\frac{\left\vert s\right\vert
^{k}}{k!}\left\Vert P_{t}A^{k}f_{u}\right\Vert \leq\left\Vert P_{t}\right\Vert
\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\frac{\left\vert s\right\vert ^{k}}{k!}\left\Vert
A^{k}f_{u}\right\Vert <\infty.$$ Since $P_{t}f_{u}\in\mathfrak{D}(A^{k})$ for all $k\geq0$, (\[HG1\]) follows.
Proof of Theorem \[affthm\] {#proof-of-theoremaffthm .unnumbered}
---------------------------
For $r\geq0$ define $A^{r}f_{u}$ $=:$ $g_{r}f_{u}$ with $f_{u}(x)=$ $\exp\left[ \mathfrak{i}u^{\top}x\right] ,$ and write $$A^{r+1}f_{u}=A\left( g_{r}\exp(\mathfrak{i}u^{\top}x)\right) =\sum
_{|\alpha|\geq1}\mathfrak{a}_{\alpha}(x)\partial_{x^{\alpha}}\left( g_{r}\exp(\mathfrak{i}u^{\top}x)\right) .$$ Leibniz formula implies $$\begin{aligned}
A^{r+1}f_{u} & =\sum_{|\alpha|\geq1}\mathfrak{a}_{\alpha}(x)\sum_{\beta
\leq\alpha}\frac{\alpha!}{\beta!(\alpha-\beta)!}\partial_{x^{\beta}}g_{r}\partial_{x^{\alpha-\beta}}\exp(\mathfrak{i}u^{\top}x)\\
& =\left( \sum_{|\alpha|\geq1}\mathfrak{a}_{\alpha}(x)\sum_{\beta\leq\alpha
}\frac{\alpha!}{\beta!(\alpha-\beta)!}(\mathfrak{i}u)^{\alpha-\beta}\partial_{x^{\beta}}g_{r}\right) \exp(\mathfrak{i}u^{\top}x).\end{aligned}$$ Hence, the following recurrent formula holds $$g_{r+1}=\sum_{|\alpha|\geq1}\mathfrak{a}_{\alpha}(x)\sum_{\beta\leq\alpha
}\frac{\alpha!}{\beta!(\alpha-\beta)!}\left( \mathfrak{i}u\right)
^{\alpha-\beta}\partial_{x^{\beta}}g_{r}.\label{gp1}$$ Similar formulas for derivatives of $g_{r+1}$ can be obtained: $$\partial_{x^{\rho}}g_{r+1}=\sum_{|\alpha|\geq1}\sum_{\beta\leq\alpha}\frac{\alpha!}{\beta!(\alpha-\beta)!}\left( \mathfrak{i}u\right)
^{\alpha-\beta}\sum_{\eta\leq\rho}\frac{\rho!}{\eta!(\rho-\eta)!}\partial_{x^{\eta}}\mathfrak{a}_{\alpha}\ \partial_{x^{\rho-\eta+\beta}}g_{r}.$$ Since the underlying process is affine, all derivatives of $\mathfrak{a}$ of order higher than one are zero and thus, by induction, $g_{r}$ is polynomial in $x$ of degree at most equal $r.$ We so get for $\left\vert \rho\right\vert \leq r+1,$ $$\partial_{x^{\rho}}g_{r+1}=\sum_{\substack{\eta\leq\rho,\,|\eta|\leq1}}\frac{\rho!}{\eta!(\rho-\eta)!}\sum_{|\alpha|\geq1}\sum_{\beta\leq\alpha}\frac{\alpha!}{\beta!(\alpha-\beta)!}\left( \mathfrak{i}u\right)
^{\alpha-\beta}\partial_{x^{\eta}}\mathfrak{a}_{\alpha}\ \partial
_{x^{\rho-\eta+\beta}}g_{r}$$ By defining $$\Gamma_{r}:=\max_{|\beta|\leq r}\left\vert \partial_{x^{\beta}}g_{r}\right\vert,$$ we obtain the following estimate for $x\in\mathfrak{X},$ $$\left\vert \partial_{x^{\rho}}g_{r+1}\right\vert \leq\Gamma_{r}(1+\|x\|)\sum
_{\substack{\eta\leq\rho,\\|\eta|\leq1}}\frac{\rho!}{\eta!(\rho-\eta)!}\sum_{|\alpha|\geq1}\sum_{\beta\leq\alpha}\frac{\alpha!}{\beta!(\alpha-\beta)!}\left\vert u\right\vert ^{\alpha
-\beta}\mathcal{D}_{|\alpha|}^{\mathfrak{a}}$$ with $\left\vert u\right\vert :=[\left\vert u_{1}\right\vert ,...,\left\vert
u_{n}\right\vert ].$ Hence, by the simple relations $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\{\eta:\left\vert \eta\right\vert \leq1\}}\frac{\rho!}{\eta!(\rho-\eta)!} &
=1+|\rho|,\qquad\sum_{\beta\leq\alpha}\frac{\alpha!}{\beta!(\alpha-\beta
)!}\left\vert u\right\vert ^{\alpha-\beta}\leq(1+\|u\|)^{|\alpha|},\\
\sum_{\alpha,|\alpha|=k}1 & =\frac{(k+n-1)!}{k!(n-1)!}\leq2^{n+k},\end{aligned}$$ with $\Vert u\Vert=\max_{i=1,\ldots,n}|u_{i}|,$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_{r+1}
&\leq& 2^{n}\Gamma_{r}(r+2)(1+\|x\|)\sum_{k\geq1} 2^k(1+\|u\|)^{k}\mathcal{D}_{k}^{\mathfrak{a}}\label{series}
\\
\nonumber
&=&2^{n}\Gamma_{r}(r+2)(1+\|x\|)\theta(\|u\|),\end{aligned}$$ where the series in (\[series\]) is convergent due to assumption (\[momres\]). As a consequence, (\[coefest\]) holds. $\Box $
### Proof of Proposition \[affprop\] {#proof-of-propositionaffprop .unnumbered}
From (\[gp1\]) we have with $\mathfrak{a}_{0}:=0,$ $$\begin{aligned}
g_{r+1}
& =\sum_{\alpha,\beta,\gamma\geq0}\mathfrak{a}_{\alpha}\frac{\alpha!}{\beta!(\alpha-\beta)!}(\mathfrak{i}u)^{\alpha-\beta}g_{r,\gamma}\frac
{\gamma!}{(\gamma-\beta)!}x^{\gamma-\beta}1_{\left\vert \gamma\right\vert \leq
r}1_{\beta\leq\alpha}1_{\beta\leq\gamma}\\
& =\sum_{\beta,\gamma\geq0}g_{r,\gamma+\beta}\binom{\gamma+\beta}{\beta}
x^{\gamma}1_{\left\vert \gamma+\beta\right\vert \leq r}\mathfrak{b}_{\beta
}\\
& =\sum_{\left\vert \gamma\right\vert \leq r}x^{\gamma}\sum_{\left\vert
\beta\right\vert \leq r-\left\vert \gamma\right\vert }g_{r,\gamma+\beta}\binom{\gamma+\beta}{\beta}\mathfrak{b}_{\beta}^{0}\\
& +\sum_{\,\left\vert \gamma\right\vert \leq r}\sum_{\,\left\vert
\beta\right\vert \leq r-\left\vert \gamma\right\vert }g_{r,\gamma+\beta}\binom{\gamma+\beta}{\beta}\sum_{\kappa,\,\left\vert \kappa\right\vert
=1}\mathfrak{b}_{\beta,\kappa}^{1}x^{\gamma+\kappa}\\
& =\sum_{\,\left\vert \gamma\right\vert \leq r+1}x^{\gamma}\sum_{\left\vert
\beta\right\vert \leq r-\left\vert \gamma\right\vert }g_{r,\gamma+\beta}\binom{\gamma+\beta}{\beta}\mathfrak{b}_{\beta}^{0}\\
& +\sum_{\,\left\vert \gamma\right\vert \leq r+1}x^{\gamma}\sum_{\left\vert
\kappa\right\vert =1,\ \kappa\leq\gamma}\sum_{\beta,\,\left\vert
\beta\right\vert \leq r+1-\left\vert \gamma\right\vert }g_{r,\gamma
-\kappa+\beta}\binom{\gamma-\kappa+\beta}{\beta}\mathfrak{b}_{\beta,\kappa
}^{1},$$ where empty sums are to be interpret as zero. The second recursion follows from $(r+1)h_{r+1}=\eta^{-1}\widetilde{h}_{r+1}+rh_{r}$ with $A(h_{r}f_{u})=\widetilde{h}_{r+1}f_{u}$ and $\widetilde{h}_{r+1}$ computed via (\[grecu\]) with $g_{r}$ replaced by $h_{r}.$ $\Box$
[9]{}
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Amadori, A. L.</span> (2003) Nonilinear integro-differential evolution problems arising in option pricing: a viscosity solutions approach, *Differential and Integral Equations* **16**, 787-811.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Dieudonné, J.</span> (1960). *Foundations of Modern Analysis*. Academic Press, New York.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">[Ø]{}ksendal, B.</span> and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Sulem, A.</span> (2007). *Applied Stochastic Control of Jump Diffusions.* Springer.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Duffie, D.</span>, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Pan, J.</span> and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Singleton, K.</span> (2000). Transform analysis and asset pricing for affine jump diffusions. *Econometrica*, **68**, 1343–1376. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Duffie, D.</span>, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Filipović, D.</span> and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Schachermayer, W.</span> (2003). Affine processes and applications in finance. *Annals of Applied Prob.*, **13**, 984–1053. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Filipović, D.</span> (2001). A general chracterization of one-factor affine term structure models. *Finance Stoch.*, **5**,389–412. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Eberlein, E.</span> and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Papapantoleon, A.</span> (2005). Symmetries and pricing of exotic options in Lévy models. In Exotic option pricing and advanced Lévy models, A. Kyprianou, W. Schoutens, P. Wilmott (Eds.), Wiley. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Glasserman, P.</span> and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Kyoung-kuk Kim</span> (2007). Moment Explosions and Stationary Distributions in Affine Diffusion Models. Working Paper. Columbia Business School. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Kampen, J.</span> (2006). *The WKB-Expansion of the fundamental solution of linear parabolic equations and its applications.* book manuscript. At http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=914122, Soc. Sc. Res. Net.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Keller-Ressel, M.</span> and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Steiner, Th.</span> (2008). Yield Curve Shapes and the Asymptotic Short Rate Distribution in Affine One-Factor Models. To appear in *Finance Stoch.*
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Protter, P.</span> (1990). *Stochastic Integration and Differential Equations.* Springer.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Sato, K.</span> (1999). *Lévy Processes and Infinitely Divisible Distributions.* Cambridge University Press.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper we formulate embedding maps into time-frequency space related to the Carleson operator and its variational counterpart. We prove bounds for these embedding maps by iterating the outer measure theory of [@do2015lp]. Introducing iterated outer $L^{p}$ spaces is a main novelty of this paper.'
author:
- Gennady Uraltsev
bibliography:
- 'guraltsev\_bib.bib'
title: 'Variational Carleson embeddings into the upper $3$-space.'
---
Introduction
============
The Carleson operator
---------------------
The variational Carleson operator
---------------------------------
Structure of the paper {#sec:structure-paper}
----------------------
Notation {#sec:notation}
--------
Outer measures on the time-frequency space {#sec:outer-measure-def}
==========================================
Properties of outer measure $L^{p}$ spaces. {#sec:outer-measure-properties}
-------------------------------------------
Wave-packet decomposition {#sec:var-carleson-embedding-reduction}
=========================
The auxiliary embedding map {#sec:aux-embedding}
===========================
Proof of Theorem \[thm:max-var-mass-bounds\] {#sec:main-prop-proof}
============================================
Proof of Proposition \[prop:size-control\]
------------------------------------------
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Deligne’s celebrated “Riemann–Hilbert correspondence” appearing in [@deligne70] relates representations of the fundamental group of a smooth complex algebraic variety and regular-singular integrable connections. In this work, we show how to arrive at a similar statement in the case of a smooth scheme $X$ over the spectrum of a ring $R={{\mathds{C}}\llbrackett_1,\ldots, t_r\rrbracket}/I$. On one side of the correspondence we have representations on $R$-modules of the fundamental group of the special fibre, and on the other we have certain integrable $R$-connections admitting logarithmic models. The correspondence is then applied to give explicit examples of differential Galois groups of ${{\mathds{C}}\llbrackett\rrbracket}$–connections.'
address:
- 'Institute of Mathematics, Vietnam Academy of Science and Technology, Hanoi, Vietnam'
- 'Institut de Mathématiques de Jussieu – Paris Rive Gauche, 4 place Jussieu, Case 247, 75252 Paris Cedex 5, France'
author:
- Phùng Hô Hai
- João Pedro dos Santos
title: 'Regular-singular connections on relative complex schemes'
---
\[section\] \[thm\][Lemma]{} \[thm\][Corollary]{} \[thm\][Proposition]{} \[thm\][Conjecture]{}
\[thm\][Definition]{} \[thm\][Question]{} \[thm\][Notations]{} \[thm\][Notation]{} \[thm\][Example]{} \[thm\][Remark]{} \[thm\][Remarks]{} \[thm\][Hypothesis]{}
[^1]
Introduction
============
The objective of this paper is to show how to adapt Deligne’s theory relating regular–singular connections and representations of the fundamental group [@deligne70], [@malgrange] to the setting of schemes defined over a [*complete local ${\mathds{C}}$-algebra*]{}. This is done with the purpose of determining easily some differential Galois groups (to be taken in the sense of [@duong-hai-dos_santos18] and [@hai-dos_santos19]).
Deligne’s celebrated “Riemann–Hilbert correspondence” establishes that on a smooth complex algebraic variety $X^*$ (notation shall become clear soon), the category of complex linear representations of the topological fundamental group $\pi_1(X^{* {\mathrm{an}}} )$ can be recovered as the category of integrable regular–singular connections. Although a prominent feature of this correspondence is an intrinsic definition of regular–singular connections, this shall not be discussed here. For us, regular–singular connections will only be defined after a “compactification” is chosen. So, let us assume that $X^*$ is an open subvariety of a [*proper*]{} and smooth complex algebraic variety $X$ (the compactification) and that $Y:=(X\smallsetminus X^*)_{\rm red}$ is a divisor with normal crossings and smooth connected components. Then, one says that an integrable connection on $X^*$ is regular–singular whenever it might be extended to a [*logarithmic*]{} integrable connection on $X$. (To repeat, the appropriate terminology should be $(X,X^*)$-regular-singular as in [@kindler15 Definition 4.1], but we find this somewhat exhausting.) Under these definitions, we have a “Deligne-Riemann-Hilbert” equivalence of ${\mathds{C}}$-linear tensor categories $${\mathrm{DRH}}: \left\{\begin{array}{c}\text{regular--singular}\\\text{integrable connections on $X^*$}\end{array}\right\}{\stackrel{\sim}{\longrightarrow}}\left\{\begin{array}{c}\text{finite dimensional complex}\\\text{ representations of $\pi_1(X^{*{\mathrm{an}}})$}\end{array}\right\};$$ see for example [@deligne70 II.5.9, p.97] or [@malgrange Theorem 7.2.1]. One relevant consequence of this theorem is that it allows one to compute differential Galois groups by means of “Schlesinger’s theorem”: the differential Galois group is the Zariski closure of the monodromy group.
A natural question—specially in view of our previous works [@duong-hai-dos_santos18] and [@hai-dos_santos19]—is to determine if Deligne’s theory can be extended to a “relative” setting. So let $S$ be the spectrum of a quotient of ${{\mathds{C}}\llbrackett_1,\ldots,t_r\rrbracket}$ and consider a smooth and proper $S$-scheme $X\to S$ having connected fibres. Suppose that $Y\subset X$ is a relative divisor with normal crossings and write $X^*$ for the complement $X\smallsetminus Y$. Defining a regular-singular connection on $X^*$ in analogy with the definition of the previous paragraph and letting $X_0^*$ be the special fibre of $X^*$, we might enquire about the relation between $$\left\{\begin{array}{c}\text{regular--singular}\\\text{integrable $S$-connections on $X^*$}\end{array}\right\}\quad \text{and}\quad \left\{\begin{array}{c}\text{representations of $\pi_1(X_0^{*{\mathrm{an}}})$ }\\\text{ on finite ${{\mathscr{O}}}(S)$-modules }\end{array}\right\}.$$ Our answer is given by Corollary \[25.11.2019–1\] and says that under additional hypothesis the aforementioned categories are equivalent.
Our proof of Corollary \[25.11.2019–1\] follows Deligne’s original method. Let us describe our strategy rapidly while awaiting a more precise summary below. Firstly (paralleling [@deligne70]) a considerable part of the work is developed in the setting of smooth complex spaces over the analytic spectrum of a ${\mathds{C}}$-algebra ${\Lambda}$ which is finite dimensional as a vector space. For such spaces, we show that integrable ${\Lambda}$-connections define the same objects as logarithmic [*meromorphic*]{} connections on a larger space (Theorem \[11.05.2016–2\]). The key point to obtain this description is that smooth complex spaces over ${\Lambda}$ [*do not deform locally*]{}, so that we are able to apply Deligne’s results to extend connections to logarithmic ones (see Theorem \[deligne\_manin\_extension\]). Note that this corresponds roughly to [@malgrange Theorem 5.1]. After that, we move to algebraic geometry over a [*complete local noetherian*]{} ${\mathds{C}}$-algebra $R$ with residue field ${\mathds{C}}$ (Section \[17.12.2019–1\]). Employing Grothendieck’s algebraization theorem and the fact that the order of the poles of an arrow between logarithmic connections is independent of the the truncation of $R$, we show how to find preferred models for regular-singular $R$-connections (Theorem \[01.10.2019–1\]). These findings are then assembled to obtain Corollary \[25.11.2019–1\].
We now review the remaining sections of the paper separately. In what follows, ${\Lambda}$ is a local ${\mathds{C}}$-algebra which is a finite dimensional complex vector space.
Section \[29.01.2020–2\] serves mainly to introduce notation and definitions such as: relative divisors with normal crossings (Definition \[02.10.2019–1\]), multiplicity (Definition \[05.11.2019–1\]) and several variations on the theme of connections (Definitions \[29.01.2020–1\], \[04.11.2019–8\] and \[04.11.2019–9\]). This section is also the right place to talk about Deligne’s notion of relative local system, a very important tool for this work, see Theorem \[10.06.2016–2\].
Section \[29.01.2020–3\] serves two purposes and the first is to explain the following simple technique. Let $S$ be the analytic spectrum of ${\Lambda}$ and $D \subset{\mathds{C}}^n$ be an open subset. Then the category of ${{\mathscr{O}}}_{D{\times}S}$-modules is canonically identified with the category of ${{\mathscr{O}}}_D$-modules endowed with an action of ${\Lambda}$, so that many local results from [@deligne70 Chapter II] are easily transposed to the setting of smooth complex spaces over $S$. One of these transpositions, Theorem \[21.10.2019–1\], is the second purpose of this section; it is yet another manifestation of the classical principle that singularities “of the first kind” are “regular” [@coddington-levinson55 Chapter 4, Theorem 2.1].
Section \[18.12.2019–1\] introduces the notion of residues of logarithmic connections on complex spaces over ${\Lambda}$ (Definition \[19.12.2019–2\]). Also in Section \[18.12.2019–1\] the reader shall find the definition of the exponents (Definition \[29.10.2019–3\]) of a logarithmic connection as the spectral set of the residue morphisms. (These constructions are analytic and follows the clear exposition in [@malgrange pp.157-8].) Key to the understanding of the theory exposed here is the fact that exponents are complex numbers, and not elements of ${\Lambda}$; that this is a sensible choice is motivated by Lemma \[10.10.2019–1\] and Lemma \[06.11.2019–1\].
In Section \[04.11.2019–4\] we offer Theorem \[deligne\_manin\_extension\] which shows that even in the case of smooth complex spaces over ${\Lambda}$ (as in the previous paragraph) it is possible to extend ${\Lambda}$-connections to logarithmic ones—we call these extensions Deligne-Manin extensions. These objects, whose constructions are attributed to Manin in [@deligne70], are a cornerstones in op.cit. (In the literature, such extensions go under the name of [*canonical*]{} or [*$\tau$-extensions*]{} [@andre-baldassarri01 I.4, 22ff], [@kindler15 Definition 5.1].) The proof of Theorem \[deligne\_manin\_extension\] relies on the local existence of logarithmic extensions and their uniqueness. Once these extensions are found, it then becomes a simple matter to show the main result of the section, Theorem \[11.05.2016–2\], which allows us to see the category of connections on a smaller complex space as a certain category of connections on a larger one.
In Section \[17.12.2019–1\] we turn our attention to algebraic geometry and put to use our previous findings Serre’s GAGA and Grothendieck’s algebraization theorem (or as we call it, “GFGA”). Section \[31.10.2019–1\] discusses elementary properties of relative connections and fixes terminology. Section \[31.01.2020–4\] explains how to extend connections on ${\Lambda}$-schemes to a previously fixed proper ambient ${\Lambda}$-scheme; it goes without saying that these constructions rely on the analytic picture developed earlier and GAGA. In Section \[31.01.2020–1\], we look at the case of a base ring $R={{\mathds{C}}\llbrackett_1,\ldots,t_r\rrbracket}/I$ and, by means of the algebraization theorem (Proposition \[GFGA\]) [*plus*]{} Corollary \[08.10.2019–2\] — stating that arrows between logarithmic connections have “bounded poles” —, define better suited logarithmic extensions, see Theorem \[01.10.2019–1\]. In Section \[31.01.2020–2\] we assemble the various pieces and state our version of the Deligne-Riemann-Hilbert correspondence, Corollary \[25.11.2019–1\]. To end, we find explicitly certain differential Galois groups of very explicit regular-singular connections in Section \[31.01.2020–5\] showing that differential Galois group which fail to be of finite type abound.
Notations and conventions {#notations-and-conventions .unnumbered}
-------------------------
1) Complex spaces are to be understood in the sense of [@grauert-remmert84 1.1.5] (called analytic spaces in [@sc Exposé 9, 2.1]).
2) We let ${\Lambda}$ stand for a local ${\mathds{C}}$-algebra whose dimension as a complex vector space is finite. Its maximal ideal is denoted by ${\mathfrak{m}}$.
3) We shall find convenient to denote by $|X|$ the topological space underlying a ringed space $X$.
4) If $(X,{{\mathscr{O}}}_X)$ is a complex space and $p$ a point of $X$, we let ${\mathfrak{M}}_p$ stand for the maximal ideal of the local ring ${{\mathscr{O}}}_{X,p}$ (so that ${{\mathscr{O}}}_{X,p}={\mathds{C}}{\oplus}{\mathfrak{M}}_p$).
5) If $(X,{{\mathscr{O}}}_X)$ is a complex space $p$ a point of $X$ and ${{\mathscr{E}}}$ is a coherent sheaf, we let ${{\mathscr{E}}}(p)$ stand for the complex vector space ${{\mathscr{E}}}_p/{\mathfrak{M}}_p{{\mathscr{E}}}_p$. In like manner, for a section $e\in {\Gamma}(X,{{\mathscr{E}}})$ we let $s(p)$ be the image of $s_p\in{{\mathscr{E}}}_p$ in ${{\mathscr{E}}}(p)$.
6) A [*vector bundle*]{} over a locally ringed space $(X,{{\mathscr{O}}}_X)$ is simply a locally free sheaf of ${{\mathscr{O}}}_X$-modules of finite rank.
7) If $X$ is a scheme, respectively complex space, $Y\subset X$ is a closed subscheme, respectively subspace, and ${{\mathscr{M}}}$ is a coherent sheaf on $X$, we write ${{\mathscr{M}}}|_Y$ for the pull-back of ${{\mathscr{M}}}$ to $Y$, that is, ${{\mathscr{M}}}|_Y$ is an ${{\mathscr{O}}}_Y$-module. Analogous notations are in force for sections.
8) If $M$ is a topological space and $E$ is a set, we let $E_M$ denote the [*simple, or locally constant*]{} sheaf associated to $E$.
9) We fix once and for all a subset $\tau$ of ${\mathds{C}}$ containing exactly one element in each class of $({\mathds{C}},+)$ modulo $({\mathds{Z}},+)$.
10) If $V$ is a finite dimensional complex vector space and $A$ and endomorphism of $V$, we write ${\mathrm{Sp}}_A$ for the set of eigenvalues of $A$ and, for each ${\lambda}\in{\mathrm{Sp}}_A$, we write ${\mathbf{E}}(A,{\lambda})$, respectively ${\mathbf{G}}(A,{\lambda})$, for its ${\lambda}$–eigenspace, respectively generalized ${\lambda}$-eigenspace.
11) We shall find convenient to work with the following version of the Minkowiski difference of two sets of complex numbers: if $A$ and $B$ are subsets of the complex plane, we write $B\ominus A$ to denote the set $\{b-a\,:\,b\in B,\,a\in A\}$. ([*Warning:*]{} In the literature, the Minkowski difference is usually defined differently.)
12) All tensor categories (or ${\otimes}$-categories) are to be taken in the sense of [@deligne-milne82 Definition 1.1,p.105]. Abelian tensor categories are also understood in the sense of [@deligne-milne82 Definition 1.15,p.118].
13) For a an affine group scheme $G$ over a noetherian ring $R$, we let ${\mathrm{Rep}_{R}(G)}$ stand for the category of representations of $G$ on finite $R$-modules.
Setup {#29.01.2020--2}
=====
Analytic geometry
-----------------
In this section we discuss some elementary properties of analytic spaces and sheaves on them for the lack of a suitable reference. We have designed it to reassure the reader with an education in algebraic geometry but with little experience in complex analysis.
Let $f:X\to S$ be a smooth morphism of complex spaces [@sc Exposé 9], [@sc Exposé 13]. For any $p\in X$, there exists an open neighbourhood $U$ and functions $x_1,\ldots,x_n\in{\Gamma}(U,{{\mathscr{O}}}_X)$ vanishing on $p$ such that the associated morphism [@sc Exposé 10, 1.1] $$(x_1,\ldots,x_n,f):U{\longrightarrow}{\mathds{C}}^n{\times}S$$ defines an *isomorphism* of $U$ with $D{\times}V$, where $D$ is an open polydisk about $0$ and $V$ an open neighbourhood of $f(p)$. The couple $(U, x_1,\ldots,x_n)=(U,{\boldsymbol{x}})$ is called a *relative system of coordinates about $p$* in this text. Given such a relative system, we shall find useful to let $\{{\partial}_{x_j}\}$ stand for the basis of ${\mathrm{Der}}_S({{\mathscr{O}}}_X)|_U={{\mathscr{H}}}\!om({\Omega}_{X/S}^1,{{\mathscr{O}}}_X)|_U$ dual to $\{{\mathrm{d}}x_j\}$. We also put ${\vartheta}_{x_j}=x_j{\partial}_{x_j}$.
The following definition is central (and standard):
\[02.10.2019–1\]Let $Y\subset X$ be a closed complex subspace defined by the ideal ${{\mathscr{I}}}\subset{{\mathscr{O}}}_X$ [@sc Exposé 9, 2.2] and $p$ a point of $Y$.
(1) A relative system of coordinates $(U,{\boldsymbol{x}})$ about $p$ is called [*adapted*]{} to $Y$ if ${{\mathscr{I}}}|_U=x_1\cdots x_m{{\mathscr{O}}}_U$ for a certain $m\le n$.
(2) We say that $Y$ is a [*relative effective divisor with normal crossings*]{} if for each $p\in Y$, it is possible to find a relative system of coordinates about $p$ which is adapted to $Y$.
(3) The number $m$ appearing above is called the number of branches of $Y$ in $(U,{\boldsymbol{x}})$.
To lighten the text, we will [*abandon*]{} the adjective “effective” in “effective relative divisor with normal crossings” in what follows. Let us now fix a relative divisor with normal crossings $Y\subset X$ and write ${{\mathscr{I}}}$ for its ideal; as customary, ${{\mathscr{O}}}_X(Y)$ denotes the invertible ${{\mathscr{O}}}_X$-module ${{\mathscr{I}}}^{-1}$ [\[EGA $\mathrm{IV}_{\mathrm{4}}$, 21.2.8,p.260\]]{} and ${{\mathscr{O}}}_X(kY)$ is ${{\mathscr{O}}}_X(Y)^{{\otimes}k}$.
In what follows, we interpret the number of branches in terms of local algebra. Recall that given a ring $A$ and an ideal $I$, the prime divisors of $I$ are just the associated primes of $A/I$ [@mat p.38].
\[05.11.2019–1\]For each $q\in Y$, we call the number of minimal prime divisors of ${{\mathscr{I}}}_q$ [@mat p.39] the [*multiplicity*]{} of $Y$ at $q$.
We now require a Lemma from Commutative algebra.
\[23.05.2016–1\] Let $h:A\to B$ be a morphism of local noetherian rings and let $\{b_1,\ldots,b_m\}$ be a set of elements of $B$ none of which divides zero or is invertible. Suppose that
(1) The ring $A$ has only one associated prime ${\mathfrak{r}}$.
(2) For each $i$, the $A$-module $B/(b_i)$ is flat.
(3) For any $i$, the extended ideal ${\mathfrak{p}}_i=({\mathfrak{r}},b_i)$ is prime.
Then ${\mathfrak{p}}_1,\ldots,{\mathfrak{p}}_m$ are the minimal prime divisors of $(b_1\cdots b_m)$ and $(b_1),\ldots,(b_m)$ are the corresponding primary components.
To ease notation we write $B_i$ instead of $B/(b_i)$. Using [@bourbakiAC IV.2.6, Theorem 2] we have $$\begin{split}{\mathrm{Ass}}_B(B_i)&={\mathrm{Ass}}_B(B_i/{\mathfrak{r}}B_i)\\&={\mathrm{Ass}}_B(B/{\mathfrak{p}}_i)\\&=\{{\mathfrak{p}}_i\}.
\end{split}$$ This allows us to say, using [@mat Theorem 6.6,p.40], that $(b_i)$ is ${\mathfrak{p}}_i$-primary. From the Hauptidealensatz, we have ${\mathrm{ht}}({\mathfrak{p}}_i)\le1$. Now, if ${\mathrm{ht}}({\mathfrak{p}}_i)=0$, then ${\mathfrak{p}}_i$ is a minimal prime ideal containing $(0)$, which implies that ${\mathfrak{p}}_i\in{\mathrm{Ass}}(B)$ due to [@mat Theorem 6.5, p.39]; this is impossible because $b_i$ is not a zero divisor. In conclusion, ${\mathrm{ht}}({\mathfrak{p}}_i)=1$. As $b_1\cdots b_m$ is not a zero divisor, it follows that ${\mathfrak{p}}_i$ is a minimal prime containing $(b_1\cdots b_m)$. Now, if ${\mathfrak{q}}\supset(b_1\ldots b_m)$ is a prime, then ${\mathfrak{q}}\supset(b_{i_0})$ for a certain $i_0$. Since ${\mathfrak{q}}\cap A\supset {\mathfrak{r}}$, we conclude that ${\mathfrak{q}}\supset {\mathfrak{p}}_{i_0}$. Hence ${\mathfrak{p}}_1,\ldots,{\mathfrak{p}}_m$ are the minimal prime ideals containing $(x_1\cdots x_m)$. In particular, they are also the minimal prime divisors [@mat Theorem 6.5, p.39].
\[18.05.2016–1\] Let $p\in Y$ and assume that ${{\mathscr{O}}}_{S,f(p)}$ has only one associated prime. Let $(U,{\boldsymbol{x}})$ be a relative system of coordinates about $p$ which is adapted to $Y$; denote the number of branches of $Y$ in $(U,{\boldsymbol{x}})$ by $m$. Then $(x_{1,p}),\ldots,(x_{m,p})$ are the minimal primary components of ${{\mathscr{I}}}_p$; in particular the multiplicity (Definition \[05.11.2019–1\]) of $Y$ at $p$ is precisely the number of branches.
Let us end this section by introducing meromorphic functions with poles along $Y$. We let ${{\mathscr{O}}}_X(*Y)$ stand for the sheaf of ${{\mathscr{O}}}_X$-algebras ${{\mathscr{O}}}_X[{{\mathscr{I}}}^{-1}]$ described in [\[EGA $\mathrm{IV}_{\mathrm{4}}$, 20.1.1, 226ff\]]{}; it is clearly a coherent sheaf of rings on $X$ which shall be called the sheaf of [*meromorphic functions with poles on $Y$*]{}. Note that, if ${{\mathscr{I}}}_p=h_p{{\mathscr{O}}}_{X,p}$, then the natural morphism $${{\mathscr{O}}}_{X}(*Y)_p{\stackrel{\sim}{\longrightarrow}}{{\mathscr{O}}}_{X,p}[1/h_p]$$ is an isomorphism (loc.cit.). Alternatively, ${{\mathscr{O}}}_X(*Y)$ can be defined as the ${{\mathscr{O}}}_X$–algebra ${\varinjlim}_k{{\mathscr{O}}}_X(kY)$.
As suggested in [@malgrange], coherent ${{\mathscr{O}}}_X(*Y)$-modules shall also be called *$Y$-meromorphic coherent modules on $X$*; the natural base-change functor ${{{\mathscr{O}}}_X\,\text{--}\,\mathbf{coh}}\to{{{\mathscr{O}}}_X(*Y)\,\text{--}\,\mathbf{coh}}$ is denoted by ${{\mathscr{F}}}\mapsto{{\mathscr{F}}}(*Y)$.
A fundamental property of $Y$-meromorphic coherent modules follows easily from Rückert’s Nullstellensatz [@grauert-remmert84 Ch. 3, §2, p. 67]:
\[15.10.2019–1\] If ${{\mathscr{M}}}$ is a $Y$-meromorphic coherent module supported at $Y$, then ${{\mathscr{M}}}=0$.
\[16.06.2016–2\]Let $E$ and $F$ be coherent ${{\mathscr{O}}}_X(*Y)$–modules. If $X^*=X\smallsetminus Y$, then the restriction arrow $${\mathrm{Hom}_{{{\mathscr{O}}}_X(*Y)}(E,F)}{\longrightarrow}{\mathrm{Hom}_{{{\mathscr{O}}}_{X^*}}(E|_{X^*},F|_{X^*})}$$ is injective.
Let ${\varphi}:E\to F$ vanish on $X^*$. Working with the coherent ${{\mathscr{O}}}_X(*Y)$–module ${\mathrm{Im}}({\varphi})$, we only need to use Lemma \[15.10.2019–1\].
Connections {#25.09.2019--1}
-----------
Let $f:X\to S$ be a smooth morphism between analytic spaces. We shall introduce several notations concerning categories of connections.
We let ${\mathfrak{C}}(X/S)$ stand for the category of integrable $S$-connections $(E,{\nabla}:E\to E{\otimes}{\Omega}_{X/S}^1)$, see [@katz70 1.0-1] or [@deligne70 I.2.22], such that $E$ is a *coherent* ${{\mathscr{O}}}_X$-module.
For the sake of brevity, in what follows, the word [*connection*]{} is synonymous with [*integrable connection*]{}. With this convention, ${\mathfrak{C}}(X/S)$ is the category of $S$-connections.
Let now $Y\subset X$ be a relative divisor with normal crossings (cf. Definition \[02.10.2019–1\]); write ${{\mathscr{I}}}$ for the ideal defining $Y$ and $X^*$ for the open subspace $X\smallsetminus Y$.
\[29.01.2020–1\]We let ${\mathfrak{C}}^{\log}_Y(X/S)$ stand for the category of integrable logarithmic $S$-connections $(E,{\nabla})$, see [@katz70 4.0-2], where they are called integrable $S$-connections on $E$ with logarithmic singularities along $Y$, or [@deligne70 I.2.22, 14ff], such that the underlying ${{\mathscr{O}}}_X$-module $E$ is coherent.
As in the case of connections, we shall drop the adjective [*integrable*]{} in “integrable logarithmic connections.”
Note that ${\mathfrak{C}}^{\log}_Y(X/S)$ is abelian and has a tensor product rendering the forgetful functor ${\mathfrak{C}}_Y^{\log}(X/S)\to{{{\mathscr{O}}}_X\,\text{--}\,\mathbf{coh}}$ exact, faithful and tensorial. In addition, for ${{\mathscr{E}}}\in{\mathfrak{C}}^{\log}_Y(X/S)$, the coherent ${{\mathscr{O}}}_X$-module ${{\mathscr{H}}}\!om_X({{\mathscr{E}}},{{\mathscr{O}}}_X)$ also carries a natural logarithmic connection, see [@katz70 4.3].
If ${{\mathscr{D}}}\!er_Y({X/S})$ is the ${{\mathscr{O}}}_X$-submodule of ${{\mathscr{D}}}\!er({X/S})$ formed by the derivations which stabilize the ideal ${{\mathscr{I}}}$—it is actually a sheaf of ${{\mathscr{O}}}_S$-Lie algebras—then a logarithmic connection on $E\in{{{\mathscr{O}}}_X\,\text{--}\,\mathbf{coh}}$ amounts to a morphism of ${{\mathscr{O}}}_X$-modules ${\nabla}:{{\mathscr{D}}}\!er_Y({X/S})\to{{\mathscr{E}}}\!nd_{{{\mathscr{O}}}_S}(E)$ which is compatible with brackets and satisfies ${\nabla}({\partial}):ae\mapsto {\partial}(a)e+a{\nabla}({\partial})(e)$. See also [@katz70 4.2].
\[19.12.2019–5\]The ideal ${{\mathscr{I}}}={{\mathscr{O}}}_X(-Y)$ carries a tautological logarithmic connection turning it into a subobject of ${{\mathscr{O}}}_X$. Along these lines, each one of the line bundles ${{\mathscr{O}}}_X(kY)$ carries a logarithmic connection.
In general, given ${{\mathscr{F}}}\in{\mathfrak{C}}_Y^{\log}(X/S)$, we let ${{\mathscr{F}}}(kY)$ stand for the tensor product ${{\mathscr{F}}}{\otimes}_{{{\mathscr{O}}}_X}{{\mathscr{O}}}_X(kY)$ in ${\mathfrak{C}}_Y^{\log}(X/S)$.
Needless to say, each $(E,{\nabla})\in{\mathfrak{C}}_Y^{\log}(X/S)$ produces, by restriction to $X^*$, an $S$-linear connection. Reversing this process is important for the present work, so we make the:
\[04.11.2019–7\]Let $(E,{\nabla})\in {\mathfrak{C}}(X^*/S)$. Any $({\widetilde}E,{\widetilde}{\nabla})\in{\mathfrak{C}}^{\log}_Y(X/S)$ which, when restricted to $X^*$, is isomorphic to $(E,{\nabla})$ shall be called a [*logarithmic model*]{} of $(E,{\nabla})$.
It should be observed that in the above definition, no assumption is made a priori on the nature of the coherent model. Some simple adjustments can be made, but these shall be left to Section \[17.12.2019–1\].
Because of the sheaf of $Y$–meromorphic functions on $X$, we have yet another relevant category of connections in sight.
\[04.11.2019–8\] Let ${{\mathscr{E}}}$ be a $Y$-meromorphic coherent module. An [*integrable connection*]{} on ${{\mathscr{E}}}$ is a morphism of ${{\mathscr{O}}}_S$-modules $${\nabla}:{{\mathscr{E}}}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathscr{E}}}{\underset{{{\mathscr{O}}}_X(*Y)}{\otimes}}{\Omega}_{X/S}^1(*Y)$$ having vanishing curvature. The couple $({{\mathscr{E}}},{\nabla})$ is called an *integrable $Y$-meromorphic connection*. Morphisms are simply morphisms of ${{\mathscr{O}}}_X(*Y)$-modules which respect the connections. The category of integrable $Y$-meromorphic connections is denoted by ${\mathfrak{MC}}_Y(X/S)$.
As above, we shall drop the adjective [*integrable*]{} in “integrable $Y$-meromorphic connection.”
Note also that the base-change functor ${{{\mathscr{O}}}_X\,\text{--}\,\mathbf{coh}}\to{{{\mathscr{O}}}_X(*Y)\,\text{--}\,\mathbf{coh}}$ defines a functor ${\mathfrak{C}}_Y^{\log}(X/S)\to{\mathfrak{MC}}_Y(X/S)$ and this prompts us to consider yet another relevant category of connections:
\[04.11.2019–9\]Let $({{\mathscr{E}}},{\nabla})\in{\mathfrak{MC}}_Y(X/S)$ be given. We say that $({{\mathscr{E}}},{\nabla})$ has [*at worst logarithmic poles*]{} if, for each $p\in X$, there exists an open neighbourhood $U$ of $p$ such that $({{\mathscr{E}}},{\nabla})|_U\in{\mathfrak{MC}}_{Y\cap U}(U/S)$ belongs to the image of ${\mathfrak{C}}^{\log}_{Y\cap U}(U/S)$. The full subcategory of ${\mathfrak{MC}}_Y(X/S)$ having as objects those connections having at worst logarithmic poles shall be denoted by ${\mathfrak{MC}}_Y^{\log}(X/S)$.
If $S$ is the reduced analytic space associated to a point, we shall usually omit reference to it in notation, that is, in this case, we prefer ${\mathfrak{C}}(X^*)$ to ${\mathfrak{C}}(X^*/S)$, etc.
To avoid confusions—the algebraic geometer’s reflexes tend to downplay the role of ${\mathfrak{MC}}_Y^{\log}(X/S)$—the reader is asked to bear in mind the following diagram of categories: $$\xymatrix{{\mathfrak{C}}^{\log}_Y(X/S )\ar[d]^{\text{not nec. full}}& \\ {\mathfrak{MC}}_Y^{\log}(X/S)\ar[dd]\ar[dr]^{\text{fully faithful}}\\ & {\mathfrak{MC}}_Y(X/S)\ar[ld]^{\text{ faithful}}\\ {\mathfrak{C}}(X^*/S)& }$$
Let $S$ be the point and $X$ be the open unit disc in the complex plane with coordinate function $x$. Let $Y$ be the origin and ${{\mathscr{L}}}={{\mathscr{O}}}_X e$ be a free ${{\mathscr{O}}}_X$-module. Define $
{\nabla}_0(e)=0$, ${\nabla}_1( e)= e{\otimes}x^{-1}{\mathrm{d}}x$. Then both $({{\mathscr{L}}},{\nabla}_0)$ and $({{\mathscr{L}}},{\nabla}_1)$ are objects of $ {{\mathfrak{C}}}_Y^{\log}(X)$. Putting ${\nabla}_2(e)=e{\otimes}x^{-2}{\mathrm{d}}x$, we define the object $({{\mathscr{L}}}(*Y),{\nabla}_2)$ of ${\mathfrak{MC}}_Y(X)$. Note that the images of $({{\mathscr{L}}},{\nabla}_0)$ and $({{\mathscr{L}}},{\nabla}_1)$ in ${\mathfrak{MC}}_Y(X)$ are isomorphic, but $({{\mathscr{L}}}(*Y),{\nabla}_2)$ is not isomorphic to any each one of the latter. On the other hand, the images of $({{\mathscr{L}}}(*Y) ,{\nabla}_2)$ and $({{\mathscr{L}}},{\nabla}_0)$ in ${\mathfrak{C}}(X^*)$ are isomorphic.
Let us end this section by highlighting a theorem of Deligne which will prove useful further below. In it, we need the notion of a relative local system [@deligne70 I.2.22, p.14].
\[19.12.2019–1\]A sheaf of $f^{-1}({{\mathscr{O}}}_S)$-modules $\mathds E$ on $X$ is called a relative local system if for each $p\in X$, there exist open neighbourhoods $U$ of $p$ and $V$ of $f(p)$ with $f(U)\subset V$, and $M\in{{{\mathscr{O}}}_S\,\text{--}\,\mathbf{coh}}$ such that $\mathds E|_U=f^{-1}(M)$. Morphism between relative local systems are simply $f^{-1}({{\mathscr{O}}}_S)$-linear arrows, and the category constructed from this information is denoted by ${\mathbf{LS}}(X/S)$.
\[10.06.2016–2\]Let $f:X\to S$ be a smooth morphism of complex spaces and $(E,{\nabla})$ an object of ${\mathfrak{C}}(X/S)$. Then the ${{\mathscr{O}}}_S$-module ${\mathrm{Ker}}\,{\nabla}$ is a relative local system. In addition, the functor $${\mathfrak{C}}(X/S){\longrightarrow}{\mathbf{LS}}(X/S), \quad(E,{\nabla})\longmapsto{\mathrm{Ker}}\,{\nabla}$$ is an equivalence of categories.
Extending arrows between meromorphic connections with at worst logarithmic poles {#29.01.2020--3}
================================================================================
We let $S$ denote the analytic spectrum of ${\Lambda}$ and give ourselves a smooth morphism $f:X\to S$ of complex spaces. Let $Y\subset X$ be a divisor with relative normal crossings in $X$ (Definition \[02.10.2019–1\]) and denote, as usual, $X\smallsetminus Y$ by $X^*$.
A founding principle of Fuch’s theory of regular singularities is that “solutions are meromorphic”; in this section we wish to show how to adapt Deligne’s version of this principle (see [@deligne70 II.4.1, p.86] and [@malgrange pp. 168-9]) to our present setting. Section \[03.05.2016–1\] develops the artifice allowing us the adaptation while Section \[04.11.2019–3\] states and proves the main result (Theorem \[21.10.2019–1\]). The latter result shall be amplified in Section \[04.11.2019–4\] after the introduction of residues and exponents in Section \[18.12.2019–1\].
Local description of categories of sheaves and connections {#03.05.2016--1}
----------------------------------------------------------
We begin by some categorical remarks. Let ${{\mathscr{C}}}$ be a ${\mathds{C}}$-linear category. A couple $(c,{\alpha})$ consisting of an object $c\in{{\mathscr{C}}}$ and a morphism of ${\mathds{C}}$-algebras ${\alpha}:{\Lambda}\to {\mathrm{End}}_{{{\mathscr{C}}}}(c)$ is called a ${\Lambda}$-module of ${{\mathscr{C}}}$. Morphisms of ${\Lambda}$-modules are defined in an obvious way and the category of ${\Lambda}$-modules in ${{\mathscr{C}}}$ is denoted by ${{\mathscr{C}}}_{({\Lambda})}$.
Let $A$ be an associative ${\mathds{C}}$-algebra and let ${{\mathscr{C}}}$ be the category of $A$-modules (on the left say). Then, ${{\mathscr{C}}}_{({\Lambda})}$ is just the category of $A{\otimes}_{\mathds{C}}{\Lambda}$-modules. If $(M,{{\mathscr{A}}})$ is a topological space with a sheaf of ${\mathds{C}}$-algebras and ${{\mathscr{C}}}$ is the category of ${{\mathscr{A}}}$-modules, then ${{\mathscr{C}}}_{({\Lambda})}$ is just the category of ${{\mathscr{A}}}{\otimes}_{\mathds{C}}{\Lambda}_M$-modules.
Let $D$ be a domain in ${\mathds{C}}^n$ and $H\subset D$ an effective divisor. Suppose that $X=D{\times}S$ and $Y=H{\times}S$; write ${\mathrm{pr}}:X\to D$ for the canonical projection. It follows that $|X|=|D|$, ${{\mathscr{O}}}_X={{\mathscr{O}}}_{D}{\otimes}_{\mathds{C}}{\Lambda}_X$, and ${{\mathscr{O}}}_X(*Y)={{\mathscr{O}}}_{D}(*H){\otimes}_{\mathds{C}}{\Lambda}_X$. Denote by ${\mathrm{pr}}_*$ any one of the natural functors $${{{\mathscr{O}}}_X\,\text{--}\,\mathbf{coh}}{\longrightarrow}{{{\mathscr{O}}}_D\,\text{--}\,\mathbf{coh}} \quad\text{or}\quad
{{{\mathscr{O}}}_X(*Y)\,\text{--}\,\mathbf{coh}} {\longrightarrow}{{{\mathscr{O}}}_D(*H)\,\text{--}\,\mathbf{coh}}.$$ Then ${\mathrm{pr}}_*$ induces an equivalence between the categories on the left and the respective categories of ${\Lambda}$-modules.
Let ${\nabla}:{{\mathscr{E}}}\to {{\mathscr{E}}}{\otimes}_{{{\mathscr{O}}}_X}{\Omega}_{X/S}^1$ be a connection. Since the natural morphism $${\mathrm{pr}}^*(
{\Omega}_{D}^1 ) {\longrightarrow}{\Omega}_{X/S}^1$$ is an isomorphism [@sc Exposé 14, 2.1], the projection formula guarantees that the natural morphism $${\mathrm{pr}}_*({{\mathscr{E}}}){\otimes}_{{{\mathscr{O}}}_{D}}{\Omega}_{D}^1{\longrightarrow}{\mathrm{pr}}_*\left({{\mathscr{E}}}{\otimes}_{{{\mathscr{O}}}_X}{\Omega}_{X/S}^1\right)$$ is an isomorphism. Furthermore, it is easy to see that the composition $$\xymatrix{
{\mathrm{pr}}_*{{\mathscr{E}}}\ar[r]^-{{\mathrm{pr}}_*({\nabla})} & {\mathrm{pr}}_*({{\mathscr{E}}}{\otimes}{\Omega}_{X/S}^1) \ar[r]^\sim& {\mathrm{pr}}_*{{\mathscr{E}}}{\otimes}_{{{\mathscr{O}}}_{D}}{\Omega}_{D}^1
}$$ is also a connection. From these considerations we in fact obtain equivalences $${\omega}:{\mathfrak{C}}(X/S){\longrightarrow}{\mathfrak{C}}(D)_{({\Lambda})}\quad\text{and}\quad {\omega}:{\mathfrak{MC}}_Y(X/S){\longrightarrow}\left[{\mathfrak{MC}}_{H}(D)\right]_{({\Lambda})}.$$
We end this section by fixing a definition which will be employed further below.
\[24.06.2016–1\]We say that ${{\mathscr{E}}}\in({{{\mathscr{O}}}_D\,\text{--}\,\mathbf{coh}})_{({\Lambda})}$ is a ${\Lambda}$-vector bundle if each $p\in D$ has an open neighbourhood $U$ such that ${{\mathscr{E}}}|_U\simeq {{\mathscr{O}}}_U{\otimes}_{\mathds{C}}E$ for some finite ${\Lambda}$-module $E$ and, for each ${\lambda}\in{\Lambda}$, we have ${\lambda}{\cdot}(1{\otimes}e)=1{\otimes}{\lambda}e$. Analogously, ${{\mathscr{E}}}\in{{{\mathscr{O}}}_X\,\text{--}\,\mathbf{coh}}$ is a relative vector bundle, or a vector bundle relatively to $S$, if ${\mathrm{pr}}_*({{\mathscr{E}}})\in({{{\mathscr{O}}}_D\,\text{--}\,\mathbf{coh}})_{({\Lambda})}$ is a ${\Lambda}$-vector bundle.
The verification of the following is trivial but shall be employed many times.
\[16.06.2016–1\]If ${{\mathscr{E}}}\in({{{\mathscr{O}}}_D\,\text{--}\,\mathbf{coh}})_{({\Lambda})}$ is a ${\Lambda}$-vector bundle, then ${\mathrm{pr}}_*{{\mathscr{E}}}$ is a vector bundle.
Note that ${{\mathscr{E}}}\in{{{\mathscr{O}}}_X\,\text{--}\,\mathbf{coh}}$ is a relative vector bundle if and only if for each $p\in X$ there exists an open neighbourhood $U$ of $p$ such that ${{\mathscr{E}}}|_U$ is the pull-back of a coherent sheaf on $S$. This means that Definition \[24.06.2016–1\] possesses a natural global version; let us drop the assumption that $X=D{\times}S$.
\[24.06.2016–1b\] A coherent ${{\mathscr{O}}}_X$-module ${{\mathscr{E}}}$ is a *relative vector bundle*, or a vector bundle relatively to ${\Lambda}$, if, locally, it comes from a coherent sheaf on $S$.
Extending morphisms between connections with at worst logarithmic poles {#04.11.2019--3}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
We begin by recalling the following result, see [@malgrange pp. 163-4], specially Lemma 5.7.
\[04.11.2019–5\]Let $D\subset{\mathds{C}}^n$ be an open polydisk about the origin and denote by $x_j\in{{\mathscr{O}}}(D)$ the $j$th coordinate function. Let $H$ be the effective divisor defined by $x_1\cdots x_m{{\mathscr{O}}}_D$ and denote by $D^*$ the open subset $D\smallsetminus H$. Let us give ourselves $(E,{\nabla})$ and $(E',{\nabla}')$ objects of ${\mathfrak{MC}}^{\log}_H(D)$. Then any horizontal arrow ${\varphi}:E|_{D^*}\to E'|_{D^*}$ extends uniquely to an arrow ${\widetilde}{\varphi}:E\to E'$.
Employing the technique of Section \[03.05.2016–1\], we can prove the following.
\[21.10.2019–1\]The restriction functor $${\mathfrak{MC}}_Y^{\log}(X/S){\longrightarrow}{\mathfrak{C}}(X^*/S)$$ is fully faithful.
From Lemma \[16.06.2016–2\], the restriction ${{{\mathscr{O}}}_X(*Y)\,\text{--}\,\mathbf{coh}}\to{{{\mathscr{O}}}_{X^*}\,\text{--}\,\mathbf{coh}}$ is faithful, so that ${\mathfrak{MC}}_Y^{\rm log}(X/S)\to{\mathfrak{C}}(X^*/S)$ is also faithful. Let $(E,{\nabla})$ and $(E',{\nabla}')$ be in ${\mathfrak{MC}}_Y^{\rm log}(X/S)$ and let ${\varphi}:E|_{X^*}\to E'|_{X^*}$ be horizontal. We wish to find a horizontal arrow of coherent ${{\mathscr{O}}}_X(*Y)$-modules ${\widetilde}{\varphi}:E\to E'$ whose restriction to $X^*$ is ${\varphi}$.
Due to uniqueness, it is enough to deal with the problem locally: we suppose that $X=D{\times}S$ where $D\subset{\mathds{C}}^n$ is an open polydisk about the origin and that $Y=H{\times}S$, where, writing $\{x_j\}$ for the coordinate functions on $D$, $H$ is defined by ${{\mathscr{O}}}_Dx_1\ldots x_m$. This being the case, we have a commutative diagram whose horizontal arrows are equivalences, $$\xymatrix{
{\mathfrak{MC}}_{Y }(X/S)\ar[d]\ar[rr]^-{{\omega}} &&
{\mathfrak{MC}}_H(D)_{({\Lambda})}\ar[d]
\\
{\mathfrak{C}}(X^*/S)\ar[rr]_-{{\omega}} && {\mathfrak{C}}(D^*)_{({\Lambda})},
}$$ as explained on section \[03.05.2016–1\]. We now consider the arrow ${\omega}{\varphi}:{\omega}(E)|_{D^*}\to {\omega}( E') |_{D^*}$ of ${\mathfrak{C}}(D^*)_{({\Lambda})}$; by Theorem \[04.11.2019–5\], ${\omega}{\varphi}$ can be extended to an arrow ${\widetilde}{{\omega}{\varphi}}:{\omega}(E)\to{\omega}(E')$ of ${\mathfrak{MC}}_{H}(D)$. Because the restriction of ${\widetilde}{{\omega}{\varphi}}$ to $D^*$ is a morphism of ${\Lambda}$-modules, Lemma \[16.06.2016–2\] assures that ${\widetilde}{{\omega}{\varphi}}$ is a morphism of ${\Lambda}$-modules. Hence, there exists ${\widetilde}{\varphi}:E\to E'$ in ${\mathfrak{MC}}_{Y}(X/S)$ such that ${\omega}({\widetilde}{\varphi})={\widetilde}{{\omega}{\varphi}}$. It is clear that ${\widetilde}{\varphi}$ is an extension of ${\varphi}$.
Residues and exponents of logarithmic connections {#18.12.2019--1}
=================================================
Throughout this section we work with a smooth morphism of complex spaces $f:X\to S$ and a relative divisor with normal crossings defined by the ideal ${{\mathscr{I}}}$. We suppose from the start that for each $p\in Y$, the local ring ${{\mathscr{O}}}_{S,f(p)}$ has only one associated prime.
Residue morphisms {#10.06.2016--1}
-----------------
We shall also require another assumptions on $Y$.
\[14.10.2019–3\]There exist a finite set $C$, a family of smooth and connected relative effective divisors $\{Y_c\}_{c\in C}$ indexed by $C$ such that $Y=\sum Y_c$.
\[28.10.2019–1\]Let $p\in Y$ be given and write $C_p=\{c\in C\,:\,p\in Y_c\}$.
(1) The multiplicity (Definition \[05.11.2019–1\]) of $Y$ at $p$ is $\#C_p$.
(2) Let $(U,{\boldsymbol{x}})$ be a relative system of coordinates adapted to $Y$ about $p$. Denote by $m$ the number of branches of $Y$ in $(U,{\boldsymbol{x}})$. There exist an open neighbourhood $V\subset U$ of $p$ and a bijection ${\sigma}: C_p\to\{1,\ldots,m\}$ such that $x_{{\sigma}(c)}{{\mathscr{O}}}_V$ is the ideal of $Y_{c}$ in $V$.
Let $h_c\in{{\mathscr{O}}}_{X,p}$ generate the ideal of $Y_c$ so that ${{\mathscr{I}}}_p$ is generated by $\prod_{c\in C_p}h_c$. By Lemma \[23.05.2016–1\], the ideals $\{(h_c)\}_{c\in C_p}$ are the minimal primary components of ${{\mathscr{I}}}_p$. If $(U,{\boldsymbol{x}})$ is as in (2), Corollary \[18.05.2016–1\] assures that $\{(h_c)\}_{c\in C_p}=\{(x_{j,p})\}_{1\le j\le m}$ and that $m$ is also the multiplicity at $p$. Let $c_j\in C_p$ be such that $(h_{c_j})=(x_{j,p})$ and suppose that a certain $c$ of $C_p$ lies outside $\{c_1,\ldots,c_m\}$. Then $(h_c)\in \{(x_{j,p})\}_{1\le j\le m}$; suppose, for convenience, that $(x_{1,p})=(h_c)$. Hence $x_{1,p}^2$ divides $\prod_j x_{j,p}$ which means that $x_{1,p}$ divides $\prod_{j>1} x_{j,p}$ (the product over the empty set being understood as the unit). This is impossible. Hence $\#C_p=m$ and the bijection ${\sigma}$ is obtained easily.
For each $c\in C$, write $$Y_c^\dagger:=Y_c\smallsetminus\bigcup_{c'\not=c}Y_{c'};$$ the natural composition $Y\to S$ is smooth on the points of $Y_c^\dagger$.
Let $({{\mathscr{E}}},{\nabla})\in{\mathfrak{C}}_Y^{\log}(X/S)$ be given and, for a fixed $c\in C$, pick $p\in Y_c^\dagger$. From Lemma \[28.10.2019–1\], we are able to find a relative system of coordinates adapted to $p$, call it $(U,{\boldsymbol{x}})$, such that ${{\mathscr{I}}}|_U=x_1{{\mathscr{O}}}_U$. (In particular, $Y\cap U=Y_c\cap U$.) Write ${\vartheta}_j$ instead of ${\vartheta}_{x_j}$. A simple calculation shows that ${\nabla}_{{\vartheta}_1}$ preserves the ${{\mathscr{O}}}_U$-submodule $x_1{{\mathscr{E}}}|_U$ and that the induced morphism of abelian sheaves $${\mathrm{Res}}_c^{{\boldsymbol{x}}}:{{\mathscr{E}}}|_{U\cap Y_c} {\longrightarrow}{{\mathscr{E}}}|_{U\cap Y_c}$$ is in fact ${{\mathscr{O}}}_{Y_c}$-linear. Moreover, the additive morphisms $${\nabla}_{\vartheta_j}:{{\mathscr{E}}}|_U{\longrightarrow}{{\mathscr{E}}}|_U,\qquad j>1,$$ also preserve $x_1{{\mathscr{E}}}|_U$ and hence induce morphisms of abelian sheaves $${\nabla}_{\vartheta_j}:{{\mathscr{E}}}|_{U\cap Y_c}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathscr{E}}}|_{U\cap Y_c}.$$ In this way, we define on the ${{\mathscr{O}}}_{U\cap Y_c}$–module ${{\mathscr{E}}}|_{U\cap Y_c}$ an $S$-connection ${\nabla}_c^{{\boldsymbol{x}}}$. It is then a simple task to show that ${\mathrm{Res}}_c^{{\boldsymbol{x}}}$ is horizontal for the $S$-connection ${\nabla}^{{\boldsymbol{x}}}_c$.
Now, let $(U',{\boldsymbol{x}}')$ be a relative system of coordinates adapted to $Y$ about a point $p'\in U$ and such that $x_1'{{\mathscr{O}}}_{U'}={{\mathscr{I}}}|_{U'}$. (Again $U'\cap Y=U'\cap Y_c$.) Since $x_1{{\mathscr{O}}}_{U\cap U'}=x_1'{{\mathscr{O}}}_{U\cap U'}$, we conclude that $x_1'=v_1x_1$ for a certain $v_1\in{{\mathscr{O}}}(U\cap U')^{\times}$. From this, $$\begin{split}
x_1{\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}x_1}}&=x_1{\frac{{\partial}x_1'}{{\partial}x_1}}{\cdot}{\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}x_1'}}+x_1\sum_{j>1}{\frac{{\partial}x_j'}{{\partial}x_1}}{\cdot}{\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}x_j'}}\\
&=x_1'{\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}x_1'}}+{\frac{x_1'}{v^2_1}}{\frac{{\partial}v_1}{{\partial}x_1}}{\cdot}x_1'{\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}x_1'}}+{\frac{x_1'}{v_1}}\sum_{j>1}\cdots
\end{split}$$ and hence $${\mathrm{Res}}_c^{{\boldsymbol{x}}}={\mathrm{Res}}_c^{{\boldsymbol{x}}'}$$ on $Y_c^\dagger\cap U\cap U'$. Summarizing:
\[19.12.2019–3\] Let $c\in C$ be fixed. There exists an ${{\mathscr{O}}}_{Y_c^\dagger}$–linear endomorphism $${\mathrm{Res}}_c:{{\mathscr{E}}}|_{Y_c^\dagger}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathscr{E}}}|_{Y_c^\dagger}$$ with the following property. If $p\in Y_c^\dagger$ and $(U,{\boldsymbol{x}})$ is a relative system of coordinates adapted to $Y$ at $p$ such that ${{\mathscr{I}}}|_U=x_1{{\mathscr{O}}}_U$, then ${\mathrm{Res}}_c$ is induced by ${\nabla}_{{\vartheta}_{x_1}}:{{\mathscr{E}}}\to{{\mathscr{E}}}$ upon passage to the quotient.
\[19.12.2019–2\]The ${{\mathscr{O}}}_{Y_c^\dagger}$-linear endomorphism ${\mathrm{Res}}_c$ constructed in Proposition \[19.12.2019–3\] is called the residue endomorphism of ${{\mathscr{E}}}$ along $Y_c^\dagger$.
In order to proceed with the study of ${\mathrm{Res}}_c$, we shall need some preliminary material on relative local systems.
Eigenvalues of endomorphisms {#30.05.2016--2}
----------------------------
We gather here simple fact concerning endomorphism of finite modules and local systems.
\[10.10.2019–1\]Let $E$ be a finite ${\Lambda}$-module and ${\varphi}:E\to E$ an endomorphism. Let ${\omega}{\varphi}:E\to E$ denote the ${\mathds{C}}$-linear endomorphism associated to ${\varphi}$.
1. For each ${\varrho}\in{\mathrm{Sp}}_{{\omega}{\varphi}}$, the subspace ${\mathbf{G}}({\omega}{\varphi},{\varrho})$ is a ${\Lambda}$-submodule.
2. If ${\overline{{\varphi}}}:{\overline{E}}\to{\overline{E}}$ stands for the ${\mathds{C}}$-linear endomorphism obtained by reducing ${\varphi}$ modulo ${\mathfrak{m}}$, we have ${\mathrm{Sp}}_{{\omega}{\varphi}}={\mathrm{Sp}}_{{\overline{{\varphi}}}}$.
Motivated by this result, in what follows, given an endomorphism of a finite ${\Lambda}$-module ${\varphi}:E\to E$, we put $$\begin{split}
{\mathrm{Sp}}_{{\varphi}}&=\begin{array}{c}\text{ the spectrum of ${\varphi}$ regarded}\\\text{ as a ${\mathds{C}}$-linear endomorphism} \end{array}
\\
&=\text{ the spectrum of ${\overline{{\varphi}}}:E/{\mathfrak{m}}E\to E/{\mathfrak{m}}E$.}
\end{split}$$
Let $T$ be a locally connected (like all complex spaces [@grauert-remmert84 9.3, 177ff]) and connected topological space and $\mathds E$ a coherent ${\Lambda}_T$-module. (Recall that ${\Lambda}_T$ is the simple sheaf associated to ${\Lambda}$: it is in addition a coherent sheaf of rings.) Since $\mathds E$ is of finite presentation, each point of $T$ possesses a connected neighbourhood $U$ such that, writing $E=\mathds E(U)$, we have $\mathds E|_U=E_U$; this is to say that $\mathds E$ is locally constant. In particular, for each connected $U\subset T$ and each $p\in T$, the natural morphism $\mathds E(U)\to\mathds E_p$ is [*injective*]{}.
Let ${\varphi}: \mathds E\to \mathds E$ be a ${\Lambda}_T$–linear endomorphism. It is easily proved that for any two $p,q\in T$, we have ${\mathrm{Sp}}_{{\varphi}_p}={\mathrm{Sp}}_{{\varphi}_q}$; we therefore make the following:
\[29.10.2019–2\] The [*spectrum of*]{} ${\varphi}:\mathds E\to\mathds E$ is the spectrum of the ${\Lambda}$-linear endomorphism induced by ${\varphi}$ on an unspecified stalk. It shall be denoted by ${\mathrm{Sp}}_{\varphi}$.
Given ${\varrho}\in{\mathrm{Sp}}_{\varphi}$, let us write ${\mathbf{G}}({\varphi},{\varrho})$ to denote the pre-sheaf of ${\Lambda}_T$-modules $$U\longmapsto \bigcup_{\nu=1}^\infty \{e\in \mathds E(U)\,:\,({\varphi}-{\varrho})^\nu(e)=0\}.$$ Using that $\mathds E$ is locally constant, Jordan’s decomposition allows us to say:
\[06.11.2019–1\]For each ${\varrho}\in{\mathrm{Sp}}_{\varphi}$, there exists $\mu\in{\mathds{N}}$ such that ${\mathbf{G}}({\varphi},{\varrho})={\mathrm{Ker}}({\varphi}-{\varrho})^{\mu}$. In particular, ${\mathbf{G}}({\varphi},{\varrho})$ is a coherent sheaf of ${\Lambda}_T$–modules and $$\bigoplus_{{\varrho}\in{\mathrm{Sp}}_{\varphi}} {\mathbf{G}}({\varphi},{\varrho}) = \mathds E.$$
The exponents {#exponents}
-------------
Let us now suppose that $S$ is the analytic spectrum of ${\Lambda}$ and that the relative divisor $Y\subset X$ satisfies Hypothesis \[14.10.2019–3\], whose notations are now in force. Given $({{\mathscr{E}}},{\nabla})\in{\mathfrak{C}}_Y^{\log}(X/S)$, we set out to elaborate on the properties of the residue morphism (Definition \[19.12.2019–2\]).
Let $c\in C$ and $p\in Y_c^\dagger$. We pick a relative system of coordinates $(U,{\boldsymbol{x}})$ adapted to $Y$ at $p$ such that ${{\mathscr{I}}}|_U=x_1{{\mathscr{O}}}_U$, see Lemma \[28.10.2019–1\]. (In particular $Y_c^\dagger\cap U=Y\cap U$.) Then, $${\mathrm{Res}}_c^{{\boldsymbol{x}}}: {{\mathscr{E}}}|_{U\cap Y_c}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathscr{E}}}|_{U\cap Y_c}$$ induces an endomorphism $${\rm HRes}_{c}^{{\boldsymbol{x}}} :
{\mathrm{Ker}}({\nabla}^{{\boldsymbol{x}}}_c){\longrightarrow}{\mathrm{Ker}}({\nabla}_c^{{\boldsymbol{x}}}).$$ Since $ {\mathrm{Ker}}({\nabla}^{{\boldsymbol{x}}}_c)$ is a local system on $U\cap Y_c^\dagger$ (Theorem \[10.06.2016–2\]) and $|U\cap Y_c^\dagger|$ is homeomorphic to a polydisk in ${\mathds{C}}^{n-1}$, we are able to introduce the spectrum of ${\mathrm{HRes}}_c^{{\boldsymbol{x}}}$ as in Definition \[29.10.2019–2\]. Let us deepen our analysis. By axiom, for any given $q\in Y\cap U$, the set ${\mathrm{Sp}}({{\mathrm{HRes}}_c^{{\boldsymbol{x}}}})$ is just the set of eigenvalues for the ${\Lambda}$-linear endomorphism $$\xymatrix{ {\mathrm{Ker}}({\nabla}_c^{{\boldsymbol{x}}})_q\ar[rr]^-{{\mathrm{HRes}}_c^{{\boldsymbol{x}}}} && {\mathrm{Ker}}({\nabla}_c^{{\boldsymbol{x}}})_q}.$$ Now, by Theorem \[10.06.2016–2\], the natural arrow $${\mathrm{Ker}}({\nabla}_c^{{\boldsymbol{x}}})_q{\underset{{\Lambda}}{\otimes}} {{\mathscr{O}}}_{X,q}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathscr{E}}}_q$$ is an isomorphism. Since ${\mathfrak{M}}_{q}\cap{\Lambda}={\mathfrak{m}}$, using a standard isomorphism [@bourbakiA II.3.6, Corollary 3], we arrive at a commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{
{\mathrm{Ker}}({\nabla}_c^{{\boldsymbol{x}}})_q/{\mathfrak{m}}\ar[rr]^{\sim}\ar[d]_{ {\mathrm{HRes}}_c^{{\boldsymbol{x}}} } && {{\mathscr{E}}}_q/{\mathfrak{M}}_q\ar[d]^{{\mathrm{Res}}_c^{{\boldsymbol{x}}}(q)}
\\
{\mathrm{Ker}}({\nabla}_c^{{\boldsymbol{x}}})_q/{\mathfrak{m}}\ar[rr]^{\sim} && {{\mathscr{E}}}_q/{\mathfrak{M}}_q .
}$$ Lemma \[10.10.2019–1\]-(2) then tells us that ${\mathrm{Sp}}({{\mathrm{HRes}}_c^{{\boldsymbol{x}}}})$ is simply the spectrum of the ${\mathds{C}}$-linear endomorphism (independent of $(U,{\boldsymbol{x}})$) $${\mathrm{Res}}_c (q) : {{\mathscr{E}}}(q){\longrightarrow}{{\mathscr{E}}}(q).$$
\[19.12.2019–4\] The topological space $|Y^\dagger_c|$ is connected.
By assumption, $|Y_c|$ is connected. In addition, $|Y_c|$ is the topological space of a complex manifold, call it $Z_c$. Now, $|Y_c^\dagger|$ is the complement of a thin subset of $|Z_c|$, and hence is connected [@grauert-remmert84 7.1.3, p.133].
Using the fact that $|Y_c^\dagger|$ is a [*connected*]{} topological space, the following definitions carry no ambiguity.
\[29.10.2019–3\]The spectrum of ${\mathrm{Res}}_c(p): {{\mathscr{E}}}(p)\to{{\mathscr{E}}}(p)$ for any point $p\in Y_c^\dagger$ is called the set of exponents of ${\nabla}$ along $Y_c$. It shall be denoted by ${\mathrm{Exp}}_{Y_c}({\nabla})$ or ${\mathrm{Exp}}_{Y_c}({{\mathscr{E}}})$ if no confusion is likely. In like manner, ${\mathrm{Exp}}_Y({\nabla})$, or ${\mathrm{Exp}}_Y({{\mathscr{E}}})$, is the union $\bigcup_c{\mathrm{Exp}}_{Y_c}({\nabla})$.
Let us suppose that ${\Lambda}={\mathds{C}}[t]/(t^2)$, that $X={\mathrm{Specan}}\,{\Lambda}[x]$ and that $Y$ is defined by $x{{\mathscr{O}}}_X$. Let ${{\mathscr{L}}}={{\mathscr{O}}}_Xe$ be free and put $ {\nabla}e= e{\otimes}tx^{-1}{\mathrm{d}}x$. Then $C$ is a singleton and ${\mathrm{Exp}}_Y({\nabla})=\{0\}$.
Extending morphisms and connections {#04.11.2019--4}
===================================
In this section we set out to prove:
\[11.05.2016–2\]Let $S$ be the analytic spectrum of ${\Lambda}$, $f:X\to S$ a smooth morphism of complex spaces, and $Y\subset X$ a relative divisor with normal crossings satisfying Hypothesis \[14.10.2019–3\]; write as usual $X^*=X\smallsetminus Y$.
(1) The restriction functor $${\mathfrak{C}}^{\log}_Y(X/S){\longrightarrow}{\mathfrak{C}}(X^*/S)$$ is essentially surjective.
(2) The restriction functor $${\mathfrak{MC}}_Y^{\log}(X/S){\longrightarrow}{\mathfrak{C}}(X^*/S)$$ is an equivalence.
Note that, once statement (1) is shown to be true, the work required for proving (2) reduces to the verification of fully faithfulness of ${\mathfrak{MC}}^{\log}_Y(X/S)
\to{\mathfrak{C}}(X^*/S)$, which is Theorem \[21.10.2019–1\]. Hence, we concentrate on finding preferred extensions for objects of ${\mathfrak{C}}(X^*/S)$ and aim at Theorem \[deligne\_manin\_extension\].
The idea employed here is the same as in [@malgrange Theorem 4.4]: one solves the problem locally (this shall be done by Theorem \[02.10.2019–2\]-(1)) and one proves then uniqueness of solutions (Theorem \[02.10.2019–2\]-(2)). The work around local existence follows without much effort from [@malgrange pp. 159-60], except that we need to replace the well–known argument concerning the surjectivity of the exponential (Lemma 4.5 in op.cit.) by a slightly longer one (Proposition \[03.09.2019–1\]). On the other hand, in extending morphisms, we have chosen to deviate slightly from the standard technique (see [@malgrange pp. 161-2] or, for example, [@wasow65 Theorem 4.1]) and put forward Proposition \[24.10.2019–2\] which shall play a role in Section \[17.12.2019–1\] as well.
The dissonance
--------------
As in the theory of regular-singular connections one finds consistently the need to exclude the case where exponents differ by integers, the following definition shall be useful.
\[dissonance\]
(1) Let $A=\{A_j\}_{j\in J}$ and $B=\{B_j\}_{j\in J}$ be two families of subsets of ${\mathds{C}}$ indexed by a common finite set $J$. Define the [*dissonance*]{} from $B$ to $A$, call it ${\delta}(B,A)$, as being the maximum of $$\bigcup_{j\in J}{\mathds{N}}\cap(B_j\ominus A_j)
$$ in case this set is non-empty, and zero otherwise.
(2) Let $X\to S$ be a smooth morphism, where $S$ is the analytic spectrum of ${\Lambda}$. Let $Y=\sum_{c\in C}Y_c$ be a relative divisor with normal crossings satisfying the assumptions of Hypothesis \[14.10.2019–3\]. We define, once given $({{\mathscr{E}}},{\nabla}_{{\mathscr{E}}})$ and $({{\mathscr{F}}},{\nabla}_{{\mathscr{F}}})$ objects of ${\mathfrak{C}}_Y^{\log}(X/S)$, the [*dissonance from ${\nabla}_{{\mathscr{F}}}$ to ${\nabla}_{{\mathscr{E}}}$*]{}, denoted ${\delta}({\nabla}_{{\mathscr{F}}},{\nabla}_{{\mathscr{E}}})$, as the dissonance from the family $\{{\mathrm{Exp}}_{Y_c}({\nabla}_{{\mathscr{F}}})\}_{c\in C}$ to $\{{\mathrm{Exp}}_{Y_c}({\nabla}_{{\mathscr{E}}})\}_{c\in C}$.
Extension of arrows: local case {#25.09.2019--2}
-------------------------------
Let $D$ be an open polydisk in ${\mathds{C}}^n$ about the origin, $\{x_j\}_{j=1}^n$ be the coordinate functions and $H$, respectively $H_j$, be the effective divisor in $D$ defined by the ideal $x_1\cdots x_m{{\mathscr{O}}}_D$, respectively $x_j{{\mathscr{O}}}_D$. Write $$\begin{split}
D^*&=D\smallsetminus H,\\ H^\dagger_j&=H_j\smallsetminus \bigcup_{k\not=j}^mH_k
\end{split}$$ and $$\begin{split} H^{\rm cross}&=\bigcup_{i<j} H_i\cap H_j\\& = H\smallsetminus \bigcup_jH_j^\dagger. \end{split}$$
\[24.10.2019–2\] Let $({{\mathscr{E}}},{\nabla}_{{\mathscr{E}}})$ and $({{\mathscr{F}}},{\nabla}_{{\mathscr{F}}})$ be objects of ${\mathfrak{C}}^{\log}_H(D)$, ${\delta}={\delta}({\nabla}_{{\mathscr{F}}},{\nabla}_{{\mathscr{E}}})$ the dissonance from ${\nabla}_{{\mathscr{F}}}$ to ${\nabla}_{{\mathscr{E}}}$ and ${\varphi}:{{\mathscr{E}}}(*H)\to {{\mathscr{F}}}(*H)$ an arrow in ${\mathfrak{MC}}_H^{\log}(D)$. If ${{\mathscr{F}}}$ is a vector bundle, then ${\mathrm{Im}}({\varphi})\subset {{\mathscr{F}}}({\delta}H)$. More precisely, there exists an arrow $${\widetilde}{\varphi}:{{\mathscr{E}}}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathscr{F}}}({\delta}H)$$ in ${\mathfrak{C}}_H^{\log}(D)$ rendering the diagram $$\xymatrix{{{\mathscr{E}}}(*H)\ar[rr]^{\varphi}&& {{\mathscr{F}}}(*H)
\\
{{\mathscr{E}}}\ar[u]^{\rm can}\ar[rr]^{{\widetilde}{\varphi}}&& {{\mathscr{F}}}({\delta}H)\ar[u]_{\rm can}
}$$ commutative. In addition, ${\widetilde}{\varphi}$ is the unique arrow of ${\mathrm{Hom}}_{{{\mathscr{O}}}_{D}}({{\mathscr{E}}},{{\mathscr{F}}}({\delta}H))$ extending ${\varphi}$.
We are only required to show that ${\varphi}$ extends to an arrow ${\widetilde}{\varphi}:{{\mathscr{E}}}\to{{\mathscr{F}}}({\delta}H)$ between ${{\mathscr{O}}}_D$-modules; indeed, since for each $U\subset D$ the natural arrow ${\Gamma}(U,{{\mathscr{F}}}({\delta}H))\to{\Gamma}( U,{{\mathscr{F}}}( * H))$ is injective, the fact that ${\varphi}$ is horizontal immediately assures that ${\widetilde}{\varphi}$ is likewise.
The heart of the proof is the *Claim:* For any $j\in\{1,\ldots,m\}$, any $p\in H^\dagger_j$, any open polydisk $V\subset D\smallsetminus H^{\rm cross}$ about $p$, and any $e\in {\Gamma}(V,{{\mathscr{E}}})$, the section ${\varphi}(e)\in{\Gamma}(V,{{\mathscr{F}}}(*H))$ is actually an element of ${\Gamma}(V,{{\mathscr{F}}}({\delta}H))$.
To ease notations, we prove the claim in case $j=1$. Let $p\in H_1^\dagger$ and fix $V$ an open polydisk about $p$ and contained in $D\smallsetminus H^{\rm cross}$ (in particular, $V\cap H_1=V\cap H_1^\dagger$). Let $U\subset V$ be a polydisk about $p$ where we can find a relative system of coordinates adapted to $H$, call it ${\boldsymbol{y}}$, and such that $y_1{{\mathscr{O}}}_U$ is the ideal of $H_1\cap U$.
In what follows, let us write ${\vartheta}$ in place of ${\vartheta}_{y_1}$, $${\vartheta}_{{\mathscr{E}}}:{{\mathscr{E}}}|_U{\longrightarrow}{{\mathscr{E}}}|_U\quad\text{and}\quad{\vartheta}_{{\mathscr{F}}}:{{\mathscr{F}}}|_U{\longrightarrow}{{\mathscr{F}}}|_U$$ for the ${\mathds{C}}$–linear endomorphisms defined by ${\vartheta}$ by means of the connection. We will require the following simple result:
\[23.10.2019–1\] For any $k\in{\mathds{N}}$, $\mu\in{\mathds{N}}$ and ${\varrho}\in{\mathds{C}}$, the following formula holds: $$[{\vartheta}-({\varrho}+k)]^\mu y_1^k=y_1^k({\vartheta}-{\varrho})^\mu,$$
Adopting the notations of Section \[exponents\] and employing Lemma \[06.11.2019–1\], we can write $${\mathrm{Ker}}({\nabla}^{{\boldsymbol{y}}}_{{{\mathscr{E}}},1}) = \bigoplus_{{\varrho}} {\mathrm{Ker}}\left({\mathrm{Res}}_1({{\mathscr{E}}}) -{\varrho}\right)^{\mu_{\varrho}}.$$ (In Section \[exponents\] we have actually employed the notation ${\mathrm{HRes}}$ for the restriction of ${\mathrm{Res}}$ to the sheaf ${\mathrm{Ker}}$; this chance should cause no confusion.) Let ${\varrho}\in{\mathrm{Exp}}_{H_1}({{\mathscr{E}}})$ and choose ${\overline{e}}\in {\Gamma}(U\cap H_1 ,{{\mathscr{E}}}|_{H_1})$ such that $${\overline{e}} \in{\mathrm{Ker}} \left({\mathrm{Res}}_1({{\mathscr{E}}})-{\varrho}\right)^{\mu_{\varrho}}.$$ Because $U$ is a polydisk (and hence a Stein space), there exists $e\in{\Gamma}(U,{{\mathscr{E}}})$ such that $e|_{H_1}={\overline{e}}$ [@grauert-remmert84 1.4.6, p. 35]. Consequently, $$({\vartheta}_{{\mathscr{E}}}-{\varrho})^{\mu_{\varrho}}(e)\in{\Gamma}(U,y_1{{\mathscr{E}}})=y_1{\Gamma}(U,{{\mathscr{E}}}).$$ Let $k>{\delta}$ be such that $y^k_1{\varphi}({{\mathscr{E}}})\subset {{\mathscr{F}}}$. By Lemma \[23.10.2019–1\], we have $$\begin{split}
[{\vartheta}_{{\mathscr{F}}}-({\varrho}+k)]^{\mu_{\varrho}}(y_1^k{\varphi}(e))& = y_1^k({\vartheta}_{{\mathscr{F}}}-{\varrho})^{\mu_{\varrho}}({\varphi}(e))
\\
&=y_1^k{\varphi}[({\vartheta}_{{\mathscr{E}}}-{\varrho})^{\mu_{\varrho}}(e)]
\\&\in y_1^{k+1}{\varphi}({{\mathscr{E}}}).
\end{split}$$ Hence, $$[{\vartheta}_{{\mathscr{F}}}-({\varrho}+k)]^{\mu_{\varrho}}(y_1^k{\varphi}(e))\in{\Gamma}(U,y_1{{\mathscr{F}}}).$$ This implies that $$\left.\left\{y_1^k{\varphi}(e)\right\}\right|_{H_1} \in {\mathrm{Ker}}\,({\mathrm{Res}}_1({{\mathscr{F}}})-({\varrho}+k))^{\mu_{\varrho}}.$$ Since ${\varrho}+k$ cannot be an exponent of ${{\mathscr{F}}}$, since $k>{\delta}$ is supposed true, $\left.\left\{y_1^k{\varphi}(e)\right\}\right|_{H_1}$ has to vanish altogether which means that $$y_1^k{\varphi}(e)\in {\Gamma}(U,y_1{{\mathscr{F}}}).$$ (Here we used the fact that the only section $s$ of a vector bundle ${{\mathscr{S}}}$ over a [*reduced*]{} complex space $Z$ such that $s(z)=0$ for all $z\in Z$ is the zero section.) Hence, $$y_1^{k-1}{\varphi}(e)\in{\Gamma}(U,{{\mathscr{F}}})$$ since ${{\mathscr{F}}}$ has no $y_1$-torsion.
Let now $e\in {\Gamma}(U,{{\mathscr{E}}})$ be an arbitrary section and write $$\tag{$\#$}
e|_{H_1} = \sum_{\varrho}{\overline{a}}_{\varrho}{\cdot}{\overline{e}}_{\varrho},$$ where ${\overline{a}}_{\varrho}\in{{\mathscr{O}}}(U\cap H_1)$ and ${\overline{e}}_{\varrho}\in{\mathrm{Ker}}({\mathrm{Res}}_1({\nabla})-{\varrho})^{\mu_{\varrho}}$. This is possible because $${{\mathscr{O}}}_{U\cap H_1}{\otimes}{\mathrm{Ker}}({\nabla}_{{{\mathscr{E}}},1}^{{\boldsymbol{y}}}){\stackrel{\sim}{\longrightarrow}} {{\mathscr{E}}}|_{U\cap H_1}.$$ By the Stein property, we may assume that ${\overline{e}}_{\varrho}=e_{\varrho}|_{H_1}$ and ${\overline{a}}_{\varrho}= a_{\varrho}|_{H_1}$ so that, using eq. ($\#$) and multiplying by $y_1^{k-1}$, we have $$y_1^{k-1}e=\sum_{\varrho}a_{\varrho}{\cdot}y_1^{k-1} e_{\varrho}+y_1^k {\varepsilon},\quad\text{for some ${\varepsilon}\in{\Gamma}(U,{{\mathscr{E}}})$.}$$ Hence, ${\varphi}(y_1^{k-1}e)\in {\Gamma}(U,{{\mathscr{F}}})$. By induction, we are then able to say that ${\varphi}(y_1^{{\delta}}e)\in {\Gamma}(U,{{\mathscr{F}}})$. It is now a simple matter to show that the Claim holds in all generality.
Granted the claim, we can assure that for any $p\in H$, any open polydisk $V$ about $p$ in $D$ and any $e\in{\Gamma}(V,{{\mathscr{E}}})$, the section ${\varphi}(e)|_{V\smallsetminus H^{\rm cross}}$ belongs to ${\Gamma}(V\smallsetminus H^{\rm cross},{{\mathscr{F}}}({\delta}H))$. Using Riemann’s second extension theorem [@grauert-remmert84 p.132, 7.1.2] we are able to say that ${\varphi}(e)\in{\Gamma}(V,{{\mathscr{F}}}({\delta}H))$. It is then a simple matter to see that ${\mathrm{Im}}({\varphi})\subset{{\mathscr{F}}}({\delta}H)$.
We end by arguing that the arrow constructed previously is unique. Let ${\widehat}{\varphi}:{{\mathscr{E}}}\to{{\mathscr{F}}}({\delta}H)$ extend ${\varphi}$. It then follows that ${\widehat}{\varphi}-{\widetilde}{\varphi}$ when restricted to $D^*$, coincides with $0:{{\mathscr{E}}}|_{D^*}\to{{\mathscr{F}}}|_{D^*}$. But a section of ${{\mathscr{F}}}({\delta}H)$ over an open subset $W\subset D$ which vanishes on $W\smallsetminus H$ must vanish on the whole of $W$ by the identity theorem [@fritzsche-grauert02 I.4.10, p.22], so that ${\widehat}{\varphi}={\widetilde}{\varphi}$ as maps from ${\Gamma}(W,{{\mathscr{E}}})$ to ${\Gamma}(W,{{\mathscr{F}}}({\delta}H))$; this is enough argument.
At this point, it is perhaps useful to combine Proposition \[24.10.2019–2\] and Theorem \[04.11.2019–5\] to obtain:
\[08.10.2019–1\]Let $({{\mathscr{E}}},{\nabla}_{{\mathscr{E}}})$ and $({{\mathscr{F}}},{\nabla}_{{\mathscr{F}}})$ be objects of ${\mathfrak{C}}_H^{\log}(D)$ and let $${\varphi}:{{\mathscr{E}}}|_{D^*}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathscr{F}}}|_{D^*}$$ be an arrow in ${\mathfrak{C}}(D^*)$.
(1) There exists a unique extension of ${\varphi}$ to an arrow ${\widetilde}{\varphi}:{{\mathscr{E}}}(*H)\to {{\mathscr{F}}}(*H)$ of ${\mathfrak{MC}}_H^{\log}(D)$.
(2) Suppose that ${{\mathscr{F}}}$ is a vector bundle and let ${\delta}={\delta}({\nabla}_{{\mathscr{F}}},{\nabla}_{{\mathscr{E}}})$ denote the dissonance from ${\nabla}_{{\mathscr{F}}}$ to ${\nabla}_{{\mathscr{E}}}$. Then, there exists an arrow $${\overline{{\varphi}}}:{{\mathscr{E}}}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathscr{F}}}({\delta}H)$$ in ${\mathfrak{C}}_H^{\log}(D)$ rendering $$\xymatrix{{{\mathscr{E}}}(*H)\ar[rr]^{{\widetilde}{\varphi}} && {{\mathscr{F}}}(*H)
\\
{{\mathscr{E}}}\ar[u]^{\rm can}\ar[rr]^{{\overline{{\varphi}}}}&& {{\mathscr{F}}}({\delta}H)\ar[u]_{\rm can}
}$$ commutative. In particular, ${\overline{{\varphi}}}$ extends ${\varphi}$ so that if ${\delta}=0$, then ${\varphi}$ extends to an arrow of ${\mathfrak{C}}_H^{\log}(D)$ between $({{\mathscr{E}}},{\nabla}_{{\mathscr{E}}})$ and $({{\mathscr{F}}},{\nabla}_{{\mathscr{F}}})$.
Finally, ${\overline{{\varphi}}}$ is the unique extension of ${\varphi}$ to an arrow ${{\mathscr{E}}}\to{{\mathscr{F}}}({\delta}H)$.
Let now $$X=D{\times}S,\quad Y=H{\times}S\quad \text{and}\quad Y_j=H_j
{\times}S;$$ notations and conventions introduced in Section \[03.05.2016–1\] shall be employed. The following result is tautological and will be used further ahead.
\[30.05.2016–1\]Let $({{\mathscr{E}}},{\nabla}_{{\mathscr{E}}})\in {{\mathfrak{C}}}_Y^{\log}(X/S)$. Then, for each $j\in\{1,\ldots,m\}$, we have ${\mathrm{Exp}}_{Y_j}({\nabla}_{{\mathscr{E}}})={\mathrm{Exp}}_{H_j}({\omega}{\nabla}_{{\mathscr{E}}})$. In particular, if $({{\mathscr{F}}},{\nabla}_{{\mathscr{F}}})$ is another object of $ {{\mathfrak{C}}}_Y^{\log}(X/S)$, then we have an equality of dissonances ${\delta}({{\mathscr{F}}},{{\mathscr{E}}})={\delta}({\omega}{{\mathscr{F}}},{\omega}{{\mathscr{E}}})$.
Using this and Theorem \[08.10.2019–1\] we can prove:
\[08.10.2019–2\]Let $({{\mathscr{E}}},{\nabla}_{{\mathscr{E}}})$ and $({{\mathscr{F}}},{\nabla}_{{\mathscr{F}}})$ be objects of ${\mathfrak{C}}_{Y}^{\log}(X/S)$ and suppose that ${{\mathscr{F}}}$ is a vector bundle relatively to $S$. Let ${\varphi}:{{\mathscr{E}}}|_{X^*}\to{{\mathscr{F}}}|_{X^*}$ be a horizontal arrow and denote by ${\delta}$ the dissonance from ${\nabla}_{{\mathscr{F}}}$ to ${\nabla}_{{\mathscr{E}}}$ (Definition \[dissonance\]). Then, abusing notation and writing ${{\mathscr{E}}}|_{X^*}$ and ${{\mathscr{F}}}|_{X^*}$ for the push-forward sheaves, there exists an arrow $${\widetilde}{\varphi}:{{\mathscr{E}}}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathscr{F}}}({\delta}Y)$$ in ${\mathfrak{C}}_Y^{\log}(X/S)$ rendering $$\xymatrix{{{\mathscr{E}}}|_{X^*}\ar[rr]^{{\varphi}} && {{\mathscr{F}}}|_{X^*}
\\
{{\mathscr{E}}}\ar[u]^{\rm can}\ar[rr]^{{\widetilde}{\varphi}}&& {{\mathscr{F}}}({\delta}Y)\ar[u]_{\rm can}
}$$ commutative. In particular, ${\widetilde}{\varphi}$ extends ${\varphi}$ and is in fact the unique extension of ${\varphi}$ to an arrow between ${{\mathscr{O}}}_X$-modules.
We shall apply Theorem \[08.10.2019–1\] to the objects ${\omega}{{\mathscr{E}}}$ and ${\omega}{{\mathscr{F}}}$ from $[{\mathfrak{C}}_H^{\log}(D)]_{({\Lambda})}$. We have an arrow in ${\mathfrak{C}}(D^*)_{({\Lambda})}$: $${\omega}{\varphi}:{\omega}{{\mathscr{E}}}|_{D^*}{\longrightarrow}{\omega}{{\mathscr{F}}}|_{D^*}.$$ From Lemma \[30.05.2016–1\], the dissonance ${\delta}$ in the statement equals ${\delta}({\omega}{{\mathscr{F}}},{\omega}{{\mathscr{E}}})$. As ${\omega}{{\mathscr{F}}}$ is locally free, Theorem \[08.10.2019–1\] gives us an arrow from ${\mathfrak{C}}_H^{\log}(D)$, $${\overline{{\omega}{\varphi}}} : {\omega}{{\mathscr{E}}}{\longrightarrow}{\omega}{{\mathscr{F}}}({\delta}H) ,$$ which extends ${\omega}{\varphi}$. The identity principle [@fritzsche-grauert02 I.4.10,p.22] assures that the restriction morphism $${\mathrm{Hom}}_{{{\mathscr{O}}}_D}({\omega}{{\mathscr{E}}},{\omega}{{\mathscr{F}}}({\delta}H)){\longrightarrow}{\mathrm{Hom}_{{{\mathscr{O}}}_{D^*}}({\omega}{{\mathscr{E}}}|_{D^*},{\omega}{{\mathscr{F}}}|_{D^*})}$$ is injective and consequently ${\overline{{\omega}{\varphi}}}$ is also ${\Lambda}$-linear. Hence, ${\varphi}$ extends to a horizontal morphism ${\widetilde}{\varphi}:{{\mathscr{E}}}\to {{\mathscr{F}}}({\delta}Y)$ because we can identify ${\omega}({{\mathscr{F}}}({\delta}Y))$ with ${\omega}{{\mathscr{F}}}({\delta}H)$.
Injectivity of the restriction morphism ${\mathrm{Hom}_{{{\mathscr{O}}}_X}({{\mathscr{E}}},{{\mathscr{F}}}({\delta}Y))}\to{\mathrm{Hom}_{{{\mathscr{O}}}_{X^*}}({{\mathscr{E}}}|_{X^*},{{\mathscr{F}}}|_{X^*})}$ guarantees that ${\widetilde}{\varphi}$ is unique.
Extension of arrows: global case
--------------------------------
The work here has all been done by Corollary \[08.10.2019–2\], and we simply record the outcome for future reference.
\[20.11.2019–1\]Let $S$ be the analytic spectrum of ${\Lambda}$ and $f:X\to S$ a smooth morphism. Let $Y\subset X$ be a relative divisor with normal crossings satisfying Hypothesis \[14.10.2019–3\] and denote the complement of $Y$ by $X^*$. Let $({{\mathscr{E}}},{\nabla}_{{\mathscr{E}}})$ and $({{\mathscr{F}}},{\nabla}_{{\mathscr{F}}})$ be objects of ${\mathfrak{C}}_Y^{\log}(X/S)$, and suppose that ${{\mathscr{F}}}$ is a vector bundle relatively to $S$. Denote by ${\delta}$ the dissonance from ${\nabla}_{{\mathscr{F}}}$ to ${\nabla}_{{\mathscr{E}}}$. Then, any arrow ${\varphi}:{{\mathscr{E}}}|_{X^*} \to {{\mathscr{F}}}|_{X^*}$ in ${\mathfrak{C}} (X^*/S)$ can be extended to an arrow ${\widetilde}{\varphi}:{{\mathscr{E}}}\to{{\mathscr{F}}}({\delta}Y)$ of ${\mathfrak{C}}_Y^{\log}(X/S)$. Moreover, this extension is unique.
Extension of connections: local case
------------------------------------
In this section, notations and conventions are those described at the start of Section \[25.09.2019–2\]: $D$ is an open polydisk, etc.
\[02.10.2019–2\]Let $(E,{\nabla})$ be an object of ${\mathfrak{C}}(D^*)_{({\Lambda})}$.
(1) There exists ${{\mathscr{E}}}\in {{\mathfrak{C}}}_H^{\log}(D)_{({\Lambda})}$ and an isomorphism in ${\mathfrak{C}}(D^*)_{({\Lambda})}$, $${\varphi}: {{\mathscr{E}}}|_{D^*}{\stackrel{\sim}{\longrightarrow}} E.$$ In addition, ${{\mathscr{E}}}$ can be chosen to enjoy the following properties.
(i) As an ${{\mathscr{O}}}_D$-module with action of ${\Lambda}$, ${{\mathscr{E}}}$ is a ${\Lambda}$-vector bundle (see Definition \[24.06.2016–1\]).
(ii) For each $j\in\{1,\ldots,m\}$, the exponents of ${{\mathscr{E}}}$ along $H_j$ are all on $\tau$.
(2) Let ${{\mathscr{E}}}'\in {{\mathfrak{C}}}_H^{\log}(D)_{({\Lambda})}$ enjoy properties (i) and (ii) of (1), and let $${\psi}: {{\mathscr{E}}}' |_{D^*}{\stackrel{\sim}{\longrightarrow}} E$$ be an isomorphism. Then there exists an isomorphism $$\xi:{{\mathscr{E}}}{\stackrel{\sim}{\longrightarrow}} {{\mathscr{E}}}'$$ in $ {{\mathfrak{C}}}^{\log}_H(D)_{({\Lambda})}$ rendering diagram $$\xymatrix{{{\mathscr{E}}}|_{D^*}\ar[r]^-{{\varphi}}\ar[dr]_{\xi|_{D^*}} &E \\ & {{\mathscr{E}}}' |_{D^*}\ar[u]_{\psi}}$$ commutative. Moreover, the isomorphism $\xi$ is the only one having this property.
\(1) Let $b=(b_{1},\ldots,b_{n})\in D^*$ and write ${\Gamma}$ for the fundamental group of $D^*$ based at $b$. Let $${\gamma}_1(t)=(b_{1}e^{2\pi {\mathrm{i}}t},b_{ 2},\ldots ), {\gamma}_2(t)=(b_{1},b_{2}e^{2\pi {\mathrm{i}}t},\ldots),\quad\text{etc}$$ so that ${\Gamma}$ is the free abelian group generated by $\{{\gamma}_j\}$. The dictionary of [@deligne70 I.2, 5 ff.] produces an equivalence of categories $${\mathfrak{C}}(D^*)_{({\Lambda})}{\stackrel{\sim}{\longrightarrow}}{\mathrm{Rep}}_{\mathds{C}}({\Gamma})_{({\Lambda})},\quad F\longmapsto F(p_0).$$ Let $g_1,\ldots,g_m\in {\mathrm{Aut}}_{\mathds{C}}(E(p_0))$ be associated to ${\gamma}_1,\ldots,{\gamma}_m$; obviously, each $g_j$ is ${\Lambda}$-linear. Employing Proposition \[03.09.2019–1\], we can find $T_1,\ldots,T_m\in{\mathrm{End}}_{\Lambda}(E(p_0))$ such that
- $
\exp(-2\pi {\mathrm{i}} T_j)=g_j$,
- the eigenvalues of every $T_j$ belong to $\tau$.
- $T_j$ commutes with the remaining $T_k$.
Let ${{\mathscr{E}}}={{\mathscr{O}}}_D{\otimes}_{\mathds{C}}E(p_0)$ be endowed with the obvious action of ${\Lambda}$ and define $${\nabla}_{{{\mathscr{E}}}} (1{\otimes}e) =\sum_{j=1}^m [1{\otimes}T_j(e)]{\otimes}{\frac{dx_j}{x_j}}\in{\Gamma}\left(D\,,\,{{\mathscr{E}}}{\otimes}{\Omega}^1_{D}(\log H)\right).$$ Since $T_jT_k=T_kT_j$, the connection ${\nabla}_{{\mathscr{E}}}$ is integrable. Clearly, ${\Lambda}$ acts by horizontal endomorphisms because each $T_j$ is ${\Lambda}$-linear. This shows that $({{\mathscr{E}}},{\nabla}_{{{\mathscr{E}}}})$ is an object of $ {{\mathfrak{C}}}^{\log}_H(D)_{({\Lambda})}$ enjoying property $(i)$. Obviously, the residue endomorphism $${{\mathscr{E}}}|_{H_j} {\longrightarrow}{{\mathscr{E}}}|_{H_j}$$ sends a section $1{\otimes}e$ to $1{\otimes}T_j(e)$, so that condition $(ii)$ is fulfilled by construction of $T_j$. Finally, the restriction of $({{\mathscr{E}}}, {\nabla}_{{\mathscr{E}}})$ to $D^*$ is an object of ${{\mathfrak{C}}}(D^*)_{({\Lambda})}$ which corresponds, under the equivalence ${\mathfrak{C}}(D^*)_{({\Lambda})}\simeq \mathrm{Rep}_{\mathds{C}}({\Gamma})_{({\Lambda})}$, to the representations defined by ${\gamma}_j\mapsto g_j$ because $\exp(-2\pi{\mathrm{i}}T_j)=g_j$. Consequently, the restriction of ${{\mathscr{E}}}$ to $D^*$ is isomorphic to $E$.
\(2) Let now ${{\mathscr{E}}}'$ and ${\psi}$ be as in (2). By Theorem \[08.10.2019–1\], there exists an arrow in $ {{\mathfrak{C}}}^{\log}_H(D)$, call it $\xi: {{\mathscr{E}}}\to {{\mathscr{E}}}'$, such that $\xi|_{D^*}={\psi}^{-1}{\varphi}$. As the restriction of $\xi$ to ${\mathfrak{C}}(D^*)$ commutes with the actions of ${\Lambda}$ and the restriction map $${\mathrm{Hom}_{{{\mathscr{O}}}_D}({{\mathscr{E}}},{{\mathscr{E}}}')}{\longrightarrow}{\mathrm{Hom}_{{{\mathscr{O}}}_{D^*}}({{\mathscr{E}}}|_{D^*},{{\mathscr{E}}}'|_{D^*})}$$ is injective, we conclude that $\xi$ commutes with the action of ${\Lambda}$ as well. Arguing with ${\varphi}^{-1}{\psi}$ instead of ${\psi}^{-1}{\varphi}$, it is not hard to see that $\xi$ is an isomorphism from ${\mathfrak{C}}^{\log}_H(D)_{({\Lambda})}$. The injectivity of the restriction arrow again proves the uniqueness statement concerning $\xi$.
Extension of connections: the global case
-----------------------------------------
Let $S$ be the analytic spectrum of ${\Lambda}$ and $f:X\to S$ a smooth morphism. Let $Y\subset X$ be a relative divisor with relative normal crossings satisfying in addition Hypothesis \[14.10.2019–3\]. As usual, we write $X^*$ for $X\smallsetminus Y$. Putting Theorem \[02.10.2019–2\], the equivalences of Section \[03.05.2016–1\] and Lemma \[30.05.2016–1\] together, we obtain:
\[deligne\_manin\_extension\]Let $(E,{\nabla})$ be an arbitrary object of ${{\mathfrak{C}}}(X^*/S)$. The following claims are true.
(1) There exists $ {{\mathscr{E}}}\in {{\mathfrak{C}}}_Y^{\log}(X/S)$ and an isomorphism $${\varphi}:{{\mathscr{E}}}|_{X^*}{\stackrel{\sim}{\longrightarrow}} E$$ in ${\mathfrak{C}}(X^*/S)$. Moreover, $ {{\mathscr{E}}}$ can be found to have the following properties:
(i) The ${{\mathscr{O}}}_X$-module ${{\mathscr{E}}}$ is a vector bundle relatively to $S$.
(ii) The exponents of $ {{\mathscr{E}}}$ along $Y$ are all on $\tau$.
(2) Let $ {{\mathscr{E}}}'\in {{\mathfrak{C}}}^{\log}_Y(X/S)$ enjoy properties (i) and (ii) of $(1)$, and let ${\psi}:{{\mathscr{E}}}'|_{X^*}\stackrel \sim \to E$ be an isomorphism. Then there exists an isomorphism $\xi: {{\mathscr{E}}}\stackrel \sim \to {{\mathscr{E}}}'$ rendering the diagram $$\xymatrix{ {{\mathscr{E}}}|_{X^*} \ar[r]^-{{\varphi}} \ar[dr]_-{\xi|_{X^*}} & E \\ &{{\mathscr{E}}}' |_{X^*}\ar[u]_{\psi}}$$ commutative. Moreover, the isomorphism $\xi$ is the only one having this property.
Given Theorem \[deligne\_manin\_extension\], the proof of point (1) in Theorem \[11.05.2016–2\] is concluded. Also, as argued after its statement, the verification of item (2) is also finished.
An exercise on the matrix exponential {#13.11.2019--1}
--------------------------------------
Let $M$ be a finite ${\Lambda}$-module. In proving Theorem \[02.10.2019–2\] we needed the following simple result.
\[03.09.2019–1\] Let ${\alpha},g_1,\ldots,g_m\in {\mathrm{Aut}}_{\Lambda}(M)$ be given and suppose that ${\alpha}$ commutes with each $g_j$. Then, there exists a unique $X\in{\mathrm{End}}_{\Lambda}(M)$ such that $\exp(2\pi {\mathrm{i}}X)={\alpha}$ and ${\mathrm{Sp}}_X\subset\tau$. In addition, $X$ commutes with each $g_j$.
Let $Z_j$ stand for the center of $g_j$ in the linear algebraic group ${\mathrm{Aut}}_{\Lambda}(M)$ and let ${\alpha}=s{\cdot}u$ be the Jordan-Chevalley decomposition of ${\alpha}$ in $\cap_jZ_j$ [@steinberg74 2.4, 29ff]. Since $u-{\mathrm{Id}}$ is nilpotent, the series $$N = {\frac{1}{2\pi{\mathrm{i}}}}\sum_{k\ge1}{\frac{(-1)^{k-1}}{k}} (u-{\mathrm{Id}})^k$$ is in fact a sum and $\exp(2\pi {\mathrm{i}} N) = u$. Obviously $N$ belongs to ${\mathrm{End}}_{\Lambda}(M)$ and commutes with each $g_j$.
For every ${\varrho}\in{\mathrm{Sp}}_{{\alpha}}={\mathrm{Sp}}_{s}$, let $\ell({\varrho})$ stand for the unique element of $z\in\tau$ such that $e^{2\pi{\mathrm{i}} z}={\varrho}$. Because $s$ is semi-simple, we have the direct sum decomposition $$M=\bigoplus_{{\varrho}\in{\mathrm{Sp}}_s} {\mathbf{E}}(s,{\varrho}),$$ where in addition, each ${\mathbf{E}}(s,{\varrho})$ is stable under $u$, ${\Lambda}$ and each $g_j$. Define $S\in{\mathrm{End}}_{\mathds{C}}(M)$ by decreeing that $$S|_{{\mathbf{E}}(s,{\varrho})} = \ell({\varrho}){\cdot}{\mathrm{Id}}.$$ It then follows that $S\in {\mathrm{End}}_{\Lambda}(M)$, that $S$ commutes with $u$, and a fortiori with $N$, and that $\exp (2\pi{\mathrm{i}}S)= s$. In addition, $S$ commutes with each $g_j$. We now put $X=S+N$ which shows the existence of an element in ${\mathrm{End}}_{\Lambda}(M)$ commuting with each $g_j$, whose spectrum is contained in $\tau$ and such that $\exp(2\pi{\mathrm{i}}X)={\alpha}$. The following well-known Lemma establishes uniqueness.
Let $X$ and $X'$ be ${\mathds{C}}$-linear endomorphism of $M$ such ${\mathrm{Sp}}_{X}$ and ${\mathrm{Sp}}_{X'}$ are contained in $\tau$. Then $\exp (2\pi{\mathrm{i}}X)=\exp(2\pi{\mathrm{i}}X')$ implies $X=X'$.
This is a well-known exercise, but we were unable to find a reference. Let us sketch a proof. One first deals with the case where $X$ and $X'$ are diagonalisable, resp. nilpotent. Then one applies the additive Jordan-Chevalley decomposition together with the fact that the exponential sends diagonalisable endomorphism, resp. nilpotent, to diagonalisable automorphisms, resp. unipotent.
Connections in the algebraic and analytic case {#17.12.2019--1}
==============================================
The following conventions are fixed in this section: $S$ is a noetherian ${\mathds{C}}$-scheme, $f:X\to S$ is a smooth morphism of ${\mathds{C}}$-schemes, $Y\subset X$ a relative effective (positive) divisor having relative normal crossings [@katz70 4.0, p.187]. The ideal of $Y$ shall be denoted by ${{\mathscr{I}}}$. Write $X^*=X\smallsetminus Y$ and let $u:X^*\to X$ stand for the inclusion.
Connections in the algebraic case {#31.10.2019--1}
---------------------------------
We define the categories ${\mathfrak{C}}(X/S)$ and ${\mathfrak{C}}_Y^{\log}(X/S)$ in complete analogy with Section \[25.09.2019–1\] (see also [@katz70 Section 4]). On the other hand, if we follow the path of Section \[25.09.2019–1\] and introduce ${\mathfrak{MC}}_Y(X/S)$, we obtain simply ${\mathfrak{C}}(X^*/S)$. Indeed, we see that ${{\mathscr{O}}}_X(*Y)=u_*({{\mathscr{O}}}_{X^*})$ and because $u$ is an affine morphism [\[EGA $\mathrm{II}_{\mathrm{}}$, 1.2.1, p.6\]]{}, we conclude that ${{{\mathscr{O}}}_X(*Y)\,\text{--}\,\mathbf{coh}}$ is none other than ${{{\mathscr{O}}}_{X^*}\,\text{--}\,\mathbf{coh}}$ [\[EGA $\mathrm{II}_{\mathrm{}}$, 1.4, 9ff\]]{}.
We let ${\mathfrak{C}}_Y^{\rm rs}(X^*/S)$ be the [*full*]{} subcategory of ${\mathfrak{C}}(X^*/S)$ whose object are isomorphic to some object in the image of the restriction functor ${\mathfrak{C}}_Y^{\log}(X/S)\to{\mathfrak{C}}(X^*/S)$. (More succinctly, ${\mathfrak{C}}_Y^{\rm rs}(X^*/S)$ is the essential image of the restriction.) We refer to objects in ${\mathfrak{C}}^{\rm rs}_Y(X^*/S)$ as [*regular-singular*]{} $S$-connections on $X^*$. If $(E,{\nabla}_E)\in {\mathfrak{C}}^{\rm rs}_Y(X^*/S)$, any $({{\mathscr{E}}},{\nabla}_{{\mathscr{E}}})\in{\mathfrak{C}}^{\rm log}_Y(X/S)$ such that $ ({{\mathscr{E}}},{\nabla}_{{\mathscr{E}}})|_{X^*}\simeq(E,{\nabla}_E)$ is called a [*logarithmic model*]{} of $(E,{\nabla}_E)$.
The reference to $Y$ in the notation ${\mathfrak{C}}^{\rm rs}_Y(X^*/S)$ is there to remind us of the dependence of $X$; it is envisageable to develop, as in [@deligne70], a more general theory, but we have chosen not to do so.
Note that [*no particular*]{} assumption on the coherent modules defining logarithmic models is made. Of course, it is possible to simplify certain models as the following constructions show.
Let ${{\mathscr{E}}}\in{{{\mathscr{O}}}_X\,\text{--}\,\mathbf{coh}}$; define $$(0:{{\mathscr{I}}}^k)_{{\mathscr{E}}}={{\mathscr{H}}}\!om_{X}({{\mathscr{O}}}_X/{{\mathscr{I}}}^k,{{\mathscr{E}}});$$ this is naturally a coherent submodule of ${{\mathscr{E}}}$ supported on $Y$. Put $(0:{{\mathscr{I}}}^\infty)_{{\mathscr{E}}}=\bigcup_k(0:{{\mathscr{I}}}^k)_{{\mathscr{E}}}$ and note that $(0:{{\mathscr{I}}}^\infty)_{{\mathscr{E}}}$ is the kernel of ${{\mathscr{E}}}\to u_*(u^*{{\mathscr{E}}})$.
We say that ${{\mathscr{E}}}$ is $Y$-pure if $(0:{{\mathscr{I}}}^\infty)_{{\mathscr{E}}}=0$.
We now note that obtaining $Y$-pure logarithmic models is always possible:
\[10.01.2020–1\]For each $({{\mathscr{E}}},{\nabla})\in{\mathfrak{C}}_Y^{\rm log}(X/S)$, the ${{\mathscr{O}}}_X$-submodule $(0:{{\mathscr{I}}}^k)_{{\mathscr{E}}}$ is a subconnection. In particular, each $(E,{\nabla})\in{\mathfrak{C}}_Y^{\rm rs}(X^*/S)$ has a logarithmic model ${{\mathscr{E}}}$ which is $Y$-pure.
Let now $E\in{\mathfrak{C}}^{\rm rs}_Y(X^*/S)$ and let $F\subset E$ be a subobject. If ${{\mathscr{E}}}\in{\mathfrak{C}}^{\log}_Y(X/S)$ is a $Y$-pure logarithmic model, so that ${{\mathscr{E}}}$ is naturally a ${{\mathscr{O}}}_X$-submodule of $u_*(E)$, we define ${{\mathscr{F}}}:=u_*(F)\cap{{\mathscr{E}}}$, which is a coherent ${{\mathscr{O}}}_X$-module [\[EGA $\mathrm{I}_{\mathrm{}}$, 9.2.2, p.172\]]{}. In addition, it is clear that ${{\mathscr{F}}}$ is stable under ${{\mathscr{D}}}\!er_Y(X/S)$, and hence ${{\mathscr{F}}}$ is a logarithmic model for $F$. In the same vein, if $E\to Q$ is an epimorphism with kernel $N$, let ${{\mathscr{N}}}\subset {{\mathscr{E}}}$ be the logarithmic model of $N$ previously constructed. It then follows that ${{\mathscr{Q}}}:={{\mathscr{E}}}/{{\mathscr{N}}}$ is a logarithmic model for $Q$ and we have verified the truth of the first two statements of the following proposition. The final claims are very simple and left without proof.
\[16.01.2019–1\]The full subcategory ${\mathfrak{C}}^{\rm rs}_Y(X^*/S)$ of ${\mathfrak{C}}(X^*/S)$ is stable under subobjects and quotients. It is also stable under tensor products and duals.
Construction of models when the base is ${\mathrm{Spec}\,}{\Lambda}$ {#31.01.2020--4}
--------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the assumptions of the beginning of the section, we suppose that $f$ is [*proper*]{}, that $S={\mathrm{Spec}\,}{\Lambda}$ and that $Y=\sum_cY_c$, where each $Y_c$ is connected and smooth over $S$. We write ${\mathfrak{X}}$, ${\mathfrak{S}}$, ${\mathfrak{Y}}$, etc for the analytifications of $X$, $S$, $Y$, etc. Note that ${\mathfrak{Y}}$ now satisfies Hypothesis \[14.10.2019–3\] since each $Y_c^{\mathrm{an}}={\mathfrak{Y}}_c$ is connected [@SGA1 XII.2.4] and smooth [@SGA1 XII.3.1]. As usual, $X^*=X\smallsetminus Y$ and ${\mathfrak{X}}^*={\mathfrak{X}}\smallsetminus{\mathfrak{Y}}=(X\smallsetminus Y)^{\mathrm{an}}$.
The following two results, Proposition \[GAGA\] and Lemma \[05.11.2019–2\], shall be employed in structuring our arguments. The first one is a simple consequence of GAGA [@SGA1 Exposé XIII, Theorem 4.4] and the unconvinced reader will find some details in [@hai-dos_santos19 5.4]. While Lemma \[05.11.2019–2\] is essentially GAGA, we find necessary to proceed carefully.
\[GAGA\] The analytification functor $${\mathfrak{C}}_Y^{\log}(X/S){\longrightarrow}{\mathfrak{C}}_{{\mathfrak{Y}}}^{\log}({\mathfrak{X}}/{\mathfrak{S}})$$ is an equivalence.
\[05.11.2019–2\]Let ${{\mathscr{E}}}$ and ${{\mathscr{F}}}$ be coherent ${{\mathscr{O}}}_X$-modules and assume that ${{\mathscr{F}}}$ is $Y$-pure. Then $${\mathrm{Hom}_{{{\mathscr{O}}}_X(*Y)}({{\mathscr{E}}}(*Y),{{\mathscr{F}}}(*Y))}{\longrightarrow}{\mathrm{Hom}_{{{\mathscr{O}}}_{{\mathfrak{X}}}(*{\mathfrak{Y}})}({{\mathscr{E}}}^{{\mathrm{an}}}(*{\mathfrak{Y}}),{{\mathscr{F}}}^{\mathrm{an}}(*{\mathfrak{Y}}))}$$ is bijective.
We require two steps.
[*Step 1.*]{} We claim that the natural arrows $${\Phi}:
{\varinjlim}_k{\mathrm{Hom}_{{{\mathscr{O}}}_X}({{\mathscr{E}}},{{\mathscr{F}}}(kY))}{\longrightarrow}{\mathrm{Hom}_{{{\mathscr{O}}}_X}({{\mathscr{E}}},{{\mathscr{F}}}(*Y) )}$$ and $${\Psi}:
{\varinjlim}_k{\mathrm{Hom}_{{{\mathscr{O}}}_{{\mathfrak{X}}}}({{\mathscr{E}}}^{\mathrm{an}},{{\mathscr{F}}}^{\mathrm{an}}(k{\mathfrak{Y}}))}{\longrightarrow}{\mathrm{Hom}_{{{\mathscr{O}}}_{{\mathfrak{X}}}}({{\mathscr{E}}}^{\mathrm{an}},{{\mathscr{F}}}^{\mathrm{an}}(*{\mathfrak{Y}}) )}$$ are bijective. Since the argument is sufficiently general, we give it only in the case of ${\Phi}$.
Even without assuming ${{\mathscr{F}}}$ to be $Y$-pure, quasi-compacity of $X$ shows that ${\Phi}$ is injective. Surjectivity requires $Y$-purity since we need the natural arrows ${{\mathscr{F}}}(kY)\to {\varinjlim}_\ell{{\mathscr{F}}}(\ell Y)={{\mathscr{F}}}(* Y)$ to be injective in order to glue.
[*Step 2.*]{} Using the natural bijections $${\mathrm{Hom}_{{{\mathscr{O}}}_X}({{\mathscr{E}}},{{\mathscr{F}}}(*Y))}={\mathrm{Hom}_{{{\mathscr{O}}}_X(*Y)}({{\mathscr{E}}}(*Y),{{\mathscr{F}}}(*Y))}$$ and $${\mathrm{Hom}_{{{\mathscr{O}}}_{{\mathfrak{X}}}}({{\mathscr{E}}}^{\mathrm{an}},{{\mathscr{F}}}^{\mathrm{an}}(*{\mathfrak{Y}}))}={\mathrm{Hom}_{{{\mathscr{O}}}_{{\mathfrak{X}}}(*{\mathfrak{Y}})}({{\mathscr{E}}}^{\mathrm{an}}(*{\mathfrak{Y}}),{{\mathscr{F}}}^{\mathrm{an}}(*{\mathfrak{Y}}))},$$ the Lemma shall be proved once we establish that the natural arrow $${\mathrm{Hom}_{{{\mathscr{O}}}_X}({{\mathscr{E}}},{{\mathscr{F}}}(*Y))}{\longrightarrow}{\mathrm{Hom}_{{{\mathscr{O}}}_{{\mathfrak{X}}}}({{\mathscr{E}}}^{\mathrm{an}},{{\mathscr{F}}}^{\mathrm{an}}(*{\mathfrak{Y}}))}$$ is bijective. But this follows from GAGA [@SGA1 XIII, Theorem 4.4] and bijectivity of ${\Phi}$ and ${\Psi}$.
\[22.10.2019–1\]Let $(E,{\nabla})$ be an object of ${\mathfrak{C}}_Y^{\rm rs}(X^*/S)$. Then, there exists ${\widetilde}E\in{\mathfrak{C}}_Y^{\log}(X/S)$ enjoying the two properties enumerated below and an isomorphism ${\Phi}:{\widetilde}E|_{X^*}\stackrel\sim\to E$.
(1) All the exponents of ${\widetilde}E^{\mathrm{an}}$ (this is an object of ${\mathfrak{C}}_{{\mathfrak{Y}}}^{\log}({\mathfrak{X}}/{\mathfrak{S}})$) along ${\mathfrak{Y}}$ lie in $\tau$.
(2) The ${{\mathscr{O}}}_{{\mathfrak{X}}}$-module ${\widetilde}E^{\mathrm{an}}$ is a relative vector bundles.
In addition, if ${\widetilde}F\in{\mathfrak{C}}_Y^{\log}(X/S)$ also enjoys (1) and (2) above and ${\Psi}:{\widetilde}F|_{X^*} \to E$ is an isomorphism, then there exists an isomorphism $\Xi:{\widetilde}E\to {\widetilde}F$ such that ${\Phi}|_{X^*} = {\Psi}\circ\Xi|_{X^*}$.
Let ${{\mathscr{M}}}\in{\mathfrak{C}}^{\log}_Y(X/S)$ be a logarithmic model of $E$; we may assume that ${{\mathscr{M}}}$ is $Y$-pure because of Lemma \[10.01.2020–1\]. Applying Theorem \[deligne\_manin\_extension\], there exists ${\widetilde}{{\mathfrak{E}}}\in{\mathfrak{C}}_{{\mathfrak{Y}}}^{\log }({\mathfrak{X}}/{\mathfrak{S}})$ enjoying properties $(i)$ and $(ii)$ of the said result, and a horizontal isomorphism $${\varphi}:
{\widetilde}{{\mathfrak{E}}}|_{{\mathfrak{X}}^*}{\stackrel{\sim}{\longrightarrow}} E^{\mathrm{an}}.$$ Using Theorem \[21.10.2019–1\], it is possible to find an arrow $${\widetilde}{\varphi}:{\widetilde}{{\mathfrak{E}}}(*{\mathfrak{Y}}){\longrightarrow}{{\mathscr{M}}}^{\mathrm{an}}(*{\mathfrak{Y}})$$ in ${\mathfrak{MC}}_{{\mathfrak{Y}}}({\mathfrak{X}}/{\mathfrak{S}})$ extending ${\varphi}$. By GAGA, there exists ${\widetilde}E\in{\mathfrak{C}}^{\rm log}_{Y}(X/S)$ whose analytification is ${\widetilde}{{\mathfrak{E}}}$. By Lemma \[05.11.2019–2\], there exists a morphism of ${{\mathscr{O}}}_X(*Y)$-modules $${\widetilde}{{\varphi}}^{\rm alg}: {\widetilde}{E}(*Y){\longrightarrow}{{\mathscr{M}}}(*Y)$$ such that $\left({\widetilde}{{\varphi}}^{\rm alg}\right)^{\mathrm{an}}={\widetilde}{\varphi}$. In particular, $\left({\widetilde}{\varphi}^{\rm alg}|_{X^*}\right)^{\mathrm{an}}$ is just ${\varphi}$ and hence is a horizontal isomorphism. Since the analytification functor ${{{\mathscr{O}}}_{X^*}\,\text{--}\,\mathbf{coh}}\to{{{\mathscr{O}}}_{{\mathfrak{X}}^*}\,\text{--}\,\mathbf{coh}}$ is conservative [@SGA1 XII.1.3.1, p.241] (it is exact and faithful), it follows that ${\widetilde}{\varphi}^{\rm alg}|_{X^*}$ is a horizontal isomorphism and ${\widetilde}E$ is a logarithmic model for $E$.
The last statement is a direct consequence of claim (2) in Theorem \[deligne\_manin\_extension\] and GAGA.
Logarithmic models in the case of a complete base {#31.01.2020--1}
--------------------------------------------------
Let $R$ be a complete noetherian local ${\mathds{C}}$-algebra with residue field ${\mathds{C}}$. If ${\mathfrak{r}}\subset R$ stands for the maximal ideal, we shall write $R_k$ instead of $R/{\mathfrak{r}}^{k+1}$: these are all finite dimensional complex vector spaces.
We now place ourselves in the situation explained in the beginning of this section and add the ensuing assumptions: The scheme $S$ is ${\mathrm{Spec}\,}R$ and the morphism $f:X\to S$ is proper with connected fibres. The divisor $Y$ is $\sum_cY_c$, where for each $c$, the $S$-scheme $Y_c$ is smooth and the ${\mathds{C}}$-scheme $Y_c{\otimes}R_0$ is connected. (Recall that in this case, $(Y_c{\otimes}R_0)^{\mathrm{an}}$ is likewise connected [@SGA1 XII, Proposition 2.4, p.243].)
To simplify notation, given $k\in{\mathds{N}}$, we write $$S_k={\mathrm{Spec}\,}{R_k},\quad X_k=X{\otimes}_RR_k, \quad Y_k=Y{\otimes}_RR_k,\quad\text{etc}.$$ These produce, via the analytification functor, complex spaces ${\mathfrak{S}}_k$, ${\mathfrak{X}}_k$, ${\mathfrak{Y}}_k$, etc.
We wish to compare ${\mathfrak{C}}_Y^{\rm rs}(X/S)$ and the category of representations on $R$-modules of the fundamental group of ${\mathfrak{X}}_0$ in analogy with [@hai-dos_santos19] and [@malgrange 7.2.1, p.170] (or [@deligne70 Theorem II.5.9, p.97]). We begin with the analogue of [@hai-dos_santos19 Definition 5.2].
The category ${\mathfrak{C}}_Y^{\rm log}(X/S)^\wedge$ is the category whose
1. are sequences $({{\mathscr{E}}}_k,q_k)$, with ${{\mathscr{E}}}_k\in{\mathfrak{C}}_{Y_k}^{\log}(X_k/S_k)$ and $q_k:{{\mathscr{E}}}_{k+1}|_{X_{k+1}}\to {{\mathscr{E}}}|_{X_k}$ an isomorphism in ${\mathfrak{C}}_{Y_k}^{\log}(X_k/S_k)$, and
2. between $({{\mathscr{E}}}_k,q_k)$ and $({{\mathscr{F}}}_k,r_k)$ are compatible families of arrows ${\varphi}_k:{{\mathscr{E}}}_k\to{{\mathscr{F}}}_k$.
We introduce analogously the categories ${\mathfrak{C}}(X^*/S)^\wedge$, ${\mathfrak{C}}({\mathfrak{X}}/{\mathfrak{S}})^\wedge$ and ${\mathfrak{C}}({\mathfrak{X}}^*/{\mathfrak{S}})^\wedge$ (and note that here ${\mathfrak{X}}$, ${\mathfrak{X}}^*$ and ${\mathfrak{S}}$ carry no mathematical meaning).
We begin with a consequence of Grothendieck’s algebraization theorem [@illusie05]. Its proof is simple and omitted; the unconvinced reader might find further details in [@hai-dos_santos19 Proposition 5.3].
\[GFGA\]The natural morphism $${\mathfrak{C}}_Y^{\log}(X/S){\longrightarrow}{\mathfrak{C}}_{ Y}^{\log}( X/ S)^\wedge$$ is an equivalence.
We can now find certain preferred logarithmic models for objects in ${\mathfrak{C}}^{\rm rs}_Y(X^*/S)$.
\[01.10.2019–1\]Any $E\in {\mathfrak{C}}_Y^{\rm rs} (X^*/S)$ possesses a logarithmic model ${{\mathscr{E}}}$ enjoying the following properties.
(1) For each $k\in{\mathds{N}}$, the analytification $({{\mathscr{E}}}|_{X_k})^{\mathrm{an}}$, which is an object of ${\mathfrak{C}}^{\log}_{{\mathfrak{Y}}_k}({\mathfrak{X}}_k/{\mathfrak{S}}_k)$, has all its exponents on $\tau$.
(2) For each $k\in{\mathds{N}}$, the coherent sheaf $({{\mathscr{E}}}|_{X_k})^{\mathrm{an}}$ is a vector bundle relatively to ${\mathfrak{S}}_k$.
We shall write $E_k$ instead of $E|_{X^*_k}$ and let $q_k$ denote the canonical isomorphism $E_{k+1}|_{X_k^*}\to E_k$. Let $${\widetilde}E_k\in{\mathfrak{C}}_{Y_k}^{\log}(X_k/S_k)$$ be the logarithmic model of $E_k$ obtained from an application of Theorem \[22.10.2019–1\]: ${\widetilde}E_k^{\mathrm{an}}$ has all its exponents on $\tau$, is a vector bundle relatively to ${\mathfrak{S}}_k$ and there exists an isomorphism ${\varphi}_k:{\widetilde}E_k|_{X_k^*}\to E_k$.
[*Claim.*]{} For each $k\in{\mathds{N}}$, $q_k$ extends to an isomorphism in ${\mathfrak{C}}^{\log}_{Y_k}(X_k/S_k)$: $$\xymatrix{{\widetilde}E_{k+1}|_{X_{k}}\ar[rr]^-{{\widetilde}q_k}&& {\widetilde}E_{k}.}$$
[*Proof.*]{} Let us consider the morphisms ${\mathfrak{q}}_k$ and ${\mathfrak{u}}_k$ defined by the commutative diagrams $$\xymatrix{
\left\{\left.\left({\widetilde}E_{k+1}|_{X_k}\right)\right|_{X_k^*}\right\}^{\mathrm{an}}\ar[rr]^-{{\mathfrak{q}}_k}\ar[rr]\ar@{=}[d]
&&
\left\{ {\widetilde}E_k|_{X_k^*}\right\}^{\mathrm{an}}\ar[dd]^\sim
\\
\left\{\left.\left({\widetilde}E_{k+1}|_{X_{k+1}^*}\right)\right|_{X_k^*}\right\}^{\mathrm{an}}\ar[d]_\sim&&
\\
\left(E_{k+1}|_{X_k^*}\right)^{\mathrm{an}}\ar[rr]_{(q_k)^{\mathrm{an}}} && E_k^{\mathrm{an}}}$$ and $$\xymatrix{
\left\{\left.\left({\widetilde}E_{k+1}|_{X_k}\right)\right|_{X_k^*}\right\}^{\mathrm{an}}\ar[rr]^-{{\mathfrak{q}}_k}\ar[rr]\ar@{=}[d]
&&
\left\{ {\widetilde}E_k|_{X_k^*}\right\}^{\mathrm{an}}\ar@{=}[d]
\\
\left.({\widetilde}E_{k+1}|_{X_k})^{\mathrm{an}}\right|_{{\mathfrak{X}}_k^*} \ar[rr]_-{{\mathfrak{u}}_k} &&{\widetilde}E_k^{\mathrm{an}}|_{{\mathfrak{X}}_k^*}.
}$$ (Note that the first diagram is the image of a diagram from ${\mathfrak{C}}(X_k^*/S_k)$ by the analytification functor.) The fact that $({\widetilde}E_{k+1}|_{X_k})^{\mathrm{an}}\simeq{\widetilde}E_{k+1}^{\mathrm{an}}|_{{\mathfrak{X}}_k}$ and ${\widetilde}E_k^{\mathrm{an}}$ have exponents on $\tau$ and are vector bundles relatively to ${\mathfrak{S}}_k$ allows us to apply Theorem \[deligne\_manin\_extension\]-(2) and assure that ${\mathfrak{u}}_k={\widetilde}{ {\mathfrak{u}}}_k|_{{\mathfrak{X}}_k^*}$ for a certain isomorphism ${\widetilde}{{\mathfrak{u}}}_k: ({\widetilde}E_{k+1}|_{X_k})^{\mathrm{an}}\to{\widetilde}E_k^{\mathrm{an}}$. By GAGA (Proposition \[GAGA\]), ${\widetilde}{{\mathfrak{u}}}_k=({\widetilde}q_k)^{\mathrm{an}}$ for some isomorphism ${\widetilde}q_k:{\widetilde}E_{k+1}|_{X_k}\to {\widetilde}E_k$. By functoriality, we see that ${\mathfrak{q}}_k=({\widetilde}q_k|_{ X_k^*})^{\mathrm{an}}$. Since $(-)^{\mathrm{an}}:{{{\mathscr{O}}}_{X_k^*}\,\text{--}\,\mathbf{coh}}\to{{{\mathscr{O}}}_{{\mathfrak{X}}_k^*}\,\text{--}\,\mathbf{coh}}$ is faithful [@SGA1 XII.1.3.1, p.241], ${\widetilde}q_k$ is the desired extension of $q_k$, which completes the proof of the claim.
Using the GFGA equivalence (Proposition \[GFGA\]) and the family $\{{\widetilde}q_k\}$, we can find ${\widetilde}E\in{\mathfrak{C}}_Y^{\log}(X/S)$ such that $${\widetilde}E|_{X_k}={\widetilde}E_k,\quad\text{for each $k$.}$$
[*Claim.*]{} The logarithmic connection ${\widetilde}E$ is a model of $E$.
[*Proof.*]{} This is not automatic since the natural arrow ${\mathfrak{C}}(X^*/S) {\longrightarrow}{\mathfrak{C}}(X^*/S)^\wedge$ does not have to be full. Let ${{\mathscr{M}}}\in{\mathfrak{C}}^{\log}_{Y}(X/S)$ be any logarithmic model of $E$ so that $({{\mathscr{M}}}|_{X_k})^{\mathrm{an}}$ is a logarithmic model of $(E|_{X_k})^{\mathrm{an}}$. Hence, by Theorem \[21.10.2019–1\], there exists a [*unique*]{} isomorphism $$\xymatrix{ ({{\mathscr{M}}}|_{X_k})^{\mathrm{an}}(*{\mathfrak{Y}}_k)\ar[rr]^-{{\mathfrak{g}}_k}_-{\sim}&& ( {\widetilde}E|_{X_k})^{\mathrm{an}}(*{\mathfrak{Y}}_k)}$$ in ${\mathfrak{MC}}^{\rm log}_{{\mathfrak{Y}}_k}({\mathfrak{X}}_k/{\mathfrak{S}}_k)$ whose restriction to ${\mathfrak{X}}_k^*$ is the identity of $(E|_{X_k})^{\mathrm{an}}$. Let ${\delta}$ be the dissonance from $({\widetilde}E|_{X_k})^{\mathrm{an}}$ to $({{\mathscr{M}}}|_{X_k})^{\mathrm{an}}$ for an arbitrary $k$. By Proposition \[20.11.2019–1\], there exists an unique arrow in ${\mathfrak{C}}_{{\mathfrak{Y}}_k}^{\log}({\mathfrak{X}}_k/{\mathfrak{S}}_k)$ $$\xymatrix{ ({{\mathscr{M}}}|_{X_{k}})^{\mathrm{an}}\ar[rr]^-{{\mathfrak{h}}_k} && ({\widetilde}E|_{X_k})^{\mathrm{an}}({\delta}{\mathfrak{Y}}_k)}$$ extending ${\mathfrak{g}}_k$. In particular, ${\mathfrak{h}}_k|_{{\mathfrak{X}}_k^*}={\mathrm{id}}_{(E|_{X_k})^{\mathrm{an}}}$, and uniqueness assures that ${\mathfrak{h}}_{k+1}|_{{\mathfrak{X}}_k}={\mathfrak{h}}_k$.
Let $$\xymatrix{ {{\mathscr{M}}}|_{X_k}\ar[rr]^{h_k} && {\widetilde}E({\delta}Y)|_{X_k}
}$$ be an arrow of ${\mathfrak{C}}_{Y_k}^{\log}(X_k/S_k)$ inducing ${\mathfrak{h}}_k$ after analytification. Since ${\mathfrak{h}}_{k+1}|_{{\mathfrak{X}}_k}={\mathfrak{h}}_k$, we conclude also that $h_{k+1}|_{X_k}=h_k$. Hence, by GFGA, it is possible to find a morphism in ${\mathfrak{C}}_Y^{\log}(X/S)$, $$\xymatrix{
{{\mathscr{M}}}\ar[rr]^{h} && {\widetilde}E({\delta}Y),
}$$ such that $h|_{X_k}=h_k$ for each $k$. In particular, $(h|_{X^*})|_{X_k^*}$ is an isomorphism for each $k$, which shows that $h|_{X^*}: {{\mathscr{M}}}|_{X^*}\to {\widetilde}E|_{X^*}$ is an isomorphism on an open neighbourhood of the closed fibre $X_0^*$ [\[EGA $\mathrm{I}_{\mathrm{}}$, 10.8.14, p.198\]]{}. From Lemma \[24.10.2019–1\], we deduce that $h|_{X^*}$ is an isomorphism so that ${\widetilde}E({\delta}Y)$, and hence ${\widetilde}E$, is a logarithmic model of $E$.
The following result was employed in proving Theorem \[01.10.2019–1\] and shall be useful also in the verification of Theorem \[21.11.2019–1\].
\[24.10.2019–1\]Let $T$ be the spectrum of a local and noetherian ${\mathds{C}}$-algebra with closed point $o$. Let $g:Z\to T$ be a smooth morphism with connected fibres.
(1) Let ${{\mathscr{F}}}$ an object of ${\mathfrak{C}}(Z/T)$ such that ${{\mathscr{F}}}_p=0$ for each $p\in Z_o$. Then ${{\mathscr{F}}}=0$.
(2) Let ${\varphi}: {{\mathscr{E}}}\to{{\mathscr{E}}}'$ be an arrow of ${\mathfrak{C}}(Z/T)$ which is an isomorphism, respectively vanishes, on an open neighbourhood of $Z_o$. Then ${\varphi}$ is an isomorphism, respectively vanishes allover.
\(1) We need to show that the open subset ${\mathrm{Supp}}({{\mathscr{F}}})^{\rm c}$ is in fact $Z$ and start by noting that ${\mathrm{Supp}}({{\mathscr{F}}})^{\rm c}$ has the following distinctive property. If $p\in{\mathrm{Supp}}({{\mathscr{F}}})^{\rm c}$, then the fibre $g^{-1}(g(p))$ is also contained in ${\mathrm{Supp}}({{\mathscr{F}}})^{\rm c}$. Indeed, if ${{\mathscr{F}}}_p=0$, then ${{\mathscr{F}}}|_{g^{-1}(g(p))}(p)=0$ and, since ${{\mathscr{F}}}|_{g^{-1}(g(p))}$ is locally free [@katz70 Proposition 8.8,p.206], we conclude that ${{\mathscr{F}}}|_{g^{-1}(g(p))}=0$. Consequently, if $q\in g^{-1}(g(p))$, then ${{\mathscr{F}}}(q)=0$ and hence, by Nakayama’s Lemma, ${{\mathscr{F}}}_q=0$. Once this has been put under the light, it follows easily that ${\mathrm{Supp}}({{\mathscr{F}}})^{\rm c}=Z$ because $g({\mathrm{Supp}}({{\mathscr{F}}})^{\rm c})$ is open in $T$ [\[EGA $\mathrm{IV}_{\mathrm{2}}$, 2.4.6, p.20\]]{} and contains the closed point.
\(2) Follows from (1) applied to ${\mathrm{Ker}}({\varphi})$ and ${\mathrm{Coker}}({\varphi})$, respectively to ${\mathrm{Im}}({\varphi})$.
The relative Deligne-Riemann-Hilbert correspondence {#31.01.2020--2}
---------------------------------------------------
Assumptions and notations are the same as on Section \[31.01.2020–1\].
\[21.11.2019–1\] The natural functor $$\nu:{\mathfrak{C}}_Y^{\rm rs}(X^*/S){\longrightarrow}{\mathfrak{C}}({\mathfrak{X}}^*/{\mathfrak{S}})^\wedge$$ is an equivalence.
Consider the natural composition of functor $${{\mathfrak{C}}}^{\log}_Y(X/S) {\longrightarrow}{\mathfrak{C}}_Y^{\rm rs} (X^*/S){\stackrel{\nu}{\longrightarrow}} {\mathfrak{C}} ({\mathfrak{X}}^* /{\mathfrak{S}} )^\wedge ,$$ call it $\mu$. The result shall be proved once we establish that $\mu$ is essentially surjective and that $\nu$ is fully faithful.
[*Essential surjectivity of $\mu$.*]{} This is very similar to the beginning of the proof of Theorem \[01.10.2019–1\] and we leave to the reader to fill in the details.
[*Fullness of $\nu$.*]{} Let $E$ and $F$ be in ${\mathfrak{C}}^{\rm rs}(X/S)$ and consider $$\left\{{\mathfrak{g}}_k: (E |_{X_k^*} )^{\mathrm{an}}{\longrightarrow}(F|_{ X^*_k} )^{\mathrm{an}}\right\}_{k\in{\mathds{N}}}$$ a compatible system of arrows defining a morphism of ${\mathfrak{C}}({\mathfrak{X}} /{\mathfrak{S}})^\wedge$. Let ${{\mathscr{E}}}$ and ${{\mathscr{F}}}$ be logarithmic models of $E$ and $F$ satisfying conditions (1) and (2) of Theorem \[01.10.2019–1\]. Once $E|_{X_k^*}$, respectively $F|_{X_k^*}$, is identified with $({{\mathscr{E}}}|_{X_k})|_{X_k^*}$, respectively $({{\mathscr{F}}}|_{X_k})|_{X_k^*}$, Proposition \[20.11.2019–1\] shows that each ${\mathfrak{g}}_k$ can be extended to an arrow $${\widetilde}{{\mathfrak{g}}}_k: ({{\mathscr{E}}}|_{ X_k})^{\mathrm{an}}{\longrightarrow}({{\mathscr{F}}}|_{ X_k})^{\mathrm{an}}$$ in ${\mathfrak{C}}^{\log}_{{\mathfrak{Y}}_k}({\mathfrak{X}}_k/{\mathfrak{S}}_k)$. Now GAGA assures that ${\widetilde}{{\mathfrak{g}}}_k$ is the analytification of a horizontal arrow $${\widetilde}g_k : {{\mathscr{E}}}|_{X_k}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathscr{F}}}|_{X_k}.$$ Unravelling all identifications and using the uniqueness statement in Proposition \[20.11.2019–1\], we can assure that $${\widetilde}g_{k+1}|_{X_k} ={\widetilde}g_k.$$ By GFGA (Proposition \[GFGA\]), there exists a horizontal arrow ${\widetilde}g:{{\mathscr{E}}}\to{{\mathscr{F}}}$ such that ${\widetilde}g|_{X_k}={\widetilde}g_k$. In particular, if $g={\widetilde}g|_{X^*}$, then $(g|_{X_k^*})^{\mathrm{an}}={\mathfrak{g}}_k$.
[*Faithfulness of $\nu$.*]{} This follows from faithfulness of each $(-)^{\mathrm{an}}:{{{\mathscr{O}}}_{X_k^*}\,\text{--}\,\mathbf{coh}}\to{{{\mathscr{O}}}_{{\mathfrak{X}}_k^*}\,\text{--}\,\mathbf{coh}}$ [@SGA1 XII, Proposition 1.3.1, p.241], from [\[EGA $\mathrm{I}_{\mathrm{}}$, 10.8.13, p.198\]]{} and from part (2) of Lemma \[24.10.2019–1\].
Let now ${\Gamma}$ be the fundamental group of the topological space $(X{\otimes}R_0)^{\mathrm{an}}$ at an unspecified point. Proceeding as in [@hai-dos_santos19 Section 5.6], it is not difficult to see that the $R$-linear ${\otimes}$-category ${\mathfrak{C}}({\mathfrak{X}}^*/{\mathfrak{S}})^\wedge$ is equivalent to ${\mathrm{Rep}_{R}({\Gamma})}$. Then:
\[25.11.2019–1\]Let $\xi:S\to X^*$ be a section of $X\to S$ and let ${\Gamma}$ stand for the fundamental group of the topological space $(X{\otimes}R_0)^{\mathrm{an}}=(X{\otimes}{\mathds{C}})^{\mathrm{an}}$ based at the image of $\xi( S_0)$. Then we obtain an equivalence of $R$-linear ${\otimes}$-categories ${\Phi}:{\mathfrak{C}}^{\rm rs}_Y(X^*/S)\stackrel\sim\to {\mathrm{Rep}_{R}({\Gamma})}$. In addition, the composition of ${\Phi}$ with the forgetful functor ${\mathrm{Rep}_{R}({\Gamma})}\to{R\text{-}\mathbf{mod}}$ is isomorphic to $M\mapsto \xi^*M$.
Applications to the calculation of differential Galois groups {#31.01.2020--5}
-------------------------------------------------------------
Assumptions and notations are as in Section \[31.01.2020–1\], except that we now take $R={{\mathds{C}}\llbrackett\rrbracket}$. We set out to compute differential Galois groups for connections on $X^*$ using Corollary \[25.11.2019–1\], so we begin by a brief review. Let us fix an $R$-point $\xi$ of $X^*$ and write ${\Gamma}$ for the topological fundamental group of $(X_0{\otimes}R_0)^{\mathrm{an}}$ based at $\xi(S_0)$. To avoid repetitions, all group schemes in sight are affine and flat over $R$.
Let $(M,{\nabla})\in{\mathfrak{C}}(X^*/S)$ be such that $M$ is a vector bundle and introduce the full subcategory $\langle M\rangle_{\otimes}$ of ${\mathfrak{C}}(X^*/S)$ by means of the following set of objects $$\left\{ N\in{\mathfrak{C}}(X^*/S)\,:\,\begin{array}{c}
\text{There exist non-negative integers $\{a_j,b_j\}_{j=1}^r$, a } \\ \text{subobject $N'$ of $(M^{{\otimes}a_1}{\otimes}\check M^{{\otimes}b_1}){\oplus}\cdots{\oplus}(M^{{\otimes}a_r}{\otimes}\check M^{{\otimes}b_r})$ }
\\ \text{and a horizontal epimorphism $N'\to N$}\end{array}\right\}.$$ Then, [@duong-hai18 Theorem 1.2.6, p.1109 and 1140] says that the functor which associates to $N\in\langle M\rangle_{\otimes}$ its pull-back via $\xi$, $$\xi^*: \langle M\rangle_{\otimes}{\longrightarrow}{R\text{-}\mathbf{mod}},$$ induces a ${\otimes}$-equivalence between $\langle M\rangle_{\otimes}$ and the category ${\mathrm{Rep}_{R}({\mathrm{Gal}}'(M))}$, where ${\mathrm{Gal}}'(M)$ is a group scheme called the [*full*]{} differential Galois group of $M$ [@duong-hai-dos_santos18 Section 7]. Contrary to the case of a base field, ${\mathrm{Gal}}'(M)$ might easily fail to be of finite type [@andre01 3.2.1.5], [@duong-hai-dos_santos18 Example 7.11].
Provided that $M$ is regular-singular, Proposition \[16.01.2019–1\] assures that $\langle M\rangle_{\otimes}$ is a full subcategory of $ {\mathfrak{C}}^{\rm rs}_Y(X^*/S)$, so that the equivalence in Corollary \[25.11.2019–1\] allows us to compute ${\mathrm{Gal}}'(M)$ with the help of ${\Gamma}$ in the following way.
The category ${\mathrm{Rep}_{R}({\Gamma})}$ is Tannakian (in the sense of [@duong-hai18 Definition 1.2.5] and due to [@hai-dos_santos19 Corollary 4.5]) so that ${\mathrm{Rep}_{R}({\Gamma})}\simeq {\mathrm{Rep}_{R}(\Pi)}$ for a certain group scheme $\Pi$, called the Tannakian envelope of ${\Gamma}$ [@hai-dos_santos19 Definition 4.1]. In fact, the abstract group $\Pi(R)$ is the target of an “universal” arrow $$u:{\Gamma}{\longrightarrow}\Pi(R)$$ having the property that the natural functor $$u^\#:{\mathrm{Rep}_{R}(\Pi)}{\longrightarrow}{\mathrm{Rep}_{R}({\Gamma})}$$ deduced from $u$ is an equivalence of $R$-linear ${\otimes}$-categories. Moreover, if $G$ is a group scheme and ${\varphi}:{\Gamma}\to G(R)$ is a morphism of abstract groups, then there exists a unique arrow of group schemes $u_{\varphi}:\Pi\to G$ such that $$\xymatrix{{\Gamma}\ar[dr]_{\varphi}\ar[r]^-{u}&\Pi(R)\ar[d]^{u_{\varphi}(R)}
\\&G(R)}$$ commutes. See Corollary 4.9 in [@hai-dos_santos19] and the discussion preceding it.
For any finite and free $R$-module $E$ affording a representation of ${\Gamma}$, let $\langle E\rangle_{\otimes}$ be the full subcategory of ${\mathrm{Rep}_{R}({\Gamma})}$ whose set of objects is $$\left\{ F \,:\,\begin{array}{c}
\text{There exist non-negative integers $\{a_j,b_j\}_{j=1}^r$, a } \\ \text{subobject $F'$ of $(E^{{\otimes}a_1}{\otimes}\check E^{{\otimes}b_1}){\oplus}\cdots{\oplus}(E^{{\otimes}a_r}{\otimes}\check E^{{\otimes}b_r})$ }
\\ \text{and an epimorphism $F'\to F$}\end{array}\right\}.$$ By Tannakian duality [@duong-hai18 Theorem 1.2.6, p.1109 and 1140], the category $\langle E\rangle_{\otimes}$ is equivalent to ${\mathrm{Rep}_{R}({\mathrm{Gal}}'(E))}$, where ${\mathrm{Gal}}'(E)$ is a group scheme which we call, for the sake of discussion, the [*full Galois group*]{} of $E$. In addition, the inclusion functor $\langle E\rangle_{\otimes}\to{\mathrm{Rep}_{R}({\Gamma})}$ produces a [*faithfully flat*]{} arrow $\Pi\to{\mathrm{Gal}}'(E)$ as assured by [@duong-hai18 Theorem 4.1.2(i), p.1125]. (We note in passing that the same construction applies to any finite and free $R$-module affording a representation of a group scheme $G$.)
In view of Corollary \[25.11.2019–1\], if $M\in{\mathfrak{C}}_Y^{\rm rs}(X^*/S)$ is as above, then $${\mathrm{Gal}}'(M)\simeq{\mathrm{Gal}}'({\Phi}M).$$ Using this and the material developed in [@hai-dos_santos19 §4.2-3], we now exhibit a simple case where ${\mathrm{Gal}}'( M)$ is easily computed and fails to be of finite type.
Let us assume that $X={\mathds{P}}^1_S$, that $Y=0{\times}S+\infty{\times}S$ and that $\xi=1$. In this case, writing $x$ for an inhomogeneous coordinate in ${\mathds{P}}^1_S$, the ${{\mathscr{O}}}_X$-module ${\Omega}^1_{X/R}(\log Y)$ is free on $ x^{-1}dx$ and ${\Gamma}$ is generated by the loop ${\gamma}:s\mapsto e^{{\mathrm{i}}s}$. In [@hai-dos_santos19], Section 4.3, we constructed a group scheme ${{\mathscr{N}}}$ having the ensuing properties.
(i) There exists an arrow $j:{{\mathscr{N}}}\to{\mathbf G}_a{\times}{\mathbf G}_m$ which, over the generic fibre of $R$, is an isomorphism.
(ii) On the level of $R$-points, $j(R)$ identifies ${{\mathscr{N}}}(R)$ with the group of couples $(a,{\lambda})\in R{\times}R^*$ such that ${\lambda}=e^{ta}$.
(iii) If ${\varphi}:{\Gamma}\to{{\mathscr{N}}}(R)$ is defined by ${\gamma}\mapsto(1,e^t)$, then the morphism $u_{\varphi}:\Pi\to{{\mathscr{N}}}$ mentioned before is faithfully flat [@hai-dos_santos19 Proposition 4.15].
Let $E$ be a free $R$-module affording a faithful representation of ${\mathbf G}_a{\times}{\mathbf G}_m$, say $\rho: {\mathbf G}_a{\times}{\mathbf G}_m\to {\mathbf{GL}}(E)$. From (i) and (iii) we conclude that $$\xymatrix{\Pi\ar[r]\ar[d]_{u_{\varphi}} & {\mathbf{GL}}(E)
\\
{{\mathscr{N}}}\ar[r]_-{j} & {\mathbf G}_a{\times}{\mathbf G}_m\ar[u]_\rho
}$$ is the diptych of $\Pi\to{\mathbf{GL}}(E)$ [@duong-hai-dos_santos18 Definition 4.1]. Hence, according to [@duong-hai-dos_santos18 Proposition 4.10], ${\mathrm{Rep}_{R}({{\mathscr{N}}})}=\langle j^\# E\rangle_{\otimes}$. (Here and in what follows, we use the upper-script $(-)^\#$ to denote the functor associated to a homomorphism.) Employing the equivalence $u^\#$, we are able to compute the full Galois group of ${\varphi}^\#j^\#(E)\in{\mathrm{Rep}_{R}({\Gamma})}$: $${\mathrm{Gal}}'({\varphi}^\#j^\#E)\simeq{{\mathscr{N}}}.$$
To be more explicit, let us now take $E=R^2$ with an action of ${\mathbf G}_a{\times}{\mathbf G}_m$ via $(a,{\lambda})\mapsto\begin{pmatrix}{\lambda}&{\lambda}a\\0&{\lambda}\end{pmatrix}$ so that ${\varphi}^\#j^\#E$ is determined by ${\gamma}\mapsto\begin{pmatrix}e^t&e^t\\0&e^t\end{pmatrix}$. Let ${{\mathscr{M}}}={{\mathscr{O}}}_X{\mathbf{m}}_1{\oplus}{{\mathscr{O}}}_X{\mathbf{m}}_2$ and define on it a logarithmic connection by the equations $$\begin{split}
-2\pi{\mathrm{i}}{\nabla}{\mathbf{m}}_1 & = t{\mathbf{m}}_1{\otimes}{\frac{dx}{x}}\\
-2\pi{\mathrm{i}}{\nabla}{\mathbf{m}}_2&= \left( {\mathbf{m}}_1+ t {\mathbf{m}}_2 \right){\otimes}{\frac{dx}{x}}.
\end{split}$$ Let $M$ denote the object of ${\mathfrak{C}}_Y^{\rm rs}(X^*/S)$ obtained by restricting ${{\mathscr{M}}}$. Then the representation of ${\Gamma}$ on $\xi^*M$ corresponds to ${\gamma}\mapsto\begin{pmatrix}e^t&e^t\\0&e^t\end{pmatrix}$. Therefore, ${\mathrm{Gal}}'(M)\simeq{{\mathscr{N}}}$ is not of finite type.
[100]{}
Y. André, [*Différentielles non commutatives et Théorie de Galois différentielle ou aux différences*]{}. Ann. Sci. École Norm. Sup. (4) 34 (2001), 685–739. Y. André and F. Baldassarri, [*De Rham Cohomology of Differential Modules on Algebraic Varieties*]{}. Progress in Mathematics, Vol. 189, Birkhäuser Verlag, 2001.
N. Bourbaki, Éléments de mathématique. Algèbre. Chapitres 1 à 3. Masson, Paris 1970.
N. Bourbaki, Éléments de mathématique. Algèbre commutative. Chapitres 4 à 7. Masson, Paris, 1981.
E. Coddington and N. Levinson, [*Theory of ordinary differential equations*]{}. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York-Toronto-London, 1955.
P. Deligne and J. Milne, Tannakian categories, Lecture Notes in Mathematics 900, pp. 101 – 228, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York, 1982.
P. Deligne, Équations différentielles à points réguliers singuliers. Springer Lecture Notes in Mathematics, 1970.
N. D. Duong and P. H. Hai, *Tannakian duality over Dedekind rings and applications*. Math. Z. (2018) 288:1103–1142
N. D. Duong, P. H. Hai and J. P dos Santos, [*On the structure of affine flat group schemes over discrete valuation rings, I*]{}. Ann. Sc. Norm. Super. Pisa Cl. Sci. (5) 18 (2018), no. 3, 977–1032.
Fritzsche and H. Grauert, [*From holomorphic functions to complex manifolds*]{}. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, 213. Springer-Verlag, New York, 2002.
H. Grauert and R. Remmert, [*Coherent analytic sheaves*]{}. Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften, 265. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1984.
P. H. Hai and J. P dos Santos, [*On the structure of affine flat group schemes over discrete valuation rings, II*]{}. Preprint, Version of February 26, 2019.
L. Illusie, [*Grothendieck’s existence theorem in formal geometry with a letter of J.P. Serre*]{}. In Fundamental Algebraic Geometry, 179–233, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2005.
N. Katz, [*Nilpotent connections and the monodromy theorem: Applications of a result of Turrittin*]{}, Publ. Math. IHÉS, No. 39, (1970), 175 – 232.
L. Kindler, [*Regular singular stratified bundles and tame ramification*]{}. Trans. AMS 367(9) 2015, 6461–6485.
H. Matsumura, *Commutative ring theory*, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, Cambridge University Press, 1989.
B. Malgrange, [*Regular connections, after Deligne*]{}. In Algebraic $D$-modules. Perspectives in Mathematics, 2. Academic Press, Inc., Boston, MA, 1987, 151–172. R. Steinberg, [*Conjugacy classes in Algebraic Groups*]{}. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Springer 1974. W. Wasow, asymptotic expansions for ordinary differential equations. Interscience, 1965.
[*Seminars*]{}
Séminaire Henri Cartan. Tome 13. (1960-1961). Available from the website of Numdam.
Revêtements étales et groupe fondamental. Séminaire de géométrie algébrique du Bois Marie 1960–61. Directed by A. Grothendieck. With two papers by M. Raynaud. Updated and annotated reprint of the 1971 original. Documents Mathématiques 3. Soc. Math. France, Paris, 2003.
[^1]: The research of Phùng Hô Hai is funded by the Vietnam National Foundation for Science and Technology Development.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
-27pt 8.5in
\#1[height\#1 depth\#1 width0pt ]{}
UCLA/93/TEP/41\
November 1993\
hep-ph/9311229
[Effective action of magnetic monopole in three-dimensional electrodynamics with massless matter and gauge theories of superconductivity]{}\
[^1]\
\
\
We compute one-loop effective action of magnetic monopole in three-dimensional electrodynamics of massless bosons and fermions and find that it contains an infrared logarithm. So, when the number of massless matter species is sufficiently large, monopoles are suppressed and in the weak coupling limit charged particles are unconfined. This result provides some support to gauge theories of high-temperature superconductors. It also provides a mechanism by which interlayer tunneling of excitations with one unit of the ordinary electric charge can be suppressed while that of a doubly charged object is allowed.
Gauge theories of high-temperature superconductors [@BA] assume that in certain planar electronic systems spin and charge are separated and the resulting new quasiparticles interact via abelian gauge forces. This idea is seemingly in contradiction with three-dimensional confinement due to magnetic monopoles [@Polyakov]. One may try to resolve the contradiction by assuming that some of the charged excitations are gapless. Then it is possible that quantum effects of these excitations are sufficiently strong in the infrared to modify the interaction between monopoles in such a way that confinement of charges is lost. To see how this can happen, consider the relativistic version of the problem – three-dimensional quantum electrodynamics of massless bosons or fermions. A simple calculation shows that one-loop contribution of massless charged particles to the gauge field propagator causes its small momentum behavior to change from the usual $1/p^2$ to $1/|p|$. The bilinear part of the corresponding effective action for the gauge field calculated on the monopole configuration then produces a logarithm of the total size of the system. Indeed, the field strength of monopole is $F_{ij}\sim \epsilon_{ijk} x_k / r^3$, therefore, d\^3 x F\_[ij]{} F\_[ij]{} \~ , \[bil\] where $R$ and $a$ are infrared and ultraviolet cutoffs, respectively. Essentially the same calculation appears in ref.[@IL]. The coefficient of the logarithm increases proportionally to the number $N$ of massless species. This suggests that in the presence of massless charged particles, at least when $N$ is large enough, monopoles are suppressed via a version of the “infrared catastrophe” and charged particles are unconfined.
The reason why [eq.(\[bil\])]{} is not sufficient to determine the fate of magnetic monopoles in the presence of massless charged particles even in the large $N$ limit, is that the interaction of a charged particle with monopole has no small parameter, so the bilinear part (\[bil\]) of the effective action is in no way distinguished relative to terms containing more powers of the gauge field. To make a reliable conclusion, we need all these terms. On the other hand, because the gauge propagator in the large $N$ limit is of order $1/N$, the large $N$ limit suppresses higher-loop contributions to the effective action. Therefore, in this limit the problem reduces to calculation of the one-loop determinants of massless bosons and fermions in the monopole background. For this calculation, we chose to proceed with relativistic three-dimensional particles. Precise dispersion laws for quasiparticles that may occur in real electronic systems are unknown at present. The result and the main steps of our calculation are presented below. The result confirms the presence of an infrared logarithm in monopole’s effective action both in bosonic and fermionic cases. We thus show that single monopoles are suppressed by an “infrared catastrophe” in the presence of a sufficient number of massless matter fields. We cannot state at present what exactly this “sufficient” number is because the answer to this question lies outside the region of validity of the large $N$ approximation.
Consider now the weak coupling limit of three-dimensional electrodynamics when the dimensionful gauge coupling $e^2$ is much smaller than the ultraviolet scale $M\sim a^{-1}$ at which internal structure of monopole becomes essential. Then, in the absence of massless matter, monopoles and anti-monopoles would form a dilute gas. When the number of massless matter species is sufficiently large, the infrared logarithm causes monopoles and anti-monopoles to assemble into “molecules” – pairs of typical size $d$ that is much smaller than the average distance between the pairs. These pairs interact by a short range potential of order $(d^2/r^2) \log (d/r)$, so it is natural to expect that charged particles are unconfined. This picture provides some support to the idea of new gauge interactions in planar electronic systems. At the end of this paper we discuss some further applications of our results.
The one-loop contributions to monopole’s effective action from a single charged bosonic field and a single charged fermionic field are respectively of the form S\^[(1)]{}\_B = (-D\^2) - (-\^2) , S\^[(1)]{}\_F = - (D) + () , \[S1\] where $D$ are covariant derivatives and $\sigma$ are Pauli matrices. Eq.(\[S1\]) requires both ultraviolet and infrared regularizations. We compute not expressions (\[S1\]) directly but rather S\^[(1)]{}\_B(R) = \_B - \_[B0]{} , S\^[(1)]{}\_F (R)= - ( (-[M]{}\^2\_F) - (-[M]{}\^2\_[F0]{}) ) , \[S2\] where \_B = - (r\^2 + R\^2) D\^2 (r\^2 + R\^2) , - [M]{}\_F\^2 = - (r\^2 + R\^2) (D)\^2 (r\^2 + R\^2) , \[cal\] and ${\cal M}_{B0}$ and $-{\cal M}^2_{F0}$ are obtained analogously from the operators $-\partial^2$ and $-(\sigma\partial)^2$ of the vacuum sector. This replacement is similar to the one used by ’t Hooft in his four-dimensional instanton calculation [@tHooft]. If the effective action were not infrared sensitive, the additional factors of $(r^2+R^2)/R^2$ would cancel between vacuum and non-vacuum contributions in (\[S2\]). In the present case, we intend to show that the effective action [*is*]{} infrared sensitive. In this case [eq.(\[S2\])]{} provides an infrared regularization of [eq.(\[S1\])]{}, $R$ being the regulator radius. In what follows we measure all distances in units of $R$, hence, we set $R=1$.
The eigenvalue equations for operators (\[cal\]) are ( D\^2 + ) \_B = 0 , \[bos\] ( (D)\^2 + ) \_F = 0 , \[ferm\] where $\lambda$ stand generically for the eigenvalues. In bosonic [eq.(\[bos\])]{}, radial and angular variables are separated by $\Psi_B = \psi(r) Y_{q,l,m}(\theta,\phi)$, where $Y_{q,l,m}$ are the monopole harmonics of ref.[@WY]. One gets the radial equation = 0 , \[rad\] where $\a=[(l+1/2)^2 - q^2]^{1/2} - 1/2$, $l=|q|,|q|+1,...$, and the multiplicity of the eigenvalue $\lambda$ is $(2l+1)$. Parameter $q$ assumes integer and half-integer values as a consequence of the Dirac quantization condition. All our results depend only on $|q|$, so in what follows we take $q\geq 0$. In fermionic [eq.(\[ferm\])]{}, the variables are separated by using either of the three angular dependences $\xi^{(1)}_{jm}$, $\xi^{(2)}_{jm}$, $\eta_m$ introduced in ref.[@KYG]. We find that in all three cases the resulting radial equations have the same form as [eq.(\[rad\])]{} but with different values of $\a$. For angular dependence $\xi^{(1)}$, $\alpha=\mu-1$, where $\mu = [(j+1/2)^2 - q^2]^{1/2}$ and $j=q+1/2,q+3/2,...$, while for angular dependences $\xi^{(2)}$ and $\eta$, $\alpha=\mu$ with $j=q+1/2,q+3/2,...$ for $\xi^{(2)}$ and $j=q-1/2$ for $\eta$. In all cases the multiplicity is $(2j+1)$. In three dimensions, fermionic wave functions (or, more precisely, wave sections [@WY; @KYG]) $\Psi_F$ in (\[ferm\]) are doublets. This doublet structure is carried by the angular dependences, so both for bosons and fermions radial functions $\psi$ in [eq.(\[rad\])]{} are one-component objects. Therefore, unlike the scattering problem in (3+1) dimensions [@KYG], our calculation does not require any special treatment of $j=q-1/2$ fermionic modes.
We can treat bosonic and fermionic cases simultaneously using [eq.(\[rad\])]{} if we adopt the following notation = \[(j+1/2)\^2 - q\^2\]\^[1/2]{} - - 1/2 , j=q+,q++1,... . \[alpha\] Then, $\kappa=0$ corresponds to bosons, $\kappa=1/2$ to fermions with angular dependence $\xi^{(1)}$, and $\kappa=-1/2$ combines fermions with angular dependencies $\xi^{(2)}$ and $\eta$. Results for the vacuum sector are obtained by substituting $q=0$. Though such substitution leads to an unphysical value $j=-1/2$ for $\kappa=-1/2$, eigenvalues corresponding to this unphysical value do not participate in the fermionic trace in (\[S2\]) because of the vanishing multiplicity factor $(2j+1)$.
By the change of variables (r)=r\^(1+r\^2)\^[--1/2]{} (x) , x=(1+r\^2)\^[-1]{} , \[change\] [eq.(\[rad\])]{} is converted into a hypergeometric equation. The resulting eigenvalues are \_n = (n++ 1/2)(n ++ 3/2) , n=0,1,... . \[eigen\] We still need an ultraviolet regularization for the traces in [eq.(\[S2\])]{}. A convenient one is provided, again in parallel with ’t Hooft’s calculation [@tHooft], by two Pauli-Villars regulators with masses $M_i$ and metrics $e_i$ satisfying $\sum_i e_i = -1$, $\sum_i e_i M_i^2=0$, $i=1,2$. Regularized traces that we will need are (M\_i;) = \_[j=q+]{}\^ (2j+1) \_[s=1]{}\^ \_[i=0,1,2]{} e\_i , \[reg\] where we defined $e_0=1$, $M_0=0$, and $\mu_i^2 = M_i^2-1/4$, $i=0,1,2$. The effective action in the fermionic case is obtained from the half-sum of traces (\[reg\]) with $\kappa=\pm 1/2$ which are in fact related to each other in a simple way.
Because the effective action of monopole is dimensionless, it can depend only on products of infrared and ultraviolet regulator parameters, $M_i R$. In the system of units where $R=1$, we are then interested in the dependence of the effective action on $M_i$ in the limit when $M_i$ are large. Non-regulator terms in [eq.(\[reg\])]{} cannot produce such dependence. Applying the Euler-Maclaurin formula to regulator terms in [eq.(\[reg\])]{} we get $$\sum_{s=1}^{\Lambda} \log[(s+\alpha)^2 + M^2] =
\int_0^{\Lambda} ds \log[(s+\alpha)^2 + M^2]$$ + . ( + ) |\^\_0 + O(\[\^2+M\^2\]\^[-3/2]{}) , \[EM\] where $\Lambda \gg M$. The remainder in [eq.(\[EM\])]{} gives a convergent contribution of order $1/M$ when summed over $j$ with the multiplicity factor $(2j+1)$ and hence may be neglected. Terms divergent at $\Lambda\to\infty$ as well as those proportional to $M_i^2$ get cancelled when all regulator and non-regulator contributions are added together and we obtain $$\Tr\log {\cal M}(M_i;\kappa) = \sum_{j=q+\kappa}^{\infty} (2j+1) \times$$ , \[summed\] where $C(j)$ denotes terms independent of $M_i$.
The dependence of [eq.(\[summed\])]{} on $M_i$ can be found by the following method. We decompose each sum over $j$ into two – one running from $q+\kappa$ to some value $J-1$ such that $q \ll J\ll M_i$, another running from $J$ to a cutoff $\Lambda'\gg M$. As in the sum over $s$ before, dependence on the cutoff will disappear when all regulator and non-regulator terms are added together. The number $J$ is integer or half-integer when $q+\kappa$ is integer or half-integer, respectively. Now, in the region $q+\kappa \leq j \leq J-1$ we can neglect $j$ compared to $M_i$ while in the region $J\leq j \leq \Lambda'$ we can use the Euler-Maclaurin formula. At $J\leq j \leq \Lambda'$ we can also use the expansion = \_1 - q\^2 (2j+1)\^[-1]{} + O(j\^[-3]{}) , \_1 = j - . \[exp\] For example, $$\sum_{j=q+\kappa}^{\Lambda'} (2j+1)(\a+1/2)\log(\a^2+M^2)$$ $$= \sum_{j=q+\kappa}^{J-1} (2j+1)(\a+1/2)\log M^2
+ \sum_{j=J}^{\Lambda'} (2j+1)(\a_1+1/2)\log(\a_1^2 + M^2)$$ - q\^2 \_[j=J]{}\^[’]{} ( (\_1\^2 + M\^2) + ) + O(M\^[-2]{}) + O(J\^[-1]{}) . \[log\] It turns out that other terms in [eq.(\[summed\])]{} do not produce contributions in either boson or fermion determinant that distinguish between monopole and vacuum sectors. Proceeding with [eq.(\[log\])]{}, we finally obtain the one-loop effective action of a monopole with monopole number $q$ in the presence of massless bosons and fermions up to terms independent of $R$: $$S^{(1)}_{B,F}(R)= K_{B,F}(q) \log M^2 R^2 + O(R^0) \; ,$$ K\_B(q) = \_[J]{} , \[resb\] K\_F(q) = - \_[J]{} - . \[resf\] We assumed that both regulator masses are of the same order, $M_i\sim M$. The limits in eqs.(\[resb\])-(\[resf\]) were done by computer. The results for a few values of $q$ are presented in Table 1.
$q$ $K_B(q)$ $K_F(q)$
----- ---------- ----------
1/2 0.0968 0.0151
1 0.2266 0.1730
3/2 0.3850 0.4358
2 0.5682 0.7852
: Coefficients of $\log{R^2}$ in the one-loop effective action of a monopole with monopole number $q$ in the presence of massless bosons and fermions.
When there are $N$ species of particles of given type, the corresponding numbers from Table 1 should be multiplied by $N$. For sufficiently large $N$, logarithms of $R$ coming from boson or fermion determinants will overpower $3\log MR$ that comes with the opposite sign from the volume factor. Thus, when there is a large number of massless matter species, monopoles are suppressed. For small $N$, we cannot draw any conclusions from the present work because the one-loop calculation is not a reliable guide in this case. Possibly, numerical simulations can help to solve the problem for small $N$.
Let us now state some applications of our results. They show that non-confining abelian gauge interactions are possible in (2+1) dimensions when gapless excitations are present, thus providing some support to the idea of new gauge interactions in planar electronic systems. In a somewhat different interpretation, our results provide a mechanism by which interlayer tunneling of excitations with one unit of the ordinary electric charge is suppressed while that of a doubly charged object is allowed. Recent work [@tunnel] shows that a viable theory of high-temperature superconductors can be constructed if such mechanism is assumed to exist. Let us postulate that a planar system describing one layer in a layered material supports quasiparticles that carry magnetic flux with respect to the new gauge field. There are two varieties of such quasiparticles corresponding to positive and negative fluxes, respectively. Assume further that these quasiparticles carry ordinary electric charge (“holons”) which has the same sign both for positive and negative fluxes. Events of interlayer tunneling of these quasiparticles are described by monopoles and anti-monopoles in three dimensions. If there are also excitations of another sort (“spinons”) that carry charge, rather than flux, with respect to the new gauge field and are gapless, tunneling of a [*single*]{} flux can be suppressed by their infrared effects as discussed above, while a [*pair*]{} of positive and negative fluxes can tunnel freely.
I am grateful to S. Chakravarty for emphasizing to me the relevance of monopoles to the problem of spin-charge separation and discussions of the results and to V. Rubakov for discussions on fermion-monopole interactions. It is a pleasure to acknowledge the hospitality of the Aspen Center for Physics where this work was started. The author is supported by the Julian Schwinger fellowship at UCLA.
[99]{} G. Baskaran and P. W. Anderson, Phys. Rev. [**B37**]{}, 580 (1988); G. Baskaran, Phys. Scr. [**T27**]{}, 53 (1989). A. M. Polyakov, Phys. Lett. [**59B**]{}, 82 (1975); Nucl. Phys. [**B120**]{}, 429 (1977). L. B. Ioffe and A. I. Larkin, Phys. Rev. [**B39**]{}, 8988 (1989); N. Nagaosa, University of Tokyo preprint (1993). G. ’t Hooft, Phys. Rev. [**D14**]{}, 3432 (1976). T. T. Wu and C. N. Yang, Nucl. Phys. [**B107**]{}, 365 (1976). Y. Kazama, C. N. Yang, and A. S. Goldhaber, Phys. Rev. [**D15**]{}, 2287 (1977); P. Rossi, Nucl. Phys. [**B127**]{}, 518 (1977). We use the notation of the first paper. S. Chakravarty, A. Sudbø, P. W. Anderson, and S. Strong, Science [**261**]{}, 337 (1993).
[^1]: On leave of absence from Institute for Nuclear Research of the Academy of Sciences, Moscow 117312 Russia. Address after 1 December 1993: Department of Physics, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We define a $1$-cocycle in the space of long knots that is a natural generalisation of the Kontsevich integral seen as a $0$-cocycle. It involves a $2$-form that generalises the Knizhnik–Zamolodchikov connection. Similarly to the Kontsevich integral, it lives in a space of chord diagrams of the same kind as those that make the principal parts of Vassiliev’s $1$-cocycles. Moreover, up to a change of variable similar to the one that led Birman–Lin to discover the $4$T relations, we show that the relations defining our space, which allow the integral to be finite and invariant, are dual to the maps that define Vassiliev’s cohomology in degree $1$.'
author:
- Arnaud Mortier
bibliography:
- 'bibli.bib'
title: A Kontsevich integral of order $1$
---
*To Joan S Birman\
To the memory of Xiao-Song Lin*
Since Vassiliev [@VassilievBook] and Hatcher [@HatcherTopologicalmoduli] (followed by Budney [@BudneyHomotopyType] and Budney–Cohen [@BudneyHomology]) introduced an interest for the topology of the space of knots, it is remarkable how few attempts have been made to build actual realisations of $1$-cocycles—the simplest topological invariants after classical “knot invariants”, and at the same time how different these attempts have been from each other: see [@VassilievTT2], [@Sakai1; @Sakai2], [@MortierCADS; @FT1cocycles], [@FiedlerQuantum1cocycles; @FiedlerSingularization; @FiedlerPolyCocy]. This is not the first attempt to build $1$-cocycles by means of integrals: Sakai’s method in [@Sakai1; @Sakai2] uses configuration space integrals—see also [@CattaneoCottaLongoni; @BottTaubes]. We use a different method that follows closely the original work of Kontsevich [@Kontsevich]. At a categorical level, the present approach is related to the work of Cirio and Faria Martins on the categorification of the Knizhnik–Zamolodchikov connection [@CirioFaria]. This aspect shall be developed in a forthcoming paper.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
I wish to thank Victoria Lebed for her support and many fruitful discussions, and João Faria-Martins for extremely valuable comments the scope of which go beyond this article. I am grateful to Vladimir A. Vassiliev for his confirmation of a typo in [@VassilievCalc Formula ($10$)].
Spaces of chord diagrams {#sec:A}
========================
A *chord* is an unordered pair of distinct real numbers. All kinds of chord diagrams that we are about to define are regarded up to positive homeomorphisms of ${\mathbb{R}}$, and are graded by the number of chords.
A (linear) chord diagram is a set of finitely many pairwise disjoint chords.
A $V$-diagram is the datum of a chord diagram, together with a “$V$”: three points in ${\mathbb{R}}$ distinct from each other and from the endpoints of existing chords, together with a choice of two out of the three possible chords to link them. A chord disjoint from the $V$ is called *ordinary*.
A $V^2$-diagram is either of two things:
- a chord diagram with two additional disjoint $V$’s;
- a chord diagram with four additional distinct points in ${\mathbb{R}}$, linked by chords which together form a spanning tree of the complete graph on four vertices.
In [@VassilievBook], $V$-diagrams appear in the boundary of what is defined there as $(3,2,\ldots,2)$-configurations, while $V^2$-diagrams appear respectively in $(3,3,2,\ldots,2)$ and $(4,2,\ldots,2)$-configurations.
The graded completion of the vector space freely generated by chord diagrams (respectively, $V$- and $V^2$-diagrams) over ${\mathbb{C}}$ is denoted by ${\mathcal{D}}^0$ (respectively, ${\mathcal{D}}^1$ and ${\mathcal{D}}^2$). The quotient of ${\mathcal{D}}^0$ by (series of) $1$T and $4$T relations, where the Kontsevich integral lives, is denoted by ${\mathcal{A}}^0$. The rest of this section is devoted to define relations on ${\mathcal{D}}^1$ that will yield the quotient ${\mathcal{A}}^1$ with which we will work from then on.
$1$T and $2$T relations
-----------------------
A $V$-diagram is set to $0$ when it has an ordinary chord $\left\lbrace a, b\right\rbrace$ such that no other chords have endpoints in the interval $(a,b)$ (Figure \[pic:1T2T\]a). This is still called the $1$T relation, by analogy with the $1$T relation in ${\mathcal{A}}^0$.
In the settings of the Kontsevich integral, the $1$T relation is usually stated in terms of chords which do not intersect other chords. In fact, in ${\mathcal{D}}^0$ modulo $4$T, the two versions are equivalent because of [@BarNatanVKI Theorem 7]. This equivalence is not expected to hold in the present case in ${\mathcal{D}}^1$. However, in both settings, neither the good properties of the integral nor the equations yielded by Vassiliev’s spectral sequence require more than the local version.
The $2$T relation affects such isolated chords that participate in a $V$. Given a chord diagram and a choice of an endpoint of a chord, there are two ways to attach an isolated chord to this endpoint and form a $V$-diagram. The sum of these two $V$-diagrams is set to $0$ (Figure \[pic:1T2T\]b)[^1].
$(\text{a})$ at -10 60 $(\text{b})$ at 360 60 $=0$ at 172 16 $+$ at 591 16 $=0$ at 835 16
$16$T and $28$T relations {#sec:1628}
-------------------------
To simplify the writing, we recall the notion of *linking number* for finite subsets of ${\mathbb{R}}$. This notion is essential in Birman–Lin’s rewriting of Vassiliev’s equations in [@BirmanLin]. It is also an ingredient of the boundary maps in [@MortierCADS].
Let $P$ and $P^\prime$ be two disjoint finite subsets of ${\mathbb{R}}$, with $P^\prime$ of cardinality $2$: $P^\prime=\left\lbrace a, b\right\rbrace$. The linking number of $P$ and $P^\prime$ is $${\operatorname{lk}}(P,P^\prime)=(-1)^{P\cap [a,b]}.$$
Consider a usual chord diagram and pick four points in ${\mathbb{R}}\setminus \bigcup \left\lbrace \text{chords}\right\rbrace$, labelled from $1$ to $4$ according to the orientation of ${\mathbb{R}}$. There are $16$ ways to complete this into a $V^2$-diagram, represented by trees as shown in Figure \[pic:spantrees\].
Each of these $V^2$-diagrams can be desingularised into a $V$-diagram in either $6$ ways (for the first four diagrams on Figure \[pic:spantrees\]) or $4$ ways (for the remaining twelve), by which the tree is split into a $V$ and an ordinary chord.
\[not:16trees\] By each of the $16$ graphs in Figure \[pic:spantrees\] we mean the linear combination of all possible desingularisations of the corresponding $V^2$-diagram, where the coefficient for each summand is the product of two signs:
- $(-1)^k$ where $k$ is the label of the vertex where the desingularisation has occurred;
- ${\operatorname{lk}}(P,P^\prime)$ where $P$ and $P^\prime$ are the $V$ and the ordinary chord that result from the desingularisation.
The $16$T and $28$T relations are as shown in Figure \[pic:16T\]. For comparison, the usual $4$T relations with the present notations are shown in Figure \[pic:4T\].
$+$ at 94 32 $=0$ at 231 32 $+$ at 94 145 $=0$ at 231 145
$+$ at 94 258 $+$ at 223 258 $+$ at 350 258 $=0$ at 487 258 $-$ at 94 145 $+$ at 223 145 $-$ at 350 145 $=0$ at 487 145 $+$ at 94 32 $+$ at 223 32 $-$ at 350 32 $=0$ at 487 32
$+$ at 94 258 $+$ at 223 258 $+$ at 350 258 $+$ at 477 258 $+$ at 605 258 $=0$ at 732 258 $+$ at 94 145 $+$ at 223 145 $+$ at 350 145 $+$ at 477 145 $+$ at 605 145 $=0$ at 732 145 $+$ at 94 32 $+$ at 223 32 $+$ at 350 32 $+$ at 477 32 $+$ at 605 32 $=0$ at 732 32
The three $28$T relations as they are presented here look like they can be obtained from each other by moving the point at infinity (and applying the second $16$T relation where necessary). However, this fails when the relations are presented in extended fashion, with $28$ $V^2$-diagrams, because the linking numbers involved actually depend on the point at infinity. The independence in the case of the usual $4$T relations is related with the $1$-$1$ correspondence between long knots and compact knots. There is no such correspondence at the level of higher degree (co)cycles.
${4\!\times\! 4}$T relations {#sec:4x4}
----------------------------
Consider again a usual chord diagram and now pick two disjoint triples of points in ${\mathbb{R}}\setminus \bigcup \left\lbrace \text{chords}\right\rbrace$, labelling from $1$ to $3$ the vertices of the triple which owns the least of all six numbers, and from $4$ to $6$ the other three[^2], again according to the orientation of ${\mathbb{R}}$. Each triple can be completed into a $V$ in $3$ different ways, which makes nine different $V^2$-diagrams in total.
The ${4\!\times\! 4}$T relations are then built as follows. Pick any couple of $4$T relators as presented in Figure \[pic:4T\]—there are four such couples, for example first and then . Now expand the formal product of these relators, and set it to $0$: in the example, one obtains $$\protect{\raisebox{-0.5em}{\labellist
\small\hair 2pt
\pinlabel $+$ at 363 29
\pinlabel $+$ at 165 29
\pinlabel $+$ at 562 29
\endlabellist \includegraphics[height=1.5em]{4x4example}}}=0.$$ Each two-component diagram stands for the alternating sum of all four ways to desingularise the corresponding $V^2$-diagram into a $V$-diagram, where the coefficient of each summand is the product of
- $(-1)^\text{\footnotesize label of the desingularised vertex}$ according to the scheme
- ${\operatorname{lk}}(P,P^\prime)$ where $P$ and $P^\prime$ are the resulting two ordinary chords.
The integral $Z^1$ for paths of Morse knots {#sec:leaf}
===========================================
A *long knot* is a smooth embedding ${\mathbb{R}}_x\rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}^3\simeq {\mathbb{C}}_z\times{\mathbb{R}}_t$ that coincides with $x\mapsto (0;x)$ outside a compact set[^3]. All knots considered here are long knots, so that the word “long” will be omitted most of the time. A long knot in generic position with respect to the projection ${\mathbb{C}}_z\times{\mathbb{R}}_t \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}_t$ will be called a *Morse knot*. This projection will be referred to as “the Morse function”. For a given point in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$, the value of the projection is called its *altitude*.
Main formula
------------
The reader is assumed to be familiar with the concepts involved in the definition of the Kontsevich integral introduced in [@Kontsevich]. See [@BarNatanVKI; @CDM; @LescopK] and references therein for a complete and excellent introduction.
For $n\in {\mathbb{N}}$, $n\geq 2$, we consider the unbounded closed simplex $$\Delta^n=\left\lbrace (t_1,\ldots,t_n)\in {\mathbb{R}}^n \,\left|\, t_1\leq\ldots\leq t_n \right\rbrace\right.$$ and its boundary $\partial\Delta^n=\bigcup_{i=1}^{n-1} \Delta^n_i$, where $$\Delta^n_i=\left\lbrace (t_1,\ldots,t_n)\in \Delta^n \,\left|\, t_i= t_{i+1} \right\rbrace\right.$$ The usual orientation of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ induces an orientation on $\Delta^n$, which in turn induces an orientation on $\partial\Delta^n$. Each face of $\Delta^n$ can be parametrised by $\Delta^{n-1}$ via duplication of the $i$-th coordinate. When doing so in order to integrate over $\partial\Delta^n$, a sign $(-1)^{i-1}$ appears to account for the orientation[^4].
Let $\mu\colon [a,b]\times{\mathbb{R}}\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}^3\simeq {\mathbb{C}}\times{\mathbb{R}}$ be a smooth path in the space of Morse knots. We define $Z^1(\mu)\in{\mathcal{A}}^1$ by the formula:
$$\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\dfrac{1}{(2i\pi)^{n+1}}\underset{[a,b]\times \partial\Delta^{n+1}}{\int}\sum_{
\begin{array}{c}
\text{\footnotesize applicable pairings}\\
M=\left\lbrace
\left\lbrace z_j,z_j^\prime \right\rbrace \right\rbrace
\end{array}} (-1)^{\downarrow(M)}D_M\bigwedge_{j=1}^{n+1} \frac{dz_j-dz_j^\prime}{z_j-z_j^\prime}$$
where
- for a given $\phi\in \left[a,b\right]$, and a given $t$ on the face ${\Delta^{n+1}_i}$, an applicable pairing consists of a collection of pairs of complex numbers $z_j\neq z_j^\prime$, such that
- for every $j$, $(z_j, t_j)$ and $(z_j^{\prime}, t_j)$ lie on the knot $\mu_\phi$,
- $z_i=z_{i+1}$,
- $(z_i^\prime,t_i) < (z_{i+1}^\prime,t_{i+1})$ in the order induced by the knot’s orientation.[^5]
- $D_M$ is the $V$-diagram naturally corresponding to $M$ and $\mu_\phi$.
- stands for the number of points $(z_j^{(\prime)}, t_j)$ located on decreasing branches of the knot $\mu_\phi$. The point $(z_i,t_i)=(z_{i+1},t_{i+1})$ contributes only once.
### Some remarks on the definition {#some-remarks-on-the-definition .unnumbered}
If we rewrite the differential forms in terms of $d\phi$ and the $dt_j$, and then develop the product, we see that the factor providing the $d\phi$ part has to be either the $i$-th or the $i+1$-st, because besides $\phi$ the two forms at this level depend on the same $dt_i$.
Hence, when a part of the knot moves, the integral measures it through the $V$’s. But during these times the steady parts also contribute, via ordinary chords. However, over the times when all the knot stays still, or when the only moving parts are within ${\mathbb{C}}_z$-planes that the knot meets only once, then the integral is formally $0$.
The $2$T relation, together with Arnold’s lemma, imply that no $V$-diagram with an isolated $V$ can ever contribute non-trivially to $Z^1$.
The integral $Z^1(\mu)$ is absolutely convergent.
The $\pm\infty$ bounds of the integration domain are not a problem because the range of $t$-values that bring non-trivial contributions is bounded for each knot, and uniformly so since the range of $\phi$ is compact.
The rest of the proof is similar to the case of the Kontsevich integral. The only new case consists of a singularity brought by an isolated chord that participates in a $V$. It is solved by the $2$T relation: indeed, when put together, the contributions of the two diagrams become, up to sign: $$\int\ldots\wedge \omega_{ij}\wedge (\omega_{jk}-\omega_{ik})\wedge\ldots$$ where $\left\lbrace i,j\right\rbrace$ is the isolated chord. By Arnold’s lemma, this amounts to $$\int\ldots\wedge \omega_{ik}\wedge \omega_{jk}\wedge\ldots$$ where both small denominators have disappeared.
A formula for braids
--------------------
If we isolate a chunk of the integration domain, of the form $$\Pi=\left\lbrace (\phi;t_1,\ldots,t_n)\in \left[a,b\right]\times{\mathbb{R}}^n\left|\begin{array}{c}
\phi_{\min}\leq\phi\leq\phi_{\max}\\t_{\min}\leq t_1<\ldots< t_n\leq t_{\max}
\end{array}\right\rbrace\right.$$
so that the path has no critical Morse points between these values, then this part can be seen as a moving braid with loose endpoints: $$\beta\colon [\phi_{\min},\phi_{\max}]\times[t_{\min},t_{\max}]\rightarrow {\mathbb{C}}^p\setminus\Delta$$ where $p$ is the number of strands (note that $p$ has to be odd).
Thus we can afford a compact formula like the one given by Lescop in [@LescopK]. Recall the formal Knizhnik–Zamolodchikov connection $$\Omega_p=\frac{1}{2i\pi}\sum_{1\leq i < j\leq p}\Gamma_{ij}\,\omega_{ij}$$ where the $\Gamma_{ij}$ are the $1$-chord diagrams on $p$ vertical strands and $\omega_{ij}$ is the $1$-form $d\log(z_i-z_j)$ on ${\mathbb{C}}^p\setminus \left\lbrace \text{big diagonal} \right\rbrace$. Similarly, we let $\Gamma_{ijk}$, where $i$, $j$ and $k$ are distinct, stand for the chord diagram on $p$ strands with a chord $\left\lbrace i,j\right\rbrace$ and a chord $\left\lbrace j,k\right\rbrace$ *at the same altitude*.
The set of couples $\left\lbrace i,j\right\rbrace$ with $1\leq i\neq j\leq p$ is endowed with the lexicographical order. For $p\geq 3$ we define the $2$-form (see Figure \[pic:Lamb3\]) $$\Lambda_p=\frac{1}{(2i\pi)^2}\sum_{\left\lbrace i,j\right\rbrace<\left\lbrace j,k\right\rbrace}\Gamma_{ijk}\,\omega_{ij}\wedge\omega_{jk}$$
$\omega_{12}\wedge\omega_{13}$ at 140 42 $+$ at 202 42 $\omega_{12}\wedge\omega_{23}$ at 373 42 $+$ at 435 42 $\omega_{13}\wedge\omega_{23}$ at 603 42 $1$ at 13 3 $2$ at 55 3 $3$ at 97 3 $1$ at 246 3 $2$ at 288 3 $3$ at 330 3 $1$ at 477 3 $2$ at 521 3 $3$ at 563 3
$\dfrac{1}{(2i\pi)^2}\left[\vphantom{\frac{\Bigg|}{\Bigg|}}\right.$ at -35 45 $\left.\vphantom{\frac{\Bigg|}{\Bigg|}}\right]$ at 650 45 ![The $2$-form $\Lambda_3$[]{data-label="pic:Lamb3"}](Lamb3 "fig:")
The integral is then defined over $\Pi$ by the formula
$$Z^1(\beta)=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\int_\Pi\sum_{i=1}^n (-1)^{i-1}\bigwedge_{j=1}^n\left[(\beta\circ ({\operatorname{id}}\times{\operatorname{pr}}_j))^*\left(\begin{array}{cl}
\Lambda_p&\text{if $j=i$}\\
\Omega_p&\text{otherwise}
\end{array}\right)\right]$$
Note that a version of $16$T, $28$T and ${4\!\times\! 4}$T relations can be naturally defined on $V$-diagrams based on $n$ strands, in a way that is compatible with the operation of connecting the strands from $1$ to $n$ into a single line.
Cocyclicity of $Z^1$
--------------------
$Z^1$ is a $1$-cocycle in the space of Morse knots.
Let $H$ be a smooth map $[0,1]\times[a,b]\times{\mathbb{R}}\rightarrow {\mathbb{C}}\times{\mathbb{R}}$ such that for every $\psi\in [0,1]$ and every $\phi\in [a,b]$ the map $H(\psi, \phi, \cdot)$ is a Morse knot, and the knots $H(\psi, a, \cdot)$ and $H(\psi, b, \cdot)$ do not depend on $\psi$. The assertion is that $$Z^1(H(1,\cdot,\cdot))=Z^1(H(0,\cdot,\cdot)).$$
The conditions above imply that all knots $H(\psi, \phi, \cdot)$ have the same number $c$ of Morse critical points and allow us to define $c$ smooth maps of the form $$T\colon [0,1]\times[a,b]\rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$$ such that for every $(\psi, \phi)\in [0,1]\times[a,b]$, $T(\psi, \phi)$ is a critical point of $H(\psi, \phi, \cdot)$.
Similarly to the proof of the invariance of the Kontsevich integral, we use Stokes’ theorem. On the left-hand side, we have $0$ as we integrate exact forms. On the right-hand side, the boundary of the integration domain is made of the following parts:
- $\psi=0$ or $\psi=1$: contributes $Z^1(H(1,\cdot,\cdot))-Z^1(H(0,\cdot,\cdot)).$
- $\phi=a$ or $\phi=b$: no contribution because the two differential forms coming from a $V$ are collinear (both multiples of the same $dt_i$) along these faces since there is no dependency on $\psi$ or $\phi$, so their exterior product vanishes.
- $t_j=t_{j+1}=t_{j+2}$ for some $j$: no contribution because $\Omega_n\wedge\Lambda_n-\Lambda_n\wedge\Omega_n=0$ (see Appendix \[Appen:1\]).
- $t_j=t_{j+1}$ and $t_k=t_{k+1}$ for some $j$ and some $k$ with $j+1<k$. The different contributions to this stratum cancel out by the ${4\!\times\! 4}$T relations.
- $t_j=T(\psi, \phi)$, meaning the $j$-th level reaches a critical point:
- if only one branch of the knot near the critical point is involved in the $j$-th graph component, then this piece of boundary cancels off with the similar part of the integral that involves the other branch.
- if the two branches are involved and the $j$-th component is an ordinary chord, then the contribution vanishes because of the $1$T relation.
- in case of a $V$ whose tips occupy each one of the branches, there is no contribution since the two chords of the $V$ both bring the same differential form on this piece of boundary.
- the two remaining cases—of a $V$ one of whose chords links the two branches—can be grouped together thanks to the $2$T relation, and cancel out because of Arnold’s lemma.
Elementary functoriality
------------------------
The space of knots acts on paths via left and right connected sum: if $K_1$ and $K_2$ are (Morse) knots and $\mu$ is a path of (Morse) knots, then $K_1\hash\mu\hash K_2$ is the path $\mu$ performed with two steady factors $K_1$ and $K_2$ on the left and on the right respectively. Similarly the space ${\mathcal{D}}^1$ of $V$-diagrams is endowed with a structure of ${\mathcal{D}}^0$-bimodule, with operations defined by left and right concatenation. This fails to descend into an ${\mathcal{A}}^0$-bimodule stucture on ${\mathcal{A}}^1$, because the classical $4$T relations that define ${\mathcal{A}}^0$ do not hold *a priori* in ${\mathcal{A}}^1$. However, a weaker version of these relations holds in ${\mathcal{A}}^1$ as shown by Theorem \[thm:bimod\].
Let $K$ and $\tilde{K}$ be two Morse knots that are isotopic within the space of Morse knots. Let us denote by ${\underline{Z}}(K)$ the pre-Kontsevich integral of $K$ in ${\mathcal{D}}^0/\left\lbrace 1\text{T relations}\right\rbrace$, so that ${\underline{Z}}(K)-{\underline{Z}}(\tilde{K})$ is zero modulo $4$T. Let $Z(K)=Z(\tilde{K})\in {\mathcal{A}}^0$ denote the class of ${\underline{Z}}(K)$ modulo $4$T. In other words, $Z$ is the Kontsevich integral for Morse knots, *without the corrective term $Z(\infty)^{-c/2}$*.
\[Lem:prefoncto\]
- If $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$ are paths in the space of Morse knots such that the composition $\mu_1\cdot \mu_2$ makes sense, then $$Z^1(\mu_1\cdot \mu_2)= Z^1(\mu_1)+Z^1(\mu_2)$$
In particular, for any path $\mu$, $$Z^1(\mu^{-1})= -Z^1(\mu)$$
- If $K$ and $\tilde{K}$ are isotopic Morse knots as above, and if $\gamma$ is a loop in the space of Morse knots, then $$({\underline{Z}}(K)-{\underline{Z}}(\tilde{K})) Z^1(\gamma)=0\in{\mathcal{A}}^1$$ so that the product $Z(K)Z^1(\gamma)$ is well-defined in ${\mathcal{A}}^1$. Similarly the product $Z^1(\gamma)Z(K)$ is well-defined in ${\mathcal{A}}^1$.
- Given $K_1$, $K_2$ and $\gamma$ as above, one has $$Z^1(K_1\hash\gamma\hash K_2)= Z(K_1)Z^1(\gamma)Z(K_2)$$
Point *(a)* follows from the additivity property of integrals. The Fubini theorem gives a pre-version of *(c)*, $$Z^1(K_1\hash\mu\hash K_2)= {\underline{Z}}(K_1)Z^1(\mu){\underline{Z}}(K_2)$$ after one notices that because $K_1$ and $K_2$ are steady, no $V$ will contribute non-trivially at their levels. Point *(b)* and subsequently *(c)* now follow from the application of $Z^1$ to the trivial loop depicted in Figure \[pic:Lem:prefonct\].
$L$ at 30 442 $K$ at 30 353 $L$ at 314 442 $K$ at 314 353 $L$ at 30 144 $\tilde{K}$ at 30 58 $L$ at 314 144 $\tilde{K}$ at 314 58 $\stackrel{\text{\normalsize$K\hash\gamma$}}{\xrightarrow{\hphantom{\text{\normalsize$K\hash\gamma^{-1}$}}}}$ at 172 398 $\stackrel{\text{\normalsize$\tilde{K}\hash\gamma^{-1}$}}{\xleftarrow{\hphantom{\text{\normalsize$K\hash\gamma^{-1}$}}}}$ at 172 103 $\uparrow$ at 30 250 $\downarrow$ at 314 250
![$L$ denotes the knot $\gamma(0)$. This loop is trivial within the space of Morse knots, hence $Z^1$ vanishes. The vertical arrows are inverse of each other (pick any path from $K$ to $\tilde{K}$ and connect it with $L$), so their contributions to $Z^1$ cancel out.[]{data-label="pic:Lem:prefonct"}](loopsample)
The corrected integral $\hat{Z}^1$
==================================
$\hat{Z}^1$ on paths of Morse knots
-----------------------------------
Recall the correction that allows the Kontsevich integral to be a knot invariant outside the class of Morse knots: $$\hat{Z}(K)=\frac{Z(K)}{Z(\infty)^{c/2}}$$ where $c$ is the number of Morse critical points of $K$ and the symbol $\infty$ stands for a hump (see Fig. \[pic:hump\]).
${\mathbb{C}}_z$ at 548 55 $0$ at 270 110 ${\mathbb{R}}_t$ at 340 495
Fix a parametrisation of the hump, thereafter denoted by $\infty_0$. Its pre-Kontsevich integral ${\underline{Z}}(\infty_0)$ has an inverse in ${\mathcal{D}}^0/\left\lbrace 1\text{T relations}\right\rbrace$ as usual via power series.
Let $\mu\colon [a,b]\times{\mathbb{R}}\rightarrow {\mathbb{C}}\times{\mathbb{R}}$ be a path in the space of Morse knots. The number of critical points of the knot $\mu_\phi$ is then the same for every value of $\phi$. Call this number $c$ and set$$\hat{Z}^1(\mu)= {{\underline{Z}}(\infty_0)^{-c/2}}{Z^1(\mu)}\in {\mathcal{A}}^1$$
We will see later on (Theorem \[thm:bimod\]) that in the case of loops much less care is required, and one can write $$\hat{Z}^1(\gamma)= \frac{Z^1(\gamma)}{Z(\infty)^{c/2}}$$
$\hat{Z}^1$ on arbitrary paths
------------------------------
Let $\mu\colon [a,b]\times{\mathbb{R}}\rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}^3$ be a path in the space of knots, generic with respect to the Morse function. By this we mean that the knot $\mu(\phi,\cdot)$ is Morse except at finitely many values of $\phi$ in $(a,b)$ where its number of critical points jumps up or down by $2$. We are going to associate to $\mu$ a path $\tilde{\mu}$ in the space of Morse knots.
Let $K=\mu(a,\cdot)$, and $k$ an integer at least equal to the number of positive perestroikas (birth of a hump) in $\mu$. We set $$\tilde{K}=\infty_0^{\hash k}\hash K,$$ meaning that $K$ receives $k$ factors on the left, all of them isometric to $\infty_0$. The path $\tilde{\mu}$ starts at $\tilde{K}$. Then, let the path $\mu$ unfold on the right factor, and whenever a perestroika occurs in $\mu$, replace it in $\tilde{\mu}$ by the sliding of a hump either to or from the stock of humps on the left—which can be done while staying within the class of Morse knots ([@MostovoyMorse Lemma $3.1$]).
For a path $\mu$ as above, we set $$\hat{Z}^1(\mu)=\hat{Z}^1(\tilde{\mu})$$
It does not depend on the choice of $k$ thanks to the property $$Z^1(\infty\hash \mu)={\underline{Z}}(\infty)Z^1(\mu),$$ and it does not depend on the exact paths followed by the sliding humps by the invariance property of $Z^1$.
By taking limits, one sees that an alternative definition is to set $\hat{Z}^1(\mu)$ to be the sum of $\hat{Z}^1$ on all regular parts of $\mu$ and then add/subtract the cost of moving an infinitesimal hump from $-\infty$ to the place where each perestroika occurs.
$\hat{Z}^1$ is a $1$-cocycle in the space of long knots.
Given two paths $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$, and an isotopy $H\colon \mu_1 \rightsquigarrow \mu_2$, after connecting sufficiently large numbers of humps $k_1$ and $k_2$ one can mutate $H$ into an isotopy $\tilde{H}\colon \tilde{\mu}_1 \rightsquigarrow \tilde{\mu}_2$ that stays within the set of Morse knots. The theorem follows then from the invariance of $Z^1$.
More functoriality
------------------
### Connected sum of loops {#connected-sum-of-loops .unnumbered}
The connected sum of two loops $\gamma$ and $\gamma^\prime$ is defined by the loop $\phi\mapsto \gamma^{\phantom{\prime}}_\phi\hash \gamma^\prime_\phi$ after a rescaling to make the time scales match. It is obviously isotopic to the loop $(\gamma \hash K^\prime)\cdot (K \hash \gamma^\prime)$, whereby one can extend the results of Lemma \[Lem:prefoncto\], given that the multiplicative correction from $Z^1$ to $\hat{Z}^1$ and from $Z$ to $\hat{Z}$ are the same.
Let $\gamma_1$ and $\gamma_2$ be any two loops in the space of knots, respectively in the knot types $K_1$ and $K_2$. Then $$\hat{Z}^1(\gamma_1\hash\gamma_2)=\hat{Z}^1(\gamma_1)\hat{Z}(K_2)+\hat{Z}(K_1)\hat{Z}^1(\gamma_2)$$
It was pointed out to us by Victoria Lebed that this makes $\hat{Z}^1$ a Hochschild $1$-cocycle.
### The shadow $4$T relations {#the-shadow-4t-relations .unnumbered}
Lemma \[Lem:prefoncto\] allows us to multiply $Z^1(\gamma)$ and $Z(K)$ within ${\mathcal{A}}^1$, where $\gamma$ is a Morse loop and $K$ a Morse knot. This a priori says nothing about other procedures usually defined under $4$T relations, such as *division* by $Z(K)$, commutation of the product in ${\mathcal{A}}^0$, generalised $1$T relations, etc. We shall fix this issue by the following theorem, whose proof makes the rest of this subsection.
\[thm:bimod\] $\hat{Z}^1(H_1(\mathcal{K}\setminus \Sigma))\subset {\mathcal{A}}^1$ is an ${\mathcal{A}}^0$-bimodule. Moreover, for every $\gamma\in H_1(\mathcal{K}\setminus \Sigma)$ and every knot $K$, $$\hat{Z}^1(\gamma)\hat{Z}(K)=\hat{Z}(K)\hat{Z}^1(\gamma)$$
Pick an integer $m>0$ and let $I_m$ denote the subspace of ${\mathcal{D}}^0/\left\lbrace 1\text{T relations}\right\rbrace$ spanned by all differences ${\underline{Z}}_m(K)-{\underline{Z}}_m(\tilde{K})$, where $K$ and $\tilde{K}$ are isotopic knots and ${\underline{Z}}_m$ stands for the part of ${\underline{Z}}$ of degree exactly $m$. On the other hand, let $J_m$ denote the subspace spanned by all $4$T relators in degree $m$.
For every $m>0$, $$I_m = J_m$$
Considering a “strict” Kontsevich integral whose every $m$-th degree part lives in ${\mathcal{D}}_m^0/\left\lbrace 1\text{T}; I_m\right\rbrace$ rather than ${{\mathcal{D}}_m}^{\!\!\!\!0}/\left\lbrace 1\text{T}; J_m\right\rbrace$, one can repeat entirely the proof of [@BarNatanVKI Theorem $1$], so that every “strict” weight system $w\colon {\mathcal{D}}_m^0/\left\lbrace 1\text{T}; I_m\right\rbrace \rightarrow {\mathbb{C}}$ is the pull-back of a weight system in the usual sense by the projection ${\mathcal{D}}_m^0/\left\lbrace 1\text{T}; I_m\right\rbrace \twoheadrightarrow{{\mathcal{D}}_m}^{\!\!\!\!0}/\left\lbrace 1\text{T}; J_m\right\rbrace$. Hence this projection is an isomorphism.
Together with Lemma \[Lem:prefoncto\](b), this implies that if $\delta\in {\mathcal{D}}^0$ represents the trivial class in ${\mathcal{A}}^0$, then $\delta Z^1(\gamma)$ and $Z^1(\gamma)\delta$ both represent the trivial class in ${\mathcal{A}}^1$, where $\gamma$ is a loop in the space of Morse knots. Now since $\hat{Z}^1$ is essentially defined via such loops, we have the first part of the theorem.
For the second part, note that if a loop is connected on the right to a steady factor, this factor can be brought to the left before the loop starts, and brought back to the right afterwards. The resulting loop is isotopic to the original one.
Relation to Vassiliev $1$-cocycles
==================================
Weight systems {#subsec:weight}
--------------
The origin of the $4$T relations lies in Birman–Lin’s [@BirmanLin] clever rewriting of Vassiliev’s equations describing the first level of his spectral sequence [@VassilievBook], whose kernel is made of principal parts of finite-type invariants. They show that after an innocuous change of variables[^6], the equations that rule Vassiliev invariants take a very simple form freed from any local parameter, the form that will eventually rule the invariance of the Kontsevich integral. The situation is exactly similar here.
A weight system of order $1$ and degree $m$ is a linear combination of $V$-diagrams of degree $m$ which, regarded as a functional $w\colon {\mathcal{D}}^1\rightarrow {\mathbb{C}}$, descends to a functional on ${\mathcal{A}}^1$.
Let $D$ be a $V$-diagram. The *sign*[^7] of $D$ is defined by $$S(D)=(-1)^{\sum_{\left\lbrace P,P^\prime\right\rbrace}{\operatorname{lk}}(P,P^\prime)}$$ where the sum runs over all pairs of either two chords of $D$, or one chord and the $V$. We define the involution $\sigma$ on ${\mathcal{D}}^1$ by $\sigma(D)=S(D)D$.
\[thm:Vass\] Let $\alpha$ be a Vassiliev $1$-cocycle of degree $m$. Then, after the change of variable $\sigma$, the projection of a principal part of $\alpha$ onto ${\mathcal{D}}^{1}$ is a weight system of degree $m$.
The composition of this weight system with $\hat{Z}^1$ outputs a $1$-cocycle $\tilde{\alpha}$.
\[conj\] For every $1$-cocycle $\alpha$ as above, $\tilde{\alpha}=\alpha$.
The rest of this subsection is devoted to the proof of Theorem \[thm:Vass\].
### Settings of the spectral sequence {#settings-of-the-spectral-sequence .unnumbered}
The linear map from Vassiliev’s spectral sequence whose kernel consists of principal parts of $1$-cocycles of a given degree $m$ can be described as $$\Psi\colon {{\tilde{{\mathcal{D}}}_m}^{\hspace*{0.5pt}2}
}\, \oplus {{{\mathcal{D}}_m}^{\!\!\!\!1}
}\oplus {{{\mathcal{D}}_m}^{\!\!\!\!0,\star}
}\rightarrow {{{\mathcal{D}}_m}^{\!\!\!\!2}
}\oplus {{{\mathcal{D}}_m}^{\!\!\!\!1,\star}
}\oplus {{{\mathcal{D}}_m}^{\!\!\!\!0,\star\star}
}$$ where
- ${{\tilde{{\mathcal{D}}}_m}^{\hspace*{0.5pt}2}
}$ is the vector space generated by the collection of diagrams that one can obtain by enhancing a $V^2$-diagram of degree $m$ with a chord between two points already indirectly[^8] linked by a $V$ or a $3$-edge graph.
- ${{{\mathcal{D}}_m}^{\!\!\!\!1,\star}
}$ is generated by two kinds of diagrams: $m$-chord diagrams with a star attached to the endpoint of a chord, and $V^1$-diagrams of degree $m$ with a lonely star in ${\mathbb{R}}$ (away from the chords).
- ${{{\mathcal{D}}_m}^{\!\!\!\!0,\star}
}$ is generated by $m$-chord diagrams enhanced by a lonely star.
- ${{{\mathcal{D}}_m}^{\!\!\!\!0,\star\star}
}$ is generated by $m$-chord diagrams enhanced by two lonely stars.
Up to incidence signs defined in [@VassilievBook Chapter V, Section $3.3$], $\Psi$ maps a generator of ${{\tilde{{\mathcal{D}}}_m}^{\hspace*{0.5pt}2}
}$ to the sum of all possible ways to remove a chord whose endpoints remain indirectly connected, and a generator of ${{{\mathcal{D}}_m}^{\!\!\!\!1}
}$ or ${{{\mathcal{D}}_m}^{\!\!\!\!0,\star}
}$ to the sum of all ways to shrink an admissible[^9] interval of ${\mathbb{R}}$ to a point, which becomes a star when the interval was initially bounded by the two endpoints of an isolated chord.
It is not difficult to see that modulo the image of the preceding map in the spectral sequence, any element in ${\operatorname{Ker}}\Psi$ has a representative that does not involve diagrams in ${{{\mathcal{D}}_m}^{\!\!\!\!0,\star}
}$. Hence we can consider the restriction $$\Psi\colon {{\tilde{{\mathcal{D}}}_m}^{\hspace*{0.5pt}2}
}\, \oplus {{{\mathcal{D}}_m}^{\!\!\!\!1}
}\rightarrow {{{\mathcal{D}}_m}^{\!\!\!\!2}
}\oplus {{{\mathcal{D}}_m}^{\!\!\!\!1,\star}
}$$
### $1$T and $2$T relations {#t-and-2t-relations-1 .unnumbered}
Considering the preimage of both kinds of generators of ${{{\mathcal{D}}_m}^{\!\!\!\!1,\star}
}$ shows respectively that the part in ${{{\mathcal{D}}_m}^{\!\!\!\!1}
}$ of any element of ${\operatorname{Ker}}\Psi$ has to satisfy $1$T and $2$T relations—note that these are unaffected by the change of variable $\sigma$. Assuming these relations, we are now left with a restriction $$\Psi\colon {{\tilde{{\mathcal{D}}}_m}^{\hspace*{0.5pt}2}
}\, \oplus {{{\mathcal{D}}_m}^{\!\!\!\!1}
}\rightarrow {{{\mathcal{D}}_m}^{\!\!\!\!2}
}$$
### $16$T and $28$T relations—see Appendix \[Appen:3\] {#t-and-28t-relationssee-appendixappen3 .unnumbered}
To understand the equations coming from the generators of ${{{\mathcal{D}}_m}^{\!\!\!\!2}
}$ with a $3$-edge tree, we restrict our attention to $16$ such $V^2$-diagrams that differ only by the way their tree’s vertices are connected. The corresponding submatrix of $\Psi$ has:
- $16$ rows, one for each diagram from Figure \[pic:spantrees\];
- $15$ columns (say, on the left) corresponding to generators of ${{\tilde{{\mathcal{D}}}_m}^{\hspace*{0.5pt}2}
}$;
- $72$ columns (on the right) corresponding to $V$-diagrams.
Denote this $16\!\times\!87$ matrix by $M$ and its $16\!\times\!15$ left submatrix by $M_1$. First we observe that $M_1$ has rank $10$. It means that there are six independent ways to combine the rows of $M$ so as to end up with $15$ zeroes on the left. Denote by $M_2$ the $6\!\times \!72$ matrix on the right of these zeroes: it is the list of all $6$ equations that has to satisfy the ${{{\mathcal{D}}_m}^{\!\!\!\!1}
}$-part of any element of ${\operatorname{Ker}}M$. It is now a general fact that we have a decomposition $${\operatorname{Ker}}M={\operatorname{Ker}}M_1\oplus E$$ where $E$ is a subspace of ${\operatorname{Ker}}M$ that is mapped isomorphically onto ${\operatorname{Ker}}M_2$ by the second projection ${{\tilde{{\mathcal{D}}}_m}^{\hspace*{0.5pt}2}
}\, \oplus {{{\mathcal{D}}_m}^{\!\!\!\!1}
}\rightarrow {{{\mathcal{D}}_m}^{\!\!\!\!1}
}$. In other words, any solution to the six equations in $M_2$ will extend into a solution of the equations in $M$.
One easily checks that ${\operatorname{Ker}}M_1$ is generated by boundaries from the preceding map in the spectral sequence, so that we are left with the six equations from $M_2$. After the change of variable $\sigma$, they are exactly the three $16$T relations and the three $28$T relations.
### ${4\!\times\! 4}$T relations—see Appendix \[Appen:3\] {#times-4t-relationssee-appendixappen3 .unnumbered}
Finally, to understand the equations coming from those generators of ${{{\mathcal{D}}_m}^{\!\!\!\!2}
}$ that have two $V$’s, we enhance a chord diagram with two full triangles and consider all $9$ obtained by removing one chord from each triangle. The corresponding submatrix of $\Psi$ has $9$ rows, $6$ ${{\tilde{{\mathcal{D}}}_m}^{\hspace*{0.5pt}2}
}$-columns and $36$ ${{{\mathcal{D}}_m}^{\!\!\!\!1}
}$-columns. The previous arguments can be repeated and this time we obtain four equations in the end, which are exactly the ${4\!\times\! 4}$T relations described in Subsection \[sec:4x4\].
This process of getting rid of non-essential variables in Vassiliev’s spaces by row combinations was already used in [@BirmanLin] to obtain the $4$T relations for the first time.
Integration over the Gramain cycle
----------------------------------
The Gramain cycle, denoted by ${\operatorname{rot}}(K)$, consists of rotating a long knot $K$ once around its axis. The branches of the knot can be parametrised by $$z_i(\phi, t)=z_i(0,t)e^{\sqrt{-1}\phi}\qquad \phi\in [0,2\pi]$$ so that the differential form $\omega_{ij}$ becomes $$\frac{\partial \log(z_i-z_j)|_{\phi=0}}{\partial t}dt + \sqrt{-1}d\phi$$
Using the Fubini theorem one can integrate with respect to $\phi$ first, and be left with coefficients of the Kontsevich integral of $K$.
For example, there are two principal parts of the Teiblum–Turchin cocycle in the literature, [@VassilievCalc Formula ($10$)][^10] and [@VassilievTT2 Figure $4$]. After keeping only the part in ${\mathcal{D}}^1$ and applying the involution $\sigma$, one obtains weight systems $w_1$ and $w_2$, and it is easy to check that both of them evaluate on $Z^1({\operatorname{rot}}(K))$ into the coefficient of in $Z(K)$. As a result: $$w_1(\hat{Z}^1({\operatorname{rot}}(K)))=w_2(\hat{Z}^1({\operatorname{rot}}(K)))=v_2(K)$$ If one can prove Conjecture \[conj\], this will settle Turchin’s conjecture that the Teiblum–Turchin cocycle evaluates on ${\operatorname{rot}}$ into the Casson invariant.
Appendix: Questions {#Appen:2}
===================
Does $\hat{Z}^1$ contain more information about a knot than $\hat{Z}$? Is $\hat{Z}^1({\operatorname{rot}}(K))$ already as powerful as $\hat{Z}(K)$?
There is strong evidence that our integral $\hat{Z}^1$ is related with Vassiliev $1$-cocycles, and Theorem \[thm:Vass\] can be seen as one half of a generalisation of [@BarNatanVKI Theorem 1]. The other half would be
Is it true that a weight system evaluated on $\hat{Z}^1$ outputs a *Vassiliev* $1$-cocycle, of the same degree, whose principal part is essentially the initial weight system?
Relatedly,
Is there a generalisation of the notion of derivative of a knot invariant in the case of $1$-cocycles? Is there a generalisation of Vassiliev’s and Birman–Lin’s actuality tables?
Is there a way to derive weight systems from Lie algebras as in [@BarNatanVKI Theorem $4$]? If $4\!$T relations relate to the Jacobi identity, what do $16/28$T relations relate to?
To which extent can one develop the functoriality properties of $\hat{Z}$ and $\hat{Z}^1$? In particular the categorical aspects related to [@CirioFaria]?
The construction of $\hat{Z}^1$ was partly made to fix the fact that a hump, no matter how small, sliding along a knot, has a non-trivial $Z^1$ cost.
Is it true[^11] that if $s$ denotes the sliding of a hump along a long knot all the way from $-\infty$ to $+\infty$, then $Z^1(s)$ is an invariant of Morse knots?
If the answer turns out to be *yes*, this invariant will have to be compared with Fiedler’s scan invariants [@FiedlerPolyCocy]. Here we are scanning the knot from the inside rather than from the outside. This question is equivalent to whether or not $Z(\infty)$ commutes with $Z^1(\mu)$ where $\mu$ is an arbitrary path of Morse knots—this is known to hold for loops by Theorem \[thm:bimod\].
Similarly, a stronger version of Lemma \[Lem:prefoncto\] will hold with arbitrary paths instead of loops in (b) and (c), if one can answer positively the following question:
Is it true[^12] that given a path $\mu$ in the space of Morse knots, the map $$K\mapsto Z^1(K\hash \mu)$$ defines an invariant of Morse knots?
Appendix: Some details in the proof of cocyclicity of $Z^1$ {#Appen:1}
===========================================================
The fact that $Z^1$ vanishes on a stratum of type $t_j=t_{j+1}=t_{j+2}$ is proved by the identity $\Omega_n\wedge\Lambda_n-\Lambda_n\wedge\Omega_n=0$. Indeed, this stratum corresponds to an ordinary chord reaching the level of the $V$, which can occur from two directions with opposite incidence signs.
Now in the expansion of $\Omega_n\wedge\Lambda_n-\Lambda_n\wedge\Omega_n$, one can immediately discard the contributions where five strands are involved (because a (${\mathbb{C}}$-valued) $2$-form will commute with a $1$-form and the chord diagrams also commute in this case), as well as those with only three strands involved (because the exterior product of the corresponding forms vanishes already).
One is left with the four-strand contributions, with diagrams that are desingularisations of spanning trees of a complete $4$-vertex graph. The following lemma is proved in [@MortierSimplification].
Let $T$ be a tree with $p$ vertices, labelled from $1$ to $p$. The following differential form on ${\mathbb{C}}^p$, defined up to sign $$\omega_T=\bigwedge_{\text{all edges $\left\lbrace i, j\right\rbrace$ of }T} dz_i-dz_j$$ is equal (up to sign) to the form $$\omega_p=\sum_{i=1}^p (-1)^i dz_1\ldots \widehat{dz_i}\ldots dz_p$$
It follows that, in every contribution involving four strands, say $z_1$, $z_2$, $z_3$, $z_4$, one can set aside as an overall factor the form $$\frac{\omega_4}{(z_1-z_2)(z_1-z_3)(z_1-z_4)(z_2-z_3)(z_2-z_4)(z_3-z_4)}$$ and every summand in what remains is the product of a polynomial of degree $3$ in the variables $z_i$ with some $V$-diagram on $n$-strands.
There are $20$ monomials of degree $3$ in four variables, but those of the form $z_i^3$ never contribute, since it would mean that $z_i$ is not involved in some denominator, a contradiction with $T$ being a tree.
So the identity $\Omega_n\wedge\Lambda_n-\Lambda_n\wedge\Omega_n=0$ is equivalent to the vanishing of $16$ combinations of $V$-diagrams. The corresponding $16\!\times\!72$ matrix has rank $6$ and the same kernel as the matrix $M_2$ from Subsection \[subsec:weight\]—so both sets of rows span the same space, which means that $\Omega_n\wedge\Lambda_n-\Lambda_n\wedge\Omega_n=0$ is equivalent to the $16$T and $28$T relations.
The proof that $Z^1$ vanishes on strata of type “$t_j=t_{j+1} \text{ and } t_k=t_{k+1}$” using the ${4\!\times\! 4}$T relations is similar.
Using Arnold’s lemma, the $2$-form $\Lambda_n$ can be rewritten up to a constant factor as the following, summed over all $1\leq i <j<k\leq n$: $$\left(\, \protect{\raisebox{-0.75em}{\labellist
\small\hair 2pt
\pinlabel $+$ at 170 42
\pinlabel $i$ at 30 -19
\pinlabel $j$ at 73 -19
\pinlabel $k$ at 116 -16
\pinlabel $i$ at 230 -19
\pinlabel $j$ at 273 -19
\pinlabel $k$ at 316 -16
\endlabellist \includegraphics [height=2.7em]{Lambn1}}}\,\right)\omega_{ij}\wedge\omega_{jk} \,\,\,+\,\,\, \left(\, \protect{\raisebox{-0.75em}{\labellist
\small\hair 2pt
\pinlabel $-$ at 170 42
\pinlabel $i$ at 30 -19
\pinlabel $j$ at 73 -19
\pinlabel $k$ at 116 -16
\pinlabel $i$ at 230 -19
\pinlabel $j$ at 273 -19
\pinlabel $k$ at 316 -16
\endlabellist \includegraphics [height=2.7em]{Lambn2}}}\,\right)\omega_{ij}\wedge\omega_{ik}$$
Hence, the theory of Cirio–Faria Martins [@CirioFaria] can be applied: using the left action $\smalltriangleright$ of chord diagrams on $n$ strands on $V$-diagrams on $n$-strands given by $a\smalltriangleright b=ab-ba$ and the couple $(A,B)=(\Omega_n, \Lambda_n)$, the $2$-curvature of $(A,B)$ is exactly $\Omega_n\wedge\Lambda_n-\Lambda_n\wedge\Omega_n$, while the $16$T and $28$T relations are equivalent to the six relations from [@CirioFaria Theorem $10$]. The first result discussed in this appendix can therefore be regarded as a particular case of this theorem.
Appendix: Key matrices in Vassiliev’s spectral sequence {#Appen:3}
=======================================================
We give here the left submatrices from Subsection \[subsec:weight\] which are the key to find the $16$T, $28$T and ${4\!\times\! 4}$T relations. The right submatrices are too large to be displayed here but can be computed easily using the results from [@MortierSimplification]. Here is the $9\!\times\! 6$ matrix from Paragraph ${4\!\times\! 4}$T relations. $$\begin{array}{c||c|c|c||c|c|c|}
&\includegraphics[ scale=0.2]{01}&\includegraphics[ scale=0.2]{02}&\includegraphics[ scale=0.2]{03}&\includegraphics[ scale=0.2]{04}&\includegraphics[ scale=0.2]{05}&\includegraphics[ scale=0.2]{06}\\\hline \hline
\raisebox{-0.1cm}{\includegraphics[ scale=0.2]{0A}}&+&&&+&&\\\hline
\raisebox{-0.1cm}{\includegraphics[ scale=0.2]{0B}}&-&&&&+&\\\hline
\raisebox{-0.1cm}{\includegraphics[ scale=0.2]{0C}}&+&&&&&+\\\hline\hline
\raisebox{-0.1cm}{\includegraphics[ scale=0.2]{0D}}&&+&&-&&\\\hline
\raisebox{-0.1cm}{\includegraphics[ scale=0.2]{0E}}&&-&&&-&\\\hline
\raisebox{-0.1cm}{\includegraphics[ scale=0.2]{0F}}&&+&&&&-\\\hline\hline
\raisebox{-0.1cm}{\includegraphics[ scale=0.2]{0G}}&&&+&+&&\\\hline
\raisebox{-0.1cm}{\includegraphics[ scale=0.2]{0H}}&&&-&&+&\\\hline
\raisebox{-0.1cm}{\includegraphics[ scale=0.2]{0I}}&&&+&&&+\\\hline
\end{array}$$
Its kernel is $1$-dimensional generated by the boundary of the diagram, so it does not contribute in Vassiliev’s cohomology. The kernel of its transpose, however, is generated by the following, which yield the ${4\!\times\! 4}$T relations. $$\begin{matrix}
(&1&1&\cdot&&1&1&\cdot&&\cdot&\cdot&\cdot&)\\(&\cdot&1&1&&\cdot&1&1&&\cdot&\cdot&\cdot&)\\(&\cdot&\cdot&\cdot&&1&1&\cdot&&1&1&\cdot&)\\(&\cdot&\cdot&\cdot&&\cdot&1&1&&\cdot&1&1&)
\end{matrix}$$
Now here is the $16\!\times\!15$ matrix $M_1$ from Subsection \[subsec:weight\], Paragraph $16$T and $28$T relations.
$$\begin{array}{c||c|c|c||c|c|c||c|c|c||c|c|c||c|c|c|}
&\includegraphics[ scale=0.2]{1}&\includegraphics[ scale=0.2]{2}&\includegraphics[ scale=0.2]{3}&\includegraphics[ scale=0.2]{4}&\includegraphics[ scale=0.2]{5}&\includegraphics[ scale=0.2]{6}&\includegraphics[ scale=0.2]{7}&\includegraphics[ scale=0.2]{8}&\includegraphics[ scale=0.2]{9}&\includegraphics[ scale=0.2]{10}&\includegraphics[ scale=0.2]{11}&\includegraphics[ scale=0.2]{12}&\includegraphics[ scale=0.2]{13}&\includegraphics[ scale=0.2]{14}&\includegraphics[ scale=0.2]{15}\\\hline \hline
\raisebox{-0.1cm}{\includegraphics[ scale=0.2]{A}}&-&&&-&&&-&&&&&&&&\\\hline
\raisebox{-0.1cm}{\includegraphics[ scale=0.2]{B}}&&-&&&-&&&&&-&&&&&\\\hline
\raisebox{-0.1cm}{\includegraphics[ scale=0.2]{C}}&&&+&&&&&-&&&+&&&&\\\hline
\raisebox{-0.1cm}{\includegraphics[ scale=0.2]{D}}&&&&&&+&&&+&&&-&&&\\\hline\hline
\raisebox{-0.1cm}{\includegraphics[ scale=0.2]{E}}&&&&&&+&-&&&&&&+&&\\\hline
\raisebox{-0.1cm}{\includegraphics[ scale=0.2]{F}}&&&&&&-&&&&-&&&&&-\\\hline
\raisebox{-0.1cm}{\includegraphics[ scale=0.2]{G}}&&&+&&&&+&&&&&&&&+\\\hline
\raisebox{-0.1cm}{\includegraphics[ scale=0.2]{H}}&&&-&&&&&&&+&&&-&&\\\hline\hline
\raisebox{-0.1cm}{\includegraphics[ scale=0.2]{I}}&-&&&&-&&&&&&&&-&&\\\hline
\raisebox{-0.1cm}{\includegraphics[ scale=0.2]{J}}&+&&&&&&&-&&&&&&-&\\\hline
\raisebox{-0.1cm}{\includegraphics[ scale=0.2]{K}}&&&&&+&&&&&&&-&&+&\\\hline
\raisebox{-0.1cm}{\includegraphics[ scale=0.2]{L}}&&&&&&&&+&&&&+&+&&\\\hline\hline
\raisebox{-0.1cm}{\includegraphics[ scale=0.2]{M}}&&+&&+&&&&&&&&&&&-\\\hline
\raisebox{-0.1cm}{\includegraphics[ scale=0.2]{N}}&&+&&&&&&&&&-&&&-&\\\hline
\raisebox{-0.1cm}{\includegraphics[ scale=0.2]{O}}&&&&&&&&&-&&-&&&&+\\\hline
\raisebox{-0.1cm}{\includegraphics[ scale=0.2]{P}}&&&&+&&&&&-&&&&&+&\\\hline
\end{array}$$ The incidence signs are $(-1)^{j-1}$ where $j$ is the label of the removed chord, where the chords are labeled from $1$ to $4$ lexicographically according to the ordering of the vertices:
One can see that ${\operatorname{Ker}}M_1$ is generated by any five of the boundaries of the diagrams , , , , , by the preceding map in the spectral sequence, so it does not contribute to the cohomology.
On the other hand, ${\operatorname{Ker}}M_1^\text{T}$ is generated by the six following vectors. $$\begin{matrix}
(&\cdot&\cdot&\cdot&\cdot&&1&1&1&1&&\cdot&\cdot&\cdot&\cdot&&\cdot&\cdot&\cdot&\cdot&)\\(&\cdot&\cdot&\cdot&\cdot&&\cdot&\cdot&\cdot&\cdot&&1&1&1&1&&\cdot&\cdot&\cdot&\cdot&)\\(&\cdot&\cdot&\cdot&\cdot&&\cdot&\cdot&\cdot&\cdot&&\cdot&\cdot&\cdot&\cdot&&1&-1&1&-1&)\\(&1&1&\cdot&\cdot&&\cdot&\cdot&1&1&&-1&\cdot&\cdot&\cdot&&1&\cdot&\cdot&\cdot&)\\(&\cdot&1&1&\cdot&&\cdot&\cdot&\cdot&1&&\cdot&\cdot&1&1&&\cdot&1&\cdot&\cdot&)\\(&\cdot&\cdot&1&1&&\cdot&1&\cdot&1&&\cdot&\cdot&\cdot&1&&\cdot&\cdot&1&\cdot&)
\end{matrix}$$
After the change of variable $\sigma$, Vassiliev’s incidence signs coincide with the signs defining our compact variables in Notation \[not:16trees\], up to Vassiliev’s $\varepsilon\zeta$. The latter is $-1$ in the case of , and [@MortierSimplification Theorem $3.1$, Example $4.3$]. After changing accordingly the signs in Columns $8$, $9$ and $16$ in the six vectors above, one recovers the $16$T and $28$T relations as expected.
[^1]: As usual when several incomplete diagrams are represented within the same equation, it is implied that they are all identical outside the visible area.
[^2]: This lexicographical order is to be compared with the one that defines the co-orientation of the spaces $\chi(\Gamma^d,J)$, and therefore the ingredient $\zeta$ of the incidence signs in the spectral sequence, in [@VassilievBook Chapter V, Sections $3.3.4$ and $3.3.6$].
[^3]: The letter $x$ will stand for the parameter of a knot, while $t$ is saved for the altitude of a point in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$.
[^4]: Assuming the convention “outer normal$\,\wedge\, \partial X \equiv X$ ” for the orientation of a boundary.
[^5]: The last two conditions mean that the two chords at the levels $i$ and $i+1$ should form a $V$, and the corresponding differential forms are ordered lexicographically.
[^6]: By which the principal parts of Vassiliev invariants become what is called today a weight system.
[^7]: This is a natural generalisation of the sign $S$ defined in [@BirmanLin p.241], except that Birman–Lin’s version has an ingredient depending on the degree of $D$, which provides consistency across the actuality tables. It would be harmless to add this ingredient here, but we would gain nothing as we don’t have actuality tables—yet?
[^8]: No bigons are allowed.
[^9]: The interval cannot contain the endpoint of a chord in its interior, has to be bounded by either a star and the endpoint of a chord, or two endpoints of chords, in which case these cannot be the two tips of the $V$.
[^10]: This one contains a typo, the second to last sign should be $-$ rather than $+$, so that after the change of variable $\sigma$ all three remaining signs are positive.
[^11]: Most likely not, for categorical reasons pointed out by João Faria Martins.
[^12]: Again very unlikely for categorical reasons pointed out by João Faria Martins.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'This paper is a study of the behavior of experimentally observed stress-strain force during the fracture of a quantum wire. The magnitude of the force oscillates as a function of time and can be phenomenologically regarded as a sign of discrete-scale invariance. In the theory of discrete-scale invariance, termination of the wire is regarded as a phase transition. We estimate the critical point and exponents.'
author:
- 'Maiko Kikuchi[^1] and Masanori Yamanaka'
title: 'Quantum wire fracture and discrete-scale invariance'
---
introduction
============
Discrete-scale invariance is ubiquitously found in catastrophic phenomena. [@REF:sornette] Typical examples are diffusion-limited-aggregation clusters [@REF:DLA], ruptures in heterogeneous systems [@REF:rupture], earthquakes [@REF:eqrthq], and financial crashes [@REF:finance]. The invariance is obtained by placing a restriction on the scale invariance, which requires complex critical exponents and log-periodic corrections to scaling. The corrections lead to oscillation in the observables and the periodicity of the oscillation becomes shorter as it approaches the critical point. Phenomenologically, this is regarded as the typical and universal property of discrete-scale invariance.
The strain force during the fracture process of a quantum wire, in the first experiment of this type, have measured experimentally. [@REF:takayanagi] The magnitude of the force oscillates as a function of time, i.e., as a function of the external strain force.
In this paper we analyze the fracture process using discrete-scale invariance theory. Although discrete-scale invariance has in the past been studied in macroscopic systems, here we apply it to a microscopic system. We assume that the oscillation observed in the strain force intrinsically derives from the invariance. We estimate the critical exponents and make some conjectures on the results.
singularities and log-periodic corrections
==========================================
In critical phenomena, the observables obey the Power Law near the critical point. This is expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
f(x)\varpropto(x_c-x)^m,
\label{eq:exponent1}\end{aligned}$$ where $f(x)$ is the observable, $x$ is a parameter, such as temperature, pressure, and so on, $x_c$ is the critical point, and $m$ is the critical exponent. The Power Law reflects the scale invariance or self-similarity of the underlying physics. The exponent reflects the dimensionality and symmetry of the system and is used to distinguish the universality class. Discrete scale invariance theory states that critical phenomena can have more general properties than the simple Power Law. There is a complex critical exponent $$\begin{aligned}
m=m'+m''i
\label{eq:exponent2}\end{aligned}$$ where $m'$ and $m''$ are real numbers, and $i$ is the imaginary number unit. Putting (\[eq:exponent2\]) to (\[eq:exponent1\]), we have $$\begin{split}
f(x)& \varpropto Re[(x_c-x)^{m'+m''i}]\\
& = Re[(x_c-x)^{m'}e^{im''\log(x_c-x)}]\\
& = (x_c-x)^{m'}\cos\{ m''\log(x_c-x) \}\\
& = (x_c-x)^{m'}[a_0 + \sum\limits_{n>0}\cos\{nd\log(x_c-x)+e\} ]
\end{split}
\label{eq:exponent3}$$ where $Re[\ \ ]$ denotes the real part and $d$ is a constant which is related to the preferred scaling ratio [@REF:sornette]. By neglecting the higher-order terms in the Fourier series, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
f(x)=a+b(x_c-x)^{m'}[1+c \cos\{d\log(x_c-x)+e\}]
\label{eq:exponent4}\end{aligned}$$ where $a,b$ and $c$ are constants. This expresses the log-periodic oscillation superposed on the Power Law.
Application to the experimental data
====================================
A Power Law distribution of alternation detected in the strain force in a nanowire appears to be a signature of scale invariance, leading to the idea that a rupture in the nanowire can be regarded as a kind of “critical point.” In an analogy of the critical point, the rupture of a nanowire can be viewed as a cooperative phenomenon corresponding to the progressive buildup of stress and damage correlations. The rupture interaction increases exponentially on approaching the critical point, which may emerge as detectable signals exhibiting log-periodic oscillation patterns.
Therefore, we assume that the strain-stress, $F(t)$, can be described by eq. (\[eq:exponent4\]) phenomenologically. It can be fitted using a modified version, $$\begin{aligned}
F(t)=a+b(t_c-t)^{m'}[1+c \cos\{d \log(t_c-t)+e\}]+ft.
\label{eq:exponent5}\end{aligned}$$ The last term is added to express the linear trend of subsidence. Eq. (\[eq:exponent5\]) contains 8 unknown parameters, $a,b,c,d,e,f,m',t_c$, which can be determined by the non-linear least-squares method. We estimated each of them to be $a=5.48, b=0.282, c=0.252, d=-10.1, e=9.18, f=1.42,
m'=1.98, t_c=3.46$, i.e. we obtain the phenomenological function, $$\begin{gathered}
F(t)=5.48+0.282(3.46-t)^{1.98} \\
\times[1+0.252\cos\{-10.1\log(3.46-t)+9.18\}]+1.42t,
\label{eq:exponent6}\end{gathered}$$ and show it in Fig.\[fig:data\] as a solid curve.
![ Strain force of the quantum wire as a funciton of time. Experiments [@REF:takayanagi] are shown by the dots. Fitting (\[eq:exponent6\]) is shown by a solid line. []{data-label="fig:data"}](fig1.eps){width="85mm"}
Discussion
==========
Assuming discrete-scale invariance, i.e., based on log-periodic oscillation, we obtain the phenomenological function and estimate the critical point and index. There appears to be no explicit inconsistency between the experimental data and our fitting function at this phenomenological stage. Here we discuss the validity of the assumption.
As shown in Fig.\[fig:data\], the experimentally-observed rupture time is 2.60 seconds. In contrast, the estimated time by fitting is 3.46 seconds. Some possible reasons for this discrepancy are: (a) In the experiment, the nanowire ruptured before it reached the true critical point. (b) The experimental data does not have sufficient resolution.
For (a), any external noise, such as a small shock to the sample or thermal fluctuation, may force an earlier termination of the wire. If the experiment were performed under ideal conditions, i.e., under adiabatic stretching of the nanowire, and if the atoms were infinitely small, the rupture would be expected to occur at the true critical point. If we find any discrepancy, even in the adiabatic process, it is due to the finite volume effect of the atoms, since atoms cannot be subdivided on this energy scale. In this case, the experimentally-measured strength of the force is identical to that between single-atomic contact. For (b), the eq.(\[eq:exponent4\]) has small and rapid oscillation in the limit $x \to x_c$. The amplitude becomes smaller and the period becomes shorter as we approach the critical point. If the amplitude of the oscillation is smaller than that of the resolution in the experiment, we cannot estimate true the critical point by fitting.
In this study, we assumed that discrete-scale invariance is applicable to microscopic systems. In this microscopic system, there are no explicit heterogeneous structures from the viewpoint of classical mechanics. However, from a quantum mechanical point of view, the bonding networks of the wave function of electronic state of atoms may have a heterogeneous structure and would be expected to be reorganized as rupture approached while self-optimizing the total energy of the system.
Repeated experiments are desirable to confirm the validity of discrete-scale invariance and to distinguish quantum fracture from classical fracture. If the exponent takes a universal value, it would further support the assumption of invariance.
acknowledgement
===============
We are grateful to S. Miwa, S. Shibata, Y. Tanishiro, and K. Takayanagi for allowing us to use their experimental data before publication, and to S. Miwa, C. Akahori, and Y. Tanishiro for valuable discussions.
[99]{}
For a review, see D. Sornette, Phys. Rep. [**297**]{}, 239 (1998).
D. Sornette, A. Johansen, A. Arneodo, J.F. Muzy, and H. Saleur, Phys. Rev. Lett.[**76**]{}, 251 (1996). Y. Huang, G. Ouillon, H. Saleur, and D. Sornette, Phys. Rev. E[**55**]{}, 6433 (1997).
A. Johansen and D. Sornette, Euro. Phys. J. B[**18**]{}, 163 (2000).
D. Sornette and C.G. Sammis, J. Phys. I, [**5**]{}, 607 (1995). H. Saleur, C.G. Sammis, and D. Sornette, J. Geophys. Res., [**101**]{}, 17661 (1996). Y. Huang, H. Saleur, C.G. Sammis, and D. Sornette, Europhys. Lett.[**41**]{}, 43 (1998).
D. Sornette, A. Johansen, and J.-P. Bouchaud, J. Phys. I [**6**]{}, 167 (1996). A. Johansen, D. Sornette, and O. Ledoit, J. Risk [**1**]{}, 5 (1999).
T. Miwa, S. Shibata, Y. Tanishiro, and K. Takayanagi, Autum Meeting of the Physical Society of Japan 2004, 12aXG-9.
[^1]: Present address: Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Tokyo Institute of Technology 4259 Nagatsuda, Midori-ku, Yokohama 226-8502, Japan
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Recently James Martin [@Martin] introduced *multiline queues*, and used them to give a combinatorial formula for the stationary distribution of the multispecies asymmetric simple exclusion exclusion process (ASEP) on a circle. The ASEP is a model of particles hopping on a one-dimensional lattice, which was introduced around 1970 [@bio; @Spitzer], and has been extensively studied in statistical mechanics, probability, and combinatorics. In this article we give an independent proof of Martin’s result, and we show that by introducing additional statistics on multiline queues, we can use them to give a new combinatorial formula for both the symmetric Macdonald polynomials $P_{\lambda}(\mathbf{x}; q, t)$, and the nonsymmetric Macdonald polynomials $E_{\lambda}(\mathbf{x}; q, t)$, where $\lambda$ is a partition. This formula is rather different from others that have appeared in the literature [@HHL2], [@RamYip], [@Lenart]. Our proof uses results of Cantini, de Gier, and Wheeler [@CGW], who recently linked the multispecies ASEP on a circle to Macdonald polynomials.'
address:
- 'IRIF, CNRS et Université Paris Diderot, France'
- 'Department of Mathematics, Brown University, Providence, RI'
- 'Department of Mathematics, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA'
author:
- Sylvie Corteel
- Olya Mandelshtam
- Lauren Williams
bibliography:
- 'bibliography.bib'
title: From multiline queues to Macdonald polynomials via the exclusion process
---
Introduction and results
========================
Introduced in the late 1960’s [@bio; @Spitzer], the *asymmetric simple exclusion process* (ASEP) is a model of interacting particles hopping left and right on a one-dimensional lattice of $n$ sites. There are many versions of the ASEP: the lattice might be a lattice with open boundaries, or a ring, among others; and we may allow multiple species of particles with different “weights". In this article, we will be concerned with the multispecies ASEP on a ring, where the rate of two adjacent particles swapping places is either $1$ or $t$, depending on their relative weights. Recently James Martin [@Martin] gave a combinatorial formula in terms of *multiline queues* for the stationary distribution of this multispecies ASEP on a ring, building on his earlier joint work with Ferrari [@FerrariMartin].
On the other hand, recent work of Cantini, de Gier, and Wheeler [@CGW] gave a link between the multispecies ASEP on a ring and *Macdonald polynomials*. Symmetric Macdonald polynomials $P_{\lambda}(\mathbf{x}; q, t)$ [@Macdonald] are a family of multivariable orthogonal polynomials indexed by partitions, whose coefficients depend on two parameters $q$ and $t$; they generalize multiple important families of polynomials, including Schur polynomials (at $q=t$, or equivalently, at $q=t=0$) and Hall-Littlewood polynomials (at $q=0$). *Nonsymmetric Macdonald polynomials* [@Cher1; @MacdonaldBourbaki] were introduced shortly after the introduction of Macdonald polynomials, and defined in terms of *Cherednik operators*; the symmetric Macdonald polynomials can be constructed from their nonsymmetric counterparts.
There has been a lot of work devoted to understanding Macdonald polynomials from a combinatorial point of view. Haglund-Haiman-Loehr [@HHL2; @HHL1] gave a combinatorial formula for the *transformed Macdonald polynomials* $\tilde{H}_{\mu}(\mathbf{x}; q, t)$ (which are connected to the geometry of the Hilbert scheme [@HaimanHilbert]) as well as for the *integral forms* $J_{\mu}(\mathbf{x}; q, t)$, which are scalar multiples of the classical monic forms $P_{\mu}(\mathbf{x}; q, t)$. They also gave a formula for the nonsymmetric Macdonald polynomials [@HHL3]. Building on work of Schwer [@Schwer], Ram and Yip [@RamYip] gave general-type formulas for both the Macdonald polynomials $P_{\lambda}(\mathbf{x}; q, t)$ and the nonsymmetric Macdonald polynomials; however, their type $A$ formulas have many terms. Lenart [@Lenart] showed how to “compress" the Ram-Yip formula in type A to obtain a Haglund-Haiman-Loehr type formula for the polynomials $P_{\lambda}(\mathbf{x}; q, t)$. (However, for technical reasons, his paper only treats the case where $\lambda$ is regular, i.e. the parts of $\lambda$ are distinct.) Finally, Ferreira [@thesis] and Alexandersson [@A] gave Haglund-Haiman-Loehr type formulas for *permuted basement Macdonald polynomials*, which generalize the nonsymmetric Macdonald polynomials.
The main goal of this article is to define some polynomials combinatorially in terms of multiline queues which simultaneously compute the stationary distribution of the multispecies ASEP and also symmetric Macdonald polynomials $P_{\lambda}(\mathbf{x}; q, t)$. More specifically, we introduce some polynomials $F_{\mu}(x_1,\dots,x_n; q, t) = F_{\mu}(\mathbf{x};q,t) \in {\mathbb Z}[x_1,\dots,x_n](q,t)$ which are certain weight-generating functions for multiline queues with bottom row $\mu$, where $\mu=(\mu_1,\dots,\mu_n)$ is an arbitrary composition with nonnegative parts. We show that these polynomials have the following properties:
1. \[one\] When $x_1=\dots=x_n=1$ and $q=1$, $F_{\mu}(\mathbf{x}; q, t)$ is proportional to the steady state probability that the multispecies ASEP is in state $\mu$. (This recovers a result of Martin [@Martin], but we give an independent proof.)
2. \[two\] When $\mu$ is a partition, $F_{\mu}(\mathbf{x}; q, t)$ is equal to the nonsymmetric Macdonald polynomial $E_{\mu}(\mathbf{x}; q, t)$.
3. \[three\] For any partition $\lambda$, the quantity $Z_{\lambda}(\mathbf{x}; q, t) := \sum_{\mu} F_{\mu}(\mathbf{x}; q, t)$ (where the sum is over all distinct compositions obtained by permuting the parts of $\lambda$) is equal to the symmetric Macdonald polynomial $P_{\lambda}(\mathbf{x}; q, t)$.
In the remainder of the introduction we will make the above statements more precise.
The multispecies ASEP
---------------------
We start by defining the multispecies ASEP or the $L$-ASEP as a Markov chain on the cycle ${\mathbb Z}_n$ with $L$ classes of particles as well as holes. The $L$-ASEP on a ring is a natural generalization for the two-species ASEP; for the latter, solutions were given using a matrix product formulation in terms of a quadratic algebra similar to the matrix ansatz described in [@DEHP]. For the $L$-ASEP when $t=0$ (i.e. particles only hop in one direction), Ferrari and Martin [@FerrariMartin] proposed a combinatorial solution for the stationary distribution using multiline queues. This construction was restated as a matrix product solution in [@EvansFerrariMallick08] and was generalized to the partially asymmetric case ($t$ generic) in [@ProlhacEvansMallick09]. In [@AritaAyyerMallickProlhac12] the authors explained how to construct an explicit representation of the algebras involved in the $L$-ASEP. Finally James Martin [@Martin] gave an ingenious combinatorial solution for the stationary distribution of the $L$-ASEP when $t$ is generic, using more general multiline queues and building on ideas from [@FerrariMartin] and [@EvansFerrariMallick08].
\[def:ASEP\] Let $\lambda = \lambda_1 \geq \lambda_2 \geq \dots \geq \lambda_n \geq 0$ be a partition with greatest part $\lambda_1 = L$, and let $t$ be a constant such that $0 \leq t \leq 1$. Let $\operatorname{States}(\lambda)$ be the set of all compositions of length $n$ obtained by permuting the parts of $\lambda$. We consider indices modulo $n$; i.e. if $\mu=\mu_1\ldots \mu_n$ is a composition, then $\mu_{n+1}=\mu_1$. The *multispecies asymmetric simple exclusion process* $\operatorname{ASEP}(\lambda)$ on a ring is the Markov chain on $\operatorname{States}(\lambda)$ with transition probabilities:
- If $\mu = A i j B$ and $\nu = A j i B$ are in $\operatorname{States}(\lambda)$ (here $A$ and $B$ are words in the parts of $\lambda$), then $P_{\mu,\nu} = \frac{t}{n}$ if $i>j$ and $P_{\mu,\nu} = \frac{1}{n}$ if $i<j$.
- Otherwise $P_{\mu,\nu} = 0$ for $\nu \neq \mu$ and $P_{\mu,\mu} = 1-\sum_{\mu \neq \nu} P_{\mu,\nu}$.
We think of the $1$’s, $2$’s, …, $L$’s as representing various types of particles of different weights; each $0$ denotes an empty site. See \[parameters1\].
![A state in the multispecies ASEP on the lattice ${\mathbb Z}_8$. There is one particle of type $3$, three particles of type $2$, one particle of type $1$, and three holes, so we refer to this Markov chain as $\operatorname{ASEP}(3, 2,2,2,1,0,0,0)$.[]{data-label="parameters1"}](MLQ_intro_param_flipped.pdf){height="1in"}
Note that in the literature on the ASEP, the hopping rate is often denoted by $q$. We are using $t$ here instead in order to be consistent with the notation of [@CGW-arxiv; @CGW], and to make contact with the literature on Macdonald polynomials. Furthermore, the convention used in [@FerrariMartin; @Martin] swaps the roles of 1 and $t$ in our \[def:ASEP\].
Multiline queues {#1point2}
----------------
We now define ball systems and multiline queues. These concepts are due to Ferrari and Martin [@FerrariMartin] for the case $t=0$ and $q=1$ and to Martin [@Martin] for the case $t$ general and $q=1$.
\[def:MLQ\] Fix positive integers $L$ and $n$. A *ball system* $B$ is an $L \times n$ array in which each of the $Ln$ positions is either empty or occupied by a ball. We number the rows from bottom to top from $1$ to $L$, and the columns from left to right from $1$ to $n$. Moreover we require that there is at least one ball in the top row, and that the number of balls in each row is weakly increasing from top to bottom.
![ A ball system.[]{data-label="parameters2"}](MLQ_intro0.pdf){height="1in"}
Given an $L \times n$ ball system $B$, a multiline queue $Q$ (for $B$) is, for each row $r$ where $2 \leq r \leq L$, a matching of balls from row $r$ to row $r-1$. A ball $b$ may be matched to any ball $b'$ in the row below it; we connect $b$ and $b'$ by a shortest strand that travels either straight down or from left to right (allowing the strand to wrap around the cylinder if necessary). Here the balls are matched by the following algorithm:
- We start by matching all balls in row $L$ to a collection of balls (their partners) in row $L-1$. We then match those partners in row $L-1$ to new partners in row $L-2$, and so on. This determines a set of balls, each of which we label by $L$.
- We then take the unmatched balls in row $L-1$ and match them to partners in row $L-2$. We then match those partners in row $L-2$ to new partners in row $L-3$, and so on. This determines a set of balls, each of which we label by $L-1$.
- We continue in this way, determining a set of balls labeled $L-2$, $L-3$, and so on, and finally we label any unmatched balls in row $1$ by $1$.
- If at any point there’s a free (unmatched) ball $b'$ directly underneath the ball $b$ we’re matching, we must match $b$ to $b'$. We say that $b$ and $b'$ are *trivially paired*.
Let $\mu= (\mu_1,\dots,\mu_n) \in \{0,1,\dots,L\}^n$ be the labeling of the balls in row $1$ at the end of this process (where an empty position is denoted by $0$). We then say that $Q$ is a *multiline queue of type $\mu$*. See \[fig:MLQ\_example\] for an example.
![ A multiline queue of type $(2,2,0,0,0, 3,2,1)$.[]{data-label="fig:MLQ_example"}](MLQ_intro.pdf){height="1in"}
Note that the induced labeling on the balls satisfies the following properties:
- If ball $b$ with label $i$ is directly above ball $b'$ with label $j$, then we must have $i \leq j$.
- Moreover if $i=j$, then those two balls are matched to each other.
We now define the weight of each multiline queue. Here we generalize Martin’s ideas [@Martin] by adding parameters $q$ and $x_1,\ldots ,x_n$.
\[def:wt\] Given a multiline queue $Q$, we let $m_i$ be the number of balls in column $i$. We define the *$\mathbf x$-weight* of $Q$ to be $\operatorname{wt}_x(Q) = x_1^{m_1} x_2^{m_2} \dots x_n^{m_n}$.
We also define the *$qt$-weight* of $Q$ by associating a weight to each nontrivial pairing $p$ of balls. These weights are computed in order as follows. Consider the nontrivial pairings between rows $r$ and $r-1$. We read the balls in row $r$ in decreasing order of their label (from $L$ to $r$); within a fixed label, we read the balls from right to left. As we read the balls in this order, we imagine placing the strands pairing the balls one by one. The balls that have not yet been matched are considered *free*. If pairing $p$ matches ball $b$ in row $r$ and column $c$ to ball $b'$ in row $r-1$ and column $c'$, then the free balls in row $r-1$ and columns $c+1, c+2,\dots, c'-1$ (indices considered modulo $n$) are considered *skipped*. Note that the balls which are trivially paired between rows $r$ and $r-1$ are not considered free. Let $i$ be the label of balls $b$ and $b'$. We then associate to pairing $p$ the weight $$\operatorname{wt}_{qt}(p) = \begin{cases}
\frac{(1-t) t^{\# \operatorname{skipped}}}{1-q^{i-r+1}t^{\# \operatorname{free}}}\cdot q^{i-r+1}
&\mbox {if $c'<c$}\\
\frac{(1-t) t^{\# \operatorname{skipped}}}{1-q^{i-r+1}t^{\# \operatorname{free}}}
&\mbox{if $c'>c$}.
\end{cases}$$ Note that the extra factor $q^{i-r+1}$ appears precisely when the strand connecting $b$ to $b'$ wraps around the cylinder.
Having associated a $qt$-weight to each nontrivial pairing of balls, we define the $qt$-weight of the multiline queue $Q$ to be $$\operatorname{wt}_{qt}(Q) = \prod_p \operatorname{wt}_{qt}(p),$$ where the product is over all nontrivial pairings of balls in $Q$.
Finally the *weight* of $Q$ is defined to be $$\operatorname{wt}(Q) = \operatorname{wt}_{x}(Q) \operatorname{wt}_{qt}(Q).$$
In \[fig:MLQ\_example\], the $\mathbf x$-weight of the multiline queue $Q$ is $x_1 x_2^2 x_3 x_4 x_5 x_6^2 x_7 x_8$.
The weight of the unique pairing between row $3$ and row $2$ is $\frac{(1-t)t}{1-qt^4}$. The weight of the pairing of balls labeled $3$ between row $2$ and $1$ is $\frac{(1-t)}{1-q^2 t^4}$, and the weights of the pairings of balls labeled $2$ are $\frac{(1-t) t^2}{1-qt^3} \cdot q$ and $\frac{1-t}{1-qt^2}$. Therefore $$\operatorname{wt}(Q) =
x_1 x_2^2 x_3 x_4 x_5 x_6^2 x_7 x_8
\cdot \frac{(1-t)t}{1-qt^4}
\cdot \frac{(1-t)}{1-q^2 t^4}
\cdot \frac{(1-t) t^2}{1-qt^3} \cdot q
\cdot \frac{1-t}{1-qt^2}.$$
We now define the weight-generating function for multiline queues of a given type, as well as the *combinatorial partition function* for multiline queues.
\[def:Fmu\] Let $\mu = (\mu_1,\dots, \mu_n) \in \{0,1,\dots, L\}^n$ be a composition with largest part $L$. We set $$F_{\mu} = F_{\mu}(x_1,\dots,x_n; q, t) = F_{\mu}({\bf x}; q, t)
= \sum_Q \operatorname{wt}(Q),$$ where the sum is over all $L \times n$ multiline queues of type $\mu$.
Let $\lambda = \lambda_1 \geq \lambda_2 \geq \dots \geq \lambda_n \geq 0$ be a partition with $n$ parts and largest part $L$. We set $$Z_{\lambda} = Z_{\lambda}(x_1,\dots,x_n; q, t) =
Z_{\lambda}({\bf x}; q, t) = \sum_{\mu} F_{\mu}(x_1,\dots,x_n; q, t),$$ where the sum is over all distinct compositions $\mu$ obtained by permuting the parts of $\lambda$. We call $Z_{\lambda}$ the *combinatorial partition function*.
The main result
---------------
The goal of this article is to show that with the refined statistics given in \[def:wt\], we can use multiline queues to give formulas for Macdonald polynomials.
\[prop:nonsymmetric\] Let $\lambda$ be a *partition*. Then the nonsymmetric Macdonald polynomial $E_{\lambda}(\mathbf{x}; q, t)$ is equal to the quantity $F_{\lambda}(\mathbf{x}; q, t)$ from \[def:Fmu\].
\[thm:main\] Let $\lambda$ be a partition. Then the symmetric Macdonald polynomial $P_{\lambda}(\mathbf{x}; q, t)$ is equal to the quantity $Z_{\lambda}(\mathbf{x}; q, t)$ from \[def:Fmu\].
See \[fig:E\] for an example illustrating \[prop:nonsymmetric\].
![The generating function for the multiline queues of type $(2,2,1,1,0,0)$ give an expression for the nonsymmetric Macdonald polynomial $E_{(2,2,1,1,0,0)}({\mathbf x}; q, t)$[]{data-label="fig:E"}](MLQ_221100.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
We also show in \[prop:PB\] that for any composition $\mu$, the polynomial $F_{\mu}(\mathbf{x}; q, t)$ is equal to a *permuted basement Macdonald polynomial*. Using \[prop:PB\] and \[thm:main\], we obtain the following corollary.
The Macdonald polynomial $P_{\lambda}(\mathbf{x}; q, t)$ can be expressed as $$P_{\lambda}(\mathbf{x}; q, t) = \sum_{\mu}
E_{\operatorname{inc}(\mu)}^{\sigma},$$ where the sum is over all distinct compositions $\mu$ obtained by permuting the parts of $\lambda$, $E_{\operatorname{inc}(\mu)}^{\sigma}$ is a *permuted basement Macdonald polynomial* [@thesis; @A], $\operatorname{inc}(\mu)$ is the sorting of the parts of $\mu$ in increasing order, and $\sigma$ is the longest permutation such that $\mu_{\sigma(1)} \leq \mu_{\sigma(2)} \leq
\dots \leq \mu_{\sigma(n)}$.
The multispecies TASEP (i.e. the case $t=0$) and multiline queues have been recently connected to the combinatorial $R$-matrix and tensor products of KR-crystals [@KMO15; @AasGrinbergS]. Our main results are consistent with these results on KR-crystals, in view of the fact that Macdonald polynomials at $t=0$ agree with the graded characters of KR-modules [@Lenart1; @Lenart2].
A potentially useful probabilistic interpretation of a multiline queue is as a series of priority queues in discrete time with a Markovian service process. A single priority queue is made up of two rows, where the top row contains customers ordered by priority with the column containing each customer representing his arrival time (modulo $n$, the total number of columns). The bottom row of the queue contains services, such that the column containing a service represents the time the service occurs (modulo $n$). At his turn, a customer considers every service offered to him and declines an available service with probability $t$ and accepts with probability $1-t$ (with the exception that if the service occurs at the time of his arrival, then he accepts with probability 1). Once a service is accepted, the service is no longer available. Consequently, the probability of a customer accepting a service occurring after the time of his arrival is $\frac{t^{\operatorname{skipped}}(1-t)}{1-t^{\operatorname{free}}}$ where $\operatorname{skipped}$ is the number of services declined, and $\operatorname{free}$ is the total number of available services at the time the customer is making his choice.
The Hecke algebra, ASEP, and Macdonald polynomials
--------------------------------------------------
To explain the connection between the ASEP and Macdonald polynomials, and explain how we prove \[prop:nonsymmetric\] and \[thm:main\], we need to introduce the Hecke algebra and recall some notions from [@KasataniTakeyama] and Cantini-deGier-Wheeler [@CGW].
The *Hecke algebra* of type $A_{n-1}$ is the algebra with generators $T_i$ for $1 \leq i \leq n-1$ and parameter $t$ which satisfies the following relations: $$\label{Hecke}
(T_i-t)(T_i+1)=0, \qquad T_i T_{i \pm 1} T_i = T_{i \pm 1} T_i T_{i \pm 1}, \qquad
T_i T_j = T_j T_i \text{ when } |i-j|>1.$$
There is an action of the Hecke algebra on polynomials $f(x_1,\dots,x_n)$ which is defined as follows: $$\label{Heckeaction}
T_i=t-\frac{t x_i-x_{i+1}}{x_i-x_{i+1}}(1-s_i)
\text{ for }1 \leq i \leq n-1,$$ where $s_i$ acts by $$\label{action1}
s_i f(x_1,\ldots, x_i,x_{i+1},\ldots,x_n):=f(x_1,\ldots, x_{i+1},x_{i},\ldots,x_n).$$ One can check that the operators satisfy the relations .
We also define the shift operator $\omega$ via $$\label{shift}
(\omega f)(x_1,\dots,x_n) = f(q x_n,x_1,\dots, x_{n-1}).$$
Given a composition $\mu = (\mu_1,\dots,\mu_n)$, we let $|\mu|:=\sum \mu_i$. We also define for $1 \leq i \leq n-1$ $$\label{action2}
s_i \mu := s_i (\mu_1,\dots,\mu_n) = (\mu_1,\dots, \mu_{i+1},\mu_i,\dots,\mu_n).$$
The following notion of *qKZ family* was introduced in [@KasataniTakeyama], who explained the relationship of such polynomials to nonsymmetric Macdonald polynomials. We use the conventions of [@CGW-arxiv Definition 2], see also [@CGW Section 1.3] and [@CGW (23)].
\[f-def\] Fix a partition $\lambda = (\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_n)$. We say that a family $\{f_{\mu= \lambda \circ \sigma} \}_{\sigma
\in S_n}$ of homogeneous degree $|\lambda|$ polynomials in $n$ variables $\mathbf{x} = (x_1,\dots,x_n)$, with coefficients which are rational functions of $q$ and $t$, is a *qKZ family* if they satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
T_i f_{\mu}(\mathbf{x}; q,t) &= f_{s_i \mu} (\mathbf{x};q,t),
\text{ when }\mu_i > \mu_{i+1}, \label{firstproperty}\\
T_i f_{\mu}(\mathbf{x}; q,t) &= t f_{\mu}(\mathbf{x}; q,t), \text{ when }\mu_i = \mu_{i+1}, \label{secondproperty}\\
q^{\mu_n} f_{\mu}(\mathbf{x}; q,t)
&=
f_{\mu_n,\mu_1,\dots,\mu_{n-1}}(q x_n,x_1,\dots,x_{n-1}; q,t). \label{thirdproperty}\end{aligned}$$
Note that can be rephrased as $$q^{\mu_n} f_{\mu}(\mathbf{x}; q,t)
=
(\omega f_{\mu_n,\mu_1,\dots,\mu_{n-1}})(\mathbf{x}; q,t).$$
The following lemma explains the relationship of the $f_{\mu}$’s to the ASEP.
\[ASEP-f\] [@CGW-arxiv Corollary 1]. Consider the polynomials $f_{\mu}$ from \[f-def\]. When $q=x_1=\dots=x_n=1$, $f_{\mu}(1,\dots,1; 1, t)$ is proportional to the steady state probability that the multispecies ASEP is in state $\mu$.
We sketch a proof of \[ASEP-f\] in \[MAHA\] using results of Prolhac, Evans and Mallick [@ProlhacEvansMallick09] on the stationary distribution of the multispecies ASEP.
As we will explain in \[Elemma\] and \[lem:Macdonald\], the polynomials $f_{\mu}$ are also related to Macdonald polynomials. We first quickly review the relevant definitions.
\[def:Macdonald\] Let $\langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle$ denote the Macdonald inner product on power sum symmetric functions [@Macdonald Chapter VI, (1.5)], where $<$ denotes the dominance order on partitions. Let $\lambda$ be a partition. The (symmetric) *Macdonald polynomial* $P_{\lambda}(x_1,\dots,x_n; q, t)$ is the unique homogeneous symmetric polynomial in $x_1,\dots, x_n$ which satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\langle P_{\lambda}, P_{\mu}\rangle &=0, \ \lambda \neq \mu,\\
P_{\lambda}(x_1,\dots,x_n; q, t) &= m_{\lambda}(x_1,\dots,x_n)+
\sum_{\mu< \lambda} c_{\lambda, \mu}(q,t) m_{\mu}(x_1,\dots,x_n),\end{aligned}$$ i.e. the coefficients $c_{\lambda, \mu}(q,t)$ are completely determined by the orthogonality conditions.
The following definition can be found in [@MacdonaldBourbaki] (see also [@Marshall] for a nice exposition).
\[def:nonsymmetric\] For $1 \leq i \leq n$, we define the *$q$-Dunkl* or *Cherednik operators* [@Cherednik1; @Cherednik2] by $$Y_i = T_i^{-1} \dots T_{n-1}^{-1} \omega T_1 \dots T_{i-1}.$$
The Cherednik operators commute pairwise, and hence possess a set of simultaneous eigenfunctions, which are (up to scalar) the *nonsymmetric Macdonald polynomials*. We index the nonsymmetric Macdonald polynomials $E_{\mu}(\mathbf{x}; q, t)$ by compositions $\mu$ so that $$E_{\mu}(\mathbf{x}; q, t) = \mathbf{x}^{\mu} + \sum_{\nu < \mu}
b_{\mu \nu}(q,t) \mathbf{x}^{\nu}.$$
In particular, when $\lambda = (\lambda_1 \geq \dots
\geq \lambda_n \geq 0)$ is a partition, we have that for $1 \leq i \leq n$, $$\label{eigenfunction}
Y_i E_{\lambda} = y_i(\lambda) E_{\lambda}$$ where $$y_i(\lambda) =
q^{\lambda_i}t^{\#\{j<i| \lambda_j=\lambda_i\}- \#\{j>i| \lambda_j=\lambda_i\}}.$$
\[Elemma\] below essentially appears in [@KasataniTakeyama Section 3.3]. We thank Michael Wheeler for his explanations.
\[Elemma\] Let $\lambda = (\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_n)$ be a partition and let $\{f_{\mu= \lambda \circ \sigma} \}_{\sigma
\in S_n}$ be a set of homogeneous degree $|\lambda|$ polynomials as in \[f-def\]. Then $f_{\lambda}$ is a scalar multiple of the nonsymmetric Macdonald polynomial $E_{\lambda}$.
Then for $1 \leq i \leq n$, we claim that holds with $E_{\lambda}$ replaced by $f_{\lambda}$, i.e. $$Y_i f_{\lambda} = y_i(\lambda) f_{\lambda}.$$
This is because acting by $T_{i-1}$, followed by $T_{i-2}$, and so on, up to $T_1$, means we apply when $\lambda_j>\lambda_i$ and when $\lambda_j=\lambda_i$ for $j<i$, where the latter contributes a factor of $t$. Thus $$Y_i f_{\lambda}= t^{\#\{j<i| \lambda_j=\lambda_i\}}T_i^{-1} \dots T_{n-1}^{-1} \omega f_{(\lambda_i, \lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_{i-1},\lambda_{i+1},\ldots,\lambda_n)}.$$ Acting by $\omega$ on $f_{(\lambda_i, \lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_{i-1},\lambda_{i+1},\ldots,\lambda_n)}$ gives $q^{\lambda_i}f_{(\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_{i-1},\lambda_{i+1},\ldots,\lambda_n,\lambda_i)}$. Finally, by , $T_j^{-1}f_{\mu}=f_{s_j\mu}$ when $\mu_j<\mu_{j+1}$, from which we obtain the desired equality by applying $T^{-1}_{n-1},\ldots,T^{-1}_i$ in that order.
Therefore by \[def:nonsymmetric\], $f_{\lambda}$ must be a scalar multiple of $E_{\lambda}$.
\[lem:Macdonald\][@CGW-arxiv Lemma 1] Let $\lambda$ be a partition. Then the Macdonald polynomial $P_{\lambda}(x_1,\dots,x_n;q,t)$ is a scalar multiple of $$\sum_{\mu} f_{\mu}(x_1,\dots,x_n;q,t),$$ where $\mu$ ranges over all distinct compositions which can be obtained by permuting the parts of $\lambda$.
The symmetric Macdonald polynomial $P_{\lambda}$ is the unique polynomial in the subspace $V_{\lambda}:= {\mathbb Q}(q,t) \{E_{\mu} \ \vert \
\mu \in S_n(\lambda) \}$ which is invariant under $S_n$ and such that the coefficient of ${\mathbf x}^{\lambda}$ is $1$ [@MacdonaldAffine Section 5.3], see also [@HaimanICM Section 6.18].
It follows from \[Elemma\], the definition of the $f_{\mu}$ and the fact that $V_{\lambda}$ is a module for the Hecke algebra [@HaimanICM Section 6.18] that $\sum_{\mu} f_{\mu}$ lies in $V_{\lambda}$. It also follows from the definitions and the properties of $E_{\lambda}$ that the coefficient of ${\mathbf x}^{\lambda}$ in $\sum_{\mu} f_{\mu}$ is $1$.
Finally it is straightforward to show that if $\mu_i > \mu_{i+1}$, then $T_i (f_{\mu} + f_{s_i \mu}) = t
(f_{\mu}+f_{s_i \mu})$, which together with , shows that $T_i \sum_{\mu} f_{\mu} = t \sum_{\mu} f_{\mu}$. This is equivalent to the fact that $\sum_{\mu} f_{\mu}$ is symmetric in $x_i$ and $x_{i+1}$, and hence $\sum_{\mu} f_{\mu}$ is invariant under $S_n$.
The strategy of our proof of \[thm:main\] is very simple. Our main task is to show that the $F_{\mu}$’s satisfy the following properties.
\[thm:123\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a} T_i F_{\mu}(\mathbf{x}; q,t) &= F_{s_i \mu} (\mathbf{x};q,t),
\text{ when }\mu_i > \mu_{i+1},\\
\label{b} T_i F_{\mu}(\mathbf{x}; q,t) &= t F_{\mu}(\mathbf{x}; q,t), \text{ when }\mu_i = \mu_{i+1},\\
q^{\mu_n} F_{\mu}(\mathbf{x}; q,t)
&=
\label{c} F_{\mu_n,\mu_1,\dots,\mu_{n-1}}(q x_n,x_1,\dots,x_{n-1}; q,t). \end{aligned}$$
Once we have done this, we verify the following lemma.
\[monic\] For any partition $\lambda$, $$F_{\lambda}(\mathbf{x};q,t) = E_{\lambda}(\mathbf{x}; q, t),$$ where $E_{\lambda}$ is the nonsymmetric Macdonald polynomial.
By \[Elemma\], we know that $F_{\lambda}$ is a scalar multiple of $E_{\lambda}$. It follows from the definition that the coefficient of ${\mathbf x}^{\lambda}$ in $F_{\lambda}$ is $1$, and it follows from \[def:nonsymmetric\] that the coefficient of ${\mathbf x}^{\lambda}$ in $E_{\lambda}$ is $1$, so we are done.
Then \[thm:123\], \[monic\], and \[lem:Macdonald\] implies \[thm:main\], that our sum over multiline queues equals the symmetric Macdonald polynomial $P_{\lambda}$.
It is straightforward to check, using the definition of the action of the $T_i$’s in , that is equivalent to the statement that if $\mu_i>\mu_{i+1}$, $$\label{aa}
\frac{(1-t)x_{i+1}}{x_i-x_{i+1}} F_{\mu}(\mathbf{x}; q, t) +
\frac{(tx_i-x_{i+1})}{x_i-x_{i+1}} s_i F_{\mu}(\mathbf{x}; q, t) -
F_{s_i \mu}(\mathbf{x}; q, t) = 0.$$
Similarly, is equivalent to the statement that if $\mu_i=\mu_{i+1}$, $$\label{bb}
F_{\mu}(\mathbf{x}; q, t) = s_i F_{\mu}(\mathbf{x}; q, t).$$ In other words, when $\mu_i=\mu_{i+1}$, $F_{\mu}(\mathbf{x}; q, t)$ is symmetric in $x_i$ and $x_{i+1}$.
The structure of this paper is as follows. In \[circular\], we prove that the $F_{\mu}$’s satisfy , the circular symmetry, and in \[inductive\], we use induction to prove that all multiline queues satisfy and . This completes the proof of our main results. In \[sec:comparison\] we show that our polynomials $F_{\mu}$ agree with certain *permuted basement Macdonald polynomials*, and we compare the number of terms in our formula versus the Haglund-Haiman-Loehr formula for $E_{\lambda}$. In \[sec:tableau\] we give a bijection between multiline queues and some tableaux we call *queue tableaux*; the latter are equivalent to permuted basement tableaux precisely when $\mu$ is a composition with all parts distinct. Finally in \[MAHA\] we sketch a proof of \[ASEP-f\].
.2cm
[**Acknowledgements: **]{} We would like to thank James Martin, for sharing an early draft of his paper [@Martin] with us. We would also like to thank Mark Haiman for several interesting conversations about Macdonald polynomials, and Jim Haglund for telling us about permuted basement Macdonald polynomials. Finally we would like to thank Jan de Gier and Michael Wheeler for useful explanations of their results [@CGW; @CGW-arxiv], and Sarah Mason for helpful comments on our paper.
Circular symmetry: the proof of {#circular}
================================
In this section we prove , which we restate for convenience.
$$\label{eq:q}
F_{\mu_n,\mu_1,\ldots ,\mu_{n-1}}(qx_n, x_1,\ldots ,x_{n-1};q, t)=
q^{\mu_n}F_{\mu_1,\ldots ,\mu_{n}}(x_1,\ldots ,x_{n};q, t).$$
Let $L = \max\{\mu_1,\dots,\mu_n\}$. Both sides of have an interpretation in terms of multiline queues with $L$ rows. Reading the sequence of (labeled) balls in a column of a MLQ from bottom to top and recording a $0$ for each empty spot, we obtain a word $i_1^{k_1}\ldots i_{\ell}^{k_\ell}$ with $0\le i_j\le L$ and $k_j>0$ for any $j$, see \[hecke\_c\]. We call this word a *sequence of ball labels*.
We will prove by proving the following combinatorial statement.
\[prop:bijection\] Let $\omega$ be the bijection from multiline queues to multiline queues which maps $Q$ to the cyclic shift $Q'$ of $Q$, taking the $n$th column of $Q$ and wrapping it around to become the first column of $Q$, see \[hecke\_c\] (all connectivities of balls are preserved). Let $\delta$ be the Kronecker delta, i.e. $\delta_{S}$ equals $1$ or $0$ based on whether $S$ is a true statement.
Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm wt}_{x_1,\ldots ,x_n}(Q)&=&{\rm wt}_{x_n,x_1,\ldots ,x_{n-1}}(Q')\\
q^{\mu_n}{\rm wt}_{qt}(Q)&=&{\rm wt}_{qt}(Q')\prod_{i=1}^\ell
q^{\delta_{(i_j>0)}k_j}. \label{eq:lastcolumn}\end{aligned}$$
We start with $Q$. The sequence of ball labels in the $n$th column of $Q$ is $i_1^{k_1}\ldots i_{\ell}^{k_\ell}$ with $0\le i_j\le L$ and $k_j>0$ for any $j$. Note that $\mu_n=i_1$.
![The bijection $\omega$ taking a multiline queue $Q$ of type $(\mu_1,\ldots,\mu_n)$ (left) to its cyclic shift $Q'$ of type $(\mu_n,\mu_1,\ldots,\mu_{n-1})$ (right). The column that got wrapped around has the sequence of ball labels $i_1^{k_1}\ldots i_{\ell}^{k_\ell}$. On the left, the arrow from the ball labeled $i_j$ represents a wrapping ball if $i_j>0$, contributing $ q^{\delta_{(i_j>0)}( i_j-r_j+1)}$ to the total weight. On the right, whenever $i_j>0$, the arrow going to the ball labeled $i_j$ (which is in row $r_{j+1}-1$) from a ball labeled $i_j$ in row $r_{j+1}$ contributes $q^{\delta_{(i_j>0)}(i_j - r_{j+1})}$ to the total weight.[]{data-label="hecke_c"}](hecke_combined.pdf){height="3.5in"}
Let us compute the power of $q$ corresponding to this multiline queue. Recall that the ball labeled $i$ in column $n$ and row $r$ contributes $1$ if there is a ball with the same label directly beneath it, and otherwise contributes $q^{i-r+1}$ to the weight in $q$.
For any $j=2 \dots \ell$ and $i_j>0$, the weight of the ball wrapping from row $r_j$ is therefore $$q^{i_j - r_j+1}.$$ Thus we get that the $n$th column contributes $$\prod_{j=2}^{\ell} q^{\delta_{(i_j>0)}(i_j-r_j+1)}$$ to the weight in $q$. Note that $r_1=1$ and $i_1-r_1+1 = i_1 =\mu_n$, and so the left hand side of is $$q^{\mu_n}\prod_{j=2}^{\ell} q^{\delta_{(i_j>0)}(i_j-r_j+1)}=\prod_{j=1}^{\ell} q^{\delta_{(i_j>0)}(i_j-r_j+1)}.$$
For $Q'$, the sequence of balls read from bottom to top in the first column of the multiline queue is (again) $i_1^{k_1}\ldots i_{\ell}^{k_\ell}$ with $0\le i_j\le L$ and $k_j>0$ for any $j$, as shown in Figure \[hecke\_c\]. Let us compute the power of $q$ corresponding to this multiline queue.
Recall that the ball numbered $i$ in column $1$ and row $r-1$ contributes $1$ if the ball directly above it has the same label $i$, and $q^{i-r+1}$ otherwise, due to the incoming arrow from a wrapping ball labeled $i$ in row $r$ (if $i=r-1$, the ball numbered $i$ in row $r-1$ is the topmost ball and so there’s no contribution from an incoming arrow; accordingly, $i-r+1=0$ in that case). Thus for any $j=1 \dots \ell-1$, the $q$-weight associated to the topmost ball labeled $i_j$ (which is in row $r_{j+1}-1$) is $$q^{i_j - r_{j+1}+1}.$$ Therefore we get that the weight in $q$ of the first column is $$\prod_{j=1}^{\ell-1} q^{\delta_{(i_j>0)}(i_j - r_{j+1}+1)}.$$ Now we multiply this weight by $$q^{\sum_{j=1}^\ell \delta_{(i_j>0)}k_j}.$$ Therefore, since $r_{j}+k_j=r_{j+1}$, we get that the right hand side of is $$\prod_{j=1}^{\ell} q^{\delta_{(i_j>0)}(i_j-r_j+1)}.$$
The proof of now follows from \[prop:bijection\] because $$\sum_{Q} q^{\mu_n}{\rm wt}_{qt}(Q){\rm wt}_{x}(Q)=q^{\mu_n}F_{\mu}(x_1,\ldots ,x_n;q,t)$$ and $$\sum_{Q'} {\rm wt}_{qt}(Q'){\rm wt}_{x_n,x_1,\ldots ,x_{n-1}}(Q')q^{\sum_{j=1}^\ell \delta_{(i_j>0)}k_j}=F_{(\mu_n,\mu_1,\ldots ,\mu_{n-1})}(qx_n,x_1,\ldots ,x_{n-1};q,t).$$
The Hecke operators and multiline queues: the proof of and {#inductive}
===========================================================
Recall from and that we use the notation $$\begin{aligned}
F_{s_i\mu}({\bf x}; q, t)
&=&
F_{\mu_1,\ldots ,\mu_{i-1},\mu_{i+1},\mu_i,\mu_{i+2},\ldots ,\mu_n}(x_1,\ldots ,x_{n};q,t)\\
s_iF_{\mu}({\bf x};q, t)
&=&
F_{\mu}(x_1,\ldots,x_{i-1},x_{i+1},x_i,x_{i+2},\ldots,x_n;q, t)\end{aligned}$$
For conciseness we will sometimes omit the dependence on $q$ and $t$, even ${{\mathbf x}}$, writing $F_{\mu}$ or $F_{\mu}(\bf{x})$ as an abbreviation for $F_{\mu}({\bf x};q, t)
=
F_{\mu_1,\ldots ,\mu_{n}}(x_1,\ldots ,x_{n};q, t).$
We give an inductive proof of the main result which is based on the fact that, we can view a multiline queue $Q$ with $L$ rows as a multiline queue $Q'$ with $L-1$ rows (the restriction of $Q$ to rows $2$ through $L$) sitting on top of a (generalized) multiline queue $Q_0$ with $2$ rows (the restriction of $Q$ to rows $1$ and $2$). Since $Q'$ occupies rows $2$ through $L$ and has balls labeled $2$ through $L$, we identify $Q'$ with a multiline queue obtained by decreasing the row labels and ball labels in the top $L-1$ rows of $Q$ by $1$, see \[fig:decomp\].
![The multiline queue $Q$ from \[fig:MLQ\_example\] decomposes into the multiline queue $Q'$ and the generalized multiline queue $Q_0$ shown here.[]{data-label="fig:decomp"}](MLQ_decomp.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
(Holes, represented by $0$, remain holes.) If the bottom row of $Q'$ is the composition $\lambda$, then after decreasing labels as above, the new bottom row is $\lambda^-$, where $\lambda^-_i=\max(\lambda_i-1,0)$. Meanwhile $Q_0$ has just two rows, but its balls are labeled $1$ through $L$; we refer to it as a *generalized two-line queue*.
\[def:two-row\] Given a generalized two-line queue $Q_0$, we define $$\operatorname{wt}(Q_0) = \operatorname{wt}_{qt}(Q_0) \cdot \prod_{\mu_i > 0} x_i.$$
Let $\mathcal{Q}_{\mu}^{\lambda}$ denote the set of (generalized) two-line queues with bottom row $\mu$ and top row $\lambda$. We define $$F_{\mu}^{\lambda} = F_{\mu}^{\lambda}({{\mathbf x}}) = \sum_{Q_0} \operatorname{wt}(Q_0),$$ where the sum is over all $Q_0 \in \mathcal{Q}_{\mu}^{\lambda}$.
Note that we only take the bottom row of $Q_0$ into account when computing the $\mathbf x$-weight. This is because we want $\operatorname{wt}(Q) = \operatorname{wt}(Q') \operatorname{wt}(Q_0)$, where the top $L-1$ rows of $Q$ give $Q'$ and the bottom two rows give $Q_0$.
The following lemma is immediate from the definitions.
\[lem:recursive\] $$F_{\mu}=\sum_\lambda F_{\mu}^{\lambda}F_{\lambda^-}.$$
Note that in \[lem:recursive\], since $F_{\mu}^{\lambda}$ is only nonzero when $\lambda_i \in \{0,2,3,4,\dots,\}$, we have that if $\lambda_i > \lambda_{i+1}$, then $\lambda_i^- > \lambda_{i+1}^-$. Also note that $(s_i \lambda)^- = s_i(\lambda^-)$ so we can write $s_i \lambda^-$ without any ambiguity.
In this section we will prove and . Actually we will prove a result which implies and .
\[prop1\] For all $\mu$ $$(1-s_i)(F_{\mu} +F_{s_i\mu} )=0.
\label{eq1}$$ If $\mu_i>\mu_{i+1}$ $$(1-s_i)(tx_{i+1}F_{\mu} +x_iF_{s_i\mu} )=0.
\label{eq2}$$
\[prop1\] is true when each $\mu_i \leq 1$.
When each $\mu_i \leq 1$, $F_{\mu} = \prod x_i$ where the product is over all $i$ where $\mu_i = 1$. The proof is now immediate.
\[prop1\] implies and .
If $\mu_i=\mu_{i+1}$, then $F_{s_i \mu}= F_{\mu}$, so implies that $(1-s_i)F_{\mu}=0.$ This implies .
If $\mu_i>\mu_{i+1}$, by we have that $$tx_{i+1}F_{\mu}+x_iF_{s_i\mu}-tx_is_iF_{\mu}-x_{i+1}s_i F_{s_i\mu}=0.$$ Using to replace the quantity $s_i F_{s_i \mu}$ above, we get $$tx_{i+1}F_{\mu}+x_iF_{s_i\mu}-tx_is_iF_{\mu}-x_{i+1}(F_{\mu}+F_{s_i \mu} - s_i F_{\mu})=0.$$ This is easily seen to be equivalent to .
Our next goal is to compare the quantities $F_{\mu}^{\lambda} $, $F_{s_i\mu}^{\lambda} $, $F_{\mu}^{s_i\lambda} $, $F_{s_i\mu}^{s_i\lambda} .$ Without loss of generality, we can assume that $\mu_i \geq \mu_{i+1}$ and $\lambda_i \geq \lambda_{i+1}$. In \[lem:equal\] we will treat the case that $\mu_i = \mu_{i+1}$, or $\lambda_i = \lambda_{i+1}$, and in \[lem:symm1\] we will treat the case that $\mu_i > \mu_{i+1}>0$.
The following lemma follows directly from the definitions.
\[lem:equal\] If $\mu_i=\mu_{i+1}\ge 0$, then $$F_{\mu}^{\lambda} =F_{s_i\mu}^{\lambda} =F_{\mu}^{s_i\lambda} =F_{s_i\mu}^{s_i\lambda} .$$ If $\lambda_i=\lambda_{i+1}$, then $$F_{\mu}^{\lambda} =F_{\mu}^{s_i\lambda} ; \ \ F_{s_i\mu}^{\lambda} =F_{s_i\mu}^{s_i\lambda} .$$
Having taken care of the cases in \[lem:equal\], we will now assume without loss of generality that $\mu_i>\mu_{i+1}$ and $\lambda_i > \lambda_{i+1}$.
Let $\lambda$ and $\mu$ be compositions with $n$ nonnegative parts. Recall the definition of $\mathcal{Q}_{\mu}^{\lambda}$ from \[def:two-row\]. Given two permutations $\pi, \sigma \in S_n$, we define $\phi_{\pi}^{\sigma}:
\mathcal{Q}_{\mu}^{\lambda} \rightarrow \mathcal{Q}_{\pi\mu}^{\sigma \lambda}$ to be the map from $\mathcal{Q}_{\mu}^{\lambda}$ to $\mathcal{Q}_{\pi\mu}^{\sigma \lambda}$ which permutes the contents of the bottom and top row of the multiline queue according to $\pi$ and $\sigma$, while preserving the pairings between the balls. (Set $\phi_{\pi}^{\sigma}Q=\emptyset$ if the result is not a valid multiline queue.) Usually we will choose $\pi, \sigma \in \{s_i, \operatorname{id}\}$. Note that $\phi_{s_i}^{s_i}$ is a bijection. We also use the notation $\phi^{s_i}=\phi_{\operatorname{id}}^{s_i}$ and $\phi_{s_i}=\phi_{s_i}^{\operatorname{id}}$. See Figure \[fig:phi\].
\[lem:circ\] Let $\omega=(n,1,2,\ldots,n-1)$ be the permutation that cyclically shifts the terms to the right. Then
$$F_{\mu}^{\lambda}=q^{\max(\mu_n-1,0)-\max(\lambda_n-1,0)} F_{\omega\mu}^{\omega\lambda}.$$
There are five cases for the last column of $Q\in\mathcal{Q}_{\mu}^{\lambda}$, which we show in \[fig:circ\] along with the corresponding multiline queues $\phi_{\omega}^{\omega}Q$. When $\lambda_n=\mu_n$, the weights of all pairings in $Q$ vs. $\phi_{\omega}^{\omega}Q$ are identical. When $\lambda_n\neq \mu_n$, the weights of all pairings are identical except for the pairings from $\lambda_n$ and the pairings to $\mu_n$:
- if $0<\lambda_n<\mu_n$ we have $\operatorname{wt}(\phi_{\omega}^{\omega}Q)=q^{\mu_n-\lambda_n}\operatorname{wt}(Q)$, since the pairing to $\mu_n$ is now cycling, but the pairing from $\lambda_n$ is no longer cycling.
- if $\lambda_n=0$, we have $\operatorname{wt}(\phi_{\omega}^{\omega}Q)=q^{\mu_n-1}\operatorname{wt}(Q)$, since the pairing to $\mu_n$ is now cycling.
- if $\mu_n=0$, we have $\operatorname{wt}(\phi_{\omega}^{\omega}Q)=q^{-(\lambda_n-1)}\operatorname{wt}(Q)$, since the pairing from $\lambda_n$ is no longer cycling.
Thus we get the desired equality.
![The five cases of the last column of $Q\in\mathcal{Q}_{\mu}^{\lambda}$: when $\mu_n=\lambda_n=x>0$, when $x=\mu_n>\lambda_n=y>0$, when $\mu_n=x$ and $\lambda_n=0$, when $\mu_n=0$ and $\lambda_n=y$, and when $\lambda_n=\mu_n=0$.[]{data-label="fig:circ"}](hecke_lastcolumn.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
\[lem:symm1\] Suppose $\mu_i > \mu_{i+1}>0$, and $\lambda_i > \lambda_{i+1}\geq 0$.
1. If $\mu_{i+1} > \lambda_i$, \[symm1a\] $$tF_{\mu}^{\lambda} =F_{s_i\mu}^{\lambda} =tF_{\mu}^{s_i\lambda} =F_{s_i\mu}^{s_i\lambda} .$$
2. If $\mu_{i+1}=\lambda_i$, $$F_{\mu}^{\lambda} +F_{s_i\mu}^{\lambda} =F_{\mu}^{s_i\lambda} +F_{s_i\mu}^{s_i\lambda}$$
3. If $\mu_{i+1}<\lambda_i$, $$F_{\mu}^{\lambda} =F_{s_i\mu}^{s_i\lambda} ; \ \ F_{s_i\mu}^{\lambda} =F_{\mu}^{s_i\lambda} =0.$$
![The sets of multiline queues and the bijections between them. Here $\mu_{i+1}=\lambda_i = x$, $\mu_i=y$, and $\lambda_{i+1}=w$.[]{data-label="fig:phi"}](hecke_wrap.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
Cases (1) and (3) are straightforward, so we begin by taking care of these cases. In Case (1), the maps $\phi_{s_i}$, $\phi^{s_i}$, and $\phi_{s_i}^{s_i}$ define bijections between $\mathcal{Q}_{\mu}^{\lambda}$ and the sets $\mathcal{Q}_{s_i\mu}^{\lambda}$, $\mathcal{Q}_{\mu}^{s_i\lambda}$, and $\mathcal{Q}_{s_i\mu}^{s_i\lambda}$ respectively. The only difference between the weights of the multiline queues in these four sets comes from whether or not the pairing involving ball $\mu_i$ skips over the ball $\mu_{i+1}$. When this pairing does skip over ball $\mu_{i+1}$, we get an extra contribution of $t$ to the weight. Therefore we have $tF_{\mu}^{\lambda}=tF_{\mu}^{s_i\lambda}=F_{s_i\mu}^{\lambda}=F_{s_i\mu}^{s_i\lambda}$.
In Case (3), $F_{s_i\mu}^{\lambda}=F_{\mu}^{s_i\lambda}=0$ since a larger label cannot be above a smaller one in a valid multiline queue. Thus we must show $F_{\mu}^{\lambda}=F_{s_i\mu}^{s_i\lambda}$.
If $\mu_i=\lambda_i$, the equality is immediate. Otherwise, let $Q\in \mathcal{Q}_{\mu}^{\lambda}$ be a generalized multiline queue, and let $\phi_{s_i}^{s_i}Q \in \mathcal{Q}_{s_i\mu}^{s_i\lambda}$ be the corresponding queue with the same ball pairings. In $Q$, $\lambda_i$ skips over $\mu_{i+1}$ to pair with its ball, contributing a $t$ to $\operatorname{wt}(Q)$, whereas in $\phi_{s_i}^{s_i}Q$ the ball pairing with $\mu_i$ skips over $\mu_{i+1}$, contributing a $t$ to $\operatorname{wt}(\phi_{s_i}^{s_i}Q)$. The rest of the pairings contribute identical weights, and thus $\operatorname{wt}(Q)=\operatorname{wt}(\phi_{s_i}^{s_i}Q)$, so the equality follows.
Finally consider Case (2). See Figure \[fig:phi\]. First, by \[circular\], we can assume that $i$ and $i+1$ are the rightmost indices, so that the transpositions affect only the rightmost two columns. Write $\mu_{i+1}=\lambda_i=x$ and consider $Q\in \mathcal{Q}_{\mu}^{\lambda}$. In what follows, we will write $\lambda_i \sim \mu_{i+1}$ or $\lambda_i \not\sim \mu_{i+1}$ based on whether ball $\lambda_i$ is connected to ball $\mu_{i+1}$.
1. \[c0\] Observe that $\operatorname{wt}(\phi_{s_i}Q)=t\operatorname{wt}(\phi^{s_i}Q)$ because the ball connecting to $\mu_{i}$ in $\phi_{s_i}Q$ skips over $\mu_{i+1}$, contributing an extra $t$.
2. \[c1\] When $\lambda_i\not\sim \mu_{i+1}$ in $Q$, we have $\operatorname{wt}(Q)=\operatorname{wt}(\phi_{s_i}^{s_i}Q)$. This is because in $Q$, the ball that $\lambda_i$ pairs with obtains an extra $t$ by skipping over $\mu_i$, whereas in $\phi_{s_i}^{s_i}Q$ the ball pairing with $\mu_i$ skips over $\mu_{i+1}=x$.
3. \[c2\] Now consider $\phi^{s_i}Q$. This is only nonempty if in $Q$, $\lambda_i\sim \mu_{i+1}$. Moreover $\phi^{s_i}$ defines a bijection from $\{Q \ \vert \ Q\in \mathcal{Q}_{\mu}^{\lambda}, \lambda_i \sim \mu_{i+1}\}$ to $\mathcal{Q}_{\mu}^{s_i \lambda}$. So consider $Q$ where $\lambda_i \sim \mu_{i+1}$.
Let $f$ be the number of free balls remaining in $Q$ right before we pair the ball $\lambda_i$. Thus the weight of the pairing $\lambda_i \sim \mu_{i+1}$ in $Q$ is $\frac{(1-t)}{1-q^{x-1}t^{f}}$. Since $i$ and $i+1$ are rightmost, $\lambda_i$ is the first instance of label $x$ to be paired. Thus every other pairing in $Q$ gets the same weight as the corresponding pairing in $\phi^{s_i} Q$, and so $\operatorname{wt}(Q)=\operatorname{wt}(\phi^{s_i}Q)
\frac{(1-t)}{1-q^{x-1}t^{f}}$.
4. \[c3\] Similarly, when $\lambda_i \sim \mu_{i+1}$, $\operatorname{wt}(\phi_{s_i}^{s_i}Q)=\operatorname{wt}(\phi_{s_i}Q)\frac{q^{x-1}t^{f-1}(1-t)}{1-q^{x-1}t^{f}}$ since the pairing in $\phi_{s_i}^{s_i} Q$ from $\lambda_i$ to $\mu_{i+1}$ cycles and skips all the free balls except for $\mu_{i+1}$, hence contributing $t^{f-1}$. By \[c0\], we have $\operatorname{wt}(\phi_{s_i}^{s_i}Q)=\operatorname{wt}(\phi^{s_i}Q)\frac{q^{x-1}t^{f}(1-t)}{1-q^{x-1}t^{f}}$.
5. \[c4\] By \[c2\] and \[c3\], for $Q\in \mathcal{Q}_{\mu}^{\lambda}$ with $\lambda_i \sim \mu_{i+1}$, we have $\operatorname{wt}(\phi_{s_i}^{s_i} Q) = q^{x-1} t^f \operatorname{wt}(Q)$.
Let us now write down the proof: $$\begin{aligned}
F_{\mu}^{\lambda}-F_{s_i\mu}^{s_i\lambda}&=\sum_{Q\in\mathcal{Q}_{\mu}^{\lambda}} \operatorname{wt}(Q)-\operatorname{wt}(\phi_{s_i}^{s_i}Q)\\
&=\sum_{\substack{Q\in\mathcal{Q}_{\mu}^{\lambda},\\\ \lambda_i \sim \mu_{i+1}}} \operatorname{wt}(Q)-\operatorname{wt}(\phi_{s_i}^{s_i}Q)+\sum_{\substack{Q\in\mathcal{Q}_{\mu}^{\lambda},\\\lambda_i \not\sim \mu_{i+1}}} \operatorname{wt}(Q)-\operatorname{wt}(\phi_{s_i}^{s_i}Q)\\
&=\sum_{\substack{Q\in\mathcal{Q}_{\mu}^{\lambda},\\\lambda_i \sim \mu_{i+1}}} \operatorname{wt}(Q)(1-q^{x-1}t^{f})\\
&=\sum_{Q\in\mathcal{Q}_{\mu}^{s_i\lambda}} \operatorname{wt}(Q) (1-t) \\ &=F_{\mu}^{s_i\lambda}-F_{s_i\mu}^{\lambda}.\end{aligned}$$ Here the equality between the second and third line follows from Items 5 and 2, and the equality between the third and fourth line follows from Item 3. The last one is a consequence of Item 1.
A direct consequence of \[lem:equal\] and \[lem:symm1\] is:
\[lem:symmetry\] If $\mu_i,\mu_{i+1}>0$ or $\mu_i=\mu_{i+1}$ then $$F_{\mu}^{\lambda} +F_{s_i\mu}^{\lambda} =F_{\mu}^{s_i\lambda} +F_{s_i\mu}^{s_i\lambda}$$
Now we consider the case that $\mu_i > \mu_{i+1} = 0$. Without loss of generality we assume $\lambda_i \geq \lambda_{i+1}$.
\[morecases\] Suppose that $\mu_i>\mu_{i+1}=0$ and $\lambda_i \geq \lambda_{i+1}$. Then we have the following:
1. \[item1\] If $\lambda_i=\lambda_{i+1}$ or $\mu> \lambda_i,\lambda_{i+1}$ then $$x_{i+1}F_{\mu}^{\lambda} =x_iF_{s_i\mu}^{\lambda} =x_{i+1}F_{\mu}^{s_i\lambda} =x_iF_{s_i\mu}^{s_i\lambda} .$$ In particular, both $F_{\mu}^{\lambda} +F_{s_i \mu}^{\lambda} $ and $F_{\mu}^{s_i \lambda} +F_{s_i \mu}^{s_i \lambda} $ are symmetric in $x_i$ and $x_{i+1}$.
2. \[item2\] If $\mu_{i}=\lambda_i>\lambda_{i+1}$ then [@false]{} $$\label{item2-1}
tx_{i+1}F_{\mu}^{\lambda} +x_iF_{s_i\mu}^{\lambda} =
tx_{i+1}F_{\mu}^{s_i\lambda} +x_iF_{s_i\mu}^{s_i\lambda} .$$ We also have that $x_{i+1}
F_{\mu}^{\lambda} =x_iF_{s_i\mu}^{s_i\lambda} ,$ and $$\label{item2-2}
tx_{i+1}F_{\mu}^{s_i\lambda} +(1-t)x_{i+1}F_{\mu}^{\lambda}=x_iF_{s_i\mu}^{\lambda} ; \ $$
3. \[item3\] If $\lambda_i>\mu_i \geq \lambda_{i+1}$ then $$x_i F_{s_i\mu}^{\lambda} = t x_{i+1}
F_{\mu}^{s_i\lambda} ; \ \ F_{\mu}^{\lambda} =F_{s_i\mu}^{s_i\lambda} =0.$$
4. \[item4\] If $\lambda_i > \lambda_{i+1} > \mu_i$ then $$F_{\mu}^{\lambda} =F_{s_i\mu}^{s_i\lambda} = F_{\mu}^{s_i\lambda} =F_{s_i\mu}^{\lambda} =0.$$
\[item1\], \[item3\], and \[item4\] follow easily from the definitions, as does the statement $ x_{i+1}
F_{\mu}^{\lambda} =x_iF_{s_i\mu}^{s_i\lambda} $ from \[item2\]. The proof of is completely analogous to the proof of Case (2) of \[lem:symm1\]. Meanwhile follows from together with the fact that $x_{i+1}
F_{\mu}^{\lambda} =x_iF_{s_i\mu}^{s_i\lambda} .$
The following lemma is a direct consequence of \[morecases\].
Suppose that $\mu_i>\mu_{i+1}=0$ and $\lambda_i \geq \lambda_{i+1}$. Then we have $$\label{tidentity}
tx_{i+1}F_{\mu}^{\lambda} +x_iF_{s_i\mu}^{\lambda} =
tx_{i+1}F_{\mu}^{s_i\lambda} +x_iF_{s_i\mu}^{s_i\lambda} .$$
We can now start the proof of equations and .
Equation is true if $\mu_i=\mu_{i+1}$. In other words, $F_{\mu} $ is symmetric in $x_i$ and $x_{i+1}$.
Now suppose Equation is true for all $F_{\lambda}$ with $\lambda_i< L$ (note that we are not assuming that $\lambda_i = \lambda_{i+1}$ or that both are nonzero), and let $\mu$ be such that $\mu_i\leq L$. $$\begin{aligned}
2F_{\mu} &=&\sum_{\lambda} F_{\mu}^{\lambda} F_{\lambda^-} + F_{\mu}^{s_i\lambda} F_{s_i\lambda^-} \\
&=&\sum_{\lambda} F_{\mu}^{\lambda} (F_{\lambda^-} +F_{s_i\lambda^-} ).\end{aligned}$$ The first equality comes from \[lem:recursive\], and the second comes from \[lem:equal\], which says that $F_{\mu}^{\lambda} =F_{\mu}^{s_i\lambda} $ when $\mu_i=\mu_{i+1}$.
But now we have that $(F_{\lambda^-} +F_{s_i\lambda^-} )$ is symmetric in $x_i$ and $x_{i+1}$ by induction, and $F_{\mu}^{\lambda} $ is symmetric in $x_i$ and $x_{i+1}$ by definition (since $\mu_i=\mu_{i+1}$, its $\mathbf x$-weight is either $1$ or $x_{i}x_{i+1}$, depending on whether $\mu_i=0$ or not, and only $\mu$ contributes to the $\mathbf x$-weight of $F_{\mu}^{\lambda}$). This implies that $F_{\mu} $ is indeed symmetric in $x_i$ and $x_{i+1}$.
Equation is true if $\mu_i>\mu_{i+1}>0$.
We have that $$\begin{aligned}
2(F_{\mu} +F_{s_i\mu} )
&=&\sum_\lambda \big[ (F_{\mu}^{\lambda} +F_{s_i\mu}^{\lambda} )F_{\lambda^-} + (F_{\mu}^{s_i\lambda} +F_{s_i\mu}^{s_i\lambda} )F_{s_i\lambda^-} \big]\\
&=&\sum_\lambda \big[(F_{\mu}^{\lambda} +F_{s_i\mu}^{\lambda} )(F_{\lambda^-} + F_{s_i\lambda^-} )\big]\\
&=&\sum_\lambda \big[(F_{\mu}^{\lambda} +F_{s_i\mu}^{\lambda} )s_i(F_{\lambda^-} + F_{s_i\lambda^-} )\big]\\
&=&\sum_\lambda \big[ s_i(F_{\mu}^{\lambda} +F_{s_i\mu}^{\lambda} )s_i(F_{\lambda^-} + F_{s_i\lambda^-} )\big]\\
&=&s_i\sum_\lambda \big[(F_{\mu}^{\lambda} +F_{s_i\mu}^{\lambda} )(F_{\lambda^-} + F_{s_i\lambda^-} )\big]\\
&=&s_i\sum_\lambda \big[(F_{\mu}^{\lambda} + F_{s_i\mu}^{\lambda} )F_{\lambda^-} + (F_{\mu}^{s_i\lambda} +
F_{s_i\mu}^{s_i\lambda} )F_{s_i\lambda^-} \big]\\
&=& 2 s_i (F_{\mu} +F_{s_i\mu} ).\end{aligned}$$ The first equality comes from \[lem:recursive\]. The second is due to \[lem:symmetry\]. The third uses the induction step. The fourth one uses the (trivial) fact that $s_i (F_{\mu}^{\lambda} ) = F_{\mu}^{\lambda} $ whenever $\mu_i$ and $\mu_{i+1}$ are both nonzero.
Equation is true if $\mu_i>\mu_{i+1}>0$.
By induction. True of all $\mu_j\le 2$.
$$tx_{i+1}F_{\mu}+x_iF_{s_i\mu} = \sum_{\lambda_i=\lambda_{i+1}} (tx_{i+1}F_{\mu}^{\lambda}+x_iF_{s_i\mu}^{\lambda})F_{\lambda^-} + \sum_{\lambda_i\neq \lambda_{i+1}} (tx_{i+1}F_{\mu}^{\lambda}+x_iF_{s_i\mu}^{\lambda})F_{\lambda^-}$$
For the terms in the first sum of the right-hand side, for $\lambda_i=\lambda_{i+1}$ we have $$(tx_{i+1}F_{\mu}^{\lambda}+x_iF_{s_i\mu}^{\lambda})F_{\lambda^-}= (tx_{i+1}F_{\mu}^{\lambda}+x_i(tF_{\mu}^{\lambda}))F_{\lambda^-} = t(x_i+x_{i+1})F_{\mu}^{\lambda}F_{\lambda^-},$$ and since $F_{\lambda^-}$ is symmetric by , every such term is also symmetric.
We write the second sum in the right-hand side as $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\lambda_i\neq \lambda_{i+1}} (tx_{i+1}F_{\mu}^{\lambda}+x_iF_{s_i\mu}^{\lambda})F_{\lambda^-}=&
\sum_{\lambda_i> \lambda_{i+1}} (tx_{i+1}F_{\mu}^{\lambda}+x_iF_{s_i\mu}^{\lambda})F_{\lambda^-}+(tx_{i+1}F_{\mu}^{s_i\lambda}+x_iF_{s_i\mu}^{s_i\lambda})F_{s_i\lambda^-}\\
=& \sum_{\lambda_i>\mu_{i+1}\geq \lambda_{i+1}} (tx_{i+1}F_{\mu}^{\lambda}+x_iF_{s_i\mu}^{\lambda})F_{\lambda^-}+(tx_{i+1}F_{\mu}^{s_i\lambda}+x_iF_{s_i\mu}^{s_i\lambda})F_{s_i\lambda^-}\\
& + \sum_{\mu_{i+1}>\lambda_i> \lambda_{i+1}} (tx_{i+1}F_{\mu}^{\lambda}+x_iF_{s_i\mu}^{\lambda})F_{\lambda^-}+(tx_{i+1}F_{\mu}^{s_i\lambda}+x_iF_{s_i\mu}^{s_i\lambda})F_{s_i\lambda^-}\\
& + \sum_{\lambda_i=\mu_{i+1}> \lambda_{i+1}} (tx_{i+1}F_{\mu}^{\lambda}+x_iF_{s_i\mu}^{\lambda})F_{\lambda^-}+(tx_{i+1}F_{\mu}^{s_i\lambda}+x_iF_{s_i\mu}^{s_i\lambda})F_{s_i\lambda^-}
\end{aligned}$$
For the terms in the sum of the first line, when $\lambda_i>\mu_{i+1}\geq \lambda_{i+1}$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
(tx_{i+1}F_{\mu}^{\lambda}+x_iF_{s_i\mu}^{\lambda})F_{\lambda^-}+(tx_{i+1}F_{\mu}^{s_i\lambda}+x_iF_{s_i\mu}^{s_i\lambda})F_{s_i\lambda^-} &= tx_{i+1}F_{\mu}^{\lambda}F_{\lambda^-}+x_iF_{s_i\mu}^{s_i\lambda}F_{s_i\lambda^-}\\
&= F_{\mu}^{\lambda}(tx_{i+1}F_{\lambda^-}+x_iF_{s_i\lambda^-}),
\end{aligned}$$ which is symmetric by induction using .
For the terms in the sum of the second line, when $\mu_{i+1}>\lambda_i> \lambda_{i+1}$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\hspace{-0.8in}(tx_{i+1}F_{\mu}^{\lambda}+x_iF_{s_i\mu}^{\lambda})F_{\lambda^-}+(tx_{i+1}F_{\mu}^{s_i\lambda}+x_iF_{s_i\mu}^{s_i\lambda})F_{s_i\lambda^-} \\
&= (tx_{i+1}F_{\mu}^{\lambda}+x_i(tF_{\mu}^{\lambda}))F_{\lambda^-}+(tx_{i+1}F_{\mu}^{\lambda}+x_i(tF_{\mu}^{\lambda}))F_{s_i\lambda^-}\\
&= tF_{\mu}^{\lambda}(x_i+x_{i+1})(F_{\lambda^-}+F_{s_i\lambda^-}),
\end{aligned}$$ which is symmetric by induction using .
Finally, for the terms in the sum of the second line, when $\lambda_i=\mu_{i+1}> \lambda_{i+1}$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\hspace{-0.1in} (tx_{i+1}F_{\mu}^{\lambda}+x_iF_{s_i\mu}^{\lambda})F_{\lambda^-}+(tx_{i+1}F_{\mu}^{s_i\lambda}+x_iF_{s_i\mu}^{s_i\lambda})F_{s_i\lambda^-}\\
&= (tx_{i+1}F_{\mu}^{\lambda}F_{\lambda^-}+x_iF_{s_i\mu}^{s_i\lambda}F_{s_i\lambda^-})+(tx_{i+1}F_{\mu}^{s_i\lambda}F_{s_i\lambda^-}+x_iF_{s_i\mu}^{\lambda}F_{\lambda^-})\\
&= (tx_{i+1}F_{\mu}^{\lambda}F_{\lambda^-}+x_i(F_{\mu}^{\lambda}+F_{s_i\mu}^{\lambda}(1-\frac{1}{t})F_{s_i\lambda^-})+(tx_{i+1}(\frac{1}{t}F_{s_i\mu}^{\lambda})F_{s_i\lambda^-}+x_iF_{s_i\mu}^{\lambda}F_{\lambda^-})\\
&= F_{\mu}^{\lambda}(tx_{i+1}F_{\lambda^-}+x_iF_{s_i\lambda^-})+F_{s_i\mu}^{\lambda}(x_i+x_{i+1})(F_{\lambda^-}+F_{s_i\lambda^-})-\frac{1}{t} F_{s_i\mu}^{\lambda}( tx_{i+1}F_{\lambda^-}+x_iF_{\lambda^-}),\end{aligned}$$ in which all terms are symmetric by induction using and .
Now let us look at the case $\mu_i>\mu_{i+1}=0$.
Equation is true if $\mu_i>\mu_{i+1}=0$.
As before, we use induction, assuming that both and are true if all $\mu_j\le 2$. Using in the second equality below, we have that $$\begin{aligned}
&\hspace{-0.4in}2(tx_{i+1}F_{\mu} +x_iF_{s_i\mu} )\\
&=\sum_\lambda (tx_{i+1}F_{\mu}^{\lambda} +x_iF_{s_i\mu}^{\lambda} )F_{\lambda^-} + (tx_{i+1}F_{\mu}^{s_i\lambda}
+x_iF_{s_i\mu}^{s_i\lambda} )F_{s_i\lambda^-} \\
&=\sum_\lambda (tx_{i+1}F_{\mu}^{\lambda} +x_iF_{s_i\mu}^{\lambda} )
(F_{\lambda^-} +
F_{s_i\lambda^-} )\end{aligned}$$ Since $F_{\mu}^{\lambda} $ is a rational function in $q,t, \{x_1,\dots, \hat{x}_i, \hat{x}_{i+1},\dots,x_n\}$ times $x_i$, while $F_{s_i \mu}^{\lambda} $ is a rational function in $q,t, \{x_1,\dots, \hat{x}_i, \hat{x}_{i+1},\dots,x_n\}$ times $x_{i+1}$, it follows immediately that $tx_{i+1}F_{\mu}^{\lambda}+x_i F_{s_i \mu}^{\lambda}$ is symmetric in $x_i$ and $x_{i+1}$. Using this fact and induction, the right-hand side above is symmetric in $x_i$ and $x_{i+1}$.
Equation is true if $\mu_i>\mu_{i+1}=0$.
We suppose by induction that both and are true when all $\mu_j\le 2$. We have that $$\begin{aligned}
F_{\mu} +F_{s_i\mu}
&=&\sum_{\lambda_i>\lambda_{i+1}} (F_{\mu}^{\lambda} +F_{s_i\mu}^{\lambda} )F_{\lambda^-} +
(F_{\mu}^{s_i\lambda} +
F_{s_i\mu}^{s_i\lambda} )F_{s_i\lambda^-} \\
&&+\sum_{\lambda_i=\lambda_{i+1}} (F_{\mu}^{\lambda} +F_{s_i\mu}^{\lambda} )F_{\lambda^-} \\\end{aligned}$$ By \[item1\] of \[morecases\], the term on the right-hand side where $\lambda_i = \lambda_{i+1}$ is symmetric in $x_i$ and $x_{i+1}$. We need to show that the same is true for the rest of the right-hand side.
Using \[morecases\], we have that $$\sum_{\lambda_i>\lambda_{i+1}} (F_{\mu}^{\lambda} +F_{s_i\mu}^{\lambda} )F_{\lambda^-} + (F_{\mu}^{s_i\lambda} +
F_{s_i\mu}^{s_i\lambda} )F_{s_i\lambda^-}$$ is equal to
$$\begin{aligned}
& \sum_{\mu_i > \lambda_i>\lambda_{i+1}} \label{first}
(F_{\mu}^{\lambda} + F_{s_i \mu}^{\lambda})(F_{\lambda^-} +F_{s_i\lambda^-} )\\
&+ \sum_{\mu_i=\lambda_{i}>\lambda_{i+1}} \label{second}
\big[ F_\mu^\lambda F_{\lambda^-} +F_{s_i\mu}^{s_i\lambda} F_{s_i\lambda^-} \big]+
\big[
F_{\mu}^{s_i\lambda} F_{s_i\lambda^-}
+
F_{s_i\mu}^{\lambda} F_{\lambda^-}
\big]\\
&+ \sum_{\lambda_{i}>\mu_i\ge \lambda_{i+1}}
F_{s_i \mu}^{\lambda} F_{\lambda^-} +F_{\mu}^{s_i \lambda}F_{s_i\lambda^-} . \label{third}\end{aligned}$$
By induction and \[item1\] of \[morecases\], is symmetric in $x_i$ and $x_{i+1}$. Meanwhile is equal to $$\sum_{\lambda_{i}>\mu_i\ge \lambda_{i+1}}
\frac{F_{s_i \mu}^{\lambda}}{t x_{i+1}} (tx_{i+1} F_{\lambda^-} +x_i F_{s_i\lambda^-} ),$$ which by induction is also symmetric in $x_i$ and $x_{i+1}$.
Finally we use \[item2\] of \[morecases\] to rewrite as $$\begin{aligned}
&\hspace{-0.2in}
\sum_{\mu_i = \lambda_{i}>\lambda_{i+1}} F_{\mu}^{\lambda} F_{\lambda^-} +
\frac{x_{i+1}}{x_i} F_{\mu}^{\lambda} F_{{s_i \lambda}^-} +
F_{\mu}^{s_i \lambda} F_{(s_i \lambda)^-} + \frac{t x_{i+1}}{x_i} F_{\mu}^{s_i \lambda} F_{\lambda^-} +
\frac{(1-t) x_{i+1}}{x_i} F_{\mu}^{\lambda} F_{\lambda^-} \\
& = \sum_{\mu_i=\lambda_{i}>\lambda_{i+1}}
\frac{F_{\mu}^{s_i \lambda}}{x_i} (t x_{i+1} F_{\lambda^-} + x_i F_{(s_i \lambda)^-})
+ \sum_{\mu_i=\lambda_{i}>\lambda_{i+1}}
\frac{F_{\mu}^{\lambda}}{x_i} ((x_i + x_{i+1}) (F_{\lambda^-} + F_{(s_i \lambda)^-})) \\
& - \sum_{\mu_i=\lambda_{i}>\lambda_{i+1}}
\frac{F_{\mu}^{\lambda}}{x_i} (t x_{i+1} F_{\lambda^-} + x_i F_{(s_i \lambda)^-}).\end{aligned}$$ By induction all parts are symmetric in $x_i$ and $x_{i+1}$.
Comparing our formula to other formulas for Macdonald polynomials {#sec:comparison}
=================================================================
In this paper we used multiline queues to give a new combinatorial formula for the Macdonald polynomial $P_{\lambda}$ and the nonsymmetric Macdonald polynomial $E_{\lambda}$ when $\lambda$ is a partition. We note that these new combinatorial formulas are quite different from the combinatorial formulas given by Haglund-Haiman-Loehr [@HHL1; @HHL2; @HHL3], or Ram-Yip [@RamYip], or Lenart [@Lenart].
While it is not obvious combinatorially, we show algebraically in \[prop:PB\] that the polynomials $F_{\mu}$ (for $\mu$ an arbitrary composition) are equal to certain *permuted basement Macdonald polynomials*. Permuted-basement Macdonald polynomials $E_{\alpha}^{\sigma}({\mathbf x}; q, t)$ were introduced in [@thesis] and further studied in [@A] as a generalization of nonsymmetric Macdonald polynomials (where $\sigma \in S_n$ and $\alpha$ is a composition with $n$ parts). They have the property that the nonsymmetric Macdonald polynomial $E_{\mu}$ is equal to $E_{\operatorname{rev}(\mu)}^{w_0}$, where $\operatorname{rev}(\mu)$ denotes the reverse composition $(\mu_n, \mu_{n-1},\dots,\mu_1)$ of $\mu=(\mu_1,\dots,\mu_n)$ and $w_0=(n,\ldots,2,1)$.
\[prop:PB\] For $\mu=(\mu_1,\ldots,\mu_n)$, define $\operatorname{inc}(\mu)$ to be the sorting of the parts of $\mu$ in increasing order. Then $$F_{\mu}=E_{\operatorname{inc}(\mu)}^{\sigma}$$ where $\sigma \mu = \operatorname{inc}(\mu)$, i.e. $\sigma$ is the permutation of longest length such that $\mu_{\sigma(1)} \leq \mu_{\sigma(2)} \leq
\dots \leq \mu_{\sigma(n)}$.
By \[prop:nonsymmetric\], when $\lambda$ is a partition, we have $F_{\lambda} = E_{\lambda}= E_{\operatorname{inc}(\lambda)}^{w_0}$. Therefore to prove the proposition, it suffices to show that the $T_i$ acts on each $F_{\mu}$ and $E_{\operatorname{inc}(\mu)}^{\sigma}$ in the same way.
When $\eta$ is an anti-partition (i.e. with its parts in increasing order), from [@A (12)] we have that $$T_i E_{\eta}^{\sigma}=\begin{cases}E_{\eta}^{\sigma s_i} & \eta_{\sigma^{-1}(i)}>\eta_{\sigma^{-1}(i+1)}\\
t E_{\eta}^{\sigma s_i} & \eta_{\sigma^{-1}(i)}=\eta_{\sigma^{-1}(i+1)}.
\end{cases}$$
We observe that if we fix $\eta=\operatorname{inc}(\mu)$ and $\sigma$ is such that $\sigma \mu = \eta$, then $(\sigma s_i) \circ (s_i\mu) = \eta$. Moreover, $ \eta_{\sigma^{-1}(i)}=\eta_{\sigma^{-1}(i+1)}$ implies $\mu_{i}=\mu_{i+1}$ and $\eta_{\sigma^{-1}(i)}>\eta_{\sigma^{-1}(i+1)}$ implies $\mu_i<\mu_{i+1}$, and so by \[thm:123\], $F_{s_i\mu}=E_{\eta}^{\sigma s_i}$.
The permuted basement Macdonald polynomials can be described combinatorially using *nonattacking fillings* of certain diagrams [@thesis; @A][^1], which we call *permuted basement tableaux*. (Note that these permuted basement tableaux generalize the nonattacking fillings from [@HHL3]). In light of this, one may wonder if there is a bijection between multiline queues and these permuted basement tableaux. As we explain in \[rem:queue\], this is the case when the compositions have distinct parts. However, for general compositions, the number of permuted basement tableaux is different than the number of multiline queues. There are more permuted basement tableaux (See Table \[permuted\]). We conjecture that there is a way to group permuted basement tableaux so that the weight in a group equals the weight of one MLQ.
To illustrate that our formulas are reasonable in terms of the number of terms, Table \[perumted\] records the number of permuted basement tableaux (respectively, multiline queues) in the Haglund-Haiman-Loehr formula (respectively our formula) for nonsymmetric Macdonald polynomials $E_{\lambda}$, where $\lambda$ is a partition. Note that for any composition $\mu$ whose parts rearrange to form $\lambda$, the number of multiline queues that contribute to $F_{\mu}$ equals the number of multiline queues contributing to $F_{\lambda}$; similarly for the number of permuted basement tableaux contributing to the formula for the corresponding permuted basement Macdonald polynomial.
[|p[4cm]{}|p[6cm]{}|p[4cm]{}|]{} $\lambda$ & \# permuted basement tableaux & \# multiline queues\
$(2, 1, 1, 0, 0)$ & $3$ & $3$\
$(2,2,1,1,0,0)$ & $9$ & $7$\
$(2,2,2,1,1,0,0)$ & $27$ & $13$\
$(2,2,2,2,1,1,0,0)$ & $81$ & $21$\
$(3,2,2,1,1,0,0)$ & $135$ & $105$\
$(3,3,2,2,1,1,0,0)$ & $2025$ & $1029$\
$(3,3,3,2,2,1,1,0,0)$ & $30375$ & $6643$\
$(3,3,3,3,2,2,1,1,0,0)$ & $455625$ & $30723$\
$(4, 3,3,3,2,2,1,1,0,0)$ & $3189375$ & $697515$\
\[permuted\]
[^1]: Note however that [@thesis] cites personal communication with Haglund for their introduction.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present for the first time CCD SDSS $gr$ photometry, obtained at the Gemini South telescope with the GMOS attached, of stars in the field of the poorly studied star clusters NGC1768, HS85, SL676, NGC2107, NGC2190, and SL866, which are distributed in the main body of the Large Magellanic Cloud. We applied a subtraction procedure to statistically clean the cluster CMDs from field star contamination. In order to disentangle cluster features from those belonging to their surrounding fields, we applied a subtraction procedure which makes use of variable cells to reproduce the field star Color-Magnitude Diagrams (CMDs) as closely as possible. We then traced their stellar density radial profiles from star counts performed over the cleaned field stars dataset and derived their radii. Using the cleaned cluster CMDs, we estimated ages and metallicities from matching theoretical isochrones computed for the SDSS system. The studied star clusters have ages from 0.1 up to 2.0 Gyr and are of slightly metal-poor metal content (\[Fe/H\] $\approx$ -0.4 dex).'
author:
- 'Andrés E. Piatti'
title: CCD SDSS $gr$ photometry of poorly studied star clusters in the Large Magellanic Cloud
---
Introduction
============
The Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) harbors more than two thousand catalogued ordinary star clusters (Bica et al. 2008). Although they are prime indicators of the chemical evolution and the star formation history of the galaxy, only a very small percentage have been well studied (Chiosi et al. 2006, Glatt et al. 2010). In this sense, detailed investigations of even a handful of clusters represents a significant improvement of our knowledge of the chemical enrichment history of this galaxy.
We have been intensively involved in a long-term project aimed at obtaining ages and metallicities of LMC clusters, as well as addressing other important related issues. For instance, we have discovered a new giant branch clump structure (Piatti et al. 1999), studied the infamous cluster age-gap (Piatti et al. 2002), searched for age and metallicity gradients (Piatti et al. 2009), derived ages and metallicities for some 81 LMC clusters (Piatti et al. 2011a, Piatti 2011), and investigated in detail the LMC field and cluster Age-Metallicity Relationships (Piatti & Geisler 2013), among others. We continue here our previous work on LMC clusters by presenting results for six mostly unstudied clusters (NGC1768, HS85, SL676, NGC2107, NGC2190, and SL866) with the aim of adding them to our growing sample of well-studied LMC clusters that will allow us to assemble a much more comprehensive database with which to study the formation and evolution of LMC clusters and their parent galaxy.
The paper is organized as follows. The next section describes the collected observations and the data reduction. Sect. 3 deals with the observed Color-Magnitude Diagrams (CMDs) and the procedure of disentangling cluster from field star features. We focus also on the estimation of the cluster structural parameters. The cluster fundamental parameters are derived in Sect. 4, while the analysis and discussion of the results are presented in Sect. 5. Our main findings are summarized in Sec. 6.
Data handling
=============
Based on data obtained from the Gemini Science Archive, we collected CCD SDSS $gr$ (Fukugita et al., 1996) images centerd on 6 LMC clusters (GS-2010B-Q-74, PI: Pessev) along with observations of standard fields and calibration frames (zero, sky-flat, dome-flat). The data were obtained at the Gemini South telescope with the Gemini Multi-Object Spectrograph (GMOS) attached (scale = 0.146 arcsec/pixel). The log of the observations is presented in Table 1, where the main astrometric, photometric and observational information is summarized. Nine Gemini Observatory standard fields were observed along the 5 cluster observing nights as baseline observations, for which 2 exposures of 5 s per filter and airmass in the range $\sim$ 1.0-2.0 were obtained.
The data reduction followed the procedures documented in the Gemini Observatory webpage[^1] and utilized the [gemini/gmos]{} package in IRAF[^2]. We performed overscan, trimming, bias subtraction, flattened all data images, etc., once the calibration frames (zeros and flats) were properly combined. The final field of view of the images resulted to be $\sim$ 5.6’ $\times$ 5.6’.
Around 30-50 independent magnitude measures of standard stars were derived per filter using the [apphot]{} task within IRAF, in order to secure the transformation from the instrumental to the SDSS $gr$ standard system. Standard stars were distributed over an area similar to that of the GMOS array, so that we measured magnitudes of standard stars in each of the three chips. The relationships between instrumental and standard magnitudes were obtained by fitting the following equations:
$$g = g_1 + g_{std} + g_2\times X_g + g_3\times (g-r)_{std}$$
$$r = r_1 + r_{std} + r_2\times X_r + r_3\times (g-r)_{std}$$
where $g_i$, and $r_i$ (i=1,2,3) are the fitted coefficients, and $X$ represents the effective airmass. We solved the transformation equations for the three chips with the [fitparams]{} task in IRAF, simultaneously; the rms errors from the transformation to the standard system being 0.015 mag for $g$ and 0.023 for $r$, respectively, indicating an excellent match to the standard system.
The stellar photometry was performed using the star-finding and point-spread-function (PSF) fitting routines in the [daophot/allstar]{} suite of programs (Stetson et al., 1990). For each frame, a quadratically varying PSF was derived by fitting $\sim$ 60 stars, once the neighbors were eliminated using a preliminary PSF derived from the brightest, least contaminated 20-30 stars. Both groups of PSF stars were interactively selected. We then used the [allstar]{} program to apply the resulting PSF to the identified stellar objects and to create a subtracted image which was used to find and measure magnitudes of additional fainter stars. This procedure was repeated three times for each frame. Finally, we computed aperture corrections from the comparison of PSF and aperture magnitudes by using the neighbor-subtracted PSF star sample. After deriving the photometry for all detected objects in each filter, a cut was made on the basis of the parameters returned by [daophot]{}. Only objects with $\chi$ $<$2, photometric error less than 2$\sigma$ above the mean error at a given magnitude, and $|$SHARP$|$ $<$ 0.5 were kept in each filter (typically discarding about 10% of the objects), and then the remaining objects in the $g$ and $r$ lists were matched with a tolerance of 1 pixel and raw photometry obtained.
We combined all the independent instrumental magnitudes using the stand-alone [daomatch]{} and [daomaster]{} programs, kindly provided by Peter Stetson. As a result, we produced one dataset per cluster containing the $x$ and $y$ coordinates for each star, and two ($g$,$g-r$) pairs. The gathered photometric information was standardized using equations (1) to (2). We finally averaged standard magnitudes and colors of stars measured twice. The resulting standardized photometric tables list successively a running number per star, the $x$ and $y$ coordinates, the averaged $g$ magnitudes, the observational errors $\sigma(g)$, the $g-r$ colors, the observational errors $\sigma(g-r)$, and the number of observations. We adopted the photometric errors provided by [allstar]{}[^3] for stars with only one measure. Tables 2 to 7 provide this information for NGC1768, HS85, SL676, NGC2107, NGC2190, and SL866, respectively. Only a portion of Table 2 is shown here for guidance regarding its form and content. The whole content of Tables 2-7 is provided as Supplementary Tables.
Analysis of the Color-Magnitude diagrams
========================================
In order to obtain extracted CMDs where the fiducial features of the clusters can be clearly seen, we: (i) cleaned the cluster CMDs from the field star contamination by using field stars placed beyond the cluster regions; (ii) determined the cluster geometrical centers and; (iii) traced the cluster radial profiles in order to determine the cluster extents.
As for cleaning the cluster CMDs from the field star contamination, we used the method developed by Piatti & Bica (2012), which is designed to statistically reproduce the respective field star CMD and then to subtract it from the observed cluster CMD. The method is based on the fact that some parts of the field star CMD are more populated than others so that, by counting the number of stars within boxes of a fixed size becomes in a less profitable task. In general, bigger boxes are required to satisfactory reproduce CMD regions with a small number of field stars, while smaller boxes are necessary in populous CMD regions. For instance, relatively bright field red giants with small photometric errors can be subtracted only if large enough boxes are used and therefore, a cluster CMD without such a spurious red giant features can be built. Piatti & Bica proposed to use variable boxes in the field star CMDs. Magnitude and color box sizes are allowed to vary separately, and fixed in such a way that they result bigger in CMD regions with a small number of stars, and vice versa. The boxes are placed and designed by taking into account the stellar density in the field star CMD, while the field stars are eliminated by looking for one star -the closest one in terms of magnitude and color- in the cluster CMD for each star identified in the field CMD. For our purposes, the field star CMDs were built using stars located typically beyond 700 pixels from the cluster centers. The bottom-right panel of Figs. 1-6 shows the resulting boxes in the field CMD.
The coordinates of the cluster centers and their estimated uncertainties were determined by fitting Gaussian distributions to the star counts in the $x$ and $y$ directions for each cluster. These projected stellar densities were built using intervals of 40 pixel wide, although we checked that using spatial bins from 20 to 60 pixels does not result in significant changes in the derived centers. We made use of the [ngaussfit]{} routine in the [stsdas/iraf]{} package, which was executed from entering initial guesses for the single Gaussian’s parameters, namely: a fixed constant -in our case equals to zero- which represents the corresponding background levels (i.e. stellar field densities assumed to be uniform), the linear terms to zero, the centers of the Gaussians, their amplitudes and their full width at half-maximum (FWHM). We iterated the fitting procedure on average once, after eliminating a couple of discrepant points. Cluster centers were finally determined with a typical standard deviation of $\pm$ 10 pixels ($\sim$ 1.5") in all cases.
The cluster radial profiles were then obtained by first counting the number of stars in adjacent boxes of 20 $\times$ 20 pixels covering the whole field of each cluster. Thus, at any distance $r$ from the cluster center, we computed the mean stellar density using the equation:
$$(n_{r+10} - n_{r-10})/(m_{r+10} - m_{r-10}),$$
where $n_j$ and $m_j$ represent the sum of the number of stars counted in boxes closer than $j$ to the cluster centre and the number of boxes found inside $j$, respectively. Note that Eq. (3) provides with the mean stellar density at a distance $j$ even though complete circles cannot be traced at that distance. This is an important consideration since having a stellar density profile which extends far away from the cluster center, allows us to estimate the background level more precisely. Such profiles were in turn useful to derive the cluster radii, defined as the distance from the cluster center where the stellar density profile intersects the background level, as well as to measure the FWHM of the cluster density profiles, which play a significant role - from a stellar content point of view - in the construction of the cluster CMDs. When choosing the size of the rings we preferred 20 pixels which allows us to statistically sample the stellar spatial distribution as well as to avoid spurious effects mainly caused by the presence of localized groups, rows or columns of stars. Nevertheless, we traced the cluster radial profiles using rings with different sizes around 20 pixels wide in order to estimate the uncertainties in the resulting radial profiles. Typically, the uncertainties vary from the center outwards with a S/N ratio between 8 and 33; the average being 14. The resulting density profiles are shown in the upper-right panel of Figs. 1-6. We fitted a King (1962) model to these stellar density profiles using the expression:
$$N/N_o = ({\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+(r/r_c)^2}} - \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 + (r_t/r_c)^2}}})^2 + bkg$$
where $N_o$ is the central stellar density, and $r_c$ and $r_t$ are the core and tidal radii, respectively. $bkg$ represents the background level. $r_c$ and $r_t$ were estimated with a typical precision of 10 and 100 pixels, respectively, and their resulting mean values are listed in Table 8.
We then constructed three CMDs covering different circular extractions as shown in Figs. 1-6 (upper-left, bottom-left, and bottom-right panels). The upper-left panel corresponds to the observed cluster CMD, as built from stars distributed within a circle of radius equals to the cluster radius. The bottom-left panel depicts the resulting cleaned cluster CMD, once the decontamination of field stars was performed; while the bottom-right panel shows a reference field star CMD built from stars distributed within an equal cluster area. The observational errorbars are drawn on the right hand of each panel. As can be seen, the observed cluster CMDs exhibit as the most obvious traits Main Sequences (MSs) which vary in extent and in number of stars, besides the presence of Red Clump (RC) and Red Giant Branch (RGB) stars. In some cases, populous Sub-Giant Branches are also visible. Note that all these features are also seen in the field star CMDs -although at a different stellar density level-, which reflect the LMC composite stellar populations. The comparison of the observed cluster and reference field star CMDs clearly becomes in a robust evidence that field star decontamination is needed in order to disentangle the fiducial cluster features.
Despite the fact that some residual of the field star decontamination is unavoidable, the cleaned cluster CMDs reveal that we are dealing with clusters spread in a relatively wide age range. NGC1768, HS85, SL676, and NGC2107 appear to be relatively or moderately young star clusters, whereas NGC2190 and SL866 seems to be of intermediate-age. In addition, SL676, NGC2190, and possible NGC2107 show RCs with an elongated or secondary structure which resemble that of clusters with evidence of age spread (e.g., Milone et al. 2009, Keller et al. 2012, Piatti 2013).
Cluster fundamental parameters
==============================
Based on the cleaned cluster CMDs we followed the common procedure of matching theoretical isochrones in order the find the ones which best reproduce the fiducial cluster features. We chose the evolutionary models developed by Marigo et al. (2008) for three different metallicities Z = 0.004, 0.008, and 0.020 (\[FeH\] = -0.7, -0.4, and +0.0, respectively) to evaluate the metallicity effect in the cluster fundamental parameters. The selected values cover the metallicty range for most of the LMC clusters younger than $\sim$ 4 Gyr (Piatti & Geisler 2013). Note that cluster metallicity plays an important role when fitting theoretical isochrones. The distinction is mainly evident for the evolved RC and RGB phases. ZAMSs are often less affected by metallicity effects and can even exhibit imperceptible variations for a specific metallicity range within the expected photometric errors.
Before matching the cluster CMDs with theoretical isochrones, we need to adopt the cluster interstellar extinctions and distance moduli. As for the cluster distance moduli, considering the line-of-sight depth of the galaxy to be approximately 6 kpc (Crowl et al. 2001), and bearing in mind that any cluster of the sample could be placed in front of or behind the main body of the LMC, we concluded that the difference in the cluster apparent distance moduli could be as large as $\Delta(V-M_V)$ $\sim$ 0.15 mag, if a value of 50 kpc is adopted for the mean LMC distance. Since $\Delta(V-M_V)$ resulted smaller than the uncertainties when adjusting the isochrones, the simple assumption of adopting a unique value for the distance modulus for all the clusters should not dominate the error budget in our final results. For this reason, we adopted for all the clusters the value of the LMC distance modulus $(m-M)_o$ = 18.50 $\pm$ 0.10 recently reported by Glatt et al. (2010).
The estimation of cluster reddening values was made by interpolating the extinction maps of Burstein & Heiles (1982, hereafter BH). BH maps were obtained from HI (21 cm) emission data for the southern sky. They furnish us with foreground $E(B-V)$ color excesses which depend on the Galactic coordinates. We also derived the values of $E(B-V)$ provided by Haschke et al. (2011, hereafter HGD) based on photometry of RR Lyrae ab stars obtained by the third phase of the Optical Gravitational Lensing Experiment (OGLE III). Although two cluster fields resulted to be outside their extinction maps (NGC2190 and SL866), we found a fairly good agreement for the remaining four star clusters of $\Delta(E(B-V)_{BH-HG}$ = (-0.026 $\pm$ 0.022) mag. We also compared the $E(B-H)_{BH}$ values with those coming from the Schlegel et al. (1998, hereafter SFD) full-sky 100-$\mu$m dust emission maps. However, their values deviate for star clusters located in the LMC bar or arms (Harris & Zaritsky 2009) due to saturation of HI emission. This is the case of: NGC1768, located in the North-West end of the Bar; HS85, located in the North-West Arm and; SL676 and NGC2107 located in the South-East end of the Bar, respectively. For NGC 2190 and SL866, which are placed in the South-Eastern and North-Eastern outer disk, respectively, the agreement between BH and SFD reddenings resulted satisfactory ($\Delta(E(B-V)_{BH-SFD})$ = (-0.020 $\pm$ 0.005) mag). Table 8 lists the adopted $E(B-V)_{BH}$ color excesses. We adopted $R$ = $A_V$/$E(B-V)$ = 3.1 to convert color excess to extinction, and used the equations $A_g$/$A_V$ = 1.199 and $A_r$/$A_V$ = 0.858 (Fan 1999) to evaluate the total extinctions in $A_g$ and $A_r$. Finally, we used $E(g - r)$/$A_V$ = 0.341 for the selective extinction in the SDSS system.
We then selected a set of isochrones, and superimposed them to the cluster CMDs, once they were properly shifted by the corresponding $E(g-r)$ color excesses and by the LMC distance modulus. In the matching procedure we used seven different isochrones for each metallicity level, ranging from slightly younger than the derived cluster age to slightly older. Finally, we adopted as the cluster age the one corresponding to the isochrone which best reproduced the cluster main features in the CMD, bearing in mind the observational errorbars and the errors in $E(g-r)$ and $(m-M)_o$ as well. The presence of RCs and/or RGBs in some cluster CMDs made the fitting procedure easier. We noted, however, that the theoretically computed bluest stage during the He-burning core phase is redder than the observed RC in the CMDs of some clusters, a behaviour already detected in other studies of Galactic and Magellanic Cloud clusters (e.g., Piatti et al. 2011b and references therein). Notice that we do not provide with metallicity errors, since we only used three prearranged values in the isochrone matching. However, for the sake of the subsequent analysis, the metallicity values adopted are in excellent agreement with those for LMC clusters of similar ages (Piatti & Geisler 2013). In Fig. 7 we plotted, for each cluster CMD, the isochrone of the adopted cluster age and two additional isochrones bracketing the derived age. The ages of the bracketing isochrones were estimated by taking into account the observed dispersion in the cluster CMDs. The ages of the adopted isochrones and their corresponding metallicities for the cluster sample are listed in Table 8.
Analysis and discussion
=======================
As far as we are aware from searching the literature, only NGC1768 has a previous age estimate. Glatt et al. (2010) obtained an age of log($t$) = 7.8 $\pm$ 0.4 in fairly good agreement with our present value, although their uncertainty is noticeably larger. Glatt et al. have used data from the Magellanic Cloud Photometric Surveys (Zaritsky et al. 2002) to build the cluster CMD. Although they mention that field contamination is a severe effect in the extracted cluster CMDs and therefore influences the age estimates, no decontamination from field CMDs were carried out. Their large age errors could reflect the composite stellar populations of the LMC Bar field towards which the cluster is projected.
SL676 and NGC2017 resulted to be a cluster pair relatively close in age, with an age difference of (350 $\pm$ 210) Myr. These objects present an angular separation in the sky of 4.1’, which is equivalent to 59.6 pc. However, since the upper separation limit for binary LMC star clusters is $\sim$ 20 pc (Bathia et al. 1991, Dieball et al. 2002) we concluded that they do not constitute a physical system.
Finally, NGC2190 and SL866 resulted to be intermediate-age star clusters. According to their positions in the galaxy, the resulting ages are in good agreement with those of star clusters placed at a similar deprojected distance from the LMC center, whereas the present metallicties result slightly more metal-rich for those galactocentric distances (Piatti et al. 2009). Comparing the cluster ages and metallicities with those of their respective surrounding star fields (Piatti & Geisler 2013), we found that the latter are older ($< t >$ $\sim$ 5 Gyr) and more metal-poor (\[Fe/H\] $\sim$ -1.0 dex). The remarkable different ages and metallicities of the star clusters and the dominant field stellar populations could be explained if we assume that the clusters were born in other parts of the galaxy and, because of their orbital motions, they are observed at the current locations. Notice that the ages of NGC2190 and SS866 are encompassed within the well-known star cluster bursting formation epoch (Piatti 2011), so that they could have been formed in regions where the cluster burst took place.
Summary
=======
In this study we present for the first time CCD SDSS $gr$ photometry of stars in the field of poorly studied LMC star clusters, namely: NGC1768, HS85, SL676, NGC2107, NGC2190, and SL866. The star clusters are spread throughout the Bar, Arms, and Outer Disk of the galaxy. The data were obtained at the Gemini South telescope with the GMOS attached. We are confident that the photometric data yield accurate morphology and position of the main cluster features in the CMDs. We applied a subtraction procedure to statistically clean the cluster CMDs from field star contamination in order to disentangle cluster features from those belonging to their surrounding fields. The technique makes use of variable cells in order to reproduce the field CMD as closely as possible. We trace their stellar density radial profiles from star counts performed over the cleaned field star datasets. From the density profiles, we adopted cluster radii defined as the distance from the cluster center where the stellar density profile intersects the background level, and derived the radii at the FWHM of the radial profile. We then built CMDs with cluster features clearly identified. Using the cleaned cluster CMDs, we estimated ages and metallicities from matching theoretical isochrones computed for the SDSS system. When adjusting a subset of isochrones we took into account the LMC distance modulus and the individual star cluster color excesses. The studied star clusters turned out to cover a relatively wide age range, from relatively young up to intermediate-age clusters. We found that SL676 and NGC2107 are not binary clusters but aligned along the same line-of-sight, while NGC2109 and SL866 are intermediate-age and slightly metal-poor clusters located in the Outer Disk where the dominant stellar populations are older and more metal-poor. The remarkably different ages and metallicities could be explained if we consider the star cluster orbital motions.
This work was partially supported by the Argentinian institutions CONICET and Agencia Nacional de Promoción Científica y Tecnológica (ANPCyT).
Bathia, R.K., Read, M.A., Hatzidimitriou, D., Tritton, S., 1991, A&AS, 87, 352
Bica, E., Bonatto, C., Dutra, C.M., Santos, Jr. J.F.C., 2008, MNRAS, 389, 678
Burstein, D., Heiles, C., 1982, AJ, 87, 1165
Crowl, H.H., Sarajedini, A., Piatti, A.E., Geisler, D., Bica, E., Clariá, J.J., Santos, Jr. J.F.C., 2001, AJ, 122, 220
Chiosi, E., Vallenari, A., Held, E.V., Rizzi, L., Moretti, A., 2006, A&A, 452, 179
Dieball, A., Müller, H., Grebel, E.K., 2002, A&A, 391, 547
Fan, X., 1999, AJ, 117, 2528
Fukugita, M., Ichikawa, T., Gunn, J.E., Doi, M., Shimasaku, K., and Schneider, D.P., 1996, AJ, 111, 1748
Glatt, K., Grebel, E.K., Koch, A., 2010, A&A, 517, 50
Harris, J., Zaritsky, D., 2009, AJ, 138, 1243
Haschke, R., Grebel, E.K., Duffau, S., 2011, AJ, 141, 158
Keller, S.C., Mackey, A.D., Da Costa, G.S., 2012, ApJ, 761, L5
King, I., 1962, AJ, 67, 471
Marigo, P., Girardi, L., Bressan, A., Groenewegen, M.A.T., Silva, L. Granato, G.L., 2008, A&A, 482, 883
Milone, A.P., Bedin, L.R., Piotto, G., Anderson, J., 2009, AJ, 497, 755
Piatti, A.E., 2011, MNRAS, 418, L40
Piatti, A.E., 2013, MNRAS, 430, 2358
Piatti, A.E., Bica, E., 2012, MNRAS, 425, 3085
Piatti, A.E., Geisler, D., 2013, AJ, 145, 17
Piatti, A.E., Clariá, J.J., Bica, E., Geisler, D., Ahumada, A.V., Girardi, L., 2011b, MNRAS, 417, 1559
Piatti, A.E., Clariá, J.J., Parisi, M.C., Ahumada, A.V., 2011a, PASP, 123, 519
Piatti, A.E., Geisler, D., Bica, E., Clariá, J.J., Santos, J.F.C., Jr., Sarajedini, A., Dottori, H., 1999, AJ, 118, 2865
Piatti, A.E., Geisler, D., Sarajedini, A., Gallart, C., 2009, A&A, 501, 585
Piatti, A.E., Sarajedini, A., Geisler, D., Bica, E., Clariá, J.J., 2002, MNRAS, 329, 556
Schlegel, D.J., Finkbeiner, D.P., Davis, M., 1998, ApJ, 500, 525
Stetson, P.B., Davis, L.E., Crabtree, D.R., 1990, in Jacoby G.H., ed. ASP Conf. Ser., CCDs in Astronomy. Astron. Soc. Pac., San Francisco, 8, 289
Zaritsky, D., Harris, J., Thompson, I.B., Grebel, E.K., Massey, P., 2002, AJ, 123, 855
[lcccccc]{}
NGC1768 & 04 57 02 & -68 14 56 & $g$ & 2$\times$30 & 1.283 & 1.2\
& & & $r$ & 2$\times$15 & 1.281 & 1.1\
HS85 & 05 00 51 & -67 48 14 & $g$ & 2$\times$30 & 1.308 & 0.9\
& & & $r$ & 2$\times$15 & 1.306 & 0.9\
SL676 & 05 43 09 & -70 34 16 & $g$ & 2$\times$30 & 1.321 & 0.7\
& & & $r$ & 2$\times$15 & 1.322 & 0.6\
NGC2107 & 05 43 13 & -70 38 23 & $g$ & 2$\times$30 & 1.321 & 0.7\
& & & $r$ & 2$\times$15 & 1.322 & 0.6\
NGC2190 & 06 01 02 & -74 43 33 & $g$ & 2$\times$30 & 1.509 & 1.2\
& & & $r$ & 2$\times$15 & 1.503 & 1.1\
SL866 & 06 14 32 & -65 58 57 & $g$ & 2$\times$30 & 1.407 & 1.1\
& & & $r$ & 2$\times$15 & 1.402 & 1.0\
[lccccccc]{}
- & - & - & - & - & - & -\
11 &1493.480 &1187.271 & 16.663 & 0.002 & -0.197 & 0.004& 2\
12 &1685.743 &1275.260 & 16.605 & 0.002 & -0.226 & 0.004& 2\
13 &1874.385 & 611.421 & 16.661 & 0.002 & 0.608 & 0.003& 2\
- & - & - & - & - & - & -\
[lccccccc]{}
NGC1768 & 279.360 & -35.549 & 90 & 800 & 0.05 & 8.00 $\pm$ 0.20 & 0.008\
HS85 & 278.716 & -35.325 & 160 & 1000 & 0.06 & 8.65 $\pm$ 0.10 & 0.008\
SL676 & 281.126 & -31.125 & 90 & 500 & 0.07 & 8.80 $\pm$ 0.10 & 0.008\
NGC2107 & 281.205 & -31.114 & 120 & 1300 & 0.07 & 8.45 $\pm$ 0.10 & 0.008\
NGC2190 & 285.768 & -29.408 & 200 & 2000 & 0.12 & 9.10 $\pm$ 0.10 & 0.008\
SL866 & 275.776 & -28.332 & 210 & 2000 & 0.05 & 9.30 $\pm$ 0.10 & 0.008\
{width="17cm"}
{width="17cm"}
{width="17cm"}
{width="17cm"}
{width="17cm"}
{width="17cm"}
{width="17cm"}
{width="17cm"}
[^1]: http://www.gemini.edu
[^2]: IRAF is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatories, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under contract with the National Science Foundation.
[^3]: Program kindly provided by P.B. Stetson
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
I briefly review the theory of soft X–ray transient systems. Irradiation of the accretion disc faces by the central X–ray source determines both the occurrence and the nature of the outbursts, in particular forcing these to be long viscous events and producing exponential decays at short orbital periods. Soft X–ray transients constitute the majority of LMXBs, persistent systems being largely confined to a subset of neutron–star LMXBs with periods $P \la
2$ d. It appears that LMXBs very frequently contain nuclear–evolved companions, even at short orbital periods. In long–period transients ($P \ga 20$ d) the outburst recurrence times must become extremely long ($\ga 1500$ yr). The outbursts are highly super–Eddington, markedly reducing the accretion efficiency. Spinup of a neutron–star primary to millisecond periods probably cannot occur for orbital periods $\ga 200$ d, in agreement with observations of binary pulsars.
author:
- 'A.R. King'
title: 'Disc Instabilities in Soft X–ray Transients'
---
\#1[[*\#1*]{}]{} \#1[[*\#1*]{}]{} =
\#1 1.25in .125in .25in
Introduction
============
My interest in this subject was kindled by a workshop on Black Holes held in Aspen in early 1996, and transformed by interaction with Jan. I arrived at the meeting after a long snowy drive from Denver, worried about two things. First, my then postdoc Luciano Burderi had persuaded me to try skiing for the first time, at what even I regarded as a perilously advanced age. Second, the meeting organisers had asked me to talk about the evolution of X–ray transients, and I could not make much sense out of this topic. By then the only model seriously considered for the X–ray outbursts involved the thermal–viscous disc instability, resulting from hydrogen ionization. I was puzzled by two aspects of this. I could not see why the outbursts of transients should be so much longer and more infrequent than those of dwarf novae, and I could not understand why some low–mass X–ray binaries (LMXBs) should be transient and others not.
Being asked to talk on the subject made the second of these problems more immediately urgent than the first. My then postdoc Uli Kolb and I had tried to solve it by simply asking when an LMXB accretion disc would have hydrogen ionization zones. The presence of these zones should mean that the disc was unstable, making the system transient. This procedure already worked well for the closely related cataclysmic variables (CVs), in which the accretor is a white dwarf rather than the black hole or neutron star in LMXBs. Given the disc surface temperature distribution $T_{\rm eff}(R)$ resulting from viscous dissipation, all one had to do was compare this with some value $T_{\rm H} \simeq 6500$ K typical of hydrogen ionization. If $T_{\rm
eff}(R)$ was everywhere above $T_{\rm H}$ the disc should have no ionization zones and be persistent rather than having dwarf nova outbursts. Since $T_{\rm eff}(R)$ decreases outwards the condition amounted to $$T_{\rm eff}(R_{\rm d}) > T_{\rm H}
\label{eff}$$ where $R_{\rm d}$ is the outer disc radius. As $T_{\rm eff}(R_{\rm
d})$ could be calculated from the mass transfer rate $-\dot M_2$ and orbital period $P$, one could plot a line dividing dwarf novae from persistent (‘novalike’) CVs on the usual $-\dot M_2 - P$ relation predicted for CVs, assuming the standard angular momentum loss mechanisms and seondary stars close to the main sequence. Those CVs predicted to have ionization zones, i.e. lie below the line, were indeed dwarf novae. Yet for LMXBs the same method produced the manifestly wrong result that [*all*]{} short–period ($P \la 12$ hr) LMXBs should be transient.
Surviving the first couple of days on the ski slopes without serious injury eased my first set of worries, but I was still fretting over the second set when Jan gave his talk. By immense good fortune this was the evening before I was due to speak. Jan’s talk characteristically combined a powerful insight with a presentation so lucid and simple that the result seemed instantly obvious. He pointed out that LMXB discs differ from CV discs in one vital respect: the optical flux from an LMXB disc is so much higher than expected from the accretion rate revealed by the X–ray flux, that the disc must be heated by some other agency than the viscous dissipation driving the accretion through the disc. The obvious candidate for this is the X–ray emission itself, some of which must fall on the disc faces and heat them. This fact had long been known by observers, but somehow never fully appreciated by theorists, largely I suspect because theoretical calculations predicted (and still predict) that the result of irradiating a disc in this way is to make its central regions swell up and shield most of the rest of it from the X–rays.
Armed with clear observational evidence to the contrary, Jan adopted the sensible view that nature knows how to irradiate a disc even if theorists don’t. A simple concave disc model allowed him to calculate the run of disc surface temperature $T_{\rm irr}(R)$ from the observed X–ray flux and orbital period of a given LMXB. If $T_{\rm irr}(R)$ was everywhere above $T_{\rm H}$, Jan assumed that the disc would be stable and the system persistent. Since $T_{\rm irr}(R)$ decreases outwards this is now equivalent to requiring $$T_{\rm irr}(R_{\rm d}) > T_{\rm H} \label{irr}$$ rather than the CV condition (\[eff\]). Jan showed that indeed the condition (\[irr\]) correctly divided LMXBs into persistent and transient if he used their [*observed*]{} X–ray luminosities to predict $-\dot M_2$ and thus $T_{\rm irr}$.
Back in my room that evening I spent a lot of time thinking about what Jan had said, and how I should change the talk I was to deliver the next day. It was clear that condition (\[irr\]) was less restrictive than (\[eff\]), reflecting the stabilizing effect of irradiation. So the question was what the corresponding line on the $-\dot M_2 - P$ plane would give. Fortunately Jan had given enough information for me to add the line to the plots I had prepared for my talk. Sure enough, the new line was at lower $-\dot M_2$ – values than the old line. But the surprising consequence was that, particularly for neutron–star LMXBs, the standard angular–momentum driven evolution of short–period systems with near–main–sequence secondaries now predicted that all systems in the observed 3 hr $\la P \la$ 10 hr period range should be be [*persistent*]{}. While this was an advance on the clearly incorrect earlier prediction that all these systems should be transient, I still had to explain the presence of several incontrovertible neutron–star transients at these periods. Given the robust nature of Jan’s condition (\[irr\]), the only plausible route seemed to lie in dropping one of the assumptions about the evolution of neutron–star LMXBs. By another stroke of good luck, I had brought with me an $-\dot M_2 - P$ plot for an LMXB where the secondary star was somewhat nuclear–evolved at the start of mass transfer, but the system evolved to shorter periods under angular momentum loss. I noticed that the predicted mass transfer rates $\dot M_2$ were significantly lower; this occurred since the somewhat evolved secondary star was slightly larger for its mass than a main–sequence secondary would be. Adding the line corresponding to condition (\[irr\]) immediately showed that this system would indeed be transient at short periods. In other words, the existence of short–period neutron–star transients is evidence that nuclear evolution can have a significant effect even at such periods.
Jan’s insight (published as van Paradijs, 1996) thus started off an important line of research, which I briefly review in the rest of this article.
The Current Situation
=====================
Long–period transients and millisecond pulsars
----------------------------------------------
The consequences of the condition (\[irr\]) for the long–term evolution of LMXBs have been explored in a number of papers. King, Kolb & Burderi (1996) reinforced the conclusion above that evolved secondaries favour transient behaviour, and noted that all long–period ($P \ga 2$ d) LMXBs are likely to be transient because the accretion disc is very large and must have cool edges. Such systems must be the progenitors of long–period ($P \ga 100 - 200$ d) millisecond pulsar binaries with circular orbits (e.g. Tauris & Savonije, 1999), yet the longest orbital period seen in a neutron–star LMXB is only 11.8 d (GRO J1744-28, Giles et al., 1996, which is indeed transient). This must mean that outbursts in these long–period transients are so infrequent none has been seen over the $\sim 30$ year history of X–ray astronomy. Moreover, these outbursts are likely to be highly super–Eddington (even the mean mass transfer rates are), so very little of the transferred mass will be accreted by the neutron star. As a consequence it is very hard to spin up these stars to millisecond periods, particularly at long orbital periods, explaining an observed trend. In addition, by exploiting these observational constraints, Ritter & King (2001a,b) have shown that the mean recurrence time of outbursts in long–period transients must become extremely long; the current lower limit is about 1500 yr. This is an interesting challenge for accretion disc theory.
The evolution of short–period transients
----------------------------------------
Clearly the conclusion that nuclear evolution is significant even in short–period systems implies interesting constraints on the pre–contact evolution. King & Kolb (1997) and Kalogera, Kolb & King (1998) showed that the existence of a sufficient number of such systems to account for short–period neutron–star transients is plausible, even without extreme assumptions: the formation of a neutron–star binary is such a rare event that rather unusual companions are not uncommon. King, Kolb & Szuszkiewicz (1997) noted that the formation constraints for black–hole binaries were considerably weaker, chiefly because any supernova explosion in the latter does not come perilously close to unbinding the binary, as is inevitable in neutron–star systems. With standard assumptions about common–envelope evolution (CE) and magnetic braking (MB) there is little to prevent the formation of large numbers of black–hole binaries with unevolved low–mass companions. These systems would be persistent, in conflict with the observation that most persistent short–period LMXBs show Type I X–ray bursts and therefore contain neutron stars. Without modifying CE and MB, the most likely escape seems to be an effect noted by Shakura & Sunyaev (1973) in their original paper on accretion discs. This involves the lack of a hard surface for black holes: this may inhibit the formation of a central point irradiating source. The accretion disc will still be irradiated, but now only by the inner accretion disc rather than a quasi–spherical object, weakening the irradiation effect by the aspect ratio $H/R$ of the disc ($H = $ disc scaleheight). Taking account of this factor in the irradiation formula does indeed make such BH + main sequence binaries transient. However recently there has emerged evidence that many if not most short–period black–hole transients have significantly nuclear–evolved companions: HST spectra of XTE J1118+480 show clear signs of CNO processing for example. This in turn must mean that the formation constraints for LMXBs differ from those resulting from the standard assumptions about MB and particularly CE. This may remove the motivation for including the $H/R$ factor in the irradiation formula. The conclusion about CE may have important consequences for general close binary evolution, including CVs (King & Schenker, 2001). In particular nuclear evolution and finite age effects may be far more significant that hitherto thought.
Soft X–ray transient outbursts
------------------------------
None of the work referred to above deals with the crucial question raised in the Introduction of why transient outbursts have much longer timescales than dwarf novae. Here too disc irradiation provides an insight. Once an outburst starts, the central regions of the disc will find it impossible to return to the cool state until the central X–ray source turns off. But this turnoff itself cannot occur while these central regions contain significant mass: observation is unambiguous in showing that the disc remains strongly irradiated throughout the outburst. Clearly the outburst must last until most of this mass is removed by accretion, which occurs on the hot–state viscous timescale. King & Ritter (1998) constructed a simple analytical model of this process, incorporating the assumption that the disc was irradiated by the central source in the way indicated by the earlier evolutionary studies and Jan’s original paper. King & Ritter’s paper showed that in short–period systems, where the whole of the disc faces could be effectively illuminated, there was a strong tendency to produce an exponential X–ray decay, while in longer period systems only the centre of the disc could be kept in the hot state, producing a linear decay. This is supported by observation (Giles et al., 1996; Shahbaz et al., 1998). More elaborate numerical calculations confirm this (cf Lasota, 2001, and references therein), although the theoretical problem of why the central disc does not puff up and shield the outer parts from the irradiation is still not understood. Recently, Truss et al. (2001) have suggested that the secondary maximum seen in exponential decays may result from the standard unirradiated ionization instability operating on matter at the edge of a small disc, which is shielded from the central X–rays simply because there is inevitably a shadowing effect at the outer disc edge.
Conclusions
===========
Jan’s insight that disc irradiation could have important effects has been amply justified. He would have been pleased by this, but even happier to realise that we are only at the beginning of understanding all its consequences.
Acknowledgment
==============
I thank the conference organisers and all the participants for what was a memorable experience. As Jan would have wished, the meeting was a marvellously stimulating scientific occasion.
Giles, A.B., Swank, J.H., Jahoda, K., Zhang, W., Strohmayer, T., Stark, M. J., Morgan, E. H., 1996, ApJ 469, 25 Kalogera V., Kolb, U., King, A.R., 1998, ApJ 504, 967 King, A.R., Kolb, U., 1997, ApJ 481, 918 King, A.R., Kolb, U., Burderi, L., 1996, ApJ 464 761 King, A.R., Kolb, U., Szuszkiewicz, E., 1997, ApJ 488, 89 King, A.R., Schenker, K., 2001, to appear in Proceedings of the Göttingen Conference on the Physics of CVs and Related Systems Lasota, J.P., 2001, to appear in New Astronomy Reviews Ritter, H., King, A.R., 2001, in Evolution of Binary and Multiple Star Systems, ASP Conference Series 229, 423, and paper in preparation Shahbaz, T., Charles, P.A., King, A.R., 1998, MNRAS 301 382 Shakura, N., Sunyaev, R., 1973, A&A 24, 337 Tauris, T.M., Savonije, G.J., 1999, A&A 350, 928 Truss,M., Murray, J., Wynn, G.A., King, A.R., 2001, to be published van Paradijs, J.,1996, ApJ, 464, L139
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The paper studies how to release data about a critical infrastructure network (e.g., a power network or a transportation network) without disclosing sensitive information that can be exploited by malevolent agents, while preserving the realism of the network. It proposes a novel obfuscation mechanism that combines several privacy-preserving building blocks with a bi-level optimization model to significantly improve accuracy. The obfuscation is evaluated for both realism and privacy properties on real energy and transportation networks. Experimental results show the obfuscation mechanism substantially reduces the potential damage of an attack exploiting the released data to harm the real network.'
author:
- Ferdinando Fioretto
- |
Terrence W.K. Mak Pascal Van Hentenryck Georgia Institute of Technology\
{fioretto, wmak}@gatech.edu, [email protected]
bibliography:
- 'opf\_bib.bib'
title: |
Privacy-Preserving Obfuscation of Critical Infrastructure Networks\
(Extended Version)
---
Introduction
============
*Critical Infrastructure Networks* (CINs), such as electrical power grids and public transportation networks, rely on the tight interaction of cyber and physical components. They play crucial roles in ensuring social and economic stability, and their operations require advanced machine-learning and optimization algorithms. For instance, power network operations perform a power flow computation every few minutes.
Research on CINs is highly dependent on the availability of realistic test cases. However, the release of such datasets is challenging due to privacy and national security concerns. For instance, the electrical load of an industrial customer may indirectly reveal sensitive information on its production levels and strategic investments. Similarly, the ability to link the physical and cyber locations of power generators can be used to launch coordinated attacks on cyber-physical facilities, significantly damaging the targeted network.
To mitigate these concerns, this paper develops an obfuscation mechanism based on [*Differential Privacy*]{} (DP) [@dwork:06], a robust framework that bounds the privacy risks associated with answering sensitive queries or releasing datasets. A DP algorithm introduces carefully calibrated noise to the data to prevent the disclosure of sensitive information. It is immune to *linkage attacks*–attacks in which one exploits auxiliary data to expose sensitive information.
However, DP faces significant challenges when the resulting privacy-preserving datasets are used as inputs to complex optimization algorithms on CINs. For instance, direct applications of DP may impact the realism of the original dataset or produce networks that do not admit feasible solutions for the problem of interest [@fioretto:CPAIOR-18].
The paper addresses this gap by introducing a *Privacy-preserving Obfuscation mechanism for CINs* (POCINs), sketched in Figure \[fig:framework\]. POCIN takes as input a CIN and executes three phases to (1) obfuscate the *sensitive location* of network elements, (2) hide *sensitive values*, and (3) ensure the satisfaction of important global properties of the CIN and the problem of interest, through the use of optimization.
The paper makes the following contributions: (1) It proposes POCIN, a novel privacy-preserving data release scheme that protects parameters and locations of network elements; (2) POCIN uses a novel bi-level optimization approach to preserve salient properties of the released data and solves it with either exact or approximated methods; and (3) It applies POCIN to two *real* CINs from energy and transportation networks. The paper shows that POCIN ensures strong privacy guarantees and that, on the considered CINs, *the damage inflicted on the real network, when the attacker exploits the obfuscated data, converges to that of a random uninformed attack* as the privacy requirements increase.
Preliminaries: Differential Privacy {#sec:differential_privacy}
===================================
*Differential Privacy (DP)* is a framework used to protect the privacy of individuals in a dataset. This notion has emerged as the de-facto standard for privacy protection. A randomized mechanism $\cM \!:\! \D \!\to\! \R$ with domain $\D$ and range $\R$ is $\epsilon$-differential private if, for any output response $O \subseteq \R$ and any two *neighboring* inputs $D, D' \in \D$ differing in at most one individual (written $D \sim D'$), $$\label{eq:dp_def}
Pr[\cM(D) \in O] \leq \exp(\epsilon)\, Pr[\cM(D') \in O],$$
where the probability is calculated over the coin tosses of $\cM$. The parameter $\epsilon \!>\! 0$ is the *privacy loss* of the algorithm, with values close to $0$ denoting strong privacy. DP satisfies several important properties, including *composability*, which ensures that a combination of differentially private algorithms preserve differential privacy, and *immunity to post-processing*, which ensures that privacy guarantees are preserved by arbitrary post-processing steps [@Dwork:13].
In private data analysis settings, users interact with datasets by issuing queries. A (numeric) *query* is a function from a data set $D \in \D$ to a result set $R \subseteq \RR^d$. A query $Q$ can be made differentially private by injecting random noise to its output. The amount of noise depends on the *sensitivity* of the query, denoted by $\Delta_Q$ and defined as $
\Delta_Q = \max_{D \sim D'} \left\| Q(D) - Q(D')\right\|_1.
$ In other words, the sensitivity of a query is the maximum $l_1$-distance between the query outputs of any two neighboring dataset $D$ and $D'$.
While the classical DP notion protects individuals from participating into a dataset, many applications involve components whose [*presence*]{} is public information. However, their values and (cyber) locations are highly sensitive, as they may reveal, for instance, how much power a generator is producing and where it is located, or the most congested segments in transportation or logistics network. Therefore the privacy goal of data curators is to protect observed values and locations associated with these components.
The concept of *indistinguishability* was introduced by [@andres2013geo] to protect user locations in the Euclidean plane and then generalized in [@chatzikokolakis2013broadening; @koufogiannis:15] to arbitrary metric spaces. Consider a dataset $D$ to which $n$ individuals contribute their data $x_i$ and $\alpha > 0$. An adjacency relation that captures the data variation of a single individual is defined as: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:indist}
D \sim_\alpha D' \iff \exists i: d(x_i, x_i') \leq \alpha \land\; \forall j \neq i: d(x_j, x_j') = 0\end{aligned}$$ where $d$ is a distance function on $\D$. Such adjacency definition is useful to hide individual participation up to some quantity $\alpha$, or a location within a radius $\alpha$. Given $\epsilon > 0, \alpha > 0$, a randomized mechanism $\cM : \D \to \R$ with domain $\D$ and range $\R$ is *$\alpha$-indistinguishable $\epsilon$-DP* ($(\epsilon,\alpha$)-indistinguishable for short) if, for any event $O \subseteq \R$ and any pair $D \sim_\alpha D'$, ($D,D' \in \D$), Equation holds.
The CIN Obfuscation Problem {#sec:obfuscation_problem}
===========================
#### Problem Setting {#sec:problem_setting}
Consider a dataset $(\cal{N}, \cal{E})$ describing some critical infrastructure network where $\cN \in \RR^{n \times p}$ and $\cE \in \RR^{m \times q}$ describe the set of $n$ nodes and $m$ edges of the network, together with their attributes. The dataset $(\cal{N}, \cal{E})$ is referred to as *CIN description*. An element $n_i$ of $\cN$ is a $p$-dimensional vector describing the attribute values associated with node $i$ and an element $e_{ij}$ of $\cE$, is a $q$-dimensional vector describing the attribute values associated with edge $(i,j)$ between nodes $i$ and $j$. Furthermore, consider an optimization problem $P$ that takes as input a CIN description, denoted with $\cin$ for notational clarity: $$\begin{array}{rl}
\cO^*(\cin) = \displaystyle\min_{\bx}
&\cO(\bx, \cin) \\
\text{s.t.}
% h_i(\bx, \cin) = 0 \;\; \forall i \in [k_h]\\
&g_i(\bx, \cin) \leq 0 \;\; \forall i \in [k],
\end{array}\!\!\!
\label{c:bll}$$ where $\bx \!\in\! \RR^l$ is a vector of decision variables, $\cO$ is the objective function of $P$, and $g_i$ ($i \!\in\! [k]$) are the problem constraints.
![An example CIN with four nodes (power generators). The highlighted node is one being compromised by an attacker.[]{data-label="fig:generator"}](generators.pdf){width="0.65\linewidth"}
To illustrate these concepts, consider the CIN in Figure \[fig:generator\], representing a simplified *power network*. The nodes describe the network *generators* and *loads* (represented as cities in the figure) with values denoting the amount of power being injected into, or withdrawn from, the power grid. The edges represent the transmission lines to carry power from generators to loads. The optimization problem $P$ may be the *optimal power flow* (OPF) that amounts to finding the most cost-effective generator dispatch to serve the load demands while satisfying the physical constraints of the network. The data curator desires to release a CIN description $(\cal{\tilde{N}}, \cal{\tilde{E}})$ that *obfuscates* the *location* and *value* of some *sensitive* network elements, e.g., the locations and capacities of generators. The curator also wants to ensure that the OPFs on the released and original CINs behave similarly (e.g., are feasible and have similar costs) so that the released data is of high [*fidelity*]{}.
For notational simplicity, this paper focuses on obfuscating *sensitive nodes* of a CIN where each node $n_i \in \cN$ is a pair $(\ell_i, v_i) \in \NN \times \RR$, describing its location and salient parameter. The $n$-dimensional vectors of locations and values are denoted by $\bm{\ell}$ and $\bm{v}$ and $\cin$ is used to denote a CIN description.
#### Attack Model {#sec:attack_model}
The paper considers an *attack model* $\cA$ in which a malicious agent can disrupt up to $b$ elements (called *attack budget*) to damage the network. Such action produces a new damaged network $\cin^a
= \cA(\cin)$ with $\cin^a \subseteq \cin$. For instance, Figure \[fig:generator\] highlights in red the generators affected by an attack with a budget $b=1$, while $\cin^a$ is shown in black. The paper further assumes that the attacker has full knowledge of the network topology and is capable of solving problem $P$ (e.g., to find the generators with highest dispatch) and assessing the damages resulting from an attack. The *damage* of the attacker is measured using the objective value difference $\cO^*(\cin^a) - \cO^*(\cin)$ for problem $P$. For simplicity, the paper focuses on *ranking attacks*, i.e., attacks that disrupt the $b$ highest-ranked network elements when their values are sorted according to an ordering $\prec$ (e.g., the most dispatched generators), and evaluates the released data against such attacks.
#### The CIN Obfuscation Problem {#sec:CINOP}
This paper uses $\alpha$-indistinguishability to obfuscate the values and locations of nodes. For a given $\alpha_\ell > 0$, the relation $\sim_\ell \subseteq \NN^{2}$ captures indistinguishability between node positions in the network, using a distance $d_\ell$ defined as a function of the minimum number of nodes separating two nodes. Similarly, for a given $\alpha_v > 0$ and distance function $d_v$, relation $\sim_v \subseteq \RR^{2}$ captures the indistinguishability between node values. These neighboring relations can be combined into a new relation $\sim_{\ell v}$ that captures indistinguishability for both values and locations. Two CIN descriptions $\cin \!=\!
(\bm{\ell}, \bv), \cin'\!=\!(\bm{\ell}', \bv') \in \NN \times \RR$ are *location and value indistinguishable* if and only if $$\cin \sim_{\ell v} \cin' \iff
\ell \sim_\ell \ell' \lor \bv \sim_v \bv'.$$ A randomized mechanism $\cM$ is $(\epsilon, \alpha_\ell, \alpha_v)$-indistinguishable if, for any pair of $\sim_{\ell v}$-adjacent datasets, holds.
The design of obfuscation mechanisms for CIN descriptions should satisfy three desiderata, formalized through the *Privacy-preserving Obfuscation for CIN* (POCIN) problem:
\[def:pocin\] Given a CIN description $\cin$, a problem $P$, and positive real values $\alpha_v, \alpha_\ell, \beta$ and $\epsilon$, the POCIN problem produces an obfuscated CIN description $\tilde{\cin} = (\tilde{\bm{\ell}}, \tilde{\bv})$ such that:
1. *Privacy*: $\tilde{\cin}$ satisfies $(\epsilon, \alpha_\ell, \alpha_v)$-indistinguishability.
2. *Fidelity*: $\tilde{\cin}$ admits a candidate solution $\bar{\bx}$ that *(i)* satisfies the constraints $g_i(\bar{\bx}, \tilde{\cin})$ of $P$ and *(ii)* is *$\beta$-faithful* to the P’s objective, i.e., $\frac{| \cO(\bar{\bx},\tilde{\cin}) - \cO^*(\cin)|} {\cO^*(\cin)} \leq \beta$.
3. *Robustness*: $\tilde{\cin}$ minimizes $|\cO^*(\cin) - \cO^*(\cA(\tilde{\cin}))|$, i.e., the damage inflicted by attack $\cA$.
The POCIN Mechanism {#sec:POCIN_mechanism}
===================
The POCIN mechanism is divided in three phases, as illustrated in Figure \[fig:framework\]:
1. The *location obfuscation* phase produces a new location indistinguishable CIN ${\cin}^\ell = (\tilde{\bm{\ell}}, \bv)$ from the original $\cin$.
2. The *value obfuscation* phase takes ${\cin}^\ell$ as input and produces a new value indistinguishable CIN $\tilde{\cin} = (\tilde{\bm{\ell}}, \tilde{\bv})$.
3. The *fidelity restoration* phase produces a new CIN description $\dot{\cin} = (\tilde{\bm{\ell}}, \dot{\bm{v}})$ that satisfies the problem constraints and is faithful to its objective.
### Phase 1: Location Obfuscation
The first phase provides location indistinguishability. The idea is to shuffle the node locations using an instance of the *Exponential Mechanism* [@mcsherry:07]. Such mechanism releases a privacy-preserving answer to a query by sampling from its output discrete space $O$. The sampling probability is determined by a *utility function* $u: (\D \times O) \to \RR $ that assigns a score to each output $o \in O$.
\[th:m\_exp\] Let $u \!:\! (\D \times O) \!\to\! \RR$ with sensitivity $
\Delta_u \!=\! \max_{o \in O} \max_{D \sim D'} |u(D, o) \!-\! u(D', o)|.
$ The exponential mechanism that outputs $o$ with probability $\Pr[o$ is selected $] \propto \exp \big( {\epsilon u(D, o)}/{2\Delta_u} \big)$ satisfies $\epsilon-$DP.
POCIN uses a privacy-preserving *shuffling function* that maps each node $i$ with location $\ell_i$ to a new location $\tilde{\ell}_i$ as: $$\label{eq:exp_step2}
\tilde{\ell}_i \gets \ell_j \text{ with } \Pr \propto
\exp\left( \frac{\epsilon\, d_\ell(\ell_i,\, \ell_j)}{2 \alpha_\ell} \right)$$ where $\ell_j$ is the location of a node $j$. This is an application of the Exponential mechanism with $\Delta_u$ being the sensitivity of distance function $d_\ell$. Since two different locations may be mapped to the same location, POCIN solves an *assignment problem* so that each node $i$ is mapped to a unique location.
![Probabilities of location obfuscations ($\alpha_\ell\!=\!\epsilon\!=\!1.0$).\[img:prob\]](prob_2.pdf){width="0.65\linewidth"}
\[thm:phase2\] Given $\alpha_\ell > 0$, Phase 1 of POCIN achieves $\alpha_\ell$-location-indistinguishability.
Figure \[img:prob\] illustrates the intuition underlying the mechanism: It displays the probabilities of moving the central node to a specific location. For a sufficiently large $\alpha_\ell$, an attacker is provided with no useful location information. Of course, there is a tradeoff between $\alpha_\ell$ and the fidelity of the network, which is addressed in Phase 3.
### Phase 2: Value Obfuscation
The second phase of POCIN takes as input ${\cin}^\ell \!=\!
(\bm{\tilde{\ell}}, \bm{v})$ and constructs a privacy-preserving answer $\tilde{\bm{v}}$ for the node values $\bm{v}$ using the Laplace mechanism.
\[th:m\_lap\] Let $Q$ be a numeric query that maps datasets to $\RR^d$. The Laplace mechanism that outputs $Q(D) + z$, where $z \in \RR^d$ is drawn from the Laplace distribution $\textrm{\Lap}(\Delta_Q / \epsilon)^d$, achieves $\epsilon$-DP.
In the above, $\Lap(\lambda)$ denotes the Laplace distribution with 0 mean and scale $\lambda$, and $\Lap(\lambda)^d$ denotes the i.i.d. Laplace distribution over $d$ dimensions with parameter $\lambda$. The Laplace mechanism with parameter $\lambda=\alpha/\epsilon$ satisfies $\alpha$-indistinguishability [@chatzikokolakis2013broadening]. As a result, the privacy-preserving values $\tilde{\bv}$ of the CIN description are obtained as follows: $$\label{eq:setp1}
\tilde{\bm{v}} = \bm{v} + \text{Lap}(\alpha_v / \epsilon)^n.$$ The Laplace mechanism has been shown to be *optimal*: it minimizes the mean-squared error for identity queries with respect to the L1-norm [@koufogiannis:15].
\[thm:phase1\] Given $\alpha_v > 0$, Phase 2 of POCIN achieves $\alpha_v$-value-indistinguishability.
Phase 2 generates a CIN description $\tilde{\cin} =
(\tilde{\bm{\ell}}, \tilde{\bv})$ obfuscating locations and values of the original network $\cin$. As a result, $\cin^v$ satisfies *condition (1)* of the CIN obfuscation problem.
### Phase 3: Fidelity Restoration
The noise introduced by Phases 1 and 2 may significantly alter the structure of the data and the solutions to Problem $P$. To restore the fidelity of the network, POCIN leverages the post-processing immunity of DP and uses a bi-level optimization problem to redistribute the noise introduced in the previous phases. The primary decision variables of the problem are the vector $\dot{\bm{v}} = (\dot{v}_1, \ldots, \dot{v}_n)$ that represents the post-processed node values after the noise redistribution.
The problem, called $P_{\text{BL}}$, is shown in Figure \[fig:biopt\]. It searches for a vector $\dot{\bm{v}}$ for which problem $P$ has an optimal solution $\bx^*$ and whose objective value is close to the original optimum $\cO^*$ (assumed to be public information). Moreover, the vector $\dot{\bm{v}}$ must be as close as possible to obfuscated vector $\tilde{\bv}$, which is ensured by objective . Constraint ensures that $\bx^*$ is an optimal solution to problem $\cO^*(\dot{\cin}=(\tilde{\bm{\ell}},\dot{\bv}))$, and Constraint ensures the fidelity of the objective.
$$\begin{aligned}
\!\!\!\!\!
P_{\text{BL}} \!=\!
\min_{(\dot{\bv}, \bx)} & \| \dot{\bv} - \tilde{\bv} \|_2 \tag{b1} \label{bi:obj} \\
\text{s.t.:}\; &
| \cO(\bx^*, \dot{\bv}) - \cO^*| \leq \beta
\tag{b2} \label{bi:constr1} \\
% & (\bx, \by) \in \mathbb{C}_P, \label{eq:in_cset}\\
&\!\!\!\begin{array}{rl}
\bm{x}^* \!=\! \argmin_{\bx}
&\!\!\!\!\cO(\bx, \dot{\bv}) \\
\text{s.t.}\;
%&\!\!\!\!h_i(\bx, \dot{\bv}) = 0 \; \forall i \in [k_h]\\
&\!\!\!\!g_i(\bx, \dot{\bv}) \leq 0 \; \forall i \in [k]\\
\end{array}
\tag{b3} \label{bi:subproblem}\end{aligned}$$
POCIN is $(\epsilon, \alpha_p, \alpha_v)$-indistinguishable.
\[theorem:factor2\] The error induced by POCIN on the CIN node values is bounded by the inequality: $
\| \dot{\bv} - \bv \|_2 \leq 2
\| \tilde{\bv} - \bv \|_2.
$
Note that POCIN does not explicitly minimize the damages inflicted by an attack on the critical infrastructure network. Indeed, simply evaluating the damage of an attack requires access to the real network $\cin$, which would violate privacy. However, the shuffling mechanism indirectly addresses this issue. Intuitively, for a sufficiently large $\alpha_\ell$ in the location obfuscation, the probability of choosing the most dispatched generator with a single attack will be close to $\frac{1}{n}$.
Solving the Fidelity Restoration Model {#sec:solving}
======================================
$P_{\text{BL}}$ is a *bi-level problem* and bi-level programming is known to be strongly NP-hard [@hansen:92]: Even evaluating a solution for optimality is NP-hard [@vicente:94]. This paper explores two avenues to solve or approximate $P_{\text{BL}}$.
When the subproblem is convex, it can be replaced by its *Karush-Kuhn-Tucker* (KKT) conditions, producing a single-level model. Moreover, when the subproblem is linear, the resulting subproblem is a MIP model, which is the case in our transportation case study. The subproblem can also be replaced by the [*relaxation*]{} of $P_{\text{BL}}$ shown in Figure \[fig:nonconvex\]. This relaxation ensures that $\dot{\cin}$ has a feasible solution whose value is close to the original objective. However, it does not constrain the optimal solution which will be a lower bound to $\cO(\bx^*, \dot{\bv})$. This relaxation is used in the power network case study and also satisfies Theorem \[theorem:factor2\]. When the subproblem is convex, it is possible to strengthen Theorem \[theorem:factor2\] using the existence of a solution (vector $\bv$), the optimality of $\dot{\bv}$, and the angle property of a projection on a convex set.
\[theorem:factor\] When $P_{\text{CL}}$ is used for fidelity restoration and is convex, the error induced by POCIN on the CIN node values is bounded by the inequality: $
\| \dot{\bv} - \bv \|_2 \leq
\| \tilde{\bv} - \bv \|_2.
$
Other methods to solve bi-level problems include *descent methods* [@kolstad1990derivative], *penalty function methods* [@aiyoshi1984solution], and *evolutionary approaches* [@mathieu1994genetic]. The reader can consult [@sinha2018review] for an extensive review on the topic.
$$\begin{aligned}
\!\!\!\!\!
P_{\text{CL}} \!=\!
\min_{(\dot{\bv}, \bx)} & \| \dot{\bv} - \tilde{\bv} \|_2 \tag{n1} \label{ni:obj} \\
\text{s.t.:}\; &
| \cO(\bx, \dot{\bv}) - \cO^*| \leq \beta
\tag{n2} \label{ni:constr1} \\
% &\!\!\!\!h_i(\bx, \dot{\bv}) = 0 \; \forall i \in [k_h]
% \notag\\
&\!\!\!\!g_i(\bx, \dot{\bv}) \leq 0 \; \forall i \in [k]
\tag{n3} \label{bi:subproblem-r}\end{aligned}$$
Experimental Results {#sec:experimental_results}
====================
This section presents experimental results on two case studies: power network and traffic obfuscation problems.
Power Network Obfuscation Problem
---------------------------------
This scenario considers a transmission operator who would like to release a description of its network to stimulate research but is worried that malicious actors could use it to design a cyber-attack targeting the generators that would cause maximum damage. The operator seeks to obfuscate the locations and maximum capacities of its generators while preserving the realism of the network description. The experiments were performed on a variety of benchmarks from the NESTA library [@Coffrin14Nesta]. The results analyze the dispatch values produced by POCIN and determine how well the obfuscated networks sustain an attack. For brevity, the results are highlighted on the IEEE 118 bus test case. The experiments use a privacy loss $\epsilon$ of $1.0$, and vary the *indistinguishability levels* $\alpha_l$ from 1% to 10% of the network diameter $d(\cin)$, and the *faithfulness level* $\beta$ in $\{10^{-2}, 10^{-1}\}$, while $\alpha_v$ is fixed to 0.1 p.u. $\approx$ 10 MW. The model was implemented using the Julia package PowerModels.jl with IPOPT [@Coffrin:18] for solving the nonlinear AC power flow models. POCIN takes less than 1 minute to produce the obfuscated networks.
[.7]{} {width=".48\textwidth"} {width=".48\textwidth"}
[.30]{} {width=".70\textwidth" height="80pt"}
#### Dispatch & Cost Analysis
The section studies the privacy and realism of the obfuscated networks produced by POCIN. shows the active dispatch values of all generators in the obfuscated network and compares them with their associated values in the original network. The left plot compares the dispatch for each generator, while the right plot compares the generation on each bus. Note that POCIN only swaps generator locations and do not assign generators to arbitrary buses. Not surprisingly, the dispatch differences are more pronounced as the indistinguishability level increases. [*More importantly, the dispatch values can no longer be used to distinguish generators and/or buses.*]{}
Table \[tbl:feasibility\] reports the success rate of obtaining a feasible AC power flow after Phase 2 on various benchmarks over 50 runs. Without Phase 3, the optimization problem $P$ is infeasible in most or all runs for all test cases. [*These results highlight the critical role of Phase 3 of POCIN.*]{} shows the difference, in percentage, between the dispatch costs of the obfuscated and original networks for increasing the indistinguishability levels $\alpha_l : \alpha_l=\alpha \% \times d(\cin)$. It reports the mean and standard deviation (shown with black, solid, lines) over 50 runs. [*The results indicate that obfuscated networks are largely within the faithfulness requirement and provide the necessary fidelity for Problem $P$ on the obfuscated network.*]{}
![Ancillary service costs for the attack type on the IEEE-57 (left) and IEEE-118 (right) Networks $(\beta=0.1)$.[]{data-label="fig:attack_118"}](Attack_legend_energy.png "fig:"){width=".30\textwidth"}\
![Ancillary service costs for the attack type on the IEEE-57 (left) and IEEE-118 (right) Networks $(\beta=0.1)$.[]{data-label="fig:attack_118"}](attack_nesta_case57_ieee_01.pdf "fig:"){width=".20\textwidth" height="85pt"} ![Ancillary service costs for the attack type on the IEEE-57 (left) and IEEE-118 (right) Networks $(\beta=0.1)$.[]{data-label="fig:attack_118"}](attack_nesta_case118_ieee_01.pdf "fig:"){width=".20\textwidth" height="85pt"}
#### Attack Simulation
It remains to study how an attacker may leverage the obfuscated network to damage the original CIN. The attacker is given an *attack budget* $b$ denoting the percentage of generators that can be damaged. To assess the benefits of POCIN, three type of attacks are compared (where $k$ denote the number of generators that makes up $b\%$).
1. *Random Attack*: $k$ generators are randomly selected.
2. *Obfuscated Attack*: The attacker chooses the $k$ generators with the largest dispatches in $\dot{\cin}$.
3. *Fully-Informed Attack*: The attacker chooses the $k$ generators with the largest dispatches in $\cin$.
The experiments assume estimated ancillary service costs of \$10/MWh to serve the load that cannot be provided by the remaining generators. shows the costs for each attack type at varying of the attack budget $b \in \{10, 20, 30\}$ and the indistinguishability value $\alpha \in \{1.0, 10.0\}, \alpha_l=\alpha
\% \times d(\cin)$ on the IEEE-57 and IEEE-118 benchmarks with faithfulness value $\beta$ and $\alpha_v$ both set to $0.1$. The results average 50 simulations for each combination of parameters. The *random attacks* are used as a baseline to assess the damage inflicted by an uninformed attacker. Not surprisingly, they result in the lowest costs in each setting. In contrast, *fully-informed attacks* produce the largest damages on the networks with increasing ancillary costs as the attack budget increases. The results for the *obfuscated attacks* are particularly interesting: The obfuscation significantly reduces the power of an attacker. *Remarkably, as the location indistinguishability values increase, the inflicted damages decrease and converge to that of random attacks*. Larger indistinguishability implies more noise, and thus a higher chance for an attacker to damage less important generators. Note however that *the mechanism still preserves the desired network fidelity*.
Traffic Network Obfuscation Problem
-----------------------------------
The scenario involves a city that would like to release its traffic data, but is concerned about a cyber-attack on its traffic control system. The city aims at releasing an obfuscated version of the data that would preserve the trip durations of its commuters and would minimize the damage of a cyber-attack on its traffic controllers regulating traffic flows on the road segments. The case study involves the traffic network of the city of Ann Arbor, MI and 8,000 *real trips* from an origin O to a destination D (O-D pairs). For simplicity, the travel times on an edge $e$ are given by a linear combination $d_e + \gamma t_e$ of the distance $d_e$ and the traffic $t_e$, but the results generalize naturally to more complex models. POCIN obfuscates the location of the edges and their transit data, the distance and the network being public information. Problem P is characterized by solving a shortest path for each commuter from her origin to her destination, using historical traffic data. Since the shortest path problem is totally unimodular, the bi-level program $P_{\text{BL}}$ of POCIN can be reformulated as a MIP, and thus the problem can be solved exactly. The experiments use a privacy loss of $\epsilon = 1.0$, vary the *indistinguishability level* $\alpha_l$ from 1% to 25% of the number of nodes and select the *faithfulness level* $\beta$ of 0.1. The implementation takes less than 20 minutes to generate the obfuscated networks.
#### Traffic Weights & Travel Costs
![Travel costs of 15 trips between original and obfuscated networks with faithfulness parameters $\beta=0.1$.[]{data-label="fig:mobility-cost"}](AA_1_01.pdf){width=".40\textwidth"}
The first experiments concern the privacy and realism of the obfuscated network produced by POCIN. shows the travel times on all the roads in the obfuscated and original networks. [*As the indistinguishability levels increase, the networks become significantly different*]{}. shows the shortest paths cost of 15 O-D pairs in the obfuscated and original networks. Yellow/’+’ dots are travel costs before Phase 3 and blue dots are the travel costs of POCIN. [*The results show that POCIN preserves the shortest paths costs with high fidelity and that the fidelity restoration step brings significant benefits.*]{}
#### Attack Simulation
The second set of results concerns the obfuscation capability to mitigate the damage of an attack. A malicious agent targets the traffic controllers of various road segments to increase the total travel costs of all O-D pairs. shows the average increases (in %) of the travel costs for each attack strategy, at various attack budgets consisting of $k \in \{10, 20,
50\}$ roads, indistinguishability value $\alpha$, and with faithfulness value $\beta = 0.1$. Larger values of $\beta$ attain similar results. Results are averages over 50 simulations for each combination of parameters. The results show that random attacks are completely ineffective, while fully-informed attacks increase travel times substantially. In contrast, the obfuscation dramatically decreases the damage. When the indistinguishability level increases, the obfuscation eliminates the damage for attack budgets targeting 10 roads and only increases the travel times by less than 20% on larger attacks.
![Average increase on travel times (in %) of all O-D pairs with faithfulness parameters $\beta=0.1$.[]{data-label="fig:mobility-attack-cost"}](Attack_legend "fig:"){width=".32\textwidth"}\
![Average increase on travel times (in %) of all O-D pairs with faithfulness parameters $\beta=0.1$.[]{data-label="fig:mobility-attack-cost"}](AA_01 "fig:"){width=".20\textwidth" height="80pt"}
Related Work {#sec:related_work}
============
The release of differentially private datasets that protects the *value* of the data is a challenging task that has been studied by several authors. Often the released data is generated from a data synopsis in the form of a noisy histogram [@li:14; @qardaji:14; @fioretto:AAMAS-18]. Protecting locations privacy typically uses the framework of *geo-indistinguishability* [@andres2013geo], in which locations are made indistinguishable in the Euclidean plane.
The release of differentially private networks has also been studied in the literature: It primarily focuses on social networks [@Proserpio:14; @Blocki:13; @kasiviswanathan2013analyzing]. These methods focus on either protecting the privacy of the *node* or the *edge* and ensure that the output distribution does not change significantly when a node (resp. edge) and all its adjacent edges (resp. nodes) are added to, or removed from, the graph. The goal of these methods is not to preserve the original network topology. In contrast to these approaches, POCIN focuses on the release of privacy-preserving network data that protects locations and values of the network components while preserving the network topology and fidelity. As shown by the experimental results, this places additional requirements on the mechanism, including the need for POCIN to use optimization to redistribute the noise and ensure that the data release admits a realistic solution to the optimization problem.
*The evaluation of privacy-preserving techniques with respect to malicious attacks is also a novel contribution of this paper*. Traditional research on attack detection and prevention on cyber-physical systems is not concerned with privacy and data release. For instance [@ghafouri2018adversarial] uses regression to detect anomalous sensor readings and [@junejo2016behaviour] focuses on predicting attacks observing real and simulated data. Finally, bi-level problems have been used in security applications of AI [@pita2009using; @jain2011double; @nguyen2016conquering; @zhao2017efficient].
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
This paper presented a privacy-preserving scheme for the release of *Critical Infrastructure Networks* (CINs). The proposed *Privacy-preserving Obfuscation mechanism for CIN* (POCIN) obfuscates values and locations of sensitive network elements combining several differential privacy mechanisms with a bi-level optimization problem. It does so without altering the CIN topology and ensuring that the released obfuscated network preserves the fundamental properties of an optimization problem of interest.
The paper proposes exact and relaxation solutions for solving the bi-level optimization problems. The POCIN mechanism was tested on realistic test cases for the power grid and transportation system. The results show that POCIN is effective in obfuscating values and locations of the network parameters. Importantly, the result also illustrates the effectiveness of POCIN to deceive malicious agents that exploit the data release to produce as much damage as possible to the CIN.
#### Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Kory Hedman for extensive discussions. The authors are also grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments. This research is partly funded by the ARPA-E Grid Data Program under Grant 1357- 1530.
Missing Proofs
==============
First, we review some important properties of DP.
*Composability* ensures that a combination of differentially private algorithms preserve differential privacy.
\[th:par\_composition\] Let $D_1$ and $D_2$ be disjoint subsets of $D$ and $\cA$ be an $\epsilon$-DP algorithm. Computing $\cA(D
\cap D_1)$ and $\cA(D \cap D_2)$ satisfies $\epsilon$-DP.
*Post-processing immunity* ensures that privacy guarantees are preserved by arbitrary post-processing steps.
\[th:postprocessing\] Let $\cA$ be an $\epsilon$-DP algorithm and $g$ an arbitrary mapping from the set of possible outputs $\cO$ to an arbitrary set. Then, $g \circ \cA$ is $\epsilon$-DP.
\[thm:pahse2\] Given $\alpha_\ell > 0$, Phase 1 of POCIN achieves $\alpha_\ell$-location-indistinguishability.
Observe that the Location Obfuscation phase (Phase 1) combines the exponential mechanism with a post-processing step. Therefore, the result follows by Theorem \[th:m\_exp-1\], parallel composition (Theorem \[th:par\_composition\]), and post-processing immunity of differential privacy (Theorem \[th:postprocessing\]).
\[thm:pahse1\] Given $\alpha_v > 0$, Phase 2 of POCIN achieves $\alpha_v$-value-indistinguishability.
Observe that the Value Obfuscation phase (Phase 2) is an application of the Laplace Mechanism with scaling factor $\alpha_v / \epsilon$ (Equation (4): main article). The result follows from Theorem 2 and by observing that the Laplace Mechanism with parameter $\alpha / \epsilon$ achieves $(\epsilon, \alpha)$-indistinguishability [@chatzikokolakis2013broadening].
POCIN is $(\epsilon, \alpha_p, \alpha_v)$-indistinguishable.
From Corollaries \[thm:pahse2\] and \[thm:pahse1\] the application of Phase 1 and Phase 2 of POCIN achieves $(\epsilon, \alpha_\ell)$-indistinguishability for locations and $(\epsilon, \alpha_v)$-indistinguishability for values, respectively. Therefore, from Equation (3) (main article) the Phase 1 and 2 of POCIN are location and value indistinguishable and achieve $(\epsilon, \alpha_p, \alpha_v)$-indistinguishability. Finally, Phase 3 uses exclusively differentially private outputs and public information. Therefore the result follows from post-processing immunity of differential privacy (Theorem \[th:postprocessing\]).
The proof of the next theorem is similar to the proof of (Theorem 5) in [@fioretto:CPAIOR-18].
\[theorem:factorA\] The error induced by POCIN on the CIN node values is bounded by the inequality: $
\| \dot{\bv}^* - \bv \|_2 \leq 2
\| \tilde{\bv} - \bv \|_2.
$ where $\dot{\bv}^*$ is the optimal solution to problem $P_{\text{BL}}$.
The results follows from the fact that $\bv$ is feasible for the lower-level problem, the optimality of $\dot{\bv}^*$ for $P_{\text{BL}}$, and the triangle inequality on norms.
When $P_{\text{CL}}$ is used for fidelity restoration and is convex, the error induced by POCIN on the CIN node values is bounded by the inequality: $$\| \dot{\bv}^* - \bv \|_2 \leq \| \tilde{\bv} - \bv \|_2.$$ where $\dot{\bv}^*$ is the solution to the problem $P_{\text{CL}}$.
Let $\CC_P \in \RR^n$ be the feasible set of $P_{\text{CL}}$, i.e., $\CC_P = \{ \bv | \exists x \mbox{ such that } (n2) - (n3) \text{
hold} \}$. By definition, $\CC_P$ is closed, convex, and non-empty, since $\bv$ is a feasible solution. Since $\bv$ is the original vector, then $\bv \in
\CC_P$. The addition of noise to $\bv$ produces a new vector $\tilde{\bv} \in \RR^n$ that may or may not satisfy the problem constraints.
- Case 1: $\tilde{\bv} \in \CC_P$. That is, $\tilde{\bv}$ satisfies the constraints of $P_{\text{CL}}$. The minimizer for $P_{\text{CL}}$ is thus the vector $\dot{\bv}^* = \tilde{\bv}$ with objective value 0. Therefore: $$\| \dot{\bv}^* - \bv \|_2 = \| \tilde{\bv} - \bv \|_2.$$
- Case 2: $\tilde{\bv} \not\in \CC_P$, i.e., $\tilde{\bv}$ lies outside the feasible region $\CC_P$. Problem $P_{\text{CL}}$ can be seen as a *projection problem* onto a convex set, i.e., $$\text{Proj}_{\CC_p}(x) = \argmin_{v \in \CC_p} \| x - v\|_2.$$ The variational characterization of projection implies that the solution $\dot{\bv}^*$ satisfies $\langle \bv -
\dot{\bv}^*,\tilde{\bv} - \dot{\bv}^*\rangle \leq 0$ and the result follows from the triangle inequality on norms.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper we obtain existence and approximation results for closed complex subvarieties that are normalized by strongly pseudoconvex Stein domains. Our sufficient condition for the existence of such subvarieties in a complex manifold $X$ is expressed in terms of the Morse indices and the number of positive Levi eigenvalues of an exhaustion function on $X$ (Theorem \[Main1\]). Examples show that our conditions cannot be weakened in general. We obtain optimal results for subvarieties of this type in complements of compact complex submanifolds with Griffiths positive normal bundle (Section \[subvariety-complements\]); in the projective case these generalize classical theorems of Remmert, Bishop and Narasimhan concerning proper holomorphic maps and embeddings to ${\mathbb{C}}^n ={\mathbb{P}}^n\bs {\mathbb{P}}^{n-1}$.'
address: 'Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, University of Ljubljana, and Institute of Mathematics, Physics and Mechanics, Jadranska 19, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia'
author:
- 'Barbara Drinovec Drnovšek & Franc Forstnerič'
date: 'July 9, 2009'
title: |
Strongly pseudoconvex domains as subvarieties\
of complex manifolds
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
An interesting and difficult problem in analytic geometry is to describe the closed complex subvarieties of a given complex (or algebraic) manifold $X$. The set of all compact subvarieties – the [*Douady space*]{} ${\mathcal{D}}(X)$ and its close relative, the [*cycle space*]{} ${\mathcal{C}}(X)$ (the [*Chow variety*]{} in the quasi-projective setting) – is itself a finite dimensional complex analytic space (see [@Barlet; @Campana; @Douady]). Noncompact subvarieties are in many aspects harder to deal with, and consequently not as well understood.
In the present paper we continue the investigation, begun in [@BDF1], of the existence and plenitude of subvarieties that arise as proper holomorphic images of strongly pseudoconvex Stein domains. In [@BDF1] we analysed the one dimensional case – complex curves normalized by bordered Riemann surfaces. Here we study higher dimensional subvarieties of this type and obtain optimal results in terms of the Levi geometry and the Morse indices of an exhaustion function on the ambient manifold.
Let $X$ be a complex manifold with the complex structure operator $J\in \mathrm{End}_{\mathbb{R}}TX$, $J^2=-I$. The [*Levi form*]{} of a ${\mathcal{C}}^2$-function $\rho\colon X\to {\mathbb{R}}$ is $${\mathcal{L}}_\rho(x;v)= \frac{1}{4} \langle dd^c\rho, v\wedge Jv\rangle,
\quad x\in X, \ v\in T_x X,$$ where $d^c=-J^* \circ d= \mathrm{i}(\dibar -\di)$ is the conjugate differential defined by $\langle d^c\rho,v\rangle = -\langle d\rho, Jv\rangle$. We have $dd^c=2\,\mathrm{i} \di\dibar$. Choosing local holomorphic coordinates $z=(z_1,\ldots,z_n)$ near a point $x\in X$ and writing $v=\frac{1}{2}(\eta +\bar \eta)$, where $\eta = \sum_{j=1}^n \eta_j\frac{\di}{\di z_j}|_x \in T^{1,0}_x X$, we have $${\mathcal{L}}_\rho(x;v) =
\langle \di\dibar \rho(x), \eta \wedge \bar \eta \rangle
= \sum_{j,k=1}^n \frac{\di^2 \rho(x)}{\di z_j\di \bar z_k} \,\eta_j\,\bar \eta_k.$$
Our main result is the following.
\[Main1\] Assume that $X$ is an $n$-dimensional complex manifold, $\Omega$ is an open subset of $X$, $\rho\colon \Omega\to (0,+\infty)$ is a smooth Morse function whose Levi form has at least $r$ positive eigenvalues at every point of $\Omega$ for some $r\le n$, and for any pair of real numbers $0<c_1<c_2$ the set $$\Omega_{c_1,c_2}= \{x\in\Omega\colon c_1\le \rho(x)\le c_2\}$$ is compact. Let $D$ be a smoothly bounded, relatively compact, strongly pseudoconvex domain in a Stein manifold $S$, and let $f_0\colon\bar D\to X$ be a continuous map that is holomorphic in $D$ and satisfies $f_0(bD)\subset \Omega$. If
- $r\ge 2d$, where $d=\dim_{{\mathbb{C}}} S$,
or if
- $r\ge d+1$ and $\rho$ has no critical points of index $>2(n-d)$ in $\Omega$,
then $f_0$ can be approximated, uniformly on compacts in $D$, by holomorphic maps $f\colon D\to X$ such that $f(z)\in \Omega$ for every $z\in D$ sufficiently close to $bD$, and $$\lim_{z\to bD} \rho(f(z))=+\infty.$$ Moreover, given an integer $k\in{\mathbb{Z}}_+$, $f$ can be chosen to agree with $f_0$ to order $k$ at each point in a given finite set $\sigma\subset D$.
The most interesting case is when $X$ is noncompact, $\Omega$ is a union of connected components of $X\bs K$ for some compact subset $K$ of $X$, and $\rho\to +\infty$ along the noncompact ends of $\Omega$. Theorem \[Main1\] then furnishes [*proper holomorphic maps*]{} $f\colon D\to X$ that approximate a given map $f_0$ uniformly on compacts in $D$. A typical situation is $\Omega=\{\rho>0\}$ where $\rho\colon X\to {\mathbb{R}}$ is an exhaustion function satisfying the stated properties on $\Omega$.
A ${\mathcal{C}}^2$-function $\rho$ on an $n$-dimensional complex manifold $X$ whose Levi form has at least $r$ positive eigenvalues at every point in an open set $\Omega\subset X$ is said to be [*$(n-r+1)$-convex on $\Omega$*]{} (see [@Grauert2]). All Morse indices of such function are $\le r+2(n-r)=2n-r$. (See Lemma \[lemma-normal\] below for a quadratic normal form of such a function at a critical point. The Morse condition can always be achieved by a small perturbation of $\rho$ in the fine ${\mathcal{C}}^2$-topology, keeping the above Levi convexity property of $\rho$.) Hence condition (a) in Theorem \[Main1\] implies that all Morse indices of $\rho$ in $\Omega$ are $\le 2(n-d)$, and therefore condition (b) holds as well. When $d=1$ (i.e., $D$ is a bordered Riemann surface), conditions (a) and (b) are both equivalent to $r\ge 2$, and in this case Theorem \[Main1\] is essentially the same as [@BDF1 Theorem 1.1]. When $d>1$, condition (b) is weaker than (a).
An $n$-dimensional complex manifold $X$ is said to be [*$q$-convex*]{} if it admits an exhaustion function $\rho\colon X\to {\mathbb{R}}$ that is $q$-convex on $\{\rho>c\}$ for some $c\in{\mathbb{R}}$; $X$ is [*$q$-complete*]{} if $\rho$ can be chosen $q$-convex on all of $X$ (see [@AG; @Grauert2]). By approximation we can assume that $\rho$ is ${\mathcal{C}}^\infty$-smooth. We have the following corollary of Theorem \[Main1\] (a).
\[q-complete\] Let $X$ be an $n$-dimensional complex manifold, and let $D\Subset S$ be a $d$-dimensional strongly pseudoconvex domain as in Theorem \[Main1\]. Assume that $2d \le n$ and $q\in \{1,\ldots, n-2d+1\}$. Then the following hold:
\(a) If $X$ is $q$-convex then there exists a proper holomorphic map $D \to X$.
\(b) If $X$ is $q$-complete then every continuous map $\bar D\to X$ that is holomorphic in $D$ can be approximated, uniformly on compacts in $D$, by proper holomorphic maps $D\to X$.
Theorem \[Main1\] and Corollary \[q-complete\] apply to any Stein manifold $D$ with compact closure $\bar D$ and smooth strongly pseudoconvex boundary $bD$. Indeed, such $D$ is equivalent to a smoothly bounded strongly pseudoconvex domain in a Stein manifold, and even in an affine algebraic manifold, by a biholomorphism extending smoothly to the boundary (see [@Catlin; @Heunemann3; @Stout]). For the general theory of Stein manifolds we refer to [@GR; @Ho].
The image $V=f(D)$ of a proper holomorphic map $f\colon D\to X$ is a closed complex subvariety of $X$ (see Remmert [@Remmert2]). If the generic fiber of $f$ is a single point of $D$ (which is easily ensured by a suitable choice of the initial map $f_0$), then $f\colon D\to V$ is a normalization map of the subvariety $V$.
Our proof of Theorem \[Main1\] (see §\[proof\]) involves three main analytic techniques. When $d=\dim D=1$, $D$ is a bordered Riemann surface, and in this case Theorem \[Main1\] essentially coincides with [@BDF1 Theorem 1.1]. The higher dimensional case requires a considerably more delicate technique for lifting the boundary of $D$ (considered as a subset of $X$ via a map $\bar D \to X$) to higher levels of $\rho$. The main local lifting lemma (see Lemma \[MainLemma\]) employs special holomorphic peak functions that reach their maximum along certain Legendrian (complex tangential) submanifolds of maximal real dimension $d-1$ in $bD$. Its proof mainly relies on the work of Dor [@Dor1] (see also Hakim [@Hakim] and Stensønes [@Sten]). The idea of using such peak functions goes back to the construction of inner functions by Hakim and Sibony (see [@HakimSibony]) and Løw (see [@Low1]); these undoubtedly belong among the most intricate and beautiful results in complex analysis.
Each local modification is patched with the previous global map $\bar D\to X$ by the method of [*gluing holomorphic sprays*]{} developed in [@BDF1] (see §\[spray\] below). This technique effectively replaces the $\dibar$-equation which cannot be used directly in a nonlinear setting. However, the lemma on gluing of sprays from [@BDF1] depends on the existence of a bounded linear solution operator for the $\dibar$-equation at the level of $(0,1)$-forms.
To avoid the critical points of $\rho$ (where the estimates in the lifting process cannot be controlled) we adapt a method that was developed (for strongly plurisubharmonic functions) in [@ACTA]. We first ensure that the boundary of $D$ (considered as a subset of $X$) avoids the stable manifold of any critical point of $\rho$; this is possible by general position, provided that all Morse indices of $\rho$ are $\le 2(n-d)$. In order to lift $bD$ over the critical level at a critical point $p\in \Omega$ we construct a new noncritical function $\tau$, with the same Levi convexity properties as $\rho$, such that $\{\tau \le 0\}$ contains $\{\rho \le c\}$ for some $c<\rho(p)$, and it also contains the local stable manifold of $p$ for the gradient flow of $\rho$ (see Lemma \[crossing\]). Using the lifting procedure with $\tau$ we can push $bD$ into $\{\rho>\rho(p)\}$, and the construction may proceed.
In the remainder of this introduction we discuss further corollaries and examples related to Theorem \[Main1\].
\[Counterex\] [*Condition (b) in Theorem \[Main1\] cannot be weakened for any pair of dimensions $1\le d<n$*]{}. Given integers $1\le d<n$, set $m=n-d+1\in \{2,\ldots,n\}$. Let ${\mathbb{T}}^m={\mathbb{C}}^m/\varGamma$ be a complex torus of dimension $m$ that is not projective-algebraic, and that furthermore does not contain any closed complex curves. (Most tori of dimension $>1$ are such; for a specific example with $m=2$ see [@Wells p. 222].) Set $$\label{exampleX}
X ={\mathbb{T}}^m\bs \{p\} \times {\mathbb{C}}^{n-m}= {\mathbb{T}}^m\bs \{p\} \times {\mathbb{C}}^{d-1}.$$ Choose an exhaustion function $\tau \colon {\mathbb{T}}^m\bs \{p\}\to {\mathbb{R}}$ that equals $|y-y(p)|^{-2}$ in some local holomorphic coordinates $y$ on ${\mathbb{T}}^m$ near $p$. The exhaustion function $\rho(y,w)= \tau(y)+ |w|^2$ on $X$ has no critical points in a deleted neighborhood of $p$, and its Levi form has $1+n-m=d$ positive eigenvalues near $\{p\}\times{\mathbb{C}}^{d-1}$. Thus $X$ satisfies condition (b) in Theorem \[Main1\] for domains $D$ of dimension $<d$, but not for domains of dimension $\ge d$.
We claim that no $d$-dimensional Stein manifold $D$ admits a proper holomorphic map to the manifold $X$ (\[exampleX\]). Indeed, suppose that $f\colon D\to X$ is such a map. Let $\pi\colon X\to {\mathbb{C}}^{d-1}$ denote the projection $\pi(y,w)=w$ onto the second factor. Consider the holomorphic map $\pi\circ f\colon D\to{\mathbb{C}}^{d-1}$. By dimension reasons there exists a point $w\in {\mathbb{C}}^{d-1}$ for which the fiber $\Sigma=\{z\in D\colon \pi(f(z))=w\}$ is a subvariety of positive dimension in $D$. Since $D$ is Stein, $\Sigma$ contains a one dimensional subvariety $C$, and $f(C)$ is then a closed complex curve in ${\mathbb{T}}^m\bs \{p\}\times \{w\}$. Since a point is a removable singularity for positive dimensional analytic subvarieties [@RS], it follows that $\overline{f(C)}$ is a nontrivial closed complex curve in ${\mathbb{T}}^m\times \{w\}$, a contradiction.
Interestingly enough, the manifold $X$ (\[exampleX\]) admits plenty of [*nonproper*]{} holomorphic maps $S\to X$ from any Stein manifold $S$. Indeed, $X$ enjoys the following [*Oka property*]{} (see [@ANN Corollary 1.5 (ii)]):
[*Any continuous map $f_0\colon S\to X$ from a Stein manifold $S$ is homotopic to a holomorphic map $f\colon S\to X$; if in addition $f_0$ is holomorphic in a neighborhood of a compact ${\mathcal{O}}(S)$-convex subset $K\subset S$, then $f$ can be chosen to approximate $f_0$ as close as desired uniformly on $K$.*]{}
This shows that properness of a holomorphic map $f\colon D\to X$ is a very restrictive condition irrespectively of the codimension $\dim X - \dim D$.
Theorem \[Main1\] gives interesting information on the existence of proper holomorphic maps of strongly pseudoconvex domains into complements of certain complex submanifolds. For example, if $A$ is a compact complex submanifold of complex codimension $q$ in a projective space $X={\mathbb{P}}^n$, then $\Omega ={\mathbb{P}}^n\bs A$ admits a $q$-convex exhaustion function without critical points close to $A$ (Barth [@Barth]; the manifold ${\mathbb{P}}^n\bs {\mathbb{P}}^{n-q}$ is even $q$-complete.) Thus condition (b) in Theorem \[Main1\] holds when $r=n-q+1 > \dim D$ or, equivalently, $\dim D\le \dim A$. This gives the first part of the following corollary; for the second part we apply a result of Schneider (see [@Schneider Corollary 2]).
\[proj-minus\] If $A$ is a compact complex submanifold of ${\mathbb{P}}^n$ then every smoothly bounded, relatively compact, strongly pseudoconvex Stein domain $D$ of dimension $\dim D\le \dim A$ admits a proper holomorphic map $D\to {\mathbb{P}}^n\bs A$. In particular, if $\dim D<n$ then $D$ admits a proper holomorphic map into the complement ${\mathbb{P}}^n\bs A$ of any nonsingular complex hypersurface $A$ in ${\mathbb{P}}^n$. The analogous conclusion holds for maps $D\to X\bs A$, where $A$ is a compact complex submanifold of a complex manifold $X$ with Griffiths positive normal bundle $N_{A|X}$.
Corollary \[proj-minus\] generalizes Bishop’s theorem (see [@Bishop]) on the existence of proper holomorphic maps $D\to {\mathbb{C}}^n={\mathbb{P}}^n\bs {\mathbb{P}}^{n-1}$ for $n>\dim D$. While Bishop’s theorem holds for any Stein manifold $D$ of dimension $<n$, in the general situation considered here one must restrict to Kobayashi hyperbolic domains since the complement ${\mathbb{P}}^n\bs A$ of a generic hypersurface $A\subset{\mathbb{P}}^n$ of sufficiently high degree is hyperbolic.
The conclusion of Corollary \[proj-minus\] fails when $\dim D >\dim A$. Indeed, the closure of $V=f(D)$ in ${\mathbb{P}}^n$ would be a closed complex subvariety of ${\mathbb{P}}^n$ by the Remmert-Stein theorem (see [@RS; @GRemmert p. 354]), hence $f(D) =\overline V \bs A$ would be quasi-projective algebraic (the difference of two closed projective varieties). This is clearly impossible. It is easily seen that a proper holomorphic map $f\colon D\to X\bs A$ cannot extend continuously (as a map to $X$) to any boundary point of $D$.
Our next corollary generalizes classical results of Remmert [@Remmert1], Bishop [@Bishop], and Narasimhan [@Nar1] on immersions and embeddings of strongly pseudoconvex domains into Euclidean spaces, as well as results of Dor [@Dor0; @Dor1] where the target manifold $X$ is a domain of holomorphy in ${\mathbb{C}}^n$.
\[cor1\] Assume that $D$ is a smoothly bounded, relatively compact, strongly pseudoconvex domain in a Stein manifold $S$, $X$ is a Stein manifold, and $f_0\colon\bar D\to X$ is a continuous map that is holomorphic in $D$.
- If $\dim X\ge 2\dim D$, then $f_0$ can be approximated uniformly on compacts in $D$ by proper holomorphic immersions $D\to X$.
- If $\dim X\ge 2\dim D +1$, then $f_0$ can be approximated uniformly on compacts in $D$ by proper holomorphic embeddings $D{\hookrightarrow}X$.
Corollary \[cor1\] is a consequence of Theorem \[Main1\] (condition (a) holds since a Stein manifold $X$ is $1$-complete), except for the claim that $f$ can be chosen an immersion (resp. an embedding). The latter conditions are easily built into the construction by applying a general position argument at every step of the inductive process.
Further results on holomorphic immersions and embeddings in $X={\mathbb{C}}^n$ can be found in [@EG; @FW; @FIKP; @Prezelj; @Sch; @Wo1; @Wo2]; for embeddings into special domains such as balls and polydiscs see also [@DorBalls; @TAMS; @Glob1; @Hakim; @Low2; @Sten].
Assume now that $X$ is a quasi-projective algebraic manifold. We shall see that in this case every subvariety $V=f(D)\subset X$, obtained by the proof of Theorem \[Main1\], is a limit of domains contained in algebraic varieties in $X$ and normalized by $D$.
By a theorem of Stout [@Stout] (see also [@DLS; @LM]) we can assume that $D$ in Theorem \[Main1\] is a smoothly bounded, strongly pseudoconvex, Runge domain in an affine algebraic manifold $S\subset{\mathbb{C}}^N$ of pure dimension $d$. A holomorphic map $f$ from an open set $U\subset S$ to a quasi-projective algebraic variety $X$ is said to be [*Nash algebraic*]{} (see Nash [@Nash]) if its graph $$G_f=\{(z,f(z)) \in S\times X\colon z\in U\}$$ is contained in a pure $d$-dimensional algebraic subvariety of $S\times X$. We then have the following result (c.f. [@BDF1 Corollary 1.2] for $d=1$).
\[algebraic\] Assume that $X$ is a quasi-projective algebraic manifold, $\rho\colon X\to {\mathbb{R}}$ is a smooth exhaustion function that satisfies one of the conditions in Theorem \[Main1\] on the set $\Omega=\{x\in X\colon \rho(x)>0\}$, and $D\Subset S$ is a smoothly bounded, strongly pseudoconvex Runge domain in an affine algebraic manifold $S$. Given a map $f_0\colon \bar D \to X$ as in Theorem \[Main1\], with $f_0(bD)\subset \Omega$, there is a sequence of Nash algebraic maps $f_j\colon U_j\to X$, defined in open sets $\bar D\subset U_j\subset S$, such that $f_j(bD)\subset \Omega$, $$\lim_{j\to\infty} \, \bigl( \inf\{\rho\circ f_j(z) \colon z\in bD\}\bigr) \to +\infty,$$ and the sequence $f_j|_D$ converges to a proper holomorphic map $f\colon D\to X$ as $j\to\infty$. Furthermore, $f$ can be chosen to approximate $f_0$ as close as desired uniformly on a given compact subset of $D$.
The image $f_j(U_j)$ of the Nash algebraic map $f_j$ in Corollary \[algebraic\] is contained in a pure $d$-dimensional algebraic subvariety $\varGamma_j$ of $X$ (the projection to $X$ of an algebraic subvariety in $S\times X$ containing the graph of $f_j$). As $j\to\infty$, the domains $f_j(D)\subset \varGamma_j$ converge to the subvariety $f(D) \subset X$, while their boundaries $f_j(bD)$ tend to infinity in $X$.
Corollary \[algebraic\] is seen exactly as [@BDF1 Corollary 1.2] by combining the proof of Theorem \[Main1\] with the approximation theorems of Demailly, Lempert and Shiffman (see [@DLS Theorem 1.1]) and Lempert (see [@Lempert Theorem 1.1]).
Here is another natural question:
When is a continuous map $D\to X$ from a strongly pseudoconvex Stein domain $D$ to a complex manifold $X$ homotopic to a proper holomorphic map?
The following result in this direction generalizes Corollaries 1.5 and 1.6 in [@BDF1] which concern the one dimensional case; the proofs given there also apply in our case by using Theorem \[Main1\]. The Oka property was defined in Example \[Counterex\]; for more details see [@ANN].
\[cor3\] Let $D\Subset S$ be a smoothly bounded, strongly pseudoconvex domain in a $d$-dimensional Stein manifold $S$, and let $X$ be a complex manifold of dimension $n\ge 2d$ that is $(n-2d+1)$-complete. Let $J_S$ (resp. $J_X$) denote the complex structure operator on $S$ (resp. on $X$).
- If $d\ne 2$ then for every continuous map $f_0\colon\bar D\to X$ there exists a Stein structure ${\widetilde}J_S$ on $S$ that is homotopic to $J_S$ and such that $D$ is strongly ${\widetilde}J_S$-pseudoconvex, and there exists a proper $({\widetilde}J_S,J_X)$-holomorphic map $f\colon D\to X$ homotopic to $f_0|_D$.
- If $d=2$ then the conclusion (i) holds after changing the ${\mathcal{C}}^\infty$ structure on $S$ (i.e., the new Stein structure ${\widetilde}J_S$ may be exotic).
- If $X$ enjoys the Oka property then every continuous map $\bar D\to X$ is homotopic to a proper $(J_S,J_X)$-holomorphic map $D\to X$.
For further results see Theorem \[complements\], Theorem \[homogeneous\] and Corollary \[projective\].
[*Organization of the paper.*]{} In §\[normal\] and §\[critical\] we analyse the behavior of a $q$-convex function near a Morse critical point. In §\[spray\] we recall the relevant results from [@BDF1] on the theory of holomorphic sprays. Theorem \[Main1\] is proved in §\[proof\]. In §\[vector-bundles\] we recall the notions of Griffiths positivity and signature of a Hermitian holomorphic vector bundle, as well as their connection with the Levi convexity properties. This information is used in §\[subvariety-complements\] where we study the existence of subvarieties as in Theorem \[Main1\] in complements of certain compact complex submanifolds.
Quadratic normal form for critical points of $q$-convex functions {#normal}
=================================================================
In this section we describe a quadratic normal form of a $q$-convex function $\rho$ at a nondegenerate critical point $p$. In the following section this normal form will be used in the construction of a $q$-convex function $\tau$ that allows us to pass the critical level $\{\rho=\rho(p)\}$ by applying the noncritical case of our lifting construction with $\tau$ (instead of $\rho$).
Since our considerations are completely local, we assume that $\rho$ is a real valued ${\mathcal{C}}^2$-function in an open neighborhood of the origin in ${\mathbb{C}}^n$, with a nondegenerate (Morse) critical point at $0$, and $\rho(0)=0$. Suppose that $\rho$ is $q$-convex at $0$ for some $q\in\{1,2,\ldots,n+1\}$; this means that its Levi form ${\mathcal{L}}_\rho(0)$ has at least $r=n-q+1$ positive eigenvalues (the remaining $s=q-1$ eigenvalues can be of any sign). By a complex linear change of coordinates on ${\mathbb{C}}^n$ we can achieve that the subspace ${\mathbb{C}}^r\times \{0\}^s$ is spanned by (some of the) eigenvectors corresponding to the positive eigenvalues of ${\mathcal{L}}_\rho(0)$ and that $0$ is a Morse critical point of $\rho(\cdotp,0)$. We denote the coordinates on ${\mathbb{C}}^n={\mathbb{C}}^r\times {\mathbb{C}}^s= {\mathbb{C}}^r \times {\mathbb{R}}^{2s}$ by $z=(\zeta,u)$, where $\zeta=x+\mathrm{i}y\in {\mathbb{C}}^r$ $(x,y\in{\mathbb{R}}^r)$ and $u\in{\mathbb{R}}^{2s}$. By shrinking the domain of $\rho$ to a sufficiently small polydisc $P=P^r \times P^s \subset {\mathbb{C}}^n$ around $0$ we can assume that the function $\zeta\to \rho(\zeta,u)$ is strongly plurisubharmonic on $P^r$ for each fixed $u \in P^s$.
Lemma 3 from [@HW], applied to the strongly plurisubharmonic function $\zeta \to \rho(\zeta,0)$, gives a complex linear change of coordinates on ${\mathbb{C}}^r$ and a number $k\in \{0,1,\ldots, r\}$ such that, in the new coordinates, we have $$\rho(\zeta,0) = \sum_{j=1}^r (\delta_j x_j^2 + \lambda_j y_j^2) +o(|\zeta|^2),$$ where $\lambda_j>1$, $\delta_j=-1$ for $j=1,\ldots,k$, and $\lambda_j\ge 1$, $\delta_j=+1$ for $j=k+1,\ldots,r$. Note that $k$ is the Morse index of $\rho(\cdotp,0)$ at $\zeta=0$.
Writing $x'=(x_1,\ldots,x_k)$ and $x''=(x_{k+1},\ldots,x_r)$ we obtain $$\rho(\zeta,0) = - |x'|^2 + |x''|^2 + \sum_{j=1}^r \lambda_j y_j^2 + o(|\zeta|^2).$$
Consider the full second order Taylor expansion of $\rho$ at $0\in{\mathbb{C}}^n$: $$\rho(z)= \rho(\zeta,u)= \rho(\zeta,0) + \sum_{j=1}^{2s} u_j a_j(x,y) +
\sum_{i,j=1}^{2s} c_{ij}\, u_i u_j + o(|z|^2).$$ Here $a_j(x,y)= \sum_{l=1}^r \alpha_{jl} x_l+\beta_{jl} y_l$ are real-valued linear functions on ${\mathbb{C}}^r={\mathbb{R}}^{2r}$ and $c_{ij}=c_{ji}$ are real constants.
Our next aim is to remove the mixed terms $u_j a_j(x,y)$ by using a shear of the form $(\zeta,u)\mapsto (\zeta+h(u),u)$ for a suitable ${\mathbb{R}}$-linear map $h\colon {\mathbb{R}}^{2s}\to {\mathbb{C}}^r$; such transformation is holomorphic (indeed, affine linear) in the $\zeta$-coordinates, and hence it preserves (strong) $\zeta$-plurisubharmonicity. To find such $h$, we consider the critical point equation $\di_\zeta \rho^{(2)}(\zeta,u)=0$, where $\rho^{(2)}$ denotes the 2nd order homogeneous polynomial of $\rho$: $$\frac{\di \rho^{(2)}}{\di x_i}(\zeta,u) =
2\delta_i x_i + \sum_{j=1}^{2s} u_j \alpha_{ji}=0; \quad
\frac{\di \rho^{(2)}}{\di y_i}(\zeta,u) =
2\lambda_i y_i + \sum_{j=1}^{2s} u_j \beta_{ji}=0.$$ This system has a unique (linear) solution $\zeta=x+iy=h(u)$, and the quadratic map $\zeta\to \rho^{(2)}(\zeta+h(u),u)$ has a unique critical point at $\zeta=0$ for every $u$. Writing $\rho(\zeta,u)= {\widetilde}\rho(\zeta+h(u),u)$, the function ${\widetilde}\rho$ is of the same form as $\rho$, but with $a_j(x,y)=0$ for all $j=1,\ldots, 2s$. We drop the tilde and denote the new function again by $\rho$.
The classical theorem of Sylvester furnishes an ${\mathbb{R}}$-linear transformation of the $u$-coordinates which puts $\sum_{i,j=1}^{2s} c_{ij}\, u_i u_j$ into a normal form $-|u'|^2 + |u''|^2$, where $u'=(u_1,\ldots,u_m)$ and $u''=(u_{m+1},\ldots,u_{2s})$ for some $m\in\{0,1,\ldots,2s\}$. This gives $\rho(\zeta,u)={\widetilde}\rho(\zeta,u)+ o(|\zeta|^2+|u|^2)$ where $$\label{normal-form}
{\widetilde}\rho(\zeta,u)= - |x'|^2 -|u'|^2 + |x''|^2 +
|u''|^2 + \sum_{j=1}^r \lambda_j y_j^2,$$ $\lambda_j>1$ for $j=1,\ldots,k$, and $\lambda_j\ge 1$ for $j=k+1,\ldots,r$. We shall say that (\[normal-form\]) is a [*quadratic normal form*]{} for critical points of $q$-convex functions. Note that $k+m$ is the Morse index of $\rho$ (or ${\widetilde}\rho$) at $0$.
We summarize the above discussion in the following lemma; for the strongly pseudoconvex case see [@HL2 Lemma 2.5].
\[lemma-normal\] [*(Quadratic normal form of a $q$-convex critical point)*]{} Assume that $X$ is an $n$-dimensional complex manifold and that $\rho\colon X\to {\mathbb{R}}$ is a ${\mathcal{C}}^2$-function with a nondegenerate critical point at $p_0 \in X$. If $\rho$ is $q$-convex at $p_0$ for some $q\in \{1,\ldots,n+1\}$ then there exist
- a local holomorphic coordinate map $z=(\zeta,w) \colon U\to {\mathbb{C}}^r\times {\mathbb{C}}^s$ on an open neighborhood $U\subset X$ of $p_0$, with $z(p_0)=0$, $r=n-q+1$ and $s=q-1$,
- a change of coordinates $\psi(z)=\psi(\zeta,w)=(\zeta+h(w),g(w))$ on ${\mathbb{C}}^n$ that is ${\mathbb{R}}$-linear in $w\in{\mathbb{C}}^{s}={\mathbb{R}}^{2s}$, and
- a normal form ${\widetilde}\rho(\zeta,u)$ of type (\[normal-form\]),
such that, setting $\phi(p)= \psi(z(p)) \in {\mathbb{C}}^n$ for $p\in U$, we have $$\rho(p)= \rho(p_0) + {\widetilde}\rho( \phi(p)) + o(|\phi(p)|^2),\quad p\in U.$$ Furthermore, we can approximate $\rho$ as close as desired in the ${\mathcal{C}}^2$-topology by a $q$-convex function $\rho'$ that agrees with $\rho$ outside of $U$ and has a [*nice critical point*]{} at $p_0$, in the sense that $\rho'(p)= \rho(p_0) + {\widetilde}\rho( \phi(p))$ near $p_0$. If $\rho$ is ${\mathcal{C}}^r$-smooth for some $r\in\{2,3,\ldots,\infty\}$ then $\rho'$ can also be chosen ${\mathcal{C}}^r$-smooth.
Everything except the claim in the penultimate sentence has been proved above. The latter is seen by taking $$\rho'(p) = \rho(p_0) + {\widetilde}\rho( \phi(p)) +
\chi\bigl( \e^{-1}\phi(p)\bigr) \, o(|\phi(p)|^2),$$ where $\chi\colon {\mathbb{C}}^n\to[0,1]$ is a smooth function that equals zero in the unit ball ${\mathbb{B}}\subset {\mathbb{C}}^n$, and equals one outside of $2{\mathbb{B}}$. When $\e>0$ decreases to zero, the ${\mathcal{C}}^2$-norm of the last summand tends to zero uniformly on $U$.
Crossing a critical level of a $q$-convex function {#critical}
==================================================
Let $p_0 \in X$ be a [*nice critical point*]{} of a ${\mathcal{C}}^2$-function $\rho\colon X\to {\mathbb{R}}$ that is $q$-convex near $p_0$ and satisfies $\rho(p_0)=0$ (see Lemma \[lemma-normal\]). Choose a neighborhood $U\subset X$ of $p_0$ and a coordinate map $\phi \colon U\to P$ onto a polydisc $P\Subset {\mathbb{C}}^n$ as in Lemma \[lemma-normal\] such that the function ${\widetilde}\rho=\rho\circ\phi^{-1} \colon P\to {\mathbb{R}}$ is a $q$-convex normal form (\[normal-form\]). Set $
Q(y,x'',u'')= \sum_{j=1}^r \lambda_j y_j^2 + |x''|^2 + |u''|^2;
$ hence $$\label{simplified}
{\widetilde}\rho(x+\mathrm{i} y,u) = -|x'|^2 - |u'|^2 + Q(y,x'',u'').$$ Let $c_0\in (0,1)$ be chosen sufficiently small such that $$\{(x+\mathrm{i} y,u)\in{\mathbb{C}}^r\times {\mathbb{R}}^{2s} \colon
|x'|^2 + |u'|^2 \le c_0,\ Q(y,x'',u'') \le 4c_0\}
\subset P.$$ Set $${\widetilde}E=\{(x+\mathrm{i} y,u)\in{\mathbb{C}}^r\times {\mathbb{R}}^{2s} \colon |x'|^2 + |u'|^2 \le c_0,\
y=0,\ x''=0,\ u''=0\}.$$ Its preimage $E=\phi^{-1}({\widetilde}E)\subset U$ is an embedded disc of dimension $k+m$ (the Morse index of $\rho$ at $p_0$) that is attached from the outside to the sublevel set $\{\rho\le -c_0\}$ along the sphere $bE\subset \{\rho = -c_0\}$. In the metric on $U$, inherited by $\phi$ from the standard metric in ${\mathbb{C}}^n$, $E$ is the (local) stable manifold of $p_0$ for the gradient flow of $\rho$.
The following lemma generalizes [@ACTA Lemma 6.7] to $q$-convex functions. (The cited lemma applies to $q=1$, that is, to a strongly plurisubharmonic function $\rho$.)
\[crossing\] [(Notation and assumptions as above.)]{} Assume that $\rho$ is $q$-convex in the set $K_{c_0}= \{p\in X\colon -c_0\le \rho(p) \le 3c_0\} \Subset X$ and that $p_0$ is the only critical point of $\rho$ in $K_{c_0}$. Assume that a normal form of $\rho$ at $p_0$ is given by (\[normal-form\]), where $k\in \{1,\ldots,r\}$ and $\lambda=\min \{\l_1,\ldots,\l_k\}>1$. Given a number $t_0$ with $0< t_0 < (1-\frac{1}{\lambda})^2c_0$, there is a ${\mathcal{C}}^2$-function $\tau \colon \{\rho \le 3c_0\} \to{\mathbb{R}}$ enjoying the following properties (see Figure \[Tau\]):
- $\{\rho\le -c_0\} \cup E \subset \{\tau\le 0\} \subset \{\rho\le -t_0\}\cup E$,
- $\{\rho \le c_0\} \subset \{\tau \le 2c_0\} \subset \{\rho< 3c_0\}$,
- $\tau$ is $q$-convex at every point of $K_{c_0}$, and
- $\tau$ has no critical values in $(0,3c_0) \subset {\mathbb{R}}$.
If $\rho$ is ${\mathcal{C}}^r$-smooth for some $r\in\{2,3,\ldots,\infty\}$ then $\tau$ can also be chosen smooth of class ${\mathcal{C}}^r$.
(-4.5,-4.3)(4.5,4.3)
[ (-3,-1.5)(-2.5,-0.8)(0,-0.3)(2.5,-0.8)(3,-1.5) (3,-1.5)(3,1.5) (3,1.5)(2.5,0.8)(0,0.3)(-2.5,0.8)(-3,1.5) (-3,1.5)(-3,-1.5) ]{}
(-2.5,0)(2.5,0) (5,4)(3,1.5)(2.5,0.8)(0,0.3)(-2.5,0.8)(-3,1.5)(-5,4) (5,-4)(3,-1.5)(2.5,-0.8)(0,-0.3)(-2.5,-0.8)(-3,-1.5)(-5,-4)
(4,4)(2,1.5)(1.5,0)(2,-1.5)(4,-4) (-4,4)(-2,1.5)(-1.5,0)(-2,-1.5)(-4,-4) (0,3)[$\{\rho=-t_0\}$]{} (1,3)(3.05,3) (-1,3)(-3.05,3)
(0,-2.2)(0,-0.3) (-3.7,-2)(-0.3,-2.6) (0.35,-2.6)(3.7,-2) (0.05,-2.6)[$\Omega_c$]{}
(-1,1.7)(-1,0.05) (-1,2)[$E$]{}
(0,0) (0,1.2)[$p_0$]{} (0,1)(0,0.05)
(3.8,0)[$\{\rho<c-t_1\}$]{} (-3.8,0)[$\{\rho<c-t_1\}$]{}
Each sublevel set $\Omega_c=\{\tau < c\}$ for $c\in (0,2c_0)$ is a domain with ${\mathcal{C}}^2$ strongly $q$-convex boundary that contains $\{\rho\le -c_0\} \cup E$, and the latter set is a strong deformation retract of $\Omega_c$ (see Figure \[Tau\]). As $c$ decreases to $0$, the sets $\Omega_c \cap \{\rho\ge -t_0\}$ decrease to the disc $E'= E\cap \{\rho\ge -t_0\}$. Finally, the domain $\Omega_{2c_0}$ contains the set $\{\rho<c_0\}$.
In [@ACTA proof of Lemma 6.7, p. 178] the second named author constructed a smooth convex increasing function $h\colon {\mathbb{R}}\to [0,+\infty)$ enjoying the following properties (see Figure \[h\]):
- $h(t)=0$ for $t\le t_0$,
- for $t\ge c_0$ we have $h(t)=t - t_1$ with $t_1=c_0 - h(c_0) \in (t_0,c_0)$,
- for $t_0\le t\le c_0$ we have $t-t_1 \le h(t) \le t - t_0$, and
- for all $t\in{\mathbb{R}}$ we have $0\le \dot h(t) \le 1$ and $2t\ddot h(t) + \dot h(t) < \lambda$.
(-1,-1)(12,7)
(0,0)(11,0) (0,0)(0,6)
(6,2)(9.5,5.5) (4,0)(6,2) (6,0)(6,2) (-2,2)(2,0)(6,2)(8,4.5) (0,0)(2,0) (2,0)(4,0)(6,0)(0,0) (2,0)(7.5,5.5) (2,-0.5)[$t_0$]{} (4,-0.5)[$t_1$]{} (6,-0.5)[$c_0$]{} (11.5,0)[$t$]{} (-0.5,-0.5)[$(0,0)$]{}
(8,2)[$h$]{} (7.7,2.3)(7,3)
(4,4)[$t-t_0$]{} (4,3.5)(4.7,2.8)
Given such $h$ we define a function ${\widetilde}\tau\colon {\mathbb{C}}^n={\mathbb{C}}^r\times {\mathbb{R}}^{2s} \to{\mathbb{R}}$ by $$\label{tau}
{\widetilde}\tau(\zeta,u)= - h\bigl( |x'|^2 +|u'|^2\bigr) + Q(y,x'',u'').$$ Its critical locus is $\{|x'|^2+|u'|^2\le t_0,\ x''=0,\ y=0,\ u''=0\} \subset {\widetilde}E$ and the corresponding critical value is zero. From the property (iv) of $h$ and [@ACTA Lemma 6.8] we see that ${\widetilde}\tau(\cdotp,u)$ is strongly plurisubharmonic on ${\mathbb{C}}^r$ for every fixed value of $u\in{\mathbb{R}}^{2s}$. The cited lemma applies directly when $u'=0$; in general we consider the translated function $h_c(t)= h(t+c)$ with $c=|u'|^2>0$; we have $\dot h_c(t) =\dot h(t+c) \le 1< \l$ and $2t\ddot h_c(t) + \dot h_c(t)\le 2(t+c)\ddot h(t+c) + \dot h(t+c) < \lambda$ (we used $\ddot h\ge 0$ and the property (iv) of $h$). Lemma 6.8 in [@ACTA] now gives the desired conclusion concerning the function $\zeta\to {\widetilde}\tau(\zeta,u)=-h_c(|x'|^2) + Q(y,x'',u'')$, where $c=|u'|^2$.
Comparing the definitions of ${\widetilde}\rho$ (\[simplified\]) and ${\widetilde}\tau$ (\[tau\]), and taking into account the properties of $h$, we see that the following conditions hold:
- ${\widetilde}\rho \le {\widetilde}\tau \le {\widetilde}\rho+t_1$ (since $t-t_1\le h(t)\le t$ for all $t\ge 0$),
- ${\widetilde}\rho+ t_0 \le {\widetilde}\tau$ on the set $\{|x'|^2+|u'|^2 \ge t_0\}$ (from (ii) and (iii)), and
- ${\widetilde}\tau = {\widetilde}\rho + t_1$ on the set $\{|x'|^2 +|u'|^2 \ge c_0\}$ (from (ii)).
Let $V= \{p\in X\colon \rho(p) \le 3c_0\}$. We define a function $\tau \colon V \to{\mathbb{R}}$ by $$\tau= {\widetilde}\tau\circ \phi \ \; \text{on}\ U\cap V, \quad
\tau = \rho + t_1 \ \text{on}\ V\bs U.$$ Property (c) implies that both definitions of $\tau$ agree on the set $$\{p\in U\cap V \colon |x'(p)|^2 + |u'(p)|^2 \ge c_0\}.$$ (Here $x'(p)$ and $u'(p)$ denote the corresponding components of $\phi(p) \in{\mathbb{C}}^n$.) Since $\{p\in U\cap V \colon |x'(p)|^2 + |u'(p)|^2 \le c_0\}
\subset \{p\in U \colon |x'(p)|^2 + |u'(p)|^2 \le c_0,\ Q(y(p), x''(p),u''(p))\le 4c_0\}$ and the latter set is compactly contained in $U$, we see that $\tau$ is well defined on $V$. The stated properties now follow immediately. In particular, since ${\widetilde}\tau$ is strongly plurisubharmonic on ${\mathbb{C}}^r \times\{u\} \subset{\mathbb{C}}^n$ $(u\in{\mathbb{R}}^{2s})$ and the coordinate map $\phi\colon U\to P$ is holomorphic on $\Sigma_u=\phi^{-1}({\mathbb{C}}^r \times\{u\}) \subset U$, the restriction of $\tau$ to each $r=(n-q+1)$-dimensional complex submanifold $\Sigma_u$ of $U$ is strongly plurisubharmonic. Since these submanifolds form a smooth nonsingular foliation of $U$ with holomorphic leaves, $\tau$ is $q$-convex in $U\cap V$, while on $V\bs U$ it is just a translate of $\rho$ by a constant.
In Lemma \[crossing\] we exclude the case $k=0$ when $\rho$ has a local minimum at the critical point $p_0$ in the Levi-positive directions. This case need not be considered in the proof of Theorem \[Main1\] since the boundary of $D$ in $X$ cannot approach such a point from below during the lifting process.
Holomorphic sprays {#spray}
==================
In the proof of Theorem \[Main1\] we use sprays of maps to globalize local corrections made near a small part of the boundary. For this purpose we recall from [@BDF1; @BDF2; @FFAsian] the relevant results concerning holomorphic sprays, adjusting them to the applications in this paper.
\[Spray\] Let $\ell\ge 2$, $r\in\{0,\ldots,\ell\}$ and $k\in{\mathbb{Z}}_+$ be integers. Assume that $X$ is a complex manifold, $D$ is a relatively compact strongly pseudoconvex domain with ${\mathcal{C}}^\ell$ boundary in a Stein manifold $S$, and $\sigma$ is a finite set of points in $D$. A [*spray of maps of class ${\mathcal{A}}^r(D)$ with the exceptional set $\sigma$ of order $k$*]{} (and with values in $X$) is a map $f\colon \bar D\times P\to X$, where $P$ (the [*parameter set*]{} of the spray) is an open subset of a Euclidean space ${\mathbb{C}}^m$ containing the origin, such that the following hold:
- $f$ is holomorphic on $D\times P$ and of class ${\mathcal{C}}^r$ on $\bar D \times P$,
- the maps $f(\cdotp,0)$ and $f(\cdotp,t)$ agree on $\sigma$ up to order $k$ for $t\in P$, and
- for every $z\in \bar D\bs \sigma$ and $t\in P$ the map $$\di_t f(z,t) \colon T_t {\mathbb{C}}^n ={\mathbb{C}}^n \to T_{f(z,t)} X$$ is surjective (the [*domination property*]{}).
We shall call $f_0=f(\cdotp,0)$ the [*core*]{} (or [*central*]{}) map of the spray $f$.
The following lemma is essentially [@BDF1 Lemma 4.2] for the case of sprays of maps. As it is remarked in the first line of its proof in [@BDF1], the assumption $r\ge 2$ is needed only for the existence of a Stein neighborhood. Using [@FFAsian Corollary 1.3] instead of [@BDF1 Theorem 2.6] we obtain the same result for all $r\in{\mathbb{Z}}_+$. In §\[proof\] below we shall use these results with $r=0$.
\[sprays-exist\] [*(Existence of sprays)*]{} Assume that $\ell$, $r$, $k$, $D$, $\sigma$ and $X$ are as in Definition \[Spray\]. Given a map $f_0\colon \bar D\to X$ of class ${\mathcal{A}}^r(D)$ to a complex manifold $X$, there exists a spray $f\colon \bar D\times P\to X$ of class ${\mathcal{A}}^r(D)$, with the exceptional set $\sigma$ of order $k$, such that $f(\cdotp,0)=f_0$.
\[Cartan-pair\] Let $\ell\ge 2$ be an integer. A pair of open subsets $D_0,D_1 \Subset S$ in a Stein manifold $S$ is said to be a [*Cartan pair*]{} of class ${\mathcal{C}}^\ell$ if
- $D_0$, $D_1$, $D=D_0\cup D_1$ and $D_{0,1}=D_0\cap D_1$ are strongly pseudoconvex with ${\mathcal{C}}^\ell$ boundaries, and
- $\overline {D_0\backslash D_1} \cap \overline {D_1\backslash D_0}=\emptyset$ (the separation property).
The following is the main result on gluing sprays (see [@BDF1 Proposition 4.3]). The key ingredient in the proof is a Cartan-type splitting lemma; for a simple proof see [@FFAsian Lemma 3.2].
\[gluing-sprays\] [*(Gluing sprays)*]{} Let $(D_0,D_1)$ be a Cartan pair of class ${\mathcal{C}}^\ell$ $(\ell\ge 2)$ in a Stein manifold $S$ (Def. \[Cartan-pair\]). Set $D=D_0\cup D_1$, $D_{0,1}=D_0\cap D_1$. Let $X$ be a complex manifold. Given integers $r\in\{0,1,\ldots, \ell\}$, $k\in{\mathbb{Z}}_+$, and a spray $f\colon \bar D_0\times P_0\to X$ of class ${\mathcal{A}}^r(D_0)$ with the exceptional set $\sigma$ of order $k$ such that $\sigma \cap \bar D_{0,1}=\emptyset$, there is an open set $P \ss P_0$ containing $0\in{\mathbb{C}}^n$ satisfying the following.
For every spray $f' \colon \bar D_1 \times P_0 \to X$ of class ${\mathcal{A}}^r(D_1)$, with the exceptional set $\sigma'$ of order $k$, such that $f'$ is sufficiently ${\mathcal{C}}^r$-close to $f$ on $\bar D_{0,1} \times P_0$ and $\sigma'\cap \bar D_{0,1}=\emptyset$, there exists a spray $g\colon \bar D \times P \to X$ of class ${\mathcal{A}}^r(D)$, with the exceptional set $\sigma\cup \sigma'$ of order $k$, enjoying the following properties:
- the restriction $g\colon \bar D_0\times P \to X$ is close to $f \colon \bar D_0\times P \to X$ in the ${\mathcal{C}}^r$-topology (depending on the ${\mathcal{C}}^r$-distance of $f$ and $f'$ on $\bar D_{0,1} \times P_0$),
- the core map $g_0=g(\cdotp,0)$ is homotopic to $f_0=f(\cdotp,0)$ on $\bar D_0$, and $g_0$ is homotopic to $f'_0=f'(\cdotp,0)$ on $\bar D_1$, and
- $g_0$ agrees with $f_0$ up to order $k$ on $\sigma$, and it agrees with $f'_0$ up to order $k$ on $\sigma'$.
It follows from the proof in [@BDF1] that, in addition to the above, we have $g(z,t)\in\{f'(z,s)\colon s \in P_0\}$ for each $z\in \bar D_1$ and $t\in P$.
Proof of Theorem \[Main1\] {#proof}
==========================
The scheme of proof is exactly as in [@BDF1 proof of Theorem 1.1]. A holomorphic map $f\colon D\to X$ satisfying the conclusion of Theorem \[Main1\] is obtained as a locally uniform limit $f=\lim_{j\to \infty} f_j$ in $D$ of a sequence of continuous maps $f_j\colon \bar D\to X$ that are holomorphic in $D$. At every step of the inductive construction we obtain the next map $f_{j+1}$ from $f_j$ by first lifting a part of the boundary $f_j(bD)$, lying in a local chart of $X$, to higher levels of $\rho$, while at the same time taking care not to drop the boundary substantially lower with respect to $\rho$. The local modification, provided by Lemma \[MainLemma\], uses special holomorphic peak functions; its proof relies on the work of A. Dor [@Dor1]. To pass a critical level of $\rho$ we use methods developed in §\[critical\] above.
For technical reasons we work with sprays of maps (see §\[spray\]). This allows us to patch any local modification, furnished by Lemma \[MainLemma\], with the given global map $\bar D\to X$ by appealing to Proposition \[gluing-sprays\] above. When talking of sprays, we adopt the following convention:
[*All sprays in this section are assumed to be of class ${\mathcal{A}}^0(D)$*]{}, and (unless otherwise specified) [*their exceptional set $\sigma$ of order $k$ equals the finite set $\sigma$ from Theorem \[Main1\].*]{} We shall accordingly omit the phrases ‘of class ${\mathcal{A}}^0(D)$’ and ‘with exceptional set $\sigma$ of order $k$’ when there is no ambiguity.
In the lifting process we have to consider two cases: The first is to lift the boundary of $D$ across noncritical levels of $\rho$, and the second is crossing a critical level set of $\rho$. We reduce the second case to the first one by using Lemma \[crossing\] (see Lemma \[bigstep\] below).
For maps from strongly pseudoconvex domains to a Euclidean space, relevant lifting techniques using holomorphic peak functions have been developed by several authors. The following result was proved by A. Dor (see [@Dor1 Lemma 1]; here we use Dor’s original notation). The term ‘normalized-3’ indicates that the complex Hessian is globally bounded from below with factor $3$, that is, ${\mathcal{L}}_\rho(x;v)\ge 3|v|^2$. Since we do not wish to normalize our exhaustion function, we shall need one additional constant (denoted $\mu_0$ in Lemma \[LemmaDorL\] below) in the corresponding estimates.
\[LemmaDor\] [(A. Dor, [@Dor1 Lemma 1])]{} Assume that $N\ge 2$ and $M\ge N+1$ are integers, $\Omega$ is a domain in ${\mathbb{C}}^M$, $\rho\colon\Omega \to{\mathbb{R}}$ is a smooth normalized-3 plurisubharmonic function $({\mathcal{L}}_\rho(x;v)\ge 3|v|^2)$, $D\ss {\mathbb{C}}^N$ is a strongly pseudoconvex domain with smooth boundary, and $z_0\in bD$. Let $K_1\subset\Omega$ be a compact subset such that $d\rho\ne 0$ on $K_1$. Then there exist
- a constant $\epsilon_0\in (0,1)$ that depends only on $N$ and on the domain $D$,
- constants $\gamma_0\in (0,1)$ and $C>1$ that depend only on $K_1$, $\rho$ and $\Omega$, and
- a neighborhood $U\subset bD$ of $z_0$ that depends only on $z_0$ and $D$,
such that the following hold. Given a smooth map $f\colon\bar D \to \Omega$ that is holomorphic on $D$, a compact subset $K\subset D$, a number $\e>0$, and a continuous map $\gamma\colon bD\to (0,\gamma_0]$, there is a smooth map $g\colon\bar D \to {\mathbb{C}}^M$ that is holomorphic on $D$ and enjoys the following properties:
- $f(z)+g(z)\in \Omega$ for $z\in \bar D$,
- $C|g(z)|^2+\e>\rho((f+g)(z))-\rho(f(z))>|g(z)|^2-\e$ for $z\in \bar D$,
- $|g(z)|>\e_0\gamma(z)$ for $z\in U\cap f^{-1}(K_1)$,
- $|g(z)|<\e_0^{-1}\gamma(z)$ for $z\in bD$, and
- $|g(z)|<\e$ for $z\in K$.
Although Dor stated this result only for strongly plurisubharmonic functions $\rho$, in the final pages of his paper he also proved it for $q$-convex functions with $q\le M-N$; he called such functions ‘locally $(N+1)$-dimensional plurisubharmonic’. The proof in [@Dor1] is split into three parts. In the first part the author chooses a good system of peak functions near $z_0$ and obtains a constant $\epsilon_0>0$ that depends only on the geometry of the boundary $bD$ near the chosen point $z_0\in bD$, but is independent of the target domain $X$ and of the function $\rho$. In the second step he constructs a local correction map that is defined in a neighborhood $U$ of $z_0$ and enjoys the stated properties on $U$. In the last step this local map is patched with the original global map by solving a $\dibar$-equation on $\bar D$.
Since in our case $X$ is a manifold (and not a Euclidean space as in [@Dor1]), we perform Dor’s corrections on small pieces of $\bar D$ near the boundary of $bD$ that are mapped to local charts of $X$, and then glue these corrections with the initial spray by the methods explained in §\[spray\]. So we only need the following [*local version of Lemma \[LemmaDor\]*]{} (before globalization). We adjust the notation to the one used in the remainder of this section, writing $p$ instead of $z_0$, $\e_p$ instead of $\e_0$, and $g$ instead of $f+g$. We emphasize that Lemma \[LemmaDorL\] is what Dor actually proved in [@Dor1], and hence it does not require a proof.
(-8,-3.5)(8,5.5)
(0,-8)[9]{}[40]{}[72]{} (0,-8)[9]{}[97]{}[140]{} (0,-8)[9]{}[72]{}[97]{}
(0,1) (0,1.5)[$p$]{}
(5.2,-1.5)[$D$]{} (1,0)[$D_1$]{} (-4.8,3)[$U_p$]{} (-2.7,3)[$V_p$]{} (1,2.2)[$C$]{} (1,1)(1,1.8)
(0,-4)(-1.4,0.87)(-1.8,0)(0,-1)(2,-1)(3.5,-0.3)(3,0.47)(1,-1)
(0,1)[2.8]{} (0,1)[4.5]{}
\[LemmaDorL\] Let $d\ge 2$, $n\ge d+1$, and $q\le n-d$ be integers. Assume that $\omega$ is a domain in ${\mathbb{C}}^n$, $\rho\colon\omega \to{\mathbb{R}}$ is a smooth $q$-convex function, $K_\omega$ is a compact subset of $\omega$ such that $d\rho\ne 0$ on $K_\omega$, $D\ss {\mathbb{C}}^d$ is a domain with smooth boundary, and $p\in bD$ is a strongly pseudoconvex boundary point of $D$. Then there exist
- small balls $V_p\Subset U_p$ in ${\mathbb{C}}^d$ such that $p\in V_p$,
- a constant $\epsilon_p\in (0,1)$ depending only on $U_p\cap bD$,
- a constant $\mu_0>0$ depending only on $\rho$ and $K_\omega$, and
- a constant $\gamma_0\in (0,1)$ depending on $U_p\cap bD$, $\rho$ and $K_\omega$,
such that the following hold. Given an open subset $D_1\subset U_p\cap D$, an open subset $C$ of $bD$ contained in $V_p$ such that ${\rm dist}_{{\mathbb{C}}^d}(\overline C, bD_1 \bs bD) >0$, a smooth map $f\colon \bar D_1 \to \omega$ that is holomorphic on $D_1$, a number $\e>0$, and a continuous map $\gamma\colon bD\cap bD_1\to (0,\gamma_0]$, there is a smooth map $g\colon \bar D_1 \to \omega$ that is holomorphic on $D_1$ and enjoys the following properties:
- $\rho(g(z))-\rho(f(z)) >\mu_0|g(z)-f(z)|^2-\e$ for $z\in \bar D_1$,
- $|g(z)-f(z)|>\e_p\gamma(z)$ for $z\in C\cap f^{-1}(K_\omega)$,
- $|g(z)-f(z)|<\e_p^{-1}\gamma(z)$ for $z\in bD\cap bD_1$, and
- $|g(z)-f(z)|<\e$ for points $z\in \bar D_1$ such that ${\rm dist}_{{\mathbb{C}}^d}(z,C)>\e$.
The main sets in Lemma \[LemmaDorL\] are illustrated on Figure \[Lemma5.2\], with $C$ shown as the dashed arc on $bD \cap bD_1$.
Using Lemma \[LemmaDorL\] we now prove our main modification lemma for the noncritical case. Note that $f_0$ always denotes the core map of a spray $f$.
\[MainLemma\] Let $d\ge 2$, $n\ge d+1$ and $k\ge 0$ be integers. Assume that $X$ is an $n$-dimensional complex manifold endowed with a complete metric ${\rm dist}$, $\Omega$ is an open subset of $X$, and $\rho\colon\Omega\to {\mathbb{R}}$ is a smooth function such that for a pair of real numbers $c_1<c_2$ the set $$\Omega_{c_1,c_2}= \{x\in\Omega\colon c_1\le \rho(x)\le c_2\}$$ is compact, $d\rho\ne 0$ on $\Omega_{c_1,c_2}$, and the Levi form ${\mathcal{L}}_\rho$ of $\rho$ has at least $d+1$ positive eigenvalues at every point of $\Omega_{c_1,c_2}$.
Let $D\Subset S$ be a smoothly bounded, strongly pseudoconvex domain in a Stein manifold $S$ of dimension $d$ and let $\sigma$ be a finite set of points in $D$. Choose real numbers $c'_1,c'_2$ such that $c_1<c'_1<c'_2< c_2$. Then there is a number $\delta>0$ with the following property. Given a number $c\in[c'_1,c'_2]$, a compact set $K_D\subset D$, and a spray of maps $f\colon\bar D\times P\to X$ with the exceptional set $\sigma$ of order $k$ such that $$f_0(z)\in\Omega\ (\forall z\in\overline{D\bs K_D}),\quad
\rho(f_0(z))>c-\delta\ (\forall z\in bD),$$ there exist for each $\e>0$ an open set $P_0 \ss P$ containing the origin and a spray $g\colon\bar D\times P_0\to X$ with the exceptional set $\sigma$ of order $k$ such that
- $g_0(z)\in \Omega$ and $\rho(g_0(z))>c+\d$ for $z\in bD$,
- $g_0(z)\in \Omega$ and $\rho(g_0(z))>\rho(f_0(z))-\e$ for $z\in \overline{D\bs K_D}$,
- ${\rm dist }(f_0(z),g_0(z))<\e$ for $z\in K_D$, and
- the maps $f_0$ and $g_0$ have the same $k$-jets at every point in $\sigma$, and $g_0$ is homotopic to $f_0$ relative to $\sigma$.
We first explain the main idea. Lemma \[LemmaDorL\] provides a local step on both sides — locally with respect to the boundary $bD$, and locally on the level set of $\rho$ in $X$. In every step of the inductive construction we lift the part of the image of the boundary $bD$ that lies in a small coordinate neighborhood to higher levels of the exhaustion function $\rho$ (see Sublemma \[sublemma\]). In finitely many such steps we push the image of the boundary outside a certain bigger sublevel set of $\rho$. Each step in the construction consists of finitely many substeps, and at each substep we only make corrections on the part of the boundary lying in a suitable coordinate neighborhood in $S$. Sprays are used at every substep to patch the local correction with the previous global map.
Now to the details. Let ${\mathbb{B}}^n$ denote the open unit ball in ${\mathbb{C}}^n$, and let $s{\mathbb{B}}^n$ denote the ball of radius $s >0$. Fix a number $c\in [c'_1,c'_2]$. We shall find a number $\delta>0$ satisfying the conclusion of Lemma \[MainLemma\] for this value of $c$. It will be clear from the construction that $\delta$ can be chosen uniformly for all $c'$ sufficiently close to $c$, and hence (by compactness) for all $c\in[c'_1,c'_2]$.
Since the level set $\{\rho=c\}$ is compact, there are finitely many holomorphic coordinate maps $h_i\colon\tfrac54{\mathbb{B}}^n\to X$ $(i=1,\ldots,N)$ such that $$\{\rho=c\}\subset \bigcup_{i=1}^{N} h_i(\tfrac14{\mathbb{B}}^n) \subset
\bigcup_{i=1}^{N} h_i(\tfrac54{\mathbb{B}}^n) \subset \Omega_{c_1,c_2}.$$ For each point $p\in bD$ one can choose local holomorphic coordinates in $S$, and in this coordinate patch we obtain the sets $U_p$, $V_p$ and a constant $\e_p$ as in Lemma \[LemmaDorL\] (parts (a) and (b)). Choose open coverings $\{V_j\}_{j=1}^M$ and $\{U_j\}_{j=1}^M$ of $bD$ such that each pair $V_j\Subset U_j$ corresponds to $V_{p_j} \Subset U_{p_j}$ for some point $p_j\in bD$, and $U_j\cap \sigma=\emptyset$ for each $j$. We also obtain the corresponding numbers $\e_j=\e_{p_j}>0$.
Let $\e_0=\min\{\e_1,\ldots,\e_M\}>0$. Using Lemma \[LemmaDorL\] (parts (c) and (d)) for the data $\bar D\cap U_j$ (in the local coordinates), $\omega=\tfrac54{\mathbb{B}}^n$, $K_\omega=\overline {\mathbb{B}}^n$, and with $\rho$ replaced by the function $\rho\circ h_i$, we also obtain constants $\gamma_i^j$ and $\mu_i^j$ for $i=1,\ldots,N$ and $j=1,\ldots,M$ (these correspond to $\gamma_0$, resp. to $\mu_0$, in Lemma \[LemmaDorL\]). Choose constants $\alpha>0$ and $\beta>0$ such that the following hold for $i=1,\ldots,N$: $$\begin{aligned}
w,w'\in\overline {\mathbb{B}}^n \Longrightarrow {\rm dist}(h_i(w),h_i(w'))
&\le \alpha|w-w'|,\label{defalpha}\\
\bigl( x\in h_i(\tfrac78{\mathbb{B}}^n),\ x'\in X,\ {\rm dist}(x,x')<M\beta \bigr)
& \Longrightarrow \label{defLambda}\\
\bigl( x'\in h_i({\mathbb{B}}^n),\ |h_i^{-1}(x)&-h_i^{-1}(x')| < \tfrac1{8N} \bigr). \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Set $$\label{gamma}
\gamma=\min\{\gamma_i^j,\tfrac{\epsilon_0\beta}{3\,\alpha}\}>0,
\qquad \mu=\min\{\mu_i^j\}>0,$$ the minima being taken over all indices $i=1,\ldots,N$ and $j=1,\ldots,M$. (This choice of $\gamma$ insures that our correction is small compared to the size of $\omega$.) Finally, we choose a number $\delta$ such that $$\label{delta}
0<\delta<\tfrac13 \mu\e_0^2\gamma^2, \qquad
\Omega_{c-\delta,c+2\d} \subset
\bigcup_{i=1}^{N}h_i\left(\tfrac14{\mathbb{B}}^n\right).$$ We shall prove that this $\delta$ satisfies Lemma \[MainLemma\]. We need the following
\[sublemma\] Fix an index $i\in\{1,2,\ldots, N\}$. Given a spray of maps $f'\colon\bar D\times P\to X$, with the exceptional set $\sigma$ of order $k$ and such that $f_0'(z)\in\Omega$ for $z\in \overline{D\bs K_D}$, there exist for each $\e'>0$ an open set $P' \ss P$ containing the origin and a spray of maps $g'\colon\bar D\times P'\to X$ with the exceptional set $\sigma$ of order $k$ such that $g'_0(z)\in \Omega$ for $z\in \overline{D\bs K_D}$ and the following hold:
- $\rho(g'_0(z))>\rho(f'_0(z))+ 3\d-\e'$ for $z\in bD$ such that $f'_0(z)\in h_i(\tfrac 12{\mathbb{B}}^n)$,
- $\rho(g'_0(z))>\rho(f'_0(z))-\e'$ for $z\in \overline{D\bs K_D}$,
- ${\rm dist }(f'_0(z),g'_0(z))<M\beta$ for $z\in \bar D$,
- ${\rm dist }(f'_0(z),g'_0(z))<\e'$ for $z\in K_D$, and
- the maps $f'_0$ and $g'_0$ have the same $k$-jets at every point in $\sigma$.
Let $f^0=f'$ and $P^0=P$. Recall that $bD\subset \bigcup_{j=1}^M V_j$. We inductively construct a finite decreasing sequence of parameter sets $P^0\supset P^1\supset \cdots\supset P^M$, with $0\in P^{j+1}\ss P^{j}$ for $j=0,\ldots,M-1$, and a sequence of sprays $f^j\colon\bar D\times P^j\to X$ with the exceptional set $\sigma$ of order $k$ such that the following hold for $j=0,1,\ldots,M-1$:
- $\rho(f^{j+1}_0(z))>\rho(f^j_0(z))+3\d-\tfrac{\e'}M$ for every point $z\in bD\cap V_{j+1}$ such that $f^j_0(z)\in h_i(\tfrac 34{\mathbb{B}}^n)$,
- $\rho(f^{j+1}_0(z))>\rho(f^{j}_0(z))-\tfrac{\e'}M$ for $z\in \overline{D\bs K_D}$,
- ${\rm dist }\bigl(f^{j+1}_0(z),f^{j}_0(z)\bigr) <{\beta}$ for $z\in \bar D$,
- ${\rm dist }\bigl(f^{j+1}_0(z),f^{j}_0(z)\bigr) < \tfrac{\e'}M$ for $z\in K_D$, and
- the maps $f^{j+1}_0$ and $f^{j}_0$ have the same $k$-jets at every point in $\sigma$.
Assume for a moment that we have already constructed the sequences $P^j$ and $f^j$. Let $P'=P^M$ and $g'=f^M$. Using (ii$^\dagger$)–(v$^\dagger$) repeatedly $M$ times we see that properties (ii’)–(v’) in Sublemma \[sublemma\] hold. To see that (i’) holds, fix a point $z\in bD$ such that $f^0_0(z)\in h_i(\tfrac12 {\mathbb{B}}^n)$. Choose an index $j$ such that $z\in V_j$. By (iii$^\dagger$) and (\[defLambda\]) it follows that $f^{j-1}_0(z)\in h_i(\tfrac34 {\mathbb{B}}^n)$, and thus (i$^\dagger$) gives $\rho(f^{j}_0(z))>\rho(f^{j-1}_0(z))+ 3\d-\tfrac{\e'}M$. Using (ii$^\dagger$) repeatedly this implies $\rho(g'_0(z))>\rho(f'_0(z))+3\d-{\e'}$. Therefore $g'$ enjoys all required properties.
It remains to construct the sequences $P^j$ and $f^j$. Assume inductively that we have already constructed $P^0,\ldots,P^j$ and $f^0,\ldots,f^j$ for some $j\in\{0,1,\ldots,M-1\}$; we now explain how to find $P^{j+1}$ and $f^{j+1}$. Set $$C= bD\cap V_{j+1}\cap(f_0^j)^{-1}(h_i(\tfrac{13}{16}{\mathbb{B}}^n)).$$ Observe that the open set $
D\cap V_{j+1}\cap \bigl(f_0^j\bigr)^{-1}\left(h_i\left(\tfrac{13}{16}{\mathbb{B}}^n\right)\right)
$ is pseudoconvex, contained in $
U_{j+1}\cap \bigl(f_0^j\bigr)^{-1}\left(h_i\left(\tfrac{7}{8}{\mathbb{B}}^n\right)\right)
\subset U_{j+1}\cap \bar D,
$ and has positive distance to $
\bar D\bs \left( U_{j+1}\cap \bigl( f_0^j\bigr)^{-1}\left(h_i\left(\tfrac{7}{8}{\mathbb{B}}^n\right)\right) \right).
$ Hence there is a smoothly bounded, strongly pseudoconvex domain $D_1$ contained in $D$ such that $$V_{j+1}\cap \bigl(f_0^j\bigr)^{-1} \left(h_i\left(\tfrac{13}{16}{\mathbb{B}}^n\right)\right)
\subset \bar D_1\subset
U_{j+1}\cap \bigl(f_0^j\bigr)^{-1}\left(h_i\left(\tfrac{7}{8}{\mathbb{B}}^n\right)\right)$$ and $${\rm dist}_{{\mathbb{C}}^d}(\overline C, bD_1 \bs bD) >0.$$ The situation is as shown in Figure \[Lemma5.2\], with $U_p$ replaced by $U_{j+1}$ and $V_p$ replaced by $V_{j+1}$.
Choose a smoothly bounded, strongly pseudoconvex domain $D_0\subset D$, obtained by denting $D$ slightly inward in a neighborhood of $C$, such that $D\bs D_0\subset U_{j+1}$, $bD_0\cap \overline C=\emptyset$, and $(D_0,D_1)$ is a Cartan pair such that $D_0\cup D_1=D$ (see Definition \[Cartan-pair\]). Set $$A_{i,j}(z,t)= h_i^{-1}\circ f^j(z,t) - h_i^{-1}\circ f^j(z,0).$$ There exists a smaller parameter set $0\in P^j_0\subset P^j$ such that for $w\in \tfrac{15}{16}{\mathbb{B}}^n$, $z\in \bar D_1$ and $t\in P^j_0$ the following hold: $$\begin{aligned}
|A_{i,j}(z,t)| &< \tfrac1{16},
\label{defPl1}\\
|\rho(h_i(w))- \rho\bigl( h_i(w+ A_{i,j}(z,t)) \bigr)| &< \tfrac{\e'}{3M},
\label{defPl2}\\
{\rm dist}\bigl( h_i(w), h_i(w+A_{i,j}(z,t))\bigr) &< \tfrac\beta {3}.
\label{defPl3}\end{aligned}$$ Applying Lemma \[LemmaDorL\] to the map $h_i^{-1}\circ f_0^j$ on $\bar D_1$, the constant function $\gamma(z)=\gamma$ (with $\gamma$ as in (\[gamma\])), and a number $\e>0$ (to be specified later), we obtain a map $g\colon\bar D_1 \to {\mathbb{C}}^n$ enjoying the following properties: $$\begin{aligned}
& \rho(h_i(g(z))) > \rho(f_0^j(z))+ \mu|h_i^{-1}\circ f_0^j(z) -g(z)|^2-\epsilon
\ \text{ for }z\in\bar D_1,
\label{lastng1} \\
& |h_i^{-1}\circ f_0^j(z)-g(z)| > \epsilon_0\gamma \ \text{ for }z\in C,
\label{lastng2}\\
& |h_i^{-1}\circ f_0^j(z) -g(z)| < \epsilon_0^{-1}\gamma
\ \text{ for }z\in bD_1\cap bD \text{, and}\label{lastng4}\\
& |h_i^{-1}\circ f_0^j(z) -g(z)| < \epsilon \ \text{ for }z\in \bar D_1
\text{ such that }{\rm dist}_{{\mathbb{C}}^d}(z,C)>\epsilon.
\label{lastng3}\end{aligned}$$
If $\e< \min\{\frac{\gamma}{\epsilon_0}, {\rm dist}_{{\mathbb{C}}^d}(C,bD_1 \bs bD)\}$ then (\[lastng4\]), (\[lastng3\]) and the maximum principle imply that $|h_i^{-1}\circ f_0^j(z)-g(z)| < \frac{\gamma}{\epsilon_0}$ for $z\in \bar D_1$. By (\[defalpha\]) we get $${\rm dist}\bigl(h_i(g(z)),f_0^j(z)\bigr) < \tfrac\beta{3}\ \text{ for } z\in \bar D_1.$$ By (\[defLambda\]) and (\[defPl3\]) this allows us to define a spray $f'\colon\bar D_1\times P^j_0 \to X$ (with empty exceptional set) by setting $$f'(z,t)=h_i\bigl(g(z)+A_{i,j}(z,t) \bigr)
\ \text{ for }z \in \bar D_1,\,t\in P^j_0.$$ If $\epsilon<\tfrac{\epsilon'}{3M}$ then it follows from (\[defPl2\]), (\[lastng1\]), (\[lastng2\]) and the definition of $\delta$ that $$\begin{aligned}
\rho(f'(z,t))&> \rho(f_0^j(z))+3\delta-\tfrac{2\e'}{3M}\ \text{ for }z\in C, \label{lastn1}\\
\rho(f'(z,t))&>\rho(f_0^j(z))-\tfrac{2\e'}{3M} \ \text{ for }z\in\bar D_1.\label{lastn2}\end{aligned}$$ If $\epsilon>0$ is small enough then for every $z\in \overline{D_0\cap D}_1$ we have ${\rm dist}_{{\mathbb{C}}^d}(z,C)>\epsilon$, and the properties (\[lastng3\]) and (\[defalpha\]) imply that $${\rm dist}\bigl(f'(z,t),f^j(z,t)\bigr) \le \alpha\epsilon \ \text{ for }
(z,t)\in \overline{D_0\cap D}_1 \times P_0^j.$$ Finally, if $\e>0$ is small enough then we can glue the sprays $f^j$ and $f'$ by Proposition \[gluing-sprays\]. This gives a smaller parameter set $0\in P^{j+1} \subset P^j_0$ and a new spray $f^{j+1}\colon \bar D \times P^{j+1} \to X$ whose restriction $f^{j+1}\colon \bar D_0\times P^{j+1} \to X$ is as close as desired to the spray $f^j \colon \bar D_0\times P^{j+1} \to X$ in the ${\mathcal{C}}^0$-topology, and the range of $f^{j+1}$ over $\overline D_1$ is contained in the range of the spray $f'$. The good approximation of $f^{j}$ by $f^{j+1}$ over $D_0$ and properties (\[lastn1\]) and (\[lastn2\]) ensure that properties (i$^\dagger$)–(v$^\dagger$) hold.
We now conclude the proof of Lemma \[MainLemma\]. Let $\e'=\min\{\tfrac\e N,\tfrac\d N\}$, $f^0=f$ and $P^0=P$. We construct a decreasing sequence of open parameter sets $P^0\supset P^1\supset\cdots\supset P^N$, with $0\in P^j\ss P^{j-1}$ for $j=1,\ldots,N$, and a sequence of sprays $f^j\colon\bar D\times P^j\to X$ with the exceptional set $\sigma$ of order $k$ such that the following hold for $j=1,\ldots, N$:
- $\rho(f^{j}_0(z))>\rho(f^{j-1}_0(z))+3\d-\e'$ when $z\in bD$ and $f^{j-1}_0(z)\in h_j(\tfrac 12{\mathbb{B}}^n)$,
- $\rho(f^{j}_0(z))>\rho(f^{j-1}_0(z))-\e'$ for $z\in \overline{D\bs K_D}$,
- if $z\in bD$ and $f_0(z)\in h_i\bigl(\tfrac 14{\mathbb{B}}^n\bigr)$ for some $i\in\{1,2,\ldots, N\}$ then $f^{j}_0(z)\in h_i\bigl((\tfrac 14+\tfrac{j}{4N}){\mathbb{B}}^n\bigr)$,
- ${\rm dist }\bigl(f^{j}_0(z),f^{j-1}_0(z)\bigr)<\tfrac\e N$ for $z\in K_D$, and
- the maps $f^{j}_0$ and $f^{j-1}_0$ have the same $k$-jets at every point in $\sigma$.
Assume inductively that we have already constructed $f^0,\ldots, f^{j-1}$ and $P^0,\ldots,P^{j-1}$ for some $j\in\{1,\ldots,N\}$. We use Sublemma \[sublemma\] for $f'=f^{j-1}$ to obtain the next spray $f^{j}=g' \colon \bar D\times P^j \to X$. Properties (i’), (ii’), (iv’) and (v’) in the Sublemma imply the corresponding properties (i”), (ii”), (iv”) and (v”) above. Property (iii”) follows from (iii’) and (\[defLambda\]). This completes the induction step and hence gives the desired sequences.
We now show that Lemma \[MainLemma\] holds for the parameter set $P_0=P^N$ and the spray $g=f^N \colon \bar D\times P^N\to X$. The properties (ii)–(iv) follow easily from the inductive construction above. To prove (i), choose a point $z\in bD$. By (\[delta\]) we either have $\rho(f_0(z))>c+2\d$ (and in this case the property (ii”) implies that $\rho(g_0(z))>c+\d$), or else $f_0(z)\in h_i(\tfrac14{\mathbb{B}}^n)$ for some $i\in\{1,\ldots,N\}$. In the latter case we get by (iii”) that $f^{i-1}_0(z)\in h_i(\tfrac12{\mathbb{B}}^n)$, and therefore property (i”) implies $\rho(f^{i}_0(z))> \rho(f^{i-1}_0(z))+ 3\d-\e'$. Using this together with (ii”) and $\rho(f_0(z))>c-\delta$ we obtain $$\rho(g_0(z))\ge \rho(f_0(z))+3\d-N\e' \ge \rho(f_0(z))+2 \d>c+\d.$$ This proves Lemma \[MainLemma\].
Using Lemma \[MainLemma\] we now prove the following result that provides the lifting construction in the proof of Theorem \[Main1\].
\[bigstep\] Let $X$, $K$, $\Omega$, $\rho$, $r$, and $D\Subset S$ be as in Theorem \[Main1\]. Choose a complete metric ${\rm dist}$ on X inducing the manifold topology. Let $P$ be an open set in ${\mathbb{C}}^m$ containing the origin, and let $0<M_1<M_2$. Assume that $f\colon\bar D\times P\to X$ is a spray of maps with the exceptional set $\sigma$ of order $k$ and $U\ss D$ is an open subset such that $f_0(\bar D\bs U)\subset \{x\in \Omega\colon\rho(x)>M_1\}$. Given $\e>0$, there exist a domain $P'\subset P$ containing $0\in{\mathbb{C}}^m$ and a spray of maps $g\colon\bar D\times P'\to X$ with the exceptional set $\sigma$ of order $k$ enjoying the following:
- $g_0(z)\in \{x\in \Omega\colon\rho(x)>M_2\}$ for $ z\in bD$,
- $g_0(z)\in \{x\in \Omega\colon\rho(x)>M_1\}$ for $z\in\bar D\bs U$,
- ${\rm dist }(g_0(z),f_0(z))<\e$ for $z\in \overline U$,
- $f_0$ and $g_0$ have the same $k$-jets at each of the points in $\sigma$, and
- $g_0$ is homotopic to $f_0$ relative to $\sigma$.
After a small change of $M_1$ and $M_2$ we may assume that these are regular values of $\rho$. By a finite subdivision of $[M_1,M_2]$ it suffices to consider the following two cases:
[*Case 1*]{}: $\rho$ has no critical values on $[M_1,M_2]$. In this [*noncritical case*]{} we obtain $g$ by applying Lemma \[MainLemma\] finitely many times.
[*Case 2:*]{} $\rho$ has exactly one critical point $p$ in $\{x\in \Omega\colon M_1\le \rho(x)\le M_2\}$ (the [*critical case*]{}).
In Case 2 we follow [@BDF1 proof of Theorem 1.1, §6]. We have $M_1< \rho(p)<M_2$. Choose $c_0>0$ so small that $M_1+3c_0 <\rho(p)< M_2-3c_0$ and $f_0(z)\in \{x\in \Omega\colon\rho(x)> M_1+3c_0\}$ for all $z\in\bar D\bs U$. Set $$K_{c_0}=\{x\in \Omega\colon \rho(p)-c_0\le \rho(x) \le \rho(p)+3c_0\}.$$ Lemma \[crossing\] furnishes a constant $t_0\in (0,c_0)$, a smooth function $$\tau \colon \{x\in\Omega\colon \rho(x) \le \rho(p)+3c_0\} \to{\mathbb{R}},$$ and an embedded disc $E\subset \Omega$ of dimension equal to the Morse index of $\rho$ at $p$, enjoying the following:
- $\{\rho\le \rho(p)-c_0\} \cup E \subset \{\tau\le 0\} \subset \{\rho\le \rho(p)-t_0\}\cup E$,
- $\{\rho \le \rho(p)+c_0\} \subset \{\tau \le 2c_0\} \subset
\{\rho<\rho(p)+ 3c_0\}$,
- $\tau$ is $q$-convex at every point of $K_{c_0}$, and
- $\tau$ has no critical values in $(0,3c_0) \subset {\mathbb{R}}$.
Applying Lemma \[MainLemma\] finitely many times we get a spray ${\widetilde}f\colon\bar D\times {\widetilde}P\to X$ with exceptional set $\sigma$ of order $k$ having the following properties:
- ${\widetilde}f_0(z)\in \{x\in \Omega\colon\rho(x)>\rho(p)-t_0\}$ for $ z\in bD$,
- ${\widetilde}f_0(z)\in \{x\in \Omega \colon\rho(x)>M_1+2c_0\}$ for $z\in\bar D\bs U$,
- ${\rm dist }({\widetilde}f_0(z),f_0(z))<\tfrac\e3$ for $z\in \overline U$, and
- $f_0$ and ${\widetilde}f_0$ have the same $k$-jets at each of the points in $\sigma$.
For the parameter values $t\in {\widetilde}P$ sufficiently close to $t=0$ we also have ${\widetilde}f_t(bD) \subset \{x\in \Omega\colon\rho(x)>\rho(p)-t_0\}$ by (i’). Since $\dim_{{\mathbb{R}}} E\le 2n-2d$ and $\dim_{{\mathbb{R}}} bD=2d-1$, Sard’s lemma gives a $t' \in {\widetilde}P$ arbitrarily close to the origin such that ${\widetilde}f_{t'} (bD) \cap E= \emptyset$. By a translation in the $t$-variable we can choose ${\widetilde}f_{t'}$ as the new central map; the new spray (still denoted ${\widetilde}f$) then enjoys the following properties for all $t$ sufficiently near $0$:
- ${\widetilde}f_t(z)\in \{x\in \Omega\colon\rho(x)>\rho(p)-t_0\}\bs E$ for $ z\in bD$,
- ${\widetilde}f_t(z)\in \{x\in X\colon\rho(x)>M_1+c_0\}$ for $z\in\bar D\bs U$,
- ${\rm dist }({\widetilde}f_t(z),f_0(z))<\tfrac{2\e}3$ for $z\in \overline U$, and
- $f_0$ and ${\widetilde}f_t$ have the same $k$-jets at each of the points in $\sigma$.
Since $\{\tau\le 0\} \subset \{\rho\le \rho(p)-t_0\}\cup E$ by property (a), (i”) ensures that $\tau >0$ on ${\widetilde}f_t(bD)$. Since $\tau$ has no critical values on $(0,3c_0)$ by property (d), we can use the noncritical case (Case 1 above), with $\tau$ instead of $\rho$, to push the boundary of the central map into the set $\{\tau > 2c_0\}$. As $\{\rho \le \rho(p)+c_0\} \subset \{\tau \le 2c_0\}$ by property (b), the image of $bD$ now lies in $\{\rho > \rho(p) +c_0\}$. We have thus crossed the critical level $\{\rho=\rho(p)\}$ and may continue with the noncritical case procedure, applied again with the function $\rho$. In a finite number of steps we obtain a spray $g$ with the required properties.
We follow [@BDF1 proof of Theorem 1.1], using Lemma \[bigstep\] instead of [@BDF1 Proposition 6.3]. We begin by embedding the initial map $f_0\colon\bar D\to X$ into a spray of maps $f=f^0\colon \bar D\times P\to X$ (Definition \[Spray\] and Lemma \[sprays-exist\]) such that $f(\cdotp,0)=f_0$ and $f(bD\times P)\subset \Omega$. By inductively applying Lemma \[bigstep\] we obtain a sequence of sprays $f^j\colon\bar D\times P_j\to X$ $(j=1,2,\ldots)$ with decreasing parameter sets ${\mathbb{C}}^m\supset P=P_0\supset P_1\supset P_2\supset\cdots$ containing the origin $0\in {\mathbb{C}}^m$ such that the maps $f^j_0=f^j(\cdotp,0) \colon \bar D\to X$ converge uniformly on compacts in $D$ to a holomorphic map $f\colon D\to X$ satisfying the conclusion of Theorem \[Main1\].
Positivity and convexity of holomorphic vector bundles {#vector-bundles}
======================================================
In this section we recall the notions of [*positivity*]{} and [*signature*]{} of a Hermitian holomorphic vector bundle (Griffiths [@Griffiths66; @Griffiths69]) and its connection with the Levi convexity properties of the squared norm function.
Let $\pi\colon E\to M$ be a holomorphic Hermitian vector bundle with fiber ${\mathbb{C}}^r$ over a complex manifold $M$ of dimension $m$. We identify $M$ with the zero section of $E$. The metric on $E$ is given in a local frame $(e_1,\cdots,e_r)$ by a Hermitian matrix function $h=(h_{\rho\sigma})$ with $$h_{\rho\sigma}(x)= \langle e_\sigma(x),e_\rho(x) \rangle, \quad \rho,\sigma=1,\ldots,r.$$ The Chern connection matrix $\theta$ and the Chern curvature form $\Theta$ are given in any local holomorphic frame by $$\theta= h^{-1}\di h, \qquad
\Theta=\dibar \,\theta = -h^{-1}\di\dibar h + h^{-1}\di h \wedge h^{-1}\dibar h.$$ (See [@Dem-book Chapter 5] or [@Wells Chapter III].) For a line bundle $(r=1)$ with the metric $h=e^{-\psi}$ the above equal $$\theta= h^{-1}\di h = \di\log h = -\di\,\psi,
\quad \Theta= - \di\dibar \log h = -\dibar\di\,\psi=\di\dibar\,\psi.$$ In local holomorphic coordinates $z=(z^1,\ldots,z^m)$ on $M$ we have $$\Theta= \sum_{{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\rho,\sigma=1,\ldots,r}{i,j=1,\ldots,m}}}
\Theta^\rho_{\sigma i j} e^*_\sigma \otimes e_\rho\cdotp dz^i\wedge d\bar z^j.$$
For any point $x_0\in M$ there exists a local holomorphic frame $(e_1,\ldots,e_r)$ which is [*special at*]{} $x_0$, in the sense that the associated matrix $h$ satisfies $h(x_0)=I$ and $dh(x_0)=0$ (see [@Griffiths69 p. 195]). In this case we get $$\label{eq:frame}
\theta(x_0)=0,\quad \Theta(x_0)= -\di\dibar h (x_0),\quad
\overline {\Theta^\sigma_{\rho i j} (x_0)} = \Theta^\rho_{\sigma j i}(x_0) =
- \frac{\di^2 h_{\rho \sigma}}{\di z^i \di \bar z^j} (x_0).$$ To each vector $e=\sum_{\rho=1}^r \xi^\rho e_\rho(x_0) \in E_{x_0}$ we associate the $(1,1)$-covector $$\Theta\{e\}= \frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}\, \langle \Theta \, e,e\rangle =
\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}
\sum_{{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\rho,\sigma=1,\ldots,r}{i,j=1,\ldots,m}}}
\Theta^\rho_{\sigma i j}(x_0) \xi^\sigma \bar \xi^\rho \, dz^i\wedge d\bar z^j.$$ Its coefficients $
A_{i j}(x_0,\xi) = \sum_{\rho,\sigma=1,\ldots,r}
\Theta^\rho_{\sigma i j}(x_0) \xi^\sigma \bar \xi^\rho
$ form a Hermitian matrix. Denote by $s(e)$ (resp. $t(e)$) the number of positive (resp. negative) eigenvalues of $\Theta\{e\}$; that is, $(s(e),t(e))$ is the signature of the Hermitian quadratic form $$\label{curvature-form}
{\mathbb{C}}^m\ni \eta \to \sum_{i,j} A_{i j}(x_0,\xi) \eta^i \bar \eta^j
= \sum_{{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\rho,\sigma=1,\ldots,r}{i,j=1,\ldots,m}}}
\Theta^\rho_{\sigma i j}(x_0) \xi^\sigma \bar \xi^\rho \eta^i\bar \eta^j.$$ The numbers $s(e), t(e)$ only depend on the Hermitian metric on $E$, and not on the particular choices of coordinates and frames. The following notions are due to Griffiths [@Griffiths65; @Griffiths66; @Griffiths69]; see also [@AG] and [@Dem-book Chapter 7].
\[Griffiths-positive\] The pair of numbers $(s(e),t(e))$ defined above is the [*signature*]{} of the Hermitian holomorphic vector bundle $E\to M$ at the point $e\in E\bs M$. The signature of $E$ is $(s,t)$ where $$s=\min\{s(e)\colon e\in E\bs M\},\quad t=\min\{t(e)\colon e\in E\bs M\}.$$ $E$ is of [*pure signature*]{} $(s,t)$ is $s=s(e)$ and $t=t(e)$ for all $e\in E\bs M$; it is [*positive*]{} (resp. [*negative*]{}) if it has pure signature $(m,0)$ (resp. $(0,m)$).
Let $\phi\colon E\to {\mathbb{R}}_+$ denote the function $\phi(e)= ||e||^2$. For $c\in (0,\infty)$ set $$W_c =\{e\in E \colon \phi(e)<c\}, \quad \Sigma_c=bW_c=\{e\in E\colon \phi(e)=c\}.$$ The following explains the connection between the curvature properties of a Hermitian metric and the Levi convexity properties of $\phi$. (See Andreotti and Grauert [@AG §23] and Griffiths [@Griffiths66 p. 426].)
\[signature\] Let $\pi\colon E\to M$ be a Hermitian holomorphic vector bundle with fiber ${\mathbb{C}}^r$ over an $m$-dimensional complex manifold $M$. Set $n=m+r=\dim E$. Then the following hold:
\(i) If $E$ has signature $(s,t)$ at a point $e\in E\bs M$ then the Levi form of the hypersurface $\Sigma_{\phi(e)}$ has signature $(t+r-1,s)$ at $e$ from the side $\{\phi<\phi(e)\}$.
\(ii) If $E$ has signature $(s,t)$ then the Levi form of $\phi$ has signature $(t+r,s)$ (and hence $\phi$ is $(m-t+1)$-convex) on $E\bs M$, and the Levi form of $\frac{1}{\phi}$ has signature $(s+1,t+r-1)$ (and hence $\frac{1}{\phi}$ is $(n-s)$-convex) on $E\bs M$.
\(iii) In particular, if $E$ is positive then $\frac{1}{\phi}$ is $r$-convex on $E\bs M$, and if $E$ is negative then $\phi$ is strongly plurisubharmonic on $E\bs M$.
Fix $e_0\in E\bs M$ and let $\Sigma=\Sigma_{\phi(e_0)}$. Choose local holomorphic coordinates $z=(z^1,\ldots,z^m)$ at $x_0=\pi(e_0)$ and a local holomorphic frame $(e_\rho)$ that is special at $x_0$. Then $e=\sum_{\sigma=1}^r \xi^\sigma e_\sigma$, $e_0=\sum_{\rho=1}^r \xi_0^\rho e_\rho(x_0)$, and $\phi(e)= \sum_{\rho,\sigma=1}^r h_{\rho\sigma} \xi^\sigma\bar \xi^\rho$. Using (\[eq:frame\]), a simple calculation [@Griffiths66 p. 426] gives $$\begin{aligned}
\di\dibar \phi(e_0) &= \di_\xi\dibar_\xi \big|_{\xi=\xi_0} \sum_{\rho=1}^r \xi^\rho\bar\xi^\rho
+ \sum_{\rho,\sigma=1,\ldots,r} \di_z\dibar_z h_{\rho\sigma}(x_0) \xi^\sigma \bar\xi^\rho \cr
&= \sum_{\rho=1}^r d\xi^\rho\wedge d\bar\xi^\rho
- \sum_{{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\rho,\sigma=1,\ldots,r}{i,j=1,\ldots,m}}}
\Theta^\rho_{\sigma i j}(x_0)
\xi^\sigma \bar\xi^\rho dz^i\wedge d\bar z^j \cr
&= \sum_{\rho=1}^r d\xi^\rho\wedge d\bar\xi^\rho
- \sum_{i,j=1,\ldots,m} A_{ij}(x_0,\xi)\, dz^i \wedge d\bar z^j.\end{aligned}$$ The maximal complex tangent space to $\Sigma$ at $e_0$ consists of the vectors $\gamma=(\zeta^1,\ldots,\zeta^r;\eta^1,\ldots,\eta^m)$ with $\sum_{\rho=1}^r \xi^\rho_0 \bar \zeta^\rho=0$. In the $\zeta$-direction (tangential to $E_{x_0}$) we thus get $r-1$ positive Levi eigenvalues for $\Sigma$; in the $\eta$-direction (the horizontal direction in $T_{e_0}E$ with respect to the Chern connection) we get $s(e_0)$ negative and $t(e_0)$ positive eigenvalues. Hence the Levi signature of $\Sigma$ at $e_0$ is $(t(e_0)+r-1,s(e_0))$. The remaining Levi eigenvalue of $\phi$ in the radial direction is positive. All claims follow immediately.
Subvarieties in complements of submanifolds {#subvariety-complements}
===========================================
In this section we combine our analytic techniques with the differential geometric information from §\[vector-bundles\] to study the existence of subvarieties as in Theorem \[Main1\] in total spaces of Hermitian holomorphic vector bundles, and in complements of certain compact complex submanifolds.
\[total-space\] Let $E\to M$ be a holomorphic vector bundle with fiber ${\mathbb{C}}^r$ over a compact $m$-dimensional complex manifold $M$. Set $n=m+r=\dim E$ and identify $M$ with the zero section of $E$. Assume that $D\Subset S$ is a smoothly bounded, strongly pseudoconvex domain in a $d$-dimensional Stein manifold $S$ and $f_0\colon\bar D\to E$ is a continuous map that is holomorphic in $D$ and such that $f_0(bD) \subset E\bs M$. Then the following hold:
[(i)]{} If $E$ admits a Hermitian metric with signature $(s,t)$ and $d<t+r$, then $f_0$ can be approximated uniformly on compacts in $D$ by proper holomorphic maps $f\colon D\to E$ such that $f_0^{-1}(M)=f^{-1}(M)$. In particular, if $E$ is positive then this holds when $d<r={\rm rank}E$, and if $E$ is negative then it holds when $d<n=\dim E$.
[(ii)]{} If $E$ admits a Hermitian metric with signature $(s,t)$ with $d\le s$, then $f_0$ can be approximated uniformly on compacts in $D$ by holomorphic maps $f\colon D\to E$ such that $f_0^{-1}(M)=f^{-1}(M)$ and the cluster set of $f$ at $bD$ belongs to the zero section $M$. In particular, if $E$ is positive then the above holds when $d\le m=\dim M$.
Recall that the [*cluster set*]{} of a map $f\colon D\to E$ at $bD$ is the set of all sequential limits $\lim_{j\to\infty} f(p_j)\in E$ along sequences $\{p_j\} \subset D$ without accumulation points in $D$ (therefore tending to $bD$).
Part (i) follows from Theorem \[Main1\] and Proposition \[signature\] (i), applied to $X=E$, $\rho=\phi$ and $\Omega=E\bs M$. (Note that $\phi$ is noncritical on $E\bs M$.) To ensure that $f_0^{-1}(M)=f^{-1}(M)$, it suffices to construct $f$ such that it agrees with $f_0$ to sufficiently high order at the finite set of points in $f_0^{-1}(M)\subset D$. (If $d>r$ then $f_0(bD)\cap M=\emptyset$ implies $f_0(D)\cap M=\emptyset$ since the analytic set $f_0^{-1}(M) \subset D$, if nonempty, would have positive dimension.)
To prove Part (ii), choose $c>0$ such that $f_0(\bar D) \subset W_c=\{\phi<c\}$ and apply Theorem \[Main1\] with $\Omega =W_c\bs M$ and $\rho=\frac{1}{\phi}-\frac{1}{c}$.
The situation in Theorem \[total-space\] is a special case of the following one.
\[complements\] Let $A$ be a compact complex submanifold in a complex manifold $X$ whose normal bundle $N_{A|X}$ has signature $(s,t)$ with respect to some Hermitian metric. There is an open tubular neighborhood $V\subset X$ of $A$ with the following property. If $D$ is a relatively compact, smoothly bounded, strongly pseudoconvex domain in a Stein manifold with $\dim D \le s$, $z_0$ is a point in $D$ and $f_0\colon\bar D\to X$ is a continuous map that is holomorphic in $D$ and such that $f_0(bD) \subset V\bs A$, then $f_0$ can be approximated uniformly on $D$ by holomorphic maps $f\colon D\to X$ such that $f^{-1}(A)=f^{-1}_0(A)$, $f(z_0)=f_0(z_0)$, and the cluster set of $f$ at $bD$ belong to $A$. If $N_{A|X}$ is positive then the above holds when $\dim D \le \dim A$.
Schneider proved in [@Schneider] that there exist a neighborhood $V\subset X$ of $A$ and a smooth function $\rho\colon V\bs A \to {\mathbb{R}}$ that tends to $+\infty$ at $A$, and whose Levi form ${\mathcal{L}}_\rho$ has at least $s+1$ positive eigenvalues at every point of $V\bs A$. We recall Schneider’s construction to see that his function is also noncritical on a deleted tubular neighborhood of $A$. Once this is clear, it remains to apply Theorem \[Main1\].
Assume first that $A$ is a smooth complex hypersurface in $X$. Let $E\to X$ denote the hyperplane section bundle of the divisor determined by $A$. Then $E|_A\simeq N_{A|X}$, and there is a holomorphic section $\sigma \colon X\to E$ such that $A=\{x\in X\colon \sigma(x)=0\}$. Such $\sigma$ is given by a collection $(g_i)$ of holomorphic functions $g_i\colon U_i\to{\mathbb{C}}$ on an open covering $\{U_i\}$ of $X$ such that $\{g_i=0\}=A\cap U_i$ and $dg_i\ne 0$ on $A\cap U_i$. The associated 1-cocycle $g_{ij}=\frac{g_i}{g_j}$ defines the line bundle $E\to X$.
The Hermitian metric of signature $(s,t)$ on the normal bundle $E|_A= N_{A|X}$ extends to a Hermitian metric $h$ on $E$. On $E|_{U_i}\simeq U_i\times {\mathbb{C}}$ the metric is given by a positive function $h_i \colon U_i \to (0,\infty)$. Let $||\sigma||_h^2 \colon X\to[0,\infty)$ be the squared length of the section $\sigma\colon X\to E$. (On $U_i$ this equals $h_i|g_i|^2$.) Schneider showed that for a sufficiently large constant $C>0$ the metric $\phi$ on $E$, defined over $U_i$ by $\phi_i=\frac{h_i}{1+Ch_i|g_i|^2}$, has signature $(s+1,t)$ over a neighborhood of $A$ (see [@Schneider p. 225]). Set $g=||\sigma||^2_\phi \colon X\to [0,\infty)$, so $$g|_{U_i} = \phi_i |g_i|^2 = \frac{h_i|g_i|^2}{1+Ch_i|g_i|^2}
=\frac{||\sigma||_h^2}{1+C||\sigma||_h^2}.$$ It follows that $$-i\di\dibar \log g|_{U_i} = -i\di\dibar \log \phi_i$$ and hence the Levi form of $-\log g= -\log ||\sigma||^2_\phi$ has at least $s+1$ positive eigenvalues in a deleted neighborhood of $A$ in $M$. Clearly the same holds for $e^{-\log g}=\frac{1}{g}= \frac{1+C||\sigma||_h^2}{||\sigma||_h^2}$ and hence for $\rho = \frac{1}{||\sigma||_h^2}$. The latter function is noncritical near $A$ and it blows up along $A$.
The general case reduces to the hypersurface case by blowing up $X$ along $A$ [@Schneider §3]. Assume that $A$ has complex dimension $m$ and codimension $r$ in $X$. Let $\hat A={\mathbb{P}}(N)$ denote the total space of the fiber bundle over $A$ whose fiber over a point $x \in A$ is ${\mathbb{P}}(N_x)\simeq {\mathbb{P}}^{r-1}$, the projective space of complex lines in $N_x\simeq{\mathbb{C}}^r$. Replacing $A$ by $\hat A$ changes $X$ to a new manifold $\hat X$ such that $\hat X\bs \hat A$ is biholomorphic to $X\bs A$, and $\hat A$ is a smooth complex hypersurface in $\hat X$. The restriction of the normal bundle $N_{\hat A|\hat X}$ to the submanifold ${\mathbb{P}}(N_x)\subset \hat A$ is the universal bundle over ${\mathbb{P}}(N_x)\simeq {\mathbb{P}}^{r-1}$ (the inverse of the hyperplane section bundle). This bundle is negative with respect to the Fubini-Study metric on ${\mathbb{P}}^{r-1}$, and a simple calculation shows that $N_{\hat A|\hat X}$ has signature $(s,t+r-1)$ if $N_{A|X}$ has signature $(s,t)$. It remains to apply the previous argument (in the hypersurface case) to a deleted neighborhood of $\hat A$ in $\hat X$ (that is the same as a deleted neighborhood of $A$ in $X$).
Assume now that $X$ is a complex manifold and $A$ is a compact complex submanifold of $X$ with positive normal bundle $N_{A|X}$. Let $D$ be a relatively compact, smoothly bounded, strongly pseudoconvex domain in a Stein manifold, with $\dim D \le \dim A$. Given a pair of points $z_0\in D$ and $x_0 \in X\bs A$, it is a natural question whether there exists a proper holomorphic map $f\colon D\to X\bs A$ such that $f(z_0)=x_0$. Theorem \[complements\] gives an affirmative answer if $x_0$ lies sufficiently close to $A$ (take $f_0\colon \bar D\to X$ to be the constant map $f(z)=x_0$.)
The answer to this question is negative in general. For example, if $X$ is obtained by blowing up ${\mathbb{P}}^3$ at one point, with $\Sigma$ being the exceptional divisor, and if $A\subset X$ is a complex hyperplane disjoint from $\Sigma$, then for any 2-dimensional domain $z_0\in D\subset {\mathbb{C}}^2$ and holomorphic map $f\colon D\to X\bs A$ with $f(z_0)\in \Sigma$ the set $f^{-1}(\Sigma)$ is a positive dimensional subvariety of $D$ which accumulates on $bD$; hence $f$ cannot be proper into $X\bs A$. (We wish to thank the referee for pointing out this example.)
The situation is different when a connected topological group acts transitively on $X$ by holomorphic automorphisms:
\[homogeneous\] Assume that $X$ is a complex manifold and $A$ is a compact complex submanifold of $X$ with positive normal bundle $N_{A|X}$. Let $D$ be a relatively compact, smoothly bounded, strongly pseudoconvex domain in a Stein manifold, with $\dim D \le \dim A$ and $\dim A + \dim D < \dim X$. Assume that a connected topological group $G$ acts transitively on $X$ by holomorphic automorphisms of $X$. Given points $z_0\in D$ and $x_0\in X\bs A$, there exists a proper holomorphic map $f\colon D \to X\bs A$ such that $f(z_0)=x_0$.
The idea is taken from [@FGl proof of Theorem 1]. Let $s={\rm dim}A$. By the proof of Theorem \[complements\] there exist a neighborhood $V\subset X$ of $A$ and a noncritical smooth function $\rho\colon V\bs A \to {\mathbb{R}}$ that tends to $+\infty$ at $A$ and whose Levi form has at least $s+1$ positive eigenvalues on $V\bs A$.
Choose an open subset $V_0\subset X$ such that $A\subset V_0\Subset V$. There is an open neighborhood $U$ of the identity in $G$ such that $g(V_0) \subset V$ for each $g\in U$.
Choose a continuous map $f_0\colon \bar D\to X\bs A$ that is holomorphic in $D$ and such that $f_0(bD)\subset V_0$. ($f_0$ may be a constant map.) Choose $g\in G$ such that $g f_0(z_0)=x_0$. As $G$ is connected, there are elements $g_1,\ldots,g_k\in U \subset G$ such that $g=g_k g_{k-1}\cdots g_1$ (product in $G$).
The map $g_1 f_0$ is continuous on $\bar D$, holomorphic in $D$, and $g_1 f_0(bD)\subset V$. By general position we may assume that its range does not intersect $A$. Lemma \[bigstep\] furnishes a continuous map $f_1\colon \bar D\to X\bs A$ that is holomorphic in $D$ such that $f_1(bD)\subset V_0$ and $f_1(z_0)=g_1 f_0(z_0)$. (Lemma \[bigstep\] also applies to individual maps in view of Lemma \[sprays-exist\].)
The map $g_2 f_1$ is continuous on $\bar D$, holomorphic in $D$, and $g_2 f_1(bD)\subset V$. By general position we may assume that its range does not intersect $A$. Lemma \[bigstep\] furnishes a map $f_2\colon \bar D\to X\bs A$ that is holomorphic in $D$ such that $f_2(bD)\subset V_0$ and $f_2(z_0)=g_2 f_1(z_0)= g_2 g_1 f_0(z_0)$.
After $k$ such steps we obtain a continuous map $f_k\colon \bar D\to X\bs A$ that is holomorphic in $D$ and satisfies $$f_k(bD)\subset V_0,\quad
f_k(z_0)=g_k\cdots g_1 f_0(z_0)=x_0.$$ We now apply Theorem \[Main1\] to $f_k$, with $\Omega= V_0\bs A$ and $\rho$ as above, to obtain a holomorphic map $f \colon D\to X\bs A$ such that $f(z_0)=x_0$ and the cluster set of $f$ at $bD$ belongs to $A$. Hence $f$ is a proper map of $D$ to $X\bs A$.
Applying Theorem \[homogeneous\] with $X={\mathbb{P}}^n$ and taking into account that every closed complex submanifold of ${\mathbb{P}}^n$ has positive normal bundle (see Barth [@Barth]) gives the following corollary. (Compare with Corollary \[proj-minus\].)
\[projective\] Let $D$ be a relatively compact, smoothly bounded, strongly pseudoconvex domain in a Stein manifold, and let $A$ be a closed complex submanifold of a projective space ${\mathbb{P}}^n$ such that $\dim D\le \dim A$ and $\dim A + \dim D < n$. For every pair of points $z_0\in D$ and $x_0\in {\mathbb{P}}^n \bs A$ there exists a proper holomorphic map $f\colon D \to {\mathbb{P}}^n\bs A$ with $f(z_0)=x_0$.
*Acknowledgement.* We wish to thank the referee for very helpful remarks and suggestions which helped us to improve the presentation.
[10]{}
A. ANDREOTTI and H. GRAUERT, *Théorème de finitude pour la cohomologie des espaces complexes*, Bull. Soc. Math. France **90** (1962), 193–259.
D. BARLET, ‘How to use the cycle space in complex geometry’ in *Several complex variables (Berkeley, 1995–1996)*, Math. Sci. Res. Inst. Publ. **37**, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1999, 25–42.
W. BARTH, *Der Abstand von einer algebraischen Mannigfaltigkeit im komplex-projektiven Raum*, Math. Ann. **187** (1970), 150–162.
E. BISHOP, *Mappings of partially analytic spaces*, Amer. J. Math. **83** (1961), 209–242.
F. CAMPANA and T. PETERNELL, ‘Cycle spaces’ in *Several complex variables, VII*, Encyclopaedia Math. Sci. **74**, Springer, Berlin, 1994, 319–349.
D. CATLIN, *A Newlander-Nirenberg theorem for manifolds with boundary*, Michigan Math. J. **35** (1988), 233–240.
M. COLŢOIU, ‘$Q$-convexity. A survey’ in *Complex analysis and geometry (Trento, 1995)*, Pitman Res. Notes Math. Ser. **366**, Longman, Harlow, 1997, 83–93.
J.-P. DEMAILLY, *Complex analytic and algebraic geometry.* http://www-fourier.ujf-grenoble.fr/ demailly/books.html
J.-P. DEMAILLY, L. LEMPERT and B. SHIFFMAN, *Algebraic approximations of holomorphic maps from Stein domains to projective manifolds*, Duke Math. J. **76** (1994), 333–363.
A. DOR, *Proper holomorphic maps between balls in one co-dimension*, Ark. Mat. **28** (1990), 49–100.
A. DOR, *Approximation by proper holomorphic maps into convex domains*, Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa Cl. Sci. (4) **20** (1993), 147–162.
A. DOR, *Immersions and embeddings in domains of holomorphy*, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. **347** (1995), 2813–2849.
A. DOUADY, *Le problème des modules pour les sous-espaces analytiques compacts d’un espace analytique donné*, Ann. Inst. Fourier **16** (1966), 1–95.
B. DRINOVEC DRNOVŠEK and F. FORSTNERIČ, *Holomorphic curves in complex spaces*, Duke Math. J. **139** (2007), 203–253.
B. DRINOVEC DRNOVŠEK and F. FORSTNERIČ, Approximation of holomorphic mappings on strongly pseudoconvex domains, Forum Math. **20** (2008), 817–840.
Y. ELIASHBERG and M. GROMOV, *Embeddings of Stein manifolds*, Ann. of Math. (2) **136** (1992), 123–135.
F. FORSTNERIČ, *Embedding strictly pseudoconvex domains into balls*, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. **295** (1986), 347–368.
F. FORSTNERIČ, *Noncritical holomorphic functions on Stein manifolds*, Acta Math. **191** (2003), 143–189.
F. FORSTNERIČ, *Runge approximation on convex sets implies Oka’s property*, Ann. of Math. **163** (2006), 689–707.
F. FORSTNERIČ, *Manifolds of holomorphic mappings from strongly pseudoconvex domains*, Asian J. Math. **11** (2007), 113–126.
F. FORSTNERIČ and J. GLOBEVNIK, *Discs in pseudoconvex domains*, Comment. Math. Helv. **67** (1992), 129–145.
F. FORSTNERIČ, B. IVARSSON, F. KUTZSCHEBAUCH and J. PREZELJ, *An interpolation theorem for proper holomorphic embeddings*, Math. Ann. **338** (2007), 545–554.
F. FORSTNERIČ and E. F. WOLD, *Bordered Riemann surfaces in ${\mathbb{C}}^2$*, J. Math. Pures Appl. **91** (2009), 100–114.
J. GLOBEVNIK, *Boundary interpolation by proper holomorphic maps*, Math. Z. **194** (1987), 365–373.
H. GRAUERT, *Über Modifikationen und exzeptionelle analytische Mengen*, Math. Ann. **146** (1962), 331–368.
H. GRAUERT, ‘Theory of $q$-convexity and $q$-concavity’ in *Several complex variables, VII*, Encyclopaedia Math. Sci. **74**, Springer, Berlin, 1994, 259–284.
H. GRAUERT and R. REMMERT, ‘Extension of analytic objects’ in *Several complex variables, VII*, Encyclopaedia Math. Sci. **74**, Springer, Berlin, 1994, 352–362.
P. A. GRIFFITHS, *Hermitian differential geometry and the theory of positive and ample holomorphic vector bundles*, J. Math. Mech. **14** (1965), 117–140.
P. A. GRIFFITHS, *The extension problem in complex analysis. II. Embeddings with positive normal bundle.* Amer. J. Math. **88** (1966), 366–446.
P. A. GRIFFITHS, ‘Hermitian differential geometry, Chern classes, and positive vector bundles’ in *Global Analysis (Papers in Honor of K. Kodaira)*, Univ. of Tokyo Press, Tokyo, 1969, 185–251.
R. C. GUNNING and H. ROSSI, *Analytic functions of several complex variables.* Prentice–Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1965.
M. HAKIM, *Applications holomorphes propres continues de domaines strictement pseudoconvexes de ${\mathbb{C}}^n$ dans la boule unité de ${\mathbb{C}}^{n+1}$*, Duke Math. J. **60** (1990), 115–133.
M. HAKIM and N. SIBONY, *Fonctions holomorphes bornées sur la boule unité de ${\mathbb{C}}^n$*, Invent. Math. **67** (1982), 213–222.
F. R. HARVEY and R. O. WELLS, Jr., *Zero sets of non-negative strictly plurisubharmonic functions*, Math. Ann. **201** (1973), 165–170.
G. M. HENKIN and J. LEITERER, *The Oka-Grauert principle without induction over the basis dimension*, Math. Ann. **311** (1998), 71–93.
D. HEUNEMANN, *Extension of the complex structure from Stein manifolds with strictly pseudoconvex boundary*, Math. Nachr. **128** (1986), 57–64.
L. HÖRMANDER, *An Introduction to Complex Analysis in Several Variables. Third ed.*, North Holland, Amsterdam, 1990.
L. LEMPERT, *Algebraic approximations in analytic geometry*, Invent. Math. **121** (1995), 335–354.
P. LISCA and G. MATIĆ, *Tight contact structures and Seiberg-Witten invariants*, Invent. Math. **129** (1997), 509–525.
E. LØW, *A construction of inner functions on the unit ball in ${\mathbb{C}}^p$*, Invent. Math. **67** (1982), 223–229.
E. LØW, *Embeddings and proper holomorphic maps of strictly pseudoconvex domains into polydiscs and balls*, Math. Z. **190** (1985), 401–410.
R. NARASIMHAN, *Imbedding of holomorphically complete complex spaces*, Amer. J. Math. **82** (1960), 917–934.
J. NASH, *Real algebraic manifolds*, Ann. of Math. (2) **56** (1952), 405–421.
M. PETERNELL, *$q$-completeness of subsets in complex projective space*, Math. Z. **195** (1987), 443–450.
J. PREZELJ, *Interpolation of embeddings of Stein manifolds on discrete sets*, Math. Ann. **326** (2003), 275–296.
R. REMMERT, *Sur les espaces analytiques holomorphiquement séparables et holomorphiquement convexes*, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris **243** (1956), 118–121.
R. REMMERT, *Holomorphe und meromorphe Abbildungen komplexer Räume*, Math. Ann. **133** (1957), 328–370.
R. REMMERT and K. STEIN, *Über die wesentlichen Singularitäten analytischer Mengen*, Math. Ann. **126** (1953), 263–306.
M. SCHNEIDER, *Über eine Vermutung von Hartshorne*, Math. Ann. **201** (1973), 221–229.
J. SCHÜRMANN, *Embeddings of Stein spaces into affine spaces of minimal dimension*, Math. Ann. **307** (1997), 381–399.
B. STENSØNES, *Proper holomorphic mappings from strongly pseudoconvex domains in ${\mathbb{C}}^2$ to the unit polydisc in ${\mathbb{C}}^3$*, Math. Scand. **65** (1989), 129–139.
E. L. STOUT, ‘Algebraic domains in Stein manifolds’ in *Proceedings of the conference on Banach algebras and several complex variables (New Haven, Conn., 1983)*, Contemp. Math. **32**, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, 1984, 259–266.
R. O. WELLS, *Differential Analysis on Complex Manifolds, 2nd ed.*, Springer, New York, 1980.
E. F. WOLD, *Embedding Riemann surfaces properly in ${\mathbb{C}}^2$*, Internat. J. Math. **17** (2006), 963–974.
E. F. WOLD, *Embedding subsets of tori properly into ${\mathbb{C}}^2$*, Ann. Inst. Fourier **57** (2007), 1537–1555.
[^1]: Research supported by grants P1-0291 and J1-2043-0101, Republic of Slovenia.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We propose an algebraic setup for end-to-end physical-layer network coding based on submodule transmission. We introduce a distance function between modules, describe how it relates to information loss and errors, and show how to compute it. Then we propose a definition of submodule error-correcting code, and investigate bounds and constructions for such codes.'
author:
- 'Elisa Gorla and Alberto Ravagnani[^1]'
title: |
**An algebraic framework for end-to-end\
physical-layer network coding**
---
Introduction and motivation {#introduction-and-motivation .unnumbered}
===========================
In the framework of physical-layer network coding (PNC) multiple terminals attempt to exchange messages through intermediate relays. The relays collect data from the terminals, and try to decode a function of the transmitted messages. Such function is then broadcasted to the terminals, which combine it with their side information to recover the other messages.
In [@nazer] the authors proposed a novel approach to PNC based on nested lattices, known as “compute-and-forward”. Under this approach, the structure of a fixed underlying lattice is exploited by the relays to decode the function of the messages, which is then forwarded to the terminals. As observed in [@FSK], this communication scheme induces an end-to-end network coding channel with channel equation $$\label{cheq}
Y=AX+Z.$$ Here $X$ is the transmitted matrix, whose rows are elements from a given ambient space $\Omega$, $A$ is a transfer matrix, and $Z$ is an error matrix. In practice, $A$ and $Z$ are random matrices drawn according to certain distributions, that depend on the application at hand.
A general algebraic framework to study and construct nested-lattice-based PNC schemes was recently proposed in [@FSK] and further developed in [@FNKS]. Following this algebraic description, which is compatible with any underlying lattice, the message space $\Omega$ has the structure of a module over a principal ideal ring $$\Omega = T/(d_1) \times T/(d_2) \times \ldots \times T/(d_n),$$ where $T \subseteq {{\mathbb}{C}}$ is a principal ideal domain (PID), $d_1,d_2...,d_n \in T$ are nonzero, non-invertible elements, and $d_n | d_{n-1} | \ldots |d_1$. Let $R=T/(d_1)$, then $R$ is a principal ideal ring (PIR). The ambient space $\Omega$ is isomorphic to an $R$-submodule of $R^n$: $$\label{omega}
\Omega \cong R \times (d_1/d_2)\times \ldots \times (d_1/d_n)\subseteq R^n.$$ In particular, the elements of $\Omega$ can be represented via vectors of length $n$ with entries in $R$. Both $R$ and $\Omega$ are usually finite.
We include a list of rings $R$ and ambient spaces $\Omega$ that have been proposed in the context of physical-layer network coding, producing efficient communication schemes.
- $R=\Omega={{\mathbb}{Z}}_2[i]$, proposed and studied in [@Zh06], [@popo06] and [@FNKS Example 1] for BPSK modulation.
- $R=\Omega={{\mathbb}{Z}}_m[i]$, with $m$ a positive integer, proposed and studied in [@Zh06] and [@FNKS Example 2], and known as “$m^2$-QAM PNC scheme”.
- $R={{\mathbb}{Z}}_p[i]$, $\Omega=R^n$, where $p$ is a prime number, proposed in [@nazer].
- $R={{\mathbb}{Z}}_{p^s}[i]$, $\Omega= \underbrace{R\times\ldots\times R}_{n_1} \times \underbrace{(p) \times\ldots\times (p)}_{n_2} \times \ldots \times \underbrace{(p^{s-1})\times\ldots\times (p^{s-1})}_{n_s}$, where $p$ is a prime power and $s \ge 1$ is an integer, proposed in [@FNKS Section VII.A].
- $R={{\mathbb}{Z}}[\omega]/(\beta)$, where ${{\mathbb}{Z}}[\omega]$ are the Eisenstein integers and $\beta \in {{\mathbb}{Z}}[\omega]$ is a suitable element, $\Omega=R^n$, proposed and studied in [@Sun].
As observed in [@FSK], channel equation (\[cheq\]) suggests to define the message to be transmitted as the module generated over $R$ by the rows of the matrix $X$, which we denote by $\mbox{row}(X)$. A receiver attempts to recover the original transmitted module from the matrix $Y$.
Two important special cases of equation (\[cheq\]) correspond to the **noise-free multiplicative matrix channel** (MMC), with equation $Y = AX$, and the **multiplication-free additive matrix channel** (AMC), with equation $Y=X+Z$. These two channel equations are studied in [@FSK] in the case where the base ring $R$ is a finite chain ring.
The key tool in handling the MMC in [@FSK] is the reduced row-echelon form of a matrix $X$, which is a canonical invariant of the row-module of $X$ denoted by $\mbox{RREF}(X)$. In practice, a transmitter emits a matrix $X$ in reduced row-echelon form, and a receiver attempts to recover it by computing $\mbox{RREF}(Y)= \mbox{RREF}(AX)$. Decoding is successful when $A$ is left-invertible. In the same paper, the authors propose a coding/decoding scheme based on error-trapping for the AMC and the general case of a channel with equation (\[cheq\]).
In this paper, in analogy with the approach from [@KK1] for random linear network coding, we propose a new algebraic framework for module transmission based on the notion of length of a module. We define a submodule code as a collection of submodules of the ambient space $\Omega$, and propose a notion of distance between submodules based on length, which we call submodule distance. Then we show that the submodule distance captures both information loss and errors in module transmissions. The row-echelon form for modules over a PIR proposed by Buchmann and Neis in [@buch] allows us to represent messages in a canonical way. Using the same row-echelon form, we reduce the computation of the distance between submodules to the computation of the length of ideals in the base ring. We also prove that, in some cases, the error-trapping decoding scheme from [@FSK] is a minimum-distance decoding with respect to the submodule distance.
We derive two bounds on the cardinality of a submodule code of given minimum distance and whose codewords have fixed length. For certain classes of rings, we are able to state our bounds explicitly in terms of the ring and code’s invariants. We also construct submodule codes with maximum error-correction capability. For $R$ a finite chain ring or $R={{\mathbb}{Z}}_p[i]$, we show that the codes that we construct have asymptotically optimal cardinality for their parameters. This also shows that our bounds are sharp for certain choices of rings and code parameters. We also give some general code constructions, based on the tensor and on the cartesian product. Our constructions can be applied to various choices of rings and code parameters.
Finally, we study codes over products of rings. This is relevant, since a finite PIR $R$ is isomorphic to a product of finite fields and finite chain rings. We show that if $R\cong R_1\times\ldots\times R_m$, then a product of codes on the $R_i$’s yields a code on $R$, whose parameters are determined and whose decoding can be reduced to decoding on each of the $R_i$’s. However, not every code over a finite PIR is a product of codes over fields and finite chain rings. We give a construction of a code over $R$ which is not a product and show that decoding cannot be reduced to decoding on each of the $R_i$’s. This shows in particular how the study of codes over a finite PIR cannot be reduced to the study of codes over finite fields and finite chain rings.
The structure of the paper is as follows: In Section \[secalgprel\] we recall some definitions and results about PIR’s, modules, length, row-echelon forms of matrices over PIR’s. In Section \[secsubmcodes\] we define submodule codes and submodule distance, and relate it to information loss and errors in module transmissions. We also show how to efficiently compute the submodule distance. In Section \[secrecovering\] we prove that, in some cases, the error-trapping decoding from [@FSK] can be viewed as a minimum-distance decoding in our framework. Section \[secbound\] is devoted to bounds on the cardinality of submodule codes, and Section \[seccostr\] to submodule codes constructions and to codes over products of rings.
Algebraic preliminaries {#secalgprel}
=======================
Throughout the paper $R$ denotes a finite PIR and $(r)$ denotes the ideal generated by $r\in R$. Recall that elements $a,b \in R$ generate the same ideal if and only if they are [**associate**]{}, i.e., there exists an invertible element $\varepsilon \in R$ with $a=\varepsilon b$ (see e.g. [@whenare?]). An element $g \in R$ is a **greatest common divisor** (**gcd**) of $a_1,...,a_s \in R$ if and only if $(a_1) + (a_2) + \ldots + (a_s)=(g)$. We write $g=\gcd(a_1,...,a_s)$. The gcd is unique up to associates. [**Finite chain rings**]{} are a special case of PIR’s. A ring $R$ is a finite chain ring if it is finite and its ideals form a chain with respect to inclusion. It is well-known that finite chain rings are principal and local (see e.g. [@macid], page 339). Moreover, if $\pi$ is a generator of the maximal ideal of $R$, then the ideals of $R$ are $$\label{fcr}
0 \subsetneq (\pi^{e-1}) \subsetneq (\pi^{e-2}) \subsetneq \ldots \subsetneq (\pi) \subsetneq R,$$ where $e$ is the smallest positive integer with $\pi^e=0$. The integer $e$ does not depend on the choice of the generator $\pi$ of the maximal ideal. The finite field $R/(\pi)$ is called the **residue field** of $R$. Clearly, $R/(\pi) \cong {{\mathbb}{F}}_q$ for some prime power $q$.
For any PIR $R$, define the [**annihilator**]{} of $a\in R$ as $$\operatorname{ann}(a)=\{r\in R\mid ar=0\}.$$ The annihilator is an ideal of $R$, and we refer to a generator of $\operatorname{ann}(a)$ again as the [**annihilator**]{} of $a$. If $R$ is a finite chain ring with ideal chain as in (\[fcr\]), then every $a\in R$ is of the form $a=u\pi^\alpha$ for some invertible $u$ and some $0\leq \alpha\leq e$. Then $\operatorname{ann}(a)=(\pi^{e-\alpha})$. Since every finite PIR $R$ is isomorphic to a product of finite fields and finite chain rings, then annihilators are easy to compute. In the sequel, we will take computation of annihilators for granted. Moreover, inclusion of annihilators can be easily tested by checking divisibility.
\[annihdiv\] Let $R$ be a finite PIR, $a,b\in R$. Then $\operatorname{ann}(a)\subseteq \operatorname{ann}(b)$ if and only if $a\mid b$.
By the Zariski-Samuel Theorem, any finite PIR is isomorphic to a product of finite fields and finite chain rings. Hence it suffices to prove the statement for $R$ a finite chain ring. If $b=ac$ for some $c\in R$, then $tb=tac=0$ for every $t\in\operatorname{ann}(a)$. Hence $\operatorname{ann}(a)\subseteq\operatorname{ann}(b)$. Conversely, if $\operatorname{ann}(a)\subseteq\operatorname{ann}(b)$ and $R$ is a finite chain ring with ideal chain as in (\[fcr\]), then $a=u\pi^\alpha$ and $b=v\pi^\beta$ for some $u,v$ invertible, $0\leq \alpha,\beta \leq e$. Since $(\pi^{e-\alpha})=\operatorname{ann}(a)\subseteq\operatorname{ann}(b)=(\pi^{e-\beta})$, then $e-\alpha\geq e-\beta$, so $\alpha\leq\beta$ and $a\mid b$.
Modules and length
------------------
We fix an $R$-module $\Omega\subseteq R^n$ as in (\[omega\]) and let ${\mathcal{M}}(\Omega)$ denote the set of $R$-submodules of $\Omega$. Given $M,N\in{\mathcal{M}}(\Omega)$, denote by $M+N$ the smallest submodule of $\Omega$ which contains both $M$ and $N$. We write $M \oplus N$ when $N \cap M=0$. Since $R$ is finite, $\Omega$ and its submodules are finite. In particular all modules that we consider are finitely generated.
Let $M$ be an $R$-module. If $$M=\{r_1m_1+\ldots+r_tm_t\mid r_1,\ldots,r_t\in R\}$$ for some $m_1,\ldots,m_t\in M$, then we say that $M$ is [**generated**]{} by $m_1,\ldots,m_t$ and $m_1,\ldots,m_t$ are a [**system of generators**]{} for $M$. We write $M=\langle m_1,\ldots,m_t\rangle_R$ or $M=\langle m_1,\ldots,m_t\rangle$ when there is no ambiguity. A module is [**finitely generated**]{} if it has a finite system of generators.
Let $M$ be an $R$-module. A chain of distinct submodules of $M$ of the form $$0 \subsetneq M_1 \subsetneq M_2 \subsetneq \ldots \subsetneq M_\lambda=M$$ has [**length**]{} $\lambda$. The **length** of $M$ is $$\lambda_R(M)=\max\{\lambda\mid \mbox{ $M$ has a chain of $R$-submodules of length $\lambda$}\}.$$ A [**composition series**]{} for $M$ is a maximal chain of distinct $R$-submodules of $M$.
When the ring is clear from context, we will omit the subscript $R$.
Any ring $R$ is an $R$-module, and its $R$-submodules coincide with its ideals. Therefore, the length of a ring $R$ is $$\lambda(R)=\max\{\lambda\mid \mbox{ $R$ has a chain of ideals of length $\lambda$}\}.$$ For any $a\in R$ we denote by $\lambda(a)$ the length of the ideal generated by $a$.
Since all modules that we consider are finite, they have finite length. The following properties are well-known (see e.g. [@kunz Section V§2]).
\[prellen\] Let $R$ be a ring, let $M,N,\Omega$ be $R$-modules of finite length. Then:
1. $\lambda(M)=0$ if and only if $M=0$.
2. If $N \subseteq M$, then $\lambda(N) \le \lambda(M)$ and $\lambda(M/N)=\lambda(M)-\lambda(N)$. In particular, $\lambda(M)=\lambda(N)$ if and only if $M=N$.
3. If $M,N \subseteq \Omega$, then $\lambda(M+N)=\lambda(M)+\lambda(N)-\lambda(M \cap N)$.
4. $\lambda(M\times N)=\lambda(M)+\lambda(N)$.
The concept of length for an $R$-module generalizes the concept of dimension for a vector space.
Every field ${{\mathbb}{F}}$ is a ring of length one, since it has no proper nonzero ideals. An ${{\mathbb}{F}}$-module $M$ is an ${{\mathbb}{F}}$-vector space with $\lambda(M)=\dim_{{{\mathbb}{F}}}(M)$.
\[exfcr\] Let $R$ be a finite chain ring. Let $\pi$ be a generator of its maximal ideal and let $e$ be the smallest positive integer such that $\pi^e=0$. Then $\lambda(R)=e$ and $\lambda(a) = \min\{ i : a \in (\pi^{e-i})\} = \min \{ i : \pi^{e-i} \mid a\}$ for all $a\in R$.
It can be shown that every $R$-module $M$ is isomorphic to a product of ideals: $$M \cong \underbrace{R \times \ldots \times R}_{\mu_1} \times \underbrace{(\pi) \times \ldots \times (\pi)}_{\mu_2-\mu_1} \times
\ldots \times \underbrace{(\pi^{e-1}) \times \ldots \times (\pi^{e-1})}_{\mu_e-\mu_{e-1}},$$ where $0 \le \mu_1 \le \mu_2 \le \ldots \le \mu_e$ are non-negative integers. Following [@FSK], we say that $M$ has **shape** $(\mu_1,\mu_2,...,\mu_e) \in {{\mathbb}{N}}^e$. It is easy to show that two $R$-modules are isomorphic if and only if they have the same shape. Moreover, by Lemma \[prellen\] $$\lambda(M)=\sum_{i=0}^{e-1} (\mu_{i+1}-\mu_i)(e-i),$$ where $\mu_0=0$.
A reduced row-echelon form for matrices over principal ideal rings {#secechelon}
------------------------------------------------------------------
Every finitely generated module $M\subseteq\Omega$ may be represented as the rowspace of a matrix with entries in $R$, whose row vectors are a system of generators of $M$. In order to make such a representation unique, we need a row-canonical form for matrices with entries in a PIR.
In [@howell] Howell proposes a definition of row-canonical matrix over the ring ${{\mathbb}{Z}}_n$, showing that every matrix can be put in row-canonical form by performing invertible row operations. The ideas of Howell were later extended in [@buch], where canonical generating systems for submodules of $R^n$ are defined for any PIR $R$. In the rest of the section we recall the main results of [@buch], stating them in a convenient matrix formulation.
For $i \in \{1,...,n\}$ we denote by $v_i$ the $i$-th entry of a vector $v \in R^n$. The **leading position** of a vector $v \in R^n$ is the position of its first nonzero entry: $$\ell(v)= \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\min \{ 1 \le j \le k \ | \ v_j
\neq 0\} & \mbox{ if $v \neq 0$,} \\
+\infty & \mbox{ if $v=0$}. \end{array}
\right.$$
Given a matrix $A \in R^{t \times n}$, we denote by $A_1,...,A_t$ the rows of $A$, and by $\mbox{row}(A)= \langle A_1,...,A_t \rangle$ the $R$-module generated by the rows of $A$.
For a module $M\subseteq R^n$ we set $M^{(j)}=\{v \in M \ | \ v_i=0 \mbox{ for } i < j \}$ for $j \in \{1,...,n+1\}$. Every $M^{(j)}$ is an $R$-submodule of $M$ and $$0=M^{(n+1)} \subseteq M^{(n)} \subseteq \ldots \subseteq M^{(1)}=M.$$
\[rref\] Let $A \in R^{t \times k}$ be a matrix, and let $M=\mbox{row}(A)$. We say that $A$ is in **row-echelon form** if the following hold:
1. for all $i \in \{1,...,t-1\}$ we have $\ell(A_{i+1}) > \ell(A_i)$,
2. for all $j \in \{ 1,...,n+1\}$ we have $M^{(j)} = \langle A_i \ | \ \ell(A_i) \ge j \rangle$.
The nonzero entries of $A$ of the form $A_{i,\ell(A_i)}$ are the **pivots** of $A$.
Fix canonical generators and representatives for the ideals and the residue classes of $R$. We say that $A$ is in **reduced row-echelon form** if it is in row-echelon form and the following hold:
1. every pivot $A_{ij}$ of $A$ is the canonical generator of the ideal $(A_{ij})$,
2. if $A_{ij}$ is a pivot of $A$, then every entry $A_{sj}$ with $s<i$ is the canonical representative of the residue class $A_{sj}+(A_{ij})$.
Two matrices $A,B \in R^{t \times n}$ are **row-equivalent** if there exists an invertible matrix $U \in R^{t \times t}$ such that $A=UB$.
It is easy to show that $A$ and $B$ are row-equivalent if and only if $\mbox{row}(A)=\mbox{row}(B)$. We now prove that every matrix is row-equivalent to a matrix in row-echelon form, and to a unique matrix in reduced row-echelon form. The next lemma is well-known and appears in several references. We include a proof, since we could not find a complete one in the literature.
\[lemmapr\] For any $a,b \in R \setminus \{0\}$ there exist $x,y,z,t \in R$ such that $$\begin{bmatrix}
x & y \\ z & t
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
a \\ b \end{bmatrix} =
\begin{bmatrix}
g \\ 0
\end{bmatrix},
\ \ \ \ \ \ xt-yz=1, \ \ \ \ \ \
(g)=(a)+(b).$$
By [@ZS Theorem 33, pg. 245], every principal ideal ring is isomorphic to a direct product of quotients of PID’s. Therefore it suffices to prove the result for $R=D/(\pi)$, where $D$ is a PID and $\pi \in D$.
If $\pi=0$ then $R=D$ is a PID. Let $g=\gcd(a,b)$ and write $g=ka+hb$ for some $k,h \in R$. Dividing by $g$ we obtain $1=k(a/g)+h(b/g)$. Let $x=k$, $y=h$, $z=-b/g$, $t=a/g$.
Now assume $\pi \neq 0$. Recall that every PID $D$ is a unique factorization domain. Consider the projection map $\bar{\cdot}: D \to R$ and choose elements $\alpha,\beta \in D$ with $\overline{\alpha}=a$ and $\overline{\beta}=b$. Let $\eta=\mbox{gcd}(\alpha,\beta,\pi)$ and $P=\{p \in D \ | \ p \mbox{ is irreducible and divides both } \alpha/\eta
\mbox{ and } \pi/\eta \}$. For all $p\in P$ we set $e_p=\max \{ i \ | \ p^i \mbox{ divides } \pi/\eta \}$. Define $$\gamma=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \left( \pi/\eta \right) / \prod_{p \in P}
p^{e_p} & \mbox{ if } P \neq \emptyset, \\ \left( \pi/\eta \right) & \mbox{ if } P=\emptyset. \end{array} \right.$$
We claim that $\alpha/\eta+\gamma(\beta/\eta)$ and $\pi/\eta$ are coprime. By contradiction, let $p\in D$ be irreducible, $p\mid\gcd(\pi/\eta, \alpha/\eta+\gamma(\beta/\eta))$. If $p\nmid\gamma$, then $p\mid\prod_{p \in P} p^{e_p}$, so $p\mid (\alpha/\eta)$. Since $\gcd(\alpha/\eta,\beta/\eta,\pi/\eta)=1$ and $p\mid (\alpha/\eta), (\pi/\eta)$, then $p\nmid\alpha/\eta+\gamma(\beta/\eta)$, a contradiction. If $p\mid\gamma$, then $p\nmid\prod_{p \in P} p^{e_p}$, so $p\nmid(\alpha/\eta)$. However $p\mid (\alpha/\eta+\gamma(\beta/\eta))$, a contradiction. We conclude that $\alpha/\eta+\gamma(\beta/\eta)$ and $\pi/\eta$ are coprime, hence there exist $\lambda,\mu \in D$ such that $\lambda(\alpha/\eta+\gamma(\beta/\eta)) + \mu (\pi/\eta)=1$, i.e. $\lambda(\alpha+\gamma\beta) + \mu\pi=\eta$. Hence $$(\eta) \subseteq (\alpha+\gamma\beta,\pi) \subseteq (\alpha,\beta,\pi)=(\eta).$$ Therefore $(\alpha+\gamma\beta)+(\pi)=(\alpha)+(\beta)+(\pi)$, so $a+cb=\gcd(a,b)$ in $R=D/(\pi)$, where $c=\overline{\gamma}$. Write $b=h(a+cb)$, for some $h \in R$. Let $x=1$, $y=c$, $z=-h$, $t=-ch+1$.
The element $\gamma\in D$ in the proof of Lemma \[lemmapr\] can be computed (up to associates) via the following algorithm.
$\gamma\gets \gamma/g$ $g \gets \mbox{gcd}(\gamma,\alpha/\eta)$
\[put\] Given a matrix $A \in R^{t \times k}$, we can compute a row-equivalent matrix in row-echelon form in ${\mathcal{O}}(tk^2)$ operations in $R$.
We describe Algorithm 3.2 from [@buch], adapting it to our matrix notation.
1. If $A$ is the zero matrix, then it is already in row-echelon form. Otherwise, up to permuting the rows of $A$, we may assume without loss of generality that $+\infty > \ell(A_1) \ge \ell(A_2) \ge \ldots \ge \ell(A_t)$.
2. If $j=\ell(A_1) > \ell(A_2)$ then the first step is concluded. Otherwise, let $g= \mbox{gcd}(A_{1j},A_{2j},...,A_{tj})$. Applying Lemma \[lemmapr\] iteratively one finds a row-equivalent matrix $A' \in R^{t \times n}$ with $A'_{1j}=g$ and $\ell(A'_i)> j$ for $i>1$.
3. Let $x \in R$ be the annihilator of $g$. We append $x \cdot A_1$ to the matrix $A'$, obtaining a matrix $A''$. Notice that $\mbox{row}(A'')=\mbox{row}(A)$. Moreover, if $v \in \mbox{row}(A'')$ and $v_s=0$ for $1 \le s \le j$, then $v \in \langle A''_2,...,A''_{t+1} \rangle$.
One repeats the three steps above on the matrix obtained from $A''$ by deleting the first row, until there are no more rows left. The algorithm produces a matrix in row-echelon form, which is row-equivalent to $A$.
\[semplice\] Consider the matrix $$A=\begin{bmatrix}
2 & 1 & 3 \\ 4 & 1 & 2
\end{bmatrix}$$ over $R={{\mathbb}{Z}}_6$. Applying the algorithm that we just described, one computes: $$\begin{bmatrix} 2 & 1 & 3 \\ 4 & 1 & 2 \end{bmatrix}
\rightsquigarrow
\begin{bmatrix} 2 & 1 & 3 \\ 0 & 5 & 2 \end{bmatrix}
\rightsquigarrow
\begin{bmatrix} 2 & 1 & 3 \\ 0 & 5 & 2 \\ 0 & 3 & 3 \end{bmatrix}
\rightsquigarrow
\begin{bmatrix} 2 & 1 & 3 \\ 0 & 5 & 2 \\ 0 & 0 & 3 \end{bmatrix}.$$ Notice that the number of rows increased from two to three.
Fix generators and representatives for the ideals and residue classes of $R$. Every matrix $A$ with entries in $R$ is row-equivalent to a unique matrix in reduced row-echelon form, with respect to the given choice of generators and representatives.
\[uniqueness\] Let $A \in R^{t \times n}$ be a matrix. Then $A$ is row-equivalent to a unique matrix in reduced row-echelon form, which we denote by $\operatorname{RREF}(A)$. The reduced row-echelon form of $A$ can be computed from a row-echelon form of $A$ in ${\mathcal{O}}(n^3)$ operations in $R$.
In fact, using the algorithm from Theorem \[put\], $A$ can be put in row-echelon form. After multiplying it by a diagonal matrix with invertible elements on the diagonal, the matrix satisfies property 3) of Definition \[rref\]. Finally, by subtracting suitable multiples of each row from the rows above, one ensures that property 4) of Definition \[rref\] holds. The last operation corresponds to multiplying on the left by an upper triangular matrix with ones on the diagonal.
The next result characterizes matrices in row-echelon form over a finite PIR. A proof can be obtained using Proposition \[annihdiv\].
\[criterio\] Let $A \in R^{t \times n}$ be a matrix with no zero rows. $A$ is in row-echelon form if and only if the following hold:
1. $\ell(A_{i+1}) > \ell(A_i)$ for all $i \in \{1,...,t-1\}$,
2. $A_{t\ell(A_t)} \mid A_{tj}$ for all $\ell(A_t)\le j \le n$,
3. $\mbox{ann}(A_{i\ell(A_i)}) \cdot A_i \in
\langle A_{i+1},...,A_t \rangle$ for all $i \in \{1,...,t-1\}$.
Proposition \[criterio\] and Algorithm 4.1 of [@buch] lead to the following algorithm to test whether a matrix is in row-echelon form.
The previous algorithm terminates correctly.
Algorithm 4.1 of [@buch] tests whether a given vector belongs to the module generated by the rows of a matrix in row-echelon form. Therefore, we first need to show that the last **for** cycle of the algorithm is well-defined, i.e., that if the algorithm enters the **for** cycle for some $i$, then the matrix whose rows are $A_{i+1},...,A_t$ is in row-echelon form.
We proceed by backward induction on $i \in \{t-1,...,1\}$. Assume that the algorithm enters the cycle for $i=t-1$. Then by the structure of the algorithm and Proposition \[criterio\], the matrix whose row is $A_t$ is in row-echelon form, as claimed. Now assume $i<t-1$. Since the algorithm enters the **for** cycle for $i$, it entered the **for** cycle also for $i+1$. By induction hypothesis, the matrix whose rows are $A_{i+2},...,A_t$ is in row-echelon form. Since the algorithm enters the **for** cycle for $i$, we have $\mbox{ann}(A_{i+1}) \cdot A_{i+1} \in \langle A_{i+2},...,A_t \rangle$. Therefore by Proposition \[criterio\] the matrix whose rows are $A_{i+1},...,A_t$ is in row-echelon form.
The previous argument also shows that if the algorithm returns YES, then $A$ is in row-echelon form. Finally, using Proposition \[criterio\] one can check that if $A$ is in row-echelon form, then the algorithm returns YES.
Submodule codes and submodule distance {#secsubmcodes}
======================================
Using the length, one can define a distance function between submodules of $\Omega$.
\[dist\] The function $d: {\mathcal{M}}(\Omega) \times {\mathcal{M}}(\Omega) \to {{\mathbb}{N}}$ defined by $$d(M,N)=\lambda(M)+\lambda(N)-2\lambda(M \cap N)$$ for all $M,N \in {\mathcal{M}}(\Omega)$ is a distance function.
\[defsubdist\] We call $d$ the **submodule distance** on ${\mathcal{M}}(\Omega)$.
Let $M,N,P\subseteq\Omega$ be $R$-submodules. By Lemma \[prellen\] we have $d(M,N)=\lambda(M+N)-\lambda(M\cap N)$. Since $M \cap N \subseteq M +N$ we have $d(M,N) \ge 0$, and equality holds if and only if $M+N=M \cap N$, i.e., if and only if $M=N$. Moreover, $d(M,N)=d(N,M)$ by definition.
To prove the triangular inequality, observe that by definition $$d(M,N)=d(M,P)+d(P,N) -2(\lambda(M \cap N) + \lambda(P) - \lambda(M \cap P) -
\lambda(N \cap P)).$$ Therefore it suffices to prove that $x=\lambda(M \cap N) + \lambda(P) - \lambda(M \cap P) - \lambda(N \cap P) \ge 0.$ By Lemma \[prellen\] we have $x=\lambda(M+P) + \lambda(N+P) - \lambda(M+N) -
\lambda(P)$. Since $(M+P)+(N+P) \supseteq M+N$ and $(M+P)\cap(N+P) \supseteq P$, by Lemma \[prellen\] $$\lambda(M+P) + \lambda(N+P) -\lambda(P) \ge \lambda(M+P) + \lambda(N+P) -\lambda((M+P)\cap(N+P)) \ge \lambda(M+N),$$ hence $x \ge 0$.
When $R={{\mathbb}{F}}$ is a field, the submodule distance on ${{\mathbb}{F}}^n$ coincides with the [**subspace distance**]{} proposed by Kötter and Kschischang in [@KK1] for error correction in random linear network coding.
The concepts of information loss and error from [@KK1] can be extended to our setting as follows.
\[remdecomp\] Let $M \subseteq R^n$ be the transmitted module, and let $N\subseteq R^n$ be the received module. The portion of information that was correctly transmitted is $M \cap N$. The quotient $M/(M \cap N)$ may be regarded as the **information loss module**, i.e. the original information modulo the portion of information that was correctly transmitted. Similarly, the **error module** is the quotient $N/(M \cap N)$. Using Lemma \[prellen\], one can check that $$d(M,N)= \lambda(M/(M \cap N)) + \lambda(N/(M \cap N)).$$ In other words, the distance between $M$ and $N$ is the sum of the lengths of the information loss module and of the error module, similarly to what was shown in [@KK1] in the context of subspace codes.
A **submodule code** is a subset ${\mathcal{C}}\subseteq {\mathcal{M}}(\Omega)$ with $|{\mathcal{C}}| \ge 2$. The **minimum** (**submodule**) **distance** of ${\mathcal{C}}$ is $$d({\mathcal{C}})= \min \{d(M,N) : M,N \in {\mathcal{C}}, \ M \neq N\}.$$
Let ${\mathcal{C}}\subseteq {\mathcal{M}}(\Omega)$ be a submodule code. Let $M \in {\mathcal{C}}$ be the transmitted module, and let $N \in {\mathcal{M}}(R^n)$ be the received module. Define the **number of erasures** as $\rho=\lambda(M/(M \cap N))$ and the **number of errors** as $e=\lambda(N/(M \cap N))$.
The next result follows from Remark \[remdecomp\] using a standard argument.
Let ${\mathcal{C}}\subseteq {\mathcal{M}}(\Omega)$ be a submodule code of minimum distance $d$. Then a minimum distance decoder successfully corrects $N$ to $M$, provided that $2(\rho+e) < d({\mathcal{C}})$.
Computing the distance function
-------------------------------
In this subsection we show that the length of a module is the sum of the lengths of the ideals generated by the pivots of a matrix in row-echelon form, whose rows generate the module. Therefore, computing the length of an $R$-module can be reduced to computing lengths of ideals in $R$. This allows us to efficiently compute distances between submodules of $R^n$.
\[princ\] Let $M\subseteq R^n$ be an $R$-module. Let $A\in R^{t \times n}$ be a matrix in row-echelon form with no zero rows and such that $M=\mbox{row}(A)$. For every $j \in \{ 1,...,n+1\}$ let $M^{(j)}=\{m\in M\mid v_i=0 \mbox{ for } i<j\}\subseteq R^n$ and $I^{(j)}= (v_j \ | \ v \in M^{(j)}) \subseteq R$. Let $A_{i\ell(A_i)}$ be the pivot of the $i$-th row of $A$. Then:
1. $I^{(\ell(A_i))}=\left( A_{i\ell(A_i)} \right) \cong M^{(j)}/M^{(j+1)}$ for all $i \in \{1,...,t\}$,
2. \[princ3\] $\lambda(M)= \sum_{i=1}^t \lambda \left(A_{i \ell(A_i)}\right)$.
<!-- -->
1. The map $M^{(j)}/M^{(j+1)} \to I^{(j)}$ given by $v+M^{(j+1)} \mapsto v_j$ is a well-defined $R$-module isomorphism. Therefore $I^{(j)} \cong M^{(j)}/M^{(j+1)}$. Fix any $i \in \{1,...,t\}$ and let $j=\ell(A_i)$. Since $A_i \in M^{(j)}$ we have $(A_{ij}) \subseteq I^{(j)}$. On the other hand, let $0\neq x \in I^{(j)}$ and let $v \in M^{(j)}$ such that $x=v_j$. Since $A$ is in row-echelon form, $v=\sum_{k=i}^t r_k A_k$ for some $r_i,...,r_t\in R$. Therefore $x=v_j=r_i A_{ij}$, so $x \in (A_{ij})$.
2. Applying [@kunz Corollary V.2.4] to the chain of $R$-modules $0=M^{(n+1)} \subseteq \ldots \subseteq M^{(1)}=M$ we obtain $$\lambda(M)=\sum_{j=1}^n \lambda\left(M^{(j)}/M^{(j+1)}\right).$$ By Lemma \[prellen\] one has $\lambda\left(M^{(j)}/M^{(j+1)}\right) \neq 0$ if and only if $I^{(j)}\neq 0$, if and only if $j=\ell(A_i)$ for some $i\in\{1,\ldots,t\}$. Then $$\lambda\left(M^{(j)}/M^{(j+1)}\right)
= \lambda(A_{ij}).$$
The module $M=\langle(2,1,3), (4,1,2)\rangle \subseteq{{\mathbb}{Z}}_6^3$ generated by the rows of the matrix of Example \[semplice\] has length $\lambda(M)=\lambda(2) + \lambda(5) + \lambda(3)= 1+2+1=4$.
Let $M=\mbox{row}(A)$ be the transmitted module, and let $N=\mbox{row}(B)$ be the received module. By Lemma \[prellen\] we have $$d(M,N)=2 \lambda(M+N)- \lambda(M)-\lambda(N).$$ Therefore the distance between $M$ and $N$ can be computed from the row-echelon forms of $A$, $B$, and of the matrix $C$ obtained by appending the rows of $B$ to $A$. In fact $$M+N=\mbox{row}(A)+\mbox{row}(B)=\mbox{row}(C).$$ This allows us to compute the distance function without computing intersections of modules.
Let $R={{\mathbb}{Z}}_4$. Notice that the only nonzero, proper ideal of $R$ is $(2)$. Let $$A= \begin{bmatrix}
\underline{1} & 1 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & \underline{2} & 1 & 2 \\
0 & 0 & \underline{2} & 0
\end{bmatrix}, \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
B= \begin{bmatrix}
\underline{1} & 3 & 0 & 2 \\ 0 & 0 & \underline{1} & 0
\end{bmatrix}$$ be matrices in row-echelon form, whose underlined entries are the pivots. Let $M=\mbox{row}(A)$ and $N=\mbox{row}(B)$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda(M) &=& \lambda(1) + \lambda(2) + \lambda(2) = 2+1+1=4 \\
\lambda(N) &=& \lambda(1) + \lambda(1) = 2+2=4 \end{aligned}$$ Then $M+N=\mbox{row}(C)$, where $$C=\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 1 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 2 & 1 & 2 \\
0 & 0 & 2 & 0 \\
1 & 3 & 0 & 2 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0
\end{bmatrix}$$ whose reduced row-echelon form is $$\begin{bmatrix}
\underline{1} & 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & \underline{2} & 0 & 2 \\ 0 & 0 & \underline{1} & 0
\end{bmatrix}.$$ Hence $\lambda(M+N)= \lambda(1) + \lambda(2) + \lambda(1) = 2+1+2=5$ and $$d(M,N)=2\lambda(M+N) - \lambda(M) - \lambda(N)=10-8=2.$$ One can compute $\lambda(M\cap N)=\lambda(M)+\lambda(N)-\lambda(M+N)=3$. Hence the information loss module has length $\lambda(M/(M \cap N))=\lambda(M)-\lambda(M \cap N)=1$ and the error module has length $\lambda(N/(M \cap N))=\lambda(N)-\lambda(M \cap N)=1$.
Recovering known encoding and decoding schemes {#secrecovering}
==============================================
In this section we compare our approach to the one proposed by Feng, Nóbrega, Kschischang, and Silva for the multiplicative-additive matrix channel (MAMC) in [@FNKS Section IX]. We show that their encoding scheme remains valid in our setup. We also prove that, in some cases, their decoding scheme corresponds to minimum distance decoding with respect to the distance function that we propose.
In our notation, Feng, Nóbrega, Kschischang, and Silva consider the MAMC of equation $Y=AX+Z$, where $R$ is a finite chain ring, $A\in R^{N\times t}$, $X\in R^{t\times n}$, $Z\in R^{N\times n}$. They assume that $n\geq 2N$, $\operatorname{row}(A)\cong R^t$, and $\operatorname{row}(Z)\cong R^v$ for some integer $v\leq N$. They represent matrices in [**row canonical form**]{} (see [@FNKS Definition 1] for the definition of row canonical form) and define their codebook to be the set of **principal** matrices of given shape in row canonical form (see [@FNKS Section V.B and Sections VII, VIII, IX]). Observe that matrices in row canonical form are not in general in reduced row-echelon form according to our Definition \[rref\].
Let $R={{\mathbb}{Z}}_8$, whose ideals $0\subsetneq (4)\subsetneq (2)\subsetneq (1)$ have canonical generators $0,4,2,1$. Choose $0,1,2,3$ as canonical representatives for residue classes modulo $(4)$, $0,1$ as canonical representatives for residue classes modulo $(2)$, and $0$ as canonical representative for the residue class modulo $(1)$. The rows of the following matrices generate the same $R$-module. The first matrix is in row canonical form (see [@FNKS Example 6]), while the second is in reduced row-echelon form. The pivots are underlined. $$\left[\begin{matrix}
0 & 2 & 0 & \underline{1} \\
\underline{2} & 2 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & \underline{2} & 0 \\
0 & \underline{4} & 0 & 0
\end{matrix}\right] \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;
\left[\begin{matrix}
\underline{2} & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
0 & \underline{2} & 0 & 1 \\
0 & 0 & \underline{2} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & \underline{2}
\end{matrix}\right].$$
The authors of [@FNKS] propose asymptotically optimal encoding and decoding schemes using principal matrices over a finite chain ring $R$. A transmitted module $M$ is encoded as a principal matrix in row canonical form, whose rows generate $M$. In the next proposition we show that principal matrices in row canonical form are in reduced row-echelon form. Therefore, the encoding schemes of [@FNKS] remain valid in our setup.
\[standardisstandard\] Let $R$ be a finite chain ring, and let $A \in R^{t \times n}$ be a principal matrix in row canonical form. Then $A$ is in reduced row-echelon form with respect to the same choices of generators and representatives.
Let $\pi$ be a generator of the maximal ideal of $R$, let $e$ be the smallest positive integer such that $\pi^e=0$. By the definition of principal row canonical form, the pivot of row $A_i$ is $A_{ii}=\pi^{\ell_i}$ for $i\in\{1,\ldots,t\}$, with $0\leq \ell_1\leq\ldots\leq\ell_t\leq e$. Moreover, $A_{ij}=\pi^{a_{ij}}$ with $a_{ij}\geq \ell_i$ for $i<j\le n$, hence $\operatorname{ann}(A_{ij}) \supseteq \operatorname{ann}(A_{ii})$.
Let $v \in \mbox{row}(A)\setminus\{0\}$, let $j=\ell(v)$. Write $v=\sum_{i=1}^t r_iA_i$ for some $r_1,...,r_t \in R$. Hence $v_1=r_1A_{1,1}=0, v_2=r_1A_{1,2}+r_2A_{2,2}=0,\ldots, v_{j-1}=r_1A_{i,j-1}+\ldots+r_{j-1}A_{j-1,j-1}$. By induction on $i$ one can show that $r_iA_{ii}=0$ for $1 \le i <j$, hence $r_iA_i=0$ for $1\leq i<j$. Therefore $v=\sum_{i=j}^t r_iA_i \in \langle A_j,\ldots,A_t \rangle$, so $A$ is in reduced row-echelon form according to Definition \[rref\].
We conclude this section with Proposition \[decoding\], that shows that the error-trapping decoding scheme proposed in [@FNKS] for the MAMC can be interpreted as a minimum distance decoding with respect to the distance function from Definition \[defsubdist\]. Before stating our result, we recall the scheme of [@FNKS Section IX].
\[extrapp\] Let $R$ be a finite chain ring. Fix $N$ such that $n\geq 2N$ and consider the channel equation $Y=AX+Z$, where $A \in R^{N \times t}$ is left-invertible, $X\in R^{t \times n}$ is the matrix whose rows generate the transmitted module, and $Z \in R^{N \times n}$ is a noise matrix whose row-module is isomorphic to $R^v$ for some integer $v\leq N$. One can write $$A=P \begin{bmatrix}
0_{(N-t) \times t} \\ I_t
\end{bmatrix},$$ where $P \in R^{N \times N}$ is an invertible matrix. Fix $u\geq v$. If $t+v>N$ let $X\in R^{t\times n}$ be of the form $$X= \begin{bmatrix}
0 & 0 \\ 0 & \overline{X}
\end{bmatrix},$$ where $\overline{X}$ is a matrix in principal form of size $(N-u) \times (n-u)$. If $t+v\leq N$ let $X\in R^{t\times n}$ be of the form $$X= \begin{bmatrix}
0 & \overline{X}
\end{bmatrix},$$ where $\overline{X}$ is a matrix in principal form of size $t\times (n-u)$. Under the assumption that error trapping is successful, [@FNKS Section IX.B] shows that the row canonical form of $Y=AX+Z$ is $$\begin{bmatrix}
Z_1 & Z_2 \\ 0 & \overline{X} \\ 0 & 0
\end{bmatrix},$$ for suitable matrices $Z_1\in R^{v\times u}$ and $Z_2\in R^{v\times (n-u)}$. Hence $\overline{X}$ and $X$ can be obtained by computing the row canonical form of $Y$.
In some cases, the error-trapping decoding from [@FNKS] can be seen as an instance of minimum distance decoding according to our definition. Notice that the choice $u=v$ is particularly interesting, since it maximizes the number of codewords for the given channel, without affecting the error-correction capability of the code.
\[decoding\] Following the notation of Example \[extrapp\], and under the assumption that either $t+v=N$ or $u=v$ and $t+v>N$, we have $$d \left( \mbox{row}(Y), \ \mbox{row}\begin{bmatrix}
0 & 0 \\
0 & \overline{T}
\end{bmatrix}\right) \ \ge \
d \left( \mbox{row}(Y), \ \mbox{row}\begin{bmatrix}
0 & 0 \\
0 & \overline{X}
\end{bmatrix}\right)$$ for any principal matrix in row canonical form $\overline{T}$ of the same size as $\overline{X}$. Moreover, equality holds [if and only if]{} $\overline{T}=\overline{X}$.
Since error-trapping is successful, by [@FNKS Section IX.B] there exist matrices $G,H,K$ such that $$Y=G \cdot \begin{bmatrix}
H & K \\ 0 & \overline{X}
\end{bmatrix},$$ where $G \in R^{N \times N}$ is invertible, $H \in R^{v \times u}$ and $\operatorname{row}(H)\cong R^v$, $K \in R^{v \times (n-u)}$. Since $\operatorname{row}(H)\cong R^v$, $$\mbox{row} \begin{bmatrix}
H & K \\ 0 & \overline{X}
\end{bmatrix}
\cap \
\mbox{row} \begin{bmatrix} 0 & 0 \\ 0 & \overline{T}
\end{bmatrix} =
\mbox{row} \begin{bmatrix}
0 & 0 \\ 0 & \overline{X}
\end{bmatrix}
\cap \
\mbox{row} \begin{bmatrix} 0 & 0 \\ 0 & \overline{T}
\end{bmatrix}.$$ Therefore $$d \left( \mbox{row}(Y), \ \mbox{row}\begin{bmatrix}
0 & 0 \\ 0 & \overline{T}
\end{bmatrix}\right) = \lambda(\operatorname{row}(Y)) + \lambda(\operatorname{row}(\overline{T}))- 2 \lambda(\operatorname{row}(\overline{X})\cap \operatorname{row}(\overline{T}))$$ $$= d \left( \mbox{row}(Y), \ \mbox{row}\begin{bmatrix}
0 & 0 \\ 0 & \overline{X}
\end{bmatrix}\right) + \lambda(\operatorname{row}(\overline{T})) + \lambda(\operatorname{row}(\overline{X})) - 2 \lambda(\operatorname{row}(\overline{X})\cap \operatorname{row}(\overline{T}))$$ $$= d \left( \mbox{row}(Y), \ \mbox{row}\begin{bmatrix}
0 & 0 \\ 0 & \overline{X}
\end{bmatrix}\right) + d \left( \mbox{row} \begin{bmatrix}
0 & 0 \\ 0 & \overline{X}\end{bmatrix},
\mbox{row} \begin{bmatrix}
0 & 0 \\ 0 & \overline{T}\end{bmatrix}
\right).$$ The result now follows from the fact that both $\overline{X}$ and $\overline{T}$ are principal matrices in row canonical form, hence they are in reduced row-echelon form by Proposition \[standardisstandard\].
Bounds {#secbound}
======
In this section we derive two upper-bounds on the cardinality of a submodule code with given minimum distance. We also discuss in detail some choices of rings or of the code parameters, for which our bound can be made more precise.
As in the previous sections, we fix a finite PIR $R$, an R-module $\Omega\subseteq R^n$ of the form (\[omega\]), and let ${\mathcal{M}}(\Omega)$ denote the set of $R$-submodules of $\Omega$.
For $M\in{\mathcal{M}}(\Omega)$ and $1\leq s\leq\lambda(M)$ let $$\begin{bmatrix} M \\ s \end{bmatrix}_R= \ |\{ N\in{\mathcal{M}}(M) : \ \lambda(N)=s\}|.$$ For $1\leq s\leq\lambda$ let $$\begin{bmatrix} \lambda \\ s\end{bmatrix}_R= \min\left\{ \begin{bmatrix} M \\ s\end{bmatrix}_R : M\in{\mathcal{M}}(\Omega), \ \lambda(M)=\lambda \right\}.$$ When there is no ambiguity, we omit the subscript $R$. Moreover, we denote by $${\left[\begin{matrix} \lambda \\ s \end{matrix} \right]_{q}}={\left[\begin{matrix} \lambda \\ s \end{matrix} \right]_{{{\mathbb}{F}}_q}}$$ the $q$-ary binomial coefficient.
We restrict our attention to submodules codes ${\mathcal{C}}\subseteq {\mathcal{M}}(\Omega)$ where all codewords have the same length $k$, $1 \le k \le n\cdot \lambda(R)-1$. Submodule codes of this kind have even minimum distance, and they are the module-analogue of constant-dimension subspace codes. The next result is a natural extension to submodule codes of the Singleton-like bound for subspace codes.
\[sss\] Let ${\mathcal{C}}\subseteq {\mathcal{M}}(\Omega)$ be a submodule code with $\lambda(M)=k$ for all $M\in{\mathcal{C}}$ and minimum distance $d({\mathcal{C}})=2\delta$. Then $$|{\mathcal{C}}| \le \begin{bmatrix} \lambda(\Omega) -\delta +1 \\ k-\delta+1 \end{bmatrix}.$$
Let $M\in{\mathcal{M}}(\Omega)$ be an $R$-module with $\lambda(M)=\lambda(\Omega) -\delta +1$. By Lemma \[prellen\], for all $N \in {\mathcal{C}}$ $$\lambda(M \cap N) = \lambda(M) + \lambda(N) - \lambda(M+N) \ge \lambda(\Omega) -\delta +1 +k - \lambda(\Omega)=k-\delta +1.$$ For every $N \in {\mathcal{C}}$ choose an $R$-submodule $N' \subseteq M \cap N$ with $\lambda(N')= k -\delta +1$. For any $N,P \in {\mathcal{C}}$ with $N \neq P$ we have $2\delta =d({\mathcal{C}}) \le d(N,P) = 2k-2 \lambda(N \cap P)$, hence $\lambda(N \cap P) \le k-\delta$. Hence $$d(N',P') = 2(k-\delta+1) - 2\lambda(N' \cap P') \ge 2(k-\delta+1) -
2(k-\delta)=2,$$ in particular $N'\neq P'$. It follows that ${\mathcal{C}}'= \{N' : N \in {\mathcal{C}}\}$ is a set of submodules of $M$ of length $k-\delta +1$ with $|{\mathcal{C}}'| = |{\mathcal{C}}|$. Therefore $$|{\mathcal{C}}| = |{\mathcal{C}}'| \le \begin{bmatrix} M \\ k-\delta+1 \end{bmatrix},$$ for any $M\in{\mathcal{M}}(\Omega)$ of length $\lambda(\Omega) -\delta +1$.
For a given $R$ and fixed $m,\ell$, the quantity $\begin{bmatrix} M \\ \ell \end{bmatrix}$ may depend on the choice of $M$ of length $m$. E.g., let $R={{\mathbb}{Z}}_5[i]\supseteq I=(2+i)$ and $\Omega=R^2$. Then $R \times 0$ and $I\times I$ are two $R$-modules of length $2$. The ideals of length one of $R$ are exactly $I=(2+i)$ and $(2-i)$, while $I\times I$ contains at least three submodules of length one, namely $I\times 0, 0\times I,$ and $(1,1)I=\langle(2+i,2+i)\rangle$.
Since every $R$-module of length greater than or equal to $\lambda(\Omega) -\delta +1$ contains an $R$-submodule of length $\lambda(\Omega) -\delta +1$, the bound of Theorem \[sss\] can also be stated as $$|{\mathcal{C}}| \le \min \left\{ \begin{bmatrix} M \\ k-\delta+1 \end{bmatrix} \ : \ M \in {\mathcal{M}}(\Omega), \ \lambda(M)\geq\lambda(\Omega) -\delta +1\right\}.$$
The following is another simple bound for the cardinality of a submodule code.
\[bound2\] Let ${\mathcal{C}}\subseteq {\mathcal{M}}(\Omega)$ be a submodule code with $\lambda(M)=k$ for all $M \in {\mathcal{C}}$, and minimum distance $d({\mathcal{C}})=2\delta$. Then $$|{\mathcal{C}}| \le \frac{\begin{bmatrix} \Omega \\ k-\delta+1\end{bmatrix}}{\begin{bmatrix} k \\ k-\delta+1\end{bmatrix}}.$$
Each $M \in {\mathcal{C}}$ contains at least $\begin{bmatrix} k \\ k-\delta+1\end{bmatrix}$ submodules of $\Omega$ of length $k-\delta+1$. Moreover, a submodule of $\Omega$ of length $k-\delta+1$ cannot be contained in two distinct $M,N \in {\mathcal{C}}$, as otherwise $\lambda(M \cap N) \ge k-\delta+1$, hence $d(M,N) < 2\delta$. Therefore $$\begin{bmatrix} \Omega \\ k-\delta+1\end{bmatrix}\ge |{\mathcal{C}}| \cdot \begin{bmatrix} k \\ k-\delta+1\end{bmatrix},$$ which proves the bound.
The upper bounds of Theorem \[sss\] and \[bound2\] are not comparable. For example, let $k=\delta$, $R={{\mathbb}{F}}_q$, and $\Omega={{\mathbb}{F}}_q^n$. Assume that $k\mid n$. The bound of Theorem \[sss\] is $$|{\mathcal{C}}|\leq {\left[\begin{matrix} n-k+1 \\ 1 \end{matrix} \right]_{q}}=q^{n-k}+q^{n-k-1}+\ldots+q+1,$$ while the bound of Theorem \[bound2\] is $$|{\mathcal{C}}|\leq\frac{{\left[\begin{matrix} n \\ 1 \end{matrix} \right]_{q}}}{{\left[\begin{matrix} k \\ 1 \end{matrix} \right]_{q}}}=\frac{q^n-1}{q^k-1}=q^{n-k}+q^{n-2k}+\ldots+q^k+1.$$ However, one can also find examples in which Theorem \[sss\] yields a better bound than Theorem \[bound2\]. E.g., let $R={{\mathbb}{Z}}_{12}$. The Hasse diagram of the ideals of $R$ is
(one) at (90:2cm) [$R$]{}; (b) at (150:2cm) [$(2)$]{}; (a) at (210:2cm) [$(4)$]{}; (zero) at (270:2cm) [$(0)$]{}; (c) at (330:2cm) [$(6)$]{}; (d) at (30:2cm) [$(3)$]{}; (zero) – (a) – (b) – (one) – (d) – (c) – (zero); (b) – (c);
In particular, $\lambda(R)=3$. Let $\Omega=R^2$ and let ${\mathcal{C}}\subseteq {\mathcal{M}}(\Omega)$ be a submodule code with $k=\delta=2$. By Theorem \[princ\], the module $$M = \mbox{row} \begin{bmatrix} 1& 0 \\ 0 & 3 \end{bmatrix}\subseteq \Omega$$ has $\lambda(M)=\lambda(1)+\lambda(3)=5$. Moreover, the submodules of $M$ of length 1 are precisely those generated by one of the following vectors: $(4,0), (6,0), (6,6), (0,6).$ Therefore, $|{\mathcal{C}}| \le 4$ by Theorem \[sss\]. Now let $N=\langle (0,3) \rangle \subseteq \Omega$. Then $\lambda(N)=2$ and $N$ has a unique submodule of length 1, namely $\langle(0,6)\rangle$. Hence $${\left[\begin{matrix} 2 \\ 1 \end{matrix} \right]_{}} = \min\left\{ {\left[\begin{matrix} N \\ 1 \end{matrix} \right]_{}} : N \in {\mathcal{M}}(\Omega), \ \lambda(N)=2
\right\} =1.$$ One can check that the submodules of $\Omega$ of length 1 are exactly those generated by one of the following vectors: $(4,0)$, $(4,4)$, $(4,8)$, $(6,0)$, $(6,6)$, $(0,4)$, $(0,6)$. Therefore the bound of Theorem \[bound2\] reads $$|{\mathcal{C}}| \le {\left[\begin{matrix} \Omega \\ 1 \end{matrix} \right]_{}} / {\left[\begin{matrix} 2 \\ 1 \end{matrix} \right]_{}}=7 > 4.$$
The bounds of Theorem \[sss\] and Theorem \[bound2\] can be made more explicit for PIR’s which are isomorphic to ${{\mathbb}{Z}}_p^m$ for some $m\geq 1$. An example of such ring is ${{\mathbb}{Z}}_p[i]$, which is isomorphic to ${{\mathbb}{Z}}_p^2$ if $p\equiv 1\mod 4$, as we show next. Notice that in the other cases ${{\mathbb}{Z}}_p[i]$ is either a finite chain ring or a finite field.
\[strui\] Let $p$ be a prime. Then $${{\mathbb}{Z}}_p[i] \cong {{\mathbb}{Z}}_p[x]/(x^2+1)\cong \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
{{\mathbb}{Z}}_2[x]/(x+1)^2 & \mbox{ if $p=2$,} \\
{{\mathbb}{F}}_{p^2} & \mbox{ if $p \equiv 3 \mod 4$,} \\
{{\mathbb}{Z}}_p \times {{\mathbb}{Z}}_p & \mbox{ if $p \equiv 1 \mod 4$.}
\end{array} \right.$$ Indeed, if $p=2$, then $x^2+1=(x+1)^2$. If $p$ is an odd prime, then $x^2+1$ is reducible if and only if $-1$ is a quadratic residue modulo $p$, if and only if $p \equiv 1 \mod 4$. The thesis now follows from the Chinese Remainder Theorem.
We start with a preliminary result on the structure of rings of the form $R \cong {{\mathbb}{Z}}_p^m$.
\[eis\] Let $R\cong{{\mathbb}{Z}}_p^m$. Then there exist $e_1,\ldots,e_m\in R$ such that $$R=(e_1)\oplus\ldots\oplus(e_m)$$ and $e_1+\ldots+e_m=1$, $e_i^2=e_i$ for all $1\leq i\leq m$, and $e_ie_j= 0$ if $i\neq j$. Moreover, $\lambda(R)=m$.
Fix an isomorphism $\pi : R \to {{\mathbb}{Z}}_p^m$ between $R$ and ${{\mathbb}{Z}}_p^m$. Let $e_i\in R$ be the inverse image via $\pi$ of the $i$-th element of the standard basis of ${{\mathbb}{Z}}_p^m$. Then $e_1+\ldots+e_m=1$, $e_i^2=e_i$ for all $1\leq i\leq m$, and $e_ie_j= 0$ if $i\neq j$. Notice that $R$ is a ${{\mathbb}{Z}}_p$-vector space via $\alpha r=\pi^{-1}(\alpha\pi(r))$ for $\alpha\in{{\mathbb}{Z}}_p, r\in R$. This corresponds to identifying ${{\mathbb}{Z}}_p$ with $\{\pi^{-1}(\alpha,\ldots,\alpha) : \ \alpha\in{{\mathbb}{Z}}_p\} \subseteq R$. Since $R=(e_1)\oplus\ldots\oplus (e_m)$, then every $r\in R$ can be written uniquely as $r=r_1e_1+\ldots+r_me_m$ with $r_i\in{{\mathbb}{Z}}_p$, where we regard ${{\mathbb}{Z}}_p$ as a subset of $R$ via the identification above. Therefore $\lambda(R)=m$ and a composition series for $R$ is given by $0\subsetneq (e_1)\subsetneq (e_1,e_2)\subsetneq\ldots\subsetneq (e_1,\ldots,e_m)=R.$
Using the notation of Lemma \[eis\], we can count the number of submodules of fixed length of any given $R$-module $M$. For the sake of concreteness we limit our attention to submodules of $R^n$, but the same proof applies to any finitely generated $R$-module $M$.
\[evaluateZp\] Let $R\cong{{\mathbb}{Z}}_p^m$, let $M\in{\mathcal{M}}(R^n)$. The number of $R$-submodules of $M$ of length $\ell$ is $$\begin{bmatrix} M \\ \ell \end{bmatrix}=\sum_{{\tiny \begin{array}{l} (\ell_1,\ldots,\ell_m)\in{{\mathbb}{N}}^m, \\
\ell_1+\ldots+\ell_m=\ell\end{array}}}\prod_{i=1}^m {\left[\begin{matrix} \dim(e_iM) \\ \ell_i \end{matrix} \right]_{p}}.$$ In particular, $$\begin{bmatrix} M \\ 1 \end{bmatrix}=\sum_{i=1}^m \frac{p^{\dim(e_iM)}-1}{p-1}.$$
By Lemma \[eis\], for all $M\in{\mathcal{M}}(R^n)$ one has $$M=e_1M\oplus\ldots\oplus e_mM.$$ Therefore $\lambda(M)=\sum_{i=1}^m\lambda(e_iM).$ Moreover, for all $r=r_1e_1+\ldots+r_me_m\in R$ and $v\in M$ we have $re_iv=r_ie_iv$ for all $i$. Therefore the $R$-submodules of $e_iM$ coincide with its ${{\mathbb}{Z}}_p$-subspaces, hence $\lambda(e_iM)=\dim_{{{\mathbb}{Z}}_p}(e_iM)$. Hence we have shown that for every $R$-module $M\subseteq R^n$ $$\lambda(M)= \sum_{i=1}^m \dim_{{{\mathbb}{Z}}_p}(e_iM)=\dim_{{{\mathbb}{Z}}_p}(M).$$ Since for every collection of submodules $N_i\subseteq e_iM$ the module $N=N_1\oplus\ldots\oplus N_m\in{\mathcal{M}}(M)$ and the $R$-submodules of $e_iM$ coincide with its ${{\mathbb}{Z}}_p$-subspaces, then the number of $R$-submodules of $M$ of length $\ell$ is $$\begin{bmatrix} M \\ \ell \end{bmatrix}=\sum_{{\tiny \begin{array}{l}
(\ell_1,\ldots,\ell_m)\in{{\mathbb}{N}}^m, \\
\ell_1+\ldots+\ell_m=\ell\end{array}}}\prod_{i=1}^m {\left[\begin{matrix} \dim(e_iM) \\ \ell_i \end{matrix} \right]_{p}}.$$
Theorem \[evaluateZp\] allows us to evaluate the bounds of Theorem \[sss\] and Theorem \[bound2\] as follows.
\[fourbounds\] Let $R\cong{{\mathbb}{Z}}_p^m$. Let ${\mathcal{C}}\subseteq {\mathcal{M}}(\Omega)$ be a submodule code with $\lambda(M)=k$ for all $M \in {\mathcal{C}}$ and $d({\mathcal{C}})=2\delta$. Let $$b(\lambda,k,\delta)=\min\left\{\sum_{{\tiny \begin{array}{l}
(\ell_1,\ldots,\ell_m)\in{{\mathbb}{N}}^m, \\
\ell_1+\ldots+\ell_m=k-\delta+1\end{array}}}\prod_{i=1}^m {\left[\begin{matrix} u_i \\ \ell_i \end{matrix} \right]_{p}} : \ (u_1,\ldots,u_m)\in{{\mathbb}{N}}^m, u_1+\ldots+u_m=\lambda-\delta+1\right\}.$$ Then $$\label{bb1}
|{\mathcal{C}}| \le b(\lambda(\Omega),k,\delta).$$ Moreover, $$\label{bb2}
|{\mathcal{C}}| \le \frac{\mathlarger{\sum}_{{\tiny \begin{array}{l}
(\ell_1,\ldots,\ell_m)\in{{\mathbb}{N}}^m, \\
\ell_1+\ldots+\ell_m=k-\delta+1\end{array}}}\mathlarger{\prod_{i=1}^m}
{\left[\begin{matrix} \dim(e_i\Omega) \\ \ell_i \end{matrix} \right]_{p}}}{b(k+\delta-1,k,\delta)}.$$ If $\Omega=R^n$ and $\delta=k$, then $$\label{bb3}
|{\mathcal{C}}| \le \frac{(p^n-1)/(p-1)}{\lceil (p^{k/m}-1)/(p-1)\rceil}.$$ If in addition $m=2$ and $k$ is odd, then $$\label{bb4}
|{\mathcal{C}}| \le \lfloor 2(p^{n}-1)/(p^h+p^{h-1}-2) \rfloor,$$ where $h= \lceil k/2\rceil$.
Let $M \in {\mathcal{M}}(\Omega)$ be a submodule of length $\lambda(M)=\lambda(\Omega)-\delta+1$ and let $u_i= \dim(e_iM)$ for all $i$. By Theorem \[evaluateZp\], the number of submodules of $M$ of length $k-\delta+1$ equals $$\begin{bmatrix} M \\ k-\delta+1 \end{bmatrix}=\sum_{{\tiny \begin{array}{l} (\ell_1,\ldots,\ell_m)\in{{\mathbb}{N}}^m, \\
\ell_1+\ldots+\ell_m=k-\delta+1\end{array}}}\prod_{i=1}^m {\left[\begin{matrix} u_i \\ \ell_i \end{matrix} \right]_{p}}.$$ Hence Theorem \[sss\] implies bound (\[bb1\]). Similarly, bound (\[bb2\]) follows from Theorem \[bound2\].
Now assume $\delta=k$ and $\Omega=R^n$. We have $$b(2k-1,k,k)= \min\left\{ \frac{1}{p-1} \left(
\sum_{i=1}^m p^{u_i} -m \right) :
(u_1,...,u_m) \in {{\mathbb}{N}}^m, \ \sum_{i=1}^m u_i =k \right\}.$$ Let $f: {{\mathbb}{R}}^m \to {{\mathbb}{R}}$ be the function defined by $f(x_1,...,x_m)= \sum_{i=1}^m p^{x_i}$ for all $(x_1,...,x_m) \in {{\mathbb}{R}}^m$. Using e.g. the method of Lagrange multipliers from Calculus, one can show that the minimum of $f$ in the region of ${{\mathbb}{R}}^m$ defined by the constraints $$\sum_{i=1}^m x_i =k, \ \ \ \ \ \ x_i \ge 0 \mbox{ for all $i \in \{1,...,m\}$}$$ is attained for $x_1=x_2= \ldots = x_m =k/m$, and that its value is $mp^{k/m}$. This shows that $$b(2k-1,k,k)
\ge \lceil (mp^{k/m}-m)/(p-1) \rceil.$$ Bound (\[bb3\]) now follows from bound (\[bb2\]) and the fact that $\dim(e_i\Omega)=n$ for all $i \in \{1,...,m\}$. If in addition $m=2$ and $k$ is odd, then without loss of generality we may assume $u_1 \ge u_2+1$. Using elementary methods from Calculus, one shows that $$b(2k-1,k,k) \ge \frac{p^h + p^{h-1}-2}{p-1},$$ where $h= \lceil k/2\rceil$. This concludes the proof.
We conclude this section by evaluating the bound of Theorem \[sss\] for finite chain rings. We concentrate on codes ${\mathcal{C}}\subseteq {\mathcal{M}}(\Omega)$ with $\lambda(M)=k$ for all $M\in{\mathcal{C}}$ and $d({\mathcal{C}})=2k$.
\[fcrlen1\] Let $R$ be a finite chain ring of length $e$, let $\pi \in R$ be a generator of the maximal ideal of $R$, let $q$ be the cardinality of the residue field of $R$. Let $$\Omega=R\times(\pi^{a_2})\times\ldots\times(\pi^{a_n})$$ for some $0\leq a_2\leq\ldots\leq a_n\leq e-1.$ Let ${\mathcal{C}}\subseteq {\mathcal{M}}(\Omega)$ be a submodule code with $d({\mathcal{C}})=2k$ and whose codewords have length $k$. Then $$|{\mathcal{C}}| \le \frac{q^{m}-1}{q-1}$$ where $m=\min\{1\leq i\leq n\mid (n-i)e-a_{i+1}-\ldots-a_n\leq k-1\}.$ In particular, if $\Omega=R^n$, then $$|{\mathcal{C}}| \le \frac{q^{n-h+1}-1}{q-1}$$ where $k=he-r$ with $0\leq r\leq e-1$.
We claim that the submodules of length one of an $R$-module $M\subseteq R^n$ are in bijection with the vectors $v \in M$ of the form $$\label{vectrref}
v= (\underbrace{0, \ldots, 0}_{i-1}, \pi^{e-1}, v_{i+1},...,v_{n})$$ where $1 \le i \le n$ and $v_{i+1},...,v_{n} \in (\pi^{e-1})$. In fact, every module of length one is minimally generated by one vector. If we represent a module generated by one vector by a matrix in reduced row-echelon form, then such a matrix has a unique row by Theorem \[princ\], and by Proposition \[criterio\] the row is of the form $v=(0, \ldots, 0, \pi^s, v_{i+1},...,v_{n})$ with $v_{i+1},...,v_{n} \in (\pi^{s})$. Finally, $\lambda(\langle v\rangle)=\lambda(\pi^s)=e-s$ by Theorem \[princ\]. Hence the modules of length one are exactly those generated by vectors of the form (\[vectrref\]). By uniqueness of the reduced row-echelon form, two such modules are distinct if and only if they are generated by distinct vectors in reduced row-echelon form. This proves the claim. Notice that there are exactly $q^{n-i}$ vectors of the form (\[vectrref\]), for a fixed $i\in\{1,\ldots,n\}$.
Let $M\subseteq\Omega$ be a submodule of length $\lambda(\Omega)-k+1$. Let $m$ be the least integer such that $$M\subseteq R^{m}\times\underbrace{0\times\ldots\times 0}_{n-m}.$$ Notice that $m$ depends on $M$, and not just on its length. Then $M$ contains exactly $q^{m-1}+q^{m-2}+\ldots+q+1=\frac{q^m-1}{q-1}$ vectors of the form (\[vectrref\]), since each such vector has $v_{i+1},\ldots,v_m\in (\pi^{e-1})$ and $v_{m+1}=\ldots=v_n=0$, for some $1\leq i\leq m$. Since $\Omega=R\times(\pi^{a_2})\times\ldots\times(\pi^{a_n})$, then $\lambda(\Omega)=ne-a_2-\ldots-a_n$. If $$M\subseteq (R^i\times 0\times\ldots\times 0)\cap \Omega=R\times\pi^{a_2}R\times\ldots\times\pi^{a_i}R\times 0\times\ldots\times 0$$ for some $i$, then $\lambda(M)=ne-a_2-\ldots-a_n-k+1\leq \lambda(R\times\pi^{a_2}R\times\ldots\times\pi^{a_i}R)=ie-a_2-\ldots-a_i$. Hence $$m\geq \min\{1\leq i\leq n : \ (n-i)e-a_{i+1}-\ldots-a_n\leq k-1\}$$ and equality holds for any $M\subseteq R\times(\pi^{a_2})\times\ldots\times(\pi^{a_m})\times 0\times\ldots\times 0$. By Theorem \[sss\] $$|{\mathcal{C}}| \le \min \left\{\begin{bmatrix} M \\ k-\delta+1 \end{bmatrix} \ : \ M \subseteq\Omega, \ \lambda(M)=\lambda(\Omega) -\delta +1\right\}$$ $$=\min \left\{\frac{q^i-1}{q-1}\ : \ M \subseteq\Omega\cap R^i\times 0\times\ldots\times 0, \ \lambda(M)=\lambda(\Omega) -\delta +1\right\}=\frac{q^m-1}{q-1}$$ where $m=\min\{1\leq i\leq n\mid (n-i)e-a_{i+1}-\ldots-a_n\leq k-1\}.$
If $\Omega=R^n$, then $a_2=\ldots=a_n=0$. Write $k=he-r$ with $0\leq r\leq e-1$. Then $(h-1)e\leq k-1\leq he-1$, hence $m=\min\{1\leq i\leq n\mid (n-i)e\leq k-1\}=n-h+1.$
Constructions {#seccostr}
=============
In this section we propose some constructions for submodule codes for an ambient space of the form $\Omega=R^n$. Throughout the section we say that a code is asymptotically optimal if its cardinality asymptotically meets one of the bounds of the previous section. We say that a code is optimal if its cardinality exactly meets one of the bounds.
We first concentrate on finite chain rings, and show how to construct optimal codes of maximum correction capability. Our codes can be regarded as the submodule code analogue of the partial spread codes from [@ps]. We then look at finite PIR’s that contain a field ${{\mathbb}{F}}$, and show how subspace codes over ${{\mathbb}{F}}$ can be lifted to submodule codes over $R$ by tensoring them with $R$. This allows us to construct optimal submodule codes over ${{\mathbb}{Z}}_p[i]$ of maximum correction capability. Finally we show how to obtain submodule codes over a ring of the form $R_1 \times\ldots\times R_m$ from submodule codes over $R_1,...,R_m$. We propose two constructions of the latter type, and discuss their decoding. For the first construction we take a cartesian product of codes on the $R_i$’s and show that this yields a code on $R$, whose parameters are determined and whose decoding can be reduced to decoding on each of the $R_i$’s. However, not every code over a $R$ is a product of codes over the $R_i$’s: Our second construction yields a code over $R$ which is not a product. We show that, in that case, decoding cannot be reduced to decoding on each of the $R_i$’s. This shows in particular that, although every finite PIR $R$ is isomorphic to a product of finite fields and finite chain rings, the study of codes over $R$ cannot be reduced in general to the study of codes over finite fields and finite chain rings.
Partial spreads over finite chain rings
---------------------------------------
We start with a construction that can be applied to any PIR. Its optimality relies on the existence of large sets of matrices, in which the length of the difference of any two of them is maximum. In Proposition \[lenmetric1\] we will show that such large sets can be constructed over any finite chain ring.
\[costruzione\] Let $R$ be a finite PIR. Let $n,k$ be positive integers. Write $k=h \cdot \lambda(R)-r$ with $0 \le r \le \lambda(R)-1$, and assume $n \ge 2h$. Write $n=\nu \cdot h+\rho$ with $0 \le \rho \le h-1$. Let ${\mathcal{A}}\subseteq R^{h \times h}$ and ${\mathcal{A}}' \subseteq R^{h \times (h+\rho)}$ be subsets such that $\lambda(\operatorname{row}(A-B))=h \cdot \lambda(R)$ for all $A,B \in {\mathcal{A}}$ with $A \neq B$ and $A,B \in {\mathcal{A}}'$ with $A \neq B$. For $i \in \{1,...,\nu-1\}$ let $${\mathcal{S}}_i= \left\{ \begin{bmatrix}
0_{h \times h} & \ldots & 0_{h \times h} & I_{h \times h} &
A_{i+1} & \ldots & A_{\nu-1} & A_\nu
\end{bmatrix} \ : \ A_{i+1},...,A_{\nu-1} \in {\mathcal{A}}, \ A_\nu \in {\mathcal{A}}'
\right\} \subseteq R^{h \times n},$$ where $I_{h \times h}$ is the identity matrix of size $h \times h$. Define ${\mathcal{S}}_\nu = \left\{ \begin{bmatrix}
0_{h \times (n-h)} & I_{h \times h}
\end{bmatrix} \right\}$. Let $\zeta \in R$ generate an ideal of length $\lambda(R)-r$. For all $i \in \{1,...,\nu\}$ let $${\mathcal{S}}_{i,\zeta} = \{M_{\zeta} : M \in {\mathcal{S}}_i\},$$ where $M_{\zeta}$ is the matrix obtained from $M$ by multiplying its last row by $\zeta$. Then $${\mathcal{C}}= \bigcup_{i=1}^{\nu} \{\mbox{row}(M) : M \in {\mathcal{S}}_{i,\zeta}\}$$ is a submodule code of length $\lambda({\mathcal{C}})=k$, minumum distance $d({\mathcal{C}})=2k$, and cardinality $$|{\mathcal{C}}| = |{\mathcal{A}}'| \cdot \frac{|{\mathcal{A}}|^{\nu-1} -1}{|{\mathcal{A}}| -1} + 1.$$
Let $M_{\zeta}\in{\mathcal{S}}_{i,\zeta}$. Then $M_{\zeta}$ is in row-echelon form and $\lambda(\operatorname{row}(M_\zeta))= (h-1) \cdot \lambda(R) + \lambda(\zeta) = k$ by Theorem \[princ\]. Define the code $${\mathcal{C}}' = \bigcup_{i=1}^{\nu} \{\mbox{row}(M) : M \in {\mathcal{S}}_i\}.$$ Again $M$ is in row-echelon form and $\lambda(\operatorname{row}(M))= h \cdot \lambda(R)$. Moreover, arguing as in [@ps Theorem 13 and Proposition 17] and replacing the rank with the length, one sees that $d({\mathcal{C}}')=2h \cdot \lambda(R)$, i.e., the submodules that constitute ${\mathcal{C}}'$ have trivial pairwise intersections. Moreover, $$|{\mathcal{C}}'| = |{\mathcal{A}}'| \cdot \frac{|{\mathcal{A}}|^{\nu-1} -1}{|{\mathcal{A}}| -1} + 1.$$ Now observe that ${\mathcal{C}}$ is obtained from ${\mathcal{C}}'$ by taking an appropriate submodule of each codeword. Therefore the codewords of ${\mathcal{C}}$ have trivial pairwise intersection. Hence $d({\mathcal{C}})=2k$ and $|{\mathcal{C}}|=|{\mathcal{C}}'|$.
We now show that over a finite chain ring $R$ one can construct large sets ${\mathcal{A}}$ and ${\mathcal{A}}'$ to be used within the construction from Theorem \[costruzione\].
\[atmost\] Let $R$ be a ring, let $s,t >0$. Then for any $v_1,...,v_t \in R^s$ we have $\lambda(\langle v_1,...,v_t \rangle) \le t \cdot \lambda(R)$.
Let $A\in R^{t\times s}$ be the matrix with rows $v_1,...,v_t$. Right multiplication by $A$ induces an $R$-homomorphism $f_A: R^t \to R^s$, whose image is $\langle v_1,\ldots,v_t \rangle$. Since $\operatorname{Im}(f_A)\cong R^t/\ker(f_A)$, then $\lambda(\langle v_1,\ldots,v_t \rangle)=\lambda(R^t)- \lambda(\ker(f_A)) \le \lambda(R^t) = t \cdot \lambda(R)$.
\[lenmetric1\] Let $R$ be a finite chain ring with residue field of order $q$. Then for all $h>0$ and for all $0 \le \rho \le h-1$ there exists a set ${\mathcal{A}}\subseteq R^{h \times (h+\rho)}$ with $|{\mathcal{A}}|=q^{h+\rho}$ and $\lambda(\operatorname{row}(A-B))= h \cdot \lambda(R)$ for all $A,B \in {\mathcal{A}}$ with $A \neq B$.
We first prove the statement for $\rho=0$. Let $\pi$ be a generator of the maximal ideal of $R$, and let $f: R \to R/(\pi)$ be the projection map. Let $\iota: R/(\pi) \to R$ be such that $f \circ \iota$ is the identity of $R/(\pi)$. Such a $\iota$ can be obtained by mapping each element of $R/(\pi)$ to one of its representatives in $R$. Notice that we do not require that $\iota$ is a ring homomorphism. We extend $f$ and $\iota$ entrywise to ${f}:R^{h \times h} \to (R/(\pi))^{h \times h}$ and ${\iota} : (R/(\pi))^{h \times h} \to R^{h \times h}$.
Since $(R/(\pi))^{h \times h} \cong {{\mathbb}{F}}_q^{h \times h}$, by [@del1 Section 6] there exists ${\mathcal{A}}' \subseteq (R/(\pi))^{h \times h}$ with $|{\mathcal{A}}'|=q^h$ and $A'-B'$ invertible for any $A',B' \in {\mathcal{A}}'$ with $A' \neq B'$. Then the set of matrices ${\mathcal{A}}=\{{\iota}(A') : A' \in {\mathcal{A}}'\} \subseteq R^{h \times h}$ has the expected properties. Indeed, let $A', B' \in {\mathcal{A}}'$ with $A' \neq B'$. Since $f$ is a ring homomorphism, we have $$f(\det({\iota}(A')-{\iota}(B')))=\det({f}({\iota}(A'))-{f}({\iota}(B')))=\det(A'-B') \neq 0.$$ Therefore $\det({\iota}(A')-{\iota}(B')) \notin (\pi)$. As $(\pi)$ is the only maximal ideal of $R$, $\det({\iota}(A')-{\iota}(B'))$ is invertible, hence ${\iota}(A')-{\iota}(B')$ is invertible. This implies $\operatorname{row}({\iota}(A')-{\iota}(B'))\cong R^h$, which has length $h \cdot \lambda(R)$. In addition $|{\mathcal{A}}|=|{\mathcal{A}}'|=q^h$.
Now assume $\rho>0$, and set $h'=h+\rho$. By the first part of the proof there exists a set of matrices ${\mathcal{B}}\subseteq R^{h' \times h'}$ with $\lambda(\operatorname{row}(A-B))=h' \cdot \lambda(R)$ for all $A,B \in {\mathcal{B}}$ with $A \neq B$. For $A \in {\mathcal{B}}$ denote by $\overline{A}$ the matrix obtained from $A$ by deleting the first $\rho$ rows. A simple application of Lemma \[atmost\] shows that the set ${\mathcal{A}}=\{\overline{A} : A \in {\mathcal{B}}\} \subseteq R^{h \times h'}$ has the desired properties.
\[excostrFCR\] Let $R$ be a finite chain ring with residue field of order $q$. Following the notation of Theorem \[costruzione\], Proposition \[lenmetric1\] allows us to construct a submodule code ${\mathcal{C}}\subseteq {\mathcal{M}}(R^n)$ of constant length $\lambda({\mathcal{C}})=k$, minimum distance $d({\mathcal{C}})=2k$, and cardinality $$|{\mathcal{C}}| = q^{h+\rho} \cdot \frac{q^{h(\nu-1)}-1}{q^h-1} +1 = \frac{q^n-q^{h+\rho}+q^h-1}{q^h-1}\in \mathcal{O}(q^{n-h})$$ (as $n>h+\rho$). Let $\overline{{\mathcal{C}}}$ be a submodule code with the same parameters as ${\mathcal{C}}$ and maximum cardinality. By Theorem \[fcrlen1\] we have $|\overline{{\mathcal{C}}}| \le (q^{n-h+1}-1)/(q-1)$. Therefore $$1 \ge \frac{|{\mathcal{C}}|}{|\overline{{\mathcal{C}}}|} \ge \frac{q^n-q^{h+\rho}+q^h -1}{q^h-1} \cdot\frac{q-1}{q^{n-h+1}-1} \stackrel{q \to \infty}{\longrightarrow} 1.$$ This shows that ${\mathcal{C}}$ is an asymptotically optimal submodule code.
Tensor product construction and partial spreads over rings of the form ${{\mathbb}{Z}}_p^m$
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assume that $R$ contains a finite field ${{\mathbb}{F}}\subseteq R$ as a subring and that $R$ and ${{\mathbb}{F}}$ have the same one. Let $V \subseteq {{\mathbb}{F}}^n$ be an ${{\mathbb}{F}}$-linear space. Recall that the tensor product $V \otimes_{{{\mathbb}{F}}}R \subseteq R^n$ is the submodule of $R^n$ generated by the elements of $V$. If $V=\langle v_1,\ldots,v_m\rangle_{{\mathbb}{F}}$, then $$V \otimes_{{{\mathbb}{F}}}R=\langle v : \ v\in V\rangle_R=\langle v_1,\ldots,v_m \rangle_R.$$
\[lemmC1\] Let $V \subseteq {{\mathbb}{F}}^n$ be an ${{\mathbb}{F}}$-linear space. Then $$\lambda(V \otimes_{{{\mathbb}{F}}}R) = \lambda(R) \cdot \dim_{{{\mathbb}{F}}}(V).$$
Let $t=\dim_{{{\mathbb}{F}}}(V)$, and let $A \in {{\mathbb}{F}}^{t \times n}$ be a matrix in reduced row-echelon form, whose rows generate $V$. Regard $A$ as a matrix over $R$. Then $A$ is still in row-echelon form and $\operatorname{row}(A)=V \otimes_{{{\mathbb}{F}}}R$. Since all the pivots of $A$ are ones, by Theorem \[princ\] we have $\lambda(V \otimes_{{{\mathbb}{F}}}R) = \lambda(1) \cdot t = \lambda(R)\cdot \dim_{{{\mathbb}{F}}}(V)$, as claimed.
\[lemmC2\] Let $V,W \subseteq {{\mathbb}{F}}^n$ be ${{\mathbb}{F}}$-linear spaces. Then $(V \otimes_{{{\mathbb}{F}}}R) \cap (W \otimes_{{{\mathbb}{F}}}R) = (V \cap W) \otimes_{{{\mathbb}{F}}}R$.
By definition $(V \cap W) \otimes_{{{\mathbb}{F}}}R\subseteq (V \otimes_{{{\mathbb}{F}}}R) \cap (W \otimes_{{{\mathbb}{F}}}R)$. Therefore by Lemma \[prellen\] it suffices to show that they have the same length. By Lemma \[lemmC1\] $$\lambda((V \cap W) \otimes_{{{\mathbb}{F}}}R)=\lambda(R)\cdot\dim_{{\mathbb}{F}}(V\cap W)=\lambda(R)\cdot(\dim_{{\mathbb}{F}}(V)+\dim_{{\mathbb}{F}}(W)-\dim_{{\mathbb}{F}}(V+W))=$$ $$\lambda(V\otimes_{{{\mathbb}{F}}}R)+\lambda(W\otimes_{{{\mathbb}{F}}}R)-\lambda((V+W)\otimes_{{{\mathbb}{F}}}R)=\lambda((V \otimes_{{{\mathbb}{F}}}R) \cap (W \otimes_{{{\mathbb}{F}}}R)),$$ where the last equality follows from Lemma \[prellen\] and from observing that $(V+W)\otimes_{{\mathbb}{F}}R=V\otimes_{{\mathbb}{F}}R + W\otimes_{{\mathbb}{F}}R.$
From Lemma \[lemmC1\] and \[lemmC2\] one obtains the following construction.
\[costrtensore\] Let ${\mathcal{C}}\subseteq {\mathcal{M}}({{\mathbb}{F}}^n)$ be a subspace code of minimum subspace distance $2\delta$ and $\dim_{{{\mathbb}{F}}}(V)=k$ for all $V \in {\mathcal{C}}$. Then $${\mathcal{C}}\otimes_{{{\mathbb}{F}}}R = \{V \otimes_{{{\mathbb}{F}}}R : V \in {\mathcal{C}}\} \subseteq {\mathcal{M}}(R^n)$$ is a submodule code of cardinality $|{\mathcal{C}}\otimes_{{{\mathbb}{F}}}R|=|{\mathcal{C}}|$, whose codewords have length $\lambda(R) \cdot k$, and whose minimum distance is $2 \lambda(R) \cdot\delta$.
Let ${{\mathbb}{F}}={{\mathbb}{Z}}_p$ and $R={{\mathbb}{Z}}_p^m$. Then ${{\mathbb}{Z}}_p \cong \{(a,a,...,a) : a \in {{\mathbb}{Z}}_p\}\subseteq R$ can be viewed as a subring of $R$. We have $\lambda(R)=m$. Let $h$ be an integer, $1\leq h\leq n/2$. By [@ps Theorem 13 and Proposition 17], there exists a subspace code ${\mathcal{C}}\subseteq {\mathcal{M}}({{\mathbb}{Z}}_p^n)$ of constant dimension $h$, minimum distance $2h$ and cardinality $(p^n-p^{h+\rho} + p^h -1)/(p^h-1)$, where $\rho$ is the remainder of the division of $n$ by $h$. By Theorem \[costrtensore\], ${\mathcal{C}}\otimes_{{{\mathbb}{Z}}_p}R \subseteq {\mathcal{M}}(R^n)$ is a submodule code whose codewords have length $mh$ and minimum distance $2mh$. Moreover, $$|{\mathcal{C}}\otimes_{{{\mathbb}{Z}}_p}R| = \frac{p^n-p^\rho}{p^h-1}-p^\rho+1.$$
Let $\overline{{\mathcal{C}}}$ be a submodule code with the same parameters as ${\mathcal{C}}\otimes_{{{\mathbb}{Z}}_p} R$ and maximum cardinality. By Theorem \[fourbounds\] (\[bb3\]), $|\overline{{\mathcal{C}}}| \le (p^n-1)/(p^h-1)$. Therefore $$1 \ge \frac{|{\mathcal{C}}\otimes_{{{\mathbb}{Z}}_p} R|}{|\overline{{\mathcal{C}}}|} \ge \frac{p^n-p^{h+\rho}+p^h -1}{p^h-1} \cdot \frac{p^h-1}{p^n-1} \stackrel{q \to \infty}{\longrightarrow} 1.$$ Hence ${\mathcal{C}}\otimes_{{{\mathbb}{Z}}_p} R$ is asymptotically optimal, and it is optimal when $\rho=0$.
Fix $1\leq \ell\leq m-1$. For all $M \in {\mathcal{C}}\otimes_{{{\mathbb}{Z}}_p} R$ choose a submodule $M' \subseteq M$ with $\lambda(M')=mh-\ell$. Then ${\mathcal{D}}= \{M' : M \in {\mathcal{C}}\otimes_{{{\mathbb}{Z}}_p} R\} \subseteq {\mathcal{M}}(R^n)$ is a submodule code with minimum distance $2mh-2\ell$ and whose codewords have length $mh-\ell$. Moreover, $$|{\mathcal{D}}|=|{\mathcal{C}}\otimes_{{{\mathbb}{Z}}_p} R| = \frac{p^n-p^\rho}{p^h-1}-p^\rho+1.$$ Let $\overline{{\mathcal{D}}}$ be a submodule code with the same parameters as ${\mathcal{D}}$ and maximum cardinality. By Theorem \[fourbounds\] (\[bb3\]) we have $|\overline{{\mathcal{D}}}| \le (p^n-1)/(p^{h-\ell/m}-1)$. Therefore $$1 \ge \frac{|{\mathcal{D}}|}{|\overline{{\mathcal{D}}}|} \ge \frac{p^n-p^{h+\rho}+p^h -1}{p^h-1} \cdot \frac{p^{h-\ell/m}-1}{p^n-1} \in \mathcal{O}\left(p^{-\ell/m}\right).$$ If in addition $m=2$, then by Proposition \[fourbounds\] (\[bb4\]) $$1 \ge \frac{|{\mathcal{D}}|}{|\overline{{\mathcal{D}}}|} \ge \frac{p^n-p^{h+\rho}+p^h -1}{p^h-1} \cdot\frac{p^h+p^{h-1}-2}{2(p^n-1)} \stackrel{q \to \infty}{\longrightarrow} 1/2.$$ Therefore ${\mathcal{D}}$ is asymptotically optimal, up to a factor 2.
\[morethanvs\] Let ${\mathcal{C}}\subseteq {\mathcal{M}}({{\mathbb}{F}}^n)$ be a subspace code over the finite field ${{\mathbb}{F}}$, and let $W \subseteq {{\mathbb}{F}}^n$ be a decodable space for the code ${\mathcal{C}}$, i.e., an ${{\mathbb}{F}}$-linear space for which there exists $V \in {\mathcal{C}}$ with $d(V,W) \le \lfloor (d_{\textnormal{S}}({\mathcal{C}})-1)/2 \rfloor$, where $d_{\textnormal{S}}({\mathcal{C}})$ denotes the minimum subspace distance of ${\mathcal{C}}$. Then $W \otimes_{{{\mathbb}{F}}}R$ is decodable in the submodule code ${\mathcal{C}}\otimes_{{{\mathbb}{F}}}R$, and it decodes to $V\otimes_{{{\mathbb}{F}}}R$.
However, there exist submodules of $R^n$ which are decodable in ${\mathcal{C}}\otimes_{{{\mathbb}{F}}}R$ but are not of the form $W\otimes_{{{\mathbb}{F}}}R$, with $W$ an ${{\mathbb}{F}}$-space which is decodable in ${\mathcal{C}}$. Moreover, if $N \subseteq R^n$ is decodable in ${\mathcal{C}}\otimes_{{{\mathbb}{F}}}R$, then $N \cap {{\mathbb}{F}}^n$ is not necessarily decodable in ${\mathcal{C}}$.
Let e.g. $R={{\mathbb}{Z}}_5[i] $, ${{\mathbb}{F}}={{\mathbb}{Z}}_5$, and let ${\mathcal{C}}=\{V_1,V_2\} \subseteq {\mathcal{M}}({{\mathbb}{Z}}_5^4)$ be the subspace code whose codewords are the 2-dimensional spaces $$V_1= \langle (1,0,1,0), (0,1,0,1)\rangle_{{{\mathbb}{Z}}_5}, \ \ \ \ \ \ V_2= \langle (1,0,2,1), (0,1,1,0)\rangle_{{{\mathbb}{Z}}_5}.$$ Then ${\mathcal{C}}$ has subspace distance $d_{\textnormal{S}}({\mathcal{C}})=4$. By Theorem \[costrtensore\] the submodule code ${\mathcal{C}}\otimes_{{{\mathbb}{Z}}_5} {{\mathbb}{Z}}_5[i]$ has two codewords of length $4$ and submodule distance $d({\mathcal{C}}\otimes_{{{\mathbb}{Z}}_5} {{\mathbb}{Z}}_5[i])=8$.
Let $$N= \langle (i+2,0,i+2,0), (0,1,0,i-1)\rangle_{{{\mathbb}{Z}}_5[i]} \subseteq {{\mathbb}{Z}}_5[i]^4$$ be a received submodule. Then $d(N,V_1 \otimes_{{{\mathbb}{Z}}_5} {{\mathbb}{Z}}_5[i]) = 3 \le \lfloor (8-1)/2 \rfloor =3$, so $N$ is decodable in ${\mathcal{C}}\otimes_{{{\mathbb}{Z}}_5} {{\mathbb}{Z}}_5[i]$. However, $N$ is not of the form $W \otimes_{{{\mathbb}{Z}}_5} {{\mathbb}{Z}}_5[i]$ for any vector space $W$. Moreover, $N \cap {{\mathbb}{Z}}_5^4 = 0$, so $N \cap {{\mathbb}{Z}}_5^4$ is not decodable in ${\mathcal{C}}$ with respect to the subspace distance.
Two constructions over products of rings
----------------------------------------
Let $R\cong R_1 \times \ldots \times R_m$, where $R_1,\ldots,R_m$ are finite commutative rings with identity. Let $\pi_i$ be the projection on the factor $R_i$. Then each $\pi_i$ extends componentwise to a map $\pi_i:R^n \to R_i^n$.
\[decomp\] Let $R\cong R_1 \times \ldots \times R_m$ be a finite ring, let $M \subseteq R^n$ be an $R$-module. Then $M\cong \pi_1(M)\times\ldots\times\pi_m(M)$, each $\pi_i(M)$ is an $R_i$-module and $$\lambda_R(M) = \sum_{i=1}^m \lambda_{R_i}(\pi_i(M)).$$
Let $r_i\in R_i$ and $v \in M$. Then $\pi_i(v)=(\pi_i(v_1),\ldots,\pi_i(v_n))\in \pi_i(M)\subseteq R_i^n$, and $r_i\pi_i(v)=(r_i\pi_i(v_1),\ldots,r_i\pi_i(v_n))\in \pi_i(M)$. This makes $\pi_i(M)$ into an $R_i$-module. Moreover, the isomorphism $R^n\cong R_1^n\times\ldots\times R_m^n$ restricts to an isomorphism $M\cong\pi_1(M)\times\ldots\times\pi_m(M)$. Hence $$\lambda_R(M)= \sum_{i=1}^m \lambda_R(\pi_i(M))= \sum_{i=1}^m\lambda_{R_i}(\pi_i(M)),$$ where the last equality follows from the fact that any $R$-submodule of $\pi_i(M)$ is an $R_i$-submodule, and viceversa.
We start with a simple construction, where we produce a code over $R_1\times\ldots\times R_m$ by taking the cartesian product of codes over each $R_i$. For simplicity of notation we identify $R^n$ and $R_1^n\times\ldots\ R_m^n$.
\[prodcostr\] Let $R_1,...,R_m$ be finite PIR’s and let $R=R_1 \times\ldots\times R_m$. For $i \in \{1,...,m\}$ let ${\mathcal{C}}_i \subseteq {\mathcal{M}}(R_i^n)$ be a submodule code whose codewords have length $k_i$. Then $${\mathcal{C}}={\mathcal{C}}_1 \times \ldots \times {\mathcal{C}}_m = \{M_1 \times \ldots \times M_m \ :\ M_i\in {\mathcal{C}}_i \mbox{ for all $i$ }\} \subseteq {\mathcal{M}}(R^n)$$ is a submodule code of cardinality $|{\mathcal{C}}|= |{\mathcal{C}}_1| \ldots |{\mathcal{C}}_m|$, whose codewords have length $k_1+\ldots+k_m$, and with minimum distance $d({\mathcal{C}})=\min\{d({\mathcal{C}}_i) : \ 1 \le i \le m\}$.
We now show that decoding of the [**product code**]{} ${\mathcal{C}}={\mathcal{C}}_1 \times \ldots \times {\mathcal{C}}_m$ over $R$ can be reduced to decoding each of the codes ${\mathcal{C}}_i$ over $R_i$.
\[decodingproduct\] Let $R_1,...,R_m$ be finite PIR’s and let $R=R_1 \times\ldots\times R_m$. For $i \in \{1,...,m\}$ let ${\mathcal{C}}_i \subseteq {\mathcal{M}}(R_i^n)$ be a submodule code and let ${\mathcal{C}}={\mathcal{C}}_1 \times \ldots \times {\mathcal{C}}_m\subseteq{\mathcal{M}}(R^n)$ be the product code. Let $N \subseteq R^n$ be a received decodable submodule, i.e., an $R$-module for which there exists an $M=M_1 \times \ldots \times M_m \in{\mathcal{C}}$ such that $d(N,M) \le \lfloor (d({\mathcal{C}})-1)/2 \rfloor$. Then for all $i \in \{1,...,m\}$ we have $d(\pi_i(N),M_i) \le \lfloor (d({\mathcal{C}}_i)-1)/2\rfloor$, i.e., $\pi_i(N)$ decodes to $M_i$ in ${\mathcal{C}}_i$.
By Lemma \[decomp\], $N=\pi_1(N) \times \ldots \times \pi_m(N)$, and $M_i=\pi_i(M)$ for $1\leq i\leq m$. Moreover $$\begin{aligned}
d(N,M) &=& \lambda(N) + \lambda(M) - 2 \lambda(N \cap M) \\
&=& \sum_{i=1}^m \lambda_{R_i}(\pi_i(N)) + \sum_{i=1}^m \lambda_{R_i}(\pi_i(M)) -2 \sum_{i=1}^m \lambda_{R_i}(\pi_i(N \cap M)) \\
&\ge& \sum_{i=1}^m d(\pi_i(N),\pi_i(M)), \end{aligned}$$ where the inequality follows from the fact that $\pi_i(N \cap M) \subseteq \pi_i(N) \cap \pi_i(M)$. Therefore for all $i$ we have $$d(\pi_i(N),\pi_i(M)) \le d(N,M) \le \lfloor (d({\mathcal{C}})-1)/2 \rfloor
\le \lfloor (d({\mathcal{C}}_i)-1)/2 \rfloor,$$ hence $\pi_i(N)$ decodes to $M_i$ in ${\mathcal{C}}_i$.
Finally, we provide another construction which combines submodule codes over the factors $R_i$ into a submodule code over $R=R_1 \times \ldots \times R_m$. Compared to the product construction of Theorem \[prodcostr\], this construction produces a code with smaller cardinality and larger minimum distance, whose decoding cannot be reduced to decoding over the $R_i$’s. Again, for simplicity we identify $R^n$ and $R_1^n\times\ldots\times R_m^n$.
\[parallcostr\] Let $R_1,...,R_m$ be finite PIR’s, and let $R=R_1 \times \ldots \times R_m$. For $i \in \{1,...,m\}$ let ${\mathcal{C}}_i \subseteq {\mathcal{M}}(R_i^n)$ be a submodule code whose codewords have length $k_i$. Let $c= \min |{\mathcal{C}}_i|$, and for all $i \in \{1,...,m\}$ fix a subcode ${\mathcal{C}}_i' \subseteq {\mathcal{C}}_i$ with $|{\mathcal{C}}_i'|=c$. Enumerate the elements of each ${\mathcal{C}}_i'$ as ${\mathcal{C}}_i'=\{M_{1,i},...,M_{c,i}\}$. Then $${\mathcal{C}}= \{M_{j,1} \times \ldots \times M_{j,m} \ :\ 1 \le j \le c \} \subseteq {\mathcal{M}}(R^n)$$ is a submodule code of cardinality $|{\mathcal{C}}|=c$, with $d({\mathcal{C}}) \ge d({\mathcal{C}}_1)+\ldots+d({\mathcal{C}}_m)$, and whose codewords have length $k_1+\ldots+k_m$.
We only prove the part about the minimum distance. Let $j,j' \in \{1,...,c\}$ with $j \neq j'$. Arguing as in the proof of Proposition \[decodingproduct\], one finds $$d(M_{j,1} \times \ldots \times M_{j,m} , \ M_{j',1} \times \ldots \times M_{j',m})
\ge \sum_{i=1}^m d(M_{j,i},M_{j',i}) \ge \sum_{i=1}^m d({\mathcal{C}}_i),$$ where the last inequality follows from the fact that $M_{j,i} \neq M_{j',i}$ whenever $j \neq j'$.
Notice that an $R$-module which is decodable with respect to the code ${\mathcal{C}}$ constructed in Theorem \[parallcostr\] is not necessarily a product of $R_i$-modules that are decodable with respect to the codes ${\mathcal{C}}_i$. E.g., let $m=2$, $n=4$, $R_1=R_2={{\mathbb}{Z}}_2$, $R={{\mathbb}{Z}}_2 \times {{\mathbb}{Z}}_2$. Let $$M_{1,1} = M_{1,2} = \langle (1,0,1,0), \ (0,1,0,1)\rangle_{{{\mathbb}{Z}}_2}, \ \ \ \
M_{2,1} = M_{2,2} = \langle (1,0,1,1), \ (0,1,1,0) \rangle_{{{\mathbb}{Z}}_2}$$ and ${\mathcal{C}}_1={\mathcal{C}}_1'=\{M_{1,1}, M_{1,2} \}$, ${\mathcal{C}}_2={\mathcal{C}}_2'=\{M_{2,1}, M_{2,2} \}$. Then $${\mathcal{C}}= \left\{ \mbox{row} \begin{bmatrix}
(1,1) & (0,0) & (1,1) & (0,0) \\
(0,0) & (1,1) & (0,0) & (1,1)\end{bmatrix} \ , \
\mbox{row} \begin{bmatrix}
(1,1) & (0,0) & (1,1) & (1,1) \\
(0,0) & (1,1) & (1,1) & (0,0) \end{bmatrix}
\right\}.$$ The code ${\mathcal{C}}$ has minimum distance $d({\mathcal{C}})=8$. Let $$N= \mbox{row} \begin{bmatrix}
(1,0) & (0,0) & (1,0) & (0,0) \\
(0,0) & (1,1) & (0,1) & (1,1)
\end{bmatrix}$$ be a received submodule. Then $N$ decodes to $M_{1,1} \times M_{1,2}\in {\mathcal{C}}$, as $d(N,M_{1,1} \times M_{1,2}) = 3 \le \lfloor (8-1)/2 \rfloor$. However, $\pi_2(N) = \langle (0,1,1,1)\rangle_{{{\mathbb}{Z}}_2}$ is not decodable in ${\mathcal{C}}_2$. In fact, $d(\pi_2(N), M_2^1)= d(\pi_2(N), M_2^2)= 3$.
[99]{}
D. D. Anderson, M. Axtell, S. J. Forman, J. Stickles, *When are Associates Unit Multiples?*, Rocky Mountain Journal of Mathematics 34 (2004), no. 3, 811–828.
J. Buchmann, S. Neis, [*Algorithms for linear algebra problems over principal ideal rings*]{}, technical report, Technische Hochschule Darmstadt (1996).
P. Delsarte, *Bilinear forms over a finite field, with applications to coding theory*, Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series A, 25 (1978), no. 3, 226 – 241.
C. Feng, R. W. Nóbrega, F. R. Kschischang, D. Silva, [*Communication over finite-chain-ring matrix channels*]{}, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 60 (2014), no. 10, 5899–5917.
C. Feng, D. Silva, F. R. Kschischang, [*An algebraic approach to physical-layer network coding*]{}, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 59 (2013), no. 11, 7576–7596.
E. Gorla, A. Ravagnani, *Partial spreads in random network coding*, Finite Fields and Their Applications 26 (2014), 104–115.
J. A. Howell, [*Spans in the module $({{\mathbb}{Z}}_m)^s$*]{}, Linear and Multilinear Algebra 19 (1986), 67–77.
R. Kötter, F. R. Kschischang, *Coding for errors and erasures in random network coding*, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 54 (2008), no. 8, 3579–3591.
E. Kunz, *Introduction to commutative algebra and algebraic geometry*, Birkhäuser Boston Inc., Boston (1985).
B. R. McDonald, *Finite rings with identity*, Pure and Applied Mathematics 28, Marcel Dekker Inc., New York (1974).
B. Nazer, M. Gastpar, *Compute-and-forward: harnessing interference through structured codes*, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 57 (2011), no. 10, 6463–6486.
P. Popovski, H. Yomo, *The anti-packets can increase the achievable throughput of a wireless multi-hop network*, Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Communications 2006, ICC ’06, 3885 – 3890.
Q T. Sun, J. Yuan, T. Huang, K. W. Shum, *Lattice network codes based on Eisenstein integers*, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 61 (2013), no. 7, 2713–2725.
0\. Zariski, P. Samuel, [*Commutative Algebra Vol. 1*]{}, Graduate Texts in Mathematics 28, Springer-Verlag, New York-Heidelberg-Berlin, (1975).
S. Zhang, S.-C. Liew, P. P. Lam, *Hot topic: physical layer network coding*, Proceedings of the 12th annual international conference on Mobile computing and networking, MobiCom ’06, 358–365.
[^1]: E-mail addresses: `[email protected]`, `[email protected]`. The authors were partially supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation through grant no. 200021\_150207.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
\#1[[$\backslash$\#1]{}]{}
The previously proposed[@phased] theoretical global phase diagram (GPD) of the quantum Hall (QH) effect predicts that only the $\nu =1$ QH liquid state is adjacent to the insulator, while higher QH plateau states do not neighbor with the insulator as schematically illustrated in Fig. 1(a). As a result, a direct transition from higher QH plateau ($\nu >1$) states to the insulator is prohibited. However, a series of recent experimental measurements[@krav; @song; @others] have indicated a phase diagram with qualitatively different topology. Most recently, it has been established experimentally by Hilke [*et al.*]{} [@hilke1] that direct transitions from $\nu=1,2,...,7$ to the insulating phase can all take place as clearly shown in Fig. 1(b). These experiments have challenged the basic theoretical understanding of QH systems[@qhe] at weak magnetic field[@laughlin].
These QH liquid-insulator transitions have also exhibited distinct properties in different regimes. For example, the Hall resistance $\rho _{xy}$ remains quantized at $h/e^2$[@hilke2; @shahar] in the transition region between the $\nu =1$ QH state and the insulator at strong magnetic field or low Landau-level (LL) filling factor $n_{\nu}$, even though the longitudinal resistance $\rho_{xx}$ already increases almost by one order of magnitude above the value $h/e^2$ in the same region denoted as II in Fig. 1(b). By contrast, at weak magnetic field or higher $n_{\nu}$, $\rho _{xy}$ near the critical region of the $\nu>1$ QH states to insulator transition becomes $n_{\nu}$-dependent[@song] and is very close to the classic value $B/nec$ rather than the quantized value. In fact, such a classic behavior of $\rho_{xy}$ has been found[@krav; @hilke2] to persist well into an insulating regime designated by I in Fig, 1(b), which suggests that there are two distinct insulating regimes surrounding the QH liquid states as opposed to the single one[@phased].
Direct transitions between the $\nu >1$ QH states and the insulator have been already found in the tight-binding model (TBM) based on numerical calculations[@dns; @xie; @others1]. But the relevance of such a lattice model to the experiment is still controversial[@bhatt], since the strength of the magnetic field usually cannot be reduced weak enough to directly simulate the realistic situation within the numerical capacity. Therefore, it is particularly important to identify the overall phase diagram and corresponding transport properties in such a model in order to understand the underlying physics and establish a real connection with the experiments.
In this Letter, we obtain, for the first time, a numerical “global phase diagram” for the integer QH effect based on the TBM and the results are summarized in Fig. 1(c). The topology of the phase diagram is strikingly similar to the experimental one shown in Fig. 1(b), and in particular the insulating phase is indeed divided into two regimes: In a strong disorder and low magnetic field region (Insulator I), the Hall resistance follows a classic value while the longitudinal resistance shows insulating behavior; in a weak disorder and high magnetic field region (Insulator II), we find that $\rho _{xy}$ remains at the quantized value $h/e^2$ near the transition region even when $\rho _{xx}$ increases up to $8h/e^2$. Both are in good agreement with the aforementioned experiments. Finally we provide a physical interpretation of the nature of the present non-float-up phase diagram based on the calculation of the equilibrium edge current.
The phase diagram in Fig. 1(c) can be determined by following the trace of extended levels by continuously tuning the disorder strength or magnetic field $B$. The position of each extended level forms a boundary which separates a given QH plateau state from another QH state or the insulating phase, and can be identified by the peak (which is sample size independent) of the density of states carrying nonzero Chern number[@dns; @bhatt], calculated based on the TBM Hamiltonian $H=-\sum_{<ij>}e^{ia_{ij}}c_i^{+}c_j+H.c.+ \sum_iw_ic_i^{+}c_i$, which is characterized by two parameters: the magnetic flux per plaquette $\phi =\sum_{\Box }a_{ij}=2\pi /M$ and the disorder strength $W$ of the random potential $w_i$: $|w_i|<W/2$. The result shown in Fig. 1(c) is calculated at $M=64$. In the Chern number calculation, the sample size is up to $64\times 64$. The position of an extended level can be equally identified by the peak of the longitudinal conductance $\sigma_{xx}$, which coincides with the Chern number result, but this latter method has an advantage as it can be applied to much weaker magnetic fields. At $M=384$, the sample size in calculating $\sigma_{xx}$ is up to $L_x=200$ and $L_y=10^3 M$ using transfer matrix method[@land]. The phase diagram in Fig. 1(c) remains essentially the same as we continuously change the magnetic flux from $M=8$ to $384$. Note that $W_c$ (which depends on the magnetic field B) is the critical value at which the last QH plateau state disappears and the system becomes an insulator.
The similarity between the numerical phase diagram \[Fig. 1(c)\] and the experimental one \[Fig. 1(b)\] is striking. Similar experimental phase diagram is also obtained earlier in Ref.. Several detailed features in Fig. 1(c) are worth mentioning. Firstly, starting from the strong-magnetic-field insulator II and reducing B continuously at a fixed electron density, we obtain numerically a dashed curve $A$ shown in Fig. 1(c) which cuts through different phases with a transition pattern $0-1-2-3-0$. \[As B is reduced, $W/W_c(B)$ increases due to the $B$-dependence of $W_c$\]. Such a scan curve should be equivalent to a constant gate voltage $V_G$ line in Fig. 1(b) as the fixed $V_G$ means both the disorder strength and electron density are constants. Secondly, one can clearly see that all the higher extended levels as boundaries separating different QH states are almost vertical lines in Fig. 1(c) which do not “float up” much in terms of the LL filling number $n_{\nu} $ at increasing disorder strength. The same non-float-up picture also unequivocally shows in the experimental phase diagram of Fig. 1(b). Only the lowest one which defines the boundary between $\nu =1$ and the insulator floats up, also in agreement with an earlier experiment[@jiang].
The scan curve A in Fig. 1(c) connects insulating regimes at two ends. Let us first focus on the insulating region I which has a boundary neighboring with the high-plateau QH states. Fig. 2 shows the calculated $\rho _{xx}$ and $\rho _{xy}$ versus $n_\nu $ at fixed $W$ \[parallel to the scan line B illustrated in Fig. 1(c)\]. The prominent feature in this region is that $\rho _{xy}$ follows the classic behavior (the dashed curve in Fig. 2 denotes $\frac 1{n_\nu }\frac h{e^2}=\frac B{nec}$): In Fig. 2(a), the magnetic filed is fixed at $M=32$ while different disorder strengths are considered. Even though $\rho _{xx}$ in the inset grows with $W$ very quickly, $\rho _{xy}$ is insensitive to disorders and remains close to the classical value at $W=4,5,6$($W_c=3.5$). The finite size effect of $
\rho _{xy}$ is shown in Fig. 2(b) at $M=16$. By increasing the sample length $L$ from $16$ to $64$, one sees that $\rho _{xy}$ converges to the dashed curve (the classic value) very quickly whereas $\rho _{xx}$ keeps increasing monotonically with the sample size. It is noted that both $\sigma _{xx}$ and $\sigma _{xy}$ calculated here are for square samples $L\times L$ using Landauer[@land] and Kubo formula, respectively, and more than $2000$ disorder configurations are taken at $L=64$ and even more at smaller sample sizes.
Such a classic behavior of $\rho_{xy}$ has been extensively observed experimentally[@krav; @song; @hilke2] in weak magnetic field regime. $\rho_{xy}\propto 1/n_{\nu}$ in fact still holds at the critical point between the QH liquid and insulating regime I as previously shown experimentally[@song] and numerically.[@dns1] Since LLs are effectively coupled together at weak field and strong disorders, we believe that this phenomenon reflects the fact that the regime I is basically an Anderson insulator: $\rho_{xy}$ is always unrenormalized and remains at the classic value.[@lee] In other words, the insulator I in Fig. 1(c) should continuously evolve into the well-known Anderson insulator at zero magnetic field without changing the classic behavior of $\rho_{xy}$ while $\rho_{xx}$ is always divergent in the thermodynamic limit at zero temperature.
Now we consider the insulating regime II in Fig. 1(c). Along the scan line C in Fig. 1(c), the results of $\rho_{xx}$ and $\rho_{xy}$ are presented in Fig. 3(a). It shows that $\rho_{xy}$ remains at quantized value $h/e^2$ while $\rho_{xx}$ arises almost an order of magnitude from the critical value at $n_{\nu c}$ into the insulator region. This is in contrast to the aforementioned classic behavior $
\rho_{xy}= \frac 1{n_{\nu}} h/e^2$ in the regime I. Such a quantized $\rho_{xy}$ exists in the whole critical region along the boundary between the $\nu=1$ QH state and the insulator. The open circles in Fig. 1(c) at $W/W_c=1$ lies very close to the boundary of the two insulating regimes as indicated in our numerical calculations (how two regimes exactly cross over will need a more careful study which is beyond the scope of the present paper). It is noted that in the transition region where $\rho_{xy}=h/e^2$ is observed, both $\sigma_{xx}$ and $\sigma_{xy}$ satisfy a one parameter scaling law[@huke], which suggests that it is a consequence related to quantum phase transition.
The experimental results[@hilke2] of $\rho_{xx}$ and $\rho_{xy}$ are presented for comparison in Fig. 3(b). It shows that the range of $n_{\nu}$ for the quantized $\rho_{xy}$ and the corresponding values of $\rho_{xx}$ are very close to our numerical ones. Here the temperature dependence of the experimental data can be translated into the $L$-dependence of our numerical results at $T$=0 through a dephasing length $L_{in}$. To further compare with the experiments[@cole; @diver], the calculated $\rho_{xx}$ as a [*scaling function*]{} of the relative LL filling number $\delta n_{\nu}=n_{\nu}-n_{\nu c}$, i.e., $\rho_{xx}=f(\delta n_{L}/\nu_0)$, is shown in the inset of Fig. 3(a), where $\nu_0=c_0 (L/l_0)^{-1/x}$, $x=2.3$, and $l_0$ is the magnetic length ($c_0$ is a dimensionless constant). The experimental data (from Fig. 3 of Ref.) are also plotted in the inset using the $T$-dependent $\nu_0$ and an excellent agreement over a wide range of the scaling variable: $-2<\delta n_{\nu}/\nu_0<2$ is clearly shown.
Here we note that in some experiments[@shahar] whether the quantum critical regime is reached is still controversial and there is an alternative explanation for the quantized $\rho_{xy}$ regime in which interactions may play[@the1] a crucial role for a non-scaling behavior of the transport coefficients. An important distinction between such an interaction case and the present theory is that in the former case $\rho_{xy}$ is always well quantized in the insulating regime while the quantization of $\rho_{xy}$ in Fig. 3(a) is mainly confined around the critical point $n_{\nu c}$ with $\rho _{xx}<10$ $h/e^2$ and $\rho_{xy}$ eventually will start to distinctly grow with $\rho_{xx}$ as $\rho_{xx}$ further increases[@dns2]. Further experimental measurement in this regime may help to clarify this issue.
Finally, we would like to discuss a key physical distinction between the numerical phase diagram in Fig. 1(c) and the GPD in Fig. 1(a). In the latter case, all the QH boundaries eventually float up to $n_{\nu}\rightarrow\infty$ at $B\rightarrow 0$ with the LL plateau structure in between remaining basically unchanged. But in both the TBM and the experiments, those vertical $\nu>1$ QH boundaries \[see Fig. 1(c)\] do not markedly “float up” in $n_{\nu}$ with increasing $W$ or reducing $B$ such that each LL plateau in between [ *never*]{} floats away: only the width of the $\nu$-th QH plateau is reduced and vanishes eventually at the $\nu \rightarrow 0$ transition boundary. It then results in direct transitions and two insulating regimes in Fig. 1(c). To confirm this picture, we calculate the so-called equilibrium edge current[@pru1] which is proportional to $\partial n/\partial B|_{E_f}$[@exp] ($n$ is the electron density and $E_f$ is the Fermi energy) and is $L$ independent. The results (which are $B$-independent) are present in Fig. 4 in which the peaks determine the centers of QH plateaus[@pru1]. Indeed, such a quantity is continuously reduced with increasing $W$ and eventually diminishes at $W_c$, but its peak positions at $W<W_c$ never move away which clearly indicates that the recovery of a Andersen insulator at strong disorder in the integer QH system is due to the destruction of the plateaus instead of a float-up of the whole QH structure towards $n_{\nu}\rightarrow \infty$.
To summarize, we have determined a numerical phase diagram of the integer QH state for the first time based on the TBM. The topology of such a phase diagram is remarkably similar to the experimental one obtained recently for the QH system. Two kinds of insulating regimes surrounding the QH plateau phase are identified whose transport properties, characterized by the classic and quantized values of the Hall resistance, respectively, are also in good agreement with the experiments. The nature of such a phase diagram can be understood as a continuous narrowing and collapsing of the QH plateaus which are pinned around discrete LL filling numbers without floating away.
[**Acknowledgments**]{} - The authors would like to acknowledge helpful discussions with R. N. Bhatt, S. V. Kravchenko, X.-G. Wen, L. P. Pryadko, A. Auerbach, and especially P. Coleridge and M. Hilke who also provided us their experimental data prior to publication. This work is supported by the State of Texas through ARP Grant No. 3652707 and Texas Center for Superconductivity at University of Houston.
S. Kivelson, D. H. Lee and S. C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. B. [**46**]{}, 2223(1992). S. V. Kravchenko et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{}, 910 (1995); A. A. Shashkin, G. V. Kravchenko, and V. T. Dolgopolov, JETP Lett. [**58**]{}, 220 (1993); V. M. Pudalov et al., Sur. Sci. [**305**]{}, 107 (1994); Physica B [**194**]{}, 1287 (1994). S. -H. Song et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78**]{}, 2200 (1997); D. Shahar et al., Phys. Rev. B ${\bf 52}$, R14372 (1995). C. H. Lee et al., Phys. Rev. B [**58**]{}, 10629 (1998). M. Hilke et al., preprint cond-mat/9906212. For reviews see, The Quantum Hall Effect, edited by R. E. Prange and S. M. Girvin (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1990). R. B. Laughlin, Phys. Rev. Lett. ${\bf 52}$, 2304 (1984); D. E. Khmel’nitzkii, Phys. Lett. ${\bf 106A}$, 182 (1984). M. Hilke et al., Nature ${\bf 395}$, 675(1998). D. Shahar et al., Solid State Commun. ${\bf 107}$, 19 (1998); D. Shahar et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**79**]{}, 479 (1997); D. Shahar et al., Science ${\bf 274}$, 589 (1996); M. Hilke et al., Europhys. Lett. (1999); M. Hilke et al., Phys. Rev. B [**56**]{}, 15545 (1997). D. N. Sheng and Z. Y. Weng, Phys. Rev. Lett. ${\bf 78}$, 318 (1997). D. Z. Liu, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. ${\bf 76}$, 975 (1996); Phys. Rev. B. ${\bf 54}$, 4966 (1996). H. Potempa et al., Physica B ${\bf 256}$, 591 (1998); Y. Hatsugai, K. Ishibashi, and Y. Moritai, preprint cond-mat/9903223. K. Yang and R.N. Bhatt, Phys. Rev. B ${\bf 59}$, 8144 (1999); Phys. Rev. Lett. ${\bf 76}$, 1316 (1996). A. MacKinnon and B. Kramer, Z. Phys. [**53**]{},1 (1983); D. S. Fisher and P. A. Lee, Phys. Rev. B, ${\bf 23}$, 6851 (1981). I. Glozman et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. ${\bf 74}$, 594 (1995). D. N. Sheng and Z. Y. Weng, Phys. Rev. Lett. ${\bf 80}$, 580 (1998). P. A. Lee and T. V. Ramakrishnan, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**57**]{}, 287 (1985). B. Huckestein and B. Kramer, Phys. Rev. Lett. ${\bf 64}$, 1437 (1990); B. Huckestein, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**67**]{}, 357 (1995). P. T. Coleridge and P. Zawadzki, preprint cond-mat/9903246. R.T.F. van Schaijk et al., preprint cond-mat/9812035. E. Shimshoni and A. Auerbach, Phys. Rev. B ${\bf 55}$, 9817 (1997); L. P. Pryadko and A. Auerbach, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**82**]{}, 1253 (1999). D. N. Sheng and Z. Y. Weng, Phys. Rev. B ${\bf 59}$, R7821 (1999). A. M. M. Pruisken in Ref. [@qhe]. $\partial n/\partial B|_{E_f}=\int ^{E_f}
(\rho_b (B+\Delta B)-\rho_b(B))dE/\Delta B$ ($\Delta B << B$) with $\rho_b $ as the bulk density of states, see also Ref. [@pru1].
Fig. 1 The phase diagram in disorder - $1/n_{\nu}$ plane: (a) Theoretic globle phase diagram predicted in Ref.; (b) Experimental one in Ref. [@hilke1] (c) The present numerical result. Note that the scan line A in (c) corresponds to a constant $V_G$ line in (b) (see text).
Fig. 2 Hall resistance $\rho_{xy}$ (in units of $h/e^2$) as a function of $n_{\nu}$ along the scan line B in Fig. 1(c). The dashed curve represents the classic value of $1/n_{\nu}(h/e^2)=B/nec$. (a) $\rho_{xy}$ at different disorder strength $W$’s. The inset: $\rho_{xx}$ vs. $n_{\nu}$. (b) The finite size effect of $\rho_{xy}$.
Fig. 3 (a) The longitudinal resistance $\rho_{xx}$ and Hall resistance $\rho_{xy}$ (in units of $h/e^2$) versus $n_{\nu}$ along the scan line C in Fig. 1(c) at $M=8$. The inset: The scaling function $\rho_{xx}=f(\delta n_{\nu}/\nu_0)$ obtained from the numerical calculation ($+$) and the experimental measurement (Fig. 3 of [@cole])($\bullet$). (b) Experimental data [@hilke2] at different temperatures (note that $\rho_{xx}$ is in units of $\rho_c=1.73 h/e^2$ according to Ref.).
Fig. 4 The equilibrim edge current[@pru1] $\partial n/ \partial B|_{E_f}$ vs. $n_{\nu}$. It indicates that the QH plateaus are pinned at integer ${n_{\nu} }'s$ until their destruction by disorder.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this article we are making an attempt to connect the theory of functions integrable in the unit disk to the problems of steady-state heat transfer in cases when the heat source is inside the disk.'
author:
- 'Ashot Djrbashian, Armen Arakelyan'
title: On Some Nonstandard Heat Transfer Problems
---
Introduction
============
Let $f(z)$ be analytic in the unit disk $D=\{z: |z|<1\}$ and for $0<p<\infty, -1<\alpha<\infty$ $$||f||^p_\alpha=\int_D|f(z)|^p(1-|z|)^\alpha dm_2(z)<\infty,$$ where $dm_2(z)=dxdy$ is the plane Lebesgue measure. Then we say that $f$ belongs to the class $A^p_\alpha=A^p_\alpha(D)$. The theory of $A^p_\alpha$ spaces was established in 1940’s by M.M.Djrbashian (see \[3\] or Djrbashian, Shamoian \[2\]) and by now is one of the most advanced branches of the theory of Banach spaces of analytic functions. The spaces $A^p_\alpha$ are natural generalizations of the theory of Hardy spaces $H^p, 0<p\leq\infty$ which itself was establish in 1910’s by the efforts of multiple mathematicians. In the groundbreaking paper \[3\] M.M.Djrbashian proved the following integral representation formula:
Let $f\in A^p_\alpha, \; 1\leq p<\infty, \; -1<\alpha<\infty$. Then for $z=re^{i\theta}, \; w=\rho e^{i\phi}$ we have the following integral representation: $$f(z)=\frac{1+\alpha}{\pi}\int_0^1\int_{-\pi}^\pi(1-\rho^2)^\alpha\frac{f(\rho e^{i\phi})}{(1-z\rho e^{-i\phi})^{2+\alpha}}\rho d\rho d\phi$$
As we have mentioned above the mathematical theory of these classes is well known for long time and may be found in the monographs Djrbashian, Shamoian \[2\], Hadenmalm, Korenblum, Zhu \[6\], or Duren, Schuster \[5\] (in the special case $\alpha=0$ only). However, unlike the theory of Hardy spaces, as far as we know there are no applications of this theory to concrete physical or engineering problems. In this paper we are doing an attempt to connect the formula (2) in its most basic case to some heat transfer problems. For that purpose we are considering only the simplest case $p=2, \alpha=0$ to make it accessible to widest possible audience of applied mathematicians and engineers with the hope that this approach will promote some additional research. Our idea is that the formula (2) is “too good” to not have useful applications. In some sense we can say, paraphrasing the title of a famous play, that this is “A formula in search of the problem”.
Some integral kernels {#sec:headings}
=====================
In this article we will be dealing with harmonic functions defined in the unit disk $D$. By definition, a function $f(x,y)$ is harmonic if $$\Delta f(x,y)=\frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial x^2}+\frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial y^2}=0.$$ In polar coordinates $x=r\cos\theta, y=r\sin\theta$ the above equation has the form $$\frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial r^2}+\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial f}{\partial r}+\frac{1}{r^2}\frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial\theta^2}=0.$$
Poisson kernel for the unit disk $D$ is the function (in polar coordinates) $$P_r(\theta)=P(r,\theta)=\frac{1-r^2}{1-2r\cos\theta+r^2}.$$ It is a long established fact that this kernel solves the so-called classical Dirichlet problem for Laplace’s equation in the disk: Find a harmonic function $u$ inside the disk that on the boundary $T=\partial D$ has the prescribed continuous values $f$. The solution is just the convolution of that function $f$ and the Poisson kernel: $$u(r,\theta)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^{ \pi}f(\varphi)P_r(\theta-\varphi)d\varphi.$$ This solution in effect says that in order to know the values of any harmonic function inside the disk it is sufficient to know its values on the circle, the boundary of the disk.
In fact this formula extends to much wider class of boundary functions $f(\theta)$ than continuous functions. For example, if $[a,b]\subset [-\pi,\pi]$ and $f$ is the characteristic function of that interval then formula (2) still produces a harmonic function $u$ that has boundary values equal to $f$ (in some more general sense). For our purposes we will assume that $f\in L^2(T)$, the Lebesgue space of square integrable functions on the unit circle. The resulting function $u$ will belong to harmonic Hardy class $h^2$ satisfying the condition
$$\sup_{0\leq r<1}\int_{-\pi}^\pi |f(re^{i\theta})|^2 f\theta<\infty.$$
The Poisson kernel (3) is one of many examples of “reproducing kernels”. Among the most important properties of the Poisson kernel is the fact that $P_r(\theta)\geq0$ and for any $r, 0\leq r<1, \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}P_r(\theta)d\theta=1.$ Below you can see the graph of the kernel $P$ for the values $r=0.5, 0.75,$ and $0.85$.
{width="4in"}
$$Figure \; 1$$
The term reproducing kernel is used to indicate the property of reproducing a given harmonic function from its boundary values. We will return to this discussion a little later when we introduce the next integral kernel for harmonic functions.
All the facts about Poisson kernels and Poisson integrals are so widely known that could be found in virtually any Complex Analysis or PDE textbook. We refer interested reader to the book by Duren \[4\], for example.
Next let us consider a different type of integral kernel and integral representation for harmonic functions in the disc. Here the functions are taken from much wider class satisfying condition
$$\int_{D}|u(x,y|^2dxdy<\infty.$$
Here integration is over the unit disk with respect of regular plane Lebesgue measure and we will denote the class of such functions by $hA^2=hA^2(D)$. It is widely known that unlike harmonic functions from the Hardy class $h^2$ functions from $hA^2$ generally speaking do not have boundary values. That means (again, generally speaking) that no representation with Poisson kernel is possible for functions of the class $hA^2$. For these and many other facts about these classes see, e.g. Djrbashian , Shamoian \[2\] or Axler, Bourdon, Ramey \[1\]. The following theorem was never formulated as a separate result anywhere but can be easily deduced from much more general theorems 1.2 or 7.1 from \[2\].
If $u\in hA^2$ then it has the integral representation $$u(r,\theta)=-u(0)+\frac{2}{\pi}\int_0^1\int_0^{2\pi}u(\rho,\phi)\frac{1-2r\rho\cos(\theta-\phi)+r^2\rho^2\cos2(\theta-\phi)}{(1-2r\rho\cos(\theta-\phi)+r^2\rho^2)^2}d\phi \rho d\rho$$
Even though the kernel function
$$Q(r,\theta)= \frac{1-2r\cos\theta+r^2\cos2\theta}{(1-2r\cos\theta+r^2)^2}$$
does not formally reproduce the function $u(r,\theta)$ (we still need to subtract the value of $u$ at the origin) we will call it reproducing kernel for the space $hA^2$ and in the future disregard the first term in formula (6) unless it is absolutely necessary.
By taking $u(r,\theta)=1, 0\leq r<1, 0\leq\theta<2\pi$ we easily see that
$$\frac{1}{\pi}\int_0^1\int_0^{2\pi}Q(r\rho,\theta-\phi)\rho d\theta d\rho =1$$ for all values of $r, \theta$.
It is also important to notice that in order to “recover” any given harmonic function from that class we need the values of that function on every point in the disk. That is the crucial difference between Poisson representation (4) and representation with the kernel $Q$.
In what follows we will establish some important properties of the kernel function $Q(r,\theta)$. First of all notice that it is not non-negative and that will be demonstrated below with the graph of the function for different values of $r$. However many important properties are still valid here, starting of course with its reproducing kernel property, expressed by the formula (6).
We start with the graphs of the kernel $Q$ for the values $r=0.5, 0.75$
{width="4in"}
$$Figure \; 2$$
As $r$ gets closer to 1 the graph becomes narrower and the peak higher and, not surprisingly, tends to Dirac $\delta$-function. In that sense the $Q$-kernel behaves almost identically with the Poisson kernel except of the fact that it is not non-negative. Before going to differences here we would like to demonstrate more similarities between the two integral representation formulas (4) and (6). Let us consider one of the simplest possible harmonic functions $u=x=r\cos\theta$. The boundary value of this function on the unit circle is obviously $f(\theta)=\cos\theta$ (here and later we write $f(\theta)$ instead of $f(e^{i\theta})$, i.e. we identify the unit circle with the interval $[0,2\pi]$). Because the function $u$ is harmonic we would obviously have $$r\cos\theta=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^{ \pi}\cos\phi \frac{1-r^2}{1-2r\cos(\theta-\phi)+r^2} d\phi$$ and (because $u(0)=0),$ $$r\cos\theta=\frac{2}{\pi}\int_0^1\int_0^{2\pi}\rho\cos\phi\frac{1-2r\rho\cos(\theta-\phi)+r^2\rho^2\cos2(\theta-\phi)}{(1-2r\rho\cos(\theta-\phi)+r^2\rho^2)^2}d\phi \rho d\rho.$$
In other words, formulas (4) and (6) produce (reconstruct) the exact same function. This would be the case any time we use these formulas for functions harmonic in the unit disk. We will demonstrate this fact also graphically below in the case of another simple harmonic function $u(x,y)=x^2-y^2=r^2\cos2\theta$ with the boundary value $f(\theta)=\cos2\theta$.
{width="6in"}
$$Figure \; 3$$
As it is clearly seen the graphs match perfectly not just in shape and form but also numerically.[^1]
Next we will start concentrating on essential differences between these two integral representations and in order to do that we will need some more general results about the kernel $Q$ and the integral formula (6). For that purpose it is convenient to consider an integral operator
$$Tf(r,\theta)=\int_D f(\rho,\phi)Q(r\rho,\theta-\phi)\rho d\rho d\phi$$
where the function $f$ belongs to the Lebesgue space $L^2=L^2(D, dxdy).$ Then the following result is a very special case of the Theorem 7.3 from \[2\]:
The operator $T$ is a bounded projection from $L^2$ to $hA^2$ and the norm of this operator is $\leq1$: $||Tf||_{hA^2}\leq||f||_{L^2}$
This means, in particular, that for any square integrable function $f$ (harmonic or not) the result of its convolution with the kernel $Q$ is a harmonic function which belongs to the class $hA^2$. Calculating integral (8) for non-harmonic functions explicitly is very difficult except when $f$ is a polynomial. For a software allowing to do it symbolically using Mathematca see \[1\]. For any other types of functions, especially non-continuous functions, it is basically impossible. In this article we, for the first time, have collected a number of cases where we have calculated this integral numerically and graphed them.
Our first example will be the $Q$-integral of the characteristic function of the disk with radius $r=1/4$ centered at the origin. $$\int_0^{1/4}\int_0^{2\pi}Q(r\rho,\theta-\phi)\rho d\phi d\rho.$$ The output function is depicted below:
{width="4in"}
$$Figure \;4$$
The height of the disk is about $\pi/16\approx 0.193.$ This result seems a little surprising but makes sense because the resulting function should be harmonic and also makes sense from a physical point of view. We will return to this issue later in the next section.
In the next two examples we first calculate the $Q$-integral of the characteristic function of the polar rectangle $[1/4,1/2]\times[0,\pi/4]$ $$\int_{1/4}^{1/2}\int_0^{\pi/4}Q(r\rho,\theta-\phi)\rho d\phi d\rho.$$ and the next graph is the $Q$-integral of the above characteristic function plus the characteristic function of the polar rectangle $[0.6,0.8]\times[5\pi/6, \pi]$: $$\int_{1/4}^{1/2}\int_0^{\pi/4}Q(r\rho,\theta-\phi)\rho d\phi d\rho+ \int_{0.6}^{0.8}\int_{5\pi/6}^{\pi}Q(r\rho,\theta-\phi)\rho d\phi d\rho.$$ The graphs are presented below side by side for comparison.
{width="6in"}
$$Figure \; 5$$
By Theorem 2 both functions are clearly harmonic. It is also obvious from comparison that the second function has more “mass” because the input is bigger. If the highest point of the first function is just about 0.17 then for the second one it is about 0.5.
Our next example is a function that goes to infinity near the boundary of the unit disk. The function $$f(r,\theta)=\frac{\cos\theta}{(1-r)^{1/4}}$$ is not harmonic but clearly belongs to $L^2(D)$. We take the $Q$-transform of that function multiplied by the characteristic function of the “rectangle” $[3/4,1]\times[-\pi/6,\pi/6]$: $$\int_{3/4}^1\int_{-\pi/6}^{\pi/6}\frac{\cos\phi}{(1-\rho)^{1/4}}Q(r\rho,\theta-\phi)\rho d\phi d\rho.$$
{width="4in"}
$$Figure \; 6$$
The resulting function grows near the point $\theta=0$ and the picture is necessarily cut off because of that.
And in our final example we would like to show the behaviour of the $Q$-transform of another $L^2$ function going to infinity near the boundary which is the combination of the previous integral and a similar function that tends to $-\infty$ on the opposite side of the disk:
$$\int_{3/4}^1\int_{-\pi/6}^{\pi/6}\frac{\cos\phi}{(1-\rho)^{1/4}}Q(r\rho,\theta-\phi)\rho d\phi d\rho+\int_{7/8}^1\int_{5\pi/6}^{\pi}\frac{\cos\phi}{(1-\rho)^{3/8}}Q(r\rho,\theta-\phi)\rho d\phi d\rho.$$
You can see from the figure bellow that the behaviour of this graph almost completely matches the behaviour of the previous one near $\theta=0$. On the other hand on around the interval $[5\pi/6,\pi]$ it has the complete opposite behaviour. As in the previous graph we had to cut off the graph to allow the program work.
{width="4in"}
$$Figure \; 7$$
The steady-state heat equation
==============================
Let us return to the classical Dirichlet problem for the Laplace’s equation in the disk discussed at the beginning of the previous section: $$\Delta u=0, \quad u|_{T}=f,$$ where $f\in C(T)$. As we have mentioned earlier the solution to this boundary problem is given by the Poisson integral $$u(r,\theta)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}f(\phi)\frac{1-r^2}{1-2r\cos(\theta-\phi)+r^2}d\phi.$$ However, the formula (11) is valid for much larger class of functions $f(\theta)$ but we restricted our interest to the case $f\in L^2(T)$ to avoid discussion of fine properties of harmonic functions at the boundary. Among other things the boundary problem (10) solves the following “steady-state” (or time independent) heat transfer problem: Assume that we establish and maintain certain temperature on the unit circle which is described by the function $f(\theta)$. How the temperature will be distributed at each point of the disk. Formula (11) gives exact answer to that question. It is also important to remind that the resulting function $u(r,\theta)$ is harmonic and, in particular, satisfies the minimum and maximum principles for harmonic functions: Function $u$ can reach its maximum or minimum values only on the boundary or that function is constant.
Even though the results described above (and even their very far reaching generalizations) are known for a very long time we find it useful to provide some illustrations of behaviour of solutions of the boundary problem (10).
In our first example the function $f$ is just the characteristic function of the integral $[-\pi/6,\pi/6]$ (otherwise called the harmonic measure of that interval):
$$u(r,\theta)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi/6}^{\pi/6}\frac{1-r^2}{1-2r\cos(\theta-\phi)+r^2}d\phi$$
{width="4in"}
$$Figure \; 8$$
As we clearly see the resulting function reaches its maximum value 1 on some interval around $\theta=0$ and is zero on the compliment of that interval. Disregarding some complications at the end points $\pm \pi/6$ inside the disk the resulting function is clearly harmonic.
Now let us consider a different physical problem. Suppose we are heating not just boundary (or part) of the disk but a whole layer close to the boundary. For example, that might be a polar rectangle of the width 0.1 $R=[0.9,1]\times[-\pi/6,\pi/6]$. It is obvious that the Poisson formula (11) will not work in this case. It is also clear from physical considerations that the difference should not be crucial. So, let us see if the $Q$-transform can do the job here. In other words, let us calculate and graph the function $$\frac{2}{\pi}\int_{0.9}^1\int_{-\pi/6}^{\pi/6}\frac{1-2r\rho\cos(\theta-\phi)+r^2\rho^2\cos2(\theta-\phi)}{(1-2r\rho\cos(\theta-\phi)+r^2\rho^2)^2}d\phi \rho d\rho.$$
The resulting function is depicted in the graph below from two different angles:
{width="5in"}
$$Figure \; 9$$
Let us now compare the form and numeric values of functions in Figures 8 and 9. First of all we notice that the shape of the graphs are almost identical away from “critical” rectangle $R$. However, the numeric values of the $Q$-integral are just about half of the Poisson integral. When we approach to the rectangle $R$ differences are becoming even more significant and near the very edge a big drop in values happens: at some small parts in $R$ the values even become negative. That is clearly visible in the right-hand side picture in Figure 9.
So, the first conclusion seems to be that this approach to the solution of the “non-standard” problem is unlikely to be given by the integral (12). However, let us continue with more examples and compare the resulting graphs.In our second example the function $f$ in (11) is $|\theta|$ and we present it in two different views:
{width="6in"}
$$Figure \; 10$$
Next we will try to pose the corresponding question similar to the previous case. Suppose a whole layer of the disk $D$ is heated with the width 0.1, say. What will be the heat distribution throughout the whole disk. Let us try again to use the $Q$-transform:
$$\frac{2}{\pi}\int_{0.9}^1\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}\frac{1-2r\rho\cos(\theta-\phi)+r^2\rho^2\cos2(\theta-\phi)}{(1-2r\rho\cos(\theta-\phi)+r^2\rho^2)^2}|\phi|\rho^2d\phi d\rho.$$
The resulting graphs are below:
{width="6in"}
$$Figure \; 11$$
Comparison of Figures 10 and 11 gives us a much better match. The graphs are clearly very similar (although certainly not identical). The numeric values in the second case are again roughly the half of the first one.
Generally speaking, when comparing Poisson integrals of certain functions on the unit circle and $Q$-transforms of corresponding functions on a narrow strip about the circle we see that sometimes there are substantial differences and in many other cases general similarities in shapes of corresponding graphs. In both situations, of course, numerically they are different but seems that follow the same pattern: Poisson integrals (at least for positive functions) are greater than the $Q$-transforms. To confirm this assertion we will present some more examples. In the next graph we put next to each other Poisson integral of the function $f(\theta)=\theta^2$ on interval $[-\pi/6,\pi/6]$ and the $Q$-integral of the corresponding function $f(r,\theta)=r\theta^2$ on rectangle $[0.9,1]\times[-\pi/6,\pi/6]$: $$\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi/6}^{\pi/6}P_r(\theta-\phi)\phi^2 d\phi, \quad \frac{2}{\pi}\int_{0.9}^1\int_{-\pi/6}^{\pi/6} Q(r\rho, \theta-\phi)\phi^2\rho^2 d\phi d\rho$$ The resulting graphs are below:
{width="6in"}
$$Figure \; 12$$
Here we clearly see the similarities of the behaviour of both harmonic functions and the differences in numeric values. We can see a very similar pattern also in the next example where we have taken the Poisson integral of the function $\sin\theta$ over interval $[0,\pi$ and the $Q$-transform of the corresponding function $r\sin\theta$ over the rectangle $[0.9,1]\times[0,\pi]$:
$$\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_0^{\pi}P_r(\theta-\phi)\sin\phi d\phi, \quad \frac{2}{\pi}\int_{0.9}^1\int_0^{\pi} Q(r\rho, \theta-\phi)\sin\phi\rho^2 d\phi d\rho$$
{width="6in"}
$$Figure \; 13$$
And again we see pretty similar pattern except the fact that the second function takes some negative values too near the critical points $\theta=0, \pi.$
Our last example in this part is a function with integrable singularity, namely the logarithmic function:
$$\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_0^{\pi}P_r(\theta-\phi)|\ln|\phi|| d\phi, \quad \frac{2}{\pi}\int_{0.9}^1\int_0^{\pi} Q(r\rho, \theta-\phi)|\ln|\phi||\rho^2 d\phi d\rho$$ and the graphs below again show a similar pattern as in the previous examples:
{width="6in"}
$$Figure \; 14$$
At this point we would like to return to some examples from Section 2. In these examples comparison with Poisson integrals is no longer possible because the functions we have used there were supported inside the disk either completely or had significant “mass” inside the unit disk.
Let us look back at the integral (9) and the corresponding graph in Figure 4 first. Then we can see that the result conforms (at least in general terms) with physical intuition. Really, in that integral if we view the characteristic function of the disk $r\leq 1/4$ as a source of heat of “intensity” one, then the common sense tells us that eventually the heat will be spread uniformly throughout the whole disk $r\leq1$ but the temperature will be lower than initial temperature 1. Pay attention that in this case it would be impossible to apply Poisson integral to come to the same conclusion.
We will come to similar conclusions if we look at integrals that resulted in graphs depicted in Figures 5, 6, and 7. It could be claimed with reasonable certainty that these graphs represent the heat distribution in the disk with the corresponding “heat sources”.
We would like to add one more example along these lines. The function which we view as a heat source is $f(r,\theta)=10e^{-10(r-0.5)^2}\cos\theta$ restricted to the “rectangle” $[0.3,0.7]\times[-\pi/6,\pi/6]$. This function is supported inside the disk and, again, cannot be handled with Poisson integral. The resulting graph represents a harmonic function that has growth tendency in the direction of the boundary where the presumed heat source is concentrated. We present below that graph along with the function $f(r,\theta)$ to the right.
{width="6in"}
$$Figure \; 15$$
Based on all the previous examples we would like to formulate a plausible conjecture:\
**Conjecture** [*Suppose a metallic disk is getting heated by a source described by the function $f(r,\theta)$. Then the steady-state heat distribution through the disk, assuming there are no outside factors, is given by the integral (8) modulo a multiplicative constant depending on physical properties of the disk.*]{}\
Mathematical proof seems to be elusive at this juncture but it could be confirmed or rejected also experimentally.\
CONCLUDING REMARK. The coding, numeric calculations, and graphing part of this article was done completely by the second author who is a student at Glendale Community College.\
REFERENCES\
1. S.Axler , P. Bourdon, W.Ramey, “Harmonic Function Theory”, Springer Verlag, New York, Berlin, 1992\
2. A.Djrbashian, F.Shamoian, “Topics in the Theory $A_\alpha^p$ Spaces”, Teubner Verlag, Leipzig, 1988\
3. M.M.Djrbashian, “On the problem of representing analytic functions”, Soobshch. Inst.Math. Mech.Acad.Nauk Arm.SSR, N2(1948), 3-40.\
4. P.L.Duren, “Theory of $H^p$ Spaces”, Academic Press 1970\
5. P.L.Duren, A.Schuster, “Bergman Spaces”, AMS, Providence RI, 2004\
6. H.Hadenmalm, B.Korenblum, K.Zhu, “Theory of Bergman Spaces”, Springer Verlag, New York, Berlin, 2000\
Ashot Djrbashian
Glendale Community College, Glendale CA
E-mail: [email protected]
Armen Arakelyan
Glendale Community College, Glendale, CA
E-mail: [email protected]
[^1]: Numeric outputs for these and all the following graphs are available upon request by writing to the first author
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
In the design of incentive compatible mechanisms, a common approach is to enforce incentive compatibility as constraints in programs that optimize over feasible mechanisms. Such constraints are often imposed on sparsified representations of the type spaces, such as their discretizations or samples, in order for the program to be manageable. In this work, we explore limitations of this approach, by studying whether all dominant strategy incentive compatible mechanisms on a set $T$ of discrete types can be extended to the convex hull of $T$.
Dobzinski, Fu and Kleinberg (2015) answered the question affirmatively for all settings where types are single dimensional. It is not difficult to show that the same holds when the set of feasible outcomes is downward closed. In this work we show that the question has a negative answer for certain non-downward-closed settings with multi-dimensional types. This result should call for caution in the use of the said approach to enforcing incentive compatibility beyond single-dimensional preferences and downward closed feasible outcomes.
author:
- 'Submission Number: 9394'
- |
Taylor Lundy and Hu Fu\
University of British Columbia\
[email protected], [email protected]\
bibliography:
- 'ref.bib'
date: May 2019
title: Limitations of Incentive Compatibility on Discrete Type Spaces
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Mechanism design studies optimization problems with private inputs from strategic agents. An agent’s input, known as her *type*, is her private information including her valuation for the social outcomes, which are to be decided upon by the mechanism. A mechanism needs to solicit such information to achieve certain goals, e.g. maximizing welfare, revenue, surplus or fairness measures. It needs to provide its participants with correct incentives, via both social outcomes and payments, so that the agents find it in their best interests to reveal their types.
Dominant strategy incentive compatibility (DSIC) is one of the strongest and most widely used solution concepts that guarantee such incentives. Under DSIC, every participant, no matter what type she possesses and no matter what types the other participants report to the mechanism, will maximize her utility by revealing her true type. Not only is this a strong guarantee for the mechanism designer that true information should be reported and optimized over, it also alleviates the burden of strategizing from the participating agents — telling truth is a dominant strategy regardless of the other agents’ types or strategies. Partly thanks to this strong incentive guarantee, the two fundamental auctions, namely, the VCG auction that maximizes social welfare [@Vic61; @Clarke71; @Groves73], and Myerson’s auction that maximizes expected revenue for selling a single item [@Myerson81], have been foundational in both the theory and practice of mechanism design.
As the scope of mechanism design expands beyond the classical settings, incentive compatible mechanisms that are optimal for various objective often lack the simple structures that characterize the VCG and Myerson’s mechanisms. By and large, there have been two approaches to the design of incentive compatible mechanisms. The first approach focuses on classes of mechanisms that, by their simple structures, have obvious incentive guarantees. For example, in a multi-item auction, a sequential pricing mechanism puts prices on items and asks each agent in turn to choose her favorite items that remain; the bidders are not asked about their values, and choosing utility-maximizing items (according to their true values) is the obvious strategy to adopt (see, e.g., [@CHMS10]; [@CMS10]; [@FGL15]). Another example is to optimize over parameterized “VCG-like” mechanisms which inherit incentive properties from the VCG mechanism (e.g. [@sandholm2015automated]). This approach is often used to search for mechanisms whose performance is a factor away from being optimal, since the optimal mechanism or its very close approximations are often not within the class of mechanisms being searched over.
The second approach forgoes structures that are easily interpretable, and exhaustively searches for the optimal mechanism. This is exemplified by solving mathematical programs (typically linear or convex programs) whose feasible regions contain the set of all incentive compatible mechanisms (see, e.g. [@conitzer2002complexity]; [@DFK15]; [@DDT17];[@FH18]). Typically, incentive requirements are hardwired as constraints in such programs.
Difficulty arises in the second approach when one would like to adopt strong incentive guarantees such as DSIC, which need at least one constraint per profile of types to specify. When the space of possible types is a continuum, this gives rise to uncountably many constraints. While this does not always make the program impossible to solve it considerably complicates the task. One way to work around this is to discretize the type space and only impose incentive compatible (IC) constraints on the set of discrete types used to represent the type space. Discretization is also embodied in the idea of a given prior distribution over a set of discrete types, on which the optimization can then be based (e.g. [@conitzer2002complexity]; [@DFK15]). The most common motivation for such prior distributions is that they naturally result from samples (e.g. from past observations or market research) from an underlying distribution, whereas the true distribution may be supported on a continuum of types. This approach motivates the question we study in this work.
#### Questions we study.
In this work we aim to answer the question: when one has a mechanism that is DSIC on a discretized subset of a type space, can one always find a mechanism that has the same behavior on the subset and yet is DSIC on the whole type space? To make the question more concrete, we study the natural case where the whole type space is the convex hull of the discrete subset. To make the presentation easier, in the following we denote by $\typespaces$ the discrete subset of types, and $\operatorname{Conv}(\typespaces)$ its convex hull.
We consider the question a fundamental one for the second approach to mechanism design that we described above. When one optimizes for a mechanism with IC constraints imposed only on $\typespaces$, if the resulting mechanism cannot be *extended* to the original type space, it loses incentive guarantees when put to use.
One objection may be that, given a mechanism that is DSIC on $\typespaces$, one may always run it on $\operatorname{Conv}(\typespaces)$, by restricting the “bidding language”, so that a type in $\operatorname{Conv}(\typespaces)$ but not in $\typespaces$ has to report a type in $\typespaces$. Such mechanisms, however, may lose the incentive guarantee which makes DSIC mechanisms attractive in the first place. Unless one can show that agents with types not in $\typespaces$ have a dominant strategy in such mechanisms, such agents need to strategize over which types in $\typespaces$ to report, depending on the types and strategies of their opponents. In the scenario where $\typespaces$ is a set of samples from a continuous distribution, the vast majority of types may not be in $\typespaces$ and have no incentive guarantee, which is clearly undesirable. In settings where the agents’ types are single dimensional, @DFK15 showed that “restricting the bidding language” does turn any mechanism DSIC on $\typespaces$ into a mechanism DSIC on any superset of $\typespaces$: each type in the superset has a dominant strategy, and by the revelation principle this gives rise to a DSIC mechanism that extends the given mechanism’s behavior on $\typespaces$. To the best of our knowledge, no such guarantees are known beyond single dimensional settings.
#### Our Results.
For agents with multi-dimensional types, we first give a condition under which any DSIC mechanism on $\typespaces$ can be extended to a DSIC mechanism on $\operatorname{Conv}(\typespaces)$, via an argument that is different from @DFK15’s yet still straightforward (Theorem \[thm:swap\]). In particular, the condition is satisfied whenever the set of feasible outcomes is *downward closed* (Theorem \[thm:downward\]).
Our main result, however, is a construction of a set $\typespaces$ of multi-dimensional types and a DSIC mechanism on it, for which we show that no DSIC mechanism on $\operatorname{Conv}(\typespaces)$ can output the same social outcomes on types in $\typespaces$. The impossibility result stands even if the extension mechanism is allowed to be randomized. This shows that, without conditions such as single-dimensional types or downward closed set of feasible outcomes, designing incentive compatible mechanisms by focusing on a discrete subset of types can be a questionable approach to designing mechanisms for the whole type space — there may not be any mechanism DSIC on the whole type space which behave the same way on the subset.
Near the end, we give a multi-dimensional setting where the expected *revenue* of a mechanism with only correct incentives for a set $\typespace$ of types can be unboundedly more than the revenue of a mechanism for $\operatorname{Conv}(\typespace)$. This example is much less involved than our main result, because revenue optimal mechanisms are meaningful only when they do not overcharge any reported type and guarantee non-negative utility. This constraint can be much more stringent when imposed for all types in $\operatorname{Conv}(\typespace)$ than for $\typespace$ only.
Related Works {#sec:related}
-------------
For multi-dimensional preferences, an allocation rule for any fixed agent is implementable if and only if it satisfies the so-called *cyclic monotonicity* property [@Rochet87]. When the type space is convex, it turns out the weaker condition of *weak monotonicity* suffices for implementability [@SY05; @AK14]. It is notable that the two solution concepts we compare in Section \[sec:mapping\] precisely correspond to the case where the type space is convex and that where it is not. However, nowhere in our arguments do we make use of this beautiful fact.
Another closely related body of work, is the literature on automated mechanism design. In automated mechanism design, mechanisms are optimized for the setting and objective automatically using information about agents’ type distributions. When this work was introduced by @conitzer2002complexity the input for this problem was an explicit description of the agents distributions, however recent work has moved towards replacing this explicit description with samples from the agents type distribution [@likhodedov2004methods; @likhodedov2005approximating; @sandholm2015automated]. Our work highlights how interpolating between discrete samples can effect not only the objective but the implementablility of the mechanism itself. Luckily, the research on sample based automated mechanism design is able to avoid the pitfalls of only having discrete samples. They do this either by optimizing over parameterized families of mechanisms which are guaranteed to be implementable on the entire typespace or by working in settings where the addition of new types has no effect on the objective (i.e. downward closed settings, see )[@sandholm2015automated; @guo2010computationally; @balcan2018; @morgenstern2016learning]. However, our work points out some difficulties that might arise if one wishes to take a more general, non-parameterized approach to automated mechanism design in settings which are not downward closed.
There are a variety of well-studied settings that are not downward closed in which extending a type space to its the convex hull could cause problems. One commonly studied not downward closed setting arises from the job scheduling problem introduced in @nisan2001algorithmic and later built upon by @schedule2 and @ashlagi2012optimal. since in this problem every job must eventually be scheduled and the set of feasible solutions is not downward closed. Another example of a non-downward closed setting is one-sided matching markets in which every agent must be matched with exactly one good. An example of a one-sided matching market is the fair housing allocation studied by @matchmarket. Finally, the facility location problem from @devanur2005strategyproof also not downward closed.
Preliminaries {#sec:prelim}
=============
We consider a setting with $N$ agents where each agent $i$ has a private type $\typei$ from her type space $\typespacei \subseteq \mathbb R_+^m$. The type profile $\types = (\typei[1], \ldots, \typei[N])$ denotes the vector of all agents’ types, from the joint type space $\typespaces \coloneqq \prod_i \typespacei$.
We adopt the standard shorthand notation to write $\typesmi \coloneqq (\type_{1}, \ldots, \type_{i-1}, \type_{i+1}, \ldots, \type_{n})$ from $\typespacesmi \coloneqq \prod_{j \neq i} \typespace_{j}$.
An outcome (or, interchangeably, allocation) for agent $i$ lies in $\mathbb R_+^m$; for an outcome $\alloci$, the agent with type $\typei$ has value $\langle \typei, \alloci \rangle = \sum_{j = 1}^m \type_{ij} \alloc_{ij}$. A social outcome is denoted by a vector $(\alloci[1], \ldots, \alloci[N]) \in \mathbb R_+^{mN}$. The set of all feasible social outcomes (or allocations) is denoted ${\mathscr{F}}\subseteq \mathbb R_+^{mN}$.
For example, in a single-item auction, $m = 1$, each $\typei \in \mathbb R_+$ represents agent $i$’s value for the item, and ${\mathscr{F}}\subseteq \mathbb R_+^N$ is the all zero vector (representing not selling) and the $N$ standard bases (each representing selling to a corresponding agent). As another example, in a $m$-unit auction with unit-demand buyers, ${\mathscr{F}}\subseteq \mathbb R_+^{N}$ is the set of all integral points in $\{(\alloci[1], \ldots, \alloci[N]) \in \mathbb R_+^{mN} \mid \sum_{i = 1}^N \alloci[ij] \leq 1, j = 1, 2, \ldots, m\}$.
#### Mechanisms.
A (direct revelation) mechanism consists of an *allocation rule* $\allocs: \typespaces \to {\mathscr{F}}$ and a *payment rule* $\pays: \typespaces \to \mathbb R_+^N$. The mechanism elicits type reports from the agents, and on reported type profile $\types$, decides on an allocation $\allocs(\types) \in {\mathscr{F}}$, with each agent $i$ making a payment of $\payi(\types)$. In general, allocation rules can be randomized, in which case $\allocs(\types)$ is a randomized variable supported on ${\mathscr{F}}$. $\allocs(\cdot)$ induces allocation rule $\alloci(\cdot)$ for each agent $i$: for all $\types$, $\alloci(\types) \in \mathbb R_+^m$ is the vector consisting of the $[(i-1)m + 1]$-st to the $im$-th coordinates in $\allocs(\types)$. When $\allocs(\types)$ is a random variable, so are $\alloci(\types)$’s.
When $\allocs(\types)$ is deterministic, we write $\allocs(\types) = \mathbf{y} \in {\mathscr{F}}$ as a shorthand for ${\operatorname{\mathbf{Pr}}_{}{{\mathchoice{ \left [ \allocs(\types) = \mathbf y \right ]}{[ \allocs(\types) = \mathbf y ]}{[ \allocs(\types) = \mathbf y ]}{[ \allocs(\types) = \mathbf y ]} }}} = 1$.
Agents have quasi-linear utilities, that is, when reporting type $\typei'$, agent $i$’s utility is ${\operatorname{\mathbf E}_{}{{\mathchoice{ \left [ \langle \typei, \alloci(\typei', \typesmi) \rangle \right ]}{[ \langle \typei, \alloci(\typei', \typesmi) \rangle ]}{[ \langle \typei, \alloci(\typei', \typesmi) \rangle ]}{[ \langle \typei, \alloci(\typei', \typesmi) \rangle ]} }}} - \payi(\typei', \typesmi)$ (where the expectation is taken over the randomness in $\allocs(\types)$.
A mechanism is *dominant strategy incentive compatible* (DSIC) if, for all $\types \in \typespaces$, and for all $\typei' \in \typespacei$, ${\operatorname{\mathbf E}_{}{{\mathchoice{ \left [ \langle \typei, \alloc_{i}(\typei, \typesmi) \rangle \right ]}{[ \langle \typei, \alloc_{i}(\typei, \typesmi) \rangle ]}{[ \langle \typei, \alloc_{i}(\typei, \typesmi) \rangle ]}{[ \langle \typei, \alloc_{i}(\typei, \typesmi) \rangle ]} }}} - \payi(\typei, \typesmi) \geq {\operatorname{\mathbf E}_{}{{\mathchoice{ \left [ \langle \typei, \alloc_{i}(\typei', \typesmi) \rangle \right ]}{[ \langle \typei, \alloc_{i}(\typei', \typesmi) \rangle ]}{[ \langle \typei, \alloc_{i}(\typei', \typesmi) \rangle ]}{[ \langle \typei, \alloc_{i}(\typei', \typesmi) \rangle ]} }}} - \payi(\typei', \typesmi)$. An allocation rule $\allocs$ is said to be DSIC implementable or simply DSIC if there is a payment rule $\pays$ such that $(\allocs, \pays)$ is a DSIC mechanism. In this case, we say $\allocs$ is implemented by payment rule $\pays$.
#### Extensions.
Given a subset $S \subseteq \mathbb R^n$, we denote by $\operatorname{Conv}(S)$ the convex hull of $S$.
\[def:extension\] An allocation rule $\extallocs: \operatorname{Conv}(\typespaces) \to {\mathscr{F}}$ is an *extension* of an allocation rule $\allocs: \typespaces \to {\mathscr{F}}$ if for all $\types \in \typespaces$, $\extallocs(\types)$ has the same distribution as $\allocs(\types)$. Similarly, a payment rule $\extpays: \operatorname{Conv}(\typespaces) \to \mathbb R_+^N$ is an extension of payment rule $\pays: \typespaces \to \mathbb R_+^N$ if for all $\types \in \typespaces$, $\extpays(\types) = \pays(\types)$.
In Definition \[def:extension\], if $\allocs(\cdot)$ is deterministic, then $\extallocs(\cdot)$ being an extension simply means $\extallocs(\types) = \allocs(\types)$ for all $\types \in \typespaces$.
#### Downward closed settings.
The feasible allocation set ${\mathscr{F}}$ is *downward closed* if $\mathbf y \in {\mathscr{F}}$ entails $\allocs \in {\mathscr{F}}$ for all $\allocs \preceq \mathbf y$, where $\allocs \preceq \mathbf y$ denotes $\alloci[j] \leq y_j$ for $j = 1, \cdots, mN$.
#### Weak monotonicity.
A well-known necessary condition for an allocation rule to be DSIC implementable is weak monotonicity:
An allocation rule $\allocs: \typespaces \to {\mathscr{F}}$ is *weakly monotone* if for each agent $i$, any $\typei, \typei' \in \typespacei$ and $\typesmi \in \typespacesmi$, $$\begin{aligned}
{\operatorname{\mathbf E}_{}{{\mathchoice{ \left [ \langle \typei - \typei', \alloci(\typei,\typesmi) - \alloci(\typei', \typesmi) \rangle \right ]}{[ \langle \typei - \typei', \alloci(\typei,\typesmi) - \alloci(\typei', \typesmi) \rangle ]}{[ \langle \typei - \typei', \alloci(\typei,\typesmi) - \alloci(\typei', \typesmi) \rangle ]}{[ \langle \typei - \typei', \alloci(\typei,\typesmi) - \alloci(\typei', \typesmi) \rangle ]} }}} \geq 0.
\end{aligned}$$
An allocation rule is implementable only if it is weakly monotone.
In fact, @SY05 showed that, if $\typespaces$ is convex, then weak monotonicity is also a sufficient condition for DSIC implementability.
#### Revenue.
A mechanism $(\allocs, \pays)$ is ex post *individually rational* (IR) if for each agent $i$ and for every $\types \in \typespaces$, $\langle \typei, \alloc_{i}(\types) \rangle - \payi(\types) \geq 0$.
Given a distribution $D$ on $\typespaces$ and a mechanism $(\allocs, \pays)$ that is DSIC and ex post IR, the *expected revenue* of the mechanism is ${\operatorname{\mathbf E}_{\types \sim D}{{\mathchoice{ \left [ \sum_i \payi(\types) \right ]}{[ \sum_i \payi(\types) ]}{[ \sum_i \payi(\types) ]}{[ \sum_i \payi(\types) ]} }}}$. The *optimal* revenue is the maximum expected revenue achievable among all DSIC, ex post IR mechanisms.
DSIC Convex Extensions {#sec:map}
======================
\[sec:mapping\] Before presenting our main result on the impossibility to extend DSIC allocation rules, we first complement @DFK15’s result in single-dimensional setting with a simple observation in multi-dimensional preference settings: whenever the feasible allocation space is downward closed, any DSIC allocation rule on a type space can be extended to its convex hull by another DSIC allocation rule.
\[thm:downward\] If the set of feasible allocations ${\mathscr{F}}$ is downward closed, for any DSIC allocation rule $\allocs$ on a type space $\typespaces$, there is a DSIC extension $\extallocs$ of $\allocs$ on $\operatorname{Conv}(\typespaces)$. If $\allocs$ is implemented with a payment rule $\pays$, $\extallocs$ can be implemented by an extension $\extpays$ of $\pays$. If $\pays$ is individually rational on $\typespaces$, so is $\extpays$ on $\operatorname{Conv}(\typespaces)$.
If we do not require the statement about individual rationality, extensibility is guaranteed by an even weaker condition, which we call *single swap feasible*.
A feasible allocation set ${\mathscr{F}}$ is *single swap feasible* (SSF) if for every agent $i$ there exists an allocation ${\boldsymbol{x}^{\mathrm{ssf}}}(i) \in {\mathscr{F}}$ such that for any $\allocs' \in {\mathscr{F}}$, $(\alloci',{\boldsymbol{x}^{\mathrm{ssf}}}_{-i}(i)) \in {\mathscr{F}}$.
Intuitively, ${\boldsymbol{x}^{\mathrm{ssf}}}(i)$ is a feasible allocation vector such that if we replace the $i^{\text{th}}$ element of this vector with the $i^{\text{th}}$ element from any other feasible allocation the resulting allocation is still feasible. If ${\mathscr{F}}$ is a product space or is downward closed, it must be SSF. [^1]
\[thm:swap\] If the set of feasible allocations ${\mathscr{F}}$ is SSF, any DSIC allocation rule $\allocs$ on a type space $\typespaces$, there is a DSIC extension $\extallocs$ of $\allocs$ on $\operatorname{Conv}(\typespaces)$.
The proofs for both and can be found in the supplementary materials. The main result of this paper is that without this condition a DSIC extension may not exist.
\[thm:rand\] There is a two agent type space $\randtypespaces$ with a DSIC allocation rule $\randallocs$, such that $\randallocs$ cannot be extended by a DSIC allocation rule to $\operatorname{Conv}(\randtypespaces)$.
We prove the theorem in two steps. We first present a setting with three-dimensional preferences for which we show the non-existence of *deterministic* extensions. We then build on the construction, lifting it to a higher dimension, where we strengthen the argument and show the non-existence of extensions that even allow randomization.
Non-existence of deterministic extensions
-----------------------------------------
We first present type space $\dettypespaces = \dettypespacei[1] \times \dettypespacei[2]$ and the allocation rule $\detallocs$, and then show that $\detallocs$ is DSIC and yet cannot be extended by any deterministic DSIC allocation rule on $\operatorname{Conv}(\dettypespaces)$.
The two agents have identical type spaces: for $i = 1, 2$, $\dettypespacei = \dettypespace \coloneqq \{A = [1, 0, 0], B = [0, 1, 0], C = [0, 0, 1], D = [\tfrac 1 3, \tfrac 1 3, \tfrac 1 3]\}$. A visual representation of this typespace and its convex hull can be found in figure 1 in the supplementary materials.
The allocation rule $\detallocs$ is also symmetric, in the sense that $\detalloci[1](\typei[1], \typei[2]) = \detalloci[2](\typei[2], \typei[1])$ for any $\typei[1], \typei[2] \in \dettypespace$. We summarize $\detalloci[1]$ with the diagram below. The rows are indexed by agent $1$’s own type $V_1$, and the columns by agent $2$’s type $V_2$: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{blockarray}{c cccc}
& A & B & C & D \\
\begin{block}{c(cccc)}
A & [1,1,0] & [2,0,2] & [3,0,3] & [4,0,4] \\
B & [0,1,1] & [2,2,0] & [3,3,0] & [4,4,0] \\
C & [1,0,1] & [0,2,2] & [0,3,3] & [0,4,4] \\
D & [0,1,1] & [2,2,0] & [3,3,0] & [4,4,0] \\
\end{block}
\end{blockarray} \end{aligned}$$
The set of all feasible allocations is then ${\mathscr{F}}= \{(\detalloci[1](V_1, V_2), \detalloci[2](V_1, V_2) )\}_{V_1, V_2 \in \dettypespace}$. We hasten to point out that ${\mathscr{F}}$ is *not* the product between the two agents’ respective set of feasible allocations. For example, $[1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0]$ is in ${\mathscr{F}}$ as it is $\detallocs(A, A)$, but $[1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1]$ is not. This is important for the proof.
$\detallocs$ is DSIC implementable.
Let the payment be 0 for both agents and all type profiles. As the allocation and payment rules are both symmetric, consider either agent $i$. If $\typei[-i] = A$, the maximum value agent $i$ could get, when her type is $A$, $B$, or $C$, is 1, attained with truthful bidding. For $\typei = D$, the four allocations all give the same value $\tfrac 2 3$. Similar arguments hold when $\typei[-i]$ is $B$, $C$ or $D$.
\[thm:det\] There exists no deterministic DSIC extension of $\detallocs$.
Before proving Theorem \[thm:det\], we make several preparatory observations.
A key difficulty with multi-dimensional preferences is the the lack of a payment identity à la Myerson [@Myerson81]. In order to argue that any extension of an allocation rule is not DSIC, one has to either check the many cyclic (or weak) monotonicity conditions, or show that no payment rule can support the extension in a DSIC mechanism. We designed $\dettypespaces$ and $\detallocs$ carefully so that the allocations “lock” the payment rules.
\[lem:equal-pay\] For any allocation rule $\extallocs$ that is an extension of $\detallocs$, if $\extallocs$ can be implemented by a DSIC mechanism with payment rule $\pays$, then for any $V \in \{A, B, C, D\}$, $\payi[1](A, V) = \payi[1](B, V) = \payi[1](C, V) = \payi[1](D, V)$, and $\payi[2](V, A) = \payi[2](V, B) = \payi[2](V, C) = \payi[2](V, D)$.
We prove the lemma for agent $1$, and the statement for agent $2$ follows by symmetry.
By DSIC, for any $V \in \dettypespace$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\langle A , \detalloci[1](A,V)\rangle & -\payi[1](A,V) \\
& \geq \langle A , \detalloci[1](C,V)\rangle -\payi[1](C,V); \\
\langle B , \detalloci[1](B,V)\rangle & -\payi[1](B,V) \\
& \geq \langle B , \detalloci[1](A,V)\rangle -\payi[1](A,V);
\\
\langle C, \detalloci[1](C,V)\rangle & -\payi[1](C,V) \\
& \geq \langle C , \detalloci[1](B,V)\rangle -\payi[1](B,V).\end{aligned}$$ Note that $$\begin{aligned}
\langle A , \detalloci[1](A,V)\rangle = \langle A , \detalloci[1](C,V)\rangle; \\
\langle C , \detalloci[1](C,V)\rangle = \langle C , \detalloci[1](B,V)\rangle; \\
\langle B , \detalloci[1](B,V)\rangle = \langle B , \detalloci[1](A,V)\rangle.
\end{aligned}$$ Therefore $\payi[1](A,V) \leq \payi[1](C,V) \leq \payi[1](B, V) \leq \payi[1](A, V)$. Hence all inequalities are tight and we have $\payi[1](C,V) = \payi[1](A,V) = \payi[1](B,V)$.
For type $D$’s payment, note that $\detalloci[1](B, V)= \detalloci[1](D, V)$. If $\payi[1](B, V) \neq \payi[1](D, V)$, one of $B$ and $D$ must be incentivized to misreport the other type. Therefore $\payi[1](B, V) = \payi[1](D, V)$.
In figure 2 in the supplementary materials we give a $3$ dimensional visualization of the agent’s value for each allocation which gives intuition into the proof of \[lem:equal-pay\].
\[lem:fixed-menu\] If $\tilde{x}$ is a deterministic DSIC extension of $\detallocs$, then for $\typei[1] = $ $\frac{1}{3}A + \frac{1}{3}B + \frac{1}{3}D$, and any $V_2 \in \dettypespace$, $\extalloci[1](\typei[1], V_2) \in $ $\{\extalloci[1](A, V_2), \extalloci[1](B, V_2),$ $\extalloci[1](C, V_2),$ $ \extalloci[1](D, V_2)\}$.
For the sake of contradiction, assume $\extallocs$ is a DSIC extension of $\detallocs$, implementable by payment rule $\pays$, and for $\typei[1]$ and $V_2 \in \dettypespace$, $\extalloci[1](\typei[1], V_2) = \detalloci[1](V_1, V_2')$ for some $(V_1, V_2') \in \dettypespaces$ and $V_2' \neq V_2$.
For any $V_2$, one of $\detalloci[1](A, V_2)$ and $\detalloci[1](B, V_2)$ gives an equal positive value to both $A$ and $B$. Let $V_1^*$ be the type that induces this equally valued allocation. (For example, if $V_2 = B$, then $\detalloci[1](A, B) = [2, 0, 2]$ and $\detalloci[1](B, B) = [2, 2, 0]$. Both $A$ and $B$ have the same value for $\detalloci[1](B, B)$ and so type $B$ would be $V_1^*$.)
Observe that, for the allocation $\detalloci[1](V_1, V_2')$, $V_1$ has positive value $\langle V_1, \detalloci[1](V_1, V_2') \rangle$, and no other type has higher value for it. Therefore, type $\typei[1]$ has value at most $\langle \frac{2}{3} V_1 + \frac{1}{3} D, \detalloci[1](V_1, V_2') \rangle$ for the allocation. In order for $\typei[1]$ to have no incentive to misreport $V_1^*$, we must have $$\begin{gathered}
\langle \frac{2}{3} V_1 + \frac{1}{3} D, \detalloci[1](V_1, V_2') \rangle - \payi[1](\typei[1], V_2)
\\
\geq \langle \frac{2}{3} V_1^* + \frac{1}{3} D, \detalloci[1](V_1^*, V_2) \rangle - \payi[1](V_1^*, V_2)
\label{eq:t1-V1}\end{gathered}$$
On the other hand, in order for type $V_1$ not to have incentive for deviating to $\typei[1]$, we have $$\begin{gathered}
\langle V_1, \detalloci[1](V_1, V_2) \rangle - \payi[1](V_1, V_2)
\\
= \langle V_1^*, \detalloci[1](V_1^*, V_2) \rangle - \payi[1](V_1^*, V_2)
\\
\geq \langle V_1, \detalloci[1](V_1, V_2') \rangle - \payi[1](\typei[1], V_2);
\label{eq:V1-t1}
\end{gathered}$$ where for the equality we used the fact that the value obtained by reporting truthfully is the same for every type in $\{A, B, C\}$ given a fixed type of the opponent, and that $\payi[1](V_1, V_2) = \payi[1](V_1^{*}, V_2)$ by Lemma \[lem:equal-pay\].
Similarly, in order for type $D$ not to have incentive for deviating to $\typei[1]$, we have $$\begin{gathered}
\langle D, \detalloci[1](D, V_2) \rangle - \payi[1](D, V_2)
\\
= \langle D, \detalloci[1](V_1^*, V_2) \rangle - \payi[1](V_1^*, V_2)
\\
\geq \langle D, \detalloci[1](V_1, V_2') \rangle - \payi[1](\typei[1], V_2),
\label{eq:D-t1}\end{gathered}$$ where for the equality we used the fact that type $D$ has the same value for all allocations given a fixed type of the opponent, and that $\payi[1](D, V_2) = \payi[1](V_1, V_2)$ by Lemma \[lem:equal-pay\]. Crucially, and cannot both be tight, because by construction, for any $V_2 \neq V_2'$, $$\begin{gathered}
\langle V_1, \detalloci[1](V_1, V_2) - \detalloci[1](V_1, V_2') \rangle \\
= \frac{3}{2} \langle D, \detalloci[1](D, V_2) - \detalloci[1](V_1, V_2') \rangle \neq 0. \end{gathered}$$ Therefore, $\frac{2}{3} \cdot$ $+ \frac{1}{3} \cdot$ gives $$\begin{gathered}
\langle \frac{2}{3} V_1^* + \frac{1}{3} D, \detalloci[1](V_1^*, V_2) \rangle - \payi[1](V_1^*, V_2)
\\
> \langle \frac{2}{3} V_1 + \frac{1}{3} D, \detalloci[1](V_1, V_2') \rangle - \payi[1](\typei[1], V_2),\end{gathered}$$ which contradicts .
By the same reasoning as for Lemma \[lem:equal-pay\], the following lemma follows from Lemma \[lem:fixed-menu\].
\[lem:general-equal-pay\] If $\extallocs$ is a deterministic DSIC extension of $\detallocs$, implementable by payment rule $\pays$, then for any $\typei[1]$ in the interior of $\operatorname{Conv}(\dettypespace)$ and any $V_2 \in \dettypespace$, $\payi[1](\typei[1], V_2) = \payi[1](A, V_2)$.
We are now ready to prove Theorem \[thm:det\].
Suppose $\extallocs$ is a deterministic DSIC extension of $\detallocs$. We show a contradiction by showing that $\extallocs$ must violate weak monotonicity.
Consider $\typei[1] = \tfrac 1 3 A + \tfrac 1 3 B + \tfrac 1 3 D$ and when agent $2$’s type is $A$. Since $\typei[1]$ could report any type in $\dettypespace$, she has as options $\detalloci[1](A, A), \detalloci[1](B, A), \detalloci[1](C, A)$ and $\detalloci[1](D, A) \}$, all at the same price by Lemma \[lem:general-equal-pay\]. By Lemma \[lem:fixed-menu\], these are also all the allocations she could possibly get.
Since $[1, 1, 0]$ is the only allocation for which both types $A$ and $B$ have positive value, it is $\typei[1]$’s preferred allocation, i.e., $\extalloci[1](\typei[1], A)$ must be $[1, 1, 0]$. This in turn implies $\extalloci[2](\typei[1], A) = [1, 1, 0]$. (Recall that ${\mathscr{F}}$ is not a product space, and the only allocation in which agent $1$ gets $[1, 1, 0]$ is $\detallocs(A, A) = [1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0]$.)
Similarly, one can show $\extalloci[1](\typei[1], D) = [4, 4, 0]$, which implies $\extalloci[2](\typei[1], D) = [2, 2, 0]$ or $[4, 4, 0]$. But in either case, weak monotonicity is violated for agent $2$’s types $A$ and $D$. For example, if $\extalloci[2](\typei[1], D) = [2, 2, 0]$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\langle A, [1, 1, 0] \rangle + \langle D, [2, 2, 0] \rangle < \langle A, [2, 2, 0] \rangle + \langle D, [1, 1, 0] \rangle.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, no deterministic DSIC extension of $\detallocs$ is possible.
Non-existence of randomized extensions
--------------------------------------
We need a more convoluted construction and a more careful argument to prove the impossibility of extensions that are possibly randomized. We build on $\dettypespaces$ and $\detallocs$ to construct $\randtypespaces$ and $\randallocs$ and prove Theorem \[thm:rand\].
We first raise types in $\dettypespace$ to a space of seven dimensions. Define $A' = [1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]$, $B' = [0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]$, $C' = [0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0]$ and $D' = \frac 1 3 (A' + B' + C')$. For ease of notation, we define a mapping $\det: \{A', B', C', D'\} \to \dettypespace$, with $\det(A') = A, \det(B') = B, \det(C') = C$ and $\det(D') = D$. We also introduce four new types, $E' = [0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0]$, $F'=[0,0,0,0,1,0,0]$, $G'=[0,0,0,0,0,1,0]$ and $H'=[0,0,0,0,0,0,1]$. Define $\randtypespace = \{A', B', C', D', E', F', G'\}$, and $\randtypespaces = \randtypespace \times \randtypespace$.
We now define $\randallocs$, which is again symmetric, in the sense that $\randalloci[1](V_1, V_2) = \randalloci[2](V_2, V_1)$ for every $V_1, V_2 \in \randtypespace$. We therefore only describe $\randalloci[1]$. When both agents report types in $\{A', B', C', D'\}$, the first three coordinates of each agent’s allocation are given by $\detallocs$ when fed by the corresponding types in $\dettypespaces$, and the remaining coordinates are filled in according to the opponent’s report. More specifically, $$\begin{gathered}
\forall V_1 \in \{A',B',C',D'\}, \\
\randalloci[1](V_1, A')=[\detalloci[1](\det(V_1), A), 0, 100, 100,100],\\
\randalloci[1](V_1, B')=[\detalloci[1](\det(V_1), B),100 , 0, 100, 100],\\
\randalloci[1](V_1, C')=[\detalloci[1](\det(V_1), C),100, 100, 0, 100], \\
\randalloci[1](V_1, D')=[\detalloci[1](\det(V_1), D), 100, 100, 100,0]\end{gathered}$$ For the other types, we have $$\begin{gathered}
\forall V_1 \in \{E', F', G', H'\}, \forall V_2 \in \{A', B', C', D'\}, \\
\randalloci[1](V_1, V_2) = \randalloci[1](C', V_2).\\
\forall V_2 \in \{E', F', G', H'\}, \forall V_1 \in \randtypespace, \\
\randalloci[1](V_1, V_2) = [0, 0, 0, 100, 100, 100, 100].\end{gathered}$$
Note that $\randallocs$ itself is deterministic. The difficulty we need to overcome in this section is that the *extension* of $\randallocs$ may be randomized, and we must show that any extension to $\operatorname{Conv}(\randtypespaces)$ cannot be DSIC.
The set of feasible allocations is ${\mathscr{F}}$ $= $ $\{\randallocs(V_1, V_2)\}_{V_1, V_2 \in \randtypespace}$. Again we emphasize that the set of feasible allocations is *not* a product space.
We first show that a subset of the payments are still “locked” as they were in the deterministic setting.
\[lem:randequal-pay\] For any allocation rule $\extallocs$ that is an extension of $\randallocs$, if $\extallocs$ can be implemented by a DSIC mechanism with payment rule $\pays$, then for any $V \in \{A', B', C', D'\}$ and any $V',V'' \in \randtypespace$, $\payi[1](V', V) = \payi[1](V'', V)$, and $\payi[2](V, V') = \payi[2](V, V'')$.
The proof for types in $\{A',B',C',D'\}$ follows the same steps as . For any type in $\{E',F',G',H'\}$ note that they receive the same allocation as type $C'$ and therefore if they are charged a payment that is different from the payment $C'$ is charged than either $C'$ or that type would be incentivized to deviate.
In order to have a DSIC convex extension in this setting we must satisfy a condition similar to \[lem:fixed-menu\] with the higher dimensional versions of the types from $\dettypespaces$.
If $\extallocs$ is a DSIC extension of $\randallocs$, then for $\typei[1] = \frac{1}{3}A' + \frac{1}{3}B' + \frac{1}{3}D'$, and any $V_2 \in \{A',B',C',D'\}$, $\extalloci[1](\typei[1], V_2)$ is supported on $\{\extalloci[1](A', V_2), \extalloci[1](B', V_2), \extalloci[1](C', V_2), \extalloci[1](D', V_2)\}$.
\[lma:invariant-random\]
For the sake of contradiction, assume $\extallocs$ is a DSIC extension of $\randallocs$, implementable by payment rule $\pays$, and for some $V_2 \in \{A',B',C',D'\}$,
there exist a pair of types $\vertypei[1], \vertypei[2]'$ such that ${\operatorname{\mathbf{Pr}}_{}{{\mathchoice{ \left [ \extallocs(\typei[1], \vertypei[2]) = \randallocs(\vertypei[1], \vertypei[2]') \right ]}{[ \extallocs(\typei[1], \vertypei[2]) = \randallocs(\vertypei[1], \vertypei[2]') ]}{[ \extallocs(\typei[1], \vertypei[2]) = \randallocs(\vertypei[1], \vertypei[2]') ]}{[ \extallocs(\typei[1], \vertypei[2]) = \randallocs(\vertypei[1], \vertypei[2]') ]} }}} > 0$ for a $\vertypei[2]'\neq\vertypei[2]$. Let ${X_{V_2}}$ denote the set of allocations $\{\extalloci[1](A', V_2), \extalloci[1](B', V_2), \extalloci[1](C', V_2), \extalloci[1](D', V_2)\}$.
Let $\alpha = {\operatorname{\mathbf{Pr}}_{}{{\mathchoice{ \left [ \extalloci[1](\typei[1], \vertypei[2]) \in {X_{V_2}}\right ]}{[ \extalloci[1](\typei[1], \vertypei[2]) \in {X_{V_2}}]}{[ \extalloci[1](\typei[1], \vertypei[2]) \in {X_{V_2}}]}{[ \extalloci[1](\typei[1], \vertypei[2]) \in {X_{V_2}}]} }}}$ and $\beta = {\operatorname{\mathbf{Pr}}_{}{{\mathchoice{ \left [ \extalloci[1](\typei[1], \vertypei[2]) \not \in {X_{V_2}}\right ]}{[ \extalloci[1](\typei[1], \vertypei[2]) \not \in {X_{V_2}}]}{[ \extalloci[1](\typei[1], \vertypei[2]) \not \in {X_{V_2}}]}{[ \extalloci[1](\typei[1], \vertypei[2]) \not \in {X_{V_2}}]} }}}.$ Then by assumption, $\beta > 0$.
Also let $\extalloci[1]^{\alpha}(\typei[1]) = {\operatorname{\mathbf E}_{}{{\mathchoice{ \left [ \extalloci[1](\typei[1],\vertypei[2]) \mid \extalloci[1](\typei[1],\vertypei[2]) \in {X_{V_2}}\right ]}{[ \extalloci[1](\typei[1],\vertypei[2]) \mid \extalloci[1](\typei[1],\vertypei[2]) \in {X_{V_2}}]}{[ \extalloci[1](\typei[1],\vertypei[2]) \mid \extalloci[1](\typei[1],\vertypei[2]) \in {X_{V_2}}]}{[ \extalloci[1](\typei[1],\vertypei[2]) \mid \extalloci[1](\typei[1],\vertypei[2]) \in {X_{V_2}}]} }}}$ and $\extalloci[1]^{\beta}(\typei[1]) = {\operatorname{\mathbf E}_{}{{\mathchoice{ \left [ \extalloci[1](\typei[1],\vertypei[2]) \mid \extalloci[1](\typei[1],\vertypei[2]) \not\in {X_{V_2}}\right ]}{[ \extalloci[1](\typei[1],\vertypei[2]) \mid \extalloci[1](\typei[1],\vertypei[2]) \not\in {X_{V_2}}]}{[ \extalloci[1](\typei[1],\vertypei[2]) \mid \extalloci[1](\typei[1],\vertypei[2]) \not\in {X_{V_2}}]}{[ \extalloci[1](\typei[1],\vertypei[2]) \mid \extalloci[1](\typei[1],\vertypei[2]) \not\in {X_{V_2}}]} }}}$. Then the expected value for agent $1$ truthfully reporting $\typei[1]$ is $\langle \typei[1], \alpha \extalloci[1]^\alpha (\typei[1])+ \beta \extalloci[1]^\beta(\typei[1]) \rangle$.
In order for $\extallocs$ to be DSIC, it must provide type $\typei[1]$ with at least as much utility as it could receive from deviating to any type in $\randtypespace$.
Let $\vertypei[\text{max}] \in \operatorname{argmax}_{\vertypei[1]'\in \randtypespace} \langle \typei[1],\randalloci[1](\vertypei[1]',\vertypei[2])) \rangle$ then $\extallocs$ must satisfy the following DSIC constraint, $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha &\langle \typei[1], \extalloci[1]^{\alpha}(\typei[1]) \rangle + \beta \langle \typei[1], \extalloci[1]^{\beta}(\typei[1])\rangle - \payi[1](\typei[1],\vertypei[2]) \geq \nonumber \\ &\langle \typei[1],\randalloci[1](\vertypei[\text{max}],\vertypei[2])) \rangle - \payi[1](\vertypei[\text{max}],\vertypei[2]). \label{eq:randIC-contr}\end{aligned}$$ We use this constraint to place an upper bound on $\payi[1](\typei[1],\vertypei[2])$.
By definition of $V_{\text{max}}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \typei[1],\randalloci[1](\vertypei[\text{max}],\vertypei[2])) \rangle \geq \langle \typei[1], \extalloci[1]^{\alpha}(\typei[1]) \rangle.\end{aligned}$$ Subtracting $\langle \typei[1],\randalloci[1](\vertypei[\text{max}],\vertypei[2])) \rangle$ from both sides of \[eq:randIC-contr\] and utilizing the fact that $\alpha+\beta=1$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\beta \langle \typei[1], \extalloci[1]^{\beta}(\typei[1]) \rangle - \beta \langle \typei[1],\randalloci[1](\vertypei[\text{max}],\vertypei[2]) \rangle \\ \geq \payi[1](\typei[1],\vertypei[2]) - \payi[1](\vertypei[\text{max}],\vertypei[2]).\end{aligned}$$ Now using the fact that $\typei[1]$’s maximum difference in value for any two allocations in ${\mathscr{F}}$ is upper bounded by 3, we get $$\begin{aligned}
3\beta+\payi[1](\vertypei[\text{max}],\vertypei[2]) &\geq \payi[1](\typei[1],\vertypei[2]). \label{eq:pay-bound}\end{aligned}$$
By construction, for $\vertypei[2] \in \{A', B', C', D'\}$, there exists a type $\vertypei[\text{not}] \in \{E',F',G',H'\}$ which has value $0$ for every allocation in ${X_{V_2}}$. (For example if $V_2=A'$ then all of the allocations in $\{\extalloci[1](A',A'), \extalloci[1](B',A'), \extalloci[1](C', A'), \extalloci[1](D', A')\}$ have a $0$ in the $4^{\text{th}}$ coordinate and in this case $V_{\text{not}}=E'$). Now by , $V_{\text{not}}$ receives utility $-\payi[1](V_{\text{not}}, \vertypei[2]) = -\payi[1](\vertypei[\text{max}],\vertypei[2])$ when reporting truthfully against opponent type $\vertypei[2]$.
Therefore, in order to keep $\vertypei[\text{not}]$ from deviating to type $\typei[1]$, we must satisfy the following DSIC constraint, $$\begin{aligned}
-\payi[1](\vertypei[max],\vertypei[2]) \geq & \alpha \langle \vertypei[\text{not}], \extalloci[1]^{\alpha}(\typei[1]) \rangle \nonumber + \beta \langle \vertypei[\text{not}], \extalloci[1]^{\beta}(\typei[1])\rangle \\
& - \payi[1](\typei[1],\vertypei[2]).
\label{eq:tempDSIC}\end{aligned}$$ Since $\extalloci[1]^{\alpha}(\typei[1])$ is the expected allocation conditioned on the resulting allocation being an element of ${X_{V_2}}$, and $V_{\text{not}}$ has zero value for any allocation in ${X_{V_2}}$, we have $\langle V_{\text{not}}, \extalloci[1]^\alpha \rangle = 0$.
Therefore,
$$\begin{aligned}
\payi[1](\typei[1],\vertypei[2]) &\geq \beta \langle \vertypei[\text{not}], \extalloci[1]^{\beta}(\typei[1])\rangle + \payi[1](\vertypei[\text{max}],\vertypei[2]). \label{eq:pay-bound2}\end{aligned}$$
Notice that for every allocation outside of ${X_{V_2}}$ the type $\vertypei[\text{not}]$ has value exactly $100$ and therefore $\langle \vertypei[\text{not}], \alloc_{\beta}(\type)\rangle = 100$. We now use this fact along with \[eq:pay-bound\] and \[eq:pay-bound2\] and derive the following contradiction, $$\begin{aligned}
3\beta+\payi[1](\vertypei[\text{max}],\vertypei[2])- \payi[1](\vertypei[\text{max}],\vertypei[2]) &\geq \beta \langle \vertypei[\text{not}], \alloc_{\beta}\rangle, \\
\Rightarrow \quad 3\beta &\geq 100 \beta.\end{aligned}$$ Since by assumption $\beta > 0$, this is a contradiction.
We are now ready to prove Theorem \[thm:rand\].
Consider $\typei[1] = \tfrac 1 3 A' + \tfrac 1 3 B' + \tfrac 1 3 D'$ and assume ${\operatorname{\mathbf{Pr}}_{}{{\mathchoice{ \left [ \extalloci[1](\typei[1],A') = \randalloci[1](A', A') \right ]}{[ \extalloci[1](\typei[1],A') = \randalloci[1](A', A') ]}{[ \extalloci[1](\typei[1],A') = \randalloci[1](A', A') ]}{[ \extalloci[1](\typei[1],A') = \randalloci[1](A', A') ]} }}} <1$.
We know from that $\extalloci[1](\typei[1], A')$ is supported on $\{\extalloci[1](A',A'), \extalloci[1](B',A'), \extalloci[1](C', A'), \extalloci[1](D', A')\}$. Since $\randalloci[1](A',A')$ is the only allocation for which both $A'$ and $B'$ have positive value, $\typei[1]$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\forall \vertype' \neq A', \quad \langle \typei[1], \randalloci[1](\vertype',A') \rangle < \langle \typei[1], \randalloci[1](A',A') \rangle.\label{eq:strictval}\end{aligned}$$ But in order for $\typei[1]$ to have no incentive to report $A'$ when agent $2$’s type is $A'$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\operatorname{\mathbf E}_{}{{\mathchoice{ \left [ \langle \typei[1], \extalloci[1](\typei[1],A') \rangle \right ]}{[ \langle \typei[1], \extalloci[1](\typei[1],A') \rangle ]}{[ \langle \typei[1], \extalloci[1](\typei[1],A') \rangle ]}{[ \langle \typei[1], \extalloci[1](\typei[1],A') \rangle ]} }}} & - \payi[1](\typei[1],A') \geq \\
& \langle \typei[1], \randalloci[1](A', A') \rangle - \payi[1](A', A').\end{aligned}$$ Using eq. , we have $$\begin{aligned}
\payi[1](A', A') &> \payi[1](\typei[1],A')\label{eq:strictpay}.\end{aligned}$$ We now show that, similar to , a strictly lower payment for $\typei[1]$ as in would violate DSIC constraints. The DSIC constraint that keeps type $D'$ from deviating to type $\typei[1]$ when the opponents type is $A'$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\langle D', \randalloci[1](D', A') \rangle - \payi[1](D', A') \nonumber \\ \geq \langle D' , \extalloci[1](\typei[1],A') \rangle -\payi[1](\typei[1],A') \label{eq:Dconstraint}.\end{aligned}$$ Since $\extalloci[1](\typei[1],A')$ is supported on $\{\extalloci[1](A',A'),$ $ \extalloci[1](B',A'),$ $ \extalloci[1](C', A'),$ $\extalloci[1](D', A')\}$ and type $D'$ values all of these allocations equally we have $$\begin{aligned}
\langle D', \extalloci[1](\typei[1],A') \rangle = \langle D', \randalloci[1](D', A') \rangle,\end{aligned}$$ and by we have $\payi[1](D',A') = \payi[1](A',A')$. Using these facts we write as $$\begin{aligned}
\payi[1](\typei[1],A') &\geq \payi[1](A',A').\end{aligned}$$ This contradicts .
Therefore, $\extalloci[1](\typei[1], A')$ must be deterministically $\randalloci[1](A', A')$. But the only allocation in ${\mathscr{F}}$ with agent $1$’s allocation being this is $\randallocs(A', A')$, and hence $\extalloci[2](\typei[1], A')$ is deterministically $[1, 1, 0,0,100,100,100]$. Using the same argument, one can show $\extalloci[1](\typei[1], D') = [4, 4, 0,100,100,100,0]$ with probability 1, which implies $\extalloci[2](\typei[1], D')$ is supported on $\{[2, 2, 0,100,0,100,100],[4, 4, 0,100,100,100,0]\}$. For any allocation with this support, weak monotonicity is violated for agent $2$’s types $A'$ and $D'$.
Revenue Gap {#sec:revenue}
===========
In this section we explore the revenue gap between mechanisms that satisfy DSIC and IR on $\operatorname{supp}(D)$ and mechanisms that satisfy DSIC and IR on $\operatorname{Conv}(\operatorname{supp}(D))$. Any type that is in $\operatorname{Conv}(\operatorname{supp}(D))$ and not $\operatorname{supp}(D)$ occurs with probability zero and does not itself contribute to the revenue. It is therefore not obvious that enforcing constraints on these additional types will impact revenue. In fact, shows that if the feasible set is downward closed there is no gap in revenue between these two typespaces. However, for arbitrary feasibility sets, a gap can arise because not every mechanism which is DSIC and IR can be extended to $\operatorname{Conv}(\operatorname{supp}(D))$ without changing the payment rules on the support. We show that for some feasibility sets and distributions the gap in revenue between the optimal DSIC and IR mechanism on $\operatorname{supp}(D)$ and the optimal mechanism on $\operatorname{Conv}(\operatorname{supp}(D))$ is unbounded.
For a feasible set of allocations ${\mathscr{F}}$ and a distribution $\mathbf{D}$ we, let $\operatorname{OPT}({\mathscr{F}},\mathbf{D})$ denote the optimal revenue extractable by a DSIC and IR mechanism on $\operatorname{supp}(D)$, and let $\widetilde{\operatorname{OPT}}({\mathscr{F}},\mathbf{D})$ denote the maximum revenue extractable by a mechanism that is DSIC and IR on $\operatorname{Conv}(\operatorname{supp}(D))$.
We focus on the single agent case and show that the ratio between $\operatorname{OPT}({\mathscr{F}}, D)$ and $\widetilde{\operatorname{OPT}}({\mathscr{F}}, D)$ is unbounded.
\[thm:revenue\] $\forall \alpha$, there exists a feasible set ${\mathscr{F}}$ and distribution $\mathbf{D}$ such that $\operatorname{OPT}({\mathscr{F}},\mathbf{D}) \geq \alpha \widetilde{\operatorname{OPT}}({\mathscr{F}}, \mathbf{D})$.
Let ${\vec{\mathbf{1}}}$ be the “all-ones” vector of length k and define the set $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{S}_{1}}= \{ \type \in \mathbb{R}^k \mid \exists j \text{ s. t. } \typei[j] =1 \\ \text{ and } \forall h \neq j, \: \typei[h]=0\}.\end{aligned}$$ Intuitively, ${\mathcal{S}_{1}}$ is the set of all vectors of length k with exactly one coordinate being $1$ and the rest of the coordinates being zero. We define the support, $\operatorname{supp}(D) = {\mathcal{S}_{1}}\cup \vec{\mathbf{1}}$ and the set of feasible allocations ${\mathscr{F}}= {\mathcal{S}_{1}}$.
We can show that $\operatorname{OPT}({\mathscr{F}}, \mathbf{D})=1$ for any distribution $\mathbf{D}$ that shares this support. This is obtained by giving each $\type \in {\mathcal{S}_{1}}$ an allocation $\alloc$ equal to their type i.e. $\type = \alloc(\type)$ and giving type $\type = {\vec{\mathbf{1}}}$ any allocation in the feasible set. We can now charge a payment of $1$ to every type.
Without loss of generality assume $\alpha>1$. Now for any $\alpha$ define $\epsilon< \frac{1}{\alpha}$ and consider the distribution where $Pr[\type= \vec{\mathbf{1}}] = 1- \epsilon$ and $Pr[\type \neq \vec{\mathbf{1}}] = \epsilon$. One of the types contained in $\operatorname{Conv}(\operatorname{supp}(D))$ is $\type^{k} = [\frac{1}{k}, \frac{1}{k} \ldots \frac{1}{k}]$. $\type^{k}$ has a value of $\frac{1}{k}$ for every feasible allocation and every lottery of existing allocations, therefore the maximum payment we can charge without violating IR constraints is $\frac{1}{k}$. However, the all ones type has value $1$ for every feasible allocation and can now gain utility of $\frac{k-1}{k}$ by deviating to type $\type^k$. Therefore to maintain incentive compatibility we must lower the price we charge the all ones type to $\frac{1}{k}$ (as well as the payment charged to one of the types ${\mathcal{S}_{1}}$). Therefore the revenue generated on the convex hull if we take $k$ to be large is, $\widetilde{\operatorname{OPT}}({\mathscr{F}}, \mathbf{D})\leq \lim_{k\rightarrow \infty} (1-\epsilon)(\frac{1}{k})+\epsilon \leq \frac{1}{\alpha}$.
Conclusion and Future Work {#sec:disc}
==========================
We presented a DSIC mechanism on a discrete type space which cannot be implemented if DSIC is required on the convex hull of its type space. Extension from discrete to convex domains is a common step in automated mechanism design, and it is unfortunate that, as an implication of our result, there exists no general procedure for extending an arbitrary DSIC mechanism to the convex hull of its domain. However, as we showed, such extensions are possible in specific settings, with special type spaces (e.g. single dimensional) or special feasible set of allocations (e.g. downward closed or, more generally, single swap feasible). Other sufficient conditions for extensibility should be useful to have. Another possibility we leave open is conditions on an allocation rule (rather than the type space or the set of feasible allocations) that would guarantee its extensibility. We know that an allocation rule is DSIC implementable if and only if it is cyclic monotone. Is there a condition stronger than cyclic monotonicity which guarantees both implementability and extensibility?
The mechanism we constructed for the impossibility result is intricate. A third question we leave open is whether one may find a succinct property that is *necessary* for extensibility; in other words, is there a natural condition whose violation must result in inextensible mechanisms?
Supplementary Material {#sec:supp}
======================
[^1]: To see that a downward closed ${\mathscr{F}}$ is SSF, observe that we can let ${\boldsymbol{x}^{\mathrm{ssf}}}(i)$ be the all zero vector for each agent $i$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study the existential (and parts of the universal-existential) theory of equicharacteristic henselian valued fields. We prove, among other things, an existential Ax-Kochen-Ershov principle, which roughly says that the existential theory of an equicharacteristic henselian valued field (of arbitrary characteristic) is determined by the existential theory of the residue field; in particular, it is independent of the value group. As an immediate corollary, we get an unconditional proof of the decidability of the existential theory of $\mathbb{F}_{q}((t))$.'
address:
- 'School of Mathematics, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, United Kingdom'
- 'Fachbereich Mathematik und Statistik, University of Konstanz, 78457 Konstanz, Germany'
author:
- Sylvy Anscombe and Arno Fehm
title: |
The existential theory of\
equicharacteristic henselian valued fields
---
Introduction
============
We study the first order theory of a henselian valued field $(K,v)$ in the language of valued fields. For [**residue characteristic zero**]{}, this theory is well-understood through the celebrated [*Ax-Kochen-Ershov (AKE) principles*]{}, which state that, in this case, the theory of $(K,v)$ is completely determined by the theory of the residue field $Kv$ and the theory of the value group $vK$ (see e.g. [@PrestelDelzell §4.6]). In other words, if a sentence holds in one such valued field, then it holds in any other with elementarily equivalent residue field and value group (the [*transfer principle*]{}). As a consequence, one gets that the theory of $(K,v)$ is [*decidable*]{} if and only if the theory of the residue field and the theory of the value group are decidable.
Some of this theory can be carried over to certain [**mixed characteristic**]{} henselian valued fields such as the fields of $p$-adic numbers $\mathbb{Q}_p$, whose theory was axiomatized and proven to be decidable by Ax-Kochen and Ershov in 1965. However, for henselian valued fields of [**positive characteristic**]{}, no such general principles are available. For example, in [@Kuhlmann01], it is shown that the theory of characteristic $p>0$ henselian valued fields with value group elementarily equivalent to $\mathbb{Z}$ and residue field $\mathbb{F}_{p}$ is incomplete. It is not known whether there is a suitable modification of the AKE principles that hold for arbitrary henselian valued fields of positive characteristic, and the decidability of the field of formal power series $\mathbb{F}_q((t))$ is a long-standing open problem.
For the first problem, the most useful approximations are AKE principles for certain classes of valued fields, most notably F.-V. Kuhlmann’s recently published work [@Kuhlmann??] on the model theory of [*tame fields*]{}. For the second problem, the best known result is by Denef and Schoutens from 2003, who proved in [@Denef-Schoutens03] that resolution of singularities in positive characteristic would imply that the [*existential*]{} theory of $\mathbb{F}_q((t))$ is decidable (i.e. Hilbert’s tenth problem for $\mathbb{F}_q((t))$ has a positive solution).
In this work, we take a different approach at deepening our understanding of the positive characteristic case: Instead of limiting ourselves to certain classes of valued fields, we attempt to prove results for arbitrary equicharacteristic henselian valued fields, but (having results like Denef-Schoutens in mind) instead restrict to existential or slightly more general sentences: The technical heart of this work is a study of transfer principles for certain universal-existential sentences, which builds on the aforementioned [@Kuhlmann??], see the results in Section \[sec:transfer\]. While some of these general results will have applications for example in the theory of definable valuations (see [@Anscombe-Koenigsmann14], [@Cluckers-Derakhshan-Leenknegt-Macintyre12], [@Fehm14], [@Prestel14] for some of the recent developments), in this work we then restrict this machinery to existential sentences and deduce the following result (cf. ):
\[thm:intro.E.complete\] For any field $F$, the theory $T$ of equicharacteristic henselian nontrivially valued fields with residue fields which model both the existential and universal theories of $F$ is $\exists$-complete, i.e. for any existential sentence $\phi$ either $T\models\phi$ or $T\models\neg\phi$.
Note that the value group plays no role here: The existential theory of an equicharacteristic henselian nontrivially valued field is determined solely by its residue field. From this theorem, we obtain an AKE principle for $\exists$-sentences (cf. ):
\[cor:intro.existential.decidability\] Let $(K,v),(L,w)$ be equicharacteristic henselian nontrivially valued fields. If the residue fields $Kv$ and $Lw$ have the same existential theory, then so do the valued fields $(K,v)$ and $(L,w)$.
Moreover, we conclude the following corollary on decidability (cf. ):
Let $(K,v)$ be an equicharacteristic henselian nontrivially valued field. The following are equivalent:
1. The existential theory of $Kv$ in the language of rings is decidable.
2. The existential theory of $(K,v)$ in the language of valued fields is decidable.
As an immediate consequence, we get the first unconditional proof of the decidability of the existential theory of $\mathbb{F}_{q}((t))$ (cf. ). Note, however, that the conditional result in [@Denef-Schoutens03] is for a language with a constant for $t$ – Section \[sec:decidability\] also contains a brief discussion of this difference.
Valued fields
=============
For a valued field $(K,v)$ we denote by $vK=v(K^\times)$ its value group, by $\mathcal{O}_v$ its valuation ring and by $Kv=\{av:a\in\mathcal{O}_v\}$ its residue field. For standard definitions and facts about henselian valued fields we refer the reader to [@Engler-Prestel05]. As a rule, if $L/K$ is a field extension to which the valuation $v$ can be extended uniquely, we denote also this unique extension by $v$. This applies in particular if $v$ is henselian, and for the perfect hull $L=K^{\rm perf}$ of $K$. We will make use of the following well-known fact:
\[fact:complete.the.square\] Let $(K,v)$ be a valued field and let $F/Kv$ be any field extension. Then there is an extension of valued fields $(L,w)/(K,v)$ such that $Lw/Kv$ is isomorphic to the extension $F/Kv$.
See e.g. [@Kuhlmann04a Theorem 2.14].
Also the following lemma is probably well known, but for lack of reference we sketch a proof, which closely follows [@Kuhlmann??book Lemma 9.30]:
\[def:section\] Let $(K,v)$ be a valued field. A *partial section (of the residue homomorphism) is a map $f:E\longrightarrow K$, for some subfield $E\subseteq Kv$, which is an $\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{ring}}$-embedding such that $(f(a))v=a$ for all $a\in E$. It is a [*section*]{} if $E=Kv$.*
\[lem:section\] Let $(K,v)$ be an equicharacteristic henselian valued field, let $E\subseteq Kv$ be a subfield of the residue field, and suppose that there is a partial section $f:E\longrightarrow K$. If $F/E$ is a separably generated subextension of $Kv/E$ then we may extend $f$ to a partial section $F\longrightarrow K$.
Write $L_{1}:=f(E)$. Let $T$ be a separating transcendence base for $F/E$ and, for each $t\in T$, choose $s_{t}\in K$ such that $s_{t}v=t$. Then $S:=\{s_{t}\;|\;t\in T\}$ is algebraically independent over $L_{1}$. Thus we may extend $f$ to a partial section $E(T)\longrightarrow L_{1}(S)$ by sending $t\longmapsto s_{t}$.
Let $L_{2}$ be the relative separable algebraic closure of $L_{1}(S)$ in $K$. By Hensel’s Lemma, $L_{2}v$ is separably algebraically closed in $Kv$. Thus $F$ is contained in $L_{2}v$. Since $v$ is trivial on $L_{2}$, the restriction of the residue map to $L_{2}$ is an isomorphism $L_{2}\longrightarrow L_{2}v$. Thus the restriction to $F$ of the inverse of the residue map is a partial section $F\longrightarrow K$ which extends $f$, as required.
Recall that a valued field $(K,v)$ of residue characteristic $p$ is [*tame*]{} if it is henselian, the value group $vK$ is $p$-divisible, the residue field $Kv$ is perfect, and $(K,v)$ is defectless, i.e. for every finite extension $L/K$, $$[L:K]=[Lv:Kv]\cdot[vL:vK].$$
\[fact:tamification\] Let $(K,v)$ be a valued field. There exists an extension $(K^{t},v^t)$ of $(K,v)$ such that $(K^t,v^t)$ is tame, $K^t$ is perfect, $v^tK^{t}=\frac{1}{p^{\infty}}vK$, and $K^{t}v^t=Kv^{\mathrm{perf}}$.
In the special case ${\rm char}(K)={\rm char}(Kv)$, any maximal immediate extension of $K^{\rm perf}$ satisfies the claim. In general, [@Kuhlmann-Pank-Roquette86 Theorem 2.1, Proposition 4.1, and Proposition 4.5(i)] gives such a $K^t$ that is in addition algebraic over $K$.
Model theory of valued fields
=============================
Let $$\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{ring}}=\{+,-,\cdot,0,1\}$$ be the language of rings and let $$\mathcal{L}_{\rm vf}=\{+^K,-^K,\cdot^K,0^K,1^K,+^k,-^k,\cdot^k,0^k,1^k,+^\Gamma,<^\Gamma,0^\Gamma,\infty^\Gamma,v,{\rm res}\}$$ be a three sorted language for valued fields (like the Denef-Pas language, but without an angular component) with a sort $K$ for the field itself, a sort $\Gamma\cup\{\infty\}$ for the value group with infinity, and a sort $k$ for the residue field, as well as both the valuation map $v$ and the residue map ${\rm res}$, which we interpret as the constant $0^k$ map outside the valuation ring. For a field $C$, we let $\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{ring}}(C)$ and $\mathcal{L}_{\rm vf}(C)$ be the languages obtained by adding symbols for elements of $C$. In the case of $\mathcal{L}_{\rm vf}(C)$, the constant symbols are added to the field sort $K$.
A valued field $(K,v)$ gives rise in the usual way to an $\mathcal{L}_{\rm vf}$-structure $$(K,vK\cup\{\infty\},Kv,v,\mathrm{res}),$$ where $vK$ is the value group, $Kv$ is the residue field, and $\mathrm{res}$ is the residue map. For notational simplicity, we will usually write $(K,v)$ to refer to the $\mathcal{L}_{\rm vf}$-structure it induces. For further notational simplicity, we write $(K,D)$ instead of $(K,(d_{c})_{c\in C})$, where $D=\{d_{c}|c\in C\}$ is the set of interpretations of the constant symbols. Combining these two simplifications, we write $(K,v,D)$ for the $\mathcal{L}_{\rm vf}(C)$-structure $$(K,vK\cup\{\infty\},Kv,v,\mathrm{res},(d_{c})_{c\in C}).$$ We also write $Dv$ for the set of residues of elements from $D$.
As usual, we say that an $\mathcal{L}_{\rm vf}(C)$-formula is an *$\exists$-formula if it is logically equivalent to a formula in prenex normal form with only existential quantifiers (over any of the three sorts). We say that an $\mathcal{L}_{\rm vf}(C)$-sentence is an *$\forall^{k}\exists$-sentence if it is logically equivalent to a sentence of the form $\forall\mathbf{x}\,\psi(\mathbf{x})$, where $\psi$ is an $\exists$-formula and the universal quantifiers range over the residue field sort.**
Let $(K,v,D)\subseteq(L,w,E)$ be an extension of $\mathcal{L}_{\rm vf}(C)$-structures. Note that $d_{c}=e_{c}$, for all $c\in C$. We say that certain $\mathcal{L}_{\rm vf}(C)$-sentences $\phi$ *go up from $K$ to $L$ if $(K,v,D)\models\phi$ implies that $(L,w,E)\models\phi$. For examples, $\exists$-sentences always go up every extension. Furthermore, if $(L,w)/(K,v)$ is an extension of valued fields such that $Lw/Kv$ is trivial, then $\forall^{k}\exists$-$\mathcal{L}_{\rm vf}(K)$-sentences go up from $(K,v)$ to $(L,w)$. Although the previous statement is not referenced directly, it underlies many of the arguments in Section \[sec:transfer\].*
\[lem:ex.closed.perf\] Let $L/K$ be an extension of fields. If $K\preceq_\exists L$, then $K^{\rm perf}\preceq_\exists L^{\rm perf}$.
This is clear, since $K^{\rm perf}=\bigcup_n K^{p^{-n}}$ and $L^{\rm perf}=\bigcup_n L^{p^{-n}}$, and the Frobenius gives that $K^{p^{-n}}\preceq_\exists L^{p^{-n}}$ for all $n$.
In [@Kuhlmann??], F.-V. Kuhlmann studies the model theory of tame fields:
\[fact:relative.embedding.tame\] The elementary class of tame fields has the Relative Embedding Property. I.e. for tame fields $(K,v)$ and $(L,w)$ with common subfield $(F,u)$, if
1. $(F,u)$ is defectless,
2. $(L,w)$ is $|K|^{+}$-saturated,
3. $vK/uF$ is torsion-free and $Kv/Fu$ is separable, and
4. there are embeddings $\rho:vK\longrightarrow wL$ (over $uF$) and $\sigma:Kv\longrightarrow Lw$ (over $Fu$);
then there exists an embedding $\iota:(K,v)\longrightarrow(L,w)$ over $(F,u)$ which respects $\rho$ and $\sigma$.
See [@Kuhlmann?? Theorem 7.1]. (Note that this result is stated in the language $$\mathcal{L}_{\rm vf}'=\{+,-,\cdot,{}^{-1},0,1,O\},$$ where $O$ is a binary predicate which is interpreted in a valued field $(K,v)$ so that $O(a,b)$ if and only if $va\geq vb$. However, the exact choice of language does not directly affect us.)
From , Kuhlmann deduces the following AKE principle:
\[fact:AKE.tame\] The class of tame fields is an $\mathrm{AKE}^{\preceq}$-class: If $(L,w)/(K,v)$ is an extension of tame fields with $vK\preceq wL$ and $Kv\preceq Lw$, then $(K,v)\preceq(L,w)$.
See [@Kuhlmann?? Theorem 1.4].
Power series fields
===================
For a field $F$ and an ordered abelian group $\Gamma$ we denote by $F((\Gamma))$ the field of generalized power series with coefficients in $F$ and exponents in $\Gamma$, see e.g. [@Efrat §4.2]. We identify $F((\mathbb{Z}))$ with the field of formal power series $F((t))$ and denote the power series valuation on any subfield of any $F((\Gamma))$ by $v_t$.
\[lem:Hahn.tame\]\[lem:Hahn.maximal\] A field $(F((\Gamma)),v_{t})$ of generalized power series is maximal. In particular, it is tame if and only if $F$ is perfect and $\Gamma$ is $p$-divisible.
See [@Efrat Theorem 18.4.1] and note that maximal implies henselian and defectless.
\[fact:Serre\] Let $A$ be a complete discrete (i.e. with value group $\mathbb{Z}$) equicharacteristic valuation ring. Let $F\subseteq A$ be a set of representatives for the residue classes which forms a field. Let $s\in A$ be a uniformiser (i.e. an element of least positive value). Then $A$ is isomorphic to $F[[s]]$ by an isomorphism which fixes $F$ pointwise.
See [@Serre79], Ch. 2 Prop. 5 and discussion following the example.
\[prp:finite.extensions.of.power.series\] Let $F$ be a field and let $E/F((t))$ be a finite extension such that $Ev_t=F$. Then $(E,v_t,F)$ is isomorphic to $(F((s)),v_s,F)$. This applies in particular to finite extensions of $F((t))$ inside $F((\mathbb{Q}))$.
We are already provided with a section since $F\subseteq F((t))\subseteq E$ and $Ev_t=F$. Since $E/F((t))$ is finite, $E$ is also a complete discrete equicharacteristic valued field (cf. [@Serre79 Ch. 2 Prop. 3]). By , there is an $F$-isomorphism of valued fields $E\longrightarrow F((s))$.
We denote by $F(t)^h$ the henselization of $F(t)$ with respect to $v_t$, i.e. the relative algebraic closure of $F(t)$ in $F((t))$, and by $F((t))^{\mathbb{Q}}$ the relative algebraic closure of $F((t))$ in $F((\mathbb{Q}))$.
\[lem:F(t)h.ex.closed\] For any field $F$ we have $(F(t)^{h},v_{t})\preceq_{\exists}(F((t)),v_{t})$.
See [@Kuhlmann?? Theorem 5.12].
The following proposition may be deduced from the more general [@Kuhlmann?? Lemma 3.7], but we give a proof in this special case for the convenience of the reader.
\[lem:racl.tame\] If $F$ is perfect, then $F((t))^{\mathbb{Q}}$ is tame.
We have that $F((t))^{\mathbb{Q}}v_t=F$ is perfect and $v_tF((t))^{\mathbb{Q}}=\mathbb{Q}$ is $p$-divisible. Moreover, as an algebraic extension of the henselian field $F((t))$, $F((t))^{\mathbb{Q}}$ is henselian. It remains to show that $F((t))^{\mathbb{Q}}$ is defectless.
Let $E/F((t))^{\mathbb{Q}}$ be a finite extension of degree $n$. Since $F((\mathbb{Q}))$ is perfect, so is $F((t))^{\mathbb{Q}}$, hence $F((\mathbb{Q}))/F((t))^{\mathbb{Q}}$ is regular. Therefore, if we denote by $E'=F((\mathbb{Q}))\cdot E$ the compositum of $F((\mathbb{Q}))$ and $E$ in an algebraic closure of $F((\mathbb{Q}))$, then $[E':F((\mathbb{Q}))]=n$. Since $F((\mathbb{Q}))$ is maximal (), $E'/F((\mathbb{Q}))$ is defectless. So since $(F((\mathbb{Q})),v_t)$ is henselian and $v_tF((\mathbb{Q}))=\mathbb{Q}$ is divisible, we get that $[E'v_t:F]=n$. Since $E'v_t/F$ is separable, we can assume without loss of generality that $F':=E'v_t\subseteq E'$ (). $$\xymatrix{
F((\mathbb{Q}))\ar@{-}[r]^{\quad n} & E'\ar@{=}[r] & E' \\
F((t))^{\mathbb{Q}}\ar@{-}[r]^{\quad n}\ar@{-}[u]^{\rm reg.} & E\ar@{-}[r]\ar@{-}[u]^{\rm reg.} & EF'\ar@{-}[u]\\
F\ar@{-}[rr]^n\ar@{-}[u] && F'\ar@{-}[u]
}$$ The extension $E'/E$ is also regular, since $E/F((t))^{\mathbb{Q}}$ is algebraic. In particular, $E$ is relatively algebraically closed in $E'$; so since $EF'/E$ is algebraic we have that $F'\subseteq E$. Thus $Ev_t=F'$, which shows that $E/F((t))^{\mathbb{Q}}$ is defectless.
In particular, implies that $F((t))^\mathbb{Q}\preceq F((\mathbb{Q}))$. We therefore get the following picture: $$\xymatrix{
F(t)\ar@{-}[r]^{\rm alg.} & F(t)^h\ar@{-}[r]^{\preceq_\exists} & F((t))\ar@{-}[r]^{\rm alg.} & F((t))^\mathbb{Q}\ar@{-}[r]^{\preceq} & F((\mathbb{Q}))
}$$
The transfer of universal-existential sentences {#sec:transfer}
===============================================
Throughout this section $F/C$ will be a separable extension of fields of characteristic $p$. We show that the truth of $\forall^{k}\exists$-sentences transfers between various valued fields. Usually the valued fields considered will have only elementarily equivalent residue fields. However, for convenience, we will sometimes discuss $\exists$-sentences with additional parameters from the residue field.
\[lem:go.down.from.power.series\](**Going down from $\mathbf{F}((\Gamma))$) *Suppose that $F$ is perfect. Let $\phi$ be an $\exists$-$\mathcal{L}_{\rm vf}(F)$-sentence, let $F\preceq\mathbf{F}$ be an elementary extension, and let $\Gamma$ be an ordered abelian group. If $(\mathbf{F}((\Gamma)),v_{t},F)\models\phi$, then $(F(t)^{h},v_{t},F)\models\phi$.***
Without loss of generality we may assume that $\Gamma$ is nontrivial. For notational simplicity, we will suppress the parameters $F$ from the notation. Let $\Delta$ be the divisible hull of $\Gamma$. Then $(\mathbf{F}((\Gamma)),v_{t})\subseteq(\mathbf{F}((\Delta)),v_{t})$, and existential sentences ‘go up’, so $(\mathbf{F}((\Delta)),v_{t})\models\phi$.
Choose an embedding of $\mathbb{Q}$ into $\Delta$; this induces an embedding $(F((\mathbb{Q})),v_t)\subseteq(\mathbf{F}((\Delta)),v_t)$, and therefore $(F((t))^{\mathbb{Q}},v_{t})\subseteq(\mathbf{F}((\Delta)),v_{t})$. Since the theory of divisible ordered abelian groups is model complete (see e.g. [@PrestelDelzell Thm. 4.1.1]), $$v_tF((t))^{\mathbb{Q}}=\mathbb{Q}\preceq\Delta=v_t\mathbf{F}((\Delta)).$$ Moreover, $$F((t))^{\mathbb{Q}}v_t=F\preceq\mathbf{F}=\mathbf{F}((\Delta))v_t.$$ Thus, since $(F((t))^{\mathbb{Q}},v_t)$ is tame by and $(\mathbf{F}((\Delta)),v_t)$ is tame by , implies that $$(F((t))^{\mathbb{Q}},v_{t})\preceq(\mathbf{F}((\Delta)),v_{t}).$$ Therefore, $(F((t))^{\mathbb{Q}},v_{t})\models\phi$.
Let $E$ be a finite extension of $F((t))$ that contains witnesses to the truth of $\phi$ in $(F((t))^{\mathbb{Q}},v_{t})$. Thus $(E,v_{t})\models\phi$. By , there is an $\mathcal{L}_{\rm vf}(F)$-isomorphism $$f:(E,v_{t})\longrightarrow(F((t)),v_{t}).$$ Thus $(F((t)),v_{t})\models\phi$. By , $$(F(t)^{h},v_{t})\preceq_{\exists}(F((t)),v_{t}),$$ hence $(F(t)^{h},v_{t})\models\phi$, as claimed.
\[def:EH(F/C)\] Let $\mathbf{H}(F/C)$ be the class of tuples $(K,v,D,i)$, where $(K,v,D)$ is an $\mathcal{L}_{\rm vf}(C)$-structure and $i:F\rightarrow Kv$ is a map such that
1. $(K,v)$ is an equicharacteristic henselian nontrivially valued field,
2. $c\longmapsto d_{c}$ is an $\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{ring}}$-embedding $C\longrightarrow K$,
3. the valuation is trivial on $D$, and
4. $i:(F,C)\longrightarrow(Kv,Dv)$ is an $\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{ring}}(C)$-embedding.
\[lem:go.up.from.F(t)h\](**Going up from $F(t)^{h}$) *Let $\phi$ be an $\exists$-$\mathcal{L}_{\rm vf}$-sentence with parameters from $C$ and the residue sort of $(F(t)^{h},v_{t})$, and suppose that $(F(t)^{h},v_{t},C)\models\phi$. Then, for all $(K,v,D,i)\in\mathbf{H}(F/C)$, we have that $(K,v,D)\models\phi$ (where we replace the parameters from the residue sort by their images under the map $i$).***
Write $\phi=\exists\mathbf{x}\;\psi(\mathbf{x};\mathbf{c},{\mathbold{\beta}})$ for some quantifier-free formula $\psi$ and parameters $\mathbf{c}$ from $C$ and ${\mathbold{\beta}}$ from $F(t)^{h}v_{t}$. Note that the variables in the tuple $\mathbf{x}$ may be from any sorts. Let $\mathbf{a}$ be such that $$(F(t)^{h},v_{t},C)\models\psi(\mathbf{a};\mathbf{c};{\mathbold{\beta}}).$$ Since $F(t)^{h}$ is the directed union of fields $E_0(t)^{h}$ for finitely generated subfields $E_0$ of $F$, there exists a subfield $E$ of $F$ containing $C$ such that $E/C$ is finitely generated, $\mathbf{a}\in E(t)^{h}$, and ${\mathbold{\beta}}\in E(t)^{h}v_{t}$. Thus $$(E(t)^{h},v_{t},C)\models\psi(\mathbf{a};\mathbf{c};{\mathbold{\beta}}).$$
Since $F/C$ is separable and $E/C$ is finitely generated, $E$ is separably generated over $C$. Thus $i(E)/Dv$ is separably generated. Note that the map $Dv\longrightarrow D$ given by $d_{c}v\longmapsto d_{c}$ is a partial section. By we may extend it to a partial section $g:i(E)\longrightarrow K$. Let $h:=g\circ i|_E$ be the composition. Then $$h:(E,v_{0},C)\longrightarrow(K,v,D)$$ is an $\mathcal{L}_{\rm vf}(C)$-embedding, where $v_{0}$ denotes the trivial valuation on $E$: $$\xymatrix{
& Kv & K\ar@{.>}[l]_{\rm res} \\
F\ar@{->}[r]^{i} & i(F)\ar@{-}[u] \\
E\ar@{-}[u]\ar@{->}[r]^{i|_E} & i(E)\ar@{-}[u]\ar@{->}[r]^{g} & h(E)\ar@{-}[uu] \\
C\ar@{-}[u]\ar@{->}[r]^{\cong} & Dv\ar@{-}[u]\ar@{->}[r]^{\cong} & D\ar@{-}[u]
}$$ Since $(K,v)$ is nontrivial, there exists $s\in K^\times$ with $v(s)>0$, which must be transcendental over $h(E)$, since $v$ is trivial on $h(E)$. As the rational function field $E(t)$ admits (up to equivalence) only one valuation which is trivial on $E$ and positive on $t$, we may extend $h$ to an $\mathcal{L}_{\rm vf}(C)$-embedding $$h':(E(t),v_{t},C)\longrightarrow(K,v,D)$$ by sending $t\longmapsto s$. Since $(K,v)$ is henselian, there is a unique extension of $h'$ to an $\mathcal{L}_{\rm vf}(C)$-embedding $$h'':(E(t)^{h},v_{t},C)\longrightarrow(K,v,D).$$ So, since existential sentences ‘go up’, $$(K,v,D)\models\psi(h''(\mathbf{a});h''(\mathbf{c});h''({\mathbold{\beta}}));$$ and thus $(K,v,D)\models\phi$, as claimed.
We let $R_{F/C}$ be the $\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{ring}}(C)$-theory of $F$ and let $R_{F/C}^{1}$ be the subtheory consisting of existential and universal sentences. Let $\mathbf{T}_{F/C}$ (respectively, $\mathbf{T}_{F/C}^{1}$) be the $\mathcal{L}_{\rm vf}(C)$-theory consisting of the following axioms (expressed informally about a structure $(K,v,D)$):
1. $(K,v)$ is an equicharacteristic henselian nontrivially valued field,
2. $c\longmapsto d_{c}$ is an $\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{ring}}$-embedding $C\longrightarrow K$,
3. the valuation $v$ is trivial on $D$, and
4. $(Kv,Dv)$ is a model of $R_{F/C}$ (respectively, $R_{F/C}^{1}$).
The ‘1’ is intended to suggest that the sentences considered contain only one type of quantifier. Note that for any $(K,v,D)\models\mathbf{T}_{F/C}^{1}$, $d_{c}v\longmapsto d_{c}$ is a partial section of the residue map. Let $\phi$ be an $\forall^{k}\exists$-sentence and write $\phi=\forall^{k}\mathbf{x}\;\psi(\mathbf{x})$ for some $\exists$-formula $\psi(\mathbf{x})$ with free variables $\mathbf{x}$ belonging to the residue field sort. Let ${}^{\mathbf{x}}Kv$ denote the set of $\mathbf{x}$-tuples from $Kv$. Then we observe that $(K,v,D)\models\phi$ if and only if ${}^{\mathbf{x}}Kv\subseteq\psi(K)$. In this next proposition we show that, roughly: if $\mathbf{T}_{F/C}$ is consistent with the property ‘${}^{\mathbf{x}}F\subseteq\psi$’ then in fact $\mathbf{T}_{F^{\mathrm{perf}}/C^{\mathrm{perf}}}$ entails ‘${}^{\mathbf{x}}F\subseteq\psi$’.
\[prp:AkE.transfer\](**Main Proposition) *Let $\psi(\mathbf{x})$ be an $\exists$-$\mathcal{L}_{\rm vf}(C)$-formula with free variables $\mathbf{x}$ belonging to the residue field sort. Suppose there exists $(K,v,D)\models\mathbf{T}_{F/C}\cup\{\forall^{k}\mathbf{x}\;\psi(\mathbf{x})\}$. Then, for all $(L,w,E,i)\in\mathbf{H}(F^{\mathrm{perf}}/C^{\mathrm{perf}})$, we have ${}^{\mathbf{x}}i(F)\subseteq\psi(L)$.***
Since $(K,v,D)$ models $\mathbf{T}_{F/C}$, we have $(Kv,Dv)\equiv(F,C)$. By passing, if necessary, to an elementary extension of $(K,v,D)$, there is an elementary embedding $$f:(F,C)\overset{\preceq}{\longrightarrow}(Kv,Dv).$$ As noted after the definition of $\mathbf{T}_{F/C}$, the map $g_0:Dv\longrightarrow D$ given by $d_{c}v\longrightarrow d_{c}$ is a partial section. Since $F/C$ is separable, $f(F)/Dv$ is also separable. Thus any finitely generated subextension of $f(F)/Dv$ is separably generated. By we may pass again - if necessary - to an elementary extension and extend $g_0$ to a partial section $g:f(F)\longrightarrow K$. Note that $g$ is also an $\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{ring}}(C)$-embedding $(f(F),Dv)\longrightarrow(K,D)$.
Let $h:=g\circ f$. Then $h:(F,C)\longrightarrow(K,D)$ is an $\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{ring}}(C)$-embedding. Because $g$ is a section, the valuation $v$ is trivial when restricted to the image of $h$. Thus, if $v_{0}$ denotes the trivial valuation on $F$, the map $h$ is an $\mathcal{L}_{\rm vf}(C)$-embedding $(F,v_{0},C)\longrightarrow(K,v,D)$. The induced embedding of residue fields $\bar{h}:Fv_{0}\longrightarrow Kv$ is the composition of the elementary embedding $f$ with an isomorphism. Thus $\bar{h}:Fv_{0}\longrightarrow Kv$ is an elementary embedding. From now on we identify $(F,v_{0},C)$ with its image under $h$ as a substructure of $(K,v,D)$, noting that the residue field extension is an elementary extension. $$\xymatrix{
& Kv & K\ar@{.>}[l]_{\rm res} \\
F\ar@{->}[r]^f & f(F)\ar@{-}[u]\ar@{->}[r]^{g} & h(F)\ar@{-}[u] \\
C\ar@{-}[u]\ar@{->}[r]^{\cong} & Dv\ar@{-}[u]^{\rm sep}\ar@{->}[r]^{g_0} & D\ar@{-}[u]
}$$
Choose an extension $(K^{t},v^t)/(K,v)$ as in . Since $K^{t}$ is perfect, we can embed $D^{\mathrm{perf}}$ into $K^{t}$ over $D$ so that $(K^{t},v^t,D^{\mathrm{perf}})$ is an $\mathcal{L}_{\rm vf}(C^{\mathrm{perf}})$-structure. Furthermore $(F^{\mathrm{perf}},v_{0},C^{\mathrm{perf}})$ is naturally (identified with) a substructure of $(K^{t},v^t,D^{\mathrm{perf}})$. Since $Fv_{0}\preceq Kv$, gives that $$F^{\mathrm{perf}}v_{0}=Fv_{0}^{\rm perf}\preceq_\exists Kv^{\rm perf}=K^{t}v^t.$$ Thus there is an elementary extension $F^{\mathrm{perf}}v_{0}\preceq\mathbf{F}$ and an embedding $\sigma:K^{t}v^t\longrightarrow\mathbf{F}$ over $F^{\mathrm{perf}}v_{0}$, see the diagram below.
Now we consider the two valued fields $(K^{t},v^t)$ and $(\mathbf{F}((v^tK^{t})),v_{t})$ with common subfield $(F^{\mathrm{perf}},v_{0})$. Note that $K^t$ is tame by definition, and $\mathbf{F}((v^tK^{t}))$ is tame by . As a trivially valued field, $(F^{\mathrm{perf}},v_{0})$ is defectless. The extension of value groups $v^tK^{t}/v_{0}F^{\mathrm{perf}}$ is isomorphic to $v^tK^{t}$, thus it is torsion-free. The extension $K^{t}v^t/F^{\mathrm{perf}}v_{0}$ is separable since $F^{\mathrm{perf}}v_{0}$ is isomorphic to $F^{\mathrm{perf}}$ which is perfect. Let $(\mathbf{F}((v^tK^{t})),v_{t})^{*}$ be a $|K|^{+}$-saturated elementary extension of $(\mathbf{F}((v^tK^{t})),v_{t})$. We have satisfied the hypotheses of , thus there exists an embedding $$\iota:(K^{t},v^t)\longrightarrow(\mathbf{F}((v^tK^{t})),v_{t})^{*}$$ over $(F^{\mathrm{perf}},v_{0})$. Since existential sentences ‘go up’, we get that $(\mathbf{F}((v^tK^{t})),v_{t})^{*}$, and therefore also $(\mathbf{F}((v^tK^{t})),v_{t})$, models the existential $\mathcal{L}_{\rm vf}(F^{\mathrm{perf}})$-theory of $(K^{t},v^t)$. $$\xymatrix{
& & & \mathbf{F}((v^tK^t))^\ast \\
& & & \mathbf{F}((v^tK^t))\ar@{-}[u]_{\preceq} \\
& K^t\ar@{->}[rruu]^{\iota}\ar@{.>}[r]_{\rm res} & K^tv^t\ar@{->}[r]^{\sigma} & \mathbf{F}\ar@{-}[u] \\
K\ar@{-}[r] & K^{\rm perf}\ar@{-}[u] & & \\
F\ar@{-}[u]\ar@{-}[r] & F^{\rm perf}\ar@{-}[u]\ar@{->}[r]^{\cong} & F^{\rm perf}v_0\ar@{-}[uu]^{\preceq_\exists}\ar@{-}[ruu]_{\preceq} & \\
C\ar@{-}[u]\ar@{-}[r] & C^{\rm perf}\ar@{-}[u] & &
}$$ Our assumption was that $\psi(\mathbf{x})$ is an $\exists$-$\mathcal{L}_{\rm vf}(C)$-formula with free variables $\mathbf{x}$ belonging to the residue field sort, and that $(K,v,D)\models\forall^{k}\mathbf{x}\;\psi(\mathbf{x})$, i.e. ${}^{\mathbf{x}}Kv\subseteq\psi(K)$. Then ${}^{\mathbf{x}}Fv\subseteq{}^{\mathbf{x}}Kv\subseteq\psi(K)$ (note that we write $Fv$ rather than $F$ because we have identified $F$ with a subfield of $K$). Let $$\Psi_{F}:=\{\psi(\mathbf{a})\;|\;\mathbf{a}\in{}^{\mathbf{x}}Fv\}.$$ Then $\Psi_{F}$ is a set of $\exists$-$\mathcal{L}_{\rm vf}(C)$-sentences (with additional parameters from $Fv$) which is equivalent to the property that ‘${}^{\mathbf{x}}Fv\subseteq\psi$’. We may now restate our assumption as $(K,v)\models\Psi_{F}$. Since existential sentences ‘go up’, $(K^{t},v^t)\models\Psi_{F}$. By the result of the previous paragraph, we have $(\mathbf{F}((v^tK^{t})),v_{t})\models\Psi_{F}$. By an application of , $(F^{\mathrm{perf}}(t)^{h},v_{t})\models\Psi_{F}$. By , $(L,w)\models\Psi_{F}$ (where we replace the parameters from $Fv$ by their images under the map $i$). This shows that ${}^{\mathbf{x}}i(F)\subseteq\psi(L)$, as claimed.
\[cor:near.AkE.completeness\](**Near $\forall^{k}\exists$-$C$-completeness) *Let $\psi(\mathbf{x})$ be an $\exists$-$\mathcal{L}_{\rm vf}(C)$-formula with free variables $\mathbf{x}$ belonging to the residue field sort. Suppose there exists $(K,v,D)\models\mathbf{T}_{F/C}\cup\{\forall^{k}\mathbf{x}\;\psi(\mathbf{x})\}$. Then there exists $n\in\mathbb{N}$ such that, for all $(L,w,E)\models\mathbf{T}_{F/C}$, we have ${}^{\mathbf{x}}Lw\subseteq\psi(L^{p^{-n}})$.***
Let $(L,w,E)\models\mathbf{T}_{F/C}$. As $F/C$ is separable and $(Lw,Ew)\equiv(F,C)$ as $\mathcal{L}_{\rm ring}(C)$-structures, also $Lw/Ew$ is separable. In particular, $(K,v,D),(L,w,E)\models\mathbf{T}_{Lw/Ew}$ and we may apply the conclusion of to $$(L^{\mathrm{perf}},w,E^{\mathrm{perf}},{\rm id})\in\mathbf{H}(Lw^{\mathrm{perf}}/Ew^{\mathrm{perf}}).$$ Thus we have that ${}^{\mathbf{x}}Lw\subseteq\psi(L^{\mathrm{perf}})$. To find $n$, we use a simple compactness argument, as follows.
Write the formula $\psi(\mathbf{x})$ as $\exists\mathbf{y}\;\rho(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y},\mathbf{c})$, for a quantifier-free $\mathcal{L}_{\rm vf}$-formula $\rho$. For each $n\in\mathbb{N}$, let $\psi_{n}(\mathbf{x})$ be the formula $\exists\mathbf{y}\;\rho(\mathbf{x}^{p^{n}},\mathbf{y},\mathbf{c}^{p^{n}})$ and consider the $\mathcal{L}_{vf}(C)$-structure $(L^{p^{-n}},w,E)$ which extends $(L,w,E)$. Then, for $\mathbf{a}\in{}^{\mathbf{x}}Lw$, $\mathbf{a}\in\psi(L^{p^{-n}})$ if and only if $\mathbf{a}\in\psi_{n}(L)$. Let $p(\mathbf{x})$ be the set of formulas $\{\neg\psi_{n}(\mathbf{x})\;|\;n\in\mathbb{N}\}$. If $p(\mathbf{x})$ is a type, i.e. $p(\mathbf{x})$ is consistent with $\mathbf{T}_{F/C}$, then we may realise it by a tuple $\mathbf{a}$ in a model $(L,w,E)\models\mathbf{T}_{F/C}$. Thus $\mathbf{a}\notin\psi(L^{p^{-n}})$, for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$. Since $L^{\mathrm{perf}}$ is the directed union $\bigcup_{n\in\mathbb{N}}L^{p^{-n}}$ (even as $\mathcal{L}_{\rm vf}(C)$-structures), we have that $\mathbf{a}\notin\psi(L^{\mathrm{perf}})$. This contradicts the result of the previous paragraph.
Consequently, there exists $n\in\mathbb{N}$ such that $\mathbf{T}_{F/C}$ entails $\forall^{k}\mathbf{x}\;\psi_{n}(\mathbf{x})$. Equivalently, for all $(L,w,E)\models\mathbf{T}_{F/C}$, we have ${}^{\mathbf{x}}Lw\subseteq\psi(L^{p^{-n}})$, as required.
\[cor:residue.perfect\](**Perfect residue field, $\forall^{k}\exists$-$C$-completeness) *Suppose that $F$ is perfect. Then $\mathbf{T}_{F/C}$ is $\forall^{k}\exists$-$C$-complete, i.e. for any $\forall^{k}\exists$-$\mathcal{L}_{\rm vf}(C)$-sentence $\phi$, either $\mathbf{T}_{F/C}\models\phi$ or $\mathbf{T}_{F/C}\models\neg\phi$.***
Suppose that there is $(K,v,D)\models\mathbf{T}_{F/C}\cup\{\phi\}$ and let $(L,w,E)\models\mathbf{T}_{F/C}$. Then $(K,v,D)\models\mathbf{T}_{Lw/Ew}$ and $$(L,w,E,{\rm id})\in\mathbf{H}(Lw/Ew)=\mathbf{H}(Lw^{\mathrm{perf}}/Ew^{\mathrm{perf}}).$$ We write $\phi=\forall^{k}\mathbf{x}\;\psi(\mathbf{x})$ for some $\exists$-$\mathcal{L}_{\rm vf}(C)$-formula $\psi(\mathbf{x})$ with free variables $\mathbf{x}$ belonging to the residue field sort. Then $(K,v,D)\models\phi$ means that ${}^{\mathbf{x}}Kv\subseteq\psi(K)$. Applying , we have that ${}^{\mathbf{x}}Lw\subseteq\psi(L)$. Thus $(L,w,E)\models\phi$. This shows that $\mathbf{T}_{F/C}\models\phi$, as required.
We do not know whether the assumption that $F$ is perfect is necessary in .
However, note that cannot be extended from $\forall^k\exists$-sentences to arbitrary $\forall\exists$-sentences (even without parameters and with only one universal quantifier): For example, the sentence $$\forall x \exists y \; ( v(x)=v(y^2) )$$ expresses $2$-divisibility of the value group, hence is satisfied in $F((\mathbb{Q}))$ but not in $F((t))$.
On the other hand, one could generalize by slightly adapting the proof to allow also sentences with more general quantifiers over the residue field, namely $Q^k\exists$-$\mathcal{L}_{\rm vf}(C)$-sentences, i.e. sentences of the form $$\exists^k \mathbf{x}_1\forall^k \mathbf{y}_1\dots\exists^k\mathbf{x}_n\forall^k\mathbf{y}_n\;\psi(\mathbf{x}_1,\mathbf{y}_1,\dots,\mathbf{x}_n,\mathbf{y}_n)$$ with $\psi(\mathbf{x}_1,\mathbf{y}_1,\dots,\mathbf{x}_n,\mathbf{y}_n)$ an $\exists$-$\mathcal{L}_{\rm vf}(C)$-formula.
The existential theory
======================
We now restrict the machinery of the previous section to existential sentences and prove from the introduction. We fix a field $F$, let $C$ be the prime field of $F$ and denote $\mathbf{T}_F=\mathbf{T}_{F/C}$, $\mathbf{H}(F)=\mathbf{H}(F/C)$.
\[lem:E.complete\] $\mathbf{T}_{F}$ is $\exists$-complete, i.e. for any $\exists$-$\mathcal{L}_{\rm vf}$-sentence $\phi$, either $\mathbf{T}_{F}\models\phi$ or $\mathbf{T}_{F}\models\neg\phi$.
Suppose that $\mathbf{T}_{F}\cup\{\phi\}$ is consistent. Thus there exists $(K,v)\models\mathbf{T}_{F}\cup\{\phi\}$. Simply viewing $\phi$ as an $\forall^{k}\exists$-formula $\forall^kx\,\psi(x)$ with $\psi(x)=\phi$, we have that $Kv\subseteq\psi(K)$. By there exists $n\in\mathbb{N}$ such that, for every $(L,w)\models\mathbf{T}_{F}$, $Lw\subseteq\psi(L^{p^{-n}})$. In particular, $\psi(L^{p^{-n}})$ is nonempty. Since no parameters appear in $\psi$, we may apply the $n$-th power of the Frobenius map to get that $\psi(L)$ is nonempty, for every $(L,w)\models\mathbf{T}_{F}$. Viewing $\phi$ as an $\exists$-sentence again, we have that $(L,w)\models\phi$. Thus $\mathbf{T}_{F}\models\phi$, as required.
For the proof of it remains to show that $\mathbf{T}_{F}^{1}$ already entails those existential and universal sentences which are entailed by $\mathbf{T}_{F}$.
We define two subtheories of $\mathbf{T}_{F}^{1}$. Let $T_{F}^{\exists}$ be the $\mathcal{L}_{\rm vf}$-theory consisting of the following axioms (expressed informally about a structure $(K,v)$):
1. $(K,v)$ is an equicharacteristic henselian nontrivially valued field and
2. $Kv$ is a model of the existential $\mathcal{L}_{\rm ring}$-theory of $F$.
Let $T_{F}^{\forall}$ be the $\mathcal{L}_{\rm vf}$-theory consisting of the following axioms (again expressed informally):
1. $(K,v)$ is an equicharacteristic henselian nontrivially valued field and
2. $Kv$ is a model of the universal $\mathcal{L}_{\rm ring}$-theory of $F$.
Note that $\mathbf{T}_{F}^{1}\equiv T_{F}^{\exists}\cup T_{F}^{\forall}$.
\[lem:existential.axiom\] Let $\phi$ be an existential $\mathcal{L}_{\rm vf}$-sentence. If $\mathbf{T}_{F}\models\phi$ then $T_{F}^{\exists}\models\phi$.
Let $(K,v)\models T_{F}^{\exists}$. Then $Kv$ is a model of $\mathrm{Th}_{\exists}(F)$; equivalently the theory of $Kv$ is consistent with the atomic diagram of $F$. Thus there is an elementary extension $(K,v)\preceq(K^{*},v^{*})$ with an embedding $\sigma:F\rightarrow K^{*}v^{*}$, cf. [@Marker00 Lemma 2.3.3]. Note that $(K^{*},v^{*},\sigma)\in\mathbf{H}(F)$ and that $(F(t)^h,v_t)\models\mathbf{T}_F$, hence $(F(t)^h,v_t)\models\phi$. Therefore, implies that $(K^{*},v^{*})\models\phi$; thus $(K,v)\models\phi$. This shows that $T_{F}^{\exists}\models\phi$.
\[lem:universal.axiom\] Let $\phi$ be a universal $\mathcal{L}_{\rm vf}$-sentence. If $\mathbf{T}_{F}\models\phi$ then $T_{F}^{\forall}\models\phi$.
Let $(K,v)\models T_{F}^{\forall}$. Then $Kv\models\mathrm{Th}_{\forall}(F)$. There exists $F'\equiv F$ with an embedding $\sigma:Kv\rightarrow F'$, see [@Marker00 Ex. 2.5.10]. Using , we may choose an equicharacteristic nontrivially valued field $(L,w)$ which extends $(K,v)$ and is such that $Lw$ is isomorphic to $F'$. In particular $Lw\equiv F$. Let $(L,w)^{h}$ be the henselisation of $(L,w)$; then we have $(L,w)^{h}\models\mathbf{T}_{F}$, so $(L,w)^h\models\phi$. Since $\phi$ is universal, we conclude that $(K,v)\models\phi$.
\[thm:E.complete\](**$\exists$-completeness) *$\mathbf{T}_{F}^{1}$ is $\exists$-complete, i.e. for any $\exists$-$\mathcal{L}_{\rm vf}$-sentence $\phi$ either $\mathbf{T}_{F}^{1}\models\phi$ or $\mathbf{T}_{F}^{1}\models\neg\phi$.***
Let $\phi$ be an existential $\mathcal{L}_{\rm vf}$-sentence. By , either $\mathbf{T}_{F}\models\phi$ or $\mathbf{T}_{F}\models\neg\phi$. In the first case we apply and find that $T_{F}^{\exists}\models\phi$; in the second case we apply and find that $T_{F}^{\forall}\models\neg\phi$. Since $\mathbf{T}_{F}^{1}\equiv T_{F}^{\exists}\cup T_{F}^{\forall}$, in either case $\mathbf{T}_{F}^{1}$ ‘decides’ $\phi$, and we are done.
Let $\chi(x)$ be an existential $\mathcal{L}_{\rm ring}$-formula with one free variable. In [@Anscombe-Fehm??] and other work on definable henselian valuations, we apply to the following $\exists$- or $\forall$-$\mathcal{L}_{\rm vf}$-sentences.
1. $\forall x\;(\chi(x)\longrightarrow v(x)\geq0)$,
2. $\forall x\;(\chi(x)\longrightarrow v(x)>0)$, and
3. $\exists x\;(v(x)>0\wedge x\neq0\wedge\chi(x))$.
We also apply to the $\forall^{k}\exists$-$\mathcal{L}_{\rm vf}$-sentence
4. $\forall^{k}x\exists y\;(\mathrm{res}(y)=x\wedge\chi(y))$.
An ‘Existential AKE Principle’ and existential decidability {#sec:decidability}
===========================================================
shows that the existential (respectively, universal) theory of an equicharacteristic henselian nontrivially valued field only depends only on the existential (resp. universal) theory of its residue field. We formulate this in the following ‘Existential AKE Principle’.
\[thm:existential.AKE\] Let $(K,v)$ and $(L,w)$ be equicharacteristic henselian nontrivially valued fields. Then $$(K,v)\models\mathrm{Th}_{\exists}(L,w)\;\;\text{ if and only if }\;\;Kv\models\mathrm{Th}_{\exists}(Lw).$$
$(\Longrightarrow)$ Note that the maximal ideal is defined by the quantifier-free formula $v(x)>0$. Therefore any existential statement about the residue field can be translated into an existential statement about the valued field.
$(\Longleftarrow)$. If $Kv\models\mathrm{Th}_{\exists}(Lw)$ then $(K,v)\models T_{Lw}^{\exists}$. By , $\mathbf{T}_{Lw}$ entails the existential theory of $(L,w)$; and, by , $T_{Lw}^{\exists}$ entails the existential consequences of $\mathbf{T}_{Lw}$. Combining these two statements, we have that $T_{Lw}^{\exists}$ entails the existential theory of $(L,w)$. Therefore $(K,v)$ models the existential theory of $(L,w)$.
\[cor:existential.AKE\] Let $(K,v)$ and $(L,w)$ be equicharacteristic henselian nontrivially valued fields. Then $$\mathrm{Th}_\exists(K,v)=\mathrm{Th}_{\exists}(L,w)\;\;\text{ if and only if }\;\;\mathrm{Th}_\exists(Kv)=\mathrm{Th}_{\exists}(Lw).$$
This follows from , since $\mathrm{Th}_\exists(K,v)=\mathrm{Th}_{\exists}(L,w)$ iff both $(K,v)\models\mathrm{Th}_{\exists}(L,w)$ and $(L,w)\models\mathrm{Th}_{\exists}(K,v)$, and $\mathrm{Th}_\exists(Kv)=\mathrm{Th}_{\exists}(Lw)$ iff both $Kv\models\mathrm{Th}_{\exists}(Lw)$ and $Lw\models\mathrm{Th}_{\exists}(Kv)$.
Note that is in fact simply a reformulation of . Note moreover that, by the usual duality between existential and universal sentences, the same principle holds with ‘$\exists$’ replaced by ‘$\forall$’.
The reader probably noticed that as opposed to the usual AKE principles, the value group does not occur here. However, since all nontrivial ordered abelian groups have the same existential theory (which follows immediately from the completeness of the theory of divisible ordered abelian groups, see also [@GK]), could also be phrased as $$\mathrm{Th}_\exists(K,v)=\mathrm{Th}_{\exists}(L,w)\;\text{ if and only if }\;\mathrm{Th}_\exists(Kv)=\mathrm{Th}_{\exists}(Lw)\text{ and }
\mathrm{Th}_\exists(vK)=\mathrm{Th}_\exists(wL).$$ In residue characteristic zero, this special form of the existential AKE principle was known before, see e.g. [@KoenigsmannSurvey p. 192].
Next we deduce from .
\[cor:existential.decidability\] Let $(K,v)$ be an equicharacteristic henselian nontrivially valued field. The following are equivalent.
1. ${\rm Th}_\exists(Kv)$ is decidable.
2. ${\rm Th}_\exists(K,v)$ is decidable.
$(2\implies1)$ As before, residue fields are interpreted in valued fields in such a way that existential statements about $Kv$ remain existential statements about $(K,v)$. Therefore, if $(K,v)$ is $\exists$-decidable, then $Kv$ is $\exists$-decidable.
$(1\implies2)$ Write $F:=Kv$ and suppose that $F$ is $\exists$-decidable. Then we may recursively enumerate the existential and universal theory $R^{1}_{F}$ of $F$. Consequently $\mathbf{T}_{F}^{1}$ is effectively axiomatisable. By , $\mathbf{T}_{F}^{1}$ is an $\exists$-complete subtheory of $\mathrm{Th}(K,v)$. Thus we may decide the truth of existential (and universal) sentences in $(K,v)$.
Let $\mathcal{L}_{\rm vf}(t)$ be the language of valued fields with an additional parameter $t$, and let $q$ be a prime power. In [@Denef-Schoutens03], it is shown that resolution of singularities in characteristic $p$ would imply that the existential $\mathcal{L}_{\rm vf}(t)$-theory of $\mathbb{F}_{q}((t))$ is decidable. Using our methods we can prove the following weaker but unconditional result.
\[cor:Fq((t))\] The existential theory of $\mathbb{F}_{q}((t))$ in the language of valued fields is decidable.
We can apply , noting that ${\rm Th}_\exists(\mathbb{F}_{q})$ is decidable.
For the sake of interest, we present a more direct proof of this special case. However, note that this ‘second proof’ uses the decidability of $\mathbb{F}_q$, while the ‘first proof’ used only the decidability of the [*existential*]{} theory of $\mathbb{F}_q$.
As an equicharacteristic tame field () with decidable residue field and value group, $(\mathbb{F}_{q}((t))^{\mathbb{Q}},v_{t})$ is decidable, by [@Kuhlmann?? Theorem 7.7(a)]. Since $(\mathbb{F}_{q}((t))^{\mathbb{Q}},v_{t})$ is the directed union of structures isomorphic to $(\mathbb{F}_{q}((t)),v_{t})$ (), in fact $(\mathbb{F}_{q}((t)),v_{t})$ and $(\mathbb{F}_{q}((t))^{\mathbb{Q}},v_{t})$ have the same $\exists$-$\mathcal{L}_{\rm vf}$-theory. Thus, to decide the existential $\mathcal{L}_{\rm vf}$-theory of $(\mathbb{F}_{q}((t)),v_{t})$, it suffices to apply the decision procedure for the $\mathcal{L}_{\rm vf}$-theory of $(\mathbb{F}_{q}((t))^{\mathbb{Q}},v_{t})$.
Since shows decidability of the existential theory of $\mathbb{F}_q((t))$ in the language of [*valued*]{} fields $\mathcal{L}_{\rm vf}$, in which the valuation ring is definable by a quantifier-free formula, we also get decidability of the existential theory of the [*ring*]{} $\mathbb{F}_q[[t]]$. It might however be interesting to point out that it was proven only recently that already decidability of the existential theory of $\mathbb{F}_q((t))$ in the language of [*rings*]{} would imply decidability of the existential theory of the ring $\mathbb{F}_q[[t]]$, see [@Anscombe-Koenigsmann14 Corollary 3.4].
The $\exists$-$\mathcal{L}_{\rm vf}(t)$-theory of $(\mathbb{F}_{q}((t)),v_{t})$ is equivalent to the $\forall_{1}^K\exists$-$\mathcal{L}_{\rm vf}$-theory of $(\mathbb{F}_{q}((t)),v_{t})$. This ‘equivalence’ is meant in the sense that there is a truth-preserving effective translation between $\exists$-$\mathcal{L}_{\rm vf}(t)$-sentences and $\forall\exists$-$\mathcal{L}_{\rm vf}$-sentences which have only one universal quantifier ranging over the valued field sort (and arbitrary existential quantifiers). In this argument we make repeated use of the fact that, for all $a\in\mathbb{F}_{q}((t))$ with $v_t(a)>0$ and $a\neq0$, there is an $\mathcal{L}_{\rm vf}$-embedding $\mathbb{F}_{q}((t))\longrightarrow\mathbb{F}_{q}((t))$ which sends $t\longmapsto a$.
Let $\phi(t)$ be an existential $\mathcal{L}_{\rm vf}(t)$-sentence. We claim that $\phi(t)$ is equivalent to the $\forall_{1}^K\exists$-$\mathcal{L}_{\rm vf}$-sentence $$\forall u\;((v(u)>0\wedge u\neq0)\longrightarrow\phi(u)).$$ This follows from the fact about embeddings, stated above.
On the other hand, let $\psi(x)$ be an $\exists$-$\mathcal{L}_{\rm vf}$-formula in one free variable $x$ in the valued field sort and consider the $\exists$-$\mathcal{L}_{\rm vf}(t)$-sentence $\chi$ which is defined to be $$\exists y\exists z_{0}...\exists z_{q-1}\;(yt=1\wedge\psi(y)\wedge\bigwedge_{j}z_{j}^{q}=z_{j}\wedge\bigwedge_{i\neq j}z_{i}\neq z_{j}\wedge\bigwedge_{j}\psi(z_{j}+t)\wedge\bigwedge_{j}\psi(z_{j})).$$ Written more informally, the sentence $\chi$ expresses that $$\psi(t^{-1})\wedge\bigwedge_{z\in\mathbb{F}_{q}}(\psi(z+t)\wedge\psi(z)).$$ We claim that $\forall x\;\psi(x)$ and $\chi$ are equivalent. First suppose that $\mathbb{F}_{q}((t))\models\forall x\;\psi(x)$. By choosing $(z_{j})$ to be an enumeration of $\mathbb{F}_{q}$, we immediately have that $\mathbb{F}_{q}((t))\models\chi$.
In the other direction, suppose that $\mathbb{F}_{q}((t))\models\chi$ and let $a\in\mathbb{F}_{q}((t))$. If $v_t(a)<0$ then consider the embedding which sends $t\longmapsto a^{-1}$. Since $\psi(t^{-1})$ holds, then $\psi(a)$ holds. On the other hand suppose that $v_t(a)\geq0$. If $a\in\mathbb{F}_{q}$ then $\chi$ already entails that $\psi(a)$. Now suppose that $a\notin\mathbb{F}_{q}$ and let $z$ be the residue of $a$. Consider the embedding which sends $t\longmapsto a-z$ (note that $a-z\neq0$). Since $\psi(z+t)$ holds, then $\psi(a)$ holds. This completes the proof that $\mathbb{F}_{q}((t))\models\forall x\;\psi(x)$.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The authors would like to thank Immanuel Halupczok, Ehud Hrushovski, Jochen Koenigsmann, Dugald Macpherson and Alexander Prestel for helpful discussions and encouragement.
[10]{}
Sylvy Anscombe and Arno Fehm. Characterizing diophantine henselian valuation rings and valuation ideals. , 2015.
Will Anscombe and Jochen Koenigsmann. An existential $\emptyset$-definition of $\mathbb{F}_{q}[[t]]$ in $\mathbb{F}_{q}((t))$. , 79:1336–1343, 2014.
Raf Cluckers, Jamshid Derakhshan, Eva Leenknegt, and Angus Macintyre. Uniformly defining valuation rings in henselian valued fields with finite and pseudo-finite residue field. , 164:1236–1246, 2013.
Jan Denef and Hans Schoutens. On the decidability of the existential theory of $\mathbb{F}_{p}[[t]]$. , 33:43–60, 2003.
Ido Efrat. . American Mathematical Society, 2006.
Antonio J. Engler and Alexander Prestel. . Springer, 2005.
Arno Fehm. Existential $\emptyset$-definability of henselian valuation rings. 80:301–307, 2015.
Y. Gurevich and A.I. Kokorin. Universal equivalence of ordered abelian groups (in [R]{}ussian). , 2:37–39, 1963.
Jochen Koenigsmann. Undecidability in number theory. In H. Dugald Macpherson and Carlo Toffalori, editors, [*Model Theory in Algebra, Analysis and Arithmetic*]{}. Springer, 2014.
Franz-Viktor Kuhlmann. . Unpublished manuscript. Available at http://math.usask.ca/\~fvk/Fvkbook.htm.
Franz-Viktor Kuhlmann. Elementary properties of power series fields over finite fields. , 66:771–791, 2001.
Franz-Viktor Kuhlmann. Value groups, residue fields and bad places of rational function fields. , 356:4559–4600, 2004.
Franz-Viktor Kuhlmann. The algebra and model theory of tame valued fields. To appear in [*J. reine angew. Math.*]{}, 2015.
Franz-Viktor Kuhlmann, Matthias Pank, and Peter Roquette. Immediate and purely wild extensions of valued fields. , 55:39–67, 1986.
David Marker. . Springer, 2000.
Alexander Prestel. Definable henselian valuation rings. To appear in [*J. Symb. Logic*]{}, 2015.
Alexander Prestel and Charles N. Delzell. . Springer, 2011.
Jean-Pierre Serre. . Springer, 1979.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Based on the Riesz definition of the fractional derivative the fractional Schrödinger equation with an infinite well potential is investigated. First it is shown analytically, that the solutions of the free fractional Schrödinger equation are not eigenfunctions, but good approximations for large k and for $\alpha \approx 2$. The first lowest eigenfunctions are then calculated numerically and an approximate analytic formula for the level spectrum is derived.
[*Key Words*]{}: Fractals and nonlinear dynamics, Quantum mechanics, numerical analysis of boundary-value problems, Schrödinger equation
[*PACS*]{}: 05.45.Df, 03.65. -w, 02.60.Lj
author:
- Richard Herrmann $^1$
title: |
The fractional Schrödinger equation\
\[2pt\] and the infinite potential well -\
\[2pt\] numerical results using the Riesz derivative
---
Introduction {#sec:1}
============
Wave equations play a significant role in the description of the dynamic development of particles and fields; e.g. the Maxwell-equations describe the behavior of the electro-magnetic field in terms of coupled partial differential equations. In quantum mechanics a particle may be described by the non-relativistic Schrödinger wave equation, where the kinetic term is given by the Laplace-operator.
Fractional calculus introduces the concept of non-locality to arbitrary hitherto local operators [@old76], [@pod99], [@her11]. This is a new property, which only recently attracted attention on a broader basis. The interest in a non-local dynamic description of e.g. quantum systems has been steadily increasing, because it is expected, that quantum phenomena may be treated more elegantly from a generalized point of view.
Within this context, it is helpful to investigate fundamental properties of a fractional wave equation and to study general features of its solution.
As an example, we will present in the following the main results of a solution of the fractional Schrödinger equation with infinite potential well.
The problem - analytic part
===========================
Let the one dimensional fractional stationary Schrödinger equation in scaled canonical form be defined as $$-\Delta^{\alpha/2} \Psi(x) = (E - V(x)) \Psi(x)$$ with the fractional Laplace-operator $\Delta^{\alpha/2}$. The definition of a fractional order derivative is not unique, several definitions e.g. the Riemann[@rie47], Caputo[@cap67], Liouville [@f2], Riesz [@riesz], Feller[@feller], Weyl[@weyl] coexist and are equally well suited for an extension of the standard derivative.
In order to preserve Hermiticity for the fractional extension of the Laplace-operator[@laskin], we will explicitly apply the Riesz fractional derivative $$\begin{aligned}
\label{q12driesz}
\Delta^{\alpha/2} \! \equiv \, _\textrm{\tiny{RZ}}^\infty D^\alpha f(x)\! \! &=&\! \! \Gamma(1+\alpha)
{\sin(\pi \alpha/2)\over \pi}
\int_0^\infty \!
{f(x+\xi)-2 f(x) + f(x-\xi) \over \xi^{\alpha+1}}d\xi \\
& & \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad 0< \alpha <2 \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where the left superscript in $_\textrm{\tiny{RZ}}^\infty D^\alpha$ emphasizes the fact, that the integral domain is the full space $\mathbb{R}$.
Since the eigenfunctions of the Riesz derivative operator are given as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{q12dfree1}
_\textrm{\tiny{RZ}}^\infty D^\alpha \cos (k x) &=& -|k|^\alpha \cos (k x) \\
\label{q12dfree2}
_\textrm{\tiny{RZ}}^\infty D^\alpha \sin (k x) &=& -|k|^\alpha \sin (k x) \end{aligned}$$ the eigenfunctions of the potential free ($V(x)=0)$ fractional Schrödinger equation using the Riesz fractional derivative follow as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{q12sol}
_\textrm{\tiny{RZ}}\Psi^+(k,x) &=& \cos (k x) \\
_\textrm{\tiny{RZ}}\Psi^-(k,x) &=& \sin (k x) \end{aligned}$$ where the $\pm$-sign indicates the parity and the corresponding continuous energy spectrum follows as: $$\label{q13efree}
E_k^{\textrm{free}} = |k|^\alpha \quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad k \in \mathbb{R}$$ Since the integrals $\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}dx \cos(kx )$ and $\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}dx \sin(kx )$ respectively are divergent, the eigenfunctions are not normalizable on the full domain $\mathbb{R}$.
In the case $\alpha=2$, which corresponds to the classical quantum mechanics, of course we may apply the classical box-normalization, which means we make a statement on the behavior of the wave-function isolated in a box of size e.g. $2 q$ of the form: $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{-q}^{+q} \cos (k x) dx < \infty\\
\int_{-q}^{+q} \sin (k x) dx < \infty \end{aligned}$$ According to (\[q12dfree1\]) and (\[q12dfree2\]) a special feature of the Riesz derivative is that the type of the eigenfunctions of the free fractional Schrödinger equation does not change for arbitrary $\alpha$. Hence the question arises, whether box-normalization is a legal procedure in the case of non-local differential equations. At least, the physical meaning of box-normalization may be different.
To avoid these interpretative difficulties we will switch on a potential $V(x)$, such that the eigenfunctions vanish at infinity. An ideal candidate for such a potential is the infinite potential well, centered at the origin with finite size $2 q$, which is explicitly given by: $$V(x) =
\begin{cases}
0 & \text{$|x| \leq q$}\cr
\infty & \text{$|x|>q$}
\end{cases}$$ A reasonable ansatz for the corresponding eigenfunction follows as: $$\label{fconfined}
^\sqcup\Psi(x) =
\begin{cases}
^\infty\Psi(x) &\text{$|x| \leq q$}\cr
0& \text{$|x|>q$}
\end{cases}$$ Where the superscript $^\sqcup\Psi(x)$ emphasizes the fact, that the wave-function per definitionem is now confined inside the infinite potential well and vanishes outside. The superscript $^\infty\Psi(x)$ indicates, that this function may at first be defined on the whole domain, but is used only inside the bounded domain of the infinite potential well.
The normalization condition for $^\sqcup\Psi(x)$ is now given by: $$\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} dx ^\sqcup\Psi(x) =
\int_{-q}^{+q} dx^\infty\Psi(x) = 1$$ As a consequence, we may interpret $^\sqcup\Psi(x)$ physically as a normalizable wave-function and its absolute value $^\sqcup\Psi(x)^\sqcup\Psi(x)^*$ as a probability measure.
In the classical, local case ($\alpha=2$) we obtain immediately $$^\sqcup\Psi^{\pm}(x) =
\begin{cases}
\cos{k \frac{\pi}{2 q} x} &\text{$|x| \leq q$ and $k = 1,3,5,...$}\cr
\sin{k \frac{\pi}{2 q} x} &\text{$|x| \leq q$ and $k = 2,4,6,...$}\cr
0& \text{$|x|>q$}
\end{cases}$$ and the continuous energy spectrum changes to a discrete one, since $k \in \mathbb{N}$ is an integer now. $$E_k^{\textrm{local}} = (\frac{\pi}{2 q})^2 k^2 \quad \quad k=1,2,3,...$$
In order to solve the fractional Schrödinger equation of the infinite potential well for arbitrary $\alpha$, we have to apply the Riesz derivative operator to ${^\sqcup\Psi(x)}$.
For the positive semi-axis $x \geq 0$ we obtain for $x \leq q$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{q12d2riesz}
_\textrm{\tiny{RZ}}^\infty D^\alpha ({^\sqcup\Psi(x)}) &=& \Gamma(1+\alpha)
{\sin(\pi \alpha/2)\over \pi} \nonumber \times \\
&& \int_0^\infty
{^\sqcup\Psi(x-\xi) - 2\, {^\sqcup}\Psi(x) + {^\sqcup}\Psi(x+\xi) \over \xi^{\alpha+1}}d\xi \nonumber\\
&=& \Gamma(1+\alpha)
{\sin(\pi \alpha/2)\over \pi} \times \Big\{ \nonumber \\
&& \int_{0}^{q-x}
{^\infty\Psi(x-\xi)-2 \,^\infty\Psi(x) + {{^\infty\Psi}}(x+\xi) \over \xi^{\alpha+1}}d\xi + \\
&& \int_{q-x}^{q+x}
{{^\infty\Psi}(x-\xi) -2\, {^\infty\Psi}(x) \over \xi^{\alpha+1}}d\xi + \nonumber\\
&& \int_{q+x}^{\infty}
{ -2 \,^\infty\Psi(x) \over \xi^{\alpha+1}}d\xi \,\, \Big\} \nonumber\\
&=&
_\textrm{\tiny{RZ}}^\sqcup D^\alpha ({^\infty\Psi(x)}) \quad\quad\quad \quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad 0 \leq x\leq q \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ In addition, for $x > q$ due to the non-local character of the Riesz derivative operator we obtain a non-vanishing finite term $$_\textrm{\tiny{RZ}}^\infty D^\alpha ({^\sqcup\Psi(x)}) =\Gamma(1+\alpha)
{\sin(\pi \alpha/2)\over \pi} \times
\int_{x-q}^{x+q}{ {^\infty\Psi}(x-\xi) \over \xi^{\alpha+1}}d\xi \quad\quad\quad x > q$$ which is negligible only in the special case of the infinite potential well discussed here.
The corresponding equations for $x \leq 0$ just interchange the roles of ${^\infty\Psi}(x-\xi) $ and ${^\infty\Psi}(x+\xi) $. Since parity is conserved for the infinite potential well, we may restrict to (\[q12d2riesz\]) without loss of generality.
We can write (\[q12d2riesz\]) in short-hand notation: $${_\textrm{\tiny{RZ}}^\infty} D^\alpha ({^\sqcup\Psi(x)}) =
{_\textrm{\tiny{RZ}}^\sqcup} D^\alpha ({^\infty\Psi(x)})$$ This may be interpreted as a modification of the Riesz-operator, which now only covers the inside region of the potential well. Obviously both operators differ significantly. $${_\textrm{\tiny{RZ}}^\infty} D^\alpha \neq
{_\textrm{\tiny{RZ}}^\sqcup} D^\alpha$$ This is a general feature of all fractional derivative definitions, which span over the full $\mathbb{R}$ e.g. Liouville’s, Weyl’s and Feller’s definition.
Only for the Riemann ${_\textrm{\tiny{R}}} D^\alpha$ and the Caputo ${_\textrm{\tiny{C}}} D^\alpha$ definition of a fractional derivative and only for the very special case of an infinite potential well centered at the origin the operator is not altered: $$\begin{aligned}
{_\textrm{\tiny{R}}^\infty} D^\alpha &=&
{_\textrm{\tiny{R}}^\sqcup} D^\alpha \\
{_\textrm{\tiny{C}}^\infty} D^\alpha &=&
{_\textrm{\tiny{C}}^\sqcup} D^\alpha \end{aligned}$$ because the corresponding derivative definitions only cover the inside region of the potential well $0\leq x\leq q$.
As a direct consequence, eigenfunctions of the free fractional Schrödinger equation based on the Riemann and Caputo derivative definition automatically determine the eigenfunctions of the same Schrödinger equation with infinite potential well fulfilling the additional constraint, that the functions should vanish at the boundaries of the infinite well [@her05].
These eigenfunctions ${_\textrm{\tiny{R,C}}^\infty}\Psi^{\pm}(x,\alpha)$ are known analytically, normalizable on $\mathbb{R}$ for $\alpha < 2$ and are given in terms of the Mittag-Leffler functions $E_\alpha(z)$ and $E_{\alpha, \beta} (z)$ as: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pot0}
{_\textrm{\tiny{R}}^\infty}\Psi^{+}(x,\alpha) &=& x^{\frac{\alpha}{2}-1}E_{\alpha,\frac{\alpha}{2}}( -x^{\alpha})\\
{_\textrm{\tiny{R}}^\infty}\Psi^{-}(x,\alpha) &=& x^{\alpha-1}E_{\alpha, \alpha}( -x^{\alpha})\\
{_\textrm{\tiny{C}}^\infty}\Psi^{+}(x,\alpha) &=& E_{ \alpha}( -x^{\alpha})\\
{_\textrm{\tiny{C}}^\infty}\Psi^{-}(x,\alpha) &=& x^\frac{\alpha}{2} E_{\alpha,1+\frac{\alpha}{2}}( -x^{\alpha})
\quad\quad\quad\quad 0 \leq \alpha \leq 2\end{aligned}$$ which reduce to the trigonometric functions for $\alpha=2$ and the corresponding eigenvalues are determined from the zeros of these functions [@her05], [@her11].\
In contrast to this simple classical behavior we now consider the case of the fractional Schrödinger equation for the infinite potential well based on the Riesz definition of a fractional derivative. The following questions arise:
- [are plain waves still a solution for the infinite potential well?]{}
- [if not, are they at least a good approximation?]{}
- [what do the exact solutions look like?]{}
To answer these questions, we rearrange terms in the integral-operators $I_n$ of the modified Riesz-operator ${_\textrm{\tiny{RZ}}^\sqcup D^\alpha}$: $$\Big({_\textrm{\tiny{RZ}}^\sqcup D^\alpha} ({^\infty\Psi})\Big)(x) =
\Big(\Gamma(1+\alpha){\sin(\pi \alpha/2)\over \pi} (I_1 + I_2 +I_3) {^\infty\Psi}\Big)(x)$$ where $I_n$ are given explicitely: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{q12driesz3}
I_1 {\Psi(x)} &=&
\int_0^{q-x}
{\Psi(x+\xi) - 2 \Psi(x) + \Psi(x-\xi) \over \xi^{\alpha+1}}d\xi\\
I_2 {\Psi(x)} &=&
\int_{q-x}^{q+x}
{ \Psi(x-\xi) \over \xi^{\alpha+1}}d\xi\\
I_3 {\Psi(x)} &=&
\int_{q-x}^{\infty}
{ - 2 \Psi(x) \over \xi^{\alpha+1}}d\xi = - 2 \Psi(x) \int_{q-x}^{\infty}
{ 1 \over \xi^{\alpha+1}}d\xi\end{aligned}$$
![\[fcos\] The lowest solutions of $-{_\textrm{\tiny{RZ}}^\sqcup} D^\alpha \cos(k \pi/2 x)= E g_k(\alpha, x)$ for $q=1$ in the range (dashed line) $2\geq \alpha \geq 0.25$ (dotted line) in $\Delta \alpha = 0.25 $ steps. For the classical, local case $\alpha = 2$ the solution is indeed an eigenfunction, but for decreasing $\alpha$ deviations from $\cos(k \pi/2 x)$ become more and more pronounced. On the other hand, for large $k$ the error becomes smaller and $\cos(k \pi/2 x)$ becomes a good first guess for the exact eigenfunction. ](fig_1.jpg "fig:"){width="130mm"}\
![\[fcosexact\] The lowest numerically determined eigenfunctions $\Psi_k^+(\alpha, x)$ for $q=1$ with positive parity for (dashed line) $2 \geq \alpha \geq 0.25$ (dotted line) in $\Delta \alpha = 0.25 $ steps. Only in the limit $\Psi_k^+(\alpha \rightarrow 2, x)= \cos(k \pi/2 x) $ holds. ](fig_3.jpg "fig:"){width="130mm"}\
![\[fsin\] The lowest solutions of $-{_\textrm{\tiny{RZ}}^\sqcup} D^\alpha \sin(k \pi/2 x)= E g_k(\alpha, x)$ for $q=1$ in the range (dashed line) $2 \geq \alpha \geq 0.25$ (dotted line) in $\Delta \alpha = 0.25 $ steps. For the classical, local case $\alpha = 2$ the solution is indeed an eigenfunction, but for decreasing $\alpha$ deviations from $\sin(k \pi/2 x)$ become more and more pronounced. On the other hand, for large $k$ the error becomes smaller and $\sin(k \pi/2 x)$ becomes a good first guess for the exact eigenfunction. ](fig_2.jpg "fig:"){width="130mm"}\
![\[fsinexact\] The lowest numerically determined eigenfunctions $\Psi_k^-(\alpha, x)$ with negative parity for $q=1$ in the range (dashed line) $2 \geq \alpha \geq 0.25$ (dotted line) in $\Delta \alpha = 0.25 $ steps. Only in the limit $\Psi_k^+(\alpha \rightarrow 2, x)= \sin(k \pi/2 x) $ holds. ](fig_4.jpg "fig:"){width="130mm"}\
![\[fenergiesexact\] A comparison of the numerically determined energy values (triangles) with approximate formulas $E^\sim_k(\alpha)$ from (\[etilde\]) (solid line) and $E_k^{\textrm{free}}(\alpha)$ from (\[q13efree\]) (dashed line) normalized to $q=1$. ](fig_5.jpg "fig:"){width="130mm"}\
Using the test functions $\Psi^+(x) = \cos(k \pi/2 x)$ and $\Psi^-(x) = \sin(k \pi/2 x)$ we obtain with the help of [@Ab], [@erd53] and a cup of tea: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{q12n3}
I_1
%
\begin{cases}
\cos(k \pi/2 x) & \cr
\sin(k \pi/2 x) &
\end{cases}
%
&=&
{(q-x)^{-\alpha} \over 2 \alpha } \Big( \nonumber\\
& & \frac{k^2 \pi^2}{ \alpha-2} (\frac{q-x}{q})^2 \, _1F_2\big(1-\frac{\alpha}{2};\frac{3}{2}, 2-\frac{\alpha}{2}; -k^2 \pi^2 (\frac{q-x}{4q})^2\big) +\nonumber\\
& & 8 \sin^2( k \pi \frac{q-x}{4q}) \Big)
\times
%
\begin{cases}
\cos(k \pi/2 x) & \cr
\sin(k \pi/2 x) &
\end{cases}
%
\\
I_2
%
\begin{cases}
\cos(k \pi/2 x) & \cr
\sin(k \pi/2 x) &
\end{cases}
%
&=&
(\frac{k \pi}{2 q})^{\alpha}
\times
%
\begin{cases}
\textrm{Re} (\Upsilon(x)) & \cr
-\textrm{Im} (\Upsilon(x)) &
\end{cases}
%
\\
I_3
%
\begin{cases}
\cos(k \pi/2 x) & \cr
\sin(k \pi/2 x) &
\end{cases}
%
&=&
{ -2 (q-x)^{-\alpha} \over \alpha}
\times
%
\begin{cases}
\cos(k \pi/2 x) & \cr
\sin(k \pi/2 x) &
\end{cases}
%
\end{aligned}$$ with $_1F_2(a;b,c;x)$ is the hypergeometric function, $\textrm{Re} (\Upsilon(x)) $ is the real part and $\textrm{Im} (\Upsilon(x)) $ is the imaginary part of the complex function $\Upsilon(x)$ given by $$\begin{aligned}
\Upsilon(x) &=&
(-\mathrm{i})^\alpha e^{-\mathrm{i}k \pi \frac{x}{2 q}}\Big(
\Gamma(-\alpha,-\mathrm{i} k \pi \frac{q-x}{2 q}) -
\Gamma(-\alpha,-\mathrm{i} k \pi \frac{q+x}{2 q}) \Big)\end{aligned}$$ where $\Gamma(a,z) $ denotes the incomplete $\Gamma$-function on the complex plane.
The kinetic part of the fractional Schrödinger equation may therefore be calculated analytically and may be written with the testfunctions $^\infty\Psi^+(x)=\cos(k \pi/2 x)$ and $^\infty\Psi^-(x)=\sin(k \pi/2 x)$: $$\begin{aligned}
-{_\textrm{\tiny{RZ}}^\sqcup} D^\alpha \cos(k \pi/2 x) &=& E g_k(x)
\quad k=1,3,5,...\\
-{_\textrm{\tiny{RZ}}^\sqcup} D^\alpha \sin(k \pi/2 x) &=& E g_k(x)
\quad k=2,4,6,...\end{aligned}$$ We define a pseudo-normalization condition $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cq_norm}
g_k(x=0) &=& 1 \quad k=1,3,5,...\\
g_k(x=1/k) &=& 1 \quad k=2,4,6,...\end{aligned}$$ which allows to compare $g_k(x)$ with the trigonometric functions.
In figures \[fcos\] and \[fsin\] the results are sketched. The bad news is, that neither $g_k(x) = \cos(k \pi/2 x)$ nor $g_k(x) = \sin(k \pi/2 x)$ holds. Consequently the solutions of the free fractional Schrödinger equation based on the Riesz derivative definition are no eigenfunctions of the same fractional Schrödinger equation with infinite potential well. This answers the first question.
The good news is, that the deviations become more and more negligible for $k \gg 1$. This answers the second question: For large k, in the vicinity of $\alpha \approx 2$ and for $x \approx 0 $ the trigonometric functions seem to be a good first guess.
As a consequence of the pseudo-normalization condition (\[cq\_norm\]), we can give an analytic expression for the approximate energy spectrum. With $$-{_\textrm{\tiny{RZ}}^\sqcup} D^\alpha \cos(k \pi/2 x) |_{x=0}= E^\sim_k(\alpha)
\quad k=1,3,5,...$$ we obtain (since $I_2$ vanishes for $x=0$): $$\label{etilde}
E^\sim_k(\alpha) =
\frac{1}{2} q^{-\alpha}\Gamma(\alpha)
\frac{\sin(\frac{\pi}{2}\alpha)}{\pi}\Big(
\frac{k^2 \pi^2}{2-\alpha} \,
_1F_2\big(1-\frac{\alpha}{2};\frac{3}{2}, 2-\frac{\alpha}{2}; -\frac{1}{16}k^2 \pi^2 \big) -
4 \cos(k \frac{\pi}{2})\Big)$$ which according to the above mentioned criteria will turn out to be a good approximation of the exact energy eigenvalues for large k in the vicinity of $\alpha \approx 2$.
The solution - numerical part
=============================
Since we have shown by explicit analytic evaluation of the fractional derivative, that the trigonometric functions are no eigenfunctions of the infinite potential well, but only good approximations, we will calculate the exact solutions numerically.
For that purpose, we expand the exact solution $\Psi^\pm_k(x)$ in a Taylor series $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi^+_k(x) &=&\lim_{N \rightarrow \infty} \sum_{n=0}^N a_{2 n} x^{2 n} \\
\Psi^-_k(x) &=& \lim_{N \rightarrow \infty} \sum_{n=0}^N a_{2 n+1} x^{2 n+1} \end{aligned}$$ and insert it into the fractional Schrödinger equation for the infinite well potential: $$-{_\textrm{\tiny{RZ}}^\sqcup} D^\alpha \Psi^\pm_k(x) = E_k \Psi^\pm_k(x)$$
The integrals on the left may be evaluated analytically and lead to transcendental functions in x, which then are expanded up to order $N$ in a Taylor-series too. This leads to $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{n=0}^N b_{2 n} x^{2 n} &=& E_k \sum_{n=0}^N a_{2 n} x^{2 n}\\
\sum_{n=0}^N b_{2 n+1} x^{2 n+1}&=& E_k \sum_{n=0}^N a_{2 n+1} x^{2 n+1}\end{aligned}$$ A term by term comparison results in a system of non-linear equations of the type $\{E_k a_n = b_n(a_n)\}$ on the set of variables $\{a_n,E_k\}$, which is solved numerically. For practical calculations we set $N=20$, which yields an accuracy of the calculated energy levels of about $0.25\%$ for the ground state.
Results are presented in figures \[fcosexact\] and \[fsinexact\]. For $\alpha=2$ we obtain the classical trigonometric functions. For decreasing $\alpha$ the eigenfunctions show a increasing tendency to shift towards the walls. This is exactly the behavior, which is not modeled by the trigonometric test functions presented in the last section. In figure \[fenergiesexact\] we compare the determined energy levels with the presented energy formulas. Especially $E^\sim_k(\alpha)$ from (\[etilde\]) is a useful approximation.
Conclusion
==========
We have demonstrated, that the non-local character of the fractional operators used in the fractional Schrödinger equation indeed needs special attention. Concepts like box normalization, WKB-approximation or piecewise solution may work well in a classical local approach, but cause errors when applied to non-local problems.
On the other hand, we have shown, that such local strategies may lead to useful approximations e.g. in low-level ($\alpha = 2- \epsilon $) fractional problems.
This may be understood from $$\lim_{q \rightarrow \infty}{_\textrm{\tiny{RZ}}^\sqcup} D^\alpha = {_\textrm{\tiny{RZ}}^\infty} D^\alpha$$ as a consequence of the specific weight $w(\xi)= \frac{1}{\xi^{\alpha+1}}$ in the integral definition of the Riesz fractional derivative definition (\[q12driesz\]) with the property $$\lim_{\xi \rightarrow \infty}w(\xi) = 0$$
The infinite potential well serves as a helpful tool to demonstrate the consequences of different approaches.\
\
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
We thank A. Friedrich for useful discussions.
[99]{} Abramowitz, M. and Stegun, I. A. (1965). *Handbook of mathematical functions* Dover Publications, New York
Bayin, S. S. (2012). *On the consistency of the solutions of the space fractional Schrödinger equation* arXiv:1203.4556v1 \[math-ph\], J. Math. Phys. [**53**]{} 042105
Caputo, M. (1967) *Linear model of dissipation whose Q is almost frequency independent Part II* Geophys. J. R. Astr. Soc **13**, 529–539
Dong, J. and Xu, M. (2007). *Some solutions to the space fractional Schrödinger equation using momentum representation method* J. Math. Phys. [**48**]{}, 072105
Erdelyi, A., Magnus, A., Oberhettinger, F. and Tricomy, F. G. (1953) *Higher transcendental functions* Vol. II, Bateman Manuscript Project, California Institute of Technology, McGraw Hill, New York
Feller, W. (1952). *On a generalization of Marcel Riesz’ potentials and the semi-groups generated by them* Comm. Sem. Mathem. Universite de Lund, 72–81
Guo, X. and Xu, M. (2006). *Some physical applications of fractional Schrödinger equation* J. Math. Phys. **47**, 082104
Hawkins, E. and Schwarz, J. M. (2012). *Comment “On the consistency of solutions of the space fractional Schrödinger equation”* arXiv:1210.1447 \[math-ph\]
Herrmann, R. (2005) *Properties of a fractional derivative Schrödinger type wave equation and a new interpretation of the charmonium spectrum* arXiv:math-ph/0510099
Herrmann, R. (2011) *Fractional calculus - an introduction for physicists*, World Scientific Publishing, Singapore
Liouville, J. (1832). *Sur le calcul des differentielles $\acute{\text{a}}$ indices quelconques* J. $\acute{\text{E}}$cole Polytechnique [**13**]{}, 1–162
Jeng, M., Xu, S.-L.-Y., Hawkins, E. and Schwarz J. M. (2008). *On the non-locality of the fractional Schrödinger equation* arXiv:0810.1543v1 \[math-ph\], J. Math. Phys. 51, 062102 (2010)
Laskin, N. (2002). *Fractional Schrödinger equation* Phys. Rev. E [**66**]{}, 056108–0561014
Oldham, K. B. and Spanier, J. (1976) *The fractional calculus*, Dover Publications, Mineola, New York
Podlubny, I. (1999) *Fractional differential equations*, Academic Press, New York
Riemann, B. (1847) *Versuch einer allgemeinen Auffassung der Integration und Differentiation* in: Weber, H. and Dedekind, R. (Eds.) (1892) *Bernhard Riemann’s gesammelte mathematische Werke und wissenschaftlicher Nachlass*, Teubner, Leipzig, reprinted in *Collected works of Bernhard Riemann*, Dover Publications (1953), 353–366
Riesz, M. (1949). *L’integrale de Riemann-Liouville et le probl$\acute{\text{e}}$me de Cauchy* Acta Math. **81**, 1–222 Weyl, H. (1917). *Bemerkungen zum Begriff des Differentialquotienten gebrochener Ordnung* Vierteljahresschr. Naturforsch. Ges. Zürich, [**[62]{}**]{}, 296–302
*$^1$ gigaHedron\
Berliner Ring 80\
D-63303 Dreieich, Germany\
e-mail: [email protected]\
*
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
Qi Wang[^1], Jingyue Yang [^2], Feng Yu [^3]\
Department of Mathematics\
Southwestern University of Finance and Economics\
555 Liutai Ave, Wenjiang, Chengdu, Sichuan 611130, China
title: '**Global existence and uniform boundedness in advective Lotka–Volterra competition system with nonlinear diffusion**'
---
This paper investigates reaction–advection–diffusion systems with Lotka–Volterra dynamics subject to homogeneous Neumann boundary conditions. Under conditions on growth rates of the density–dependent diffusion and sensitivity functions, we prove the global existence of classical solutions to the system and show that they are uniformly bounded in time. We also obtain the global existence and uniform boundedness for the corresponding parabolic–elliptic systems. Our results suggest that attraction (positive taxis) inhibits blowups in Lotka–Volterra competition systems.
**Keywords: Lotka–Volterra competition system, nonlinear diffusion, global existence, boundedness**
Introduction {#section1}
============
This paper is concerned with the global existence and boundedness of $(u,v)=(u(x,t),v(x,t))$ to reaction–advection–diffusion systems of the following form $$\label{11}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
u_t=\nabla \cdot (D_1(u) \nabla u+\chi \phi(u) \nabla v)+(a_1-b_1u^{\alpha}-c_1v)u,&x \in \Omega,t>0, \\
v_t=D_2\Delta v+(a_2-b_2u-c_2v)v,&x \in \Omega,t>0, \\
\frac{\partial u}{\partial \textbf{n}}=\frac{\partial v}{\partial \textbf{n}}=0,&x\in\partial \Omega,t>0,\\
u(x,0)=u_0(x)\geq 0,v(x,0)=v_0(x)\geq 0, &x\in \Omega.
\end{array}
\right.$$ Here $\Omega$ is a bounded domain in $\mathbb{R}^N, N\geq 1$ and its smooth boundary $\partial \Omega$ is endowed with unit outer normal $\textbf{n}$. $a_i$, $b_i$, $c_i$, $i=1,2$, $D_2$ and $\chi$ are positive constants, while $D_1$ and $\phi$ are $C^2$–smooth functions of $u$. We assume there exist some positive constants $M_i$, $m_i>0$, $i=1,2$ such that $$\label{12}
D_1(u)\geq M_1(1+u)^{m_1}, \forall u\geq 0,$$ and $$\label{13}
0\leq \phi(u)\leq M_2u^{m_2}, \forall u\geq 0.$$
System (\[11\]) can be used to model the evolution of population distributions of two competing species subject to Lotka–Volterra dynamics. Consider two species with population densities at space–time location $(x,t)\in\Omega\times \mathbb R^+$ denoted by $u(x,t)$ and $v(x,t)$, respectively. Diffusions describe the random dispersals of the species as an anti–crowding mechanism and they are taken to be spatially local and against the direction of population gradient of the focal species. Moreover such anti–crowding motion changes with respect to the variation of the population density, and therefore we assume that $D_1$ is a function of $u$, while $D_2$ is chosen to be a positive constant for the simplicity of our analysis. The advection $\chi\phi(u)\nabla v$, or the cross–diffusion, accounts for the directed dispersal due to the population pressure from competing species $v$, and it is along with the direction of population gradient $\nabla v$. In (\[11\]) the function $\phi(u)$ interprets the variation of the advection intensity with respect to population density $u$. The population kinetics are assumed to be of Lotka–Volterra type.
The initial step to understand the spatial–temporal dynamics of (\[11\]) is to study its global well–posedness. When the domain $\Omega$ is one–dimensional, by applying the standard parabolic maximum principle and Moser–Alikakos $L^p$ iteration, one can easily prove the global existence and uniform boundedness of (\[11\]). It is the goal of this paper to investigate the effect of growth rates $m_i$ and decay rate $\alpha$, although far from being well understood, on the global existence and uniform boundedness of the system over multi–dimensional domain. Our first main result reads as follows.
\[theorem11\] Suppose that $\Omega\in \mathbb{R}^N, N\geq2$, is a bounded domain in $\mathbb{R}^N$, $N\geq1$. Assume that the smooth functions $D_1(u)$ and $\phi(u)$ satisfy (\[12\]) and (\[13\]) respectively with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{14}
m_2-m_1<
\begin{cases}
\frac{2}{N},&\text{~if~} 0<\alpha < 1,\\
\frac{3N+2}{N(N+2)},&\text{~if~} \alpha\geq 1,\\
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ then for any nonnegative $(u_0,v_0)\in C^\kappa(\bar{\Omega}) \times W^{1,\infty}(\Omega)$, $\kappa>1$, there exists at least one couple $(u,v)$ of nonnegative bounded functions each belonging to $C^0(\bar{\Omega}\times[0,\infty))\cap C^{2,1}(\bar{\Omega}\times(0,\infty))$ which solves (\[11\]) classically. Moreover if $(u_0,v_0)\in W^{k,p}(\Omega)\times W^{k,p}(\Omega)$ for some $k>1$ and $p>N$, the bounded solution above is unique.
By a different approach we are able to prove the following result under a condition different from (\[14\]).
\[theorem12\] Suppose that all conditions in Theorem \[theorem11\] hold except that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{15}
2m_2-m_1<
\begin{cases}
\max\{\alpha, m_1\}+\frac{2}{N},&\text{~if~} 0<\alpha < 1,\\
\max\{\alpha, m_1\}+\frac{4}{N+2},&\text{~if~} \alpha\geq 1,\\
\end{cases}
\end{aligned}$$ then all the conclusions in Theorem \[theorem11\] hold, i.e., the solutions to (\[11\]) are global and uniformly bounded in time.
In the absence of advection with $\chi=0$, and when $D_1(u)\equiv D_1$, $\alpha=1$, (\[11\]) reduces to the classical diffusive Lotka–Volterra competition model $$\label{16}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
u_t=D_1\Delta u+(a_1-b_1u-c_1v)u,&x \in \Omega,t>0, \\
v_t=D_2\Delta v+(a_2-b_2u-c_2v)v,&x \in \Omega,t>0, \\
\frac{\partial u}{\partial \textbf{n}}=\frac{\partial v}{\partial \textbf{n}}=0,&x\in\partial \Omega,t>0,\\
u(x,0)=u_0(x)\geq 0,v(x,0)=v_0(x)\geq 0, &x\in \Omega.
\end{array}
\right.$$ Thanks to the standard parabolic maximum principles, it is quite obvious that the solution $(u,v)$ to (\[16\]) exists globally and is uniformly bounded [@CHS; @CS]. It is well known that its positive homogeneous solutions $(\bar u,\bar v)$ is the global (exponential) attractor of (\[16\]) in weak competition case $\frac{b_1}{b_2}>\frac{a_1}{a_2}>\frac{c_1}{c_2}$ [@CHS; @DR], and (\[16\]) does not admit stable nonconstant steady states when $\Omega$ is convex [@KiW] or one of the diffusion rates $D_i$ is large [@DR; @LN]. On the other hand, the system admits nonconstant positive steady states when $\Omega$ is non–convex (e.g. of dumb–bell shaped) in the strong competition case $\frac{b_1}{b_2}<\frac{a_1}{a_2}<\frac{c_1}{c_2}$, with properly chosen (small) diffusion rates [@MM; @MEF; @MK; @MNTT]. See [@LN; @LN2; @WGY] for further discussions on (\[16\]).
Though it is not entirely unrealistic to assume that mutually interacting species disperse over the habitat purely randomly, from the viewpoint of mathematical modeling, it is interesting and important to incorporate advection or cross–diffusion into system (\[16\]), which accounts for the dispersal pressure due to population gradient of the intra– and/or inter–species. On the other hand, one of the most interesting phenomena in ecological evolutions is the well observed segregation of competition species, i.e., some regions of the habitat are dominated by one species and the rest by the other, however in most cases, system (\[16\]) inhibits the formations of nontrivial patterns such as boundary spikes, transition layers etc., which can be used to model the aforementioned segregation. For this purpose, the following model with advection was proposed and studied in [@WGY] $$\label{17}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
u_t=\nabla \cdot (D_1 \nabla u+\chi u \nabla v)+(a_1-b_1u-c_1v)u,&x \in \Omega,t>0, \\
v_t=D_2\Delta v+(a_2-b_2u-c_2v)v,&x \in \Omega,t>0, \\
\frac{\partial u}{\partial \textbf{n}}=\frac{\partial v}{\partial \textbf{n}}=0,&x\in\partial \Omega,t>0,\\
u(x,0)=u_0(x)\geq 0,v(x,0)=v_0(x)\geq 0, &x\in \Omega,
\end{array}
\right.$$ where all the parameters are positive constants. In [@WGY], global existence and boundedness are obtained for this fully parabolic system when $\Omega$ is one–dimensional and for its parabolic–elliptic counterpart when $\Omega$ is multi–dimensional and $\frac{\chi}{D_2}$ is small. Steady state bifurcation is performed to establish the existence and stability of its nonconstant stationary solutions. Moreover, it is shown that (\[17\]) admits transition–layer steady states when $\chi$ and $1/D_2$ are sufficiently large. Kuto and Tsujikawa have done a nice parallel work [@KT] on the limiting structure of stationary solutions to (\[17\]) as diffusion and advection of one of the species tend to infinity. Moreover, they investigated internal and boundary layer steady states of the limiting system. These nonconstant steady states can be used to model the aforementioned segregation phenomenon. Recently it is proved in [@SSW] that extinction through competition does not occur in (\[17\]) in the weak competition case provided with small initial data. Global existence and nonconstant steady states of (\[11\]) with sublinear sensitivity are obtained in [@WZ] when $\Omega$ is a multi–dimensional bounded domain.
In this work, we extend model (\[17\]) to the more realistic (\[11\]) with nonconstant diffusion by assuming that the random dispersal rate of species depends nonlinearly on the population density of the focal species $u$. Moreover, the density–dependent sensitivity means that the advective velocity of species $u$ varies with different population density. By nonlinear diffusion and sensitivity, we are able to use (\[11\]) to describe population–induced dispersals in ecological applications. Here for the simplicity of our analysis $D_2$ is assumed to be a positive constant and we shall focus the interplay between $m_i$ and $\alpha$ on our global existence results.
We would like to mention that (\[11\]) serves as a prototype for reaction–diffusion systems with cross–diffusion which models population pressures created by the competitions. For example, Shigesada, Kawasaki and Teramoto [@SKT] proposed the following system in 1979 to model the segregation phenomenon of two competing species $$\label{18}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
u_t=\Delta[(d_1+\rho_{11}u+\rho_{12}v)u]+(a_1-b_1u-c_1v)u, &x \in \Omega,~t>0, \\
v_t=\Delta[(d_2+\rho_{21}u+\rho_{22}v)v]+(a_2-b_2u-c_2v)v,& x \in \Omega,~t>0, \\
\frac{\partial u}{\partial \textbf{n}}=\frac{\partial v}{\partial \textbf{n}}=0,& x \in \partial \Omega,~t>0,\\
u(x,0)=u_0(x) \geq 0,~ v(x,0)=v_0(x) \geq 0,& x\in \Omega,
\end{array}
\right.$$ which takes into consideration both *self–diffusions* $\rho_{11},\rho_{22}$ and *cross–diffusions* $\rho_{12},\rho_{21}$. (\[18\]) has received adequate attention over the past few decades since its appearance, and a great deal of effort has been devoted to studying its global existence [@CLY; @CLY2; @LeNN; @LNW; @Shim; @Tuoc; @TuP; @Yamada] and positive steady states [@KW; @Kuto; @KT; @LN; @LN2; @LNY; @LNY2; @NWX; @Wq; @WX]. To compare (\[18\]) with (\[11\]), we let $\rho_{21}=\rho_{22}=0$ and rewrite it into the following form $$\label{19}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
u_t=\nabla \cdot [(d_1+2\rho_{11}u+\rho_{12}v) \nabla u+\rho_{12}u\nabla v]+(a_1-b_1u-c_1v)u, &x \in \Omega,~t>0, \\
v_t= d_2\Delta v+(a_2-b_2u-c_2v)v,& x \in \Omega,~t>0, \\
\frac{\partial u}{\partial \textbf{n}}=\frac{\partial v}{\partial \textbf{n}}=0,& x \in \partial \Omega,~t>0,\\
u(x,0)=u_0(x) \geq 0,~ v(x,0)=v_0(x) \geq 0,& x\in \Omega.
\end{array}
\right.$$ which is a special case of (\[11\]) with $m_2=m_1=\alpha=1$. It is proved in [@LNW] that when space dimension $N=2$, if $u_0,v_0\in W^{k,p}$ for some $k>N$, then (\[19\]) has a unique global solution which solves the system classically. This global existence result can be rediscovered by both Theorem \[11\] and Theorem \[21\] since both (\[14\]) and (\[15\]) obviously hold. Moreover our results show that the global solutions are uniformly bounded in time which was not available in [@LNW].
Another example is the following model proposed in [@CCL; @CCLX] to study the dispersal strategies leading to ideal free distribution of populations in evolutionary ecology $$\label{110}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
u_t=\nabla \cdot (d_1\nabla u-\chi u \nabla (m-u-v))+(m-u-v)u,&x \in \Omega,t>0, \\
v_t=d_2\Delta v+(m-u-v)v,&x \in \Omega,t>0, \\
\frac{\partial u}{\partial \textbf{n}}=\frac{\partial v}{\partial \textbf{n}}=0,&x\in\partial \Omega,t>0,\\
u(x,0)=u_0(x)\geq 0,v(x,0)=v_0(x)\geq 0, &x\in \Omega,
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $d_1$, $d_2$ and $\chi$ are positive constants. $m=m(x)\in C^{2+\gamma}(\bar \Omega)$ and $m(x)>0$ in $\Omega$. Lou *et al.* [@LTW] studied the bounded classical global solutions to the following system over multi–dimensional domain $N\geq1$. We note that (\[110\]) can be rewritten as $$\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
u_t=\nabla \cdot ((d_1+\chi u)\nabla u+\chi u \nabla v-\chi u\nabla m)+(m-u-v)u,&x \in \Omega,t>0, \\
v_t=d_2\Delta v+r(m-u-v)v,&x \in \Omega,t>0, \\
\frac{\partial u}{\partial \textbf{n}}=\frac{\partial v}{\partial \textbf{n}}=0,&x\in\partial \Omega,t>0,\\
u(x,0)=u_0(x)\geq 0,v(x,0)=v_0(x)\geq 0, &x\in \Omega,
\end{array}
\right.$$ hence it is a special case of (\[11\]) with $m_1=m_2=\alpha=1$ and the global well–posedness follows from Theorem \[theorem11\] or Theorem \[theorem12\]. We refer to [@CJun; @CJun2; @Cosner; @DLMT; @HNP; @Jun; @Le; @LeN; @LeN2; @LW; @SK] and the references therein for works cross–diffusion systems.
We would like to mention that (\[11\]) is very similar as the nonlinear diffusion Keller–Segel models of chemotaxis, which describes the directed movements of cellular organisms in response to chemical stimulus. In particular, the chemotaxis is positive if the cells move towards high concentration of attractive chemical (sugar, nutrition e.g.) and chemotaxis is negative if the cells move against repulsive chemical (poison, hazardous materials e.g.). It is also necessary to point out that the logistic growth in Lotka–Volterra dynamics, which inhibits solutions from blowing up in finite or infinite time for purely diffusive models, might not be sufficient to prevent blowups when advection or chemotaxis is present. For example, Le and Nguyen [@LN] gave an example of finite–time blowup solutions to a cross–diffusion system subject to Lotka–Volterra dynamics. See [@Lan; @Winkler3; @Winkler4] for counter–examples for chemotaxis models with logistic growth. Moreover, we refer the reader to [@BDD; @CC; @CiS; @ISY; @TW; @TW2; @WMZ; @Wyf; @ZL; @ZMH; @ZMS] for works on chemotaxis models with nonlinear diffusions.
The rest part of this paper is organized as follows. In Section \[section2\], we present the existence and an extension criterion of local–in–time solutions to (\[11\]) together with their important properties. In Section \[section3\], we establish several *a priori* estimates which are essential for the proof of Theorem \[theorem11\] and Theorem \[theorem12\]. Finally, we study the parabolic–elliptic system of (\[11\]) in Section \[section4\]. For parabolic–elliptic system with repulsion, we prove its global existence and boundedness in Theorem \[theorem41\] and Theorem \[theorem42\] under conditions on $m_i$ and $\alpha$ milder than (\[14\]) and (\[15\]); moreover for parabolic–elliptic with attraction (i.e., change $\chi$ to $-\chi$), we prove in Theorem \[theorem43\] that the solutions are global and bounded for as long as one of $m_1$, $m_2$ and $\alpha$ is nonnegative. Our results indicate that repulsion or negative chemotaxis, which acts as a smoothing process for Keller–Segel models, destabilizes the spatially homogeneous solution of Lotka–Volterra competition systems (see Proposition 1 in [@WGY] e.g.).
In the sequel, we denote $C_{i\text{x}}$/$C_{i\text{xx}}$ as the x–th/xx-th positive constant in the $i$–th section.
Local existence and preliminary results {#section2}
=======================================
The mathematical analysis of global well–posedness of (\[11\]) is delicate since maximum principle does not apply for the $u$ equation. We first study the local well–posedness of (\[11\]) following the fundamental theory developed by Amann [@Am].
\[proposition21\] Let $\Omega$ be a bounded domain in $\mathbb R^N$, $N\geq1$. Let $a_i, b_i, c_i, \alpha, D_2$ be positive and suppose that $D_1(u)$ and $\phi(u)$ are $C^2$ smooth functions and they satisfy (\[12\]) and (\[13\]) for positive constants $m_i$ and $M_i$, $i=1,2$. Assume that for some $\kappa>1$ and $p>N$, $(u_0,v_0)$ belongs to $(W^{\kappa,p}(\Omega))^2$ and $u_0,v_0\geq,\not\equiv 0 $ in $\bar{\Omega}$. Then there exist $T_{\max}\in(0,\infty]$ and a unique couple $(u,v)$ of nonnegative functions from $C^0(\bar{\Omega}\times[0,T_{\max}))\cap C^{2,1}(\bar{\Omega}\times(0,T_{\max}))$ solving (\[11\]) classically in $\Omega\times(0,T_{\max})$. Moreover $u(x,t)\geq 0$ and $v(x,t)\geq0$ in $\Omega\times(0,T_{\max})$ and the following dichotomy holds: $$\label{21}
\text{either \quad} T_{\max}=\infty \text{\qquad or\qquad} \limsup_{t\nearrow T_{\max}^-} \|u(\cdot,t)\|_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)}=\infty.$$
Next we collect some properties of the local solution.
\[lemma22\] Let $(u,v)$ be a nonnegative classical solution of (\[11\]) in $\Omega\times(0,T_{\max})$. Then the following statements hold true:
\(i) there exists a positive constant $C$ such that $$\label{22}
\int_\Omega u(x,t)dx\leq C, \forall t\in(0,T_{\max})$$ and $$\label{23}
0\leq v(x,t) \leq \max\Big\{\frac{a_2}{c_2},\Vert v_0\Vert_{L^\infty(\Omega)}\Big\}, \forall (x,t)\in\Omega \times (0,T_{\max});$$
\(ii) for each $s\in[1,\frac{N}{N-1})$, there exists $C_s>0$ such that $$\label{24}
\Vert v (\cdot,t) \Vert_{W^{1,s}(\Omega)} \leq C_s, \forall t\in(0,T_{\max});$$ moreover if $u\in L^p(\Omega)$ for some $p\in[1,\infty)$, there exists a positive constant $C$ dependent on $\Vert v_0 \Vert _{L^{q}(\Omega)}$ and $\vert \Omega\vert$ such that $$\label{25}
\Vert v(\cdot,t) \Vert_{W^{1,q}(\Omega)} \le C\Big(1+\sup_{s\in(0,t)} \Vert u(\cdot,s)\Vert_{L^p(\Omega)}\Big), \forall t\geq0,$$ where $q\in[1,\frac{Np}{N-p})$ if $p\in [1,N)$, $q\in [1,\infty)$ if $p=N$ and $q=\infty$ if $p>N$.
First of all, the nonnegativity of $u(x,t)$ and (\[23\]) follows if we apply the standard parabolic maximum principles and Hopf’s lemma to the $v$–equation. To show (\[22\]), we integrate the $u$–equation in (\[11\]) over $\Omega$ to get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{26}
\frac{d}{dt}\int_{\Omega}u=a_1 \int_{\Omega}u-b_1\int_{\Omega}u^{\alpha+1}-c_1\int_{\Omega}uv \leq a_1 \int_{\Omega}u-b_1\int_{\Omega}u^{\alpha+1}.
\end{aligned}$$ After applying the Young’s inequality $(a_1+1) \int_{\Omega}u\leq b_1\int_{\Omega}u^{\alpha+1}+C_\Omega$ for some positive constant $C_\Omega$, we obtain from (\[26\]) $$\frac{d}{dt}\int_{\Omega}u+\int_{\Omega}u\leq C$$ and solving this differential inequality by Grönwall’s lemma leads us to (\[22\]).
To verify *(ii)*, we observe that (\[24\]) is a special case of (\[25\]) with $p=1$ and therefore we shall only prove the latter. To this end, we write the following abstract formula of $v$ $$\label{27}
v(\cdot,t)=e^{D_2 (\Delta-1)t}v_0+\int_0^t e^{D_2 (\Delta-1)(t-s)} \big(D_2v(\cdot,s)+g(u(\cdot,s),v(\cdot,s)) \big)ds,$$ where $g(u,v)=(a_2-b_2u-c_2v)v$. Thanks to the $L^p$–$L^q$ estimates between semigroups $\{e^{t\Delta}\}_{t\geq0}$ (Lemma 1.3 of [@Winkler] e.g.), we can find positive constants $C_{21}$, $C_{22}$ and $C_{23}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{28}
&\Vert v(\cdot,t) \Vert _{W^{1,q}}\nonumber \\
=&\Big \Vert e^{D_2 (\Delta-1)t}v_0+\int_0^t e^{D_2 (\Delta-1)(t-s)} \big(D_2v(\cdot,s)+g(u(\cdot,s),v(\cdot,s)) \big)ds\Big\Vert _{W^{1,q}} \nonumber\\
\leq& C_{21} \Vert v_0\Vert_{L^p}+C_{21}\int_0^t e^{-D_2\nu(t-s)}(1+(t-s)^{-\frac{1}{2}-\frac{N}{2}(\frac{1}{p}-\frac{1}{q})})(\Vert u(\cdot,t)\Vert_{L^p}+1) ds \nonumber\\
\leq& C_{22} +C_{23}\int_0^t e^{-D_2\nu(t-s)}(1+(t-s)^{-\frac{1}{2}-\frac{N}{2}(\frac{1}{p}-\frac{1}{q})}) \Vert u(\cdot,s)\Vert_{L^p} ds \nonumber \\
\leq& C_{22}+C_{23} \Big(\int_0^t e^{-D_2\nu(t-s)}(1+(t-s)^{-\frac{1}{2}-\frac{N}{2}(\frac{1}{p}-\frac{1}{q})})ds\Big)\sup_{s\in(0,t)} \Vert u(\cdot,s)\Vert_{L^p},\end{aligned}$$ where $\nu$ is the first Neumann eigenvalue of $-\Delta$. On the other hand, under the conditions on $q$ after (\[25\]) we have $$\sup_{t\in(0,\infty)}\int_0^t e^{-D_2\nu(t-s)}(1+(t-s)^{-\frac{1}{2}-\frac{N}{2}(\frac{1}{p}-\frac{1}{q})}) ds<\infty,$$ and therefore (\[25\]) follows from (\[28\]).
According to (\[24\]) in Lemma \[lemma22\], $\Vert\nabla v(\cdot,t)\Vert_{L^s}$ is bounded for $s\in[1,\frac{N}{N-1})$. Therefore for $N=1$, one has the boundedness of $\Vert\nabla v(\cdot,t)\Vert_{L^s}$ for each fixed $s\in[1,\infty)$. By the standard Moser–Alikakos iteration we can easily prove the global existence and boundedness in Theorem \[theorem11\] and Theorem \[theorem12\] for $N=1$. Therefore, in the sequel we shall focus on $N\geq2$ for which one has the boundedness of $\Vert\nabla v(\cdot,t)\Vert_{L^s}$ for each fixed $s\in[1,\frac{N}{N-1})$. In this case, we want to point out that $\frac{N}{N-1}\leq2$ and our next result indicates that $s=2$ can be achieved if $\alpha\geq1$.
Suppose that $\alpha\geq 1$, then there exists a positive constant $C$ such that $$\label{29}
\Vert \nabla v(\cdot,t) \Vert_{L^2(\Omega)} \leq C, \forall t\in(0,T_{\max}).$$
Testing the $v$-equation in (\[11\]) by $\Delta v$ and then integrating it over $\Omega$ by parts, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{210}
\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\int_{\Omega}\vert \nabla v \vert^2 =&\int_{\Omega}\nabla v \cdot \nabla v_t \nonumber \\
=&\int_{\Omega}\nabla v\cdot\nabla [D_2\Delta v+(a_2-b_2u-c_2v)v] \nonumber \\
=& -D_2\int_{\Omega}\vert \Delta v \vert^2 + a_2\int_{\Omega}\vert \nabla v \vert^2 + \int_{\Omega} b_2 uv\Delta v -2c_2\int_\Omega v|\nabla v|^2 \nonumber \\
\leq& -D_2\int_{\Omega}\vert \Delta v \vert^2 + a_2\int_{\Omega}\vert \nabla v \vert^2 + \frac{b^2_2}{2D_2}\int_{\Omega} u^2v^2 +\frac{D_2}{2}\int_{\Omega}|\Delta v|^2 \nonumber \\
\leq& -\frac{D_2}{2}\int_{\Omega}\vert \Delta v \vert^2+a_2\int_{\Omega}\vert \nabla v \vert^2+\mu\int_{\Omega} u^2,\end{aligned}$$ where $\mu:=\frac{b^2_2\|v\|^2_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)}}{2D_2}$ and $C_{24}$ is a positive constant. By Sobolev interpolation inequality and in light of the boundedness of $\Vert v\Vert_{L^\infty(\Omega)}$, we obtain that for positive constants $C_{25}$ and $C_{26}$ $$\begin{aligned}
\Big(a_2+\frac{1}{2}\Big)\int_{\Omega}\vert \nabla v\vert ^2\leq \frac{D_2}{2}\int_{\Omega}\vert \Delta v\vert^2+C_{25}\int_{\Omega} v^2\leq \frac{D_2}{2}\int_{\Omega}\vert \Delta v\vert^2+C_{26}.
\end{aligned}$$ Multiplying (\[26\]) by $\frac{2\mu}{b_1}$ and then adding it to (\[210\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{d}{dt}\Big(\frac{2\mu}{b_1}\int_{\Omega}u +\frac{1}{2}\int_{\Omega}\vert \nabla v \vert^2 \Big)
+\Big(\frac{2\mu}{b_1}\int_{\Omega}u +\frac{1}{2}\int_{\Omega}\vert \nabla v \vert^2 \Big) \\
\leq &\Big(\frac{2a_1\mu}{b_1} \int_{\Omega}u-\mu\int_{\Omega}u^{\alpha+1}\Big)
+\mu\Big(\int_{\Omega}u^{2} -\int_{\Omega}u^{\alpha+1} \Big)+C_{27}
\leq C_{28},
\end{aligned}$$ where $C_{27}$ and $C_{28}$ are positive constant, and therefore $\Vert\nabla v\Vert_{L^2}$ is bounded for all $t\in(0,T_{\max})$ as desired.
Parabolic–parabolic system in multi–dimensional domain {#section3}
======================================================
According to Proposition \[proposition21\] and (\[23\]), in order to prove Theorem \[theorem11\] and Theorem \[theorem12\], it is sufficient to show that $\Vert u(\cdot,t)\Vert_{L^\infty(\Omega)}$ is bounded for each time $t\in(0,T_{\max})$ and therefore $T_{\max}=\infty$ and the solution is global. Indeed we will show that $\Vert u(\cdot,t)\Vert_{L^\infty(\Omega)}$ is uniformly bounded in $t\in(0,\infty)$. To this end, it is sufficient to prove that $\Vert u(\cdot,t)\Vert_{L^p(\Omega)}$ is bounded for some $p$ large according to (\[25\]). For this purpose we will give a combined estimate on $\int_{\Omega} u^p+\int_{\Omega} |\nabla v|^{2q}$ for both $p$ and $q$ large based on the idea recently developed in [@LTW; @TW2; @Winkler2] etc.
A priori estimates
------------------
For any $p\geq2$, we multiply the $u$-equation in (\[11\]) by $u^{p-1}$ and then integrate it over $\Omega$ by parts $$\begin{aligned}
\label{31}
\frac{1}{p}\frac{d}{dt}\int_{\Omega} u^p=&\int_{\Omega} u^{p-1} \nabla\cdot(D_1(u)\nabla u)+\int_{\Omega} u^{p-1} \nabla\cdot(\chi \phi(u)\nabla v)+\int_{\Omega} u^p(a_1-b_1u^\alpha-c_1v) \nonumber\\
=&-(p-1)\int_{\Omega} D_1(u)u^{p-2}|\nabla u|^2-(p-1)\int_{\Omega} \chi \phi(u)u^{p-2}\nabla u\nabla v \nonumber\\
&+\int_{\Omega} u^p(a_1-b_1u^\alpha-c_1v).\end{aligned}$$ In light of $D_1(u)\geq M_1(1+u)^{m_1}>M_1 u^{m_1}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{32}
(p-1)\int_{\Omega} D_1(u)u^{p-2}|\nabla u|^2
\geq& M_1(p-1)\int_{\Omega} u^{p+m_1-2}|\nabla u|^2\nonumber\\
=&\frac{4M_1(p-1)}{(p+m_1)^2}\int_{\Omega}|\nabla u^{\frac{p+m_1}{2}}|^2,\end{aligned}$$ where the identity follows from $$u^{p+m_1-2}|\nabla u|^2=\frac{4}{(p+m_1)^2} |\nabla u^{\frac{p+m_1}{2}}|^2.$$ Moreover Young’s inequality implies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{33}
& -(p-1)\int_{\Omega} \chi \phi(u)u^{p-2}\nabla u\nabla v \nonumber \\
\leq &\frac{M_1(p-1)}{2}\int_{\Omega} u^{p+m_1-2}|\nabla u|^2+ \frac{\chi^2(p-1)}{2M_1} \int_{\Omega} u^{p-m_1-2}\phi^2(u)|\nabla v|^2 \nonumber \\
\leq &\frac{2M_1(p-1)}{(p+m_1)^2}\int_{\Omega}|\nabla u^{\frac{p+m_1}{2}}|^2+\frac{\chi^2 M_2^2(p-1)}{2M_1} \int_{\Omega} u^{p-m_1+2m_2-2}|\nabla v|^2\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{34}
\Big(a_1+\frac{1}{p}\Big)\int_{\Omega}u^{p}\leq \frac{b_1}{2}\int_{\Omega}u^{p+\alpha}+C_{31},\end{aligned}$$ where $C_{31}$ is a positive constant dependent on $p$. Thanks to (\[32\])–(\[34\]) we have from (\[31\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{35}
&\frac{1}{p}\frac{d}{dt}\int_{\Omega} u^p +\frac{1}{p}\int_{\Omega} u^p +\frac{2M_1(p-1)}{(p+m_1)^2}\int_{\Omega} |\nabla u^{\frac{p+m_1}{2}}|^2+\frac{b_1}{2}\int_{\Omega}u^{p+\alpha} \nonumber\\
\leq& \frac{\chi^2 M_2^2(p-1)}{2M_1} \int_{\Omega} u^{p-m_1+2m_2-2}|\nabla v|^2 +C_{31}.\end{aligned}$$
On the other hand, for any $q>1$, we have from the $v$-equation in (\[11\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{36}
&\frac{1}{2q}\frac{d}{dt}\int_{\Omega} |\nabla v|^{2q}
=\int_{\Omega} |\nabla v|^{2q-2} \nabla v \cdot\nabla v_t \nonumber \\
=&\smash[b]{\overbrace{ D_2\int_{\Omega} |\nabla v|^{2q-2} \nabla v\cdot \nabla\Delta v\,}^\text{$I_1$}}+
\smash[b]{\overbrace{\int_{\Omega} |\nabla v|^{2q-2} \nabla v\cdot \nabla [(a_2-b_2u-c_2v)v]\,}^\text{$I_2$}}.\end{aligned}$$ In light of the identity $$\nabla v\cdot \nabla \Delta v=\frac{1}{2}\Delta |\nabla v|^2- |D^2 v|^2,$$ we first estimate $I_{1}$ in (\[36\]) through $$\begin{aligned}
\label{37}
I_1=&\frac{D_2}{2}\int_{\Omega} |\nabla v|^{2q-2} \Delta|\nabla v|^2-D_2\int_{\Omega} |\nabla v|^{2q-2} |D^2 v|^2 \nonumber\\
=&\frac{D_2}{2}\int_{\partial\Omega} |\nabla v|^{2q-2} \frac{\partial|\nabla v|^2}{\partial n}-\frac{D_2}{2}\int_{\Omega}\nabla |\nabla v|^{2q-2}\cdot \nabla|\nabla v|^2 -D_2\int_{\Omega} |\nabla v|^{2q-2} |D^2 v|^2 \nonumber\\
=&\smash[b]{\overbrace{\frac{D_2}{2}\int_{\partial\Omega} |\nabla v|^{2q-2} \frac{\partial|\nabla v|^2}{\partial n}\,}^\text{$I_{11}$}}-
\smash[b]{\overbrace{ \frac{(q-1)D_2}{2}\int_{\Omega} |\nabla v|^{2q-4} \Big| \nabla|\nabla v|^2 \Big|^2\,}^\text{$I_{12}$}}\nonumber \\
&-\smash[b]{\overbrace{D_2\int_{\Omega} |\nabla v|^{2q-2} |D^2 v|^2 \,}^\text{$I_{13}$}}.\end{aligned}$$
To estimate $I_{11}$, we invoke the inequality $\frac{\partial|\nabla v|^2}{\partial n}\leq C_{\Omega}|\nabla v|^2$ (e.g. inequality (2.4) in [@ISY]) with $C_{\Omega}$ being a positive constant depending only on the curvatures of $\partial\Omega$ to deduce $$\label{38}
I_{11}=\frac{D_2}{2}\int_{\partial\Omega} |\nabla v|^{2q-2} \frac{\partial|\nabla v|^2}{\partial n}\leq \frac{D_2 C_{\Omega}}{2}\int_{\partial\Omega} |\nabla v|^{2q}
:=\bar C_{\Omega}\Big\||\nabla v|^q\Big\|^2_{L^2(\partial\Omega)}.$$ By taking $r\in(0,\frac{1}{2})$, we have from (1.9) in [@ISY] that the embedding $ W^{r+\frac{1}{2},2}(\Omega) (\hookrightarrow W^{r,2}(\partial\Omega))\hookrightarrow L^2(\partial\Omega)$ is compact and therefore there exists a positive constant $C_{32}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{39}
\Big\||\nabla v|^q\Big\|_{L^2(\partial\Omega)}\leq C_{32}\Big\||\nabla v|^q\Big\|_{W^{r+\frac{1}{2},2}(\Omega)}.\end{aligned}$$ Let $h_1\in(0,1)$ satisfy $$\frac{1}{2}-\frac{r+\frac{1}{2}}{N}=\Big(1-h_1\Big)\frac{q}{s}+h_1\Big(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{N}\Big),$$ or $$h_1=\frac{\frac{q}{s}-(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{2N}-\frac{r}{N})}{\frac{q}{s}-(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{N})}\in(r+\frac{1}{2},1),$$ where we choose $s\in [1,\frac{N}{N-1})$ if $\alpha<1$ and $s=2$ if $\alpha\geq1$, then we can invoke the fractional Gagliardo–Nirenberg interpolation inequality to deduce $$\begin{aligned}
\label{310}
\Big\||\nabla v|^q\Big\|_{W^{r+\frac{1}{2},2}(\Omega)}&\leq C_{33} \Big\|\nabla|\nabla v|^q\Big\|^{h_1}_{L^2(\Omega)}\Big\||\nabla v|^q\Big\|^{1-h_1}_{L^{\frac{s}{q}}(\Omega)}+C_{34}\Big\||\nabla v|^q\Big\|_{L^{\frac{s}{q}}(\Omega)}\nonumber\\
& \leq C_{35} \Big\|\nabla|\nabla v|^q\Big\|^{h_1}_{L^2(\Omega)}+C_{36},\end{aligned}$$ where we have applied the fact that $\Vert \nabla v\Vert_{L^s}$ is uniformly bounded. In conjunction with (\[39\]) and (\[310\]), we obtain from (\[38\]) through Young’s inequality that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{311}
I_{11}
&\leq 2\bar C_\Omega C^2_{32} (C^2_{35} \Big\|\nabla|\nabla v|^q\Big\|^{2h_1}_{L^2(\Omega)}+ C^2_{36})\nonumber \\
&\leq \frac{(q-1)D_2}{q^2} \int_\Omega\Big|\nabla|\nabla v|^q\Big|^2+ C_{37}\end{aligned}$$ since $h_1<1$, where $C_{37}$ is a positive constant. To estimate $I_{12}$ we note $$|\nabla v|^{2q-4}\Big|\nabla|\nabla v|^2\Big|^2=\frac{4}{q^2}\Big|\nabla|\nabla v|^q\Big|^2,$$ then $$\label{312}
I_{12}=\frac{2(q-1)D_2}{q^2}\int_\Omega \Big|\nabla|\nabla v|^q\Big|^2.$$ Substituting (\[311\]) and (\[312\]) into (\[37\]) gives us $$\label{313}
I_1\leq -\frac{(q-1)D_2}{q^2}\int_\Omega\Big|\nabla|\nabla v|^q\Big|^2 -D_2\int_{\Omega} |\nabla v|^{2q-2} |D^2 v|^2 +C_{38}.$$
To estimate $I_2$, we obtain from the integration by parts $$\begin{aligned}
\label{314}
I_2=&\int_{\Omega} |\nabla v|^{2q-2} \nabla v \cdot \nabla[(a_2-b_2u-c_2v)v] \nonumber \\
=&-\int_{\Omega} (a_2-b_2u-c_2v)v \nabla \cdot(|\nabla v|^{2q-2} \nabla v) \nonumber \\
=&-\int_{\Omega} (a_2-b_2u-c_2v)v |\nabla v|^{2q-2} \Delta v \nonumber \\
&- (q-1)\int_{\Omega} (a_2-b_2u-c_2v)v |\nabla v|^{2q-4} \nabla|\nabla v|^2\cdot \nabla v \nonumber\\
=&-\smash[b]{\overbrace{ \int_{\Omega} (a_2-c_2v)v |\nabla v|^{2q-2} \Delta v\,}^\text{$I_{21}$}}-\smash[b]{\overbrace{ (q-1)\int_{\Omega} (a_2-c_2v)v |\nabla v|^{2q-4} \nabla|\nabla v|^2\cdot \nabla v\,}^\text{$I_{22}$}} \nonumber\\
&+\smash[b]{\overbrace{b_2\int_{\Omega} uv|\nabla v|^{2q-2} \Delta v\,}^\text{$I_{23}$}}
+\smash[b]{\overbrace{(q-1)b_2\int_{\Omega} uv |\nabla v|^{2q-4} \nabla|\nabla v|^2\cdot \nabla v\,}^\text{$I_{24}$}}.\end{aligned}$$ We apply Young’s inequality to have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{315}
-I_{21} &\leq \frac{D_2}{2N} \int_{\Omega} |\nabla v|^{2q-2} |\Delta v|^2 +\frac{N}{2D_2}\int_{\Omega} (a_2-c_2v)^2v^2|\nabla v|^{2q-2} \nonumber\\
&\leq \frac{D_2}{2} \int_{\Omega} |\nabla v|^{2q-2} |D^2 v|^2 +C_{39}\int_{\Omega}|\nabla v|^{2q-2},\end{aligned}$$ where $C_{39}$ is a positive constant and the second inequality follows from the pointwise inequality $|\Delta v|^2\leq N |D^2 v|^2$. Similarly we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{316}
-I_{22} \leq& \frac{(q-1)D_2}{16}
\int_{\Omega} |\nabla v|^{2q-4} \Big| \nabla|\nabla v|^2 \Big|^2 +C_{310}\int_{\Omega}|\nabla v|^{2q-2},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{317}
I_{23} &\leq \frac{D_2}{2} \int_{\Omega} |\nabla v|^{2q-2} |D^2 v|^2 +C_{311}\int_{\Omega} u^2|\nabla v|^{2q-2},\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{318}
I_{24} \leq \frac{(q-1)D_2}{16}\int_{\Omega} |\nabla v|^{2q-4} \Big| \nabla|\nabla v|^2 \Big|^2 +C_{312}\int_{\Omega} u^2|\nabla v|^{2q-2},\end{aligned}$$ for positive constants $C_{310}, C_{311}$ and $ C_{312}$. Collecting (\[315\])–(\[318\]), we infer from (\[314\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{319}
I_2
\leq& D_2\int_{\Omega} |\nabla v|^{2q-2} |D^2 v|^2+\frac{(q-1)D_2}{8}\int_{\Omega} |\nabla v|^{2q-4} \Big| \nabla|\nabla v|^2 \Big|^2\nonumber\\
&+(C_{39}+C_{310})\int_{\Omega} |\nabla v|^{2q-2}+(C_{311}+C_{312})\int_{\Omega} u^2|\nabla v|^{2q-2}\nonumber\\
=& D_2\int_{\Omega} |\nabla v|^{2q-2} |D^2 v|^2+\frac{(q-1)D_2}{2q^2}\int_\Omega \Big|\nabla|\nabla v|^q\Big|^2\nonumber\\
&+(C_{39}+C_{310})\int_{\Omega} |\nabla v|^{2q-2}+(C_{311}+C_{312})\int_{\Omega} u^2|\nabla v|^{2q-2}.\end{aligned}$$ Combining (\[319\]) with (\[313\]), we have from (\[36\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{2q}\frac{d}{dt}\int_{\Omega} |\nabla v|^{2q}\leq &
-\frac{(q-1)D_2}{2q^2}\int_\Omega\Big|\nabla|\nabla v|^q\Big|^2+(C_{39}+C_{310})\int_{\Omega} |\nabla v|^{2q-2} \nonumber\\
&+(C_{311}+C_{312})\int_{\Omega} u^2|\nabla v|^{2q-2}+C_{38}\end{aligned}$$ or equivalently $$\begin{aligned}
\label{320}
&\frac{1}{2q} \frac{d}{dt}\int_{\Omega} |\nabla v|^{2q} +\frac{1}{2q} \int_{\Omega} |\nabla v|^{2q}
+\frac{(q-1)D_2}{2q^2}\int_{\Omega}\Big| \nabla|\nabla v|^q \Big|^2 \nonumber\\
\leq&C_{313} \int_{\Omega} |\nabla v|^{2q}+C_{314}\int_{\Omega} u^2|\nabla v|^{2q-2}+C_{38},\end{aligned}$$ where $C_{313}=C_{39}+C_{310}+\frac{1}{2q}$ and $C_{314}=C_{311}+C_{312}$. Using Gagliardo–Nirenberg interpolation inequality and Young’s inequality we estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\label{321}
C_{313}\int_{\Omega} |\nabla v|^{2q}=&C_{313}\Big\||\nabla v|^q\Big\|^2_{L^2(\Omega)}\nonumber\\
\leq & C_{315}\Big\|\nabla|\nabla v|^q\Big\|^{2h_2}_{L^2(\Omega)}\Big\||\nabla v|^q\Big\|^{2(1-h_2)}_{L^{\frac{s}{q}}(\Omega)}+C_{315}\Big\||\nabla v|^q\Big\|^{2}_{L^{\frac{s}{q}}(\Omega)} \nonumber \\
\leq & \frac{(q-1)D_2}{4q^2}\Big\|\nabla|\nabla v|^q\Big\|^{2}_{L^2(\Omega)}+C_{316},\end{aligned}$$ where $$h_2=\frac{\frac{q}{s}-\frac{1}{2}}{\frac{q}{s}-(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{N})}\in (0,1),$$ and $C_{316}$ depends on the boundedness of $\||\nabla v|^q\|^{2}_{L^{\frac{s}{q}}(\Omega)} =\||\nabla v|\|^{2q}_{L^s(\Omega)}$ due to (\[24\]) and (\[29\]).
In light of (\[320\]) and (\[321\]) we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{322}
&\frac{1}{2q}\frac{d}{dt}\int_{\Omega} |\nabla v|^{2q} +\frac{1}{2q}\int_{\Omega} |\nabla v|^{2q}
+\frac{(q-1)D_2}{4q^2}\int_{\Omega}\Big| \nabla|\nabla v|^q \Big|^2 \nonumber \\
\leq& C_{314} \int_{\Omega} u^2|\nabla v|^{2q-2}+C_{317},\end{aligned}$$ where $C_{317}=C_{38}+C_{316}$. Finally by collecting (\[35\]) and (\[322\]) we conclude $$\begin{aligned}
\label{323}
&\frac{d}{dt}\Big( \frac{1}{p}\int_{\Omega} u^p + \frac{1}{2q}\int_{\Omega} |\nabla v|^{2q} \Big)
+\Big( \frac{1}{p}\int_{\Omega} u^p + \frac{1}{2q}\int_{\Omega} |\nabla v|^{2q} \Big) \nonumber\\
+ &\frac{2M_1(p-1)}{(p+m_1)^2}\int_{\Omega} |\nabla u^{\frac{p+m_1}{2}}|^2
+\frac{(q-1)D_2}{4q^2}\int_{\Omega}\Big| \nabla|\nabla v|^q \Big|^2+\frac{b_1}{2}\int_{\Omega}u^{p+\alpha} \nonumber\\
\leq &\frac{\chi^2M_2^2(p-1)}{2M_1} \overbrace{\int_{\Omega} u^{p-m_1+2m_2-2}|\nabla v|^2}^{I_{31}}+
C_{314}\overbrace{\int_{\Omega} u^2|\nabla v|^{2q-2}}^{I_{32}}+C_{317}.\end{aligned}$$
We are now ready to present the following a priori estimates.
\[lemma31\] Let $(u,v)$ be a positive classical solution of (\[11\]) in $\Omega\times(0, T_{\max})$. Suppose that $m_1$ and $m_2$ satisfy condition (\[14\]). Then for large $p$ and $q$ there exists a positive constant $C(p,q)$ such that $$\label{324}
\int_{\Omega} u^p+\int_{\Omega} |\nabla v|^{2q}\leq C(p,q),\forall t\in(0,\infty).$$
Let $\mu_{i}>1$ be an arbitrary real number to be selected and $\mu_i':=\frac{\mu_i}{\mu_i-1}$ be its conjugate. We can apply Hölder’s inequality to estimate $I_{3i}$ in (\[323\]) $$I_{31} \leq \Big( \int_{\Omega}u^{(p-m_1+2m_2-2)\mu_1}\Big)^{\frac{1}{\mu_1}}\cdot \Big( \int_{\Omega}|\nabla v|^{2 \mu_1'}\Big)^{\frac{1}{\mu_1'}}
:= \Big( \int_{\Omega}u^{\lambda_1 \mu_1}\Big)^{\frac{1}{\mu_1}}\cdot \Big( \int_{\Omega}|\nabla v|^{\kappa_1 \mu_1'}\Big)^{\frac{1}{\mu_1'}}$$ and $$I_{32}
\leq\Big( \int_{\Omega}u^{2\mu_2}\Big)^{\frac{1}{\mu_2}}\cdot \Big( \int_{\Omega}|\nabla v|^{2(q-1)\mu_2'}\Big)^{\frac{1}{\mu_2'}}
:= \Big( \int_{\Omega}u^{\lambda_2 \mu_2}\Big)^{\frac{1}{\mu_2}}\cdot \Big( \int_{\Omega}|\nabla v|^{\kappa_2 \mu_2'}\Big)^{\frac{1}{\mu_2'}},$$ which can be simplified as $$\label{327}
I_{3i}\leq \Big( \int_{\Omega}u^{\lambda_i \mu_i}\Big)^{\frac{1}{\mu_i}}\cdot \Big( \int_{\Omega}|\nabla v|^{\kappa_i \mu_i'}\Big)^{\frac{1}{\mu_i'}}, i=1,2,$$ where for consistency of notation we denote $$\label{325}
\lambda_1=p-m_1+2m_2-2, \lambda_2=2,$$ and $$\label{326}
\kappa_1=2, \kappa_2=2(q-1).$$
By Gagliardo–Nirenberg interpolation inequality, there exist positive constants $C_{318}$ and $C_{319}$ such that in (\[327\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{328}
&\Big(\int_{\Omega}u^{\lambda_i \mu_i}\Big)^{\frac{1}{\mu_i}}=\Big\| u^{\frac{p+m_1}{2}} \Big\|_{L^{\frac{2\lambda_i \mu_i}{p+m_1}}(\Omega)}^{\frac{2\lambda_i}{p+m_1}} \nonumber\\
\leq& C_{318} \Big\| \nabla u^{\frac{p+m_1}{2}} \Big\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^{\frac{2\lambda_i}{p+m_1}\cdot h_{3i}}\cdot\Big\| u^{\frac{p+m_1}{2}} \Big\|_{L^{\frac{2}{p+m_1}}(\Omega)}^{\frac{2\lambda_i}{p+m_1}\cdot(1-h_{3i})} +C_{318}\Big\| u^{\frac{p+m_1}{2}} \Big\|_{L^{\frac{2}{p+m_1}}(\Omega)}^{\frac{2\lambda_i}{p+m_1}} \nonumber\\
\leq& C_{319}\Big\| \nabla u^{\frac{p+m_1}{2}} \Big\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^{\frac{2\lambda_i}{p+m_1}\cdot h_{3i}}+C_{319}\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{329}
h_{3i}=\frac{\frac{p+m_1}{2}-\frac{p+m_1}{2\lambda_i \mu_i}}{\frac{p+m_1}{2}-(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{N})}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{330}
& \Big( \int_{\Omega}|\nabla v|^{2\mu_i'}\Big)^{\frac{1}{\mu_i'}} =\Big\| |\nabla v|^{q} \Big\|_{L^{\frac{\kappa_i \mu_i'}{q}}(\Omega)}^{\frac{\kappa_i}{q}} \nonumber\\
\leq& C_{320} \Big\| \nabla|\nabla v|^{q} \Big\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^{\frac{\kappa_i}{q}\cdot h_{4i}}\cdot\Big\| |\nabla v|^{q} \Big\|_{L^{\frac{s}{q}}(\Omega)}^{\frac{\kappa_i}{q}\cdot(1-h_{4i})} +C_{320}\Big\| |\nabla v|^{q} \Big\|_{L^{\frac{s}{q}}(\Omega)}^{\frac{\kappa_i}{q}} \nonumber\\
\leq& C_{321}\Big\| \nabla|\nabla v|^{q} \Big\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^{\frac{\kappa_i}{q}\cdot h_{4i}}+C_{321}\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{331}
h_{4i}=\frac{\frac{q}{s}-\frac{q}{\kappa_i \mu_i'}}{\frac{q}{s}-(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{N})},\end{aligned}$$ where we have applied the boundedness of $\Vert u\Vert_{L^1}$ and $\Vert \nabla v\Vert_{L^s}$ due to (\[22\]) and (\[24\]), (\[29\]), and $s\in[1,\frac{N}{N-1})$ if $0<\alpha<1$ and $s=2$ if $\alpha\geq2$.
We now claim that for $p,q$ large there always exist $\mu_i>1$, $i=1,2$ such that $$\label{332}
\frac{2\lambda_i \mu_i}{p+m_1}\geq1, \frac{\kappa_i\mu'_i}{q}\geq1, 0<h_{3i}, h_{4i}<1$$ and under condition (\[14\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{333}
f_i(p,q,s):=\frac{2\lambda_i}{p+m_1}\cdot h_{3i}+\frac{\kappa_i}{q}\cdot h_{4i} =\frac{\lambda_i-\frac{1}{\mu_i}}{\frac{p+m_1}{2}-(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{N})}
+\frac{\frac{\kappa_i}{s}-\frac{1}{\mu_i'}}{\frac{q}{s}-(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{N})}<2.\end{aligned}$$ We recall that if $\alpha+\beta<2$, then for any $\epsilon>0$, there exists $C_\epsilon>0$ such that $(x^\alpha+1)(y^\beta+1)\leq \epsilon(x^2+y^2)+C_\epsilon$ for all $x,y>0$. Therefore if conditions (\[332\]) and (\[333\]) hold, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{334}
I_{3i}\leq & \Big( \int_{\Omega} |\nabla u^{\frac{p+m_1}{2}}|^2 \Big)^{\frac{1}{2}\cdot \frac{2\lambda_i}{p+m_1} \cdot h_{3i}}
\cdot \Big( \int_{\Omega} \Big\| \nabla|\nabla v|^q \Big\|^2\Big)^{\frac{1}{2}\cdot \frac{\kappa_i}{q}\cdot (1-h_{3i})}+C_{322}
\nonumber\\
\leq & \epsilon\int_{\Omega} |\nabla u^{\frac{p+m_1}{2}}|^2 +\epsilon\int_{\Omega}\Big| \nabla|\nabla v|^q \Big|^2+C_{322}.\end{aligned}$$ Combining (\[323\]) with (\[334\]), we conclude that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{335}
\frac{d}{dt} \Big(\frac{1}{p}\int_{\Omega} u^p +\frac{1}{2q}\int_{\Omega} |\nabla v|^{2q} \Big)+\Big(\frac{1}{p}\int_{\Omega} u^p +\frac{1}{2q}\int_{\Omega} |\nabla v|^{2q}\Big)\leq C(p,q)\end{aligned}$$ for all $t\in (0,\infty)$. Then we can apply the Grönwall’s lemma to show (\[324\]).
Now in order to complete the proof of Lemma \[lemma31\], we only need to verify (\[332\]) and (\[333\]) claimed above in order to apply the Gagliardo–Nirenberg interpolation inequality. First of all we see that (\[332\]) is equivalent as $$\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{N}<\frac{p+m_1}{2\lambda_i\mu_i}\leq 1 \text{~and~} \frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{N}<\frac{q}{\kappa_i\mu_i'}\leq 1,$$ which, in terms of (\[325\]) and (\[326\]), become $$\label{336}
\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{N}<\frac{p+m_1}{2(p-m_1+2m_2-2)\mu_1}\leq 1, \quad \frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{N}<\frac{q}{2\mu_1'}\leq 1$$ and $$\label{337}
\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{N}<\frac{p+m_1}{4\mu_2}\leq 1, \quad \frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{N}<\frac{q}{2(q-1)\mu_2'}\leq 1.$$ In the sequel we choose $\mu_1:=\mu_1(q)=\frac{q}{q-1}$ and $\mu_2:=\mu_2(p)=\frac{p}{2}$, and then it is easy to see that (\[336\]) and (\[337\]) hold for $p$ and $q$ being large.
Finally we are left to prove $f_i(p,q,s)<2$ in (\[333\]) which, in light of (\[325\]) and (\[326\]), are $$f_1(p,q,s)=\frac{p-m_1+2m_2-2-\frac{1}{\mu_1}}{\frac{p+m_1}{2}-(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{N})}
+\frac{\frac{2}{s}-\frac{1}{\mu_1'}}{\frac{q}{s}-(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{N})}<2$$ and $$f_2(p, q,s)=\frac{2-\frac{1}{\mu_2}}{\frac{p+m_1}{2}-(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{N})}
+\frac{\frac{2(q-1)}{s}-\frac{1}{\mu_2'}}{\frac{q}{s}-(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{N})}<2.$$ By straightforward calculations we see that $f_1(p,q,s)<2$ and $f_2(p,q,s)<2$ are equivalent as $$\label{338}
\frac{q}{s}>\zeta_1\Big(\frac{p+m_1}{2}-\Big(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{N}\Big)\Big)+\Big(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{N}\Big)$$ and $$\label{339}
\frac{q}{s}<\zeta_2\Big(\frac{p+m_1}{2}-\Big(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{N}\Big)\Big)+\Big(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{N}\Big),$$ where $$\zeta_1=\zeta_1(p,q,s):=\frac{\frac{1}{s}-\frac{1}{2\mu'_1(p,q)}}{m_1-m_2+\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{N}+\frac{1}{2\mu_1(p,q)}}>0$$ and $$\zeta_2=\zeta_2(p,q,s):=\frac{\frac{1}{s}+\frac{1}{2\mu'_2(p,q)}-(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{N}) }{1-\frac{1}{2\mu_2(p,q)}}>0.$$ We want to mention that the denominator in $\zeta_1$ is positive under condition (\[14\]).
Note that $\mu_1=\frac{q}{q-1}$ and $\mu_2=\frac{p}{2}$ and then our discussions are divided into the followings: case *(i)*. $0<\alpha<1$ and therefore $s\in[1,\frac{N}{N-1})$. Then $m_2-m_1<\frac{2}{N}$ implies $$\zeta_2\Big(\infty,\infty,\frac{N}{N-1}\Big)-\zeta_1\Big(\infty,\infty,\frac{N}{N-1}\Big)=1-\frac{1-\frac{1}{N}}{m_1-m_2+1+\frac{1}{N}}=\frac{m_1-m_2+\frac{2}{N}}{m_1-m_2+1+\frac{1}{N}}>0.$$ By the continuity of $\zeta_i$, for all $p,q$ sufficiently large and $s$ smaller than but close to $\frac{N}{N-1}$, we have that $\zeta_2(p,q,s)>\zeta_1(p,q,s)$ and therefore both (\[338\]) and (\[339\]) hold for such $(p,q,s)$ hence $f_i(p,q,s)<2$.
case *(ii)*. $\alpha\geq1$ and therefore $s=2$. Then $m_2-m_1<\frac{3N+2}{N(N+2)}$ implies $$\zeta_2(\infty,\infty,2)-\zeta_1(\infty,\infty,2)=\Big(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{N}\Big)-\frac{\frac{1}{2}}{m_1-m_2+1+\frac{1}{N}}=\frac{m_1-m_2+\frac{3N+2}{N(N+2)}}{(m_1-m_2+1+\frac{1}{N})(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{N})}>0.$$ Similar as in case *(i)* we have that $\zeta_2(p,q,2)>\zeta_1(p,q,2)$ hence $f_i(p,q,2)<2$ when $p$, $q$ are large. In both cases (\[333\]) holds for large $p$, $q$ under condition (\[14\]) and this completes the proof of Lemma \[lemma31\].
In the following lemma, we estimate $I_{31}$ and $I_{32}$ by using Young’s inequality instead of Hölder’s as in Lemma \[lemma31\]. We shall see that $\alpha$ plays an important role in *a priori* estimates.
\[lemma32\] Suppose that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{340}
2m_2-m_1<
\begin{cases}
\max\{\alpha, m_1\}+\frac{2}{N}, &\text{~if~} 0<\alpha < 1,\\
\max\{\alpha, m_1\}+\frac{4}{N+2}, & \text{~if~} \alpha\geq1,\\
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ then for large $p$ and $q$ there exists a constant $C(p,q)>0$ such that $$\label{341}
\int_{\Omega} u^p+\int_{\Omega} |\nabla v|^{2q}\leq C(p,q),\forall t\in(0,\infty).$$
First of all, we invoke the Gagliardo–Nirenberg interpolation inequality $$\begin{aligned}
\label{342}
\int_{\Omega} u^{p+m_1}&=\Vert u^{\frac{p+m_1}{2}} \Vert_{L^{2}(\Omega)}^{2} \nonumber\\
&\leq C_{323} \Vert \nabla u^{\frac{p+m_1}{2}} \Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}^{2 h_5}\cdot \Vert u^{\frac{p+m_1}{2}} \Vert_{L^{\frac{2}{p+m_1}}(\Omega)}^{2 (1-h_5)}+C_{323} \Vert u^{\frac{p+m_1}{2}} \Vert_{L^{\frac{2}{p+m_1}}(\Omega)}^{2} \nonumber\\
&\leq C_{324} \Vert \nabla u^{\frac{p+m_1}{2}} \Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}^{2 h_5}+C_{324},\end{aligned}$$ where we have applied the fact that $\Vert u\Vert_{L^1}$ is bounded and $$h_5: =\frac{\frac{p+m_1}{2}-\frac{1}{2}}{\frac{p+m_1}{2}-(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{N})}\in(0,1).$$
By Young’s inequality, there exists a positive constant $C_{323}$ such that in (\[323\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{343}
\frac{\chi^2M_2^2(p-1)}{2M_1}I_{31}&\leq \frac{b_1}{4} \int_{\Omega} (u^{p-m_1+2m_2-2})^{\frac{p+\max\{\alpha, m_1\} }{p-m_1+2m_2-2 }} + C_{325} \int_{\Omega}\vert \nabla v \vert ^{2\cdot \frac{p+\max\{\alpha, m_1\}}{\max\{\alpha, m_1\}+m_1-2m_2+2}} \nonumber\\
&=\frac{b_1}{4}\int_{\Omega}u^{p+\max\{\alpha, m_1\}}+C_{325} \int_{\Omega}\vert \nabla v \vert ^{\theta_1}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{344}
C_{314}I_{32}&\leq \frac{b_1}{4} \int_{\Omega} (u^{2})^{\frac{p+\max\{\alpha, m_1\}}{2}} + C_{326} \int_{\Omega}\vert \nabla v \vert ^{2(q-1)\cdot \frac{p+\max\{\alpha, m_1\}}{p+\max\{\alpha, m_1\}-2}} \nonumber \\
& =\frac{b_1}{4} \int_{\Omega} u^{p+\max\{\alpha, m_1\}} + C_{326} \int_{\Omega}\vert \nabla v \vert ^{\theta_2},\end{aligned}$$ where we denote $$\label{345}
\theta_1: = \theta_1(p,q)=\frac{2(p+\max\{\alpha, m_1\})}{\max\{\alpha, m_1\}+m_1-2m_2+2}$$ and $$\label{346}
\theta_2: = \theta_2(p,q)=\frac{2(q-1)(p+\max\{\alpha, m_1\})}{p+\max\{\alpha, m_1\}-2}.$$ We want to mention that $\theta_i$ are well–defined since $\max\{\alpha, m_1\}>2m_2-m_1-2$ thanks to (\[340\]). Substituting (\[343\])–(\[346\]) into (\[323\]), we derive $$\begin{aligned}
\label{347}
&\frac{d}{dt}\Big( \frac{1}{p}\int_{\Omega} u^p + \frac{1}{2q}\int_{\Omega} |\nabla v|^{2q} \Big)
+\Big( \frac{1}{p}\int_{\Omega} u^p + \frac{1}{2q}\int_{\Omega} |\nabla v|^{2q} \Big)
+\frac{(q-1)D_2}{4q^2}\int_{\Omega}\Big| \nabla|\nabla v|^q \Big|^2 \nonumber\\
\leq & C_{325} \int_{\Omega} |\nabla v|^{\theta_1}+C_{326} \int_{\Omega} |\nabla v|^{\theta_2}+C_{327}.\end{aligned}$$ According to Gagliardo–Nirenberg interpolation inequality, we have for $i=1,2$ $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\Omega} |\nabla v|^{\theta_i}= &\Big \| \vert \nabla v \vert^q \Big\|_{L^{\frac{\theta_i}{q}}(\Omega)}^{\frac{\theta_i}{q}} \\
\leq& C_{328} \Big \| \nabla \vert \nabla v \vert^q \Big\|_{L^{2}(\Omega)}^{\frac{\theta_i}{q}h_{6i}}\Big \| \vert \nabla v \vert^q \Big\|_{L^{\frac{s}{q}}(\Omega)}^{\frac{\theta_i}{q}(1-h_{6i})}+C_{328}\Big \| \vert \nabla v \vert^q \Big\|_{L^{\frac{s}{q}}(\Omega)}^{\frac{\theta_i}{q}}\\
\leq & C_{329} \Big \| \nabla \vert \nabla v \vert^q \Big\|_{L^{2}(\Omega)}^{\frac{\theta_i}{q}h_{6i}}+C_{330},\end{aligned}$$ where we have applied the boundedness of $\Vert \nabla v \Vert_{L^s(\Omega)}$ and $$h_{6i} := h_{6i}(p,q;s)=\frac{\frac{q}{s}-\frac{q}{\theta_i}}{\frac{q}{s}-(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{N})}.$$
Denote $$g_i(p,q;s):=\frac{\theta_i}{q}h_{6i}(p,q;s),$$ and then we want to claim that under condition (\[340\]) there exists $p$ and $q$ large such that the followings hold $$\label{348}
0<h_{6i}(p,q;s)<1\text{~and~}0<g_i(p,q;s)<2.$$ Assuming (\[348\]), we conclude from Gagliardo–Nirenberg interpolation inequality and the Young’s inequality that for any $\epsilon>0$ $$\label{349}
\int_{\Omega} |\nabla v|^{\theta_i}\leq \epsilon \Big \| \nabla \vert \nabla v \vert^q \Big\|_{L^{2}(\Omega)}^{2}+C_\epsilon.$$ Substituting (\[349\]) into (\[347\]), we can easily derive that $$y'(t)+y(t)\leq C_{325},$$ by setting $y(t):=\frac{1}{p}\int_{\Omega} u^p + \frac{1}{2q}\int_{\Omega} |\nabla v|^{2q}$ and solving this inequality by Grönwall’s lemma gives rise to (\[341\]).
Now we need to verify the inequalities in (\[348\]), which by straightforward calculations, are equivalent as $$\theta_i>s, q>\frac{\theta_i}{2}-\frac{s}{N}.$$ It is easy to see that $\theta_i>s$ hold since both $p$ and $q$ chosen to be large, and therefore we shall only need to verify that $q>\frac{\theta_i}{2}-\frac{s}{N}$ in the sequel. We divide our discussions into the following two cases: case *(i)*. $0<\alpha<1$ and therefore $s\in[1,\frac{N}{N-1})$. Then we can solve the inequalities $q>\frac{\theta_i}{2}-\frac{s}{N}$ for $i=1,2$ to see that $$\label{350}
q_1(p)<q<q_2(p),$$ with $$q_1(p)=\frac{p+\max\{\alpha, m_1\}}{\max\{\alpha, m_1\}+m_1-2m_2+2}-\frac{s}{N}$$ and $$q_2(p)=\frac{(N+s)(p+\max\{\alpha, m_1\})}{2N}-\frac{s}{N}.$$ If $2m_2-m_1<\max\{\alpha, m_1\}+\frac{2}{N}$ in (\[340\]) holds, we can always find $s$ smaller than but sufficiently close to $\frac{N}{N-1}$ such that $\frac{1}{\max\{\alpha, m_1\}+m_1-2m_2+2}<\frac{N+s}{2N}$ hence (\[350\]) holds for $p$, $q$ being large.
case *(ii)*. $\alpha\geq1$ and therefore $s=2$. The arguments are the same as in case *(i)* except that now the condition $q_1(p)<q<q_2(p)$, which implies that $\frac{1}{\max\{\alpha, m_1\}+m_1-2m_2+2}<\frac{N+2}{2N}$, holds provided that $2m_2-m_1<\max\{\alpha, m_1\}+\frac{4}{N+2}$.
Therefore in both cases we have verified (\[348\]) for $p$ and $q$ large under (\[340\]) and the proof of Lemma \[lemma32\] completes.
Global existence and boundedness
--------------------------------
*of Theorem* \[theorem11\]. Taking some $p>N$ fixed, we have from Lemma \[lemma22\] and Lemma \[lemma31\] that $\Vert v(\cdot,t)\Vert_{W^{1,\infty}}$ is uniformly bounded. Then one can apply the standard Moser–Alikakos $L^p$ iteration [@A0] or the user–friendly version in Lemma A.1 of [@TW2] to establish the uniform boundedness of $\Vert u(\cdot,t)\Vert_{L^{\infty}}$ for (\[11\]). Therefore the local solution $(u,v)$ is global thanks to the extension criterion in Proposition \[proposition21\]. Finally, we can apply the standard parabolic regularity theory to show that $(u,v)$ has the regularity in the theorem.
*of Theorem* \[theorem12\]. The proof is the same as that of Theorem \[theorem11\] in light of Lemma \[lemma32\].
Parabolic–elliptic system in multi–dimensional domain {#section4}
=====================================================
In this section, we prove the global existence and boundedness of the classical solutions to the parabolic–elliptic system of (\[11\]). This model describes a competition relationship that $v$ diffuses much faster than $u$.
Parabolic–elliptic system with repulsion
----------------------------------------
First of all, we consider the parabolic–elliptic system of (\[11\]) of the following form $$\label{41}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
u_t=\nabla \cdot (D_1(u) \nabla u+\chi \phi(u) \nabla v)+(a_1-b_1u^{\alpha}-c_1v)u,&x \in \Omega,t>0, \\
0=D_2\Delta v+(a_2-b_2u-c_2v)v,&x \in \Omega,t>0, \\
\frac{\partial u}{\partial \textbf{n}}=\frac{\partial v}{\partial \textbf{n}}=0,&x\in\partial \Omega,t>0,\\
u(x,0)=u_0(x)\geq 0, &x\in \Omega.
\end{array}
\right.$$ Our first result concerning (\[41\]) is the following Theorem.
\[theorem41\] Let $\Omega$ be a bounded domain in $\mathbb{R}^N$, $N\geq2$. Assume that the smooth functions $D_1(u)$ and $\phi(u)$ satisfy (\[12\]) and (\[13\]) respectively with $$\label{42}
2m_2-m_1<\max\{\alpha,m_1\}+1.$$ Suppose that $u_0\in C^0(\bar \Omega)$ and $u_0>0$ in $\Omega$. Then (\[41\]) admits a unique positive classical solution $(u,v)$ which is uniformly bounded in $\Omega\times (0,\infty)$.
The proof is very similar as that of Theorem \[theorem11\]. First of all, the local existence in $\Omega\times (0,T_{\max})$ follows from the theory Amann in [@Am]. Moreover one can easily apply maximum principle and Hopf’s lemma to show that $u(x,t)\geq,\not\equiv 0$ in $\Omega\times(0,\infty)$ and $0<v(x)<\frac{a_2}{c_2}$ in $\Omega$. Furthermore, if $\Vert \nabla u(\cdot,t)\Vert_{L^p}$ is bounded for some $p>N$, then $\Vert \nabla v\Vert_{L^\infty}$ is also bounded after applying the Sobolev embedding $W^{1,p}(\Omega)\hookrightarrow L^\infty(\Omega)$ to the $v$–equation, and therefore one can apply the standard Moser–Alikakos $L^p$–iteration to establish the boundedness of $\Vert u\Vert_{L^\infty}$. Finally the regularity of $(u,v)$ follows from parabolic and elliptic embedding theory.
Now we only need to prove the boundedness of $\int_\Omega u^p(\cdot,t)$ for some $p>N$. Testing the $u$-equation in (\[41\]) by $u^{p-1}$ and then integrating it over $\Omega$ by parts, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{43}
\frac{1}{p}\frac{d}{dt}\int_{\Omega} u^p=&-(p-1)\int_{\Omega} D_1(u)u^{p-2}|\nabla u|^2-(p-1)\int_{\Omega} \chi \phi(u)u^{p-2}\nabla u\nabla v \nonumber\\
&+\int_{\Omega} u^p(a_1-b_1u^\alpha-c_1v).\end{aligned}$$ Similar as in (\[32\]), we invoke the Gagliardo–Nirenberg interpolation inequality to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{44}
-(p-1)\int_{\Omega} D_1(u)u^{p-2}|\nabla u|^2
\leq& -\frac{4M_1(p-1)}{(p+m_1)^2}\int_{\Omega} |\nabla u^{\frac{p+m_1}{2}}|^2+C_{41}\nonumber\\
\leq& -\xi \int_{\Omega} u^{p+m_1}+C_{42}(\xi),\end{aligned}$$ and apply Young’s inequality to have that for any $\gamma>2$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{45}
&-(p-1)\int_{\Omega} \chi \phi(u)u^{p-2}\nabla u\nabla v\nonumber\\
\leq & \epsilon \int_{\Omega} u^{p+m_1-2}|\nabla u|^2+ \epsilon \int_{\Omega} u^{\frac{(p-m_1+2m_2-2)}{2}\cdot\frac{2\gamma}{\gamma-2}} + C_{\epsilon}\int_{\Omega} |\nabla v|^{\gamma},\end{aligned}$$ where in (\[44\]) and (\[45\]) $\xi>0$ is arbitrary and $C_{41}$, $C_{42}$ are positive constants.
We invoke the Gagliardo–Nirenberg interpolation inequality and the boundedness of $v$ to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{46}
\int_{\Omega}|\nabla v|^{\gamma}=\| \nabla v \|^{\gamma}_{L^{\gamma}(\Omega)}
\leq& C_{43} \| \Delta v \|^{\frac{\gamma}{2}}_{L^{\frac{\gamma}{2}}(\Omega)} \nonumber
\cdot \| v \|^{\frac{\gamma}{2}}_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)}+C_{44}\| v \|^{\gamma}_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)}\\
\leq& C_{45} \| \Delta v \|^{\frac{\gamma}{2}}_{L^{\frac{\gamma}{2}}(\Omega)}+C_{45},\end{aligned}$$ where $C_{4i}$ are positive constants. Furthermore, in light of $D_2 \Delta v=-(a_2-b_2 u-c_2 v)v$ and the boundedness of $v$, (\[46\]) implies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{47}
\int_{\Omega}|\nabla v|^{\gamma}=\| \nabla v \|^{\gamma}_{L^{\gamma}(\Omega)}
&\leq C_{46} \| u \|^{\frac{\gamma}{2}}_{L^{\frac{\gamma}{2}}(\Omega)}+C_{47}= C_{46} \int_{\Omega}u^{\frac{\gamma}{2}}+C_{47}.\end{aligned}$$ Thanks to (\[44\]), (\[45\]) and (\[47\]), we derive from (\[43\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{48}
\frac{1}{p}\frac{d}{dt}\int_{\Omega} u^p\leq -\xi \int_{\Omega} u^{p+m_1}-b_1 \int_{\Omega} u^{p+\alpha}+\epsilon \int_{\Omega} u^{\frac{(p-m_1+2m_2-2)\gamma}{\gamma-2}} +C_{\epsilon}C_{46} \int_{\Omega} u^{\frac{\gamma}{2}} +C_{\epsilon}C_{47}.\end{aligned}$$
Choosing $\gamma=2(p-m_1+2m_2-1)$ with $\frac{\gamma}{2}=\frac{(p-m_1+2m_2-2)\gamma}{\gamma-2}$, we infer from (\[48\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{49}
\frac{1}{p}\frac{d}{dt}\int_{\Omega} u^p
\leq& -\xi \int_{\Omega} u^{p+m_1}-b_1 \int_{\Omega} u^{p+\alpha}+(\epsilon+C_{\epsilon}C_{46}) \int_{\Omega} u^{p-m_1+2m_2-1} +C_{\epsilon}C_{47}\nonumber\\
\leq &- \int_{\Omega} u^p+C_{48},\end{aligned}$$ where the second inequality follows from (\[42\]). Solving (\[49\]) implies that $\Vert u(\cdot,t)\Vert_{L^p}$ is uniformly bounded in time for each $p\geq2$ and this completes the proof.
\[remarkl\] If $m_1 \geq \alpha$, then Theorem \[theorem41\] also holds if (\[42\]) is relaxed to $2m_2-m_1\leq\max\{\alpha,m_1\}+1$ or equivalently $2m_2-2m_1\leq 1$. Indeed, in this case we can choose $\xi>2(\epsilon +C_\epsilon C_{46})$ and therefore (\[49\]) implies that $$\frac{1}{p}\frac{d}{dt}\int_{\Omega} u^p
\leq-\frac{\xi}{2} \int_{\Omega} u^{p+m_1}+C_{48},$$ from which the boundedness of $\int_\Omega u^p(x,t)$ follows. Similarly one can show that Theorem \[theorem41\] holds for $2m_2-m_1\leq\max\{\alpha,m_1\}+1$ when $m_1<\alpha$ and $b_1$ is large.
By a different approach we prove the following results.
\[theorem42\] Suppose that all the conditions in Theorem \[theorem41\] hold except that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{410}
m_2<\max\{\alpha,m_1\}\end{aligned}$$ then the nonnegative solution $(u,v)$ to (\[41\]) is classical and bounded in $\Omega\times (0,\infty)$.
We begin with (\[43\]) and estimate the second term differently. For each $p>2$ we denote $$\Phi_p(u)=\int_0^u \phi(s)s^{p-2}ds,$$ then thanks to $\phi(s)\leq M_2s^{m_2}$ $$\Phi_p(u)\leq M_2\int_0^u s^{p+m_2-2}ds=\frac{M_2}{p+m_2-1}u^{p+m_2-1}.$$ Therefore we have from the integration by parts and the second equation in (\[41\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{411}
& -(p-1)\int_{\Omega} \chi \phi(u)u^{p-2}\nabla u\nabla v \nonumber\\
=& -(p-1) \chi\int_{\Omega} \nabla \Phi_p(u)\nabla v= (p-1) \chi\int_{\Omega} \Phi_p(u)\Delta v \nonumber\\
=&-(p-1) \chi\int_{\Omega} \Phi_p(u)(a_2-b_2u-c_2v)v \nonumber\\
=&b_2(p-1) \chi\int_{\Omega} \Phi_p(u) uv+(p-1) \chi\int_{\Omega} \Phi_p(u)(c_2v-a_2)v \nonumber\\
\leq&\frac{b_2(p-1)\chi M_2\Vert v \Vert_{L^\infty}}{p+m_2-1} \int_{\Omega} u^{p+m_2}+\frac{b_2(p-1)\chi M_2\Vert (c_2v-a_2)v \Vert_{L^\infty}}{p+m_2-1}\int_{\Omega} u^{p+m_2-1} \nonumber\\
\leq & C_{49} \int_{\Omega} u^{p+m_2}+C_{410},
\end{aligned}$$ where $C_{49}$ and $C_{410}$ are positive constants.
Collecting (\[44\]) and (\[411\]) we have from (\[43\]) that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{412}
\frac{1}{p}\frac{d}{dt}\int_{\Omega} u^p\leq& -\xi \int_{\Omega} u^{p+m_1}-b_1 \int_{\Omega} u^{p+\alpha}+C_{410} \int_{\Omega} u^{p+m_2}+C_{412}\nonumber\\
\leq &-\int_\Omega u^p+C_{411},\end{aligned}$$ where the second inequality follows from the fact that $m_2<\max\{ \alpha,m_1\}$. This implies the boundedness of $\int_\Omega u^p$ for each $p>2$ and the rest proof is the same as that of Theorem \[theorem41\].
\[remark2\] Similar as Remark \[remarkl\], one can show that (\[410\]) can be relaxed to $m_2\leq\max\{\alpha,m_1\}$ if $m_1>\alpha_1$ or $b_1$ is large.
Parabolic–elliptic system with attraction
-----------------------------------------
Finally, we establish the global existence and boundedness of the following parabolic–elliptic system with attraction $$\label{415}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
u_t=\nabla \cdot (D_1(u) \nabla u-\chi \phi(u) \nabla v)+(a_1-b_1u^{\alpha}-c_1v)u,&x \in \Omega,t>0, \\
0=D_2\Delta v+(a_2-b_2u-c_2v)v,&x \in \Omega,t>0, \\
\frac{\partial u}{\partial \textbf{n}}=\frac{\partial v}{\partial \textbf{n}}=0,&x\in\partial \Omega,t>0,\\
u(x,0)=u_0(x)\geq 0, &x\in \Omega.
\end{array}
\right.$$ Here $D_1(u)\geq M_1(1+u)^{m_1}$ as in (\[11\]) while condition (\[13\]) changes to $\phi(u)\geq M_2u^{m_2}$. We prove global existence and boundedness for (\[415\]) for any $m_i>0$ and $\alpha$. The last main result of this paper is the following theorem.
\[theorem43\] Let $\Omega$ be a bounded domain in $\mathbb{R}^N$, $N\geq1$, with piecewise smooth boundary. Assume that $u_0\in C^0(\bar \Omega)$ and $u_0>0$ in $\Omega$. Suppose for some positive constants $M_i>0$, $D_1(u)\geq M_1(1+u)^{m_1}$ and $\phi(u)\geq M_2u^{m_2}$, with $\max\{m_1,m_2,\alpha\}\geq 0$. Then (\[415\]) has a unique positive solution $(u,v)$ which is classical and uniformly bounded in $\Omega\times (0,\infty)$.
By the same arguments for (\[43\]) we test the $u$-equation in (\[415\]) by $u^{p-1}$ and integrate it over $\Omega$ by parts to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{416}
\frac{1}{p}\frac{d}{dt}\int_{\Omega} u^p=&-(p-1)\int_{\Omega} D_1(u)u^{p-2}|\nabla u|^2+(p-1)\int_{\Omega} \chi \phi(u)u^{p-2}\nabla u\nabla v \nonumber\\
&+\int_{\Omega} u^p(a_1-b_1u^\alpha-c_1v).\end{aligned}$$
Similar as above, we denote $$\tilde \Phi_p(u)=\int_0^u \phi(s)s^{p-2}ds,$$ and then we can show $\tilde \Phi_p(u)\geq \frac{M_2}{p+m_2-1}u^{p+m_2-1}$ and derive as in (\[411\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{417}
& (p-1)\int_{\Omega}\chi \phi(u)u^{p-2}\nabla u\nabla v \nonumber\\
= & -b_2(p-1) \chi\int_{\Omega}\tilde\Phi_p(u) uv+(p-1) \chi\int_{\Omega} \tilde\Phi_p(u)(c_2v-a_2)v \nonumber\\
\leq & -C_{412}\int_{\Omega} u^{p+m_2}+C_{413},\end{aligned}$$ where $C_{412}$ and $C_{413}$ are positive constants. Collecting (\[417\]) and (\[44\]), we have from (\[416\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{418}
\frac{1}{p}\frac{d}{dt}\int_{\Omega} u^p
\leq&-\xi \int_\Omega u^{p+m_1}-b_1\int_{\Omega} u^{p+\alpha}-C_{412} \int_{\Omega} u^{p+m_2} +C_{413}\nonumber\\
\leq&- \int_\Omega u^p+C_{414},\end{aligned}$$ where $C_{414}$ is a positive constant and the last inequality follows from Young’s inequality and the assumption that $\max\{m_1,m_2,\alpha\}\geq0$. Solving (\[418\]) gives rise to the boundedness of $\int_\Omega u^p$ for any $p>2$ hence the global existence and boundedness follow.
According to Theorem \[theorem43\], only one of $m_1$, $m_2$ and $\alpha$ needs to be nonnegative to guarantee the global existence and boundedness of (\[415\]) in contrast to Theorem \[theorem41\] and Theorem \[theorem42\]. Apparently this is due to the effect of population attraction. It is necessary to point out that for chemotaxis model, it is well known that chemo–attraction destabilizes the system and supports the occurrence of blowups, while chemo–repulsion tends to prevent blowups. However, for Lotka–Volterra competition models, attraction prevents blowups while repulsion, though not completely understood, tends to support blowups according to Theorem \[theorem43\]. See [@LeN2; @WGY] for instance. We surmise that the same conclusions hold true for the fully parabolic system (\[11\]) and a completely different approach is needed to show this.
N. D. Alikakos, *$L^p$ bounds of solutions of reaction–diffusion equations*, **4** (1979), 827–868.
H. Amann, *Nonhomogeneous linear and quasilinear elliptic and parabolic boundary value problems*, Function Spaces, differential operators and nonlinear Analysis, Teubner, Stuttgart, Leipzig, **133** (1993), 9–126.
M. Burger, M. Di Francesco and Y. Dolak-Struss, *The Keller–Segel model for chemotaxis with prevention of overcrowding: linear vs. nonlinear diffusion*, SIAM J. Math. Anal., **38** (2006), 1288–1315.
V. Calvez and J. A. Carrillo, *Volume effects in the Keller–Segel model: energy estimates preventing blow–up*, J. Math. Pures Appl., **86** (2006), 155–175.
R. Cantrell, C. Cosner and Y. Lou, *Approximating the ideal free distribution via reaction–diffusion–advection equations*, J. Differential Equations, **245** (2008), 3687–3703.
R. Cantrell, C. Cosner, Y. Lou and C. Xie, *Random dispersal versus fitness–dependent dispersal*, J. Differential Equations, **254** (2013), 2905–2941.
L. Chen and A. Jüngel, *Analysis of a multi-dimensional parabolic population model with strong cross–diffusion*, SIAM J. Math. Anal., **36** (2004), 301–322.
L. Chen and A. Jüngel, *Analysis of a parabolic cross–diffusion population model without self–diffusion*, J. Differential Equations, **224** (2006), 39–59.
Y. S. Choi, R. Lui and Y. Yamada, *Existence of global solutions for the Shigesada–Kawasaki–Teramoto model with weak cross–diffusion*, Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst., **9** (2003), 1193–1200.
Y. S. Choi, R. Lui and Y. Yamada, *Existence of global solutions for the Shigesada–Kawasaki–Teramoto model with strongly coupled cross–diffusion*, Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst., **10** (2004), 719–730.
T. Cieślak and C. Stinner, *New critical exponents in a fully parabolic quasilinear Keller-Segel system and applications to volume filling models*, J. Differential Equations, **258** (2015), 2080–2113.
E. Conway, D. Hoff and J. Smoller, *Large time behavior of solutions of systems of nonlinear reaction–diffusion equations*, , **35**, (1978), 1–16.
E. Conway and J. Smoller, *A comparison technique for systems of reaction–diffusion equations*, Comm. Partial Differential Equations, **2** (1977), 679–697.
C. Cosner, *Reaction–diffusion–advection models for the effects and evolution of dispersal*, Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst., **34** (2014), 1701–1745.
P. De Mottoni and F. Rothe, *Convergence to homogeneous equilibrium state for generalized Volterra–Lotka systems with diffusion*, , **37** (1979), 648–663.
L. Desvillettes, T. Lepoutre, A. Moussa and A. Trescases, *On the entropic structure of reaction–cross diffusion systems*, Comm. Partial Differential Equations, **40** (2015), 1705–1747.
L. Hoang, T. Nguyen and T. Phan, *Gradient estimates and global existence of smooth solutions to a cross–diffusion system*, SIAM J. Math. Anal., **47** (2015), 2122–2177.
S. Ishida, K. Seki and T. Yokota, *Boundedness in quasilinear Keller–Segel systems of parabolic–parabolic type on non-convex bounded domains*, J. Differential Equations, **256** (2014), 2993–3010.
A. Jüngel, *The boundedness-by-entropy principle for cross–diffusion systems*, Nonlinearity, **28** (2015), 1963–2001.
K. Kishimoto and H. Weinberger, *The spatial homogeneity of stable equilibria of some reaction–diffusion systems in convex domains*, J. Differential Equations, **58** (1985), 15–21.
T. Kolokolnikov and J. Wei, *Stability of spiky solutions in a competition model with cross–diffusion*, , **71** (2011), 1428–1457.
K. Kuto, *Limiting structure of shrinking solutions to the stationary Shigesada–Kawasaki–Teramoto model with large cross–diffusion*, SIAM J. Math. Anal., **47** (2015), 3993–4024.
K. Kuto and T. Tsujikawa, *Limiting structure of steady–states to the Lotka–Volterra competition model with large diffusion and advection*, J. Differential Equations, **258** (2015), 1801–1858.
J. Lankeit, *Chemotaxis can prevent thresholds on population density*, Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst., Ser. B, **20** (2015), 1499–1527.
D. Le, *Cross diffusion systems on $n$ spatial dimensional domains*, Indiana Univ. Math. J., **51** (2002), 625–643.
D. Le and V. Nguyen, *Global solutions to cross diffusion parabolic systems on 2D domains*, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., **143** (2015), 2999–3010.
D. Le and V. Nguyen, *Global and blow up solutions to cross diffusion systems on 3D domains*, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., (2016), published online.
D. Le, L. Nguyen and T. Nguyen, *Coexistence in cross diffusion systems*, Indiana Univ. Math. J., **56** (2007), 1749–1791.
Y. Lou and W.-M. Ni, *Diffusion, self–diffusion and cross–diffusion*, J. Differential Equations, **131** (1996), 79–131.
Y. Lou and W.-M. Ni, *Diffusion vs cross–diffusion: An elliptic approach*, J. Differential Equations, **154** (1999), 157–190.
Y. Lou, W.-M. Ni and Y. Wu, *On the global existence of a cross–diffusion system*, Discrete Contin. Dynam. Systems, **4** (1998), 193–203.
Y. Lou, W.-M. Ni and S. Yotsutani, *On a limiting system in the Lotka–Volterra competition with cross–diffusion*, Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst., **10** (2004), 435–458.
Y. Lou, W.-M. Ni and S. Yotsutani, *Pattern formation in a cross–diffusion system*, Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst., **35** (2015), 1589–1607.
Y. Lou and M. Winkler, *Global existence and uniform boundedness of smooth solutions to a cross-diffusion system with equal diffusion rates*, Comm. Partial Differential Equations, **40** (2015), 1905–1941.
Y. Lou, M. Winkler and Y. Tao, *Approaching the ideal free distribution in two–species competition models with fitness–dependent dispersal*, SIAM J. Math. Anal., **46** (2014), 1228–1262.
H. Matano and M. Mimura, *Pattern formation in competition–diffusion systems in nonconvex domains*, *Publ. Res. Inst. Math. Sci.*, **19** (1983), 1049–1079.
M. Mimura, S.-I. Ei and Q. Fang, *Effect of domain-shape on coexistence problems in a competition–diffusion system*, , **29** (1991), 219–237.
M. Mimura and K. Kawasaki, *Spatial segregation in competitive interaction–diffusion equations*, , **9** (1980), 49–64.
M. Mimura, Y. Nishiura, A. Tesei and T. Tsujikawa, *Coexistence problem for two competing species models with density–dependent diffusion*, , **14** (1984), 425–449.
W.-M. Ni, Y. Wu and Q. Xu, *The existence and stability of nontrivial steady states for S–K–T competition model with cross diffusion*, Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst., **34** (2014), 5271–5298.
L. Shao, Y. Song and Q. Wang, *Boundedness and persistence of populations in advective Lotka–Volterra competition system*, preprint.
N. Shigesada, K. Kawasaki and E. Teramoto, *Spatial segregation of interacting species*, , **79** (1979), 83–99.
S.-A Shim, *Uniform boundedness and convergence of solutions to cross–diffusion systems*, J. Differential Equations, **185** (2002), 281–305.
Y. Sugiyama and H. Kunii, *Global existence and decay properties for a degenerate Keller–Segel model with a power factor in drift term*, J. Differential Equations, **227** (2006), 333–364.
Y. Tao and M. Winkler, *A chemotaxis–haptotaxis model: the roles of nonlinear diffusion and logistic source*, SIAM J. Math. Anal., **43** (2011), 685–704.
Y. Tao and M. Winkler, *Boundedness in a quasilinear parabolic–parabolic Keller–Segel system with subcritical sensitivity*, J. Differential Equations, **252** (2012), 692–715.
P. Tuoc, *Global existence of solutions to Shigesada–Kawasaki–Teramoto cross–diffusion systems on domains of arbitrary dimensions*, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., **135** (2007), 3933–3941.
P. V. Tuoc and V. Phan, *On global existence of solutions to a cross–diffusion system*, J. Math. Anal. Appl., **343** (2008), 826–834.
L. Wang, C. Mu and S. Zhou, *Boundedness in a parabolic–parabolic chemotaxis system with nonlinear diffusion*, Z. Angew. Math. Phys., **65** (2014), 1137–1152.
Q. Wang, *On the steady state of a shadow system to the SKT competition model*, **19** (2014), 2941–2961.
Q. Wang, C. Gai and J. Yan, *Qualitative analysis of a Lotka–Volterra competition system with advection*, Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst., **35** (2015), 1239–1284.
Q. Wang and L. Zhang, *On the multi–dimensional advective Lotka–Volterra competition systems*, preprint.
Y. Wang, *Boundedness in the higher–dimensional chemotaxis–haptotaxis model with nonlinear diffusion*, J. Differential Equations, **260** (2016), 1975–1989.
M. Winkler, *Aggregation vs. global diffusive behavior in the higher–dimensional Keller–Segel model*, J. Diffential Equations, **248** (2010), 2889–2905.
M. Winkler, *Boundedness in the higher-dimensional parabolic-parabolic chemotaxis system with logistic source*, Comm. Partial Differential Equations, **35** (2010), 1516–1537.
M. Winkler, *Blow-up in a higher–dimensional chemotaxis system despite logistic growth restriction*, , **384** (2011), 261–272.
M. Winkler, *How far can chemotactic cross–diffusion enforce exceeding carrying capacities?*, J. Nonlinear Sci., **24** (2014), 809–855.
Y. Wu and Q. Xu, *The existence and structure of large spiky steady states for SKT competition systems with cross–diffusion*, Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst., **29** (2011), 367–385.
Y. Yamada, *Global solutions for the Shigesada–Kawasaki–Teramoto model with cross–diffusion*, Recent progress on reaction–diffusion systems and viscosity solutions, World Scientific River Edge, NJ, 2009, 282–299.
Q. Zhang and Y. Li, *Boundedness in a quasilinear fully parabolic Keller–Segel system with logistic source*, Z. Angew. Math. Phys., **66** (2015), 2473–2484.
P. Zheng, C. Mu and X. Hu, *Boundedness and blow–up for a chemotaxis system with generalized volume–filling effect and logistic source*, Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst., **35** (2015), 2299–2323.
P. Zheng, C. Mu and X. Song, *On the boundedness and decay of solutions for a chemotaxis–haptotaxis system with nonlinear diffusion*, Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst., **36** (2016), 1737–1757.
[^1]: [[email protected]]{}, corresponding author. QW is supported by NSF-China (Grant 11501460) and the Project (No.15ZA0382) from Department of Education, Sichuan China
[^2]: [[email protected]]{}
[^3]: [[email protected]]{}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We derive the mean squared error convergence rates of kernel density-based plug-in estimators of mutual information measures between two multidimensional random variables $\mathbf{X}$ and $\mathbf{Y}$ for two cases: 1) $\X$ and $\Y$ are both continuous; 2) $\X$ is continuous and $\Y$ is discrete. Using the derived rates, we propose an ensemble estimator of these information measures for the second case by taking a weighted sum of the plug-in estimators with varied bandwidths. The resulting ensemble estimator achieves the $1/N$ parametric convergence rate when the conditional densities of the continuous variables are sufficiently smooth. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first nonparametric mutual information estimator known to achieve the parametric convergence rate for this case, which frequently arises in applications (e.g. variable selection in classification). The estimator is simple to implement as it uses the solution to an offline convex optimization problem and simple plug-in estimators. A central limit theorem is also derived for the ensemble estimator. Ensemble estimators that achieve the parametric rate are also derived for the first case ($\X$ and $\Y$ are both continuous) and another case 3) $\X$ and $\Y$ may have any mixture of discrete and continuous components.'
author:
- 'Kevin R. Moon[^1]'
- 'Kumar Sricharan[^2]'
- 'Alfred O. Hero III[^3]'
bibliography:
- 'References.bib'
title: Ensemble Estimation of Mutual Information
---
\#1[\_[\#1,h\_[\#1]{}]{}]{} \#1[\_[\#1]{}]{}
\#1[\_[\#1,h\_[\#1]{}]{}]{} \#1[\_[\#1,h]{}]{} \#1[\_[\#1,h\_[\#1]{}(l)]{}]{} \#1[\_[\#1,h\_[\#1]{}]{}]{} \#1[\_[\#1,h]{}]{}
§ \#1[\_]{}
\#1[\_[\#1,k\_[\#1]{}]{}]{} \#1[\_[\#1,k\_[\#1]{}+1]{}]{}
\#1[\_[\#1,k\_[\#1]{}]{}]{} \#1\#2[\_[\#1,k(\#2)]{}]{} \#1[\_[\#1,k\_[\#1]{}+1]{}]{} \#1[|\_[\#1,k\_[\#1]{}]{}]{} \#1[|\_[\#1,k\_[\#1]{}+1]{}]{}
\#1\#2[\_[\#1\#2,h\_[\#1]{},h\_[\#2]{}]{}]{}
\#1\#2\#3[\_[\#2]{}\^[(\#3)]{}]{}
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Mutual information (MI) estimation has many applications in machine learning including MI has been used in fMRI data processing [@chai2009fMRI], structure learning [@structure2016], independent subspace analysis [@pal2010estimation], forest density estimation [@liu2012exponential], clustering [@lewi2006real], neuron classification [@schneidman2003information], and intrinsically motivated reinforcement learning [@mohamed2015variational; @salge2014changing]. Another particularly common application is feature selection or extraction where features are chosen to maximize the MI between the chosen features $\mathbf{X}$ and the outcome variables $\mathbf{Y}$ [@torkkola2003feature; @vergara2014review; @peng2005feature; @kwak2002input]. In many of these applications, the predictor labels have discrete components (e.g. classification labels) while the input variables have continuous components. To the best of our knowledge, there are currently no nonparametric MI estimators that are known to achieve the parametric mean squared error (MSE) convergence rate $1/N$ when $\X$ and/or $\Y$ contain discrete components. Also, while many nonparametric estimators of MI exist, most can only be applied to specific information measures (e.g. Shannon or Rényi information). In this paper, we provide a framework for nonparametric estimation of a large class of MI measures where we only have available a finite population of i.i.d. samples. **** We separately consider three cases: 1) $\X$ and $\Y$ are both continuous; 2) $\X$ is continuous and $\Y$ is discrete; 3) $\X$ and $\Y$ may have any mixture of discrete and continuous components. We focus primarily on the second case which includes the problem of feature selection in classification. We derive a MI estimator for this case that achieves the parametric MSE rate when the conditional densities of the continuous variables are sufficiently smooth. We also show how these estimators are extended to the first and third cases.
Our estimation method applies to other MI measures in addition to Shannon information, which have been the focus of much interest. The authors of [@torkkola2003feature] defined an information measure based on a quadratic divergence that could be estimated more efficiently than Shannon information. A MI measure based on the Pearson divergence was considered in [@sugiyama2012machine] for computational efficiency and numerical stability. The authors of [@costa2004geodesic] and [@pal2010estimation] used minimal spanning tree generalized nearest-neighbor graph approaches, respectively, to estimate Rényi information.
Related Work
------------
Many estimators for Shannon MI between continuous random variables have been developed. A popular $k$-nn-based estimator was proposed in [@kraskov2004estimating] which is a modification of the entropy estimator derived in [@kozachenko1987sample]. However, these estimators only achieve the parametric convergence rate when the dimension of each of the random variables is less than 3 [@gao2016demystifying]. Similarly, the Rényi information estimator in [@pal2010estimation] does not achieve the parametric rate. Some other estimators are based on maximum likelihood estimation of the likelihood ratio [@suzuki2008approximating] and minimal spanning trees [@khan2007relative].
Recent work has focused on nonparametric divergence estimation for purely continuous random variables. One approach [@krishnamurthy2014divergence; @kandasamy2015nonparametric; @singh2014exponential; @singh2014renyi] uses an optimal kernel density estimator (KDE) to achieve the parametric convergence rate when the densities are at least $d$ [@singh2014exponential; @singh2014renyi] or $d/2$ [@krishnamurthy2014divergence; @kandasamy2015nonparametric] times differentiable where $d$ is the dimension of the data. These optimal KDEs require knowledge of the density support boundary and are difficult to construct near the boundary. Numerical integration may also be required for estimating some divergence functionals under this approach, which can be computationally expensive. In contrast, our approach to MI estimation does not require numerical integration and can be performed without knowledge of the support boundary.
More closely related work [@sricharan2013ensemble; @moon2014isit; @moon2014nips; @moon2016arxiv; @moon2016isit] uses an ensemble approach to estimate entropy or divergence functionals. These works construct an ensemble of simple plug-in estimators by varying the neighborhood size of the density estimators. They then take a weighted average of the estimators where the weights are chosen to decrease the bias with only a small increase in the variance. The parametric rate of convergence is achieved when the densities are either $d$ [@sricharan2013ensemble; @moon2014isit; @moon2014nips] or $(d+1)/2$ [@moon2016arxiv; @moon2016isit] times differentiable. These approaches are simple to implement as they only require simple plug-in estimates and the solution of an offline convex optimization problem. These estimators have also performed well in various applications [@szabo2012distributed; @gliske2015intrinsic; @moon2015Bayes; @moon2015partI; @moon2015partII]
Finally, the authors of [@gao2015efficient] showed that $k$-nn or KDE based approaches underestimate the MI when the MI is large. As MI increases, the dependencies between random variables increase which results in less smooth densities. Thus a common approach to overcome this issue is to require the densities to be smooth [@krishnamurthy2014divergence; @kandasamy2015nonparametric; @singh2014exponential; @singh2014renyi; @sricharan2013ensemble; @moon2014isit; @moon2014nips; @moon2016arxiv; @moon2016isit].
Contributions
-------------
In the context of this related work, we make the following novel contributions in this paper: (1) For continuous random variables (case 1), we extend the asymptotic bias and variance results for divergence estimators [@moon2016isit; @moon2016arxiv] to kernel density plug-in MI estimators without boundary correction [@karunamuni2005boundary] by incorporating machinery to handle the dependence between the product of marginal density estimators (Section \[sec:MI\_est\]), (2) we extend the theory to handle discrete random variables in the mixed cases (cases 2 and 3) by reformulating the densities as a mixture of the conditional density of the continuous variables given the discrete variables (Section \[sec:mixed\]), and (3) we leverage this theory for the mixed cases in conjunction with the generalized theory of ensemble estimators [@moon2016arxiv; @moon2016isit] to derive, to the best of our knowledge, the first non-parametric estimator that achieves a parametric rate of MSE convergence of $O\left(1/N\right)$ for the mixed cases (Section \[sec:mixed\_ensemble\]), where $N$ is the number of samples available from each distribution. We also derive a central limit theorem for the ensemble estimators (Section \[subsec:clt\]). We verify the theory through experiments (Section \[sec:experiments\]).
Continuous Random Variables {#sec:MI_est}
===========================
In this section, we obtain MSE convergence rates of plug-in MI estimators when $\X$ and $\Y$ are continuous (case 1 in Section \[sec:intro\]). This will enable us to derive the MSE convergence rates of plug-in MI estimators when $\X$ is continuous and $\Y$ is discrete and when $\X$ and $\Y$ may have any mixture of continuous and discrete components (respectively, cases 2 and 3 in Section \[sec:intro\]). These rates can then be used to derive ensemble estimators that achieve the parametric MSE rate. Let $f_{X}(x)$, $f_{Y}(y)$, and $f_{XY}(x,y)$ be $d_{X}$, $d_{Y}$, and $d_{X}+d_{Y}=d$-dimensional densities. Let $g(t_{1},t_{2})=g\left(\frac{t_{1}}{t_{2}}\right)$ (e.g. $g(t_{1},t_{2})=\log(t_{1}/t_{2})$ for Shannon information). We define a family of MIs as $$G_{1}(\mathbf{X};\mathbf{Y})=\int g\left(\frac{f_{X}(x)f_{Y}(y)}{f_{XY}(x,y)}\right)f_{XY}(x,y)dxdy.\label{eq:MI}$$
The KDE Plug-in Estimator
-------------------------
When both $\mathbf{X}$ and $\mathbf{Y}$ are continuous with marginal densities $f_{X}$ and $f_{Y}$, the MI functional $G_{1}(\mathbf{X};\mathbf{Y})$ can be estimated using KDEs. Assume that $N$ i.i.d. samples $\left\{ \mathbf{Z}_{1},\dots,\mathbf{Z}_{N}\right\} $ are available from the joint density $f_{XY}$ with $\mathbf{Z}_{i}=\left(\mathbf{X}_{i},\mathbf{Y}_{i}\right)^{T}$. Let $M=N-1$ and let $h_{X}$, $h_{Y}$ be kernel bandwidths. Let $K_{X}(\cdot)$ and $K_{Y}(\cdot)$ be kernel functions with $||K_{X}||_{\infty},\,||K_{Y}||_{\infty}<\infty$ where $||K||_{\infty}=\sup_{x}|K(x)|$. The KDE for $f_{X}$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\ft X(\mathbf{X}_{j}) & = & \frac{1}{Mh_{X}^{d_{X}}}\sum_{\substack{i=1\\
i\neq j
}
}^{N}K_{X}\left(\frac{\mathbf{X}_{j}-\mathbf{X}_{i}}{h_{X}}\right).\label{eq:fx}\end{aligned}$$ The KDEs $\ft Y(\Y_{j})$ and $\ft Z(\mathbf{X}_{j},\mathbf{Y}_{j})$ (where $h_{Z}=(h_{X},h_{Y})$) for estimating $f_{Y}$ and $f_{XY}$, respectively, are defined similarly using $K_{Y}$ and the product kernel $K_{X}\cdot K_{Y}$. Then $G_{1}(\mathbf{X};\mathbf{Y})$ is estimated as $$\gt=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N}g\left(\frac{\ft X(\mathbf{X}_{i})\ft Y(\mathbf{Y}_{i})}{\ft Z(\mathbf{X}_{i},\mathbf{Y}_{i})}\right).\label{eq:Gest}$$
Convergence Rates
-----------------
To derive the convergence rates of $\gt$ we assume that 1) $f_{X}$, $f_{Y}$, $f_{XY}$, and $g$ are smooth; 2) $f_{X}$ and $f_{Y}$ have bounded support sets $\mathcal{S}_{X}$ and $\mathcal{S}_{Y}$; 3) $f_{X}$, $f_{Y}$, and $f_{XY}$ are strictly lower bounded on their support sets. More specifically, we assume that the densities belong to the bounded Hölder class $\Sigma(s,H)$ (the precise definition is included in the appendices) which implies that the densities are $r=\left\lfloor s\right\rfloor $ times differentiable. These assumptions are comparable to those in similar studies on asymptotic convergence analysis [@moon2016isit; @moon2014nips; @moon2014isit; @singh2014renyi; @singh2014exponential; @sricharan2013ensemble; @krishnamurthy2014divergence; @kandasamy2015nonparametric]. To derive the convergence rates without boundary corrections, we also assume that 4) the boundary of the support set is smooth with respect to the corresponding kernels. The full assumptions are
- $(\mathcal{A}.0)$: The kernels $K_{X}$ and $K_{Y}$ are symmetric product kernels with bounded support.
- $(\mathcal{A}.1)$: There exist constants $\epsilon_{0},\epsilon_{\infty}$ such that $0<\epsilon_{0}\leq f_{X}(x)\leq\epsilon_{\infty}<\infty,\,\forall x\in\mathcal{S}_{X}$, $\epsilon_{0}\leq f_{Y}(y)\leq\epsilon_{\infty},\,\forall y\in\mathcal{S}_{Y}$, and $\epsilon_{0}\leq f_{XY}(x,y)\leq\epsilon_{\infty},\,\forall(x,y)\in\mathcal{S}_{X}\times\mathcal{S}_{Y}$.
- $(\mathcal{A}.2)$: Each of the densities belong to $\Sigma(s,H)$ in the interior of their support sets with $s\geq2$.
- $(\mathcal{A}.3)$: $g\left(t_{1}/t_{2}\right)$ has an infinite number of mixed derivatives wrt $t_{1}$ and $t_{2}$.
- $(\mathcal{A}.4$): $\left|\frac{\partial^{k+l}g(t_{1},t_{2})}{\partial t_{1}^{k}\partial t_{2}^{l}}\right|/(k!l!)$, $k,l=0,1,\ldots$ are strictly upper bounded for $\epsilon_{0}\leq t_{1},t_{2}\leq\epsilon_{\infty}$.
- $(\mathcal{A}.5)$: Let $K$ be either $K_{X}$ or $K_{Y}$, $\mathcal{S}$ either $\mathcal{S}_{X}$ or $\mathcal{S}_{Y}$, $h$ either $h_{X}$ or $h_{Y}$. Let $p_{x}(u):\mathbb{R}^{d}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ be a polynomial in $u$ of order $q\leq r=\left\lfloor s\right\rfloor $ whose coefficients are a function of $x$ and are $r-q$ times differentiable. For any positive integer $t$ $$\int_{x\in\mathcal{S}}\left(\int_{u:K(u)>0,\,x+uh\notin\mathcal{S}}K(u)p_{x}(u)du\right)^{t}dx=v_{t}(h),$$ where $v_{t}(h)$ admits the expansion $$v_{t}(h)=\sum_{i=1}^{r-q}e_{i,q,t}h^{i}+o\left(h^{r-q}\right),$$ for some constants $e_{i,q,t}$.
Assumption $(\mathcal{A}.5)$ states that the support of the density is smooth with respect to the kernel $K$ in the sense that the expectation with respect to any random variable $u$ of the area of the kernel that falls outside the support $\mathcal{S}$ is a smooth function of the bandwidth $h$ provided that the distribution function $p_{x}(u)$ of $u$ is smooth (e.g. $s\geq2$). The inner integral captures this expectation while the outer integral averages this inner integral over all points near the boundary of the support. The $v_{t}(h)$ term captures the fact that the smoothness of this expectation is proportional to the smoothness of the function $p_{x}(u)$. As an example, this smoothness assumption is satisfied when the support is rectangular and the kernel is the uniform rectangular kernel [@moon2016arxiv; @moon2016isit]. Note that this boundary assumption does not result in parametric convergence rates for the plug-in estimator $\gt$, which is in contrast with the boundary assumptions in [@singh2014exponential; @singh2014renyi; @krishnamurthy2014divergence; @kandasamy2015nonparametric]. However, the estimators in [@singh2014exponential; @singh2014renyi; @krishnamurthy2014divergence; @kandasamy2015nonparametric] perform boundary correction, which requires knowledge of the density support boundary and complex calculations at the boundary in addition to the boundary assumptions, to achieve the parametric convergence rates. In contrast, we use ensemble methods to improve the resulting convergence rates of $\gt$ without boundary correction.
\[thm:bias\](Bias) Under assumptions $\mathcal{A}.0-\mathcal{A}.5$ and for general $g$, the bias of $\gt$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\bias\left[\gt\right] & = & \sum_{\substack{j=0\\
i+j\neq0
}
}^{r}\sum_{i=0}^{r}c_{10,i,j}h_{X}^{i}h_{Y}^{j}+\frac{c_{11}}{Nh_{X}^{d_{X}}h_{Y}^{d_{Y}}}\nonumber \\
& & +O\left(h_{X}^{s}+h_{Y}^{s}+\frac{1}{Nh_{X}^{d_{X}}h_{Y}^{d_{Y}}}\right).\label{eq:bias1}\end{aligned}$$ If $g\left(t_{1},t_{2}\right)$ also has $j,l$-th order mixed derivatives $\frac{\partial^{j+l}}{\partial t_{1}^{j}\partial t_{2}^{l}}$ that depend on $t_{1}$ and $t_{2}$ only through $t_{1}^{\alpha}t_{2}^{\beta}$ for some $\alpha,\beta\in\mathbb{R}$ for each $1\leq k,l,\leq\lambda$, the bias of $\gt$ is $$\begin{aligned}
& & \lefteqn{\bias\left[\gt\right]}\nonumber \\
& & =\sum_{\substack{m,n=0\\
i+j+m+n\neq0
}
}^{\left\lfloor \lambda/2\right\rfloor }\sum_{i,j=0}^{r}c_{11,j,i,m,n}\frac{h_{X}^{i}h_{Y}^{j}}{\left(Nh_{X}^{d_{X}}\right)^{m}\left(Nh_{Y}^{d_{Y}}\right)^{n}}\nonumber \\
& & +\sum_{m=1}^{\left\lfloor \lambda/2\right\rfloor }\sum_{i=0}^{r}\sum_{j=0}^{r}c_{13,m,n,j}h_{X}^{i}h_{Y}^{j}/\left(Nh_{X}^{d_{X}}h_{Y}^{d_{Y}}\right)^{m}\nonumber \\
& & +O\left(h_{X}^{s}+h_{Y}^{s}+1/\left(Nh_{X}^{d_{X}}h_{Y}^{d_{Y}}\right)^{\lambda/2}\right).\label{eq:bias2}\end{aligned}$$
The constants in both (\[eq:bias1\]) and (\[eq:bias2\]) depend only on the densities and their derivatives, the functional $g$ and its derivatives, and the kernels. They are independent of $N,$ $h_{X}$, and $h_{Y}.$
The purpose of Theorem \[thm:bias\] is two-fold. First, we use Theorem \[thm:bias\] to derive the bias expressions for the MI plug-in estimators when $\mathbf{X}$ and $\mathbf{Y}$ may have a mixture of discrete and continuous components (cases 2 and 3) in Section \[sec:mixed\]. Second, in conjunction with Theorem \[thm:variance\] which follows, the results in Theorem \[thm:bias\] can be used to derive MI ensemble estimators in Appendix \[subsec:cont\_ensemble\] that achieve the parametric MSE convergence rate when the densities are sufficiently smooth. The expression in (\[eq:bias2\]) enables us to achieve the parametric rate under less restrictive smoothness assumptions on the densities ($s>d/2$ for (\[eq:bias2\]) compared to $s\geq d$ for (\[eq:bias1\])). The extra condition required on the mixed derivatives of $g$ to obtain the expression in (\[eq:bias2\]) is satisfied, for example, for Shannon and Renyi information measures.
\[thm:variance\](Variance) If the functional $g$ is Lipschitz continuous in both of its arguments with Lipschitz constant $C_{g}$, then the variance of $\gt$ is $$\var\left[\gt\right]\leq\frac{22C_{g}^{2}||K_{X}\cdot K_{Y}||_{\infty}^{2}}{N}.$$
Similar to Theorem \[thm:bias\], Theorem \[thm:variance\] is used to derive variance expressions for the MI plug-in estimators under cases 2 and 3. Theorem \[thm:variance\] is also necessary to derive optimally weighted ensemble estimators. The proofs of Theorems \[thm:bias\] and \[thm:variance\] are similar to the proofs of the bias and variance results for the divergence functional estimators in [@moon2016arxiv]. The primary difference is in handling certain products of the marginal KDEs that appear in the expansion of the MSE. See Appendix \[sec:biasProof\] and \[sec:VarProof\] for details.
Theorems \[thm:bias\] and \[thm:variance\] indicate that for the MSE of the plug-in estimator to go to zero for case 1, we require $h_{X},h_{Y}\rightarrow0$ and $Nh_{X}^{d_{X}}h_{Y}^{d_{Y}}\rightarrow\infty$. The Lipschitz assumption on $g$ is comparable to other nonparametric estimators of distributional functionals [@kandasamy2015nonparametric; @singh2014exponential; @singh2014renyi; @moon2016arxiv; @krishnamurthy2014divergence]. Specifically, assumption $\mathcal{A}.1$ ensures that functionals such as those for Shannon and Renyi informations are Lipschitz on the space $\epsilon_{0}$ to $\epsilon_{\infty}$.
Mixed Random Variables {#sec:mixed}
======================
In this section, we extend the results of Section \[sec:MI\_est\] to MI estimation when $\mathbf{X}$ and $\mathbf{Y}$ may have a mixture of discrete and continuous components. For simplicity, we focus primarily on the important case when $\mathbf{X}$ is continuous and $\mathbf{Y}$ is discrete (case 2 in Section \[sec:intro\]). The more general case when $\X$ and $\Y$ may have any mixture of continuous and discrete components (case 3 in Section \[sec:intro\]) is discussed in Section \[subsec:general\_rates\]. As an example of the former case, if $\mathbf{Y}$ is a predictor variable (e.g. classification labels), then the MI between $\mathbf{X}$ and $\mathbf{Y}$ indicates the value of $\mathbf{X}$ as a predictor of $\mathbf{Y}$. Although $\mathbf{Y}$ is discrete, $f_{XY}=f_{Z}$ is also a density. Let $\mathcal{S}_{X}$ be the support of the density $f_{X}$ and $\mathcal{S}_{Y}$ be the support of the probability mass function $f_{Y}$. The MI is $$\begin{aligned}
& \lefteqn{G_{2}\left(\mathbf{X};\mathbf{Y}\right)}\nonumber \\
& = & \sum_{y\in\mathcal{S}_{Y}}\int g\left(\frac{f_{X}(x)f_{Y}(y)}{f_{XY}(x,y)}\right)f_{XY}(x,y)dx\label{eq:MI_cond}\\
& = & \sum_{y\in\mathcal{S}_{Y}}f_{Y}(y)\int g\left(\frac{f_{X}(x)}{f_{X|Y}(x|y)}\right)f_{X|Y}(x|y)dx.\nonumber \end{aligned}$$
Let $\mathbf{N}_{y}=\sum_{i=1}^{N}1_{\left\{ \mathbf{Y}_{i}=y\right\} }$ where $y\in\mathcal{S}_{Y}$. Let $\ft X$ be as in (\[eq:fx\]) and define $\mathcal{X}_{y}=\left\{ \mathbf{X}_{i}\in\left\{ \mathbf{X}_{1},\dots,\mathbf{X}_{N}\right\} |\mathbf{Y}_{i}=y\right\} $. Then if $\mathbf{X}_{i}\in\mathcal{X}_{y}$, the KDE of $f_{X|Y}(x|y)$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\ft{X|y}(\mathbf{X}_{i}) & = & \frac{1}{\left(\mathbf{N}_{y}-1\right)h_{X|y}^{d_{X}}}\sum_{\substack{\mathbf{X}_{j}\in\mathcal{X}_{y}\\
i\neq j
}
}K_{X}\left(\frac{\mathbf{X}_{i}-\mathbf{X}_{j}}{h_{X|y}}\right).\end{aligned}$$ We define the plug-in estimator $\g{h_{X},h_{X|Y}}$ of (\[eq:MI\_cond\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
\g{h_{X},h_{X|y}} & =\frac{1}{\mathbf{N}_{y}}\sum_{\mathbf{X}\in\mathcal{X}_{y}}g\left(\ft X(\mathbf{X})/\ft{X|y}(\mathbf{X})\right),\nonumber \\
\implies\g{h_{X},h_{X|Y}} & =\sum_{y\in\mathcal{S}_{Y}}\frac{\mathbf{N}_{y}}{N}\g{h_{X},h_{X|y}}.\label{eq:mixed_est}\end{aligned}$$
Convergence Rates {#subsec:mixed_conv}
-----------------
To apply the theory of optimally weighted ensemble estimation to $\g{h_{X},h_{X|Y}}$, we need to know its MSE as a function of the bandwidths and the sample size.
\[thm:bias\_mixed\](Bias) Assume that assumptions $\mathcal{A}.0-\mathcal{A}.5$ apply to the functional $g$, the kernel $K_{X}$, and the densities $f_{X}$ and $f_{X|Y}$. Assume that $\mathbf{h}_{X|y}=l\mathbf{N}_{y}^{-\beta}$ with $0<\beta<\frac{1}{d_{X}}$ and $l$ a positive number. Then the bias of $\g{h_{X},h_{X|Y}}$ is $$\begin{aligned}
& \lefteqn{\bias\left[\g{h_{X},h_{X|Y}}\right]}\nonumber \\
& =\sum_{\substack{j=0\\
i+j\neq0
}
}^{r}\sum_{i=0}^{r}c_{13,i,j}h_{X}^{i}l^{j}N^{-j\beta}+\frac{c_{14,X}}{Nh_{X}^{d_{X}}}+\frac{c_{14,Y}}{l^{d_{X}}N^{1-\beta d_{X}}}\nonumber \\
& +O\left(h_{X}^{s}+N^{-s\beta}+\frac{1}{Nh_{X}^{d_{X}}}+\frac{1}{N^{1-\beta d_{X}}}\right).\label{eq:bias_mixed1}\end{aligned}$$ If $g\left(t_{1},t_{2}\right)$ also has $j,l$-th order mixed derivatives $\frac{\partial^{j+l}}{\partial t_{1}^{j}\partial t_{2}^{l}}$ that depend on $t_{1}$ and $t_{2}$ only through $t_{1}^{\alpha}t_{2}^{\beta}$ for some $\alpha,\beta\in\mathbb{R}$ for each $1\leq j,l\leq\lambda$, then the bias is $$\begin{aligned}
& \lefteqn{\bias\left[\g{h_{X},h_{X|Y}}\right]}\nonumber \\
& =\sum_{\substack{m,n=0\\
i+j+m+n\neq0
}
}^{\left\lfloor \lambda/2\right\rfloor }\sum_{i,j=0}^{r}c_{14,j,i,m,n}\frac{h_{X}^{i}l^{j}N^{-j\beta}}{\left(Nh_{X}^{d_{X}}\right)^{m}\left(l^{d_{X}}N^{1-\beta d_{X}}\right)^{n}}\nonumber \\
& +O\left(h_{X}^{s}+N^{-s\beta}+\frac{1}{\left(Nh_{X}^{d_{X}}\right)^{\lambda/2}}+\frac{1}{\left(N^{1-\beta d_{X}}\right)^{\lambda/2}}\right).\label{eq:bias_mixed2}\end{aligned}$$
We focus on (\[eq:bias\_mixed1\]) as (\[eq:bias\_mixed2\]) follows similarly. It can be shown that $$\bias\left[\g{h_{X},h_{X|Y}}\right]=\bE\left[\sum_{y\in\mathcal{S}_{Y}}\frac{\mathbf{N}_{y}}{N}\bias\left[\left.\g{h_{X},h_{X|y}}\right|\mathbf{Y}_{1},\dots,\mathbf{Y}_{N}\right]\right].$$ The conditional bias of $\g{h_{X},h_{X|y}}$ given $\mathbf{Y}_{1},\dots,\mathbf{Y}_{N}$ can then be obtained from Theorem \[thm:bias\] as $$\begin{aligned}
& \lefteqn{\bias\left[\left.\g{h_{X},h_{X|y}}\right|\mathbf{Y}_{1},\dots,\mathbf{Y}_{N}\right]}\\
& =\sum_{\substack{i,j=0\\
i+j\neq0
}
}^{r}c_{10,i,j}h_{X}^{i}\mathbf{h}_{X|y}^{j}\\
& +O\left(h_{X}^{s}+\mathbf{h}_{X|y}^{s}+\frac{1}{\mathbf{N}_{y}h_{X}^{d_{X}}}+\frac{1}{\mathbf{N}_{y}\mathbf{h}_{X|y}^{d_{X}}}\right)\end{aligned}$$ Then given that $\mathbf{h}_{X|y}\propto\mathbf{N}_{y}^{-\beta}$, (\[eq:mixed\_est\]) gives terms of the form of $\mathbf{N}_{y}^{1-\gamma}$ with $\gamma>0$. $\mathbf{N}_{y}$ is a binomial random variable with parameter $f_{Y}(y)$, $N$ trials, and mean $Nf_{Y}(y)$. Thus we need to compute the fractional moments of a binomial random variable. By the generalized binomial theorem, we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{N}_{y}^{\alpha} & =\left(\mathbf{N}_{y}-Nf_{Y}(y)+Nf_{Y}(y)\right)^{\alpha}\nonumber \\
& =\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}\left(\begin{array}{c}
\alpha\\
i
\end{array}\right)\left(Nf_{Y}(y)\right)^{\alpha-i}\left(\mathbf{N}_{y}-Nf_{Y}(y)\right)^{i},\nonumber \\
& \lefteqn{\implies\bE\left[\mathbf{N}_{y}^{\alpha}\right]}\nonumber \\
& =\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}\left(\begin{array}{c}
\alpha\\
i
\end{array}\right)\left(Nf_{Y}(y)\right)^{\alpha-i}\bE\left[\left(\mathbf{N}_{y}-Nf_{Y}(y)\right)^{i}\right].\label{eq:fractional_moment}\end{aligned}$$ From [@riordan1937moment], the $i$-th central moment of $\mathbf{N}_{y}$ has the form of $$\bE\left[\left(\mathbf{N}_{Y}-Nf_{Y}(y)\right)^{i}\right]=\sum_{n=0}^{\left\lfloor i/2\right\rfloor }c_{n,i}(f_{Y}(y))N^{n}.$$ Thus $\bE\left[\mathbf{N}_{y}^{1-\gamma}\right]$ has terms proportional to $N^{1-\gamma-i+n}\leq N^{1-\gamma-\left\lfloor i/2\right\rfloor }$ for $i=0,1,\dots$ since $n\leq\left\lfloor i/2\right\rfloor $. Then since there is an $N$ in the denominator of (\[eq:mixed\_est\]), this leaves terms of the form of $N^{-\gamma}$ when $i=0,1$ and $N^{-1}$ for $i\geq2$. This completes the proof for the bias. See Appendix \[sec:MixedProofs\] for more details.
\[thm:var\_mixed\]If the functional $g$ is Lipschitz continuous in both of its arguments and $\mathcal{S}_{Y}$ is finite, then the variance of $\g{h_{X},h_{X|Y}}$ is $O(1/N)$.
By the law of total variance, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\var\left[\g{h_{X},h_{X|Y}}\right] & =\bE\left[\var\left[\left.\g{h_{X},h_{X|Y}}\right|\mathbf{Y}_{1},\dots,\mathbf{Y}_{N}\right]\right]\\
& +\var\left[\bE\left[\left.\g{h_{X},h_{X|Y}}\right|\mathbf{Y}_{1},\dots,\mathbf{Y}_{N}\right]\right].\end{aligned}$$ Given all of the $\mathbf{Y}_{i}$’s, the estimators $\g{h_{X},h_{X|y}}$ are all independent since they use different sets of $\mathbf{X}_{i}$’s for each $y$. From Theorem \[thm:variance\], we know that $\var\left[\left.\g{h_{X},h_{X|Y}}\right|\mathbf{Y}_{1},\dots,\mathbf{Y}_{N}\right]=O\left(\sum_{y\in\mathcal{S}_{Y}}\mathbf{N}_{y}/N^{2}\right)$. Taking the expectation then yields $O(1/N)$.
For the second term, we know from the proof of Theorem \[thm:bias\_mixed\] that $\bE\left[\left.\g{h_{X},h_{X|Y}}\right|\mathbf{Y}_{1},\dots,\mathbf{Y}_{N}\right]$ yields a sum of terms of the form of $\mathbf{N}_{y}^{\gamma}/N$ for $0<\gamma\leq1$. Taking the variance of the sum of these terms yields a sum of terms of the form $\var\left[\mathbf{N}_{y}^{\gamma}\right]/N^{2}$ (the covariance terms can be bounded by the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality to yield similar terms). Then $\var\left[\mathbf{N}_{y}^{\gamma}\right]$ can be bounded by taking a Taylor series expansion of the functions $\mathbf{N}_{y}^{\gamma}$ and $\mathbf{N}_{y}^{2\gamma}$ at the point $Nf_{Y}(y)$ which yields an expression that depends on the central moments of $\mathbf{N}_{y}$. From this, we obtain $\var\left[\mathbf{N}_{y}^{\gamma}\right]=O(N)$ which completes the proof. See Appendix \[sec:MixedProofs\] for details.
Theorems \[thm:bias\_mixed\] and \[thm:var\_mixed\] provide exact expressions for the bias and bounds on the variance of the plug-in MI estimator, respectively. It is shown in Section \[sec:mixed\_ensemble\] that the MSE of the plug-in estimator converges very slowly to zero under this setting. However, Theorems \[thm:bias\_mixed\] and \[thm:var\_mixed\] provide with us the necessary information for applying the theory of optimally weighted ensemble estimation to obtain estimators with improved rates. This is done in Section \[sec:mixed\_ensemble\].
Extension to Other Cases {#subsec:general_rates}
------------------------
The results in Section \[subsec:mixed\_conv\] can be extended to the case where $\mathbf{X}$ and/or $\mathbf{Y}$ may have a mixture of continuous and discrete components (case 3 in Section \[sec:intro\]). This scenario can be divided further into three different cases: A) $\X$ is continuous and $\Y$ has a mixture of discrete and continuous components; B) $\X$ and $\Y$ both have a mixture of discrete and continuous components; C) $\Y$ is discrete and $\X$ has a mixture of discrete and continuous components. Consider case A first. Denote the discrete and continuous components of $\mathbf{Y}$ as $\mathbf{Y}_{1}$ and $\mathbf{Y}_{2}$, respectively. Denote the respective support sets as $\mathcal{S}_{Y_{1}}$ and $\mathcal{S}_{Y_{2}}$. We can then write $$\begin{aligned}
& \lefteqn{G_{3A}(\mathbf{X};\mathbf{Y})}\nonumber \\
& =\sum_{y_{1}\in\mathcal{S}_{Y_{1}}}\int g\left(\frac{f_{X}(x)f_{Y}(y_{1},y_{2})}{f_{XY}(x,y_{1},y_{2})}\right)f_{XY}(x,y_{1},y_{2})dxdy_{2}\nonumber \\
& =\sum_{y_{1}\in\mathcal{S}_{Y_{1}}}f_{Y_{1}}(y_{1})\int g\left(\frac{f_{X}(x)f_{Y_{2}|Y_{1}}(y_{2}|y_{1})}{f_{XY_{2}|Y_{1}}(x,y_{2}|y_{1})}\right)\nonumber \\
& \times f_{XY_{2}|Y_{1}}(x,y_{2}|y_{1})dxdy_{2}.\label{eq:mixed_general}\end{aligned}$$ The subscript $3A$ indicates that we are considering case A under the third case described in the introduction. The expression in (\[eq:mixed\_general\]) is very similar to the expression in (\[eq:MI\_cond\]). After plugging in KDEs for the corresponding densities and conditional densities, a nearly identical procedure to that in Section \[subsec:mixed\_conv\] can be followed to derive the bias and variance of the corresponding plug-in estimator.
Now consider case B. Denote the discrete and continuous components of $\mathbf{X}$ as $\mathbf{X}_{1}$ and $\mathbf{X}_{2}$, respectively. Then if $\mathbf{Y}_{1}$ is the discrete component of $\mathbf{Y}$, then the expression inside the $g$ functional in (\[eq:mixed\_general\]) includes $f_{X_{1}}(x_{1})f_{Y_{1}}(y_{1})/f_{X_{1}Y_{1}}(x_{1},y_{1})$. Thus the plug-in estimator must include estimators for $f_{X_{1}}(x_{1}),$ $f_{Y_{1}}(y_{1})$, and $f_{X_{1}Y_{1}}(x_{1},y_{1})$. Define $\mathbf{N}_{y_{1}}=\sum_{i=1}^{N}1_{\{\mathbf{Y}_{1,i}=y_{1}\}}$ where $\mathbf{Y}_{1,i}$ is the discrete component of $\mathbf{Y}_{i}$. Then the estimator we use for $f_{Y_{1}}(y_{1})$ is $\mathbf{N}_{y_{1}}/N$. The estimators for $f_{X_{1}}(x_{1})$ and $f_{X_{1}Y_{1}}(x_{1},y_{1})$ are defined similarly. The bias and variance expressions of this plug-in estimator can then be derived with some slight modifications of Theorems \[thm:bias\] and \[thm:variance\]. See Appendix \[subsec:generalCase\] for an expression for $G_{3B}(\mathbf{X};\mathbf{Y})$ in this case and a sketch of these modifications. Case C follows similarly as the expression inside the $g$ functional in (\[eq:mixed\_general\]) includes $f_{X_{1}}(x_{1})f_{Y}(y)/f_{X_{1}Y}(x_{1},y)$ where all the terms are probability mass functions.
The resulting bias and variance expressions in these settings are analogous to those in Theorems \[thm:bias\], \[thm:variance\], and \[thm:bias\_mixed\] as the variance will be $O(1/N)$ and the bias will depend on expansions of the bandwidths for the various KDEs. Ensemble methods can then be applied to improve the MSE convergence rates as described in the next section.
Ensemble Estimation of MI\[sec:mixed\_ensemble\]
================================================
Mixed Random Variables {#subsec:mixed_ensemble}
----------------------
We again focus on the case where $\mathbf{X}$ is continuous and $\mathbf{Y}$ is discrete (case 2 in Section \[sec:intro\]). If no bias correction is performed, then Theorem \[thm:bias\_mixed\] shows that the optimal bias rate of the plug-in estimator $\g{h_{X},h_{X|Y}}$ is $O\left(1/N^{1/(d_{X}+1)}\right)$, which converges very slowly to zero when $d_{X}$ is not small. We use the theory of optimally weighted ensemble estimation to improve this rate. An ensemble of estimators is formed by choosing different bandwidth values. Consider first the case where (\[eq:bias\_mixed1\]) applies. Let $\mathcal{L}$ be a set of real positive numbers with $|\mathcal{L}|=L$. This set will parameterize the bandwidths for $\ft X$ and $\ft{X|y}$ resulting in $L$ estimators in the ensemble. While different parameter sets for $\ft X$ and $\ft{X|y}$ can be chosen, we only use one set here for simplicity of exposition. To ensure that the final terms in (\[eq:bias\_mixed1\]) are $O(1/\sqrt{N})$ when $s\geq d$, for each estimator in the ensemble we choose $h_{X}(l)=lN^{-1/(2d_{X})}$ and $\mathbf{h}_{X|y}(l)=l\mathbf{N}_{y}^{-1/(2d_{X})}$ where $l\in\mathcal{L}$. Define $w$ to be a weight vector parameterized by $l\in\mathcal{L}$ with $\sum_{l\in\mathcal{L}}w(l)=1$ and define $$\g{w,1}=\sum_{l\in\mathcal{L}}w(l)\sum_{y\in\mathcal{S}_{Y}}\frac{\mathbf{N}_{y}}{N}\g{h_{X}(l),h_{X|y}(l)}.\label{eq:ensemble}$$ From Theorem \[thm:bias\_mixed\], the bias of $\g{w,1}$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\bias\left[\g{w,1}\right] & =\sum_{l\in\mathcal{L}}\sum_{i=1}^{r}\theta\left(w(l)l^{i}N^{\frac{-i}{2d_{X}}}\right)\nonumber \\
& +O\left(\sqrt{L}||w||_{2}\left(N^{\frac{-s}{2d_{X}}}+N^{\frac{-1}{2}}\right)\right),\label{eq:weight_bias}\end{aligned}$$ where we use $\theta$ notation to omit the constants.
We use the general theory of optimally weighted ensemble estimation in [@moon2016isit] to improve the MSE convergence rate of the plug-in estimator by using the weights to cancel the lower order terms in (\[eq:weight\_bias\]). The theory is as follows. Let $\left\{ \hat{\mathbf{E}}_{l}\right\} _{l\in\mathcal{L}}$ be an indexed ensemble of estimators with the weighted ensemble estimator $\hat{\mathbf{E}}_{w}=\sum_{l\in\mathcal{L}}w(l)\hat{\mathbf{E}}_{l}$ satisfying:
- $\mathcal{C}.1$. Let $c_{i}$ be constants depending on the underlying density, $J=\{i_{1},\dots i_{I}\}$ a finite index set with $I<L$, $\psi_{i}(l)$ basis functions depending only on the parameter $l$ and not on $N$, $\phi_{i}(N)$ functions of the sample size $N$ that are independent of $l$. Assume the bias is $$\bias\left[\hat{\mathbf{E}}_{l}\right]=\sum_{i\in J}c_{i}\psi_{i}(l)\phi_{i}(N)+O\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\right).$$
- $\mathcal{C}.2$. Assume the variance is $$\var\left[\hat{\mathbf{E}}_{l}\right]=c_{v}\left(\frac{1}{N}\right)+o\left(\frac{1}{N}\right).$$
[@moon2016isit] \[thm:opt\_weight\]If conditions $\mathcal{C}.1$ and $\mathcal{C}.2$ hold for an ensemble of estimators $\left\{ \hat{\mathbf{E}}_{l}\right\} _{l\in\mathcal{L}}$, then there exists a weight vector $w_{0}$ such that the MSE of $\hat{\mathbf{E}}_{w_{0}}$ attains the parametric rate of convergence of $O\left(1/N\right)$. The weight $w_{0}$ is the solution to the offline convex optimization problem *$$\begin{array}{rl}
\min_{w} & ||w||_{2}\\
subject\,to & \sum_{l\in\mathcal{L}}w(l)=1,\\
& \gamma_{w}(i)=\sum_{l\in\mathcal{L}}w(l)\psi_{i}(l)=0,\,i\in J.
\end{array}\label{eq:optimize}$$*
To apply Theorem \[thm:opt\_weight\] to an ensemble of estimators, all $\phi_{i}(N)$ functions that converge to zero slower than $1/\sqrt{N}$ and the corresponding $\psi_{i}(l)$ functions must be known for the base estimator. Otherwise, Theorem \[thm:opt\_weight\] can only be guaranteed to improve the bias up to the slowest unknown bias rate. This theorem was applied in [@moon2016isit] to the problem of divergence functional estimation where the plug-in estimator has slowly converging bias but the resulting ensemble estimator achieves the parametric rate for sufficiently smooth densities.
We apply Theorem \[thm:opt\_weight\] to the ensemble estimator $\g{w,1}$ as conditions $\mathcal{C}.1$ and $\mathcal{C}.2$ are satisfied with $\phi_{i}(N)=N^{-i/(2d_{X})}$ and $\psi_{i}(l)=l^{i}$ for $i\in\{1,\dots r\}$ as seen in (\[eq:bias\_mixed1\]) and (\[eq:weight\_bias\]). If $s\geq d_{X}$, then the MSE of the optimally weighted estimator $\g{w_{0},1}$ is $O(1/N)$. A similar approach can be used for the case where $\X$ contains a mixture of continuous and discrete components and $\Y$ is discrete (or vice versa). To the best of our knowledge, these are the first nonparametric estimators to achieve the MSE parametric rate in this setting of mixed random variables.
If the mixed derivatives of the functional $g$ satisfy the extra condition required for (\[eq:bias\_mixed2\]), we can define an ensemble estimator $\g{w_{0},2}$ that achieves the parametric MSE rate if $s>d_{X}/2$. For simplicity, we focus primarily on $\g{w_{0},1}$. See Appendix \[subsec:Odin2\] for details on $\g{w_{0},2}$.
In practice, the optimization problem in (\[eq:optimize\]) typically results in a very large increase in variance. Thus we follow the lead of [@moon2016arxiv; @moon2014isit; @moon2014nips; @sricharan2013ensemble] and use a relaxed version of (\[eq:optimize\]): $$\begin{array}{rl}
\min_{w} & \epsilon\\
subject\,to & \sum_{l\in\mathcal{L}}w(l)=1,\\
& \left|\gamma_{w}(i)N^{\frac{1}{2}}\phi_{i}(N)\right|\leq\epsilon,\,\,i\in J,\\
& \left\Vert w\right\Vert _{2}^{2}\leq\eta.
\end{array}\label{eq:relaxed}$$ As shown in [@moon2016arxiv; @moon2014isit; @moon2014nips; @sricharan2013ensemble], the ensemble estimator $\g{w_{0},1}$ using the resulting weight vector from the optimization problem in (\[eq:relaxed\]) still achieves the parametric MSE convergence rate under the same assumptions as described previously. It was also shown in [@moon2016arxiv] that the heuristic of setting $\eta=\epsilon$ works well in practice. Algorithm \[alg:estimator\] summarizes the estimator $\g{w_{0},1}$.
$L$ positive real numbers $\mathcal{L}$, samples $\left\{ \mathbf{Z}_{1},\dots,\mathbf{Z}_{N}\right\} $ from $f_{XY}$, dimension $d_{X}$, function $g$, kernel $K_{X}$
The optimally weighted MI estimator $\g{w_{0},1}$
Solve for $w_{0}$ using (\[eq:relaxed\]) with basis functions $\psi_{i}(l)=l^{i}$, $\phi_{i}(N)=N^{-i/(2d_{X})},$ $l\in\mathcal{L}$, and $0\leq i\leq d_{X}$.
$\mathbf{N}_{y}\leftarrow\sum_{i=1}^{N}1_{\{\mathbf{Y}_{i}=y\}}$
$h_{X}(l)\leftarrow lN^{-1/(2d_{X})},$ $\mathbf{h}_{X|y}(l)\leftarrow l\mathbf{N}_{y}^{-1/(2d_{Y})}$
Calculate $\ftl X(\mathbf{X}_{i})$, $\ftl{X|y}(\mathbf{X}_{i})$ as described in the text
$\g{h_{X}(l),\mathbf{h}_{X|y}(l)}\leftarrow\frac{1}{\mathbf{N}_{y}}\sum_{\mathbf{X}\in\mathcal{X}_{y}}g\left(\frac{\ftl X(\mathbf{X})}{\ftl{X|y}(\mathbf{X})}\right)$
$\g{w_{0},1}\leftarrow\sum_{l\in\mathcal{L}}w_{0}(l)\sum_{y\in\mathcal{S}_{y}}\frac{\mathbf{N}_{y}}{N}\g{h_{X}(l),\mathbf{h}_{X|y}(l)}$
A similar approach can be used to derive an ensemble estimator $\g{w_{0},1}^{cont}$ for the case when $\X$ and $\Y$ are continuous (case 1 in Section \[sec:intro\]). See Appendix \[subsec:cont\_ensemble\] for details. The case where $\X$ and $\Y$ both contain a mixture of discrete and continuous components follows similarly.
Parameter Selection
-------------------
In theory, the theoretical results of the previous sections hold for any choice of the bandwidth vectors as determined by$\mathcal{L}$. In practice, we find that the following rules-of-thumb for tuning the parameters lead to high-quality estimates in the finite sample regime.
1. Select the minimum and maximum bandwidth parameter to produce density estimates that satisfy the following: first the minimum bandwidth should not lead to a zero-valued density estimate at any sample point; second the maximum bandwidth should be smaller than the diameter of the support.
2. Ensure the bandwidths are sufficiently distinct. Similar bandwidth values lead to negligible decrease in bias and many bandwidth values may increase $||w_{0}||_{2}$ resulting in an increase in variance [@sricharan2013ensemble].
3. Select $L=|\mathcal{L}|>|J|=I$ to obtain a feasible solution for the optimization problems in (\[eq:optimize\]) and (\[eq:relaxed\]). We find that choosing a value of $30\leq L\leq60$, and setting $\mathcal{L}$ to be $L$ linearly spaced values between the minimum and maximum values described above works well in practice.
The resulting ensemble estimators are robust in the sense that they are not sensitive to the exact choice of the bandwidths or the number of estimators as long as the the rough rules-of-thumb given above are followed. Moon et al [@moon2016arxiv; @moon2016isit] gives more details on ensemble estimator parameter selection for continuous divergence estimation. These details also apply to the continuous parts of the mixed cases for MI estimation in this paper.
Since the optimal weight $w_{0}$ can be calculated offline, the computational complexity of the estimators is dominated by the construction of the KDEs which has a complexity of $O\left(N^{2}\right)$ using the standard implementation. For very large datasets, more efficient KDE implementations (e.g. [@raykar2010fast]) can be used to reduce the computational burden.
Central Limit Theorem {#subsec:clt}
---------------------
We finish this section with central limit theorems for the ensemble estimators. This enables us to perform hypothesis testing on the mutual information.
\[thm:clt\] Let $\g w^{cont}$ be a weighted ensemble estimator when $\X$ and $\Y$ are continuous with bandwidths $h_{X}(l_{X})$ and $h_{Y}(l_{Y})$ for each estimator in the ensemble. Assume that the functional $g$ is Lipschitz in both arguments with Lipschitz constant $C_{g}$ and that $h_{X}(l_{X}),\,h_{Y}(l_{Y})=o(1)$, $N\rightarrow\infty$, and $Nh_{X}^{d_{X}}(l_{X}),\,Nh_{Y}^{d_{Y}}(l_{Y})\rightarrow\infty$ for each $l_{X}\in\mathcal{L}_{X}$ and $l_{Y}\in\mathcal{L}_{Y}$. Then for fixed $\mathcal{L}_{X}$ and $\mathcal{L}_{Y}$, and if $\mathbf{S}$ is a standard normal random variable, $$\Pr\left(\left(\g w^{cont}-\bE\left[\g w^{cont}\right]\right)/\sqrt{\var\left[\g w^{cont}\right]}\leq t\right)\rightarrow\Pr\left(\mathbf{S}\leq t\right).$$
The proof is based on an application of Slutsky’s Theorem preceded by an application of the Efron-Stein inequality (see Appendix \[sec:cltProof\]).
If the space $\mathcal{S}_{Y}$ is finite, then the ensemble estimators for the mixed component case also obey a central limit theorem. The proof follows by an application of Slutsky’s Theorem combined with Theorem \[thm:clt\].
Let $\g w$ be a weighted ensemble estimator when $\X$ is continuous and $\Y$ is discrete with bandwidths $h_{X}(l)$ and $h_{X|y}(l)$ for each estimator in the ensemble. Assume that the functional $g$ is Lipschitz in both arguments and that $h_{X},\,h_{X|y}=o(1)$, $N\rightarrow\infty$, and $Nh_{X}^{d_{X}},\,Nh_{X|y}^{d_{X}}\rightarrow\infty$ for each $l\in\mathcal{L}$ and $\forall y\in\mathcal{S}_{Y}$ with $\mathcal{S}_{y}$ finite. Then for fixed $\mathcal{L}$, $$\Pr\left(\left(\g w-\bE\left[\g w\right]\right)/\sqrt{\var\left[\g w\right]}\leq t\right)\rightarrow\Pr\left(\mathbf{S}\leq t\right).$$
Experimental Validation {#sec:experiments}
=======================
In this section, we validate our theory by estimating the Rényi-$\alpha$ MI integral (i.e. $g(x)=x^{\alpha}$ in (\[eq:MI\_cond\]); see [@principe2010information]) where $\mathbf{X}$ is a mixture of truncated Gaussian random variables restricted to the unit cube and $\mathbf{Y}$ is a categorical random variable. We choose Rényi MI as it has received recent interest (e.g. [@pal2010estimation]) and the estimation problem does not reduce to entropy estimation in contrast with Shannon MI. Thus this is a clear case where there are no other nonparametric estimators that are known to achieve the parametric MSE rate.
We consider two cases. In the first case, $\mathbf{Y}$ has three possible outcomes (i.e. $|\mathcal{S}_{Y}|=3$) and respective probabilities $\Pr(\mathbf{Y}=0)=\Pr(\mathbf{Y}=1)=2/5$ and $\Pr(\mathbf{Y}=2)=1/5$. The conditional covariance matrices are all $0.1\times I_{d}$ and the conditional means are, respectively, $\bar{\mu}_{0}=0.25\times\bar{1}_{d}$, $\bar{\mu}_{1}=0.75\times\bar{1}_{d}$, and $\bar{\mu}_{2}=0.5\times\bar{1}_{d}$, where $I_{d}$ is the $d\times d$ identity matrix and $\bar{1}_{d}$ is a $d$-dimensional vector of ones. This experiment can be viewed as the problem of estimating MI (e.g. for feature selection or Bayes error bounds) of a classification problem where each discrete value corresponds to a distinct class, the distribution of each class overlaps slightly with others, and the class probabilities are unequal. We use $\alpha=0.5$. We set $\mathcal{L}$ to be 40 linearly spaced values between 1.2 and 3. The bandwidth in the KDE plug-in estimator is also set to $2.1N^{-1/(2d)}$.
The top three plots in Figure \[fig:mseplot\] shows the MSE (200 trials) of the plug-in KDE estimator of the MI integral using a uniform kernel and the optimally weighted ensemble estimator $\g{w_{0},1}$ for various sample sizes and for $d=4,\,6,\,9$, respectively. The ensemble estimator outperforms the standard plug-in estimator, especially for larger sample sizes and larger dimensions. This demonstrates that while an individual kernel estimator performs poorly, an ensemble of estimators including the individual estimator performs well.
For the second case, $\mathbf{Y}$ has six possible outcomes (i.e. $|\mathcal{S}_{Y}|=6$) and respective probabilities $\Pr(\Y=0)=0.35$, $\Pr(\Y=1)=0.2$, $\Pr(\Y=2)=\Pr(\Y=3)=0.15$, $\Pr(\Y=4)=0.1$, and $\Pr(\Y=5)=0.05$. We chose $\alpha=0.5$ and $d=6$. The conditional covariances matrices are again $0.1\times I_{d}$ and the conditional means are, respectively, $\bar{\mu}_{0}=0.25\times\bar{1}_{d}$, $\bar{\mu}_{1}=0.75\times\bar{1}_{d}$, and $\bar{\mu}_{2}=0.5\times\bar{1}_{d}$, $\bar{\mu}_{3}=\left(0.25\times\bar{1}_{4}^{T},0.5\times\bar{1}_{2}^{T}\right)^{T}$, $\bar{\mu}_{4}=\left(0.75\times\bar{1}_{2}^{T},0.375\times\bar{1}_{4}^{T}\right)^{T}$, and $\bar{\mu}_{5}=\left(0.5\times\bar{1}_{4}^{T},0.25\times\bar{1}_{2}^{T}\right)^{T}$. The parameters for the ensemble estimators and the KDE plug-in estimators are the same as in the top three plots in Figure \[fig:mseplot\]. The bottom plot in Figure \[fig:mseplot\] again compares the ensemble estimator to the plug-in KDE estimator. The ensemble estimator also outperforms the plug-in estimator in this setting.
![MSE log-log plots as a function of sample size for the uniform kernel plug-in MI estimator (Kernel) and the proposed optimally weighted ensemble estimator $\protect\g{w_{0},1}$ (Weighted) for the distributions described in the text. The top three plots each correspond to the first case where $|\mathcal{S}_{Y}|=3$ and the bottom plot corresponds to the second case where $|\mathcal{S}_{Y}|=6$. The ensemble estimator outperforms the kernel plug-in estimator, especially for larger sample sizes. Note also that as the dimension increases, the performance gap between the two estimators increases.\[fig:mseplot\]](d4_y3){width="50.00000%"}
![MSE log-log plots as a function of sample size for the uniform kernel plug-in MI estimator (Kernel) and the proposed optimally weighted ensemble estimator $\protect\g{w_{0},1}$ (Weighted) for the distributions described in the text. The top three plots each correspond to the first case where $|\mathcal{S}_{Y}|=3$ and the bottom plot corresponds to the second case where $|\mathcal{S}_{Y}|=6$. The ensemble estimator outperforms the kernel plug-in estimator, especially for larger sample sizes. Note also that as the dimension increases, the performance gap between the two estimators increases.\[fig:mseplot\]](d6_y3){width="50.00000%"}
![MSE log-log plots as a function of sample size for the uniform kernel plug-in MI estimator (Kernel) and the proposed optimally weighted ensemble estimator $\protect\g{w_{0},1}$ (Weighted) for the distributions described in the text. The top three plots each correspond to the first case where $|\mathcal{S}_{Y}|=3$ and the bottom plot corresponds to the second case where $|\mathcal{S}_{Y}|=6$. The ensemble estimator outperforms the kernel plug-in estimator, especially for larger sample sizes. Note also that as the dimension increases, the performance gap between the two estimators increases.\[fig:mseplot\]](d9_y3){width="50.00000%"}
![MSE log-log plots as a function of sample size for the uniform kernel plug-in MI estimator (Kernel) and the proposed optimally weighted ensemble estimator $\protect\g{w_{0},1}$ (Weighted) for the distributions described in the text. The top three plots each correspond to the first case where $|\mathcal{S}_{Y}|=3$ and the bottom plot corresponds to the second case where $|\mathcal{S}_{Y}|=6$. The ensemble estimator outperforms the kernel plug-in estimator, especially for larger sample sizes. Note also that as the dimension increases, the performance gap between the two estimators increases.\[fig:mseplot\]](d6_y6){width="50.00000%"}
Conclusion
==========
We derived the MSE convergence rates for plug-in KDE-based estimators of MI measures between $\mathbf{X}$ and $\mathbf{Y}$ when they have only continuous components and for the case where $\mathbf{Y}$ is discrete and $\mathbf{X}$ is continuous. We also showed how convergence rates can be obtained for the case when $\X$ and/or $\Y$ contain a mixture of discrete and continuous components. Using these rates, we defined ensemble estimators that achieve an MSE rate of $O(1/N)$ when the densities are sufficiently smooth and showed that a central limit theorem also holds. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first nonparametric MI estimator that achieves the MSE convergence rate of $O(1/N)$ in this setting of mixed random variables (i.e. $\X$ and $\Y$ are not both purely discrete or purely continuous).
Hölder Class
============
We derive MSE convergence rates for the plug-in estimators in terms of the smoothness of the densities which we characterize by the Hölder Class.
\[def:holder\]*Let $\mathcal{X}\subset\mathbb{R}^{d}$ be a compact space. For $r=(r_{1},\dots,r_{d}),$ $r_{i}\in\mathbb{N},$ define $|r|=\sum_{i=1}^{d}r_{i}$ and $D^{r}=\frac{\partial^{|r|}}{\partial x_{1}^{r_{1}}\dots\partial x_{d}^{r_{d}}}$. The Hölder class $\Sigma(s,H)$ of functions on $L_{2}(\mathcal{X})$ consists of the functions $f$ that satisfy $$\left|D^{r}f(x)-D^{r}f(y)\right|\leq H\left\Vert x-y\right\Vert ^{s-r},$$ for all $x,\,y\in\mathcal{X}$ and for all $r$ s.t. $|r|\leq\left\lfloor s\right\rfloor $.*
For notation, let $\ez Z$ denote the conditional expectation given $\mathbf{Z}$.
MI Ensemble Estimation Extensions
=================================
Continuous Random Varables {#subsec:cont_ensemble}
--------------------------
We can also apply Theorem 5 to obtain MI estimators that achieve the parametric rate for the case when $\mathbf{X}$ and $\mathbf{Y}$ are continuous. For general $g$, (4) in the main paper indicates that we need $h_{X}^{d_{X}}h_{Y}^{d_{Y}}\propto N^{-1/2}$ for the $O(1/(Nh_{X}^{d_{X}}h_{Y}^{d_{Y}}))$ terms to be $O(1/\sqrt{N})$. We consider the more general case where the parameters may differ for $h_{X}$ and $h_{Y}$. Let $\mathcal{L}_{X}$ and $\mathcal{L}_{Y}$ be sets of real, positive numbers with $|\mathcal{L}_{X}|=L_{X}$ and $|\mathcal{L}_{Y}|=L_{Y}$. For each estimator in the ensemble, choose $l_{X}\in\mathcal{L_{X}}$ and $l_{Y}\in\mathcal{L}_{Y}$ and set $h_{X}(l_{X})=l_{X}N^{-1/(2(d_{X}+d_{Y}))}$ and $h_{Y}(l_{Y})=l_{Y}N^{-1/(2(d_{X}+d_{Y}))}$. Define the matrix $w$ s.t. $\sum_{l_{X}\in\mathcal{L}_{X},l_{Y}\in\mathcal{L}_{Y}}w(l_{X},l_{Y})=1$. From Theorems 1 and 2, conditions $\mathcal{C}.1$ and $\mathcal{C}.2$ are satisfied if $s\geq d_{X}+d_{Y}$ with $\psi_{i,j}(l_{X},l_{Y})=l_{X}^{i}l_{Y}^{j}$ and $\phi_{i,j}(N)=N^{-(i+j)/(2(d_{X}+d_{Y}))}$ for $0\leq i,j\leq d_{X}+d_{Y}$ s.t. $0<i+j\leq d_{X}+d_{Y}$. The optimal weight $w_{0}$ is calculated using (14) in the main paper. The resulting estimator $$\g{w_{0},1}^{cont}=\sum_{l_{X}\in\mathcal{L}_{X},l_{Y}\in\mathcal{L}_{Y}}w_{0}(l_{X},l_{Y})\g{h_{X}(l_{X}),h_{Y}(l_{Y})}$$ achieves the parametric MSE rate when $s\geq d_{X}+d_{Y}$.
Again, if the mixed derivatives of the functional $g$ also satisfy the extra condition required for (5) in the main paper, then we can define an estimator that achieves the parametric MSE rate under less strict smoothness assumptions. See Appendix \[subsec:cont\_ensemble2\].
The ODin2 Estimators {#subsec:Odin2}
--------------------
The estimators $\g{w_{0},1}$ and $\g{w_{0},1}^{cont}$ are analogous to the ODin1 estimators in [@moon2016arxiv; @moon2016isit]. In this section, we derive ensemble estimators of MI that achieve the parametric rate under less strict smoothness assumptions on the densities. These estimators are analogous to the ODin2 estimators in [@moon2016arxiv; @moon2016isit].
### Mixed Random Variables {#mixed-random-variables}
We first consider the case where $\mathbf{X}$ is continuous and $\mathbf{Y}$ is discrete. Recall that if $\mathbf{h}_{X|y}=l\mathbf{N}_{y}^{-\beta}$ with $0<\beta<\frac{1}{d_{X}}$ and $l$ a positive number, and if $g\left(t_{1},t_{2}\right)$ has $j,l$-th order mixed derivatives $\frac{\partial^{j+l}}{\partial t_{1}^{j}\partial t_{2}^{l}}$ that depend on $t_{1}$ and $t_{2}$ only through $t_{1}^{\alpha}t_{2}^{\beta}$ for some $\alpha,\beta\in\mathbb{R}$ for each $1\leq j,l\leq\lambda$, then the bias of the plug-in estimator for this case is $$\begin{aligned}
\bias\left[\g{h_{X},h_{X|Y}}\right] & =\sum_{\substack{m,n=0\\
i+j+m+n\neq0
}
}^{\left\lfloor \lambda/2\right\rfloor }\sum_{i,j=0}^{r}c_{14,j,i,m,n}\frac{h_{X}^{i}l^{j}N^{-j\beta}}{\left(Nh_{X}^{d_{X}}\right)^{m}\left(l^{d_{X}}N^{1-\beta d_{X}}\right)^{n}}\nonumber \\
& +O\left(h_{X}^{s}+N^{-s\beta}+\frac{1}{\left(Nh_{X}^{d_{X}}\right)^{\lambda/2}}+\frac{1}{\left(N^{1-\beta d_{X}}\right)^{\lambda/2}}\right).\label{eq:bias_mixed2-1}\end{aligned}$$
Choose $\mathcal{L}$ to be a set of real positive numbers and let $\delta>0$. For each estimator in the ensemble, set $h_{X}(l)=lN^{-1/(d_{X}+\delta)}$ and $\mathbf{h}_{X|y}(l)=l\mathbf{N}_{y}^{-1/(d_{X}+\delta)}$ where $l\in\mathcal{L}$. This ensures that the final terms in (\[eq:bias\_mixed2-1\]) are $O(1/\sqrt{N})$ if $s\geq(d_{X}+\delta)/2$ and $\lambda\geq d_{X}/\delta+1$. Define $\g{w,2}$ as in (12) in the main paper with the chosen values of $h_{X}(l)$ and $\mathbf{h}_{X|y}(l)$. Theorem 5 can be applied in this case as conditions $\mathcal{C}.1$ and $\mathcal{C}.2$ are satisfied with $\phi_{i,m}(N)=N^{\frac{-i-m\delta}{d_{X}+\delta}}$ and $\psi_{i,m}(l)=l^{i-md_{X}}$ for $i\in\{0,\dots,r\}$, $m\in\{0,\dots\left\lfloor \lambda/2\right\rfloor \}$, and $0\leq i+m\delta\leq(d_{X}+\delta)/2$. Then if $s\geq(d_{X}+\delta)/2$ and $\lambda\geq d_{X}/\delta+1$, the MSE of the optimally weighted estimator $\g{w_{0},2}$ is $O(1/N)$. Then since $\delta$ can be chosen arbitrarily close to zero, the parametric rate can be achieved theoretically as long as $s>d_{X}/2$.
The analogous divergence functional estimators for $\g{w_{0},1}$ and $\g{w_{0},2}$ in [@moon2016arxiv; @moon2016isit] were referred to as the ODin1 and ODin2 estimators, respectively, where ODin stands for **O**ptimally Weighted **Di**stributional Fu**n**ctional estimators. The ODin2 estimator has better statistical properties as the parametric rate is guaranteed under less restrictive smoothness assumptions on the densities. On the other hand, the number of parameters required for the optimization problem in (14) in the main paper is larger for the ODin2 estimator than the ODin1 estimator. In theory, this could lead to larger variance although this wasn’t necessarily true in practice according to the experiments in [@moon2016arxiv].
### Continuous Random Variables {#subsec:cont_ensemble2}
We now consider the case where both $\mathbf{X}$ and $\mathbf{Y}$ are continuous. Again, if $g\left(t_{1},t_{2}\right)$ has $j,l$-th order mixed derivatives $\frac{\partial^{j+l}}{\partial t_{1}^{j}\partial t_{2}^{l}}$ that depend on $t_{1}$ and $t_{2}$ only through $t_{1}^{\alpha}t_{2}^{\beta}$ for some $\alpha,\beta\in\mathbb{R}$ for each $1\leq k,l,\leq\lambda$, then the bias of $\gt$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\bias\left[\gt\right] & = & \sum_{\substack{m,n=0\\
i+j+m+n\neq0
}
}^{\left\lfloor \lambda/2\right\rfloor }\sum_{i,j=0}^{r}c_{11,j,i,m,n}\frac{h_{X}^{i}h_{Y}^{j}}{\left(Nh_{X}^{d_{X}}\right)^{m}\left(Nh_{Y}^{d_{Y}}\right)^{n}}\nonumber \\
& & +\sum_{m=1}^{\left\lfloor \lambda/2\right\rfloor }\sum_{i=0}^{r}\sum_{j=0}^{r}c_{13,m,n,j}h_{X}^{i}h_{Y}^{j}/\left(Nh_{X}^{d_{X}}h_{Y}^{d_{Y}}\right)^{m}\nonumber \\
& & +O\left(h_{X}^{s}+h_{Y}^{s}+1/\left(Nh_{X}^{d_{X}}h_{Y}^{d_{Y}}\right)^{\lambda/2}\right).\label{eq:bias2-1}\end{aligned}$$
Set $\delta>0$ and choose $h_{X}(l_{X})=l_{X}N^{-1/(d_{X}+d_{Y}+\delta)}$ and $h_{Y}(l_{Y})=l_{Y}N^{-1/(d_{X}+d_{Y}+\delta)}$. Then conditions $\mathcal{C}.1$ and $\mathcal{C}.2$ are satisfied if $s\geq(d_{X}+d_{Y}+\delta)/2$ and $\lambda\geq(d_{X}+d_{Y}+\delta)/\delta$ with $\psi_{1,i,j,m,n}(l_{X},l_{Y})=l_{X}^{i-md_{X}}l_{Y}^{j-nd_{Y}}$ and $\phi_{1,i,j,m,n}(N)=N^{-\frac{i+j+m(d_{Y}+\delta)+n(d_{X}+\delta)}{d_{X}+d_{Y}+\delta}}$ for $0<i+j+m(d_{Y}+\delta)+n(d_{X}+\delta)\leq\frac{d_{X}+d_{Y}+\delta}{2}$ and the terms $\psi_{2,i,j,m}(l_{X},l_{Y})=l_{X}^{i-md_{X}}l_{Y}^{j-md_{Y}}$ and $\phi_{2,i,j,m}(N)=N^{-\frac{i+j+m\delta}{d_{X}+d_{Y}+\delta}}$ for $m\geq1$ and $i+j+m\delta\leq\frac{d_{X}+d_{Y}+\delta}{2}.$ The optimal weight $w_{0}$ is again calculated using (14) in the main paper and the resulting estimator $\g{w_{0},2}^{cont}$ achieves the parametric MSE convergence rate when $s\geq(d_{X}+d_{Y}+\delta)/2$. Since $\delta$ can be chosen arbitrarily close to zero, the parametric rate can be achieved theoretically as long as $s>(d_{X}+d_{Y})/2$. $\g{w_{0},2}^{cont}$ is the ODin2 estimator for continuous random variables.
Proof of Theorem 1 (Bias) {#sec:biasProof}
=========================
The proof of the bias results in Theorem 1 share some similarities with the proof of the bias results for the divergence functional estimators in in [@moon2016arxiv]. The primary differences deal with the product of the marginal KDEs that appear in the expansion of the bias terms.
The bias of $\gt$ can be expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
\bias\left[\gt\right] & = & \bE\left[g\left(\frac{\ft X(\mathbf{X})\ft Y(\mathbf{Y})}{\ft Z(\mathbf{X},\mathbf{Y})}\right)-g\left(\frac{f_{X}(\mathbf{X})f_{Y}(\mathbf{Y})}{f_{XY}(\mathbf{X},\mathbf{Y})}\right)\right]\nonumber \\
& = & \bE\left[g\left(\frac{\ft X(\mathbf{X})\ft Y(\mathbf{Y})}{\ft Z(\mathbf{X},\mathbf{Y})}\right)-g\left(\frac{\ez X\left[\ft X(\mathbf{X})\right]\ez Y\left[\ft Y(\mathbf{Y})\right]}{\ez{X,Y}\ft Z(\mathbf{X},\mathbf{Y})}\right)\right]\nonumber \\
& & +\bE\left[g\left(\frac{\ez X\left[\ft X(\mathbf{X})\right]\ez Y\left[\ft Y(\mathbf{Y})\right]}{\ez{X,Y}\ft Z(\mathbf{X},\mathbf{Y})}\right)-g\left(\frac{f_{X}(\mathbf{X})f_{Y}(\mathbf{Y})}{f_{XY}(\mathbf{X},\mathbf{Y})}\right)\right],\label{eq:gsplit}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbf{X}$ and $\mathbf{Y}$ are drawn jointly from $f_{XY}$. We can view these terms as a variance-like component (the first term) and a bias-like component, where the respective Taylor series expansions depend on variance-like or bias-like terms of the KDEs.
We first consider the bias-like term, i.e. the second term in (\[eq:gsplit\]). The Taylor series expansion of $g\left(\frac{\ez X\left[\ft X(\mathbf{X})\right]\ez Y\left[\ft Y(\mathbf{Y})\right]}{\ez{X,Y}\ft Z(\mathbf{X},\mathbf{Y})}\right)$ around $f_{X}(\mathbf{X})f_{Y}(\mathbf{Y})$ and $f_{XY}(\mathbf{X},\mathbf{Y})$ gives an expansion with terms of the form of $$\begin{aligned}
\bias_{\mathbf{Z}}^{i}\left[\ft X(\mathbf{X})\ft Y(\mathbf{Y})\right] & = & \left(\ez X\left[\ft X(\mathbf{X})\right]\ez Y\left[\ft Y(\mathbf{Y})\right]-f_{X}(\mathbf{X})f_{Y}(\mathbf{Y})\right)^{i},\nonumber \\
\bias_{\mathbf{Z}}^{i}\left[\ft Z(\mathbf{X},\mathbf{Y})\right] & = & \left(\ez{X,Y}\ft Z(\mathbf{X},\mathbf{Y})-f_{XY}(\mathbf{X},\mathbf{Y})\right)^{i}.\label{eq:biasterms}\end{aligned}$$
Since we are not doing boundary correction, we need to consider separately the cases when $\mathbf{Z}$ is in the interior of the support $\mathcal{S}_{X}\times\mathcal{S}_{Y}$ and when $\mathbf{Z}$ is close to the boundary of the support. For precise definitions, a point $Z=(X,Y)\in\mathcal{S}_{X}\times\mathcal{S}_{Y}$ is in the interior of $\mathcal{S}_{X}\times\mathcal{S}_{Y}$ if for all $Z^{'}\notin\mathcal{S}_{X}\times\mathcal{S}_{Y}$, $K_{X}\left(\frac{X-X^{'}}{h_{X}}\right)K_{Y}\left(\frac{Y-Y^{'}}{h_{Y}}\right)=0$, and a point $Z\in\mathcal{S}_{X}\times\mathcal{S}_{Y}$ is near the boundary of the support if it is not in the interior.
It can be shown by Taylor series expansions of the probability densities that for $\mathbf{Z}=(\mathbf{X},\mathbf{Y})$ drawn from $f_{XY}$ in the interior of $\mathcal{S}_{X}\times\mathcal{S}_{Y}$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\ez X\left[\ft X(\mathbf{X})\right] & = & f_{X}(\mathbf{X})+\sum_{j=1}^{\left\lfloor s/2\right\rfloor }c_{X,j}(\mathbf{X})h_{X}^{2j}+O\left(h_{X}^{s}\right),\label{eq:E_fx}\\
\ez Y\left[\ft Y(\mathbf{Y})\right] & = & f_{Y}(\mathbf{Y})+\sum_{j=1}^{\left\lfloor s/2\right\rfloor }c_{Y,j}(\mathbf{Y})h_{Y}^{2j}+O\left(h_{Y}^{s}\right),\nonumber \\
\ez{X,Y}\left[\ft Z(\mathbf{Z})\right] & = & f_{XY}(\mathbf{X},\mathbf{Y})+\sum_{\substack{i=0\\
i+j\neq0
}
}^{\left\lfloor s/2\right\rfloor }\sum_{j=0}^{\left\lfloor s/2\right\rfloor }c_{XY,i,j}(\mathbf{X},\mathbf{Y})h_{X}^{2i}h_{Y}^{2j}+O\left(h_{X}^{s}+h_{Y}^{s}\right).\nonumber \end{aligned}$$
For a point near the boundary of the support, we extend the expectation beyond the support of the density. As an example if $\mathbf{X}$ is near the boundary of $\mathcal{S}_{X}$, then we get $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{X}}\left[\ft i(\mathbf{X})\right]-f_{i}(\mathbf{X}) & = & \frac{1}{h_{X}^{d_{X}}}\int_{V:V\in\mathcal{S}_{X}}K_{X}\left(\frac{\mathbf{X}-V}{h_{X}}\right)f_{X}(V)dV-f_{X}(\mathbf{X})\nonumber \\
& = & \left[\frac{1}{h_{X}^{d_{X}}}\int_{V:K_{X}\left(\frac{\mathbf{X}-V}{h_{X}}\right)>0}K_{X}\left(\frac{\mathbf{X}-V}{h_{X}}\right)f_{X}(V)dV-f_{X}(\mathbf{X})\right]\nonumber \\
& & -\left[\frac{1}{h_{X}^{d_{X}}}\int_{V:V\notin\mathcal{S}_{X}}K_{X}\left(\frac{\mathbf{X}-V}{h_{X}}\right)f_{X}(V)dV\right]\nonumber \\
& = & T_{1,X}(\mathbf{X})-T_{2,X}(\mathbf{X}).\label{eq:Tdiff}\end{aligned}$$ We only evaulate the density $f_{X}$ and its derivatives at points within the support when we take its Taylor series expansion. Thus the exact manner in which we define the extension of $f_{X}$ does not matter as long as the Taylor series remains the same and as long as the extension is smooth. Thus the expected value of $T_{1,X}(\mathbf{X})$ gives an expression of the form of (\[eq:E\_fx\]). For the $T_{2,X}(\mathbf{X})$ term, we can use multi-index notation on the expansion of $f_{X}$ to show that $$\begin{aligned}
T_{2,X}(\mathbf{X}) & =\left[\frac{1}{h_{X}^{d_{X}}}\int_{V:V\notin\mathcal{S}_{X}}K_{X}\left(\frac{\mathbf{X}-V}{h_{X}}\right)f_{X}(V)dV\right]\\
& =\int_{u:h_{X}u+\mathbf{X}\notin\mathcal{S}_{X},K_{X}(u)>0}K_{X}(u)f_{X}(\mathbf{X}+h_{X}u)du\\
& =\sum_{|\alpha|\leq r}\frac{h_{X}^{|\alpha|}}{\alpha!}\int_{u:h_{X}u+\mathbf{X}\notin\mathcal{S}_{X},K_{X}(u)>0}K_{X}(u)D^{\alpha}f_{X}(\mathbf{X})u^{\alpha}du+o(h_{X}^{r}).\end{aligned}$$ Then since the $|\alpha|$th derivative of $f_{X}$ is $r-|\alpha|$ times differentiable, we apply the condition in assumption $\mathcal{A}.5$ to obtain $$\bE\left[T_{2,X}(\mathbf{X})\right]=\sum_{i=1}^{r}e_{i}h_{X}^{i}+o\left(h_{X}^{r}\right).$$ Similar expressions can be found for $\ft Y$ and $\ft Z$ and for when (\[eq:Tdiff\]) is raised to a power $t$. Applying this result gives for the second term in (\[eq:gsplit\]), $$\sum_{\substack{j=0\\
i+j\neq0
}
}^{r}\sum_{i=0}^{r}c_{10,i,j}h_{X}^{i}h_{Y}^{j}+O\left(h_{X}^{s}+h_{Y}^{s}\right).\label{eq:varterm_bound}$$
For the first term in (\[eq:gsplit\]), a Taylor series expansion of $g\left(\frac{\ft X(\mathbf{X})\ft Y(\mathbf{Y})}{\ft Z(\mathbf{X},\mathbf{Y})}\right)$ around $\ez X\left[\ft X(\mathbf{X})\right]\ez Y\left[\ft Y(\mathbf{Y})\right]$ and $\ez{X,Y}\ft Z(\mathbf{X},\mathbf{Y})$ gives an expansion with terms of the form of $$\begin{aligned}
\et Z^{q}(\mathbf{Z}) & = & \left(\ft Z(\mathbf{Z})-\ez Z\left[\ft Z(\mathbf{Z})\right]\right)^{q},\nonumber \\
\ett XY^{q}(\mathbf{Z}) & = & \left(\ft X(\mathbf{X})\ft Y(\mathbf{Y})-\ez X\left[\ft X(\mathbf{X})\right]\ez Y\left[\ft Y(\mathbf{Y})\right]\right)^{q}.\label{eq:varterms}\end{aligned}$$ We can take the expected value of these expressions to obtain terms of the form of $$\frac{1}{Nh_{X}^{d_{X}}},\,\frac{1}{Nh_{Y}^{d_{Y}}},\,\frac{1}{N^{2}h_{X}^{d_{X}}h_{Y}^{d_{Y}}},\,\frac{1}{Nh_{X}^{d_{X}}h_{Y}^{d_{Y}}}\label{eq:variance_terms}$$ and their respective powers. This can be seen for $\ett XY^{q}(\mathbf{Z})$ as follows. Define $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{V}_{i,j}(\mathbf{Z}) & =K_{X}\left(\frac{\mathbf{X}_{i}-\X}{h_{X}}\right)K_{Y}\left(\frac{\Y_{j}-\Y}{h_{Y}}\right)-\ez X\left[K_{X}\left(\frac{\mathbf{X}_{i}-\X}{h_{X}}\right)\right]\ez Y\left[K_{Y}\left(\frac{\Y_{j}-\Y}{h_{Y}}\right)\right]\\
& =\eta_{ij}(\Z)-\ez X\left[\eta_{i}(\X)\right]\ez Y\left[\eta_{j}^{'}(\Y)\right].\end{aligned}$$ We can then write $$\ett XY(\mathbf{Z})=\frac{1}{N^{2}h_{X}^{d_{X}}h_{Y}^{d_{Y}}}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\sum_{j=1}^{N}\mathbf{V}_{i,j}(\Z).$$ The binomial theorem then gives $$\ez Z\left[\mathbf{V}_{i,j}^{k}(\Z)\right]=\sum_{l=0}^{k}\binom{k}{l}\ez Z\left[\eta_{ij}^{l}(\Z)\right]\left(\ez X\left[\eta_{i}(\X)\right]\ez Y\left[\eta_{j}^{'}(\Y)\right]\right)^{k-l}.\label{eq:exp_V}$$ By using a similar Taylor series analysis as before, for $\Z$ in the interior, $$\ez Z\left[\eta_{ij}^{l}(\Z)\right]=h_{X}^{d_{X}}h_{Y}^{d_{Y}}\sum_{m,n=0}^{\left\lfloor s/2\right\rfloor }c_{XY,2,m,n,l}(\Z)h_{X}^{2m}h_{Y}^{2n}+O\left(h_{X}^{2d_{X}}h_{Y}^{d_{Y}}+h_{X}^{d_{X}}h_{Y}^{2d_{Y}}\right).$$ Combining this with (\[eq:E\_fx\]) and (\[eq:exp\_V\]) gives $$\ez Z\left[\mathbf{V}_{i,j}^{k}(\Z)\right]=h_{X}^{d_{X}}h_{Y}^{d_{Y}}\sum_{m,n=0}^{\left\lfloor s/2\right\rfloor }c_{XY,3,m,n,k}(\X)h_{X}^{2m}h_{Y}^{2n}+O\left(h_{X}^{2d_{X}}h_{Y}^{d_{Y}}+h_{X}^{d_{X}}h_{Y}^{2d_{Y}}\right),\label{eq:exp_Vk}$$ where the constants depend on the densities, their derivatives, and the moments of the kernels. As an example, let $q=2$. Then due to the independence between the $\Z_{i}$ samples, $$\begin{aligned}
\ez Z\left[\ett XY^{2}(\mathbf{Z})\right] & =\frac{1}{N^{4}h_{X}^{2d_{X}}h_{Y}^{2d_{Y}}}\sum_{i,j,m,n=1}^{N}\ez Z\left[\mathbf{V}_{i,j}(\Z)\mathbf{V}_{m,n}(\Z)\right]\\
& =\frac{1}{N^{2}h_{X}^{2d_{X}}h_{Y}^{2d_{Y}}}\ez Z\left[\mathbf{V}_{i,j}^{2}(\Z)\right]+\frac{(N-1)}{N^{2}h_{X}^{2d_{X}}h_{Y}^{2d_{Y}}}\ez Z\left[\mathbf{V}_{i,j}(\Z)\mathbf{V}_{i,n}(\Z)\right]\\
& =\frac{1}{N^{2}h_{X}^{d_{X}}h_{Y}^{d_{Y}}}\sum_{m,n=0}^{\left\lfloor s/2\right\rfloor }c_{XY,3,m,n,2}(\X)h_{X}^{2m}h_{Y}^{2n}+\sum_{m,n=0}^{\left\lfloor s/2\right\rfloor }\sum_{\substack{i,j=0\\
i+j\neq0
}
}^{1}c_{XY,4,m,n,i,j}(\X)\frac{h_{X}^{2m}h_{Y}^{2n}}{Nh_{X}^{id_{X}}h_{Y}^{jd_{Y}}}+O\left(\frac{1}{N}\right),\end{aligned}$$ where the last step follows from (\[eq:exp\_Vk\]) and a similar analysis of $\ez Z\left[\mathbf{V}_{i,j}(\Z)\mathbf{V}_{i,n}(\Z)\right]$. For $q>2$, it can be shown that if $n(q)$ is the set of integer divisors of $q$ including 1 but excluding $q$, then $$\ez Z\left[\ett XY^{q}(\mathbf{Z})\right]=\sum_{i,j=0}^{\left\lfloor s/2\right\rfloor }\left(\sum_{n\in n(q)}\frac{c_{XY,5,i,j,q,n}(\Z)}{\left(N^{2}h_{X}^{d_{X}}h_{Y}^{d_{Y}}\right)^{q-n}}+\sum_{\substack{m\in n(q)\cup\{q\}\\
n\in n(q)\cup\{q\}\\
m+n\neq2q
}
}\frac{c_{XY,6,i,j,q,m,n}(\Z)}{\left(Nh_{X}^{d_{X}}\right)^{q-n}\left(Nh_{Y}^{d_{Y}}\right)^{q-m}}\right)h_{X}^{2i}h_{Y}^{2j}+O\left(\frac{1}{N}\right).$$ A similar procedure can be used to find the expression for $\ez Z\left[\et Z^{q}(\mathbf{Z})\right]$. When $\Z$ is near the boundary of the supposrt, we can obtain similar expressions by following a similar procedure as in the derivation of (\[eq:varterm\_bound\]). This results in powers of $h_{X}^{m}h_{Y}^{n}$ instead of $h_{X}^{2m}h_{Y}^{2n}$.
For general functionals $g$, we can only guarantee that the mixed derivatives of $g$ evaluated at $\ez X\left[\ft X(\mathbf{X})\right]\ez Y\left[\ft Y(\mathbf{Y})\right]$ and $\ez{X,Y}\ft Z(\mathbf{X},\mathbf{Y})$ converge to the mixed derivative evaluated at $f_{X}(\mathbf{X})f_{Y}(\mathbf{Y})$ and $f_{XY}(\mathbf{X},\mathbf{Y})$ at some rate $o(1)$. Thus we are left with the following terms in the bias: $$o\left(\frac{1}{Nh_{X}^{d_{X}}}+\frac{1}{Nh_{Y}^{d_{Y}}}\right)$$ However, if we know that $g\left(t_{1},t_{2}\right)$ has $j,l$-th order mixed derivatives $\frac{\partial^{j+l}}{\partial t_{1}^{j}\partial t_{2}^{l}}$ that depend on $t_{1}$ and $t_{2}$ only through $t_{1}^{\alpha}t_{2}^{\beta}$ for some $\alpha,\beta\in\mathbb{R}$, then by the generalized binomial theorem, we find that $$\left(\ez{\mathbf{X}}\ft X(\mathbf{X})\right)^{\alpha}=\sum_{m=0}^{\infty}\binom{\alpha}{m}f_{X}^{\alpha-m}(\mathbf{X})\left(\sum_{j=1}^{\left\lfloor s/2\right\rfloor }c_{i,j}(\mathbf{X})h_{X}^{2j}+O\left(h_{X}^{s}\right)\right)^{m}.$$ A similar result holds for $\left(\ez{\mathbf{Y}}\ft Y(\mathbf{Y})\right)^{\alpha}$ and $\left(\ez Z\ft Z(\mathbf{Z})\right)^{\alpha}$. Combining these expressions with \[eq:variance\_terms\] completes the proof.
Proof of Theorem 2 (Variance) {#sec:VarProof}
=============================
As for the bias, the proof of the variance result in Theorem 2 is similar to the proof of the variance result in [@moon2016arxiv] and so we do not present all of the details. The primary differences again deal with the product of the marginal KDEs. The proof uses the Efron-Stein inequality [@efron1981jackknife]:
(Efron-Stein Inequality) Let $\mathbf{X}_{1},\dots,\mathbf{X}_{n},\mathbf{X}_{1}^{'},\dots,\mathbf{X}_{n}^{'}$ be independent random variables on the space $\mathcal{S}$. Then if $f:\mathcal{S}\times\dots\times\mathcal{S}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$, we have that $$\var\left[f(\mathbf{X}_{1},\dots,\mathbf{X}_{n})\right]\leq\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\bE\left[\left(f(\mathbf{X}_{1},\dots,\mathbf{X}_{n})-f(\mathbf{X}_{1},\dots,\mathbf{X}_{i}^{'},\dots,\mathbf{X}_{n})\right)^{2}\right].$$
In this case we consider the samples $\left\{ \mathbf{Z}_{1},\dots,\mathbf{Z}_{N}\right\} $ and $\left\{ \mathbf{Z}_{1}^{'},\Z_{2}\dots,\mathbf{Z}_{N}\right\} $ and the respective estimators $\gt$ and $\gt^{'}$. By the triangle inequality, $$\begin{aligned}
\left|\gt-\gt^{'}\right| & \leq & \frac{1}{N}\left|g\left(\frac{\ft X(\mathbf{X}_{1})\ft Y(\mathbf{Y}_{1})}{\ft Z(\mathbf{X}_{1},\mathbf{Y}_{1})}\right)-g\left(\frac{\ft X(\mathbf{X}_{1}^{'})\ft Y(\mathbf{Y}_{1}^{'})}{\ft Z(\mathbf{X}_{1}^{'},\mathbf{Y}_{1}^{'})}\right)\right|\nonumber \\
& & +\frac{1}{N}\sum_{j=2}^{N_{2}}\left|g\left(\frac{\ft X(\mathbf{X}_{j})\ft Y(\mathbf{Y}_{j})}{\ft Z(\mathbf{X}_{j},\mathbf{Y}_{j})}\right)-g\left(\frac{\ft X^{'}(\mathbf{X}_{j})\ft Y^{'}(\mathbf{Y}_{1})}{\ft Z^{'}(\mathbf{X}_{1},\mathbf{Y}_{1})}\right)\right|.\label{eq:triangle}\end{aligned}$$ By the Lipschitz condition on $g$, the first term in (\[eq:triangle\]) can be decomposed into terms of the form of $$\left|\ft Z(\mathbf{Z}_{1})-\ft Z(\mathbf{Z}_{1}^{'})\right|,$$ $$\left|\ft X(\mathbf{X}_{1})\ft Y(\mathbf{Y}_{1})-\ft X(\mathbf{X}_{1}^{'})\ft Y^{'}(\mathbf{Y}_{1})\right|.$$ By making a substitution in the expectation, it can be shown that $$\bE\left[\left|\ft Z(\mathbf{Z}_{1})-\ft Z(\mathbf{Z}_{1}^{'})\right|^{2}\right]\leq2||K_{X}\cdot K_{Y}||_{\infty}^{2}.$$ For the product of the marginal KDEs, we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\ft X(\mathbf{X}_{1})\ft Y(\mathbf{Y}_{1}) & = & \frac{1}{M^{2}h_{X}^{d_{X}}h_{Y}^{d_{Y}}}\sum_{i=2}^{N}\sum_{j=2}^{N}K_{X}\left(\frac{\mathbf{X}_{1}-\mathbf{X}_{i}}{h_{X}}\right)K_{Y}\left(\frac{\mathbf{Y}_{1}-\mathbf{Y}_{j}}{h_{Y}}\right)\\
& = & \frac{1}{M}\ft Z(\mathbf{Z}_{1})+\frac{1}{M^{2}h_{X}^{d_{X}}h_{Y}^{d_{Y}}}\sum_{i\neq j}K_{X}\left(\frac{\mathbf{X}_{1}-\mathbf{X}_{i}}{h_{X}}\right)K_{Y}\left(\frac{\mathbf{Y}_{1}-\mathbf{Y}_{j}}{h_{Y}}\right).\end{aligned}$$ By applying the triangle inequality, Jensen’s inequality, and similar substitutions, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\bE\left[\left|\ft X(\mathbf{X}_{1})\ft Y(\mathbf{Y}_{1})-\ft X(\mathbf{X}_{1}^{'})\ft Y(\mathbf{Y}_{1}^{'})\right|^{2}\right] & \leq & \bE\left[\frac{2}{M^{2}}\left|\ft Z(\mathbf{Z}_{1})-\ft Z(\mathbf{Z}_{1}^{'})\right|^{2}\right]\\
& & +\frac{2(M-1)}{M^{3}h_{X}^{2d_{X}}h_{Y}^{2d_{Y}}}\times\\
& & \sum_{i\neq j}\bE\left[\left(K_{X}\left(\frac{\mathbf{X}_{1}-\mathbf{X}_{i}}{h_{X}}\right)K_{Y}\left(\frac{\mathbf{Y}_{1}-\mathbf{Y}_{j}}{h_{Y}}\right)\right.\right.\\
& & \left.\left.-K_{X}\left(\frac{\mathbf{X}_{1}^{'}-\mathbf{X}_{i}}{h_{X}}\right)K_{Y}\left(\frac{\mathbf{Y}_{1}^{'}-\mathbf{Y}_{j}}{h_{Y}}\right)\right)^{2}\right]\\
& \leq & \frac{4+2(M-1)^{2}}{M^{2}}||K_{X}\cdot K_{Y}||^{2}.\end{aligned}$$
For the second term in (\[eq:triangle\]), it can be shown that $$\begin{aligned}
\bE\left[\left|\ft Z(\mathbf{Z}_{i})-\ft Z^{'}(\mathbf{Z}_{i})\right|^{2}\right] & = & \frac{1}{M^{2}h_{X}^{2d_{X}}h_{Y}^{2d_{Y}}}\bE\left[\left(K_{X}\left(\frac{\mathbf{X}_{1}-\mathbf{X}_{i}}{h_{X}}\right)K_{Y}\left(\frac{\mathbf{Y}_{1}-\mathbf{Y}_{j}}{h_{Y}}\right)\right.\right.\\
& & \left.\left.-K_{X}\left(\frac{\mathbf{X}_{1}^{'}-\mathbf{X}_{i}}{h_{X}}\right)K_{Y}\left(\frac{\mathbf{Y}_{1}^{'}-\mathbf{Y}_{j}}{h_{Y}}\right)\right)^{2}\right]\\
& \leq & \frac{2||K_{X}\cdot K_{Y}||_{\infty}^{2}}{M^{2}}.\end{aligned}$$ By a similar approach, $$\ft X(\mathbf{X}_{i})\ft Y(\mathbf{Y}_{i})-\ft X^{'}(\mathbf{X}_{i})\ft Y^{'}(\mathbf{Y}_{i})$$ $$\begin{aligned}
& = & \ft Z(\mathbf{Z}_{i})-\ft Z^{'}(\mathbf{Z}_{i})+\frac{1}{M^{2}h_{X}^{d_{X}}h_{Y}^{d_{Y}}}\left(\sum_{\substack{n=2\\
n\neq i
}
}K_{Y}\left(\frac{\mathbf{Y}_{i}-\mathbf{Y}_{n}}{h_{Y}}\right)\left(K_{X}\left(\frac{\mathbf{X}_{i}-\mathbf{X}_{1}}{h_{X}}\right)-K_{X}\left(\frac{\mathbf{X}_{i}-\mathbf{X}_{1}^{'}}{h_{X}}\right)\right)\right.\\
& & \left.+\sum_{\substack{n=2\\
n\neq i
}
}K_{X}\left(\frac{\mathbf{X}_{i}-\mathbf{X}_{n}}{h_{X}}\right)\left(K_{Y}\left(\frac{\mathbf{Y}_{i}-\mathbf{Y}_{1}}{h_{Y}}\right)-K_{Y}\left(\frac{\mathbf{Y}_{i}-\mathbf{Y}_{1}^{'}}{h_{Y}}\right)\right)\right),\end{aligned}$$ $$\implies\bE\left[\left|\ft X(\mathbf{X}_{i})\ft Y(\mathbf{Y}_{i})-\ft X^{'}(\mathbf{X}_{i})\ft Y^{'}(\mathbf{Y}_{i})\right|^{2}\right]\leq6||K_{X}\cdot K_{Y}||_{\infty}^{2}\left(\frac{1}{M^{2}}+\frac{(M-2)^{2}}{M^{4}}\right)$$
We can then apply the Cauchy Schwarz inequality to bound the square of the second term in (\[eq:triangle\]) to get $$\bE\left[\left(\sum_{j=2}^{N_{2}}\left|g\left(\frac{\ft X(\mathbf{X}_{1})\ft Y(\mathbf{Y}_{1})}{\ft Z(\mathbf{X}_{1},\mathbf{Y}_{1})}\right)-g\left(\frac{\ft X^{'}(\mathbf{X}_{1})\ft Y^{'}(\mathbf{Y}_{1})}{\ft Z^{'}(\mathbf{X}_{1},\mathbf{Y}_{1})}\right)\right|\right)^{2}\right]\leq14C_{g}^{2}||K_{X}\cdot K_{Y}||_{\infty}^{2}.$$ Applying Jensen’s inequality in conjunction with these results gives $$\bE\left[\left|\gt-\gt^{'}\right|^{2}\right]\leq\frac{44C_{g}^{2}||K_{X}\cdot K_{Y}||_{\infty}^{2}}{N^{2}}.$$ Applying the Efron-Stein inequality finishes the proof.
Theory for Mixed Random Variables\[sec:MixedProofs\]
====================================================
Proof of Theorem 3 (Bias)
-------------------------
Let $\mathbf{h}_{X|y}=l\mathbf{N}_{y}^{-\beta}$ for some positive $l$ and $0<\beta<\frac{1}{d_{X}}$. Under assumptions $\mathcal{A}.0-\mathcal{A}.5$, we prove that for general $g$, the bias of the plug-in estimator $\g{h_{X},h_{X|Y}}$ $$\begin{aligned}
\bias\left[\g{h_{X},h_{X|Y}}\right] & = & \sum_{\substack{j=0\\
i+j\neq0
}
}^{r}\sum_{i=0}^{r}c_{13,i,j}h_{X}^{i}l^{j}N^{-j\beta}+\frac{c_{14,X}}{Nh_{X}^{d_{X}}}+\frac{c_{14,y}}{l^{d_{X}}N^{1-\beta d_{X}}}\nonumber \\
& & +O\left(h_{X}^{s}+N^{-s\beta}+\frac{1}{Nh_{X}^{d_{X}}}+\frac{1}{N^{1-\beta d_{X}}}+\frac{1}{N}\right).\label{eq:bias_mixed1-1}\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, if $g\left(t_{1},t_{2}\right)$ has $j,l$-th order mixed derivatives $\frac{\partial^{j+l}}{\partial t_{1}^{j}\partial t_{2}^{l}}$ that depend on $t_{1}$ and $t_{2}$ only through $t_{1}^{\alpha}t_{2}^{\beta}$ for some $\alpha,\beta\in\mathbb{R}$, then for any positive integer $\lambda\geq2$, the bias is $$\begin{aligned}
\bias\left[\g{h_{X},h_{X|Y}}\right] & = & \sum_{\substack{j=0\\
i+j\neq0
}
}^{r}\sum_{i=0}^{r}c_{13,i,j}h_{X}^{i}l^{j}N^{-j\beta}+\sum_{j=1}^{\lambda/2}\sum_{i=1}^{\lambda/2}\sum_{m=0}^{r}\sum_{n=0}^{r}c_{14,j,i,m,n}\frac{h_{X}^{m}l^{n}N^{-n\beta}}{\left(Nh_{X}^{d_{X}}\right)^{j}\left(l^{d_{X}}N^{1-\beta d_{X}}\right)^{i}}\nonumber \\
& & +\sum_{j=1}^{\lambda/2}\sum_{m=0}^{r}\sum_{n=0}^{r}\left(c_{14,m,n,j,X}\frac{h_{X}^{m}l^{n}N^{-n\beta}}{\left(Nh_{X}^{d_{X}}\right)^{j}}+c_{14,m,n,j,Y}\frac{h_{X}^{m}l^{n}N^{-n\beta}}{\left(l^{d_{X}}N^{1-\beta d_{X}}\right)^{j}}\right)\nonumber \\
& & +O\left(h_{X}^{s}+N^{-s\beta}+\frac{1}{\left(Nh_{X}^{d_{X}}\right)^{\lambda/2}}+\frac{1}{\left(N^{1-\beta d_{X}}\right)^{\lambda/2}}+\frac{1}{N}\right).\label{eq:bias_mixed2-1}\end{aligned}$$
We only prove (\[eq:bias\_mixed1-1\]) as the proof of (\[eq:bias\_mixed2-1\]) is identical. The bias of $\g{h_{X},h_{X|Y}}$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\bias\left[\g{h_{X},h_{X|Y}}\right] & = & \bE\left[\g{h_{X},h_{X|Y}}\right]-G(\mathbf{X};\mathbf{Y})\\
& = & \bE\left[\sum_{y\in\mathcal{S}_{Y}}\frac{\mathbf{N}_{y}}{N}\g{h_{X},h_{X|y}}-g\left(\frac{f_{X}(\mathbf{X})}{f_{X|Y}(\mathbf{X}|\mathbf{Y})}\right)\right]\\
& = & \bE\left[\bE\left[\left.\sum_{y\in\mathcal{S}_{Y}}\frac{\mathbf{N}_{y}}{N}\g{h_{X},h_{X|y}}-g\left(\frac{f_{X}(\mathbf{X})}{f_{X|Y}(\mathbf{X}|\mathbf{Y})}\right)\right|\mathbf{Y},\mathbf{Y}_{1},\dots,\mathbf{Y}_{N}\right]\right]\\
& = & \bE\left[\sum_{y\in\mathcal{S}_{Y}}\frac{\mathbf{N}_{y}}{N}\bE\left[\left.\left(\g{h_{X},h_{X|y}}-g\left(\frac{f_{X}(\mathbf{X})}{f_{X|Y}(\mathbf{X}|\mathbf{Y})}\right)\right)\right|\mathbf{Y},\mathbf{Y}_{1},\dots,\mathbf{Y}_{N}\right]\right]\\
& = & \bE\left[\sum_{y\in\mathcal{S}_{Y}}\frac{\mathbf{N}_{y}}{N}\bias\left[\left.\g{h_{X},h_{X|y}}\right|\mathbf{Y}_{1},\dots,\mathbf{Y}_{N}\right]\right],\end{aligned}$$ where we use the law of total expectation and the fact that $\sum_{y\in\mathcal{S}_{Y}}\frac{\mathbf{N}_{y}}{N}=1$. Let $\mathbf{h}_{X|y}=l\mathbf{N}_{y}^{-\beta}$ for some positive $l$ and $0<\beta<\frac{1}{d_{X}}$. From Theorem 1, the conditional bias of $\g{h_{X},h_{X|y}}$ given $\mathbf{Y}_{1},\dots,\mathbf{Y}_{N}$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\bias\left[\left.\g{h_{X},h_{X|y}}\right|\mathbf{Y}_{1},\dots,\mathbf{Y}_{N}\right] & = & \sum_{\substack{j=0\\
i+j\neq0
}
}^{r}\sum_{i=0}^{r}c_{10,i,j}h_{X}^{i}\mathbf{h}_{X|y}^{j}+\frac{c_{11,X}}{\mathbf{N}_{y}h_{X}^{d_{X}}}+\frac{c_{11,y}}{\mathbf{N}_{y}\mathbf{h}_{X|y}^{d_{X}}}\nonumber \\
& & +O\left(h_{X}^{s}+\mathbf{h}_{X|y}^{s}+\frac{1}{\mathbf{N}_{y}h_{X}^{d_{X}}}+\frac{1}{\mathbf{N}_{y}\mathbf{h}_{X|y}^{d_{X}}}\right)\nonumber \\
& & =\sum_{\substack{j=0\\
i+j\neq0
}
}^{r}\sum_{i=0}^{r}c_{10,i,j}h_{X}^{i}l^{j}\mathbf{N}_{y}^{-j\beta}+\frac{c_{11,X}}{\mathbf{N}_{y}h_{X}^{d_{X}}}+\frac{c_{11,y}}{l^{d_{X}}\mathbf{N}_{y}^{1-\beta d_{X}}}\nonumber \\
& & +O\left(h_{X}^{s}+\mathbf{N}_{y}^{-s\beta}+\frac{1}{\mathbf{N}_{y}h_{X}^{d_{X}}}+\frac{1}{\mathbf{N}_{y}^{1-\beta d_{X}}}\right).\label{eq:bias_cond}\end{aligned}$$ $\mathbf{N}_{y}$ is a binomial random variable Multiplying (\[eq:bias\_cond\]) by $\mathbf{N}_{y}$ results in terms of the form of $\mathbf{N}_{y}^{1-\gamma}$ with $\gamma\geq0$. $\mathbf{N}_{y}$ is a binomial random variable with parameter $f_{Y}(y)$,$N$ trials, and mean $Nf_{Y}(y)$. We can compute the fractional moments of a binomial random variable by using the generalized binomial theorem to obtain (see the main paper) $$\begin{aligned}
\bE\left[\mathbf{N}_{y}^{\alpha}\right] & = & \sum_{i=0}^{\infty}\left(\begin{array}{c}
\alpha\\
i
\end{array}\right)\left(Nf_{Y}(y)\right)^{\alpha-i}\bE\left[\left(\mathbf{N}_{Y}-Nf_{Y}(y)\right)^{i}\right]\\
& = & \sum_{i=0}^{\infty}\left(\begin{array}{c}
\alpha\\
i
\end{array}\right)\left(Nf_{Y}(y)\right)^{\alpha-i}\sum_{n=0}^{\left\lfloor i/2\right\rfloor }c_{n,i}(f_{Y}(y))N^{n}\\
& = & \sum_{i=0}^{\infty}\left(\begin{array}{c}
\alpha\\
i
\end{array}\right)f_{Y}(y)^{\alpha-i}\sum_{n=0}^{\left\lfloor i/2\right\rfloor }c_{n,i}(f_{Y}(y))N^{\alpha-i+n},\end{aligned}$$ where we use the following expression for the $i$-th central moment of a binomial random variable derived by Riordan [@riordan1937moment]: $$\bE\left[\left(\mathbf{N}_{Y}-Nf_{Y}(y)\right)^{i}\right]=\sum_{n=0}^{\left\lfloor i/2\right\rfloor }c_{n,i}(f_{Y}(y))N^{n}.$$ If $\alpha=1-\gamma$, then dividing by $N$ results in terms of the form of $N^{-\gamma-i+n}$. Since $n\leq\left\lfloor i/2\right\rfloor $, $-\gamma-i+n$ is always less than zero and is only greater than $-1$ if $i=0$. This completes the proof.
Proof of Theorem 4 (Variance) {#subsec:varproof}
-----------------------------
As for the bias, we assume that $\mathbf{h}_{X|y}=l\mathbf{N}_{y}^{-\beta}$ for some positive $l$ and $0<\beta<\frac{1}{d_{X}}$. By the law of total variance, we have $$\var\left[\g{h_{X},h_{X|Y}}\right]=\bE\left[\var\left[\left.\g{h_{X},h_{X|Y}}\right|\mathbf{Y}_{1},\dots,\mathbf{Y}_{N}\right]\right]+\var\left[\bE\left[\left.\g{h_{X},h_{X|Y}}\right|\mathbf{Y}_{1},\dots,\mathbf{Y}_{N}\right]\right].\label{eq:total_var}$$ Note that given all of the $\mathbf{Y}_{i}$’s, the estimators $\g{h_{X},h_{X|y}}$ are all independent since they use different sets of $\mathbf{X}_{i}$’s for each $y$. By Theorem 2, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\var\left[\left.\g{h_{X},h_{X|Y}}\right|\mathbf{Y}_{1},\dots,\mathbf{Y}_{N}\right] & = & O\left(\sum_{y\in\mathcal{S}_{Y}}\frac{\mathbf{N}_{y}^{2}}{N^{2}}\cdot\frac{1}{\mathbf{N}_{y}}\right)\\
& = & O\left(\sum_{y\in\mathcal{S}_{Y}}\frac{\mathbf{N}_{y}}{N^{2}}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Taking the expectation wrt $\mathbf{Y}_{1},\dots\mathbf{Y}_{N}$ then gives $O\left(\frac{1}{N}\right)$ for the first term in (\[eq:total\_var\]).
For the second term in (\[eq:total\_var\]), from (\[eq:bias\_cond\]) we have that for general $g$ $$\begin{aligned}
\bE\left[\left.\g{h_{X},h_{X|y}}\right|\mathbf{Y}_{1},\dots,\mathbf{Y}_{N}\right] & = & O\left(\sum_{j=0}^{r}\mathbf{N}_{y}^{-j\beta}+\frac{1}{\mathbf{N}_{y}}+\mathbf{N}_{y}^{-s\beta}+\mathbf{N}_{y}^{1-\beta d_{X}}\right)\\
& = & O\left(f\left(\mathbf{N}_{y}\right)\right).\end{aligned}$$ By the Efron-Stein inequality, we have that if $\mathbf{N}_{y}^{'}$ is an independent and identically distributed realization of $\mathbf{N}_{y}$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\var\left[\sum_{y\in\mathcal{S}_{Y}}\frac{\mathbf{N}_{y}}{N}f\left(\mathbf{N}_{y}\right)\right] & \leq & \frac{1}{2N^{2}}\sum_{y\in\mathcal{S}_{Y}}\bE\left[\left(\mathbf{N}_{y}f\left(\mathbf{N}_{y}\right)-\mathbf{N}_{y}^{'}f\left(\mathbf{N}_{y}^{'}\right)\right)^{2}\right]\nonumber \\
& = & O\left(\frac{1}{N^{2}}\bE\left[\left(\mathbf{N}_{y}f\left(\mathbf{N}_{y}\right)-\mathbf{N}_{y}^{'}f\left(\mathbf{N}_{y}^{'}\right)\right)^{2}\right]\right)\nonumber \\
& = & O\left(\frac{1}{N^{2}}\var\left[\mathbf{N}_{y}f\left(\mathbf{N}_{y}\right)\right]\right),\label{eq:var_cond}\end{aligned}$$ where the second step follows from the fact that $\mathcal{S}_{Y}$ is finite and the last step follows from the fact that $\mathbf{N}_{y}$ and $\mathbf{N}_{y}^{'}$ are iid. The expression $\var\left[\mathbf{N}_{y}f\left(\mathbf{N}_{y}\right)\right]$ is simply a sum of terms of the form of $\var\left[\mathbf{N}_{y}^{\gamma}\right]$ where $0<\gamma\leq1$. Even the covariance terms can be bounded by the square root of the product of these terms by the Cauchy Schwarz inequality.
Let $p_{y}=f_{Y}(y)$. Consider the Taylor series expansion of the function $h(x)=x^{\gamma}$ at the point $Np_{y}$. This is $$\begin{aligned}
h(x) & = & \left(Np_{y}\right)^{\gamma}+\gamma\left(Np_{y}\right)^{\gamma-1}\left(x-Np_{y}\right)+\frac{\gamma(\gamma-1)}{2}\left(Np_{y}\right)^{\gamma-2}\left(x-Np_{y}\right)^{2}\nonumber \\
& & +\sum_{k=3}^{\infty}\frac{\gamma(\gamma-1)\dots(\gamma-k+1)}{k!}\left(Np_{y}\right)^{\gamma-k}\left(x-Np_{y}\right)^{2}.\label{eq:taylor_gamma}\end{aligned}$$ From Riordan [@riordan1937moment], we know that the $i$th central moment of $\mathbf{N}_{y}$ is $O\left(N^{\left\lfloor i/2\right\rfloor }\right)$. Then since $\gamma\leq1$, the last terms in (\[eq:taylor\_gamma\]) are $O\left(N^{-1}\right)$ when $x=\mathbf{N}_{y}$ and we take the expectation. Thus $$\begin{aligned}
\bE\left[\mathbf{N}_{y}^{\gamma}\right] & = & \left(Np_{y}\right)^{\gamma}+\frac{\gamma(\gamma-1)}{2}\left(Np_{y}\right)^{\gamma-1}(1-p_{y})+O\left(N^{-1}\right)\\
\implies\bE\left[\mathbf{N}_{y}^{\gamma}\right]^{2} & = & \left(Np_{y}\right)^{2\gamma}+\gamma(\gamma-1)(1-p_{y})\left(Np_{y}\right)^{2\gamma-1}+\left(\frac{\gamma(\gamma-1)}{2}\right)^{2}\left(Np_{y}\right)^{2\gamma-2}\\
& & +O\left(N^{-1}\right).\end{aligned}$$ By a similar Taylor series expansion, we have that $$\bE\left[\mathbf{N}_{y}^{2\gamma}\right]=\left(Np_{y}\right)^{2\gamma}+\gamma(2\gamma-1)(1-p_{y})\left(Np_{y}\right)^{2\gamma-1}+O\left(N^{-1}\right).$$ Combining these results gives $$\begin{aligned}
\var\left[\mathbf{N}_{y}^{\gamma}\right] & = & \bE\left[\mathbf{N}_{y}^{2\gamma}\right]-\bE\left[\mathbf{N}_{y}^{\gamma}\right]^{2}\\
& = & O\left(N^{2\gamma-1}+N^{2\gamma-2}+N^{-1}\right)\\
& = & O\left(N\right),\end{aligned}$$ where the last step follows from the fact that $\gamma\leq1$. Combining this result with (\[eq:var\_cond\]) gives $$\var\left[\bE\left[\left.\g{h_{X},h_{X|Y}}\right|\mathbf{Y}_{1},\dots,\mathbf{Y}_{N}\right]\right]=O\left(\frac{1}{N}\right).$$ By the law of total variance, $\var\left[\g{h_{X},h_{X|Y}}\right]=O\left(\frac{1}{N}\right)$.
Extension to the Generalized Case {#subsec:generalCase}
---------------------------------
In this section, we sketch the theory for the case where both $\X$ and $\Y$ have a mixture of discrete and continuous components. Denote the discrete and continuous components of $\mathbf{X}$ as $\mathbf{X}_{1}$ and $\mathbf{X}_{2}$, respectively. Similarly, denote the discrete and continuous components of $\Y$ as $\mathbf{Y}_{1}$ and $\mathbf{Y}_{2}$, respectively. Then the generalized mutual information is $$\begin{aligned}
G(\X;\Y) & =\sum_{\substack{y_{1}\in\mathcal{S}_{Y_{1}}\\
x_{1}\in\mathcal{S}_{X_{1}}
}
}\int g\left(\frac{f_{X}(x_{1},x_{2})f_{Y}(y_{1},y_{2})}{f_{XY}(x_{1},x_{2},y_{1},y_{2})}\right)f_{XY}(x_{1},x_{2},y_{1},y_{2})dx_{2}dy_{2}\\
& =\sum_{\substack{y_{1}\in\mathcal{S}_{Y_{1}}\\
x_{1}\in\mathcal{S}_{X_{1}}
}
}f_{X_{1}Y_{1}}(x_{1},y_{1})\int g\left(\frac{f_{X_{1}}(x_{1})f_{Y_{1}}(y_{1})f_{X_{2}|X_{1}}(x_{2}|x_{1})f_{Y_{2}|Y_{1}}(y_{2}|y_{1})}{f_{X_{1}Y_{1}}(x_{1},y_{1})f_{X_{2}Y_{2}|X_{1}Y_{1}}(x_{2},y_{2}|x_{1}y_{1})}\right)f_{X_{2}Y_{2}|X_{1}Y_{1}}(x_{2},y_{2}|x_{1}y_{1})dx_{2}dy_{2}.\end{aligned}$$ Define $\mathbf{N}_{y_{1}}=\sum_{i=1}^{N}1_{\{\mathbf{Y}_{1,i}=y_{1}\}}$ where $\mathbf{Y}_{1,i}$ is the discrete component of $\mathbf{Y}_{i}$. Then the estimator we use for $f_{Y_{1}}(y_{1})$ is $\mathbf{N}_{y_{1}}/N$. The estimators for $f_{X_{1}}(x_{1})$ and $f_{X_{1}Y_{1}}(x_{1},y_{1})$ are defined similarly with $\N_{x_{1}}$ and $\N_{z_{1}}$.
We first consider the conditional bias of the resulting plug-in estimator where we condition on the discrete random variables. Recall that by Taylor series expansions, we decompose the bias into “variance-like” terms in (\[eq:varterms\]) and “bias-like” terms in (\[eq:biasterms\]). For the bias-like term, if we condition on the discrete random variables, then the equivalent expression in (\[eq:E\_fx\]) in this case is multiplied by $\N_{x_{1}}/N$. This results in terms of the form of, for example, $\left(\frac{\N_{z_{1}}}{N}-f_{Z_{1}}(x_{1},y_{1})\right)^{i}$. The expected value of these expressions is the $i$th central moment of a binomial random variable divided by $N^{i}$ which is $O(1/N)$ for $i\geq1$. Thus these terms contribute $O(1/N)$ to the bias. In all other cases, the expected value of $\left(\frac{\N_{z_{1}}}{N}\right)^{i}$ is $O(1)$. Thus only the constants are affected by these terms in the equivalent expression in (\[eq:varterm\_bound\]). Similar results hold for the estimators of $f_{X_{1}}(x_{1})$ and $f_{Y_{1}}(y_{1})$.
For the “variance-like” terms, we can simply factor out the estimators for $f_{X_{1}}(x_{1})$, $f_{Y_{1}}(y_{1})$, and $f_{Z_{1}}(z_{1})$. The expected value of these estimators is again $O(1)$ so they only affect the constants.
For the variance, the law of total variance can again be used by conditioning on the discrete components. For the conditional variance, the Lipschitz conditions on $g$ in this case simply scales the resulting terms by the square of the estimators for $f_{X_{1}}(x_{1})$, $f_{Y_{1}}(y_{1})$, and $f_{Z_{1}}(z_{1})$. Then since the expected value of the square of these estimators is $O(1),$ the expected value of the conditional variance is still $O(1/N)$. Then by similar arguments given above for the bias and in Section \[subsec:varproof\], the variance of the conditional expectation of the estimator is also $O(1/N)$. Thus the total variance is $O(1/N)$.
Proof of Theorem 6 (CLT) {#sec:cltProof}
========================
This proof shares some similarities with the CLT proof for the divergence functional estimators in [@moon2016arxiv; @moon2016isit]. The primary differences again deal with handling products of marginal density estimators and with handling two of the terms in the Efron-Stein inequality. We will first find the asymptotic distribution of $$\begin{aligned}
\sqrt{N}\left(\gt-\bE\left[\gt\right]\right) & =\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\left(g\left(\frac{\ft X(\mathbf{X}_{i})\ft Y(\mathbf{Y}_{i})}{\ft Z(\mathbf{X}_{i},\mathbf{Y}_{i})}\right)-\ez{Z_{i}}\left[g\left(\frac{\ft X(\mathbf{X}_{i})\ft Y(\mathbf{Y}_{i})}{\ft Z(\mathbf{X}_{i},\mathbf{Y}_{i})}\right)\right]\right)\\
& +\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\left(\ez{Z_{i}}\left[g\left(\frac{\ft X(\mathbf{X}_{i})\ft Y(\mathbf{Y}_{i})}{\ft Z(\mathbf{X}_{i},\mathbf{Y}_{i})}\right)\right]-\bE\left[g\left(\frac{\ft X(\mathbf{X}_{i})\ft Y(\mathbf{Y}_{i})}{\ft Z(\mathbf{X}_{i},\mathbf{Y}_{i})}\right)\right]\right).\end{aligned}$$ By the standard central limit theorem [@durrett2010probability], the second term converges in distribution to a Gaussian random variable with variance $$\var\left[\ez Z\left[g\left(\frac{\ft X(\mathbf{X})\ft Y(\mathbf{Y})}{\ft Z(\mathbf{X},\mathbf{Y})}\right)\right]\right].$$ All that remains is to show that the first term converges in probability to zero as Slutsky’s theorem [@gut2012probability] can then be applied. Denote this first term as $\W_{N}$ and note that $\bE\left[\W_{N}\right]=0$.
We will use Chebyshev’s inequality combined with the Efron-Stein inequality to bound the variance of $\W_{N}$. Consider the samples $\left\{ \Z_{1},\dots,\Z_{N}\right\} $ and $\left\{ \Z_{1}^{'},\Z_{2},\dots,\Z_{N}\right\} $ and the respective sequences $\W_{N}$ and $\W_{N}^{'}$. This gives $$\begin{aligned}
\W_{N}-\W_{N}^{'} & =\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\left(g\left(\frac{\ft X(\mathbf{X}_{1})\ft Y(\mathbf{Y}_{1})}{\ft Z(\mathbf{X}_{1},\mathbf{Y}_{1})}\right)-\ez{Z_{1}}\left[g\left(\frac{\ft X(\mathbf{X}_{1})\ft Y(\mathbf{Y}_{1})}{\ft Z(\mathbf{X}_{1},\mathbf{Y}_{1})}\right)\right]\right)\nonumber \\
& +\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\left(g\left(\frac{\ft X(\mathbf{X}_{1}^{'})\ft Y(\mathbf{Y}_{1}^{'})}{\ft Z(\mathbf{X}_{1}^{'},\mathbf{Y}_{1}^{'})}\right)-\ez{Z_{1}^{'}}\left[g\left(\frac{\ft X(\mathbf{X}_{1}^{'})\ft Y(\mathbf{Y}_{1}^{'})}{\ft Z(\mathbf{X}_{1}^{'},\mathbf{Y}_{1}^{'})}\right)\right]\right)\nonumber \\
& +\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\sum_{i=2}^{N}\left(g\left(\frac{\ft X(\mathbf{X}_{i})\ft Y(\mathbf{Y}_{i})}{\ft Z(\mathbf{X}_{i},\mathbf{Y}_{i})}\right)-g\left(\frac{\ft X^{'}(\mathbf{X}_{i})\ft Y^{'}(\mathbf{Y}_{i})}{\ft Z^{'}(\mathbf{X}_{i},\mathbf{Y}_{i})}\right)\right).\label{eq:Wndiff}\end{aligned}$$
Note that $$\bE\left[\left(g\left(\frac{\ft X(\mathbf{X}_{1})\ft Y(\mathbf{Y}_{1})}{\ft Z(\mathbf{X}_{1},\mathbf{Y}_{1})}\right)-\ez{Z_{1}}\left[g\left(\frac{\ft X(\mathbf{X}_{1})\ft Y(\mathbf{Y}_{1})}{\ft Z(\mathbf{X}_{1},\mathbf{Y}_{1})}\right)\right]\right)^{2}\right]=\bE\left[\var_{\X_{1}}\left[g\left(\frac{\ft X(\mathbf{X}_{1})\ft Y(\mathbf{Y}_{1})}{\ft Z(\mathbf{X}_{1},\mathbf{Y}_{1})}\right)\right]\right].$$ We will use the Efron-Stein inequality to bound $\var_{\X_{1}}\left[g\left(\frac{\ft X(\mathbf{X}_{1})\ft Y(\mathbf{Y}_{1})}{\ft Z(\mathbf{X}_{1},\mathbf{Y}_{1})}\right)\right]$. We thus need to bound the conditional expectation of the term $$\left|g\left(\frac{\ft X(\mathbf{X}_{1})\ft Y(\mathbf{Y}_{1})}{\ft Z(\mathbf{X}_{1},\mathbf{Y}_{1})}\right)-g\left(\frac{\ft X^{'}(\mathbf{X}_{1})\ft Y^{'}(\mathbf{Y}_{1})}{\ft Z^{'}(\mathbf{X}_{1},\mathbf{Y}_{1})}\right)\right|^{2},$$ where $\Z_{i}$ is replaced with $\Z_{i}^{'}$ in the KDEs for some $i\neq1$. Using similar steps as in Section \[sec:VarProof\], we have that $$\bE\left[\left|g\left(\frac{\ft X(\mathbf{X}_{1})\ft Y(\mathbf{Y}_{1})}{\ft Z(\mathbf{X}_{1},\mathbf{Y}_{1})}\right)-g\left(\frac{\ft X^{'}(\mathbf{X}_{1})\ft Y^{'}(\mathbf{Y}_{1})}{\ft Z^{'}(\mathbf{X}_{1},\mathbf{Y}_{1})}\right)\right|^{2}\right]=O\left(\frac{1}{N^{2}}\right).$$ Then by the Efron-Stein inequality, $\var_{\X_{1}}\left[g\left(\frac{\ft X(\mathbf{X}_{1})\ft Y(\mathbf{Y}_{1})}{\ft Z(\mathbf{X}_{1},\mathbf{Y}_{1})}\right)\right]=O\left(\frac{1}{N}\right)$. Therefore $$\bE\left[\frac{1}{N}\left(g\left(\frac{\ft X(\mathbf{X}_{1})\ft Y(\mathbf{Y}_{1})}{\ft Z(\mathbf{X}_{1},\mathbf{Y}_{1})}\right)-\ez{Z_{1}}\left[g\left(\frac{\ft X(\mathbf{X}_{1})\ft Y(\mathbf{Y}_{1})}{\ft Z(\mathbf{X}_{1},\mathbf{Y}_{1})}\right)\right]\right)^{2}\right]=O\left(\frac{1}{N^{2}}\right).$$ A similar result holds for the $g\left(\frac{\ft X(\mathbf{X}_{1}^{'})\ft Y(\mathbf{Y}_{1}^{'})}{\ft Z(\mathbf{X}_{1}^{'},\mathbf{Y}_{1}^{'})}\right)$ term in (\[eq:Wndiff\]).
For the third term in (\[eq:Wndiff\]), $$\begin{aligned}
& \lefteqn{\bE\left[\left(\sum_{i=2}^{N}\left|g\left(\frac{\ft X(\mathbf{X}_{i})\ft Y(\mathbf{Y}_{i})}{\ft Z(\mathbf{X}_{i},\mathbf{Y}_{i})}\right)-g\left(\frac{\ft X^{'}(\mathbf{X}_{i})\ft Y^{'}(\mathbf{Y}_{i})}{\ft Z^{'}(\mathbf{X}_{i},\mathbf{Y}_{i})}\right)\right|\right)^{2}\right]}\\
& =\sum_{i,j=2}^{N}\bE\left[\left|g\left(\frac{\ft X(\mathbf{X}_{i})\ft Y(\mathbf{Y}_{i})}{\ft Z(\mathbf{X}_{i},\mathbf{Y}_{i})}\right)-g\left(\frac{\ft X^{'}(\mathbf{X}_{i})\ft Y^{'}(\mathbf{Y}_{i})}{\ft Z^{'}(\mathbf{X}_{i},\mathbf{Y}_{i})}\right)\right|\right.\\
& \times\left.\left|g\left(\frac{\ft X(\mathbf{X}_{j})\ft Y(\mathbf{Y}_{j})}{\ft Z(\mathbf{X}_{j},\mathbf{Y}_{j})}\right)-g\left(\frac{\ft X^{'}(\mathbf{X}_{j})\ft Y^{'}(\mathbf{Y}_{j})}{\ft Z^{'}(\mathbf{X}_{j},\mathbf{Y}_{j})}\right)\right|\right]\end{aligned}$$ For the $N-1$ terms where $i=j$, we know from Section \[sec:VarProof\] that $$\bE\left[\left|g\left(\frac{\ft X(\mathbf{X}_{i})\ft Y(\mathbf{Y}_{i})}{\ft Z(\mathbf{X}_{i},\mathbf{Y}_{i})}\right)-g\left(\frac{\ft X^{'}(\mathbf{X}_{i})\ft Y^{'}(\mathbf{Y}_{i})}{\ft Z^{'}(\mathbf{X}_{i},\mathbf{Y}_{i})}\right)\right|^{2}\right]=O\left(\frac{1}{N^{2}}\right).$$ Thus these terms contribute $O(1/N)$. For the $N^{2}-N$ terms where $i\neq j$, we can do multiple substitutions of the form $\mathbf{u}_{j}=\frac{\X_{j}-\X_{1}}{h_{X}}$ resulting in $$\begin{aligned}
\bE\left[\left|g\left(\frac{\ft X(\mathbf{X}_{i})\ft Y(\mathbf{Y}_{i})}{\ft Z(\mathbf{X}_{i},\mathbf{Y}_{i})}\right)-g\left(\frac{\ft X^{'}(\mathbf{X}_{i})\ft Y^{'}(\mathbf{Y}_{i})}{\ft Z^{'}(\mathbf{X}_{i},\mathbf{Y}_{i})}\right)\right|\right.\\
\times\left.\left|g\left(\frac{\ft X(\mathbf{X}_{j})\ft Y(\mathbf{Y}_{j})}{\ft Z(\mathbf{X}_{j},\mathbf{Y}_{j})}\right)-g\left(\frac{\ft X^{'}(\mathbf{X}_{j})\ft Y^{'}(\mathbf{Y}_{j})}{\ft Z^{'}(\mathbf{X}_{j},\mathbf{Y}_{j})}\right)\right|\right] & =O\left(\frac{h_{X}^{2d_{X}}h_{Y}^{2d_{Y}}}{N^{2}}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Since $h_{X}^{d_{X}}h_{Y}^{d_{Y}}=o(1)$, $$\bE\left[\left(\sum_{i=2}^{N}\left|g\left(\frac{\ft X(\mathbf{X}_{i})\ft Y(\mathbf{Y}_{i})}{\ft Z(\mathbf{X}_{i},\mathbf{Y}_{i})}\right)-g\left(\frac{\ft X^{'}(\mathbf{X}_{i})\ft Y^{'}(\mathbf{Y}_{i})}{\ft Z^{'}(\mathbf{X}_{i},\mathbf{Y}_{i})}\right)\right|\right)^{2}\right]=o(1).$$ Combining all of these results with Jensen’s inequality gives $$\begin{aligned}
\bE\left[\left(\W_{N}-\W_{N}^{'}\right)^{2}\right] & \leq\frac{3}{N}\bE\left[\left(g\left(\frac{\ft X(\mathbf{X}_{1})\ft Y(\mathbf{Y}_{1})}{\ft Z(\mathbf{X}_{1},\mathbf{Y}_{1})}\right)-\ez{Z_{1}}\left[g\left(\frac{\ft X(\mathbf{X}_{1})\ft Y(\mathbf{Y}_{1})}{\ft Z(\mathbf{X}_{1},\mathbf{Y}_{1})}\right)\right]\right)^{2}\right]\\
& +\frac{3}{N}\bE\left[\left(g\left(\frac{\ft X(\mathbf{X}_{1}^{'})\ft Y(\mathbf{Y}_{1}^{'})}{\ft Z(\mathbf{X}_{1}^{'},\mathbf{Y}_{1}^{'})}\right)-\ez{Z_{1}^{'}}\left[g\left(\frac{\ft X(\mathbf{X}_{1}^{'})\ft Y(\mathbf{Y}_{1}^{'})}{\ft Z(\mathbf{X}_{1}^{'},\mathbf{Y}_{1}^{'})}\right)\right]\right)^{2}\right]\\
& +\frac{3}{N}\bE\left[\left(\sum_{i=2}^{N}\left(g\left(\frac{\ft X(\mathbf{X}_{i})\ft Y(\mathbf{Y}_{i})}{\ft Z(\mathbf{X}_{i},\mathbf{Y}_{i})}\right)-g\left(\frac{\ft X^{'}(\mathbf{X}_{i})\ft Y^{'}(\mathbf{Y}_{i})}{\ft Z^{'}(\mathbf{X}_{i},\mathbf{Y}_{i})}\right)\right)\right)^{2}\right]\\
& =o\left(\frac{1}{N}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Applying the Efron-Stein inequality gives that $\var\left[\W_{N}\right]=o(1)$. Then by ChebyShev’s inequality, $\W_{N}$ converges to zero in probability. This completes the proof for the plug-in estimator.
For the weighted ensemble estimator, we can write $$\begin{aligned}
\sqrt{N}\left(\g w-\bE\left[\g w\right]\right) & =\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\sum_{l_{X}\in\mathcal{L}_{X},l_{Y}\in\mathcal{L}_{Y}}w(l_{X},l_{Y})\left(g\left(\frac{\ftl X(\mathbf{X}_{i})\ftl Y(\mathbf{Y}_{i})}{\ftl Z(\mathbf{X}_{i},\mathbf{Y}_{i})}\right)\right.\\
& \left.-\ez{Z_{i}}\left[g\left(\frac{\ftl X(\mathbf{X}_{i})\ftl Y(\mathbf{Y}_{i})}{\ftl Z(\mathbf{X}_{i},\mathbf{Y}_{i})}\right)\right]\right)\\
& +\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\left(\ez{Z_{i}}\left[\sum_{l_{X}\in\mathcal{L}_{X},l_{Y}\in\mathcal{L}_{Y}}w(l_{X},l_{Y})g\left(\frac{\ftl X(\mathbf{X}_{i})\ftl Y(\mathbf{Y}_{i})}{\ftl Z(\mathbf{X}_{i},\mathbf{Y}_{i})}\right)\right]\right.\\
& \left.-\bE\left[\sum_{l_{X}\in\mathcal{L}_{X},l_{Y}\in\mathcal{L}_{Y}}w(l_{X},l_{Y})g\left(\frac{\ftl X(\mathbf{X}_{i})\ftl Y(\mathbf{Y}_{i})}{\ftl Z(\mathbf{X}_{i},\mathbf{Y}_{i})}\right)\right]\right).\end{aligned}$$ By the central limit theorem, the second term converges in distribution to a zero-mean Gaussian random variable with variance $$\var\left[\ez{Z_{i}}\left[\sum_{l_{X}\in\mathcal{L}_{X},l_{Y}\in\mathcal{L}_{Y}}w(l_{X},l_{Y})g\left(\frac{\ftl X(\mathbf{X}_{i})\ftl Y(\mathbf{Y}_{i})}{\ftl Z(\mathbf{X}_{i},\mathbf{Y}_{i})}\right)\right]\right].$$ From the previous results, the first term converges to zero in probability as it can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{l_{X}\in\mathcal{L}_{X},l_{Y}\in\mathcal{L}_{Y}}w(l_{X},l_{Y})\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\left(g\left(\frac{\ftl X(\mathbf{X}_{i})\ftl Y(\mathbf{Y}_{i})}{\ftl Z(\mathbf{X}_{i},\mathbf{Y}_{i})}\right)\right.\\
\left.-\ez{Z_{i}}\left[g\left(\frac{\ftl X(\mathbf{X}_{i})\ftl Y(\mathbf{Y}_{i})}{\ftl Z(\mathbf{X}_{i},\mathbf{Y}_{i})}\right)\right]\right) & =\sum_{l_{X}\in\mathcal{L}_{X},l_{Y}\in\mathcal{L}_{Y}}w(l_{X},l_{Y})o_{P}(1)\\
& =o_{P}(1),\end{aligned}$$ where $o_{P}(1)$ denotes convergence to zero in probability and we use the fact that linear combinations of random variables that converge in probability individually to constants converge in probability to the linear combination of the constants. The proof is finished with Slutsky’s theorem.
Note that the proof of Corollary 7 follows a similar procedure as the extension to the ensemble case.
[^1]: [email protected]
[^2]: [email protected]
[^3]: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider the Dirichlet Laplacian with a constant magnetic field in a two-dimensional domain of finite measure. We determine the sharp constants in semi-classical eigenvalue estimates and show, in particular, that Pólya’s conjecture is not true in the presence of a magnetic field.'
address:
- 'Rupert L. Frank, Department of Mathematics, Fine Hall, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA'
- 'Michael Loss, School of Mathematics, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332-0160, USA'
- 'Timo Weidl, Department of Mathematics and Physics, Stuttgart University, Pfaffenwaldring 57, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany'
author:
- 'Rupert L. Frank'
- Michael Loss
- Timo Weidl
title: 'Pólya’s conjecture in the presence of a constant magnetic field'
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
Let $\Omega\subset{\mathbb{R}}^2$ be a domain of finite measure and define the Dirichlet Laplacian $H^\Omega$ in $L_2(\Omega)$ as the Friedrichs extension of $-\Delta$ initially given on $C_0^\infty(\Omega)$. This defines a self-adjoint non-negative operator, and by Rellich’s compactness theorem its spectrum is discrete and accumulates at infinity only. The spectrum of $H^\Omega$ plays an important role in many physical models (such as membrane vibration or quantum mechanics) and its determination is a classical problem in mathematical physics.
Let $(\lambda_n)$ be the non-decreasing sequence of eigenvalues of $H^\Omega=-\Delta$ (taking multiplicities into account) and let $N(\lambda,H^\Omega):=\#\{n:\ \lambda_n<\lambda\}$ denote their counting function.
In 1911 H. Weyl [@W] (see also [@RS Ch. XIII]) showed the asymptotic formula $$\lambda_n=\frac{4\pi n}{|\Omega|}(1+o(1)),\quad n\to\infty.$$ In terms of the counting function this is equivalent to $$\label{eq:weyl}
N(\lambda,H^\Omega)
= \frac1{4\pi}\lambda |\Omega|(1+o(1)),\quad \lambda\to+\infty\,.$$ Integrating the latter formula one finds as well the asymptotic behavior of the eigenvalue means $$\label{eq:bly}
\operatorname{tr}(H^\Omega-\lambda)_-^\gamma :=\sum_{n:\lambda>\lambda_n}
(\lambda-\lambda_n)^\gamma
= L_{\gamma,2}^{{\mathrm{cl}}} \lambda^{\gamma+1} |\Omega| (1+o(1)),
\quad \lambda\to+\infty,$$ where $\gamma\geq 0$ and $$\label{eq:classconst2}
L_{\gamma,2}^{{\mathrm{cl}}} := \left(4\pi(\gamma+1)\right)^{-1}.$$ Note that the expression on the right hand side of equals the classical phase space average $$\label{eq:phspv}
L_{\gamma,2}^{{\mathrm{cl}}} \lambda^{\gamma+1} |\Omega|=
(2\pi)^{-2} \iint_{\Omega\times{\mathbb{R}}^2} (|\xi|^2-\lambda)_-^\gamma \,dxd\xi$$ of the symbol $|\xi|^2$ of the Laplacian.
Pólya [@P] found in 1961 that for [*tiling domains*]{}[^2] $\Omega$ the asymptotic expression is in fact an upper bound on the counting function, namely $$\label{eq:polya}
N(\lambda,H^\Omega) \leq \frac1{4\pi}\lambda |\Omega|,\quad
\lambda\geq 0.$$ By the constant in this bound is optimal. Moreover, Pólya conjectured that this bound should hold true for [ *arbitrary*]{} domains $\Omega$ with the same sharp constant $\frac1{4\pi}$.
The fact that the counting function $N(\lambda,H^\Omega)$ can be estimated by $$\label{eq:liebest}
N(\lambda,H^\Omega) \leq C\lambda |\Omega|,\quad
\lambda\geq 0.$$ with some constant $C$ which does not depend on $\lambda$ or the shape of the domain is due to Rozenblum [@R1], Lieb [@Li2] and Metivier [@M]. Results with sharp constants for *sums* of eigenvalues have been obtained by Berezin and by Li and Yau. Indeed, Berezin [@B] proved that $$\label{eq:br}
\operatorname{tr}(H^\Omega-\lambda)_-^\gamma \leq L_{\gamma,2}^{{\mathrm{cl}}} \lambda^{\gamma+1} |\Omega|
\quad\mbox{for}\quad \gamma\geq 1\,.$$ In view of the Weyl asymptotics the constant in this bound is optimal. This estimate in the case $\gamma=1$ implies after taking the Legendre transform the celebrated result by Li and Yau [@LY] $$\label{eq:ly}
\sum_{j=1}^n \lambda_j \geq \frac{2\pi n^2}{|\Omega|},
\quad n\in \mathbb N\,.$$ Both and give rise to the best known upper bound $C\leq (2\pi)^{-1}$ on the sharp constant $C$ in . However, Pólya’s conjecture, namely that holds for general domains, remains open. In fact, this question is unresolved even in the case where the domain is a disk.
The main goal of this paper is to [*disprove*]{} the analogous conjecture for the Dirichlet Laplacian with a constant magnetic field.
Put $D=-i\nabla$ and let $A$ be a sufficiently regular real vector field on $\Omega$. We consider the operator $(D-A)^2$ on $L_2(\Omega)$ with Dirichlet boundary conditions defined in the quadratic form sense. If $|\Omega|$ has finite measure, the spectrum of $(D-A)^2$ is discrete and as above, we can introduce the ordered sequence of eigenvalues and the corresponding counting function. It is well-known that the asymptotic formulae and remain true in the magnetic case as well. This is in accordance with the fact that the magnetic field leaves the classical phase space average unchanged, $$(2\pi)^{-2} \iint_{\Omega\times{\mathbb{R}}^2} (|\xi-A(x)|^2-\lambda)_-^\gamma \,dxd\xi
= (2\pi)^{-2} \iint_{\Omega\times{\mathbb{R}}^2} (|\xi|^2-\lambda)_-^\gamma \,dxd\xi\,.$$ Therefore, it seems reasonable to discuss Pólya-type bounds in the magnetic case as well. In fact, it turns out that the bound extends to the magnetic case with a suitable constant $C$ which does not depend on $A$, $\Omega$ and $\lambda$, see e.g. [@R2].
There are also results concering magnetic estimates with *sharp* semi-classical constants. As recalled in the appendix, a result by Laptev and Weidl [@LW] implies the bound $$\label{eq:blymag}
\operatorname{tr}((D-A)^2-\lambda)_-^\gamma \leq L_{\gamma,2}^{{\mathrm{cl}}} \lambda^{\gamma+1} |\Omega|$$ for *arbitrary* $A$ and all $\gamma\geq 3/2$. In [@ELV] this result was extended to $\gamma\geq 1$ in the special case of a homogeneous magnetic field, $A(x) = \frac B2 (-x_2,x_1)^T$. The latter two results motivate the question, whether Pólya’s conjecture could be true in the magnetic case.
In this note we shall show that this intuition is wrong and that the Pólya estimate in the magnetic case can be violated even for tiling domains. More precisely, we consider a homogeneous magnetic field, $A(x) = \frac B2 (-x_2,x_1)^T$, and show that for arbitrary domains $\Omega$ of finite measure the bound $$\label{eq:main}
N(\lambda,(D-A)^2) \leq \frac1{2\pi}\lambda |\Omega| = 2 L_{0,2}^{{\mathrm{cl}}} \lambda |\Omega|$$ holds true. We prove that the constant in this bound is optimal and that the numerical factor $2$ on the right hand side cannot be improved - not even in the tiling case. A similar phenomenon occurs for eigenvalue moments of order $\gamma\in(0,1)$.
As a consequence of our result we see, in particular, that any attempt to prove Pólya’s conjecture with a method which extends to constant magnetic fields must fail.
Main results {#sec:main}
============
Let $\Omega\subset{\mathbb{R}}^2$ be a domain of finite measure. For $B>0$ we consider the self-adjoint operator $$H_B^\Omega := (D-BA)^2
\qquad\text{in } L_2(\Omega)$$ with Dirichlet boundary conditions, i.e., closing the form $\|(D-BA)u\|^2$ on $C_0^\infty(\Omega)$. The magnetic vector potential $A$ is always chosen in the form $$A(x) := \frac12 (-x_2,x_1)^T,$$ and we remark that $\operatorname{curl}BA\equiv B$. In other words, we restrict the vector potential for a constant magnetic field from ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ to $\Omega$. [^3]
The operator $H_B^\Omega$ has compact resolvent and we denote by $N(\lambda, H_B^\Omega)$ the number of its eigenvalues less than $\lambda$, counting multiplicities. Our first main result is
\[main1\] Let $\Omega\subset{\mathbb{R}}^2$ be a domain of finite measure. Then for all $B>0$ and $\lambda>0$ $$\label{eq:main1number}
N(\lambda, H_B^\Omega) \leq R_0 L_{0,2}^{{\mathrm{cl}}} |\Omega| \lambda$$ and $$\label{eq:main1moments}
\operatorname{tr}(H_B^\Omega-\lambda)_-^\gamma \leq R_\gamma L_{\gamma,2}^{{\mathrm{cl}}} |\Omega| \lambda^{\gamma+1},
\qquad 0<\gamma<1,$$ where $R_0=2$ and $R_\gamma=2\left(\gamma/(\gamma+1)\right)^\gamma$ for $0<\gamma<1$. One has $R_\gamma>1$ and these constants can not be improved, not even if $\Omega$ is tiling. More precisely, for any $0\leq\gamma<1$, ${\varepsilon}>0$ and $B>0$ there exists a square $\Omega$ and $\lambda>0$ such that $$\label{eq:main1counter}
\operatorname{tr}(H_B^\Omega-\lambda)_-^\gamma \geq (1-{\varepsilon}) R_\gamma L_{\gamma,2}^{{\mathrm{cl}}} |\Omega| \lambda^{\gamma+1}.$$
We emphasize that for linear and superlinear moments one has the semi-classical bound $$\label{eq:elv}
\operatorname{tr}(H_B^\Omega-\lambda)_-^\gamma \leq L_{\gamma,2}^{{\mathrm{cl}}} |\Omega| \lambda^{\gamma+1},
\qquad \gamma\geq 1,$$ *without* an excess factor. The inequality is essentially contained in [@ELV] but will be rederived in Corollary \[elv\] below.
Our second main result concerns tiling domains. We shall show that in this case the inequalities and can be strengthened if one is willing to allow the right hand side depend on $B$. Let us define $$\label{eq:magweyl}
\mathfrak B_\gamma(B,\lambda)
:= (2\pi)^{-1} B \sum_{k\in{\mathbb{N}}_0}
\left(\lambda-B(2k+1)\right)_+^{\gamma}.$$ For $\gamma=0$ this is defined to be left-continuous in $\lambda$, i.e., $0^0_-:=0$.
\[main2\] Let $\Omega\subset{\mathbb{R}}^2$ be a tiling domain of finite measure. Then for all $B>0$ and $\lambda>0$ $$\label{eq:main2number}
N(\lambda, H_B^\Omega) \leq \mathfrak B_0(B,\lambda) |\Omega|$$ and $$\label{eq:main2moments}
\operatorname{tr}(H_B^\Omega-\lambda)_-^\gamma \leq \mathfrak B_\gamma(B,\lambda) |\Omega|,
\qquad 0<\gamma<1,$$ and these estimates can not be improved. More precisely, for any $0\leq\gamma<1$, ${\varepsilon}>0$, $B>0$, $\lambda>0$ there exists a square $\Omega$ such that $$\label{eq:main2counter}
\operatorname{tr}(H_B^\Omega-\lambda)_-^\gamma \geq (1-{\varepsilon}) \mathfrak B_\gamma(B,\lambda) |\Omega|.$$
We emphasize that for $\gamma\geq 1$ one has the bound $$\label{eq:elv2}
\operatorname{tr}(H_B^\Omega-\lambda)_-^\gamma \leq \mathfrak B_\gamma(B,\lambda) |\Omega|,
\qquad \gamma\geq 1,$$ for an *arbitrary* domain $\Omega\subset{\mathbb{R}}^2$ of finite measure. This is again essentially contained in [@ELV]. We give an independent proof in Theorem \[elv2\] below and show also that is stronger than . The question whether and extend to not necessarily tiling domains is left open.
There are estimates intermediate between and with the right hand side depending on $B$ but in a simpler way than in . For example, we mention the estimate $$\label{eq:main1number0}
N(\lambda,H_B^\Omega) \leq \frac1{4\pi}(\lambda+B) |\Omega|$$ for $\Omega$ tiling. Note that this estimate is *stronger* than since $N(\lambda,H_B^\Omega)=0$ for $\lambda\leq B$. In particular, it coincides with the estimate for $B=0$.
There is an essentially equivalent way of stating the estimates and . Namely denoting the eigenvalues of $H_B^\Omega$ by $\lambda_{B,j}^\Omega$ and passing to the limit $\lambda\to \lambda_{B,j}^\Omega+$ in these estimates we find $$\lambda_{B,N}^\Omega \geq 2\pi |\Omega|^{-1} N$$ and, respectively, $$\lambda_{B,N}^\Omega \geq 4\pi |\Omega|^{-1} N - B.$$
For the lower bound we fix $B>0$ and choose $\Omega$ and $\lambda$. Alternatively, one can fix a cube $\Omega$ and choose $B$ and $\lambda$. This follows by a simple scaling argument.
The magnetic density of states
==============================
The magnetic density of states
------------------------------
In this section we shall use a slightly modified notation. When $\Omega=(-L/2,L/2)^2$ we shall denote the operator $H_B^\Omega$ by $H_B^D(L)$. Recall that $\mathfrak B_0(B,\lambda)$ was defined in . Our goal is to prove
\[dos\] Let $B>0$ and $\lambda>0$. Then $$\label{eq:dos}
\lim_{L\to\infty} L^{-2} N(\lambda,H_B^D(L)) = \mathfrak B_0(B,\lambda).$$
Hence $\mathfrak B_0(B,\cdot)$ is the density of states for the Landau Hamiltonian $H_B := (D-BA)^2$ in $L_2({\mathbb{R}}^2)$. This is certainly well-known, but we include the proof for the sake of completeness. This will be done in the remaining part of this section. A different proof may be found in [@N]. Alternatively, one can also use the known result that $$\lim_{L\to\infty} L^{-2} N(\lambda,H_B^D(L)) = \lim_{L\to\infty} L^{-2} \operatorname{tr}(\chi_{Q_L} \chi_{(0,\lambda)}(H_B)).$$ The RHS can be evaluated using the explicit form of the spectral projections of $H_B$, see the proof of Theorem \[elv2\].
Explicit solution on the torus
------------------------------
In this subsection we consider the case of a square, $\Omega=(-L/2,L/2)^2=:Q_L$, and define an operator $H_B^P(L)$ in $L_2(Q_L)$ which differs from $H_B^\Omega$ by the choice of magnetic periodic boundary conditions. However, its spectrum will turn out to be explicitly computable.
To define $H_B^P(L)$ we shall fix $B,L>0$ such that $$\label{eq:flux}
(2\pi)^{-1} L^2 B \in{\mathbb{N}}$$ and introduce the ‘magnetic translations’ $$\begin{aligned}
(T_1u)(x) & := e^{-iBLx_2/2} u(x_1+L,x_2),\\
(T_2u)(x) & := e^{iBLx_1/2} u(x_1,x_2+L).\end{aligned}$$ (The dependence on $B$ and $L$ is not reflected in the notation.) The assumption implies that $T_1$ and $T_2$ commute, and hence any function $u$ on $Q_L$ has a unique extension to a function $\tilde u$ on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ by means of the operators $T_1$, $T_2$. We introduce the Sobolev spaces $$H^k_{per}(Q_L) := \{ u\in H^k(Q_L) :\ \tilde u \in H^k_{loc}({\mathbb{R}}^2) \}.$$ Then the operator $H_B^P(L):=(D-BA)^2$ in $L_2(Q_L)$ with domain $H^2_{per}(Q_L)$ is self-adjoint. It is generated by the quadratic form $\|(D-BA)u\|^2$ with form domain $H^1_{per}(Q_L)$. The spectrum of this operator is described in
\[torus\] Assume . Then the spectrum of $H_B^P(L)$ consists of the eigenvalues $B(2k+1)$, $k\in{\mathbb{N}}_0$, with common multiplicity $(2\pi)^{-1} L^2 B$. In particular, for all $\lambda>0$, $$\label{eq:torus}
N(\lambda, H_B^P(L)) = L^2 \mathfrak B_0(B,\lambda).$$
We recall the proof from [@CV].
Consider the closed operator $Q:=(D_1-BA_1)+i(D_2-BA_2)$ with domain $H^1_{per}(Q_L)$. Its adjoint is given by $Q^*:=(D_1-BA_1)-i(D_2-BA_2)$ with domain $H^1_{per}(Q_L)$ and one has $$\|(D-BA)u\|^2 = \|Qu\|^2 + B \|u\|^2 = \|Q^*u\|^2 - B \|u\|^2,
\qquad u\in H^1_{per}(Q_L).$$ Hence $H_B^P(L)=Q^*Q+B$ and $Q Q^* - Q^* Q = 2B$. By standard arguments using these commutation relations one computes the spectrum of $H_B^P(L)$ to consist of the eigenvalues $B(2k+1)$, $k\in{\mathbb{N}}_0$, with a common multiplicity, say $m$. To determine $m$ we note that $$N(\lambda, H_B^P(L))=m\#\{k\in{\mathbb{N}}_0 :\ B(2k+1)<\lambda\}\sim
m\lambda/2B\quad\mbox{as}\quad \lambda\to\infty\,.$$ On the other hand, the Weyl-type asymptotics on the counting function holds true for the Dirichlet and the Neumann boundary conditions, and hence also for the periodic operator, $$N(\lambda, H_B^P(L)) \sim \lambda L^2/4\pi\,\quad\mbox{as}\quad
\lambda\to\infty\,.$$ Comparing the two asymptotics above one finds that $m=L^2 B/2\pi$. [^4]
Boundary conditions
-------------------
In this subsection we shall quantify the intuition that a change of the boundary conditions of a differential operator has only a relatively small effect on the overall eigenvalue distribution. We shall denote by $H_B^N(L)$ the operator $(D-BA)^2$ with (magnetic) Neumann boundary conditions in $\Omega=Q_L=(-L/2,L/2)^2$, that is the operator generated by the quadratic form $\|(D-BA)u\|^2$ with form domain $H^1(Q_L)$. We denote by $\|K\|_1 = \operatorname{tr}(K^*K)^{1/2}$ the trace norm of a trace class operator $K$.
A special case of a result by Nakamura [@N] (who also allows for a variable magnetic field and an electric potential) is
\[nakamura\] Let $m\in{\mathbb{N}}$ and $B>0$. Then there exists a constant $C_m(B)>0$ such that for all $L\geq 1$ $$\label{eq:nakamura}
\| (H^D_B(L)+I)^{-2m-1}-(H^N_B(L)+I)^{-2m-1} \|_1 \leq C_m(B) L.$$
Proof of Proposition \[dos\]
----------------------------
Throughout the proof, $B$ will be fixed and, for the sake of simplicity, dropped from the notation. First note that since $$N(\lambda,H^D(L')) \leq N(\lambda,H^D(L)) \leq N(\lambda,H^D(L''))$$ for $L'\leq L\leq L''$ it suffices to prove Proposition \[dos\] only for $L\to\infty$ with the flux constraint , which we shall assume henceforth. One has $H^D(L)\geq H^P(L)$ and hence by the variational principle $$N(\lambda,H^D(L))\leq N(\lambda,H^P(L)).$$ In view of Proposition \[torus\] this proves the upper bound in .
To prove the lower bound we write $$N(\lambda,H^D(L)) = n((\lambda+1)^{-3}, (H^D(L)+I)^{-3})$$ where $n(\kappa,K)$ denotes the number of singular values larger than $\kappa$ of a compact operator $K$. Now by the Ky-Fan inequality [@BS Ch. 11 Sec. 1] for any ${\varepsilon}>0$ $$\begin{aligned}
& n((\lambda+1)^{-3}, (H^D(L)+I)^{-3}) \\
& \qquad \geq n((1+{\varepsilon})(\lambda+1)^{-3}, (H^N(L)+I)^{-3}) \\
& \qquad \qquad - n({\varepsilon}(\lambda+1)^{-3}, (H^N(L)+I)^{-3}-(H^D(L)+I)^{-3}).\end{aligned}$$ We treat the two terms on the RHS separately. The second one can be estimated using Proposition \[nakamura\] as follows, $$\begin{aligned}
& n({\varepsilon}(\lambda+1)^{-3}, (H^N(L)+I)^{-3}-(H^D(L)+I)^{-3}) \\
& \qquad \leq n({\varepsilon}(\lambda+1)^{-3}, (H^N(L)+I)^{-3}-(H^D(L)+I)^{-3}) \\
& \qquad \leq {\varepsilon}^{-1}(\lambda+1)^3 \| (H^N(L)+I)^{-3}-(H^D(L)+I)^{-3} \|_1 \\
& \qquad \leq {\varepsilon}^{-1}(\lambda+1)^3 C_3(B) L.\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, writing $\lambda_{\varepsilon}:= (1+{\varepsilon})^{-1/3}(\lambda+1) - 1$ and applying Proposition \[torus\] one finds that for $L^2\in 2\pi B^{-1}{\mathbb{N}}$ $$\begin{aligned}
n((1+{\varepsilon})(\lambda+1)^{-3}, (H^N(L)+I)^{-3})
& = N( \lambda_{\varepsilon}, H^N(L)) \\
& \geq N( \lambda_{\varepsilon}, H^P(L))
= L^2 \mathfrak B_0(B, \lambda_{\varepsilon}).\end{aligned}$$ Noting that $\lambda_{\varepsilon}<\lambda$ and that $\mathfrak B_0(B,\lambda)$ is left-continuous in $\lambda$ we see that for all sufficiently small ${\varepsilon}>0$ one has $$\mathfrak B_0(B, \lambda_{\varepsilon}) = \mathfrak B_0(B,\lambda).$$ Collecting all the estimates we find that as $L\to\infty$ with $L^2\in 2\pi B^{-1}{\mathbb{N}}$ $$\liminf L^{-2} N(\lambda,H^D(L))
\geq \mathfrak B_0(B,\lambda).$$ This proves the lower bound in .
Proof of the main results {#sec:proofs}
=========================
Non-convex moments for tiling domains {#sec:polya}
-------------------------------------
This subsection is devoted to the proof of Theorem \[main2\]. We assume that $\Omega$ is tiling, so we can write $${\mathbb{R}}^2 = \bigcup_{n\in{\mathbb{Z}}^2} \Omega_n
\qquad\text{up to measure }\, 0$$ where $\Omega_0=\Omega$ and all the $\Omega_n$ are disjoint and congruent to $\Omega$. For $L>0$ let $Q_L=(-L/2,L/2)^2$ and $$J_L:=\{n\in{\mathbb{Z}}^2 :\ \Omega_n\subset Q_L \},
\qquad \Omega^L := \operatorname{int}\left(\operatorname{clos}\bigcup_{n\in J_L} \Omega_n \right).$$ We note that $$\label{eq:growth}
\lim_{L\to\infty} L^{-2} \# J_L = |\Omega|^{-1}.$$ Moreover, one has the operator inequalities $$H_B^{Q_L} \leq H_B^{\Omega^L} \leq \sum_{n\in J_L} \oplus H_B^{\Omega_n}.$$ (The first inequality is, of course, understood in terms of the natural embedding $L_2(\Omega^L)\subset L_2(Q_L)$ by extension by zero.) Noting that all the $H_B^{\Omega_n}$ are unitarily equivalent we obtain from the variational principle that $$N(\lambda,H_B^\Omega) \leq (\# J_L)^{-1} N(\lambda,H_B^{Q_L}).$$ The bound follows now from and Proposition \[dos\] by letting $L$ tend to infinity. This implies also the sharpness of . Indeed, by Proposition \[dos\] for any ${\varepsilon}>0$, $B>0$ and $\lambda>0$ there exists a cube $\Omega$ satisfying for $\gamma=0$.
To prove we write, in the spirit of [@AL], $$\label{eq:liftinggamma}
\operatorname{tr}(H_B^\Omega-\lambda)_-^\gamma = \gamma \int_0^\infty N(\lambda-\mu,H_B^\Omega) \mu^{\gamma-1}\,d\mu$$ and $$\label{eq:liftinggammab}
\mathfrak B_\gamma(B,\lambda) = \gamma \int_0^\infty \mathfrak B_0(B,\lambda-\mu) \mu^{\gamma-1} \,d\mu.$$ Hence follows from . Moreover, Proposition \[dos\], the formulae , and an easy approximation argument based on imply that $$\lim L^{-2} \operatorname{tr}(H_B^D(L)-\lambda)_-^\gamma = \mathfrak B_\gamma(B,\lambda).$$ As before, this proves the sharpness of the estimate and concludes the proof of Theorem \[main2\].
Convex moments for arbitary domains {#sec:elv}
-----------------------------------
From now on we shall consider arbitrary, not necessarily tiling domains $\Omega$. Our goal is to prove
\[elv2\] Let $\Omega\subset{\mathbb{R}}^2$ be a domain of finite measure and let $\gamma\geq 1$. Then for all $B>0$ and $\lambda>0$, $$\label{eq:elv2proof}
\operatorname{tr}(H_B^\Omega-\lambda)_-^\gamma \leq \mathfrak B_\gamma(B,\lambda) |\Omega|.$$
As we will explain after Corollary \[elv\] this improves slightly the main result of [@ELV].
In the case $\Omega={\mathbb{R}}^2$ we write $H_B$ instead of $H_B^\Omega$. By the variational principle and the Berezin-Lieb inequality (see [@B2], [@Li1] and also [@LaS], [@La]), one has for any non-negative, convex function ${\varphi}$ vanishing at infinity that $$\operatorname{tr}{\varphi}(H_B^\Omega) \leq \operatorname{tr}\chi_\Omega{\varphi}(H_B).$$ Now, if $P_B^{(k)}$ denotes the spectral projection of $H_B$ corresponding to the $k$-th Landau level, $${\varphi}(H_B) = \sum_{k\in{\mathbb{N}}_0} {\varphi}(B(2k+1)) P_B^{(k)}.$$ To evaluate the above trace we recall that the integral kernel of $P_B^{(k)}$ is constant on the diagonal (this follows from the translation invariance of the Landau Hamiltonian) and has the value $$P_B^{(k)}(x,x)= \frac B{2\pi}.$$ (This is easily seen by diagonalizing $H_B$ with the help of a harmonic oscillator, see also [@F].) It follows that $\operatorname{tr}\chi_\Omega P_B^{(k)} = B |\Omega| / 2\pi$. [^5] This proves that $$\operatorname{tr}{\varphi}(H_B^\Omega) \leq \frac{B |\Omega|} {2\pi} \sum_{k\in{\mathbb{N}}_0} {\varphi}(B(2k+1)).$$ Specializing to the case ${\varphi}(\mu)=(\mu-\lambda)_-^\gamma$, $\gamma\geq 1$, one obtains the estimate .
Diamagnetic inequalities for the semi-classical symbol {#sec:convex}
------------------------------------------------------
This subsection illustrates on a semi-classical level the effects that appear when passing from the ‘magnetic symbol’ $\mathfrak B_\gamma(B,\lambda)$ appearing in Theorem \[main2\] to the ‘non-magnetic symbol’ $L_{\gamma,2}^{{\mathrm{cl}}} \lambda^{\gamma+1}$ appearing in Theorem \[main1\]. The convex case $\gamma\geq 1$ appears to be different from the non-convex case $0<\gamma<1$. We shall prove
\[convex\] Let $\gamma\geq 0$ and $B>0$. Then $$\sup_{\lambda>0}
\frac{\mathfrak B_\gamma(B,\lambda)}{L_{\gamma,2}^{{\mathrm{cl}}}
\lambda^{\gamma+1}}
= \left\{
\begin{array}{l@{\qquad\text{if}\;\;}l}
2 & \gamma=0, \\
2\left(\frac\gamma{\gamma+1}\right)^\gamma & 0<\gamma<1, \\
1 & \gamma>1.
\end{array}
\right.$$ Moreover, for $0<\gamma<1$ the supremum is attained for $\lambda =
B(\gamma+1)$ and for $\gamma=0$ the supremum is attained in the limit $\lambda\to B+$.
We shall need the elementary
\[goingdown\] Let $\sigma>\gamma\geq 0$ and $\mu>\lambda$. Then for all $E\geq 0$ $$(E-\lambda)_-^\gamma \leq C(\gamma,\sigma) (\mu-\lambda)^{-\sigma+\gamma} (E-\mu)_-^\sigma$$ with $C(0,\sigma):= 1$ if $\gamma=0$ and $C(\gamma,\sigma):= \sigma^{-\sigma}\gamma^\gamma (\sigma-\gamma)^{\sigma-\gamma}$ if $\sigma>\gamma >0$.
For the proof of Lemma \[goingdown\] one just has to maximize $(\lambda-E)^\gamma (\mu-\lambda)^{\sigma-\gamma}$ as function of $\lambda$ on the interval $(E,\mu)$.
By scaling, we may assume $B=1$. First let $\gamma\geq 1$ and note that the function ${\varphi}(\mu):=(\lambda-\mu)_+^\gamma$ is convex. Then by the mean value property of convex functions $${\varphi}(2k+1) \leq \frac1{2} \int_{2k}^{2k+2} {\varphi}(\mu)\,d\mu.$$ Summing over $k\in{\mathbb{N}}_0$ yields the assertion in the case $\gamma\geq 1$.
Now let $0\leq\gamma<1$. Lemma \[goingdown\] with $\sigma=1$ together with the inequality that we have already proved implies that for any $\mu>\lambda$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mathfrak B_\gamma(1,\lambda)
& \leq C(\gamma,1) (\mu-\lambda)^{-1+\gamma} \mathfrak B_1(1,\mu) \\
& \leq C(\gamma,1) L_{1,2}^{{\mathrm{cl}}} (\mu-\lambda)^{-1+\gamma} \mu^2\end{aligned}$$ Applying the lemma again, i.e. optimizing in $\mu$, yields the estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{tr}(H_B^\Omega-\lambda)_-^\gamma \leq R_\gamma L_{\gamma,2}^{{\mathrm{cl}}} |\Omega| \lambda^2\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:rgamma}
R_{\gamma}
= \frac{C(\gamma,1)}{C(\gamma+1,2)} \frac{L_{1,2}^{{\mathrm{cl}}}}{L_{\gamma,2}^{{\mathrm{cl}}}}
= 2 \left(\frac\gamma{\gamma+1}\right)^\gamma.\end{aligned}$$ This proves the claimed upper bound on the supremum in the proposition. Choosing $\lambda$ as stated shows that this upper bound is sharp.
Combining Theorem \[elv\] with Proposition \[convex\] we obtain
\[elv\] Let $\Omega\subset{\mathbb{R}}^2$ be a domain of finite measure and let $\gamma\geq 1$. Then for all $B>0$ and $\lambda>0$, $$\label{eq:elvproof}
\operatorname{tr}(H_B^\Omega-\lambda)_-^\gamma \leq L_{\gamma,2}^{{\mathrm{cl}}} |\Omega| \lambda^{\gamma+1}.$$
Using an idea from [@LW2] we now show that implies the inequality $$\label{eq:elvevs}
\sum_{j=1}^N \lambda_j(H_B^\Omega) \geq 2\pi |\Omega|^{-1} N^2$$ from [@ELV] for the eigenvalues $\lambda_j(H_B^\Omega)$ of $H_B^\Omega$. For this, we recall the definition of the Legendre transform of a function $f:{\mathbb{R}}_+\to{\mathbb{R}}$, $$\tilde f(p) := \sup_{\lambda>0} (p\lambda -f(\lambda),$$ and note that the inequality $f\leq g$ for *convex* functions $f$, $g$ is equivalent to the reverse inequality $\tilde f\geq\tilde
g$ for their Legendre transforms. Hence an easy calculation shows that with $\gamma=1$ is equivalent to the inequality $$(p-[p]) \lambda_{[p]+1}(H_B^\Omega) + \sum_{j=1}^{[p]} \lambda_j(H_B^\Omega)
\geq (4 L_{1,2}^{{\mathrm{cl}}} |\Omega|)^{-1} p^2,
\qquad p\geq 0,$$ where $[p]$ denotes the integer part of $p$. Choosing $p=N$ one obtains .
In passing we note that by the same argument the inquality (which is stronger than ) is in the case $\gamma=1$ equivalent to the inequality $$(p-[p]) \lambda_{[p]+1}(H_B^\Omega) + \sum_{j=1}^{[p]} \lambda_j(H_B^\Omega)
\geq \frac {B^2}{2\pi}
\left( (\tilde p -[\tilde p]) (2[\tilde p]+1) + [\tilde p]^2 \right),
\qquad p\geq 0,$$ where we have set $\tilde p = 2\pi p/(B|\Omega|)$. Estimating the RHS from below by $B^2\tilde p^2 /(2\pi)$ one obtains again .
Non-convex moments for arbitrary domains
----------------------------------------
In this subsection we shall prove Theorem \[main1\]. We deduce the inequalities and from Corollary \[elv\] in the case $\gamma=1$. The proof is analogous to that of Proposition \[convex\]. Indeed, Lemma \[goingdown\] and imply that for any $0\leq\gamma<1$ and for any $\mu>\lambda$, $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{tr}(H_B^\Omega-\lambda)_-^\gamma
& \leq C(\gamma,1) (\mu-\lambda)^{-1+\gamma} \operatorname{tr}(H_B^\Omega-\mu)_- \\
& \leq C(\gamma,1) L_{1,2}^{{\mathrm{cl}}} |\Omega| (\mu-\lambda)^{-1+\gamma} \mu^2.\end{aligned}$$ Applying the lemma again, i.e. optimizing in $\mu$, yields the estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{tr}(H_B^\Omega-\lambda)_-^\gamma \leq R_\gamma L_{\gamma,2}^{{\mathrm{cl}}} |\Omega| \lambda^2\end{aligned}$$ with $R_\gamma$ as in . This proves and .
To prove sharpness of these bounds we note that if $0<\gamma<1$ and $\lambda_\gamma= \gamma+1$ then $$\mathfrak B_\gamma(B,B\lambda_\gamma) = R_\gamma L_{\gamma,2}^{{\mathrm{cl}}} (B\lambda_\gamma)^{\gamma+1}.$$ Similarly, if $\gamma=0$ one has $$\lim_{\lambda\to 1+}\mathfrak B_0(B,B\lambda) = 2 L_{0,2}^{{\mathrm{cl}}} B.$$ Hence implies that for any ${\varepsilon}>0$, $0\leq\gamma<1$ and $B>0$ there exists a cube $\Omega$ satisfying with $\lambda= B\lambda_\gamma$. This concludes the proof of Theorem \[main1\].
Additional remarks
==================
The three-dimensional case
--------------------------
The our proof of semi-classical inequalities for the two-dimensional Dirichlet problem with constant magnetic field is based on two observations. Firstly, it seems to be appropriate to estimate eigenvalue sums $\operatorname{tr}(H_B^\Omega-\lambda)_-^\gamma$ in terms of the respective average of the [ *magnetic*]{} symbol $\mathfrak B_\gamma(B,\lambda)$. Indeed, the bound $$\operatorname{tr}(H_B^\Omega-\lambda)_-^\gamma\leq \mathfrak
B_\gamma(B,\lambda)|\Omega|\,,$$ which holds true for arbitrary $\Omega$ for $\gamma\geq 1$ and for tiling domains for $\gamma\geq 0$, is sharp, since the ratio $$\frac{\operatorname{tr}(H_B^\Omega-\lambda)_-^\gamma}{\mathfrak B_\gamma(B,\lambda)|\Omega|}$$ can be made arbitrary close to $1$ by a suitable choice of (large) $\Omega$.
Secondly, the average of the [*magnetic*]{} symbol satisfies a sharp estimate by the standard non-magnetic phase space average from above $$\mathfrak B_\gamma(B,\lambda)\leq
L_{\gamma,2}^{{\mathrm{cl}}}\lambda^{\gamma+1}\,.$$ for $\gamma\geq 1$ only. For $\gamma<1$ this leads in conjunction with the asymptotic argument to the counterexamples stated above.
As we shall see in this subsection, in the *three-dimensional case* the asymptotic behavior of eigenvalue moments is still governed by the average of a suitable magnetic symbol. However, this average will not exceed the corresponding classical phase space average for all $\gamma\geq 1/2$. Therefore our approach produces counterexamples to inequalities with semi-classical constants only for $0\leq\gamma<1/2$. We shall discuss this below in more detail.
Let $\Omega\subset{\mathbb{R}}^3$ be a domain of finite measure and consider for $B>0$ the self-adjoint operator $$H_B^\Omega := (D-BA)^2
\qquad\text{in } L_2(\Omega)$$ with Dirichlet boundary conditions where now $$A(x) := \frac12 (-x_2,x_1,0)^T.$$ In the three-dimensional case the magnetic symbol is define as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathfrak B_\gamma^{(3)}(B,\lambda)
& := (2\pi)^{-1} \int_{\mathbb{R}}\mathfrak B_\gamma(B,\lambda-|\xi|^2)\,d\xi \\
& = \frac{\Gamma(\gamma+1)}{\Gamma(\gamma+3/2)} \frac{B}{4\pi^{3/2}}
\sum_{k\in{\mathbb{N}}_0} \left(\lambda-B(2k+1)\right)_+^{\gamma+1/2}.\end{aligned}$$ Similarly as in Subsection \[sec:elv\] one proves that $$\label{eq:elv3d}
\operatorname{tr}(H_B^\Omega-\lambda)_-^\gamma \leq \mathfrak B_\gamma^{(3)}(B,\lambda) |\Omega|,
\qquad \gamma\geq 1.$$ Put $$L_{\gamma,3}^{\mathrm{cl}}:= (2\pi)^{-3} \int_{\{|\xi|<1\}} (1-|\xi|^2)^{\gamma}\,d\xi
= \frac1{8\pi^{3/2}} \frac{\Gamma(\gamma+1)}{\Gamma(\gamma+5/2)}$$ By the same argument as in Proposition \[convex\] one has $$\label{eq:convex3d}
B_\gamma^{(3)}(B,\lambda) \leq L_{\gamma,3}^{\mathrm{cl}}\lambda^{\gamma+3/2},
\qquad \gamma\geq 1/2,$$ and hence $$\operatorname{tr}(H_B^\Omega-\lambda)_-^\gamma \leq L_{\gamma,3}^{\mathrm{cl}}\lambda^{\gamma+3/2} |\Omega|,
\qquad \gamma\geq 1.$$
Again the quantity $\mathfrak B_0^{(3)}(B,\lambda)$ arises as the density of states. More precisely, if $Q_L :=(-L/2,L/2)^3$ then a three-dimensional version of Proposition \[nakamura\] allows to prove that $$\label{eq:dos3d}
\lim_{L\to\infty} L^{-3} N(\lambda, H_B^{Q_L}) = \mathfrak B_0^{(3)}(B,\lambda).$$ This implies as in the two-dimensional case
\[main23d\] Let $\Omega\subset{\mathbb{R}}^3$ be a tiling domain of finite measure. Then for all $B>0$ and $\lambda>0$ $$\label{eq:main23dnumber}
N(\lambda, H_B^\Omega) \leq \mathfrak B_0^{(3)}(B,\lambda) |\Omega|$$ and $$\label{eq:main23dmoments}
\operatorname{tr}(H_B^\Omega-\lambda)_-^\gamma \leq \mathfrak B_\gamma^{(3)}(B,\lambda) |\Omega|,
\qquad 0<\gamma<1,$$ and these estimates cannot be improved. More precisely, for any $0\leq\gamma<1$, ${\varepsilon}>0$, $B>0$, $\lambda>0$ there exists a cube $\Omega$ such that $$\label{eq:main23dcounter}
\operatorname{tr}(H_B^\Omega-\lambda)_-^\gamma \geq (1-{\varepsilon}) \mathfrak B_\gamma^{(3)}(B,\lambda) |\Omega|.$$
The estimates , and Proposition \[convex\] imply that for tiling domains $\Omega$ and for $0\leq\gamma<1/2$, $$\label{eq:main13dmoments}
\operatorname{tr}(H_B^\Omega-\lambda)_-^\gamma \leq R_{\gamma+1/2} L_{\gamma,3}^{\mathrm{cl}}\lambda^{\gamma+3/2}$$ with $R_\gamma$ as in Theorem \[main1\]. Moreover, the asymptotics imply that this constant can not be replaced by a smaller one. However, in contrast to the two-dimensional case we do not know whether the constant in this estimate has to be further increased if non-tiling domains are considered.
On the other hand, and imply that for tiling domains $\Omega$ and for $\gamma\geq 1/2$, $$\label{eq:main13dhighmoments}
\operatorname{tr}(H_B^\Omega-\lambda)_-^\gamma \leq L_{\gamma,3}^{\mathrm{cl}}\lambda^{\gamma+3/2}.$$ We do not know whether the constant in this estimate has to be increased if $1/2\leq\gamma<1$ and if non-tiling domains are considered.
The method of Appendix \[app:blymagnonsharp\] allows to deduce from (probably non-sharp) estimates on $\operatorname{tr}(H_B^\Omega-\lambda)_-^\gamma$ for $0\leq\gamma<1$ and arbitrary $\Omega$. We omit the details.
Another remark concerns domains with product structure.
\[product\] Let $\omega\subset{\mathbb{R}}^2$ be a domain of finite measure, $I\subset{\mathbb{R}}$ a bounded open interval and $\Omega:=\omega\times I$, and let $\gamma\geq1/2$. Then for all $B>0$ and $\lambda>0$, $$\label{eq:product}
\operatorname{tr}(H_B^\Omega-\lambda)_-^\gamma \leq \mathfrak B_\gamma^{(3)}(B,\lambda) |\Omega|.$$
It follows from that for domains of this form and for $\gamma\geq 1/2$ one has also .
We follow Laptev’s lifting idea [@La]. By separation of variables we can write $$\operatorname{tr}(H_B^\Omega-\lambda)_-^\gamma
= \sum_{n\in{\mathbb{N}}} \operatorname{tr}\left(H_B^\omega + \left(\frac{\pi n}{|I|}\right)^2-\Lambda\right)_-^\gamma.$$ Pólya’s estimate on an interval states that $$\sum_{n\in{\mathbb{N}}} \left(\left(\frac{\pi n}{|I|}\right)^2-E \right)_-^\gamma
\leq L_{\gamma,1}^{\mathrm{cl}}|I| E^{\gamma+1/2}$$ where $$L_{\gamma,1}^{\mathrm{cl}}:= \frac1{2\sqrt\pi} \frac{\Gamma(\gamma+1)}{\Gamma(\gamma+3/2)}.$$ Hence $$\operatorname{tr}(H_B^\Omega-\lambda)_-^\gamma
\leq L_{\gamma,1}^{\mathrm{cl}}|I| \operatorname{tr}(H_B^\omega-\lambda)_-^{\gamma+1/2}.$$ Applying Theorem \[eq:elv2proof\] and noting that $$L_{\gamma,1}^{\mathrm{cl}}\mathfrak B_{\gamma+1/2}(B,\lambda) = \mathfrak B_\gamma^{(3)}(B,\lambda)$$ completes the proof.
The role of the integrated density of states
--------------------------------------------
Our reasoning in Subsection \[sec:polya\] has shown that the important idea in Pólya’s proof is not the high energy limit, but the large domain limit. (In the non-magnetic case these two limits are equivalent by scaling.) The large domain limit corresponds to the passage to the density of states.
More generally, one can prove the following. For the sake of simplicity we return to the two-dimensional case. Assume that $\Omega\subset{\mathbb{R}}^2$ is a tiling domain and write $${\mathbb{R}}^2 = \bigcup_{n\in{\mathbb{Z}}^2} \Omega_n
\qquad\text{up to measure }\, 0.$$ Here $\Omega_0=\Omega$ and all the $\Omega_n$ are disjoint with $\Omega_n = G_n\Omega$ for $G_n$ a composition of a translation and a rotation. Let $V$ and $A$ be a sufficiently regular real-valued function, respectively vectorfield on $\Omega$ and consider the self-adjoint operator $H^\Omega := (D-A)^2+V$ with Dirichlet boundary conditions in $L_2(\Omega)$.
We extend $V$ and $A$ to the whole plane in such a way that $V(x)=V(G_n^{-1}x)$ and $\operatorname{curl}A(x) = \operatorname{curl}A(G_n^{-1}x)$ for $x\in\Omega_n$. This allows to define a self-adjoint operator $H :=(D-A)^2+V$ in $L_2({\mathbb{R}}^2)$. Our main assumption is that this operator possesses an integrated density of states at a certain $\lambda\in{\mathbb{R}}$, i.e., there exists a number $n(\lambda)\geq 0$ such that $$\label{eq:exids}
\lim_{L\to\infty} L^{-2} N(\lambda, H^{Q_L}) = n(\lambda).$$ Here as before, $Q_L=(-L/2,L/2)$. Under this assumption one has for this given value of $\lambda$ the Pólya estimate $$N(\lambda, H^\Omega) \leq n(\lambda) |\Omega|.$$ This is proved in the same way as Theorem \[main2\].
A special case is when the $G_n$ are translations. If the flux of $\operatorname{curl}A$ through $\Omega$ vanishes, then $A$ can be chosen periodic and one can apply Floquet theory. In this case it is well-known that the limit exists for any $\lambda$ and defines a non-negative, increasing and left-continuous function $n$ on ${\mathbb{R}}$. A more general case is that of $G_n$’s which correspond to almost-periodic tilings. The existence of the limit in the almost-periodic case under broad conditions on the coefficients has been proved, e.g., in [@S].
The case of an arbitrary magnetic field {#app:blymagnonsharp}
=======================================
In this section we consider an *arbitrary* magnetic field $A\in
L_{2,\mbox{loc}}(\overline{\Omega})$ with $\Omega\subset{\mathbb{R}}^d$ in any dimension $d\geq 2$ and define $H_\Omega(A)=(D-A)^2$ on $\Omega$ with Dirichlet boundary conditions. We shall prove the estimate $$\label{eq:blymagnonsharpd}
\operatorname{tr}(H_\Omega(A)-\lambda)_-^\gamma
\leq \rho_{\gamma,d} L_{\gamma,d}^{{\mathrm{cl}}} \lambda^{\gamma+d/2} |\Omega|,
\qquad 0\leq \gamma<3/2.$$ Here $$\rho_{\gamma,d} :=
\frac{\Gamma(5/2)\, \Gamma(\gamma+d/2+1)}{\Gamma((5+d)/2)\, \Gamma(\gamma+1)}
3^{-3/2} (3+d)^{(3+d)/2} (2\gamma)^\gamma (2\gamma+d)^{-\gamma-d/2}$$ and $$L_{\gamma,d}^{{\mathrm{cl}}}
=\frac{\Gamma(\gamma+1)}{2^d\pi^{d/2}\Gamma(\gamma+\frac{d}{2}+1)}\,.$$ Note that for $d=2$ the constant $\rho_{\gamma,d}$ equals $$\rho_{\gamma,2} := (5/3)^{3/2} (\gamma/(\gamma+1))^\gamma,$$ and it follows from our main result that this is off at most by a factor $(5/3)^{3/2}/2\approx 1.0758\,.$
To prove we recall the sharp Lieb-Thirring bound on the negative spectrum of a magnetic Schrödinger operator $H_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}(A,V)=(D-A)^2-V$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^d$ from [@LW], $$\operatorname{tr}(H_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}(A,V))_-^{3/2}
\leq L_{3/2,d}^{{\mathrm{cl}}} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d} V(x)^{(3+d)/2}_+\,dx\,.$$ Here we extend the given magnetic vector potential $A$ on $\overline\Omega$ by $0$ to ${\mathbb{R}}^d$. Since the negative eigenvalues of $H_\Omega(A)-\mu$ are not below those of $H_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}(A,V)$ with $V(x):=\mu$ for $x\in\Omega$ and $V(x):=0$ for $x\in{\mathbb{R}}\setminus\Omega$, we find $$\operatorname{tr}(H_{\Omega}(A)-\mu)_-^{3/2}
\leq \operatorname{tr}(H_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}(A,V))_-^{3/2}
\leq L_{3/2,d}^{{\mathrm{cl}}}|\Omega|\mu^{(3+d)/2}\,.$$ Lemma \[goingdown\] with $\sigma=3/2$ shows now that for $0\leq\gamma<3/2$ $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{tr}(H_{\Omega}(A)-\lambda)_-^\gamma
& \leq C(\gamma,3/2) (\mu-\lambda)^{-3/2+\gamma} \operatorname{tr}(H_{\Omega}(A)-\mu)_-^{3/2} \\
& \leq C(\gamma,3/2) L_{3/2,d}^{{\mathrm{cl}}} |\Omega| (\mu-\lambda)^{-3/2+\gamma} \mu^{(3+d)/2}\end{aligned}$$ for any $\mu>\lambda$. Again by this lemma, i.e., optimizing in $\mu$, we get with excess factor $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{\gamma,d}
& = \frac{L_{3/2,d}^{{\mathrm{cl}}}}{L_{\gamma,d}^{{\mathrm{cl}}}}
\frac{C(\gamma,3/2)}{C(3/2-\gamma,(3+d)/2)}
= \frac{L_{3/2,d}^{{\mathrm{cl}}}}{L_{\gamma,d}^{{\mathrm{cl}}}}
\frac{(3+d)^{(3+d)/2}}{3^{3/2}} \frac{(2\gamma)^\gamma}{(2\gamma+d)^{\gamma+d/2}}.\end{aligned}$$ Recalling the definition of $L_{\gamma,d}^{{\mathrm{cl}}}$ we obtain the claimed statement.
Besides the case of a homogeneous magnetic field also the case of a $\delta$-like magnetic field (Aharonov-Bohm field) has received particular attention. In [@FH] the above value of the excess factor $\rho_{\gamma,2}$ could be slightly improved for this case, but it is still unknown whether or not this factor can be chosen one for $0\leq\gamma<3/2$.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
---------------
This work had its gestation at the workshop ‘Low eigenvalues of Laplace and Schrödinger operators’ which was held at AIM in May 2006. The support of AIM is gratefully acknowledged. This work has been partially supported by DAAD grant D/06/49117 (R. F.), NSF grant DMS 0600037 (M. L.) and DFG grant WE-1964/2-1 (T. W.), as well as by the DAAD-STINT PPP program (R. F. and T. W.).
[ELV]{}
M. Aizenman, E. Lieb, *On semiclassical bounds for eigenvalues of Schrödinger operators*. Phys. Lett. A **66** (1978), no. 6, 427–429. F.A. Berezin, *Covariant and contravariant symbols of operators* \[Russian\]. Math. USSR Izv. [**6**]{} (1972), 1117–1151. F. A. Berezin, *Convex functions of operators* \[Russian\]. Mat. Sb. **88** (1972), 268–276. M.S. Birman, M.Z. Solomjak, *Spectral Theory of Self-Adjoint Operators in Hilbert Space*. D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dortrecht, Holland (1987) Y. Colin de Verdiere, *L’asymptotique de Weyl pour les bouteilles magnetiques* \[French\]. Comm. Math. Phys. **105** (1986), 327–335. L. Erdös, M. Loss, V. Vugalter, *Diamagnetic behavior of sums of Dirichlet eigenvalues*. [ *Ann. Inst. Fourier*]{} [**50**]{} (2000), 891–907. V. Fock, *Bemerkung zur Quantelung des harmonischen Oszillators im Magnetfeld* \[German\]. Z. Physik **47** (1928), 446–448. R. L. Frank, A. M. Hansson, *Eigenvalue estimates for the Aharonov-Bohm operator in a domain*. Submitted. A. Laptev, *Dirichlet and Neumann eigenvalue problems on domains in Euclidean spaces*. J. Funct. Anal. **151** (1997), no. 2, 531–545. A. Laptev, Yu. Safarov, *A generalization of the Berezin-Lieb inequality*. Amer. Math. Soc. Transl. (2) **175** (1996), 69–79. A. Laptev, T. Weidl, *Sharp Lieb-Thirring inequalities in high dimensions*. Acta Math. **184** (2000), no. 1, 87–111. A. Laptev, T. Weidl, *Recent results on Lieb-Thirring inequalities*. Journées “Équations aux Dérivées Partielles” (La Chapelle sur Erdre, 2000), Exp. No. XX, Univ. Nantes, Nantes, 2000. P. Li, S-T. Yau, *On the Schrödinger equation and the eigenvalue problem*. Comm. Math. Phys. [**88**]{} (1983), 309–318. E. H. Lieb, *The classical limit of quantum spin systems*. Comm. Math. Phys. **31** (1973), 327–340. E. H. Lieb, *The number of bound states of one-body Schrrodinger operators and the Weyl problem*. Proc. Sym. Pure Math. **36** (1980), 241–252. E. H. Lieb, W. Thirring, *Inequalities for the moments of the eigenvalues of the Schrödinger Hamiltonian and their relation to Sobolev inequalities*. Studies in Mathematical Physics, 269–303. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1976. G. Metivier, *Valeurs propres de problèmes aux limites elliptiques irréguliers*. Bull. Soc. Math. France, Mem. **51-52** (1977), 125–229. S. Nakamura, *A remark on the Dirichlet-Neumann decoupling and the integrated density of states*. J. Funct. Anal. **179** (2001), no. 1, 136–152. G. Pólya, *On the eigenvalues of vibrating membranes*. Proc. London Math. Soc. [**11**]{} (1961), 419–433. M. Reed, B. Simon, *Methods of Modern Mathematical Physics*, vol. 4. Academic Press, 1978. G. V. Rozenblyum *On the eigenvalues of the first boundary value problem in unbounded domains*. Math. USSR-Sb. **18** (1972), 235–248. G. V. Rozenblyum, *Domination of semigroups and estimates for eigenvalues*. St. Petersburg Math. J. **12** (2001), no. 5, 831–845. M. A. Shubin, *Spectral theory and the index of elliptic operators with almost-periodic coefficients*. Russian Math. Surveys. **34** (1979), no. 2, 109–158. H. Weyl, *Das asymptotische Verteilungsgesetzt der Eigenwerte linearer partieller Differentialgleichungen*. Math. Ann. **71** (1911), 441–469.
[^1]: © 2007 by the authors. This paper may be reproduced, in its entirety, for non-commercial purposes.
[^2]: A domain $\Omega\subset {\mathbb{R}}^2$ is tiling if one can cover ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ up to a set of measure zero by pairwise disjoint congruent copies of $\Omega$.
[^3]: For simply connected domains $\Omega$ this choice of $A$ is up to gauge invariance unique in the class of all vector potentials inducing a constant magnetic field in $\Omega$. If $\Omega$ is not simply connected, then one has gauge invariant classes of magnetic vector potentials inducing a constant magnetic field [inside]{} $\Omega$, but which are not restrictions of a vector potential producing a constant magnetic field on the whole of ${\mathbb{R}}^2$. In this paper we do not consider such vector potentials.
[^4]: Alternatively, we may determine $m$ using the Aharonov-Casher theorem. Indeed, the multiplicity $m$ is the dimension of the kernel of the Pauli operator $(\sigma\cdot(D-B A))^2$ acting on the sections of a complex line bundle over the torus $({\mathbb{R}}/L{\mathbb{Z}})^2$.
[^5]: To justify this, identify the LHS as the square of the Hilbert-Schmidt norm of $\chi_\Omega P_B^{(k)}$ and use that $\int |P_B^{(k)}(x,y)|^2\,dy =
P_B^{(k)}(x,x)$ since $P_B^{(k)}$ is a projection.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Measurements of electrodynamic response of of spin glass AuFe films in comparison with pure gold films are performed at frequencies from 0.3 THz (10 ) up to 1000 THz (33000 ) using different spectroscopic methods. At room temperatures the spectra of pure gold and of AuFe are typically metallic with the scattering rate of carriers in AuFe being significantly enlarged due to scattering on localized magnetic moments of Fe ions. In the spin-glass phase of AuFe at $T=5$ K a pseudogap in the conductivity spectrum is detected with the magnitude close to the Ruderman-Kittel-Kasuya-Yosida (RKKY) energy for AuFe: $\Delta_{\rm RKKY}\approx 2.2$ meV. The origin of the pseudogap is associated with partial localization of electrons which mediate the RKKY interaction between localized magnetic Fe centers.'
author:
- 'B. Gorshunov, [^1] A.S. Prokhorov, S. Kaiser, D. Faltermeier, S. Yasin, M. Dumm, N. Drichko, E.S. Zhukova, I.E. Spektor, S. Vongtragool, M.B.S. Hesselberth, J. Aarts, G.J. Nieuwenhuys, and M. Dressel'
title: |
Charge Localization due to RKKY Interaction\
in the Spin Glass AuFe
---
Introduction
============
Phenomena in spin glasses represent one of the central topics of modern solid state physics; they are of fundamental interest and also have a variety of possible applications [@Mydosh93]. The spin-glass state is realized in intermetallic alloys, for instance, when ions of a magnetic metal (like Fe, Mn) are introduced in small amounts into the matrix of non-magnetic noble metals (like Au, Ag, Cu, Pt). The local magnetic moments interact co-operatively with each other via the conduction electrons by the agency of the indirect Ruderman-Kittel-Kasuya-Yosida (RKKY) exchange interaction [@Freeman72]. Magnitude and sign of the interaction depend on the distance between impurities. Combined with the spatial disorder this provides conditions for a spin-glass state.
Among the exceptional properties of spin glasses compared to other magnetic materials is the temperature behavior of their magnetic susceptibility, which reveals a kink at a certain temperature $T_f$ (the freezing temperature) whose shape and position depend on the magnitude and alternation frequency of the probing field [@Binder86]. Spin glasses possess magnetic memory: the magnitude of magnetization created by an external magnetic field below $T_f$ depends on the pre-history of the system. Typical for a spin-glass state are relaxational phenomena with characteristic times which at low temperatures can by far exceed the duration of the experiment. In spite of the large number of theoretical and experimental investigations, there is still no generally accepted consensus on the nature of the spin-glass state and the majority of properties of spin glasses remain not fully understood [@Mydosh93; @Binder86; @Fischer91; @Mezard87].
Since the RKKY interaction plays a fundamental role in the physics of spin glasses, the behavior of the subsystem of free electrons should be intimately linked to the formation and stabilization of the spin-glass phase. The magnitude of the RKKY interaction depends on the electronic mean free path, as was first shown by de Gennes [@deGennes62]. Thus, investigating the characteristics of conduction electrons gives insight into the peculiar physics of spin glasses. The most direct way to study the properties of delocalized electrons is provided by electrical transport experiments. Immediately following the first works on spin glasses, the electrical resistance of “classical” systems like AuFe, CuMn, AuMn, and AuCr has been investigated in a detailed and systematic way as a function of temperature, magnetic field and concentration of magnetic centers [@Loram70; @Ford70; @Mydosh74; @Ford76; @Campbell82]. It was shown that the magnetic contribution to the electrical resistivity $\rho(T)$ reveals a $T^{3/2}$ temperature dependence at the lowest temperatures and a $T^2$ dependence close to $T_f$; at elevated temperatures $T>T_f$ there is a broad maximum in $\rho(T)$ which is due to a competition between Kondo and RKKY interactions in the subsystems of electrons and magnetic moments. Existing theories encounter serious difficulties to reproduce the temperature behavior of the resistivity in broad intervals of temperatures and impurity concentrations [@Binder86]. Certain difficulties are also caused by deviations from Matthiessen’s rule at elevated temperatures.
Fundamental information on the properties of the electronic subsystem can be obtained by optical spectroscopy, which for instance allows one to extract such characteristics of free carriers as mechanisms of scattering and relaxation, energy gaps and pseudogaps in the density of states, localization and hopping parameters, size and granularity effects in thin conducting films [@DresselGruner02]. However, to our knowledge, there are no data published on optical spectroscopy of spin glasses. The reason may be purely technical: since these materials are highly conducting, almost like regular metals, it is practically impossible to measure their electrodynamic properties by standard spectroscopical techniques, especially in the far-infrared range and at even lower frequencies where effects of interactions of mobile electrons with localized spins and between these spins should reveal themselves. Here we present the first measurements of the electrodynamic response of the spin-glass compound AuFe in a broad range of frequencies with an emphasis on the THz range corresponding to energies of the radiation quanta which are close to the RKKY binding energy.
Experimental Techniques
=======================
For the measurements we have chosen the well-studied spin-glass compound AuFe. A set of films with different thicknesses and Fe concentrations was prepared. The high purity metals were co-sputtered onto a high-resistive Si substrate (size $10\times 10$ mm$^2$, thickness about 0.5 mm). Before the argon sputter gas was admitted the equipment was pumped down to UHV conditions ($10^{-7}$ torr) to prevent oxidation of the films during fabrication. The films were analyzed using Rutherford backscattering and electron microprobe analysis; the thickness and composition was homogeneous. In this paper we concentrate on the results obtained for an AuFe film with 6 at.% of Fe and about 50 nm thickness. We also measured a pure Au film of the same thickness prepared under the same conditions.
For the THz investigations a coherent source spectrometer [@Kozlov98] was used which operates in the frequency range from 30 GHz up to 1.5 THz (1 - 50 ). This range is covered by a set of backward-wave oscillators as powerful sources of radiation whose frequency can be continuously tuned within certain limits. In a quasioptical arrangement the complex (amplitude and phase) transmission and reflection coefficients can be measured at temperatures from 2 K to 1000 K and in a magnetic field up to 8 Tesla if required. Dynamical conductivity of Au and AuFe films was directly determined from THz transmissivity and reflectivity spectra in a way we have used for measurements other conducting films, like heavy fermions [@Dressel02] or superconductors [@Pronin96].
In order to complete our overall picture, the samples were optically characterized up to the ultraviolet. The room temperature experiments were conducted on the same Au and AuFe films as the THz investigations. In the infrared spectral range ($600- 7000$ ), optical reflectivity R$(\omega)$ measurements were performed using an infrared microscope connected to a Bruker IFS 66v Fourier transform spectrometer. An aluminum mirror served as reference, whose reflectivity was corrected by the literature data [@Palik85]. A Woollam vertical variable angle spectroscopic ellipsometer (VASE) equipped with a Berek compensator was utilized to measure in the energy range between 5000 and 33000 with a resolution of 200 under multiple angles of incident between 65$^{\circ}$ and 85$^{\circ}$. From the ellipsometric measurements we obtain the real and imaginary parts of the refractive index which then allow us to directly evaluate any optical parameter like the reflectivity $R(\omega)$ or the conductivity $\sigma(\omega)$.
Experimental Results and Discussion
===================================
To analyze the frequency dependent transport, we first consider the room temperature results displayed in Fig. \[fig:opticalspectra\]. It is seen that the spectra for both Au and AuFe are metallic [@DresselGruner02]: the reflectivity reveals a characteristic plasma edge around 20000 and the conductivity $\sigma(\omega)$ is only weekly frequency dependent at low frequencies and quickly drops between $10^3$ and $10^4$ . The increase of the conductivity at even higher frequencies (above $2\cdot 10^4$ ) is caused by electronic interband transitions. In order to extract the microscopic characteristics of charge carriers, we fitted the spectra by the Drude model of conductivity [@DresselGruner02]: $\hat{\sigma}(\omega)=\sigma_{\rm dc}/(1-i\omega\tau)$, where $\sigma_{\rm dc}$ denotes the dc conductivity and $\tau=1/(2\pi
c\gamma)$ the relaxation time and $\gamma$ the relaxation rate of charge carriers (c is the speed of light). The higher frequency interband transitions were roughly modelled by additional Lorentz oscillators. The results of the fit are presented by dashed lines in Fig. \[fig:opticalspectra\], the parameters are summarized in Table \[tab:1\]. As indicated by the dotted lines, both the reflectivity and conductivity spectra can be perfectly reproduced by a more advanced procedure based on the variational analysis of the optical reflectivity and conductivity spectra introduced by Kuzmenko [@Kuzmenko05]. The low-frequency conductivity is smaller and the scattering rate of carriers larger (more than ten times) in AuFe compared to Au. Obviously, the differences should be ascribed to additional magnetic scattering of electrons in AuFe. Although the plasma frequency is not affected when Fe is diluted in Au, the distribution of spectral weight (as measured by the center of gravity, for instance) is shifted to higher energies.
[ccccc]{} Film & $\sigma_{\rm dc}$ ($\rm\Omega^{-1}$cm$^{-1}$)& $\gamma$ () & $\tau$ (s)& $\omega_p$ ()\
Au & 350500& 236 & $2.25\times 10^{-14}$ & 70450\
AuFe & 33600 & 2445 & $2.17\times 10^{-15}$ & 70100\
The temperature dependence of the transport characteristics is presented in Fig. \[fig:temperaturedependence\]. The upper panel compares the ac resistivity $\rho(\omega)$ = 1/$\sigma(\omega)$ of the AuFe (6 at.% Fe) and Au films to the dc resistivity of a bulk AuFe (with slightly different Fe concentration of 5 at.%) and of pure bulk Au samples (data from Ref. [@Mydosh74]).
First, it is obvious that at all temperatures the resistivity of our AuFe film is very close to that of the bulk material: for example, at room temperature $\rho_{\rm AuFe}(\rm film) \approx 30~\mu\Omega$cm and $\rho_{\rm AuFe}(\rm bulk)\approx 40~\mu\Omega$cm. The same holds for the pure Au samples: $\rho_{\rm Au}(\rm film) \approx 3~\mu\Omega$cm and $\rho_{\rm Au}(\rm bulk)\approx 2~\mu\Omega$cm. This agreement indicates the very good quality of our thin films and that there are basically no effects on their ac electrical properties connected with a possible granular structure. The same conclusion is also drawn from the measurements of the freezing temperatures $T_f\approx 25$ K of our AuFe film which appears to be basically the same as those for bulk samples.
Furthermore, it is seen from Fig. \[fig:temperaturedependence\] that at all temperatures the resistivity of AuFe is much larger than the resistivity of Au; the difference increases when cooling down. This is a consequence of scattering of the charge carriers on magnetic impurities that prevails over phonon scattering in the entire temperature range. The resistivity $\rho(T)$ reveals a broad feature around $100-150$ K which is ascribed to the interplay of Kondo and RKKY regimes [@Ford70; @Mydosh74; @Ford76; @Campbell82]. At high temperatures thermal excitations exceed the RKKY energy of interacting impurities and a Kondo-like scattering of electrons on independent magnetic moments dominates. This leads to a weak increase of the magnetic contribution to the resistivity $\rho_{\rm mag}$ upon cooling as demonstrated by the open circles in Fig. \[fig:temperaturedependence\]b where the difference $\Delta\rho
=\rho_{\rm AuFe} -\rho_{\rm Au}=\rho_{\rm mag}$ is plotted. At low temperatures the RKKY interaction between magnetic moments starts to surmount and causes a noticeable suppression of the magnetic contribution to the resistivity. Assuming Matthiessen’s rule [@Bass72], the scattering rate of electrons due to magnetic interaction in AuFe at $T=300$ K can be calculated as $\gamma_{\rm mag}
= \gamma_{\rm AuFe} - \gamma_{\rm Au} \approx 2210$ .
In the low temperature regime, also the frequency dependent conductivity of AuFe is distinct from the room temperature behavior as demonstrated in Fig. \[fig:THzspectra\] where the THz spectra of $\sigma(\omega)$ for AuFe are presented. Above approximately 100 K, $\sigma(\omega)$ is basically frequency independent in accordance with the Drude model which predicts a constant conductivity for frequencies much smaller than the scattering rate [@DresselGruner02], as sketched in the inset of Fig. \[fig:THzspectra\] by the solid line; the scattering rate for AuFe equals 2445 at 300 K (Table \[tab:1\]), i.e., far above the range of frequencies presented in Fig. \[fig:THzspectra\]. This changes drastically for $T<100$ K, when the conductivity $\sigma(\omega)$ increases towards high frequencies. We associate this conductivity dispersion with a pseudogap which appears in the free electron excitations when the RKKY interaction between Fe centers mediated by the conduction electrons sets in. In a simple picture the electrons which participate in the RKKY interaction can be regarded as being to some extent bound to (or localized between) the corresponding pairs of magnetic moments, as long as the thermal energy $k_BT$ does not exceed this “binding energy” which should be of order of the RKKY interaction $\Delta_{\rm RKKY}$. This will lead to a corresponding reduction of the dc conductivity and also of the ac conductivity for frequencies below $\Delta_{\rm RKKY}/\hbar$. At higher frequencies, $\omega>\Delta_{\rm RKKY}/\hbar$, the electrons will no longer be affected (and localized) by the RKKY interaction and hence the conductivity $\sigma(\omega)$ should increase around $\Delta_{\rm
RKKY}/\hbar$ to approach the unperturbed value. In other words, one would expect a gap-like feature to appear in the conductivity spectrum, as depicted by the dashed line in the inset of Fig. \[fig:THzspectra\]. The RKKY energy is approximately given by the freezing temperature $T_f$ [@Schilling76], which for AuFe (6 at.% of Fe) is about 25 K [@Mydosh74; @Canella72], yielding $\Delta_{\rm RKKY}\approx k_BT_f\approx 2.2$ meV. For the characteristic frequency we then obtain $\Delta_{\rm
RKKY}/\hbar\approx17$ (510 GHz). This falls just in the range where the dispersion of the conductivity of AuFe in the spin-glass state is observed. The effect amounts to approximately 10%, meaning that about one tenth of the conduction electrons participate in the RKKY interaction.
According to our picture of spin-glass systems, the conduction electrons experience two effects from the RKKY interaction mediated by these electrons. On one hand, a decrease of the resistivity is commonly observed while cooling below $T_f$ because the RKKY correlations between magnetic moments progressively suppress the Kondo-type scattering. On the other hand, a certain fraction of carriers is increasingly bound to the magnetic moments by participating in the RKKY interaction and is thus taken out of the conduction channel. The competing character of the two effects is clearly seen in Fig. \[fig:THzspectra\]: while cooling down, the gap-like feature appears on top of a background conductivity which increases basically at all shown frequencies. In order to verify our assumptions, a comprehensive study is required on various spin-glass materials with different freezing temperature and consequently different $\Delta_{\rm
RKKY}$.
Conclusions
===========
The optical spectra of pure gold and spin glass AuFe (6 at.% Fe) films have been investigated in a broad frequency range from 10 up to 33000 using three different spectroscopic techniques. At ambient temperature the microscopic charge-carrier parameters in pure gold and in AuFe are determined. For the spin glass AuFe the scattering rate of the carriers is significantly enlarged due to their interaction with localized magnetic moments. At reduced temperatures ($T<100$ K) when the RKKY interaction gains importance as the spin-glass state is formed, a pseudogap feature in the optical conductivity spectrum is detected of a magnitude close to the RKKY energy in AuFe. We associate the origin of the pseudogap with partial localization of those electrons which are involved in the RKKY interaction between magnetic moments.
Aknowledgements
===============
The work was supported by the Russian foundation for Basic Research, grant N06-02-16010-a and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG). We also thank the Foundation for Fundamental Research of Matter (FOM).
[99]{} A. Mydosh, [*Spin glasses: an experimental introduction*]{}, (Taylor and Francis, London, 1993); [*Spin glasses and random fields*]{}, edited by A.P.Young (World Scientific, Singapore, 1997). A.J. Freeman, in: [*Magnetic Properties of Rare Earth Metals*]{} edited by R.J. Elliott (Plenum, London, 1972). K.Binder and A.P. Young, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**58**]{}, 801 (1986). K.H. Fischer and J.A. Hertz, [*Spin glasses*]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1991). M. Mezard, G.Parisi, M.A.Virasoro, [*Spin Glass Theory and Beyond*]{} (World Scientific, Songapore, 1987). P.G. de Gennes, J. Phys. Radium [**23**]{}, 630 (1962). J.W. Loram, T.E. Whall, and P.J. Ford, Phys. Rev. B [**2**]{}, 857 (1970). P.J. Ford, T.E. Whall, and J.W. Loram, Phys. Rev. B [**2**]{}, 1547 (1970). J.A. Mydosh, P.J. Ford, M.P. Kawatra, and T.E. Whall, Phys. Rev. B [**10**]{}, 2845 (1974). P.J. Ford and J.A. Mydosh, Phys. Rev. B [**14**]{}, 2057 (1976). I.A. Campbell, P.J. Ford, and A. Hamzic, Phys. Rev. B [**26**]{}, 5195 (1982). M. Dressel and G. Grüner, [*Electrodynamics of Solids*]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002). A.A. Volkov, Yu. G. Goncharov, G.V. Kozlov, S.P. Lebedev, and A.M. Prokhorov, Infrared Phys. [**25**]{}, 369 (1985); A.A. Volkov, G.V. Kozlov, and A.M. Prokhorov, Infrared Phys. [**29**]{}, 747 (1989); G. Kozlov, A. Volkov, [*Coherent Source Submillimeter Wave Spectroscopy*]{}, in: [*Millimeter and Submillimeter Wave Spectroscopy of Solids*]{}, edited by G. Grüner (Springer, Berlin, 1998), p. 51; B. Gorshunov, A. Volkov, I. Spektor, A. Prokhorov, A. Mukhin, M. Dressel, S. Uchida, and A. Loidl, Int. J. of Infrared and Millimeter Waves, [**26**]{}, 1217 (2005). M. Dressel, N.V. Kasper, B. Gorshunov, K. Petukhov, D.N. Peligrad, M. Jourdan, M. Huth, and H. Adrian, Phys. Rev. B [**66**]{}, 035110 (2002) A.V. Pronin, B.P. Gorshunov, A.A. Volkov, G.V. Kozlov, N.P. Shabanova, S.I. Krasnosvobodtsev, V.S. Nozdrin, and E.V. Pechen, JETP [**82**]{}, 790 (1996); A.V. Pronin, M. Dressel, A. Pimenov, A. Loidl, I. Roshchin, and L.H. Greene, Phys. Rev. B [**57**]{}, 14416 (1998). , Vol. I, edited by E.D. Palik, (Academic Press, Orlando, 1985). A.B. Kuzmenko, Rev. Sci. Instrum. [**76**]{}, 083108 (2005); http://optics.unige.ch/alexey/reffit.html J. Bass, Adv. Phys. [**21**]{}, 431 (1972). J.S. Schilling, P.J. Ford, U. Larsen, and J.A. Mydosh, Phys. Rev. B [**14**]{}, 4368 (1976). V. Canella and J.A. Mydosh, Phys. Rev. B [**6**]{}, 4220 (1972).
[^1]: email: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Einstein’s equations for a Robertson-Walker fluid source endowed with rotation are presented upto and including quadratic terms in angular velocity parameter. A family of analytic solutions are obtained for the case in which the source angular velocity is purely time-dependent. A subclass of solutions is presented which merge smoothly to homogeneous rotating and non-rotating central sources. The particular solution for dust endowed with rotation is presented. In all cases explicit expressions, depending sinusoidally on polar angle, are given for the density and internal supporting pressure of the rotating source. In addition to the non-zero axial velocity of the fluid particles it is shown that there is also a radial component of velocity which vanishes only at the poles. The velocity four-vector has a zero component between poles.'
author:
- |
RJ Wiltshire\
The Division of Mathematics & Statistics,\
The University of Glamorgan,\
Pontypridd CF37 1DL, UK\
email: [email protected]
title: 'Robertson-Walker fluid sources endowed with rotation characterised by quadratic terms in angular velocity parameter.'
---
Introduction
============
Perturbation techniques, so important in the General Theory of Relativity, have frequently been applied successfully in the description of slowly rotating compact perfect fluid sources. Of considerable importance has been the analysis of Hartle [@har] who presented the equations for the equilibrium configurations of cold stars up to and including the first order of angular velocity parameter. This work has formed the basis of an extended first order analysis for example, Kojima [@koj1] and [koj2]{} Beyer & Kokkotas [@beyer], Abramowicz *et al* [@abro], to the address the problem of the non-radial quasi-periodic oscillations of rotating compact sources and the resulting r-mode spectrum of relativistic stars .
In examples of non-compact rotating sources Kegeles [@keg] and Wiltshire [@Wilt] successfully applied the perturbation method to a slowly rotating non-equilibrium configuration. In this case a Robertson-Walker dust source endowed with rotation was successfully matched to the Kerr exterior solution of Einstein’s equations to the first order in angular velocity parameter.
Recent second order perturbation analyses have largely been confined to non-rotating cases. For example, Salopek *et al* [@salo], Russ *et al* [@russ] use the method to discuss the gravitational instabilities of an expanding inhomogeneous universe. However, there is seemingly an absence of literature on the use of second order techniques to describe rotating bodies. This is perhaps surprising, since such analyses can reveal the relativistic effects of the spatial distribution of a rotating fluid as characterised by internal density and pressure. Such effects are not revealed in first order approximations where fluid density and pressure are shown to be same as for a non-rotating source. Moreover the second order effects result in calculated deviations of spherical symmetry in the fluid boundary of a compact or extended body which may be used in the context of the matching problem with a Kerr vacuum.
It is the aim here to present an example of a second order perturbation analysis applied to an extended rotating source. In particular a Robertson-Walker source will be endowed with rotation. As will be seen the approach naturally brings about solutions of Einstein’s equations which exhibit the non-homogeneities in internal density and supporting pressure due to rotation.
In the following a non-rotating source will be described using the Robertson-Walker metric in the form:
$$d\sigma _{RW}^{2}=d\eta ^{2}-R^{2}\left( \eta \right) \left( \frac{d\xi ^{2}}{1-k\xi ^{2}}+\xi ^{2}d\theta ^{2}+\xi ^{2}\sin ^{2}\left( \theta \right)
d\phi ^{2}\right) \label{ebo5}$$
where $R=R\left( \eta \right) $ , $k=-1,0,1$ and where the speed of light $c\equiv 1$, and gravitational constant $G\equiv 1.$ The homogeneous density and supporting pressure will be denoted by $\rho _{RW}$ and $p_{RW}$ respectively. The fluid source will be endowed with rotation which will be characterised in terms of an angular speed parameter, denoted by $q$, and the mathematical analysis to follow will be accurate up to and including second order terms in $q$.
The rotating fluid source will be described in terms of an extended form of the Robertson-Walker metric which is taken to be:
$$\begin{aligned}
d\sigma ^{2} &=&\left( 1+\tilde{Q}q^{2}\right) d\eta ^{2}-\frac{R^{2}\left(
\eta \right) }{1-k\xi ^{2}}\left( 1+\tilde{U}q^{2}\right) d\xi ^{2}-2\tilde{J}\xi ^{2}R^{2}q^{2}d\xi d\eta \nonumber \\
&&-\xi ^{2}R^{2}\left( 1+\tilde{V}q^{2}\right) d\theta ^{2}-\xi
^{2}R^{2}\sin ^{2}\left( \theta \right) \left( 1+\tilde{W}q^{2}\right) d\phi
^{2} \nonumber \\
&&-2\xi ^{2}\sin ^{2}\left( \theta \right) R^{2}q\left( Yd\xi d\phi +Xd\phi
d\eta \right) +O\left( q^{3}\right) \label{ebo19s}\end{aligned}$$
in which each of the functions, $\tilde{J}$, $\tilde{Q}$, $\tilde{U}$, $\tilde{V}$, $\tilde{W}$ depend on $\xi $, $\theta $ and $\eta $ whilst $X$, $Y$ depend on $\xi $ and $\eta $ alone. Note the this form of metric is an extension of the linearly perturbed form of the Robertson-Walker metric used by Kegeles [@keg]. The components of the fundamental tensor from (\[ebo19s\]) are determined using Einstein’s equations for a perfect fluid written here in the form: $$G_{b}^{a}=-8\pi T_{b}^{a}\quad \text{,}\quad \quad T_{b}^{a}=\left( \rho
+p\right) u^{a}u_{b}-\delta _{b}^{a}p\quad \text{,} \label{ebo60p}$$where $\rho $, $p$ are the respective rotating source density and supporting internal pressure and $u^{a}$ are the components of the velocity four-vector with the property that $u^{a}u_{a}=1.$
The use of seven as yet unknown functions in (\[ebo19s\]) will naturally gives rise to ambiguity in the solution of Einstein’s equations. This ambiguity can be removed by further specification of the gauge in which the solutions are to be determined. Although convenient gauge choices are much discussed in the literature, including recently, Bruni *et al* [bruni]{} it is convenient at this stage to continue the solution process without further specification of the gauge other than that which is explicit from the metric choice (\[ebo19s\]).
For brevity the term $O\left( q^{3}\right) $,included in (\[ebo19s\]) will be omitted from all future expressions. The fact that all terms including $q^{n}$, $n\geq 3$ are taken as negligibly small will of course be implied.
In summary it is the aim in the following to determine solutions of Einstein’s equations in the form (\[ebo60p\]) for rotating sources described by the metric (\[ebo19s\])
Solution Approach
=================
Direct calculation of the components of the Einstein tensor for (\[ebo19s\]) show that the components $G_{3}^{2}$ and $G_{2}^{3}$ are identically zero and so for a rotating perfect fluid it follows that the velocity four vector component $u^{2}=0$ and one form component $u_{2}=0$. It thus follows that the conditions $T_{1}^{2}=0=T_{2}^{1}$ and $T_{4}^{2}=0=T_{2}^{4}$ must hold upto and including terms in $q^{2}$ . Moreover $T_{2}^{2}+p=0$.
In addition the perfect fluid (\[ebo60p\]) must also satisfy the following consistency relationships$$\begin{aligned}
\left( T_{1}^{1}+p\right) \left( T_{3}^{3}+p\right) -T_{3}^{1}T_{1}^{3} &=&0
\nonumber \\
\left( T_{1}^{1}+p\right) \left( T_{4}^{4}+p\right) -T_{4}^{1}T_{1}^{4} &=&0
\nonumber \\
\left( T_{3}^{3}+p\right) \left( T_{4}^{4}+p\right) -T_{4}^{3}T_{3}^{4} &=&0
\label{ebo20}\end{aligned}$$However by direct calculation $G_{1}^{3}$, $G_{3}^{1}$ , $G_{4}^{3}$ and $G_{3}^{4}$ depend on linear terms in $q$, whilst $G_{2}^{1}$, $G_{1}^{2}$, $G_{1}^{4}$, $G_{4}^{1}$, $G_{4}^{2}$ and $G_{2}^{4}$ depend on quadratic terms in $q$ . Also when $q=0$ each of these components is zero. It follows that for the Robertson-Walker source endowed with rotation that solutions of Einstein’s equations must satisfy the following perturbation equations:$$\begin{aligned}
T_{1}^{1}+p &=&0 \nonumber \\
T_{2}^{2}+p &=&0 \nonumber \\
\left( T_{3}^{3}+p\right) \left( T_{4}^{4}+p\right) -T_{4}^{3}T_{3}^{4} &=&0
\nonumber \\
T_{3}^{1} &=&0\qquad \qquad T_{1}^{3}\neq 0 \nonumber \\
T_{1}^{2} &=&0=T_{2}^{1} \nonumber \\
T_{4}^{2} &=&0=T_{2}^{4} \label{ebo28a}\end{aligned}$$
The first or second of these equations may be used to calculate the internal pressure $p$ whilst the density $\rho $ is calculated using$$\rho =T_{a}^{a}+3p \label{ebo29}$$where the repeated index indicates summation. It is perhaps worthy of note that although the velocity four vector $u_{RW}^{1}=0$ for the standard Robertson-Walker case, the system of equations (\[ebo28a\]) do not imply that this condition is retained for the rotating source.
The angular velocity of the source will be denoted by $L\left( \xi ,\eta
\right) $ where:$$L\left( \xi ,\eta \right) \equiv \frac{u^{3}}{u^{4}}=\frac{T_{4}^{3}}{T_{4}^{4}+p} \label{ebo30}$$Since the fourth of conditions (\[ebo28a\]) $T_{3}^{1}=0$ may be solved immediately to give:$$Y_{\eta }=X_{\xi }+\frac{h\left( \xi \right) }{(1-k\xi ^{2})^{\frac{1}{2}}\xi ^{4}R^{3}} \label{ebo21ab}$$where $h\left( \xi \right) $ is an arbitrary function of $\xi $, it follows from (\[ebo30\]) that the angular velocity of the source is given by: $$L\left( \xi ,\eta \right) =-\frac{q\sqrt{1-k\xi ^{2}}h_{\xi }}{16\pi \xi
^{4}R^{5}\left( \rho _{RW}+p_{RW}\right) }-qX \label{cf57y}$$where the suffix denotes a partial derivative. The density $\rho _{RW}$ and pressure $p_{RW}$ for the standard Robertson-Walker metric (\[ebo5\]) are such that:$$8\pi \left( p_{RW}+\rho _{RW}\right) =-\frac{2R_{\eta \eta }}{R}+\frac{2R_{\eta }^{2}}{R^{2}}+\frac{2k}{R^{2}} \label{p_plus_rho}$$
Moreover, a particle moving in the field of (\[ebo19s\]) will have zero angular momentum whenever $u_{3}=0$, so that the quantity: $$\frac{u_{3}}{u_{4}}=\frac{q\sin ^{2}\theta \sqrt{1-k\xi ^{2}}h_{\xi }}{16\pi
\xi ^{2}R^{3}\left( \rho _{RW}+p_{RW}\right) } \label{ebo98k}$$will also be zero for such a particle. It follows that the induced angular velocity $\Omega \left( \xi ,\eta \right) $ of the inertial frame is given by: $$\Omega _{f}\left( \xi ,\eta \right) =-qX\quad \text{,} \label{ebo98s}$$and that the angular velocity of a particle moving in the field of ([ebo19s]{}) is:
$$\Omega _{p}\left( \xi ,\eta \right) =-\frac{q\sqrt{1-k\xi ^{2}}h_{\xi }}{16\pi \xi ^{4}R^{5}\left( \rho _{RW}+p_{RW}\right) } \label{ebo99s}$$
Clearly therefore it is the nature of $h\left( \xi \right) $ which determines the actual angular velocity of the system and that $h=0$ defines a non-rotating source and that the solution of (\[ebo21ab\]) is then:
$$X=\Phi _{\eta }\qquad Y=\Phi _{\xi } \label{suz1}$$
for some $\Phi =\Phi \left( \xi ,\eta \right) .$
Simplification of the Perturbation equations
============================================
Using the second equation $p=-T_{2}^{2}$ the first and third of (\[ebo28a\]) with (\[ebo60p\]) become:$$G_{1}^{1}-G_{2}^{2}=0 \label{ebo36b}$$$$\left( G_{3}^{3}-G_{2}^{2}\right) \left( G_{4}^{4}-G_{2}^{2}\right)
-G_{4}^{3}G_{3}^{4}=0 \label{ebo37}$$In addition the fifth and sixth of (\[ebo28a\]) namely, $T_{1}^{2}=0=T_{2}^{1}$ and $T_{4}^{2}=0=T_{2}^{4}$ will be satisfied by taking:$$G_{1}^{2}=0 \label{ebo39k}$$$$G_{4}^{2}=0 \label{ebo40a}$$These equations may be simplified somewhat by firstly, defining a new time variable $\tau \left( \eta \right) $ through:$$\tau \left( \eta \right) =\int \frac{d\eta }{R^{3}} \label{ebo41}$$and, secondly by introducing the functions $S\left( \tau \right) $ and $T\left( \tau \right) $ expressed in terms of the density $\rho _{RW}$ and pressure $p_{RW}$ for the standard Robertson-Walker metric as follows:$$S\left( \tau \right) \equiv \frac{1}{R^{6}T}\equiv 8\pi \left( p_{RW}+\rho
_{RW}\right) =-\frac{2R_{\tau \tau }}{R^{7}}+\frac{8R_{\tau }^{2}}{R^{8}}+\frac{2k}{R^{2}} \label{ebo49}$$Thirdly the equations (\[ebo36b\]) to (\[ebo39k\]) may be rendered independent of $\tilde{W}$ with the aid of the following substitutions:$$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{J} &=&XY\sin ^{2}\theta +\frac{J}{R^{3}\xi \sqrt{1-k\xi ^{2}}}
\nonumber \\
\tilde{U} &=&\xi ^{2}\left( 1-k\xi ^{2}\right) Y^{2}\sin ^{2}\theta +U+W
\nonumber \\
\tilde{V} &=&V+W \nonumber \\
\tilde{W} &=&W \nonumber \\
\tilde{Q} &=&-\xi ^{2}R^{2}X^{2}\sin ^{2}\theta +Q-W \label{ebo74}\end{aligned}$$where each of $U$, $V$, $W$, $Q$ and $J$ are again functions of $\xi $, $\theta $ and $\tau $.
It follows from the transformations (\[ebo74\]) and (\[ebo41\]) that the metric (\[ebo19s\]) may now be written in the form:$$\begin{aligned}
d\sigma ^{2} &=&\xi ^{2}R^{2}\left\{ \frac{\left( 1+\left( Q-W\right)
q^{2}\right) R^{4}}{\xi ^{2}}d\tau ^{2}-\frac{\left( 1+\left( U+W\right)
q^{2}\right) }{\xi ^{2}\left( 1-k\xi ^{2}\right) }d\xi ^{2}\right. \nonumber
\\
&&-\frac{2Jq^{2}}{\xi \sqrt{1-k\xi ^{2}}}d\xi d\tau -\left( 1+\left(
V+W\right) q^{2}\right) d\theta ^{2} \nonumber \\
&&\left. -Wq^{2}\sin ^{2}\left( \theta \right) d\phi ^{2}-\sin ^{2}\left(
\theta \right) \left( d\phi +qYd\xi +qR^{3}Xd\tau \right) ^{2}\right\}
\label{new_metric}\end{aligned}$$Note that the entity $d\phi +qYd\xi +qR^{3}Xd\tau $ is itself an exact differential only in the non-rotating case when equation (\[suz1\]) applies.
In this way the first of equations (\[ebo36b\]) becomes: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\left\{ -\xi \left( 1-k\xi ^{2}\right) \left( U_{\xi }+V_{\xi }\right) -\frac{\xi ^{2}\left( U_{\tau \tau }-V_{\tau \tau }\right) }{R^{4}}+2\left(
U-V\right) \right. \nonumber \\
&&\left. +\frac{2\xi ^{3}\sqrt{1-k\xi ^{2}}J_{\tau \xi }}{R^{4}}+\xi
^{2}\left( 1-k\xi ^{2}\right) Q_{\xi \xi }-\xi Q_{\xi }-Q_{\theta \theta
}\right\} \nonumber \\
&&+\frac{\left( V_{\theta }+U_{\theta }\right) \cos \theta }{\sin \theta }-\frac{h^{2}\sin ^{2}\theta }{\xi ^{4}R^{4}}=0 \label{eq_1122}\end{aligned}$$In addition the second of equations (\[ebo37\]) has the form:
$$\begin{aligned}
&&\xi ^{2}\left( 1-k\xi ^{2}\right) V_{\xi \xi }-3k\xi ^{3}V_{\xi }+2\xi
V_{\xi }-\frac{\xi ^{2}V_{gg}}{R^{4}}+U_{\theta \theta }+Q_{\theta \theta }
\nonumber \\
&&-\frac{\left( U_{\theta }+Q_{\theta }\right) \cos \theta }{\sin \theta }-\sin ^{2}\theta \left( \frac{h_{\xi }^{2}\left( 1-k\xi ^{2}\right) T}{2\xi
^{4}}+\frac{h^{2}}{\xi ^{4}R^{4}}\right) =0 \label{eq_43}\end{aligned}$$
The condition (\[ebo39k\]) that $G_{1}^{2}=0$ becomes:$$-\frac{U_{\theta }+Q_{\theta }}{\xi }+\frac{\xi J_{\tau \theta }}{R^{4}\sqrt{1-k\xi ^{2}}}+Q_{\theta \xi }-\frac{V_{\xi }\cos \theta }{\sin \theta }=0
\label{eq12}$$Only the remaining equation $\ $(\[ebo40a\]) explicitly contains $W$ as follows:$$\frac{2R_{\tau }\left( W_{\theta }-Q_{\theta }\right) }{R}+2W_{\tau \theta
}+U_{\tau \theta }-\sqrt{1-k\xi ^{2}}\left( \xi J_{\xi \theta }+J_{\theta
}\right) -\frac{V_{\tau }\cos \theta }{\sin \theta }=0 \label{eq42}$$Equations (\[eq\_1122\]) to \[eq42\]) are the final forms of the perturbation equations which determine $U$, $V$, $W$, $Q$ and $J$ for given $h\left( \xi \right) $ for the metric (\[new\_metric\]).
The internal supporting pressure, calculated using the second of ([ebo28a]{}) is:$$\begin{aligned}
8\pi p &=&q^{2}\left\{ \frac{\sqrt{1-k\xi ^{2}}}{R^{6}}\left( \xi J_{\tau
\xi }+2J_{\tau }\right) +\left( W-Q\right) \left( \frac{1}{R^{6}T}-\frac{3R_{\tau }^{2}}{R^{2}}\right) \right. \nonumber \\
&&-\frac{\left( W_{\tau }-Q_{\tau }\right) R_{\tau }}{R^{7}}+\frac{k\left(
U+2Q-W\right) }{R^{2}}-\frac{\left( 2W_{\tau \tau }+U_{\tau \tau }\right) }{2R^{6}} \nonumber \\
&&\left. +\frac{\left( 1-k\xi ^{2}\right) }{2R^{2}}\left( \frac{2Q_{\xi
}-U_{\xi }}{\xi }+Q_{\xi \xi }\right) -\frac{Q_{\xi }}{2\xi R^{2}}\right\}
\nonumber \\
&&+\frac{q^{2}\left( Q_{\theta }+U_{\theta }\right) \cos \theta }{2\xi
^{2}R^{2}\sin \theta }-\frac{h^{2}q^{2}\sin ^{2}\theta }{4\xi ^{6}R^{6}}+8\pi p_{RW} \label{pressurea}\end{aligned}$$whilst the internal density, calculated using (\[ebo29\]) is:
$$\begin{aligned}
8\pi \rho &=&q^{2}\left\{ \frac{\left( 1-k\xi ^{2}\right) }{R^{2}}\left(
\frac{Q_{\xi \xi }}{2}-W_{\xi \xi }-V_{\xi \xi }+\frac{U_{\xi }}{2\xi }\right) -\frac{\left( W_{\theta \theta }+U_{\theta \theta }+Q_{\theta \theta
}\right) }{\xi ^{2}R^{2}}\right. \nonumber \\
&&\frac{\left( V_{\tau \tau }-\frac{U_{\tau \tau }}{2}\right) }{R^{6}}+\frac{R_{\tau }}{R^{7}}\left( 3W_{\tau }+V_{\tau }+U_{\tau }\right) +\frac{3R_{\tau }^{2}\left( W-Q\right) }{R^{8}}-\frac{3k\left( U+W\right) }{R^{2}}
\nonumber \\
&&+\frac{2\left( U-V\right) }{\xi ^{2}R^{2}}+\frac{1}{R^{2}}\left( 3k\xi
W_{\xi }-\frac{2W_{\xi }}{\xi }+4k\xi V_{\xi }-\frac{3V_{\xi }}{\xi }-\frac{Q_{\xi }}{2\xi }\right) \nonumber \\
&&\left. +\frac{\sqrt{1-k\xi ^{2}}}{R^{6}}\left( -\frac{2\xi J_{\xi }R_{\tau
}}{R}-\frac{6JR_{\tau }}{R}+\xi J_{\tau \xi }\right) \right\} \nonumber \\
&&+\frac{q^{2}\left( Q_{\theta }+U_{\theta }+2V_{\theta }-2W_{\theta
}\right) \cos \theta }{2\xi ^{2}R^{2}\sin \theta }-\frac{h^{2}q^{2}\sin
^{2}\theta }{4\xi ^{6}R^{6}}+8\pi \rho _{RW} \label{density}\end{aligned}$$
Further note that the application of the transformations (\[ebo74\]) and (\[ebo41\]) has enabled each of the equations (\[eq\_1122\]) to ([density]{}) to be written in a form which is independent of both $X\left( \xi
,\tau \right) $ and $Y\left( \xi ,\tau \right) $ but explicitly contains terms in $h\left( \xi \right) .$This is expected from (\[ebo98s\]) since one would not expect internal pressure and density to be dependent on the frame dragging term $X$ but rather on that function defined in (\[cf57y\]) and (\[ebo98k\]) which directly determines the true angular velocity of the source, namely $h.$ It follows that further analysis may continue without further detailed specification of $X$ and $Y$, only $h$ needs consideration.
Finally, the two equations (\[eq\_1122\]) to (\[eq12\]) contain the four unknowns $J$,$Q$, $U$, $V$ and may be used to determine families of rotating extended sources for a range gauges and or physical conditions. As a particular example of a solution procedure it should be noted that in cases when $V$ is known explicitly then equation (\[eq\_43\]) may be integrated directly to determine $U+Q$. Thus if either $U$ or $Q$ is known then the equation (\[eq12\]) may be integrated immediately to determine $J$.
Finally, the velocity four-vector component $u^{1}/u^{4}$ may be calculated through $$\frac{u^{1}}{u^{4}}=\frac{T_{4}^{1}}{T_{4}^{4}+p} \label{w56}$$and so up to and including quadratic terms in $q^{2}$ it follows that:$$\frac{u^{1}}{u^{4}}=-\frac{G_{4}^{1}}{8\pi \left( \rho _{RW}+p_{RW}\right) }
\label{w57}$$where $G_{4}^{1}$ is given by:$$\begin{aligned}
-\frac{R^{5}G_{4}^{1}}{\sqrt{1-k\xi ^{2}}} &=&\left\{ \left( W_{\tau \xi }+\frac{V_{\tau \xi }}{2}\right) +\frac{1}{\xi }\left( \frac{V_{\tau }}{2}-U_{\tau }\right) +\frac{R_{\tau }}{R}\left( W_{\xi }-Q_{\xi }\right)
\right\} \sqrt{1-k\xi ^{2}} \nonumber \\
&&+\frac{J_{\theta \theta }}{2\xi }-\frac{\xi J}{R^{4}T}+2k\xi J+\frac{J_{\theta }\cos \theta }{2\xi \sin \theta } \label{eq_41}\end{aligned}$$Note also that in a similar way $u_{1}/u_{4}$ may be found using;$$\frac{u_{1}}{u_{4}}=\frac{T_{1}^{4}}{T_{4}^{4}+p}=-\frac{G_{1}^{4}}{8\pi
\left( \rho _{RW}+p_{RW}\right) } \label{eq69}$$where $G_{1}^{4}$ is
$$\begin{aligned}
&&G_{1}^{4}=-\frac{h_{\xi }q^{2}\,\sin ^{2}\theta \,\,Y\sqrt{1-k\xi ^{2}}}{2\,\xi ^{2}\,R^{3}}-q^{2}\left\{ -\frac{2W_{\tau \xi }+V_{\tau \xi }}{2R^{3}}+\frac{2U_{\tau }-V_{\tau }}{2\xi \,R^{3}}\right. \nonumber \\
&&\left. +\frac{R_{\tau }\left( Q_{\xi }-W_{\xi }\right) }{R^{4}}+\frac{2J\sqrt{1-k\xi ^{2}}}{\xi \,R^{3}}-\left( \frac{J_{\theta \theta }+4J}{2\,\xi
\sqrt{1-k\xi ^{2}}\,R^{3}}\right) \right\} \nonumber \\
&&+\frac{q^{2}\,\cos \theta \,J_{\theta }}{2\,\sin \theta \,\xi \,\sqrt{1-k\xi ^{2}}\,R^{3}} \label{eq14a}\end{aligned}$$
Thus only (\[eq14a\]) depends explicitly on $Y\left( \xi ,\tau \right) $ and is a further manifestation of the frame dragging effect expressed in (\[ebo21ab\]). This may be removed by choosing $Y=0$.
Characterisation of angular velocity leading to analytic solutions
==================================================================
Consider first equations the three equations (\[eq\_1122\]) to (\[eq12\]) and note that particular solutions may be found in principle by setting:$$U\left( \xi ,\theta ,\tau \right) =\frac{u_{1}}{\xi ^{6}}\sin ^{2}\theta
+u_{2} \label{puaa}$$$$V\left( \xi ,\theta ,\tau \right) =\frac{u_{3}\sin ^{2}\theta }{\xi ^{6}}+u_{4} \label{pvaa}$$$$J\left( \xi ,\theta ,\tau \right) =\sqrt{1-k\xi ^{2}}\left( u_{5}\sin
^{2}\theta +u_{6}\right) \label{pjaaa}$$$$Q\left( \xi ,\theta ,\tau \right) =u_{7}\sin ^{2}\theta +u_{8} \label{pjaa}$$where $u_{i}$ are functions of $\xi $ and $\tau $ alone. It is straight forward to show that equation (\[eq\_43\]) may be used to determine $u_{7}$ and $u_{4}$ since:$$\begin{aligned}
\xi ^{6}u_{7} &=&-\frac{\xi ^{2}\left( h^{2}+u_{3_{\tau \tau }}\right) }{2R^{4}}+\frac{\xi ^{2}(1-k\xi ^{2})}{2}\left( u_{3_{\xi \xi }}-\frac{h_{\xi
}^{2}T}{2}\right) \nonumber \\
&&+\frac{9k\xi ^{3}u_{3_{\xi }}}{2}-12k\xi ^{2}u_{3}-5\xi u_{3_{\xi
}}+15u_{3}-u_{1} \label{pu7b}\end{aligned}$$and $u_{4}=0$. Moreover direct substitution of these relationships into ([eq12]{}) shows that this equation is satisfied provided that $u_{5}$ is such that:$$\frac{\partial u_{5}}{\partial \tau }=\Psi _{1}R^{4}T+\Psi _{2}R^{4}+\Psi
_{3} \label{pu5d}$$where $\Psi _{1}$,$\Psi _{2}$ and $\Psi _{3}$ are fully defined in terms of $h$, $u_{1}$ and $u_{3}$ and are presented in the appendix. The equation ([pu7b]{}) and (\[pu5d\]) together with $u_{4}=0$ may then be substituted directly into equation (\[eq\_1122\]) to produce a very lengthy relationship, reproduced in the appendix, having the general form:$$\Psi _{4}\sin ^{2}\theta +\Psi _{5}=0 \label{pu1122}$$where $\Psi _{4}$ and $\Psi _{5}$ are again fully defined in terms of $h$, $u_{1}$ and $u_{3}$ and their partial derivatives with respect to $\xi $ and $\tau $.
Inspection shows that the equation $\Psi _{4}=0$ may in general terms only be solved numerically for $u_{1}$(say) in terms any given $u_{3}\left( \xi
,\tau \right) $ and $h\left( \xi \right) $. Remarkably, however there is at least one case where considerable simplification is possible, namely when:$$h\left( \xi \right) =n\xi ^{5} \label{pha}$$with constant $n$, for which a basic separation of variables approach reveals that:$$u_{1}\left( \xi ,\tau \right) =n^{2}\xi ^{10}\left( \psi _{1}+\psi _{2}\xi
^{2}\right) \qquad \qquad u_{3}\left( \xi ,\tau \right) =n^{2}\xi ^{10}\psi
_{3} \label{p13a}$$where $\psi _{1}$, $\psi _{2}$ and $\psi _{3}$ are functions of $\tau $ alone which satisfy:$$125k^{2}T-\frac{10k\left( 1+\psi _{3_{\tau \tau }}\right) +\psi _{2_{\tau
\tau }}}{R^{4}}-24k\left( \psi _{2}+10k\psi _{3}\right) =0 \label{p1122b}$$$$-\frac{225kT}{2}+\frac{7\psi _{3_{\tau \tau }}-\psi _{1_{\tau \tau }}+5}{R^{4}}+4k\left( 49\psi _{3}-2\psi _{1}\right) +14\psi _{2}=0 \label{p1122c}$$Although these equations need to be solved numerically when $k=1$, $-1$ the case $k=0$ yields the analytic result that:
$$7\psi _{3_{\tau \tau }}-\psi _{1_{\tau \tau }}+5=0\qquad \psi _{2}=0
\label{p1122d}$$
In the following the family of solutions presented will be based upon equation (\[p1122d\]). Thus using (\[pha\]) and (\[ebo41\]) substituted in (\[ebo99s\]) and the angular velocity $\Omega _{p}\left(
\xi ,\tau \right) $ of a particle in the field of (\[new\_metric\]) is:$$\Omega _{p}\left( \xi ,\tau \right) =-\frac{nq}{16\pi R^{2}\left( \rho
_{RW}+p_{RW}\right) } \label{pont5}$$It follows that the angular velocity is purely time dependent. The frame dragging effect (\[ebo98s\]) is $$\Omega _{f}=-qR^{3}X \label{pont7}$$where from (\[ebo21ab\]) and (\[ebo41\]) $X\left( \xi ,\tau \right) $ is determined through:$$R^{3}X_{\xi }=Y_{\tau }-n\xi \label{pont10}$$In cases when $Y=0$ so that the frame dragging effect due to rotation is removed from (\[eq14a\]) then (\[pont5\]) becomes:$$\Omega _{f}=\frac{nq\xi ^{2}}{2} \label{pont15}$$where for choice $X\left( 0,\tau \right) =0$.
Development of solutions with k=0 and with purely time dependent angular velocity
=================================================================================
Thus using the solution procedure outlined in the previous section with ([p1122d]{}) it is straight forward to show that the corresponding solutions of (\[eq\_1122\]) to (\[eq42\]) are:
$$U\left( \xi ,\theta ,\tau \right) =n^{2}\psi _{1}\xi ^{4}\sin ^{2}\theta
+n^{2}z_{2} \label{qub}$$
$$V\left( \xi ,\theta ,\tau \right) =\frac{n^{2}}{7}\left( \psi _{1}-\frac{5\tau ^{2}}{2}\right) \xi ^{4}\sin ^{2}\theta \label{pvb}$$
$$J\left( \xi ,\theta ,\tau \right) =n^{2}z_{5}\sin ^{2}\theta +n^{2}z_{6}
\label{pjb}$$
$$Q\left( \xi ,\theta ,\tau \right) =n^{2}\left\{ \xi ^{4}\left( \frac{3\psi
_{1}}{7}-\frac{25T}{4}-\frac{25\tau ^{2}}{7}\right) -\frac{\xi ^{6}\left(
\psi _{1_{\tau \tau }}+2\right) }{14R^{4}}\right\} \sin ^{2}\theta
+n^{2}z_{8} \label{pqb}$$
$$W\left( \xi ,\theta ,\tau \right) =\frac{n^{2}z_{9}\sin ^{2}\theta }{R}+\frac{n^{2}z_{10}}{R} \label{pwb}$$
where $z_{5}\left( \xi ,\tau \right) $, $z_{6}\left( \xi ,\tau \right) $ and $z_{9}\left( \xi ,\tau \right) $ are determined in terms of $\psi _{1}\left(
\tau \right) $, $z_{2}\left( \xi ,\tau \right) $ and $z_{8}\left( \xi ,\tau
\right) $ through:$$\frac{\partial z_{5}}{\partial \tau }=\xi ^{2}R^{4}\left( \frac{75T}{4}+10\tau ^{2}\right) +\frac{5\xi ^{4}}{14}\left( \psi _{1_{\tau \tau
}}+2\right) \label{z5dg}$$$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial ^{2}z_{6}}{\partial \xi \partial \tau } &=&-R^{4}\left\{ \xi
\left( \frac{25T}{4}+\frac{45\tau ^{2}}{14}+\frac{5\psi _{1}}{7}\right) +\frac{z_{8_{\xi \xi }}}{2\xi }-\frac{z_{8_{\xi }}+z_{2_{\xi }}}{2\xi ^{2}}+\frac{z_{2}}{\xi ^{2}}\right\} \nonumber \\
&&-\frac{\xi ^{3}}{14}\left( \psi _{1_{\tau \tau }}+2\right) +\frac{z_{2_{\tau \tau }}}{2\xi } \label{z6dgdx}\end{aligned}$$$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial z_{9}}{\partial \tau } &=&\xi ^{4}R_{\tau }\left( \frac{3\psi
_{1}}{7}-\frac{25T}{4}-\frac{25\tau ^{2}}{7}\right) -\frac{\xi ^{6}R_{\tau }}{14R^{4}}\left( \psi _{1_{\tau \tau }}+2\right) \nonumber \\
&&-\frac{\xi ^{4}R}{28}\left( 5\tau +13\psi _{1_{\tau }}\right) +\frac{R}{2}\left( \xi z_{5_{\xi }}+z_{5}\right) \label{z9dg}\end{aligned}$$The function $z_{10}\left( \xi ,\tau \right) $ is arbitrary. The supporting internal pressure (\[pressurea\]) is given by:
$$\begin{aligned}
8\pi p &=&8\pi p_{RW}+n^{2}q^{2}\sin ^{2}\theta \left\{ \frac{25\xi ^{2}T}{8R^{2}}+\frac{\xi ^{4}}{14R^{6}T}\left( 25\tau ^{2}-3\psi _{1}\right) +\frac{z_{9}}{2R^{7}T}\right. \nonumber \\
&&\left. +\frac{\xi ^{6}}{28R^{10}T}\left( \psi _{1_{\tau \tau }}+2\right) +\frac{25\xi ^{4}}{8R^{6}}\right\} \nonumber \\
&&+n^{2}q^{2}\xi ^{2}\left\{ -\frac{25T}{2R^{2}}-\frac{95\tau ^{2}}{14R^{2}}+\frac{5\psi _{1}}{7R^{2}}\right\} -\frac{\xi ^{4}}{7R^{6}}\left( \psi
_{1_{\tau \tau }}+2\right) \nonumber \\
&&+n^{2}q^{2}\left\{ -\frac{z_{8}}{R^{6}T}+\frac{z_{9}}{2R^{7}T}+\frac{3z_{8}R_{\tau }^{2}}{R^{8}}+\frac{z_{8_{\tau }}R_{\tau }}{R^{7}}+\frac{z_{10_{\tau }}R_{\tau }}{R^{8}}\right. \nonumber \\
&&\left. +\frac{z_{8_{\xi }}}{\xi R^{2}}-\frac{z_{2}}{\xi ^{2}R^{2}}+\frac{2z_{6_{\tau }}}{R^{6}}-\frac{z_{10_{\tau \tau }}}{R^{7}}\right\}
\label{pres}\end{aligned}$$
with:$$8\pi p_{RW}=\frac{1}{R^{6}T}-\frac{3R_{\tau }^{2}}{R^{8}} \label{RW_pres}$$and the internal density is (\[density\]) is$$\begin{aligned}
8\pi \rho &=&8\pi \rho _{RW}+n^{2}q^{2}\sin ^{2}\theta \left\{ \frac{\xi ^{2}}{R^{2}}\left( -\frac{25T}{4}+5\tau ^{2}+6\psi _{1}\right) -\frac{\xi
^{4}R_{\tau }}{4R^{7}}\left( 5\tau +\psi _{1_{\tau }}\right) \right.
\nonumber \\
&&\left. -\frac{R_{\tau }}{2R^{7}}\left( \xi z_{5_{\xi }}+9z_{5}\right) +\frac{1}{R^{3}}\left( -\frac{2z_{9_{\xi }}}{\xi }+\frac{6z_{9}}{\xi ^{2}}-z_{9_{\xi \xi }}\right) -\frac{\xi ^{4}}{4R^{6}}\right\} \nonumber \\
&&+n^{2}q^{2}\left\{ -\frac{\xi ^{2}}{7R^{2}}\left( \frac{5\tau ^{2}}{2}+13\psi _{1}\right) +\frac{1}{\xi R^{2}}\left( z_{2_{\xi }}+\frac{z_{2}}{\xi
}\right) \right. \nonumber \\
&&-\frac{1}{R^{3}}\left( \frac{2z_{10_{\xi }}}{\xi }+\frac{4z_{9}}{\xi ^{2}}+z_{10_{\xi \xi }}\right) \nonumber \\
&&\left. -\frac{3z_{8}R_{\tau }^{2}}{R^{8}}+\frac{R_{\tau }}{R^{7}}\left(
-2\xi z_{6_{\xi }}+z_{2_{\tau }}-6z_{6}+\frac{3z_{10_{\tau }}}{R}\right)
\right\} \label{genden}\end{aligned}$$with:$$8\pi \rho _{RW}=\frac{3R_{\tau }^{2}}{R^{8}} \label{RW_den}$$Also using (\[w57\]) and (\[eq\_41\]) it may be shown that: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{RT}\frac{u^{1}}{u^{4}} &=&n^{2}q^{2}\left\{ -\frac{\xi z_{6}}{R^{4}T}+\frac{z_{10_{\tau \xi }}-z_{8_{\xi }}R_{\tau }}{R}+\frac{2z_{5}-z_{2_{\tau
}}}{\xi }\right\} \nonumber \\
&&+n^{2}q^{2}\sin ^{2}\theta \left\{ \frac{\xi }{2}\left( z_{5_{\xi \xi }}-\frac{2z_{5}}{R^{4}T}\right) +z_{5_{\xi }}-\frac{3z_{5}}{\xi }-\frac{5\xi
^{3}\left( \tau +\psi _{1_{\tau }}\right) }{2}\right\} \label{ein41aa}\end{aligned}$$Inspection of (\[ein41aa\]) shows that in general terms $u^{1}\left( \xi
,\theta ,\tau \right) $ although it is possible to choose $z_{10}$ so that $u^{1}\left( \xi ,0,\tau \right) =0$. Thus $u^{1}=0$ is possible for a particle moving in the field of (\[new\_metric\]) only for an observer situated on the axis of rotation. In this case:$$\frac{\partial ^{2}z_{10}}{\partial \tau \partial \xi }=\frac{z_{6}\xi }{R^{3}T}+z_{8_{\xi }}R_{\tau }-\frac{R}{\xi }\left( 2z_{5}-z_{2_{\tau
}}\right) \label{z10dg}$$
A subclass of solutions
=======================
Consider now the particular case:$$\psi _{1}=-\tau ^{2}\qquad z_{2}=\omega _{2}\xi ^{2}\qquad z_{8}=\omega
_{8}\xi ^{2} \label{example1}$$where $\omega _{2}$ and $\omega _{8}$ are functions of $\tau $. The equations (\[z5dg\]) to (\[z9dg\]) become:$$z_{5}=\psi _{5}\xi ^{2}\qquad \qquad \frac{d\psi _{5}}{d\tau }=R^{4}\left(
\frac{75T}{4}+10\tau ^{2}\right) \label{z5_ex}$$$$z_{6}=\psi _{6}\xi ^{2}\qquad \qquad \frac{d\psi _{6}}{d\tau }=-R^{4}\left(
\frac{25T}{8}+\frac{5\tau ^{2}}{4}\right) +\frac{\omega _{2_{\tau \tau }}}{4}
\label{z6_ex}$$Moreover$$z_{9}=\alpha _{2}\xi ^{2}+\alpha _{4}\xi ^{4} \label{z9_ex}$$$$\frac{d\alpha _{2}}{d\tau }=\frac{3\psi _{5}R}{2}\qquad \qquad \frac{d\alpha
_{4}}{d\tau }=\frac{3\tau R}{4}-R_{\tau }\left( \frac{25T}{4}+4\tau
^{2}\right) \label{z9Ex1}$$where $\psi _{5}$, $\psi _{6}$, $\alpha _{2}$ and $\alpha _{4}$ are functions of $\tau $ alone. The condition (\[z10dg\]) is:$$z_{10}=\beta _{2}\xi ^{2}+\beta _{4}\xi ^{4} \label{z10_ex}$$$$\frac{d\beta _{2}}{d\tau }=\omega _{8}R_{\tau }+R\left( \frac{\omega
_{2_{\tau }}}{2}-\psi _{5}\right) \qquad \qquad \frac{d\beta _{4}}{d\tau }=\frac{\psi _{6}}{4R^{3}T} \label{z10_ex1}$$where $\beta _{2}=\beta _{2}\left( \tau \right) $ and $\beta _{4}=\beta
_{4}\left( \tau \right) $.
The supporting internal pressure is given by:$$\begin{aligned}
8\pi p &=&8\pi p_{RW}+n^{2}q^{2}\sin ^{2}\theta \left\{ \xi ^{2}\left( \frac{25T}{8R^{2}}+\frac{\alpha _{2}}{2R^{7}T}\right) \right. \nonumber \\
&&\left. +\xi ^{4}\left( \frac{25}{8R^{6}}+\frac{2\tau ^{2}}{R^{6}T}+\frac{\alpha _{4}}{2R^{7}T}\right) \right\} \nonumber \\
&&+n^{2}q^{2}\xi ^{2}\left\{ -\frac{75T}{4R^{2}}-\frac{\omega _{8}}{R^{6}T}+\frac{\beta _{2}}{2R^{7}T}+\frac{3\omega _{8}R_{\tau }^{2}}{R^{8}}+\frac{R_{\tau }}{R^{7}}\left( \omega _{8_{\tau }}+\frac{\beta _{2_{\tau }}}{R}\right) \right. \nonumber \\
&&\left. -\frac{10\tau ^{2}}{R^{2}}+\frac{\omega _{2_{\tau \tau }}}{2R^{6}}-\frac{\beta _{2_{\tau \tau }}}{R^{7}}\right\} \nonumber \\
&&+n^{2}q^{2}\xi ^{4}\left\{ \frac{\beta _{4}}{2R^{7}T}+\frac{\beta
_{4_{\tau }}R_{\tau }}{R^{8}}-\frac{\beta _{4}}{R^{7}}\right\} +\frac{n^{2}q^{2}}{R^{2}}\left\{ 2\omega _{8}-\omega _{2}\right\} \label{ppresa}\end{aligned}$$whilst the density is:$$\begin{aligned}
8\pi \rho &=&8\pi \rho _{RW}+n^{2}q^{2}\sin ^{2}\theta \left\{ \xi
^{2}\left( -\frac{25T}{4R^{2}}-\frac{11\psi _{5}R_{\tau }}{2R^{7}}-\frac{\tau ^{2}}{R^{2}}-\frac{14\alpha _{4}}{R^{3}}\right) \right. \nonumber \\
&&\left. -\frac{\xi ^{4}}{4R^{6}}\left( 1+\frac{3\tau R_{\tau }}{R}\right)
\right. \nonumber \\
&&+n^{2}q^{2}\xi ^{2}\left\{ -\frac{3\omega _{8}R_{\tau }^{2}}{R^{8}}+\frac{\left( \omega _{2_{\tau }}-10\psi _{6}\right) R_{\tau }}{R^{7}}+\frac{3\tau
^{2}}{2R^{2}}-\frac{4\alpha _{4}}{R^{3}}\right\} \nonumber \\
&&+n^{2}q^{2}\left\{ \frac{3\omega _{2}}{R^{2}}-\frac{4\alpha _{2}}{R^{3}}\right\} \label{pdena}\end{aligned}$$
Notice that in region of $\xi =0$ that both the expressions for pressure and density are well behaved and in particular when $\xi =0$ the pressure and density of the centre of the rotating source are $$8\pi p\left( 0,\tau \right) =8\pi p_{RW}+\frac{n^{2}q^{2}}{R^{2}}\left\{
2\omega _{8}-\omega _{2}\right\} \label{p0}$$$$8\pi \rho \left( 0,\tau \right) =8\pi \rho _{RW}++n^{2}q^{2}\left\{ \frac{3\omega _{2}}{R^{2}}-\frac{4\alpha _{2}}{R^{3}}\right\} \label{rho0}$$Note that the centre of the source will be non-rotating $8\pi p\left( 0,\tau
\right) =8\pi p_{RW}$ and $8\pi \rho \left( 0,\tau \right) =8\pi \rho _{RW}$ when:$$\omega _{2}=\frac{4\alpha _{2}}{3R}\qquad \qquad \omega _{8}=\frac{2\alpha
_{2}}{3R} \label{omrel}$$For this solution (\[ein41aa\]) defining $u^{1}$ becomes:$$\frac{u^{1}}{u^{4}}=n^{2}q^{2}\xi ^{3}RT\sin ^{2}\theta \left( \frac{5\tau }{2}-\frac{\psi _{5}}{R^{4}T}\right) \label{pg41a}$$
Robertson-Walker dust endowed with rotation
===========================================
As a specific example of the above subclass consider the case of dust endowed with rotation so that:$$R\left( \tau \right) =\kappa \tau ^{\frac{2}{3}}\qquad \qquad T\left( \tau
\right) =\frac{3\tau ^{2}}{4} \label{dust18}$$where $\kappa $ is constant and suppose also that $8\pi p\left( 0,\tau
\right) =8\pi p_{RW}$ and $8\pi \rho \left( 0,\tau \right) =8\pi \rho _{RW}$ in (\[p0\]) and (\[rho0\]), then (\[qub\]) to (\[pwb\]) become:$$U\left( \xi ,\theta ,\tau \right) =-\frac{207\kappa ^{4}\tau ^{\frac{20}{3}}n^{2}\xi ^{2}}{544}-n^{2}\tau ^{2}\xi ^{4}\sin ^{2}\theta \label{udust}$$$$V\left( \xi ,\theta ,\tau \right) =-\frac{n^{2}\tau ^{2}\xi ^{4}\sin
^{2}\theta }{2} \label{vdust}$$$$J\left( \xi ,\theta ,\tau \right) =-\frac{1155\kappa ^{4}\tau ^{\frac{17}{3}}n^{2}\xi ^{2}}{272}\sin ^{2}\theta \label{jdust}$$$$Q\left( \xi ,\theta ,\tau \right) =-\frac{139\tau ^{2}n^{2}\xi ^{4}}{16}\sin
^{2}\theta -\frac{207\kappa ^{4}\tau ^{\frac{20}{3}}n^{2}\xi ^{2}}{1088}
\label{qdust}$$$$W\left( \xi ,\theta ,\tau \right) =\frac{n^{2}\kappa ^{4}\tau ^{6}\sin
^{2}\theta }{64}\left( \frac{945\tau ^{\frac{2}{3}}\xi ^{2}}{17}-\frac{121\xi ^{4}}{\kappa ^{4}\tau ^{4}}\right) -\frac{837\kappa ^{4}\tau ^{\frac{20}{3}}n^{2}\xi ^{2}}{1088} \label{wdust}$$and (\[ppresa\]), (\[pdena\]) and (\[pg41a\]) become respectively:$$8\pi p=\frac{5n^{2}q^{2}\sin ^{2}\theta }{16\kappa ^{2}}\left\{ \frac{159\tau ^{\frac{2}{3}}\xi ^{2}}{17}+\frac{29\xi ^{4}}{2\tau ^{4}\kappa ^{4}}\right\} +\frac{7715\tau ^{\frac{2}{3}}n^{2}q^{2}\xi ^{2}}{272\kappa ^{2}}
\label{pdust}$$$$8\pi \rho =\frac{4}{3\tau ^{6}\kappa ^{6}}+\frac{3n^{2}q^{2}}{4\kappa ^{2}}\sin ^{2}\theta \left\{ \frac{945\tau ^{\frac{2}{3}}\xi ^{2}}{136}-\frac{\xi
^{4}}{\tau ^{4}\kappa ^{4}}\right\} +\frac{2915\tau ^{\frac{2}{3}}n^{2}q^{2}\xi ^{2}}{272\kappa ^{2}} \label{ddust}$$and$$\frac{u^{1}}{u^{4}}=-\frac{645\kappa ^{6}\tau ^{7}n^{2}q^{2}\xi ^{3}\sin
^{2}\theta }{272} \label{gdust}$$
Conclusion
==========
Einstein’s equations for a Robertson-Walker source endowed with rotation up to and including quadratic terms in angular velocity parameter have been presented. It has been shown that a family of analytic solutions of the equations are possible for the case when $k=0$ and the angular velocity of the fluid is purely time dependent. The corresponding density and supporting internal density are explicitly presented in a form containing perturbations from their respective Robertson-Walker counterparts. A subclass of the solutions merges seamlessly with the Robertson-Walker source at the origin. The work presented here is very much a preliminary investigation and further research is now being conducted since it is possible that further mathematical analysis will reveal new analytic solutions of Einstein’s equations with for example spatially varying fluid angular velocity. Moreover a numerical analysis will be applied to reveal a broader range of properties of the perturbation equations for varying forms of $h=h\left( \xi
\right) $ and for $k=1,0,-1$. Clearly, the determination of rotating sources incorporating graviational radiation would also be an important development. Further work will also address gauge issues since the analytic solutions presented in this paper have the property that the velocity four vector components have the general property that $u^{2}=0$ and $u^{1}\neq 0$ except at the poles where $u^{1}=0$. It would be interesting to consider solutions for which $u^{2}=0$ and $u^{1}=0$ for all values of $\xi $, $\theta $ and $\tau $.
Whilst perturbation analyses are of considerable importance in the General Theory of Relativity there is no doubt that the major goal for future research must be in the determination of exact solutions of Einstein’s equations for rotating sources with physically realistic properties. According to Bradley *et al* [@Brad] there is currently an ‘embarrrassing hiatus’ in the availability of such solutions. It is the hope that the perturbation analysis presented above may provide a signpost which lead to the possible discovery of such solutions assuming that they exist.
Acknowledgments
===============
I would like to record my sincere thanks for the helpful encouragement of Professor Bill Bonnor at Queen Mary & Westfield College, London during the past year and also, Professors Leonid Grishchuk, Mike Edmunds and Peter Blood for making me so welcome during my visit to the Physics and Astronomy Department in Cardiff. I am also much indebted to those at the University of Glamorgan who made the visit to Cardiff possible.
[99]{} Hartle, JB. 1967. Astro. Phys. J.,** 150**. 1005.
Kojima, Y. 1992. Physical Review D, **46**, 4289.
Kojima, Y. 1998. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., **293**, 49.
Beyer, HR. & Kokkotas, KD. 1999. Mon. Not. R. Astron., **308**, 745.
Abramowicz, MA., Rezzolla, L. & Yoshida, S. 2002. Class. Quantum Grav., **19**, 191
Kegeles, L.S. 1978. Physical Review D, **18**,4,1020.
Wiltshire, RJ. 2003. General Relativity and Gravitation. In press.
Salopek, DS., Stewart, JM. & Croudace, KM. 1994. Mon. Not. R. Astron., **271**, 1005.
Russ, H., Morita, M.,Kasai, M. & Börner, G. 1996. Physical Review D, **53**, 6881.
Bruni, M., Matarrese, S., Mollerach, S. & Sonego, S. 1997. Class. Quantum Grav.,** 14**, 2585
Bradley, M., Fodor, G., Marklund M. & Perjes, Z. 2000. Class. Quant. Grav., **17**, 351.
Expressions terms used in section 4
===================================
In the following:
$$P=\sqrt{1-k\xi ^{2}} \tag{A0}$$
so that:
$$\Psi _{1}\left( \xi ,\tau \right) =\frac{h_{\xi }h_{\xi \xi }\,P^{2}}{2\,\xi
^{7}}-\frac{3\,h_{\xi }^{2}\,P^{2}}{4\,\xi ^{8}}-\frac{h_{\xi }^{2}}{2\,\xi
^{8}} \tag{A1}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\Psi _{2}\left( \xi ,\tau \right) &=&-\frac{\,u_{3_{\xi \xi \xi }}P^{2}}{2\,\xi ^{7}}+\frac{6\,u_{3_{\xi \xi }}\,P^{2}}{\xi ^{8}}-\frac{30\,u_{3_{\xi
}}\,P^{2}}{\xi ^{9}}+\frac{60\,u_{3}\,P^{2}}{\xi ^{10}} \nonumber \\
&&+\frac{3u_{3_{\xi \xi }}\,}{2\,\xi ^{8}}-\frac{29u_{3_{\xi }}\,}{2\,\xi
^{9}}+\frac{u_{1_{\xi }}}{\xi ^{9}}+\frac{42\,u_{3}}{\xi ^{10}}-\frac{6\,u_{1}}{\xi ^{10}} \TCItag{A2}\end{aligned}$$
$$\Psi _{3}\left( \xi ,\tau \right) =\frac{h\,h_{\xi }}{\xi ^{7}}+\frac{u_{3_{\tau \tau \xi }}}{2\,\xi ^{7}}-\frac{5\,h^{2}}{2\,\xi ^{8}}-\frac{5u_{3_{\tau \tau }}\,}{2\,\xi ^{8}} \tag{A3}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\Psi _{4}\left( \xi ,\tau \right) &=&\frac{\,h_{\xi }h_{\xi \xi \xi
}\,P^{4}\,T}{2\,\xi ^{2}}+\frac{h_{\xi \xi }^{2}\,P^{4}\,T}{2\,\xi ^{2}}-\frac{3h_{\xi }\,h_{\xi \xi }\,P^{4}\,T}{\xi ^{3}}+\frac{3\,h_{\xi
}^{2}\,P^{4}\,T}{\xi ^{4}} \nonumber \\
&&-\frac{5\,h_{\xi }h_{\xi \xi }\,P^{2}\,T}{2\,\xi ^{3}}+\frac{9\,h_{\xi
}^{2}\,P^{2}\,T}{2\,\xi ^{4}}+\frac{h_{\xi }^{2}\,T}{2\,\xi ^{4}}+\frac{h\,h_{\xi \xi }\,P^{2}}{\xi ^{2}\,R^{4}}+\frac{h_{\xi }^{2}\,P^{2}}{\xi
^{2}\,R^{4}} \nonumber \\
&&+\frac{\,u_{3_{\tau \tau \xi \xi }}P^{2}}{2\,\xi ^{2}\,R^{4}}-\frac{10\,hh_{\xi }\,P^{2}}{\xi ^{3}\,R^{4}}-\frac{5u_{3_{\tau \tau \xi }}\,P^{2}}{\xi ^{3}\,R^{4}}+\frac{15\,h^{2}\,P^{2}}{\xi ^{4}\,R^{4}} \nonumber \\
&&+\frac{15\,\,u_{3_{\tau \tau }}P^{2}}{\xi ^{4}\,R^{4}}-\frac{hh_{\xi }\,}{\xi ^{3}\,R^{4}}-\frac{u_{3_{\tau \tau \xi }}}{2\,\xi ^{3}\,R^{4}}+\frac{2u_{3_{\tau \tau }}}{\xi ^{4}\,R^{4}}-\frac{u_{1_{\tau \tau }}}{\xi
^{4}\,R^{4}}-\frac{u_{3_{\xi \xi \xi \xi }}\,P^{4}}{2\,\xi ^{2}} \nonumber
\\
&&+\frac{15u_{3_{\xi \xi \xi }}\,\,P^{4}}{2\,\xi ^{3}}-\frac{54\,u_{3_{\xi
\xi }}\,P^{4}}{\xi ^{4}}+\frac{210u_{3_{\xi }}\,\,P^{4}}{\xi ^{5}}-\frac{360\,u_{3}\,P^{4}}{\xi ^{6}}+\frac{3u_{3_{\xi \xi \xi }}\,P^{2}}{\xi ^{3}}
\nonumber \\
&&-\frac{79u_{2_{\xi \xi }}\,\,P^{2}}{2\,\xi ^{4}}+\frac{u_{1_{\xi \xi
}}\,P^{2}}{\xi ^{4}}+\frac{427\,\,u_{3_{\xi }}P^{2}}{2\,\xi ^{5}}-\frac{13u_{1_{\xi }}\,\,P^{2}}{\xi ^{5}}-\frac{456\,u_{3}\,P^{2}}{\xi ^{6}}+
\nonumber \\
&&\frac{48\,u_{1}\,P^{2}}{\xi ^{6}}-\frac{3u_{3_{\xi \xi }}\,}{2\,\xi ^{4}}+\frac{25u_{3_{\xi }}\,}{2\,\xi ^{5}}+\frac{u_{1_{\xi }}}{\xi ^{5}}-\frac{34\,u_{3}}{\xi ^{6}}+\frac{2\,u_{1}}{\xi ^{6}} \TCItag{A4}\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\Psi _{5}\left( \xi ,\tau \right) &=&\frac{h_{\xi }^{2}\,P^{2}\,T}{2\,\xi
^{4}}+\frac{2\,\,u_{6_{\tau \xi }}\xi ^{3}\,P^{2}}{R^{4}}+\frac{2\,u_{6_{\tau }}\,\xi ^{2}\,P^{2}}{R^{4}}-\frac{2\,u_{6_{\tau }}\,\xi ^{2}}{R^{4}}-\frac{u_{2_{\tau \tau }}\,\xi ^{2}}{R^{4}} \nonumber \\
&&+\frac{h^{2}}{\xi ^{4}\,R^{4}}+\frac{u_{3_{\tau \tau }}}{\xi ^{4}\,R^{4}}+u_{8_{\xi \xi }}\,\xi ^{2}\,P^{2}-u_{2_{\xi }}\,\xi \,P^{2}-\frac{\,u_{3_{\xi \xi }}P^{2}}{\xi ^{4}}+\frac{9u_{3_{\xi }}\,P^{2}}{\xi ^{5}}
\nonumber \\
&&-\frac{24\,u_{3}\,P^{2}}{\xi ^{6}}-u_{8_{\xi }}\xi +\frac{u_{3_{\xi }}}{\xi ^{5}}-\frac{4\,u_{3}}{\xi ^{6}}+\frac{4\,u_{1}}{\xi ^{6}}+2\,u_{2}
\TCItag{A5}\end{aligned}$$
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We compute the volume of the body enclosed by the $n$-dimensional Lamé curve defined by $\sum_{i=1}^nx_i^b= E$.'
author:
- 'Ra[ú]{}l Toral'
title: 'The volume enclosed by an $n$-dimensional Lamé curve'
---
A recent paper [@LSC] derives asymptotic expressions for the volume of the n-dimensional body defined by $0\le\sum_{i=1}^nx_i^b\le E$ where $b>0$. This is the body enclosed by a Lamé curve in $n$ dimensions. Here we compute exactly this volume by using a straightforward modification of the calculation that gives the volume of the n-dimensional sphere, the case $b=2$, see [@Pathria].
If we write $E=R^b$, the volume $V_n(R)$ is $$\begin{array}{ll}\displaystyle V_n(R)=&\displaystyle \int dx_1\cdots \int dx_n\,\,\,.\\&_{0\le\sum_{i=1}^nx_i^b\le R^b}\end{array}$$ By dimensional analysis $V_n(R)=C_nR^n$. We next compute the integral $$\int_0^{\infty}dx_1\cdots\int_0^{\infty}dx_n\exp[-(x_1^b\cdots+x_n^b)]=\left[\int_0^{\infty}dx\exp[-x^b]\right]^n=\left[\Gamma\left(1+\frac{1}{b}\right)\right]^n,$$ by using the change of variables $r=(x_1^b\cdots+x_n^b)^{1/b}$ and the volume element $dV_n(r)=nC_nr^{n-1}dr$ as $$\int_0^{\infty} dV_n(r)\exp[-r^b]=C_n\Gamma\left(1+\frac{n}{b}\right).$$ Equaling these two expressions we get: $$V_n(R)=\frac{\left[\Gamma\left(1+\frac{1}{b}\right)\right]^n}{\Gamma\left(1+\frac{n}{b}\right)}R^n.$$ Which is the desired result. It coincides with the asymptotic limit $n\to\infty$ found in [@LSC] although, as shown here, the expression is valid for any value of $n$.
Ricardo López-Ruiz, Jaime Sañudo and Xavier Calbet, Entropy [**11**]{}, 959 (2009), [*ibid.*]{} arXiv:0708.3761.
See, for example, R.K. Pathria, [*Statistical Mechanics*]{}, 2nd edition, Butterwort-Heinemann (1996), appendix C.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Words unknown to the lexicon present a substantial problem to part-of-speech tagging. In this paper we present a technique for fully unsupervised statistical acquisition of rules which guess possible parts-of-speech for unknown words. Three complementary sets of word-guessing rules are induced from the lexicon and a raw corpus: prefix morphological rules, suffix morphological rules and ending-guessing rules. The learning was performed on the Brown Corpus data and rule-sets, with a highly competitive performance, were produced and compared with the state-of-the-art.'
author:
- |
Andrei Mikheev\
\
HCRC Language Technology Group\
University of Edinburgh\
2 Buccleuch Place\
Edinburgh EH8 9LW, Scotland, UK\
[: [email protected]]{}
title: ' Unsupervised Learning of Word-Category Guessing Rules'
---
=.5ex =.5ex
startsection [section]{}[1]{}[@]{} [-2ex plus -.3ex minus -.1ex]{}[1ex plus .1ex]{}[****]{}
===========================================================================================
startsection[subsection]{}[2]{}[@]{} [-1.5ex plus -.4ex minus -.1ex]{}[1ex plus .1ex]{}[****]{}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
makecaption\#1\#2
.2ex tempboxa tempboxa >\#1: \#2
to
Introduction
============
Words unknown to the lexicon present a substantial problem to part-of-speech ([[pos]{}]{}) tagging of real-world texts. Taggers assign a single [[pos]{}]{}-tag to a word-token, provided that it is known what parts-of-speech this word can take on in principle. So, first words are looked up in the lexicon. However, 3 to 5% of word tokens are usually missing in the lexicon when tagging real-world texts. This is where word-[[pos]{}]{} guessers take their place — they employ the analysis of word features, e.g. word leading and trailing characters, to figure out its possible [[pos]{}]{} categories. A set of rules which on the basis of ending characters of unknown words, assign them with sets of possible [[pos]{}]{}-tags is supplied with the Xerox tagger [@Kupiec:1992]. A similar approach was taken in [@Weischedel:1993] where an unknown word was guessed given the probabilities for an unknown word to be of a particular [[pos]{}]{}, its capitalisation feature and its ending. In [@Brill:1995] a system of rules which uses both ending-guessing and more morphologically motivated rules is described. The best of these methods are reported to achieve 82–85% of tagging accuracy on unknown words, e.g. [@Brill:1995; @Weischedel:1993].
The major topic in the development of word-[[pos]{}]{} guessers is the strategy which is to be used for the acquisition of the guessing rules. A rule-based tagger described in [@Voutilainen:1995] is equipped with a set of guessing rules which has been hand-crafted using knowledge of English morphology and intuition. A more appealing approach is an empirical automatic acquisition of such rules using available lexical resources. In [@Zhang:1990] a system for the automated learning of morphological word-formation rules is described. This system divides a string into three regions and from training examples infers their correspondence to underlying morphological features. Brill [@Brill:1995] outlines a transformation-based learner which learns guessing rules from a pre-tagged training corpus. A statistical-based suffix learner is presented in [@Schmid:1994]. From a pre-tagged training corpus it constructs the suffix tree where every suffix is associated with its information measure. Although the learning process in these and some other systems is fully unsupervised and the accuracy of obtained rules reaches current state-of-the-art, they require specially prepared training data — a pre-tagged training corpus, training examples, etc.
In this paper we describe a new fully automatic technique for learning part-of-speech guessing rules. This technique does not require specially prepared training data and employs fully unsupervised statistical learning using the lexicon supplied with the tagger and word-frequencies obtained from a raw corpus. The learning is implemented as a two-staged process with feedback. First, setting certain parameters a set of guessing rules is acquired, then it is evaluated and the results of evaluation are used for re-acquisition of a better tuned rule-set.
Guessing Rules Acquisition
==========================
As was pointed out above, one of the requirements in many techniques for automatic learning of part-of-speech guessing rules is specially prepared training data — a pre-tagged training corpus, training examples, etc. In our approach we decided to reuse the data which come naturally with a tagger, viz. the lexicon. Another source of information which is used and which is not prepared specially for the task is a text corpus. Unlike other approaches we don’t require the corpus to be pre-annotated but use it in its raw form. In our experiments we used the lexicon and word-frequencies derived from the Brown Corpus [@Francis:1982]. There are a number of reasons for choosing the Brown Corpus data for training. The most important ones are that the Brown Corpus provides a model of general multi-domain language use, so general language regularities can be induced from it, and second, many taggers come with data trained on the Brown Corpus which is useful for comparison and evaluation. This, however, by no means restricts the described technique to that or any other tag-set, lexicon or corpus. Moreover, despite the fact that the training is performed on a particular lexicon and a particular corpus, the obtained guessing rules suppose to be domain and corpus independent and the only training-dependent feature is the tag-set in use.
The acquisition of word-[[pos]{}]{} guessing rules is a three-step procedure which includes the [*rule extraction*]{}, [*rule scoring*]{} and [ *rule merging*]{} phases. At the rule extraction phase, three sets of word-guessing rules (morphological prefix guessing rules, morphological suffix guessing rules and ending-guessing rules) are extracted from the lexicon and cleaned from coincidental cases. At the scoring phase, each rule is scored in accordance with its accuracy of guessing and the best scored rules are included into the final rule-sets. At the merging phase, rules which have not scored high enough to be included into the final rule-sets are merged into more general rules, then re-scored and depending on their score added to the final rule-sets.
Rule Extraction Phase
---------------------
### Extraction of Morphological Rules. {#sec:morph}
Morphological word-guessing rules describe how one word can be guessed given that another word is known. For example, the rule: [[ **** ]{}\[un (VBD VBN) (JJ)\] ]{} says that prefixing the string “un” to a word, which can act as past form of verb (VBD) and participle (VBN), produces an adjective (JJ). For instance, by applying this rule to the word “undeveloped”, we first segment the prefix “un” and if the remaining part “developed” is found in the lexicon as [[ **** ]{}(VBD VBN)]{}, we conclude that the word “undeveloped” is an adjective (JJ). The first [[pos]{}]{}-set in a guessing rule is called the [*initial class*]{} ($I$-class) and the [[pos]{}]{}-set of the guessed word is called the [ *resulting class*]{} ($R$-class). In the example above [[ **** ]{}(VBD VBN)]{} is the $I$-class of the rule and [[ **** ]{}(JJ)]{} is the $R$-class.
In English, as in many other languages, morphological word formation is realised by affixation: prefixation and suffixation. Although sometimes the affixation is not just a straightforward concatenation of the affix with the stem[^1], the majority of cases clearly obey simple concatenative regularities. So, we decided first to concentrate only on simple concatenative cases. There are two kinds of morphological rules to be learned: suffix rules ($A^{s}$) — rules which are applied to the tail of a word, and prefix rules ($A^{p}$) — rules which are applied to the beginning of a word. For example:
$A^{s}$ : [[ **** ]{}\[ed (NN VB) (JJ VBD VBN)\]]{}
says that if by stripping the suffix “ed” from an unknown word we produce a word with the [[pos]{}]{}-class [[ **** ]{}(NN VB)]{}, the unknown word is of the class – [[ **** ]{}(JJ VBD VBN)]{}. This rule works, for instance, for [[ **** ]{}\[book [$\rightarrow$]{}booked\], \[water [$\rightarrow$]{}watered\]]{}, etc. To extract such rules a special operator $\bigtriangledown$ is applied to every pair of words from the lexicon. It tries to segment an affix by leftmost string subtraction for suffixes and rightmost string subtraction for prefixes. If the subtraction results in an non-empty string it creates a morphological rule by storing the [[pos]{}]{}-class of the shorter word as the $I$-class and the [[pos]{}]{}-class of the longer word as the $R$-class. For example:
[[ **** ]{}\[booked (JJ VBD VBN)\]]{} $\bigtriangledown$ [[ **** ]{}\[book (NN VB)\]]{} [$\rightarrow$]{}\
$A^{s}:$[[ **** ]{}\[ed (NN VB) (JJ VBD VBN)\]]{}
[[ **** ]{}\[undeveloped (JJ)\]]{} $\bigtriangledown$ [[ **** ]{}\[developed (VBD VBN)\]]{} [$\rightarrow$]{}\
$A^{p}:$[[ **** ]{}\[un (VBD VBN) (JJ)\]]{}
The $\bigtriangledown$ operator is applied to all possible lexicon-entry pairs and if a rule produced by such an application has already been extracted from another pair, its frequency count ($f$) is incremented. Thus two different sets of guessing rules — prefix and suffix morphological rules together with their frequencies — are produced. Next, from these sets of guessing rules we need to cut out infrequent rules which might bias the further learning process. To do that we eliminate all the rules with the frequency $f$ less than a certain threshold $\theta$[^2]. Such filtering reduces the rule-sets more than tenfold and does not leave clearly coincidental cases among the rules.
### Extraction of Ending Guessing Rules.
Unlike morphological guessing rules, ending-guessing rules do not require the main form of an unknown word to be listed in the lexicon. These rules guess a [[pos]{}]{}-class for a word just on the basis of its ending characters and without looking up its stem in the lexicon. Such rules are able to cover more unknown words than morphological guessing rules but their accuracy will not be as high. For example, an ending-guessing rule
$A^{e}$:[[ **** ]{}\[ing - (JJ NN VBG)\]]{}
says that if a word ends with “ing” it can be an adjective, a noun or a gerund. Unlike a morphological rule, this rule does not ask to check whether the substring preceeding the “ing”-ending is a word with a particular [[pos]{}]{}-tag. Thus an ending-guessing rule looks exactly like a morphological rule apart from the $I$-class which is always void.
To collect such rules we set the upper limit on the ending length equal to five characters and thus collect from the lexicon all possible word-endings of length 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, together with the [[pos]{}]{}-classes of the words where these endings were detected to appear. This is done by the operator $\bigtriangleup$. For example, from the word [[ **** ]{} \[different (JJ)\]]{} the $\bigtriangleup$ operator will produce five ending-guessing rules: [[ **** ]{}\[t - (JJ)\]; \[nt - (JJ)\]; \[ent - (JJ)\]; \[rent - (JJ)\]; \[erent - (JJ)\].]{} The $\bigtriangleup$ operator is applied to each entry in the lexicon in the way described for the $\bigtriangledown$ operator of the morphological rules and then infrequent rules with $f<\theta$ are filtered out.
Rule Scoring Phase {#sec:score}
------------------
Of course, not all acquired rules are equally good as plausible guesses about word-classes: some rules are more accurate in their guessings and some rules are more frequent in their application. So, for every acquired rule we need to estimate whether it is an effective rule which is worth retaining in the final rule-set. For such estimation we perform a statistical experiment as follows: for every rule we calculate the number of times this rule was applied to a word token from a raw corpus and the number of times it gave the right answer. Note that the task of the rule is not to disambiguate a word’s [[pos]{}]{} but to provide [*all*]{} and [*only*]{} possible [[pos]{}]{}s it can take on. If the rule is correct in the majority of times it was applied it is obviously a good rule. If the rule is wrong most of the times it is a bad rule which should not be included into the final rule-set.
To perform this experiment we take one-by-one each rule from the rule-sets produced at the rule extraction phase, take each word token from the corpus and guess its [[pos]{}]{}-set using the rule if the rule is applicable to the word. For example, if a guessing rule strips a particular suffix and a current word from the corpus does not have this suffix, we classify these word and rule as incompatible and the rule as not applicable to that word. If the rule is applicable to the word we perform look-up in the lexicon for this word and then compare the result of the guess with the information listed in the lexicon. If the guessed [[pos]{}]{}-set is the same as the [[pos]{}]{}-set stated in the lexicon, we count it as success, otherwise it is failure. The value of a guessing rule, thus, closely correlates with its [*estimated proportion of success*]{} ($\hat{p}$) which is the proportion of all positive outcomes ($x$) of the rule application to the total number of the trials ($n$), which are, in fact, attempts to apply the rule to all the compatible words in the corpus. We also smooth $\hat{p}$ so as not to have zeros in positive or negative outcome probabilities: $ \hat{p} = \frac{x+0.5 }{n+1 } $
$\hat{p}$ estimate is a good indicator of rule accuracy. However, it frequently suffers from large [*estimation error*]{} due to insufficient training data. For example, if a rule was detected to work just twice and the total number of observations was also two, its estimate $\hat{p}$ is very high (1, or 0.83 for the smoothed version) but clearly this is not a very reliable estimate because of the tiny size of the sample. Several smoothing methods have been proposed to reduce the estimation error. For different reasons all these smoothing methods are not very suitable in our case. In our approach we tackle this problem by calculating the [ *lower confidence limit*]{} $\pi_{L}$ for the rule estimate. This can be seen as the minimal expected value of $\hat{p}$ for the rule if we were to draw a large number of samples. Thus with certain confidence $\alpha$ we can assume that if we used more training data, the rule estimate $\hat{p}$ would be no worse than the $\pi_{L}$ limit. The lower confidence limit $\pi_{L}$ is calculated as:
$\pi_{L}=\hat{p} - z_{(1-\alpha)/2}* s_{p}=
\hat{p }- z_{(1-\alpha)/2}*\sqrt{\frac{\hat{p}(1-\hat{p})}{n}} $
This function favours the rules with higher estimates obtained over larger samples. Even if one rule has a high estimate but that estimate was obtained over a small sample, another rule with a lower estimate but over a large sample might be valued higher. Note also that since $\hat{p}$ itself is smoothed we will not have zeros in positive ($\hat{p}$) or negative ($1-\hat{p}$) outcome probabilities. This estimation of the rule value in fact resembles that used by [@Tzoukermann:1995] for scoring [[pos]{}]{}-disambiguation rules for the French tagger. The main difference between the two functions is that there the $z$ value was implicitly assumed to be 1 which corresponds to the confidence of 68%. A more standard approach is to adopt a rather high confidence value in the range of 90-95%. We adopted 90% confidence for which $z_{(1-0.90)/2} = z_{0.05} = 1.65$. Thus we can calculate the score for the i[*th*]{} rule as: $ \hat{p}_{i} - 1.65*\sqrt{\frac{\hat{p}_{i}(1-\hat{p}_{i})}{n_{i}}}$
Another important consideration for scoring a word-guessing rule is that the longer the affix or ending of the rule the more confident we are that it is not a coincidental one, even on small samples. For example, if the estimate for the word-ending “o” was obtained over a sample of 5 words and the estimate for the word-ending “fulness” was also obtained over a sample of 5 words, the later case is more representative even though the sample size is the same. Thus we need to adjust the estimation error in accordance with the length of the affix or ending. A good way to do that is to divide it by a value which increases along with the increase of the length. After several experiments we obtained:
$score_{i}= \hat{p}_{i} -
1.65*\sqrt{\frac{\hat{p}_{i}(1-\hat{p}_{i})}{n_{i}}}/(1+\log(|S_{i}|))$
When the length of the affix or ending is 1 the estimation error is not changed since $\log(1)$ is $0$. For the rules with the affix or ending length of 2 the estimation error is reduced by $1+\log(2)= 1.3$, for the length 3 this will be $1+\log(3)=1.48$, etc. The longer the length the smaller the sample which will be considered representative enough for a confident rule estimation. Setting the threshold $\theta_{s}$ at a certain level lets only the rules whose score is higher than the threshold to be included into the final rule-sets. The method for setting up this threshold is based on empirical evaluations of the rule-sets and is described in Section \[sec:eval\].
Rule Merging Phase
------------------
Rules which have scored lower than the threshold $\theta_{s}$ can be merged into more general rules which if scored above the threshold are also included into the final rule-sets. We can merge two rules which have scored below the threshold and have the same affix (or ending) and the initial class ([*I*]{})[^3]. The score of the resulting rule will be higher than the scores of the merged rules since the number of positive observations increases and the number of the trials remains the same. After a successful application of the merging, the resulting rule substitutes the two merged ones. To perform such rule-merging over a rule-set, first, the rules which have not been included into the final set are sorted by their score and best-scored rules are merged first. This is done recursively until the score of the resulting rule does not exceed the threshold in which case it is added to the final rule-set. This process is applied until no merges can be done to the rules which have scored below the threshold.
Direct Evaluation Stage {#sec:eval}
=======================
Measure Test Xerox Ending 75 Suffix 60 Prefix 80
----------- --------- ---------- ----------- ----------- -----------
Recall Lexicon 0.956313 0.945726 0.95761 0.955748
Corpus 0.944526 0.952016 0.97352 0.978515
Precision Lexicon 0.460761 0.675122 0.919796 0.922534
Corpus 0.523965 0.745339 0.979351 0.977633
Coverage Lexicon 0.917698 0.977089 0.37597 0.049558
Corpus 0.893275 0.96104 0.320996 0.058372
\[tab:eval\_sure\_lex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are two important questions which arise at the rule acquisition stage - how to choose the scoring threshold $\theta_{s}$ and what is the performance of the rule-sets produced with different thresholds. The task of assigning a set of [[pos]{}]{}-tags to a word is actually quite similar to the task of document categorisation where a document should be assigned with a set of descriptors which represent its contents. The performance of such assignment can be measured in:
[*recall*]{} - the percentage of [[pos]{}]{}s which were assigned correctly by the guesser to a word;
[*precision*]{} - the percentage of [[pos]{}]{}s the guesser assigned correctly over the total number of [[pos]{}]{}s it assigned to the word;
[*coverage*]{} - the proportion of words which the guesser was able to classify, but not necessarily correctly;
In our experiments we measured word precision and word recall (micro-average). There were two types of data in use at this stage. First, we evaluated the guessing rules against the actual lexicon: every word from the lexicon, except for closed-class words and words shorter than five characters[^4], was guessed by the different guessing strategies and the results were compared with the information the word had in the lexicon. In the other evaluation experiment we measured the performance of the guessing rules against the training corpus. For every word we computed its metrics exactly as in the previous experiment. Then we multiplied these results by the corpus frequency of this particular word and averaged them. Thus the most frequent words had the greatest influence on the aggreagte measures.
First, we concentrated on finding the best thresholds $\theta_{s}$ for the rule-sets. To do that for each rule-set produced using different thresholds we recorded the three metrics and chose the set with the best aggregate. In
Table 1 some results of that experiment are shown. The best thresholds were detected: for ending rules – 75 points, for suffix rules – 60, and for prefix rules – 80. One can notice a slight difference in the results obtained over the lexicon and the corpus. The corpus results are better because the training technique explicitly targeted the rule-sets to the most frequent cases of the corpus rather than the lexicon. In average ending-guessing rules were detected to cover over 96% of the unknown words. The precision of 74% roughly can be interpreted as that for words which take on three different [[pos]{}]{}s in their [[pos]{}]{}-class, the ending-guessing rules will assign four, but in 95% of the times (recall) the three required [[pos]{}]{}s will be among the four assigned by the guess. In comparison with the Xerox word-ending guesser taken as the base-line model we detect a substantial increase in the precision by about 22% and a cheerful increase in coverage by about 6%. This means that the Xerox guesser creates more ambiguity for the disambiguator, assigning five instead of three [[pos]{}]{}s in the example above. It can also handle 6% less unknown words which, in fact, might decrease its performance even lower. In comparison with the ending-guessing rules, the morphological rules have much better precision and hence better accuracy of guessing. Virtually almost every word which can be guessed by the morphological rules is guessed exactly correct (97% recall and 97% precision). Not surprisingly, the coverage of morphological rules is much lower than that of the ending-guessing ones – for the suffix rules it is less than 40% and for the prefix rules about 5-6%.
----------------------------- ------------------ ---------- ---------- ------------------ ---------- ----------
Guessing
Strategy Precision Recall Coverage Precision Recall Coverage
Xerox (X) 0.460761 0.956331 0.917698 0.523965 0.944526 0.893275
Ending 75 (E$_{75}$) [**0.675122**]{} 0.945726 0.977089 [**0.745339**]{} 0.952016 0.96104
X+E$_{75}$ 0.470249 0.95783 0.989843 0.519715 0.949789 0.969023
E$_{75}$+X 0.670741 0.943319 0.989843 0.743932 0.951541 0.969023
P$_{80}$+ E$_{75}$ 0.687126 0.946208 0.977488 0.748922 0.951563 0.96104
S$_{60}$+ E$_{75}$ 0.734143 0.945015 0.979686 0.792901 0.951015 0.963289
P$_{80}$+S$_{60}$+ E$_{75}$ [**0.745504**]{} 0.945445 0.980086 [**0.796252**]{} 0.950562 0.963289
----------------------------- ------------------ ---------- ---------- ------------------ ---------- ----------
\[tab:eval\_all\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
After obtaining the optimal rule-sets we performed the same experiment on a word-sample which was not included into the training lexicon and corpus. We gathered about three thousand words from the lexicon developed for the Wall Street Journal corpus[^5] and collected frequencies of these words in this corpus. At this experiment we obtained similar metrics apart from the coverage which dropped about 0.5% for Ending 75 and Xerox rule-sets and 7% for the Suffix 60 rule-set. This, actually, did not come as a surprise, since many main forms required by the suffix rules were missing in the lexicon.
In the next experiment we evaluated whether the morphological rules add any improvement if they are used in conjunction with the ending-guessing rules. We also evaluated in detail whether a conjunctive application with the Xerox guesser would boost the performance. As in the previous experiment we measured the precision, recall and coverage both on the lexicon and on the corpus. Table 2
demonstrates some results of this experiment. The first part of the table shows that when the Xerox guesser is applied before the E$_{75}$ guesser we measure a drop in the performance. When the Xerox guesser is applied after the E$_{75}$ guesser no sufficient changes to the performance are noticed. This actually proves that the E$_{75}$ rule-set fully supercedes the Xerox rule-set. The second part of the table shows that the cascading application of the morphological rule-sets together with the ending-guessing rules increases the overall precision of the guessing by a further 5%. This makes the improvements against the base-line Xerox guesser 28% in precision and 7% in coverage.
Tagging Unknown Words
=====================
The direct evaluation of the rule-sets gave us the grounds for the comparison and selection of the best performing guessing rule-sets. The task of unknown word guessing is, however, a subtask of the overall part-of-speech tagging process. Thus we are mostly interested in how the advantage of one rule-set over another will affect the tagging performance. So, we performed an independent evaluation of the impact of the word guessers on tagging accuracy. In this evaluation we tried two different taggers. First, we used a tagger which was a [c]{}++ re-implementation of the [lisp]{} implemented HMM Xerox tagger described in [@Kupiec:1992]. The other tagger was the rule-based tagger of Brill [@Brill:1995]. Both of the taggers come with data and word-guessing components pre-trained on the Brown Corpus[^6]. This, actually gave us the search-space of four combinations: the Xerox tagger equipped with the original Xerox guesser, Brill’s tagger with its original guesser, the Xerox tagger with our cascading P$_{80}$+S$_{60}$+E$_{75}$ guesser and Brill’s tagger with the cascading guesser. For words which failed to be guessed by the guessing rules we applied the standard method of classifying them as common nouns (NN) if they are not capitalised inside a sentence and proper nouns (NP) otherwise. As the base-line result we measured the performance of the taggers with all known words on the same word sample.
In the evaluation of tagging accuracy on unknown words we pay attention to two metrics. First we measure the accuracy of tagging solely on unknown words:
$Unkown Score = \frac{Correctly Tagged Unkown Words}{Total Unknown Words}$
This metric gives us the exact measure of how the tagger has done on unknown words. In this case, however, we do not account for the known words which were mis-tagged because of the guessers. To put a perspective on that aspect we measure the overall tagging performance:
$TotalScore = \frac{Correctly Tagged Words}{Total Words}$
-------- ------------------------------ ------- ------- --------- --------- ------- -------
Tagger Guessing Total Unkn. Total Unkn. Total Unkn.
strategy words words mistag. mistag. Score Score
Xerox Xerox 5,970 347 324 63 94.3% 81.8%
Xerox P$_{80}$ +S$_{60}$ +E$_{75}$ 5,970 347 292 33 95.1% 90.5%
Brill Brill 5,970 347 246 54 95.9% 84.5%
Brill P$_{80}$ +S$_{60}$ +E$_{75}$ 5,970 347 219 27 96.3% 92.2%
-------- ------------------------------ ------- ------- --------- --------- ------- -------
\[tab:tag-1\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------- ------------------------------ ------- ------- --------- --------- -------- --------
Tagger Guessing Total Unkn. Total Unkn. Total Unkn.
strategy words words mistag. mistag. Score Score
Xerox Xerox 5,970 2215 556 516 90.7% 76.7%
Xerox P$_{80}$ +S$_{60}$ +E$_{75}$ 5,970 2215 332 309 94.44% 86.05%
Brill Brill 5,970 2215 464 410 93.1% 81.5%
Brill P$_{80}$ +S$_{60}$ +E$_{75}$ 5,970 2215 327 287 94.52% 87.45%
-------- ------------------------------ ------- ------- --------- --------- -------- --------
\[tab:tag-2\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the Brown Corpus model is a general language model, it, in principle, does not put restrictions on the type of text it can be used for, although its performance might be slightly lower than that of a model specialised for this particular sublanguage. Here we want to stress that our primary task was not to evaluate the taggers themselves but rather their performance with the word-guessing modules. So we did not worry too much about tuning the taggers for the texts and used the Brown Corpus model instead. We tagged several texts of different origins, except from the Brown Corpus. These texts were not seen at the training phase which means that neither the taggers nor the guessers had been trained on these texts and they naturally had words unknown to the lexicon. For each text we performed two tagging experiments. In the first experiment we tagged the text with the Brown Corpus lexicon supplied with the taggers and hence had only those unknown words which naturally occur in this text. In the second experiment we tagged the same text with the lexicon which contained only closed-class[^7] and short[^8] words. This small lexicon contained only 5,456 entries out of 53,015 entries of the original Brown Corpus lexicon. All other words were considered as unknown and had to be guessed by the guessers.
We obtained quite stable results in these experiments. Here is a typical example of tagging a text of 5970 words. This text was detected to have 347 unknown words. First, we tagged the text by the four different combinations of the taggers with the word-guessers using the full-fledged lexicon. The results of this tagging are summarised in Table 3
. When using the Xerox tagger with its original guesser, 63 unknown words were incorrectly tagged and the accuracy on the unknown words was measured at 81.8%. When the Xerox tagger was equipped with our cascading guesser its accuracy on unknown words increased by almost 9% upto 90.5%. The same situation was detected with Brill’s tagger which in general was slightly more accurate than the Xerox one[^9]. The cascading guesser performed better than Brill’s original guesser by about 8% boosting the performance on the unknown words from 84.5%[^10] to 92.2%. The accuracy of the taggers on the set of 347 unknown words when they were made known to the lexicon was detected at 98.5% for both taggers.
In the second experiment we tagged the same text in the same way but with the small lexicon. Out of 5,970 words of the text, 2,215 were unknown to the small lexicon. The results of this tagging are summarised in Table 4
. The accuracy of the taggers on the 2,215 unknown words when they were made known to the lexicon was much lower than in the previous experiment — 90.3% for the Xerox tagger and 91.5% for Brill’s tagger. Naturally, the performance of the guessers was also lower than in the previous experiment plus the fact that many “semi-closed” class adverbs like “however”, “instead”, etc., were missing in the small lexicon. The accuracy of the tagging on unknown words dropped by about 5% in general. The best results on unknown words were again obtained on the cascading guesser (86%–87.45%) and Brill’s tagger again did better then the Xerox one by 1.5%.
Two types of mis-taggings caused by the guessers occured. The first type is when guessers provided broader [[pos]{}]{}-classes for unknown words and the tagger had difficulties with the disambiguation of such broader classes. This is especially the case with the “ing” words which, in general, can act as nouns, adjectives and gerunds and only direct lexicalization can restrict the search space, as in the case with the word “going” which cannot be an adjective but only a noun and a gerund. The second type of mis-tagging was caused by wrong assignments of [[pos]{}]{}s by the guesser. Usually this is the case with irregular words like, for example, “cattle” which was wrongly guessed as a singular noun (NN) but in fact is a plural noun (NNS).
Discussion and Conclusion
=========================
We presented a technique for fully unsupervised statistical acquisition of rules which guess possible parts-of-speech for words unknown to the lexicon. This technique does not require specially prepared training data and uses for training the lexicon and word frequencies collected from a raw corpus. Using these training data three types of guessing rules are learned: prefix morphological rules, suffix morphological rules and ending-guessing rules. To select best performing guessing rule-sets we suggested an evaluation methodology, which is solely dedicated to the performance of part-of-speech guessers.
Evaluation of tagging accuracy on unknown words using texts unseen by the guessers and the taggers at the training phase showed that tagging with the automatically induced cascading guesser was consistently more accurate than previously quoted results known to the author (85%). The cascading guesser outperformed the guesser supplied with the Xerox tagger by about 8-9% and the guesser supplied with Brill’s tagger by about 6-7%. Tagging accuracy on unknown words using the cascading guesser was detected at 90-92% when tagging with the full-fledged lexicon and 86–88% when tagging with the closed-class and short word lexicon. When the unknown words were made known to the lexicon the accuracy of tagging was detected at 96-98% and 90-92% respectively. This makes the accuracy drop caused by the cascading guesser to be less than 6% in general. Another important conclusion from the evaluation experiments is that the morphological guessing rules do improve the guessing performance. Since they are more accurate than ending-guessing rules they are applied before ending-guessing rules and improve the precision of the guessings by about 5%. This, actually, results in about 2% higher accuracy of tagging on unknown words.
The acquired guessing rules employed in our cascading guesser are, in fact, of a standard nature and in that form or another are used in other [[pos]{}]{}-guessers. There are, however, a few points which make the rule-sets acquired by the presented here technique more accurate:
- the learning of such rules is done from the lexicon rather than tagged corpus, because the guesser’s task is akin to the lexicon lookup;
- there is a well-tuned statistical scoring procedure which accounts for rule features and frequency distribution;
- there is an empirical way to determine an optimum collection of rules, since acquired rules are subject to rigorous direct evaluation in terms of precision, recall and coverage;
- rules are applied cascadingly using the most accurate rules first.
One of the most important issues in the induction of guessing rule-sets is the choice right data for training. In our approach, guessing rules are extracted from the lexicon and the actual corpus frequencies of word-usage then allow for discrimination between rules which are no longer productive (but have left their imprint on the basic lexicon) and rules that are productive in real-life texts. Thus the major factor in the learning process is the lexicon. Since guessing rules are meant to capture general language regularities the lexicon should be as general as possible (list [*all*]{} possible [[pos]{}]{}s for a word) and as large as possible. The corresponding corpus should include most of the words from the lexicon and be large enough to obtain reliable estimates of word-frequency distribution. Our experiments with the lexicon and word frequencies derived from the Brown Corpus, which can be considered as a general model of English, resulted in guessing rule-sets which proved to be domain and corpus independent[^11], producing similar results on test texts of different origin.
Although in general the performance of the cascading guesser is only 6% worse than the lookup of a general language lexicon there is room for improvement. First, in the extraction of the morphological rules we did not attempt to model non-concatenative cases. In English, however, since most of letter mutations occur in the last letter of the main word it is possible to account for it. So our next goal is to extract morphological rules with one letter mutations at the end. This would account for cases like “try - tries”, “reduce - reducing”, “advise - advisable”. We expect it to increase the coverage of thesuffix morphological rules and hence contribute to the overall guessing accuracy. Another avenue for improvement is to provide the guessing rules with the probabilities of emission of [[pos]{}]{}s from their resulting [[pos]{}]{}-classes. This information can be compiled automatically and also might improve the accuracy of tagging unknown words.
The described rule acquisition and evaluation methods are implemented as a modular set of [c]{}++ and [awk]{} tools, and the guesser is easily extendable to sub-language specific regularities and retrainable to new tag-sets and other languages, provided that these languages have affixational morphology. Both the software and the produced guessing rule-sets are available by contacting the author.
Acknowledgements
================
Some of the research reported here was funded as part of [epsrc]{} project IED4/1/5808 “Integrated Language Database”. I would also like to thank Chris Brew for helpful discussions on the issues related to this paper.
[fullname]{}
E. Brill 1994. Some Advances in Transformation-Based Part of Speech Tagging. In [*Proceedings of the Twelfth National Conference on Artificialntelligence (AAAAI-94)*]{}, Seattle, WA.
E. Brill 1995. Transformation-based error-driven learning and Natural Language processing: a case study in part-of-speech tagging. In [*Computational Linguistics*]{} 21(4) pp. 543–565.
W. Francis and H. Kucera 1982. Frequency Analysis of English Usage. Houghton Mifflin, Boston 1982.
J. Kupiec 1992. Robust Part-of-Speech Tagging Using a Hidden Markov Model. In [*Computer Speech and Language*]{}
M. Marcus, M.A. Marcinkiewicz, and B. Santorini 1993. Building a Large Annotated Corpus of English: The Penn Treebank. In [*Computational Linguistics*]{}, vol 19/2 pp.313-329
H. Schmid 1994. Part of Speech Tagging with Neural Networks. In [*Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Linguistics*]{}, pp.172-176, Kyoto, Japan.
E. Tzoukermann, D.R. Radev, and W.A. Gale 1995. Combining Linguistic Knowledge and Statistical Learning in French Part of Speech Tagging. In [*EACL SIGDAT Workshop*]{}, pp.51-59, Dublin, Ireland
A. Voutilainen 1995. A Syntax-Based Part-of-Speech Analyser In [*Proceedings of the Seventh Conference of European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL)*]{} pp.157-164, Dublin, Ireland
R. Weischedel, M. Meteer, R. Schwartz, L. Ramshaw and J. Palmucci 1993. Coping with ambiguity and unknown words through probabilistic models. In [*Computational Linguistics*]{}, vol 19/2 pp.359-382
Byoung-Tak Zhang and Yung-Taek Kim 1990. Morphological Analysis and Synthesis by Automated Discovery and Acquisition of Linguistic Rules. In [*Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computational Linguistics*]{}, pp.431-435, Helsinki, Finland.
[^1]: consider an example: try – tried.
[^2]: usually we set this threshold quite low: 2–4.
[^3]: For ending-guessing rules this is always true, so only the ending itself counts.
[^4]: the actual size of the filtered lexicon was 47,659 entries out of 53,015 entries of the original lexicon.
[^5]: these words were not listed in the training lexicon
[^6]: Since Brill’s tagger was trained on the Penn tag-set [@Marcus:1993] we provided an additional mapping.
[^7]: articles, prepositions, conjunctions, etc.
[^8]: shorter than 5 characters
[^9]: This, however, was not an entirely fair comparison because of the differences in the tag-sets in use by the taggers. The Xerox tagger was trained on the original Brown Corpus tag-set which makes more distinctions between categories than the Penn Brown Corpus tag-set.
[^10]: This figure agrees with the 85% quoted by Brill [@Brill:1994].
[^11]: but tag-set dependent
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
bibliography:
- 'auto\_generated.bib'
title: 'Measurement of inclusive and differential Higgs boson production cross sections in the diphoton decay channel in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$'
---
=1
$HeadURL: svn+ssh://svn.cern.ch/reps/tdr2/papers/HIG-17-025/trunk/HIG-17-025.tex $ $Id: HIG-17-025.tex 481702 2018-11-19 09:29:38Z vtavolar $ \[1\]
Introduction {#sec:Introduction}
============
The discovery of a Higgs boson () was announced in 2012 by the ATLAS and CMS Collaborations[@Aad:2012tfa; @Chatrchyan:2012ufa; @Chatrchyan:2013lba] based on proton-proton () collision data collected at the CERN LHC at center-of-mass energies of $7$ and $8$. Since its discovery, an extensive campaign of measurements [@Aad2016] has been underway to characterize the new particle and test its properties against those predicted by the standard model (SM) of particle physics. By comparing measured cross sections with predictions, as functions of the kinematic properties of the diphoton system and of the particles produced in association with the Higgs boson, it is possible to investigate the dynamics of Higgs boson production, decay, and accompanying jet activity.
These investigations are expected to give insights into the nature of the Higgs boson and enable testing of the perturbative quantum chromodynamics (QCD) predictions for Higgs boson production. Both the ATLAS and CMS Collaborations have presented results on the measurement of inclusive and differential cross sections for production of the Higgs boson in collisions at $\sqrt{s}=8$in the diphoton [@Aad2014; @Khachatryan2016], four-lepton [@2014234; @Khachatryan:2118088], and $\PW\PW$ [@Aad:2145362; @Khachatryan:2158105] decay channels. Both Collaborations have also presented measurements of inclusive and differential production cross sections in the four-lepton final state at $\sqrt{s}=13$[@Aaboud:2277731; @Sirunyan:2272260].
Production of the Higgs boson in collisions at the LHC occurs via four main mechanisms: gluon-gluon fusion ($\Pg\Pg\PH$), vector boson fusion (VBF), associated production with a / boson (V), and associated production with a top quark-antiquark pair ([$\ttbar\PH$]{}). At the center-of-mass energy of $13$, $\Pg\Pg\PH$ production is about one order of magnitude larger than the sum of the other production mechanisms. The SM prediction of the branching fraction for the [$\PH\to\Pgg\Pgg$]{}decay is only about 0.2% [@LHCHXSWG:YR4] but this channel has a clean signature and it is possible to reconstruct the diphoton invariant mass with high precision. The most precise measurements of differential cross sections of Higgs boson production can be made in this decay channel. The dominant sources of background are irreducible prompt diphoton production, and the reducible processes $\Pp\Pp\to \gamma + \text{jets}$ and $\Pp\Pp\to \text{multijets}$, where the jets are misidentified as photons.
In this paper we report the measurement of the inclusive and differential cross sections for Higgs boson production in the diphoton decay channel using data corresponding to an integrated luminosity of [[$35.9\fbinv$]{}]{}of collisions at ${\ensuremath{\sqrt{s}}\xspace}=13$recorded by the CMS experiment in 2016. The aim of the analysis is to perform measurements of the Higgs boson production cross section in a fiducial phase space, to be compared with theoretical predictions. The methods used closely follow those developed for the [$\PH\to\Pgg\Pgg$]{}differential cross section measurements at ${\ensuremath{\sqrt{s}}\xspace}=8$ [@Khachatryan2016] and are designed to measure the Higgs boson production as a function of the final state kinematic observables with a minimal dependence on theoretical assumptions, allowing a direct comparison between the experimental results and the theoretical predictions. In contrast, the complementary approach adopted in [@CMS-PAS-HIG-16-040] aims at maximizing the observation sensitivity for the SM Higgs boson by explicitly relying on theoretical predictions and their uncertainties.
For each bin of the differential observables, the signal is extracted by fitting to a narrow signal peak on top of the steeply-falling background spectrum of the diphoton invariant mass distribution. To improve the precision of the measurements, the events are categorized using a diphoton mass resolution estimator. Both inclusive and differential cross sections are measured and unfolded within a fiducial phase space defined by the requirements on the photon kinematic variables and isolation. Differential cross sections are measured as functions of several observables, describing the properties of the diphoton system and of ( quark) jets, leptons, and missing transverse momentum accompanying the diphoton system. A double-differential cross section measurement is also performed as a function of the transverse momentum () of the diphoton system and the number of additional jets in the event. Cross section measurements are also performed in regions of the fiducial phase space. The regions are chosen to enhance the contribution of specific production mechanisms to the signal composition, based on the additional particles produced in association with the diphoton system and on the topology of the event.
The CMS detector {#sec:CMS}
================
The central feature of the CMS apparatus is a superconducting solenoid of 6 internal diameter, providing a magnetic field of 3.8. Within the solenoid volume are a silicon pixel and strip tracker, a lead tungstate crystal electromagnetic calorimeter (ECAL), and a brass and scintillator hadronic calorimeter (HCAL), each composed of a barrel and two endcap sections. Forward calorimeters extend the pseudorapidity ($\eta$) coverage provided by the barrel and endcap detectors. Muons are detected in gas-ionization chambers embedded in the steel flux-return yoke outside the solenoid.
The electromagnetic calorimeter consists of 75848 lead tungstate crystals, which provide coverage in pseudorapidity $\abs{\eta} < 1.48 $ in a barrel region (EB) and $1.48 < \abs{\eta} < 3.0$ in two endcap regions (EE). Preshower detectors consisting of two planes of silicon sensors interleaved with a total of $3 X_0$ of lead are located in front of each EE detector.
In the region $\abs{\eta} < 1.74$, the HCAL cells have widths of 0.087 in pseudorapidity and 0.087 in azimuth ($\phi$). In the $\eta$-$\phi$ plane, and for $\abs{\eta} < 1.48$, the HCAL cells map on to $5\times5$ arrays of ECAL crystals to form calorimeter towers projecting radially outwards from close to the nominal interaction point. For $\abs{ \eta} > 1.74$, the coverage of the towers increases progressively to a maximum of 0.174 in $\Delta \eta$ and $\Delta \phi$.
The forward hadron (HF) calorimeter uses steel as an absorber and quartz fibers as the sensitive material. The two halves of the HF are located 11.2 from the interaction region, one on each end, and together they provide coverage in the range $3.0 < \abs{\eta} < 5.2$. They also serve as luminosity monitors.
Events of interest are selected using a two-tiered trigger system [@Khachatryan:2016bia]. The first level (L1), composed of custom hardware processors, uses information from the calorimeters and muon detectors to select events at a rate of around 100 within a time interval of less than 4. The second level, known as the high-level trigger (HLT), consists of a farm of processors running a version of the full event reconstruction software optimized for fast processing, and reduces the event rate to around 1 before data storage.
A more detailed description of the CMS detector, together with a definition of the coordinate system used and the relevant kinematic variables, can be found in Ref. [@Chatrchyan:2008zzk].
Data samples and simulated events {#sec:samples}
=================================
The events used in the analysis were selected by a diphoton trigger with asymmetric thresholds of 30 (18)on the leading (sub-leading) photon, a minimum invariant diphoton mass [$m_{\gamma\gamma}$]{}of 90, and loose requirements on the calorimetric isolation and electromagnetic shower shape of the photon candidates. The trigger selection is $>$99% efficient at retaining events passing the selection requirements described in Section \[sec:selection\].
A detailed simulation of the CMS detector response is based on a model implemented using the [@Agostinelli:2002hh] package. Simulated events include the effects of pileup (additional interactions from the same or nearby bunch crossings) and are weighted to reproduce the distribution of the number of interactions in data.
The signal samples are simulated with $\MGvATNLO$ v2.2.2 [@Alwall:2014hca] at next-to-leading order (NLO) in perturbative QCD with FxFx merging [@Frederix:2012ps] for the $\Pg\Pg\PH$, VBF, V, and [$\ttbar\PH$]{}production processes. These samples include production of up to two additional jets in association with the Higgs boson. The parton-level samples are interfaced to $\PYTHIA 8.205$ [@Sjostrand:2014zea] with the CUETP8M1 [@CUETP8M1] underlying event tune, for parton showering, underlying event modeling, and hadronization. In order to match the prediction for $\Pg\Pg\PH$ production mechanism from the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">nnlops</span>]{} program [@Hamilton:2013fea; @PowhegMinlo; @Kardos:2014dua], the generated events are weighted according to the Higgs boson and the number of jets in the event. The [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">nnlops</span>]{} program has the advantage of predicting at next-to-next-to-leading-order (NNLO) accuracy, both the differential cross section with respect to the QCD radiative effects and the normalization of the inclusive cross section. The $\Pg\Pg\PH$ samples are also generated with the v2 program [@powheg1; @powheg2; @powheg3; @powheg-ggH; @Bagnaschi2012], which includes production of one additional jet, in order to provide an alternative theoretical prediction for inclusive measurements and measurements involving the highest-jet in the event. The NNPDF3.0 set [@Ball:2014uwa] is used for parton distribution functions (PDFs). The SM Higgs boson cross sections and branching fractions are taken from the LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group report [@LHCHXSWG:YR4].
Simulated background samples are used for training multivariate discriminants, and to define selection and classification criteria. The irreducible prompt diphoton background events are generated using the v2.2.1 program [@Gleisberg:2008ta]. This program includes the tree-level matrix elements with up to three additional jets and the box diagram at leading order accuracy. The reducible background arising from $\gamma+\mathrm{jet}$ and multijet events is modeled with $\PYTHIA$.
Samples of [$\cPZ\to\Pep\Pem$]{}, [$\cPZ\to\Pgmp\Pgmm$]{}, and [$\cPZ\to\Pgmp\Pgmm\Pgg$]{}simulated events are generated with and used for comparison with data and for the derivation of energy scale and resolution corrections.
Event reconstruction {#sec:reco}
====================
Photon candidates are reconstructed from clusters of energy deposited in the ECAL and merged into superclusters [@CMS:EGM-14-001]. The reconstruction algorithm for photon clusters allows almost complete recovery of the energy from photons that convert to an electron-positron pair in the material upstream of the ECAL. A detailed description of the algorithm can be found in Ref. [@1748-0221-10-06-P06005]. Changes in the transparency of the ECAL crystals due to irradiation during the LHC running periods and their subsequent recovery are monitored continuously and corrected for, using light injected from the laser and LED systems [@Chatrchyan:2013dga].
A multivariate regression technique is used to correct for the partial containment of the shower in a supercluster, the shower losses for photons that convert in the material upstream of the calorimeter, and the effects of pileup. Training is performed on simulated events using shower shape and position variables of the photon as inputs. The photon energy response distribution is parametrized by an extended form of the Crystal Ball function [@Gaiser:1982yw] built out of a Gaussian core and two power law tails. The regression provides a per-photon estimate of the function parameters, and therefore a prediction of the distribution of the ratio of true energy to the uncorrected supercluster energy. The most probable value of this distribution is taken as the photon energy correction. The width of the Gaussian core is used as a per-photon estimator of the relative energy resolution $\sigma_E/E$.
In order to obtain the best energy resolution, the calorimeter signals are calibrated and corrected for several detector effects [@Chatrchyan:2013dga]. Calibration of the ECAL uses photons from $\PGpz\to\gamma\gamma$ and ${\ensuremath{\eta^0}\xspace}\to\gamma\gamma$ decays, and electrons from [$\PW\to\Pe\Pgn$]{}and [$\cPZ\to\Pep\Pem$]{}decays. The energy scale in data is aligned to that in simulated events, while an additional smearing is applied to the reconstructed photon energy in simulation in order to reproduce the resolution observed in data, through a multistep procedure exploiting electrons from [$\cPZ\to\Pep\Pem$]{}decays.
In the ECAL barrel section, an energy resolution of about 1% is achieved for unconverted or late-converting photons, , photons converting near the inner face of the ECAL, that have energies in the range of tens of GeV. The remaining photons reconstructed in the barrel have a resolution of about 1.3% up to a pseudorapidity of $\abs{\eta} = 1$, rising to about 2.5% at $\abs{\eta} = 1.4$. In the endcaps, the resolution of unconverted or late-converting photons is about 2.5%, while the remaining endcap photons have a resolution between 3 and 4% [@CMS:EGM-14-001].
The global event reconstruction (also called particle-flow event reconstruction [@CMS-PRF-14-001]) aims to reconstruct and identify each individual particle in an event, with an optimized combination of all subdetector information. In this process, the identification of the particle type (photon, electron, muon, charged hadron, neutral hadron) plays an important role in the determination of the particle direction and energy. Photons (, coming from decays or from electron bremsstrahlung) are identified as ECAL energy clusters not linked to the extrapolation of any charged particle trajectory to the ECAL. Electrons (, coming from photon conversions in the tracker material or from quark semileptonic decays) are identified as a primary charged particle track and potentially many ECAL energy clusters, corresponding to this track extrapolation to the ECAL and to possible bremsstrahlung photons emitted along the way through the tracker material. Muons (, from quark semileptonic decays) are identified as a track in the central tracker consistent with either a track or several hits in the muon system, associated with an energy deficit in the calorimeters. Charged hadrons are identified as charged particle tracks neither identified as electrons, nor as muons. Finally, neutral hadrons are identified as HCAL energy clusters not linked to any charged hadron trajectory, or as ECAL and HCAL energy excesses with respect to the expected charged hadron energy deposit.
The energy of photons is obtained from the ECAL measurement. The energy of electrons is determined from a combination of the track momentum at the main interaction vertex, the corresponding ECAL cluster energy, and the energy sum of all bremsstrahlung photons attached to the track. The energy of muons is obtained from the corresponding track momentum. The energy of charged hadrons is determined from a combination of the track momentum and the corresponding ECAL and HCAL energy, corrected for zero-suppression effects and for the response function of the calorimeters to hadronic showers. Finally, the energy of neutral hadrons is obtained from the corresponding corrected ECAL and HCAL energy.
For each event, hadronic jets are clustered from either particle-flow candidates (for data and simulation) or stable particles excluding neutrinos (for generated events) using the infrared and collinear-safe anti-algorithm [@Cacciari:2008gp; @Cacciari:2011ma] with a distance parameter of 0.4. The jet momentum is determined as the vectorial sum of momenta of all objects clustered into the jet. Extra proton-proton interactions within the same or nearby bunch crossings can contaminate the jet reconstruction. To mitigate this effect, particle-flow candidates built using tracks originating from pileup vertices are discarded and an offset correction is applied to account for remaining contributions [@CMS-PAS-JME-16-003]. Additional selection criteria are applied to each jet to remove jets potentially dominated by anomalous contributions from various subdetector components or reconstruction failures. The momenta of jets reconstructed using particle-flow candidates in simulation are found to be within 5 to 10% of particle-level jet momenta over the whole jet spectrum and detector acceptance, and corrected on average accordingly. In situ measurements of the momentum balance in dijet, $\text{photon} + \text{jet}$, $\cPZ + \text{jet}$, and multijet events are used to account for any residual differences in jet energy scale in data and simulation [@Khachatryan:2016kdb]. The jet energy resolution amounts typically to 15% at 10, 8% at 100, and 4% at 1.
Jets originating from the hadronization of quarks are identified using the combined secondary vertex (CSV) -tagging algorithm [@Sirunyan:2017ezt]. The algorithm converts information on the displaced secondary vertex into a numerical discriminant, assigning high values to jets whose properties are more likely to be originating from quarks. A tight working point on this discriminant is used in this analysis, which provides a misidentification rate for jets from light quarks and gluons of $0.1$% and an efficiency for identifying quark jets of about $55$%.
The missing transverse momentum , whose magnitude is referred to as , is defined as the negative vectorial sum of the transverse momenta of all reconstructed particle flow candidates in the global event reconstruction.
Because no tracks are associated to photons, the assignment of the diphoton candidate to a vertex can only be done indirectly by exploiting the properties of each reconstructed vertex. Three discriminating variables are calculated for each reconstructed vertex: the sum of the squared transverse momenta of the charged-particle tracks associated with the vertex, and two variables that quantify the vector and scalar balance of between the diphoton system and the charged-particle tracks associated with the vertex. In addition, if either photon has an associated charged-particle track that has been identified as originating from a photon conversion to an electron-positron pair, the conversion information is used. The variables are used as the inputs to a multivariate classifier based on a boosted decision tree (BDT) to choose the reconstructed vertex to be associated with the diphoton system. The average vertex finding efficiency of this algorithm is about 81% [@CMS-PAS-HIG-16-040]. The vertex is considered to be correctly identified if it is within 1 of the true vertex in the longitudinal direction. The contribution to the diphoton mass resolution from vertex displacements smaller than 1 is found to be negligible compared to the contribution from the photon energy resolution of the calorimeters.
A photon identification algorithm separates prompt photons from photon candidates resulting from the misidentification of jet fragments [@Khachatryan:2014ira]. These are mostly collimated photons from neutral-hadron decays (, [$\eta^0$]{}). The algorithm is implemented with a BDT trained on simulated events. The input variables of the BDT are: the pseudorapidity and energy of the supercluster corresponding to the reconstructed photon, several variables characterizing the shape of the electromagnetic shower, and the isolation energy sums computed with the particle-flow algorithm [@CMS-PRF-14-001]. Further information on the photon identification BDT can be found in [@CMS-PAS-HIG-16-040].
Event selection {#sec:selection}
===============
Each photon of the candidate pair entering the analysis is required to have a supercluster within $\abs{\eta}<2.5$, excluding the region $1.4442<\abs{\eta}<1.566$, which corresponds to the ECAL barrel-endcap transition region, and to satisfy selection criteria, described in Ref. [@CMS-PAS-HIG-16-040], slightly more stringent than the trigger requirements, based on transverse momentum, isolation, and shower shape variables. The transverse momentum scaled by the invariant mass of the diphoton candidate ($\pt/{\ensuremath{m_{\gamma\gamma}}\xspace}$) has to be greater than 1/3 (1/4) for the -leading (-subleading) photon. The use of thresholds in $\pt/{\ensuremath{m_{\gamma\gamma}}\xspace}$, rather than fixed thresholds in , prevents the distortion of the low end of the [$m_{\gamma\gamma}$]{}spectrum. Furthermore, each photon must fulfill a requirement based on the output of the photon identification classifier, chosen as explained in Section \[sec:categorization\].
Jets are selected if they fulfill the pileup rejection criteria [@CMS-PAS-JME-13-005] and have $\pt>30$. To avoid double counting of photon candidates as jets, the minimum distance between each photon and a jet is required to satisfy ${\ensuremath{\Delta R}\xspace}(\gamma,\mathrm{jet}) = \sqrt{\smash[b]{\abs{\Delta\eta(\gamma, \mathrm{jet})}^2 + \abs{\Delta\phi(\gamma, \mathrm{jet})}^2}} > 0.4$, where $\Delta\eta(\gamma, \mathrm{jet})$ and $\Delta\phi(\gamma, \mathrm{jet})$ are the pseudorapidity and azimuthal angle differences between the photon and the jet. Two collections of jets are selected in different pseudorapidity regions: $\abs{\eta}<2.5$ and $\abs{\eta}<4.7$. The two collections are used to study differential observables requiring at least one or two selected hadronic jets in the event, respectively. The jets in the $\abs{\eta}<2.5$ collection benefit from tracker information and this results in better reconstruction quality and energy resolution; when requiring two jets in the same event, the $\abs{\eta}$ range is extended to $4.7$ to increase the selection acceptance. The same kinematic selection is applied to generator-level jets. Jets with $\abs{\eta}<2.4$ are identified as jets at the reconstruction level if they satisfy the requirements described in Section \[sec:reco\]. At the generator level, at least one hadron has to be clustered in a jet to be called a jet.
Leptons (electrons and muons) are selected if they have $\pt>20 $and $\abs{\eta}<2.4$. The angular separation between the photon and the lepton ${\ensuremath{\Delta R}\xspace}(\gamma,\mathrm{lepton})$ is required to be greater than 0.35. Electrons must satisfy a set of loose requirements as described in Ref. [@CMS-DP-2015-067] and they are not selected in the pseudorapidity region $1.4442<\abs{\eta}<1.566$. Furthermore, the invariant mass of the candidate electron and either of the two photons is required to be at least $5$from the nominal boson mass, in order to reject $\cPZ+\Pgg\to\Pep\Pem\Pgg$ events with a misidentified electron. Muons are required to pass a tight selection based on the quality of the track fit, the number of associated hits in the tracking detectors, and the longitudinal and transverse impact parameters of the track with respect to the event vertex and to satisfy a requirement on the relative isolation, corrected for pileup effects, calculated as the sum of the transverse energy of charged hadrons, neutral hadrons and photons in a cone of radius $0.4$ around the muon. Generator-level leptons, required to satisfy the same kinematic selection, are “dressed”, , the four-momenta of all photons in a cone of radius ${\ensuremath{\Delta R}\xspace}=0.1$ around the lepton are added to the four-momentum of the lepton.
The identification and trigger efficiencies are measured using data events containing a boson decaying to a pair of electrons, or to a pair of electrons or muons in association with a photon [@CMS:EGM-14-001]. After applying corrections, based on control samples in data, to the input of the photon identification classifier, the efficiencies measured in data are found to be 3 (5)% lower than in simulation for photons in the barrel (endcap) regions with $\RNINE < 0.85$ ($0.9$), where $\RNINE$ is defined as the sum of the energy measured in a $3\times3$ crystal matrix, centered on the crystal with the highest energy in the ECAL cluster of the candidate, divided by the energy of the candidate. Photon candidates undergoing a conversion before reaching the ECAL have wider shower profiles and lower values of $\RNINE$. A correction factor is applied to simulated events to take into account the discrepancy in the efficiency between data and simulation. For the remaining photons, the predicted efficiencies are compatible with the ones measured in data.
Mass resolution estimator {#sec:sigmaM}
=========================
The selected photon pairs are categorized according to their estimated relative mass resolution. For the typical energy range of the photons used in this analysis, corresponding to tens of GeV, the energy resolution estimator depends on the energy itself because of the stochastic and noise terms in the energy resolution of the ECAL [@Chatrchyan:2013dga; @CMS:EGM-14-001]. The nature of these two terms is such that the energy resolution improves at higher energy. This dependence is propagated to the relative mass resolution estimator [$\sigma_{m}$]{}, which is thus dependent on the mass of the diphoton pair, with events characterized by a larger diphoton mass more likely to have better mass resolution. An event categorization simply based on such a variable would distort the shape of the mass distribution in the different categories and it would make the background distribution more complex to parametrize. In particular, a deficit of low-mass events would be observed in categories corresponding to low values of [$\sigma_{m}$]{}, invalidating the assumption of a smoothly falling mass distribution on which the background model, described in Section \[sec:bgmodel\], is based. To avoid such an effect, the correlation between [$\sigma_{m}$]{}and the diphoton mass is removed, following the methods in Ref. [@Khachatryan2016], and a new relative mass resolution estimator is built, [$\sigma_{m}^{D}$]{}.
The modeling of the decorrelated mass resolution estimator is studied with simulated [$\cPZ\to\Pep\Pem$]{}events, where electrons are reconstructed as photons. The per-photon resolution estimate $\sigma_{E}/E$ is affected by the imperfect modeling of the electromagnetic shower shape variables in simulation, which are among the inputs of the regression used to estimate $\sigma_{E}/E$, as described in Section \[sec:reco\]. To minimize the disagreement [@CMS-DP-2017-004], the per-photon resolution estimate is recomputed using as input simulated shower shapes corrected to match those observed in data. A systematic uncertainty of 5% is assigned to the value of $\sigma_{E}/E$ for each photon candidate, to cover the residual discrepancy. Figure \[fig:sigmaMoverM\] shows the comparison between data (dots) and simulation (histogram) for the decorrelated mass resolution estimator [$\sigma_{m}^{D}$]{}, with the impact of the systematic uncertainty in the $\sigma_E/E$ (red band). Events with a value of [$\sigma_{m}^{D}$]{}in the region depicted in gray are discarded from the final analysis.
![Comparison of the decorrelated mass resolution estimator [$\sigma_{m}^{D}$]{}distributions in data and simulation for [$\cPZ\to\Pep\Pem$]{}events where both electrons are reconstructed as photons, passing the selection defined in Section \[sec:selection\]. The impact of the systematic uncertainty in the $\sigma_E/E$ is indicated by the red band. The distributions are shown separately for events with both electrons in the EB (left) and the remainder of the events, , events with at least one photon in the EE (right). Events in the shaded gray region are discarded from the final analysis.[]{data-label="fig:sigmaMoverM"}](Figure_001-a.pdf "fig:"){width="45.00000%"} ![Comparison of the decorrelated mass resolution estimator [$\sigma_{m}^{D}$]{}distributions in data and simulation for [$\cPZ\to\Pep\Pem$]{}events where both electrons are reconstructed as photons, passing the selection defined in Section \[sec:selection\]. The impact of the systematic uncertainty in the $\sigma_E/E$ is indicated by the red band. The distributions are shown separately for events with both electrons in the EB (left) and the remainder of the events, , events with at least one photon in the EE (right). Events in the shaded gray region are discarded from the final analysis.[]{data-label="fig:sigmaMoverM"}](Figure_001-b.pdf "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}
Event categorization {#sec:categorization}
====================
Events with both photons passing a minimum requirement on the output of the photon identification classifier, are sorted into categories of [$\sigma_{m}^{D}$]{}to maximize the analysis sensitivity to the SM Higgs boson. The number of categories and the positions of their [$\sigma_{m}^{D}$]{}boundaries are optimized simultaneously with the lower bound on the output of the photon identification classifier. Three categories, labeled 0, 1, and 2 in ascending order of [$\sigma_{m}^{D}$]{}values, are found adequate to saturate the maximum sensitivity achievable with this method for the present data set. The boundaries of the [$\sigma_{m}^{D}$]{}categorization are found to be $0$, $0.0084$, $0.012$, $0.030$, with a minimum requirement on the output of photon identification classifier. Events with ${\ensuremath{\sigma_{m}^{D}}\xspace}>0.030$ are discarded (shaded gray region in Fig. \[fig:sigmaMoverM\]). The efficiency of the photon identification selection is roughly 80% for signal events in the fiducial phase space, discussed in Section \[sec:observables\]. The categories obtained from the optimization process correspond approximately to the configurations where both photons are reconstructed in the central barrel ($\abs{\eta}<1$) for the first category, both photons are reconstructed in the barrel with at least one falling outside the central barrel for the second category, and at least one photon reconstructed in the endcap regions of the ECAL for the last category.
Observables and fiducial phase space {#sec:observables}
====================================
The analysis provides measurements of the production cross section of the Higgs boson in a fiducial phase space. This is defined by a set of selection criteria at generator level based on kinematic, geometrical and isolation variables, as well as on the topology of the event. By defining a fiducial phase space, the measurements are compared to the theoretical predictions while avoiding the extrapolation to the full phase space and the consequent uncertainty. In order to extend such a comparison to future and alternative theoretical calculations, it is important to have a simple definition of the fiducial phase space so that it can be easily reproduced. Furthermore, the selection criteria in data, described in Section \[sec:selection\], are necessarily defined at the reconstruction level, while the fiducial phase space, for which theoretical predictions are computed, is defined without considering the effect of the detector response on the generator-level quantities. Because of the finite detector resolution, the two definitions do not exactly coincide, and for this reason events fulfilling the event selection criteria at the reconstruction level can originate from either inside or outside the fiducial phase space. To minimize the effect of events migrating, the selection criteria at the reconstruction level and the definition of this phase space are aligned as closely as possible.
The fiducial phase space for the analysis is defined by requiring that the generator-level ratio between the of the -leading (-subleading) photon and [$m_{\gamma\gamma}$]{}, $\pt^{\gamma_1}/{\ensuremath{m_{\gamma\gamma}}\xspace}$ ($\pt^{\gamma_2}/{\ensuremath{m_{\gamma\gamma}}\xspace}$), be greater than 1/3 (1/4), and that the absolute pseudorapidity of both photons be less than 2.5.
In addition, the sum of the generator-level transverse energy of stable particles in a cone of radius ${\ensuremath{\Delta R}\xspace}=0.3$ around each photon candidate, $\text{Iso}_{\text{gen}}^{\gamma}$, is required to be less than 10. This requirement mimics at generator level the requirement on the output of the photon identification classifier applied on reconstructed quantities, as described in Section \[sec:selection\]. Further requirements, that depend on the observable under study, can be applied on top of this “baseline” phase space definition. For observables involving only one jet, events with at least one jet with $\abs{\eta^j}<2.5$, selected as described in Section \[sec:selection\], are retained, corresponding to $\sim$35% of the signal events in the baseline phase space. Observables involving two jets are studied by requiring at least two jets with $\abs{\eta^j}<4.7$ and defined as in Section \[sec:selection\], further restricting the region of the phase space to $\sim$16% of the baseline selection. A VBF-enriched region of the fiducial phase space, where a subset of the two-jet observables is measured, is defined by requiring the presence of two reconstructed and selected jets within $\abs{\eta^j}<4.7$, with a combined invariant mass ${\ensuremath{m^{{\ensuremath{j_{\text{1}}}}{\ensuremath{j_{\text{2}}}}}}\xspace}$ greater than $200$and a pseudorapidity gap between the jets ${\ensuremath{\abs{\Delta\eta^{{\ensuremath{j_{\text{1}}}},{\ensuremath{j_{\text{2}}}}}}}\xspace}$ greater than $3.5$, exploiting the main kinematic features of the VBF production mode. This set of criteria selects $\sim$3.8% of the signal events contained in the baseline phase space. The definition of the four regions of the fiducial phase space is summarized in Table \[tab:observables\], which also gives a summary of the observables under study and the bins chosen in each phase space. The symbol ${\ensuremath{j_{\text{1}}}}$ (${\ensuremath{j_{\text{2}}}}$) indicates the -leading (subleading) hadronic jet in the event, while $y$ is used to denote the rapidity of a particle or a system of particles. The transverse momentum and the rapidity of the diphoton system, indicated with ${\ensuremath{\pt^{\gamma\gamma}}\xspace}$ and ${\ensuremath{\abs{y^{\gamma\gamma}}}\xspace}$, respectively, are sensitive probes of the Higgs boson production mechanism, the modeling of the QCD radiation, and the PDFs of the proton. The cosine of the polar angle in the Collins–Soper reference frame of the diphoton system [@Collins:1977iv], ${\ensuremath{\abs{\cos(\theta^*)}}\xspace}$, probes the spin and CP properties of the diphoton resonance. Observables involving jets are sensitive to the QCD parameters relevant to Higgs boson production. The separation in the azimuthal angle between the diphoton and the two-jet systems, ${\ensuremath{\abs{\Delta\phi^{\gamma\gamma,{\ensuremath{j_{\text{1}}}}{\ensuremath{j_{\text{2}}}}}}}\xspace}$, and the Zeppenfeld variable, ${\ensuremath{\abs{\overline{\eta}_{{\ensuremath{j_{\text{1}}}}{\ensuremath{j_{\text{2}}}}} - \eta_{\gamma\gamma}}}\xspace}$ [@Rainwater:1996ud], probe specifically the properties of the VBF production mechanism. The number of jets within $\abs{\eta}<2.5$, jets, and leptons are indicated with [$N_{\text{jet}}$]{}, [$N_{\text{jet}}^{\cPqb}$]{}, and [$N_{\text{lepton}}$]{}, respectively.
The inclusive fiducial cross section is also measured in restricted regions of the fiducial phase space, defined using additional criteria as follows:
- at least one lepton, at least one -tagged jet, referred to as the *$\geq$1-lepton, $\geq$1-**-jet* fiducial cross section ($\sim$1.7$\times 10^{-3}$ of the baseline phase space);
- exactly one lepton, $\geq$100, referred to as the *1-lepton, high-*** fiducial cross section ($\sim$1.5$\times 10^{-3}$ of the baseline phase space);
- exactly one lepton, $<$100, referred to as the *1-lepton, low-*** fiducial cross section ($\sim$7.4$\times 10^{-3}$ of the baseline phase space).
The first and second of these definitions loosely reproduce the event selections described in Ref. [@CMS-PAS-HIG-16-040], which respectively target [$\ttbar\PH$]{}and $\PW\PH$ production mechanisms, with the boson decaying leptonically. The third definition selects a region complementary to the second, populated mostly by events where the Higgs boson is produced in association with either a or a boson.
For all the regions of the baseline phase space, the events contained in the baseline phase space that fail the additional requirements of a given region are collected in an additional bin (referred to as the “underflow”) and used to provide an additional constraint on the measurements, in particular to correctly account for migrations occurring between the baseline phase space and the region and to allow the profiling of the value of the Higgs boson mass in the signal-extraction fit, described in Section \[sec:results\].
Statistical analysis {#sec:analysis}
====================
The events fulfilling the selection criteria are grouped into three categories, according to their [$\sigma_{m}^{D}$]{}, as described in Section \[sec:categorization\]. For each category, the final categorization employed for the signal extraction is obtained by further splitting the events into the bins defined for each observable, as described in Section \[sec:observables\]. The signal production cross section is extracted through a simultaneous extended maximum likelihood fit to the diphoton invariant mass spectrum in all the analysis categories. The likelihood in a given [$\sigma_{m}^{D}$]{}category $i$ and in given kinematic bin $j$ of an observable is reported in Eq. (\[eq:likelihood1\]):
$$\label{eq:likelihood1}
\begin{split}
& \mathcal{L}_{ij}(\text{data} | \Delta \vec{\sigma}^{{\ensuremath{\text{fid}}}}, \vec{{n}}_{\text{bkg}} , \vec{\theta_{\mathrm{S}}},
\vec{\theta_{\mathrm{B}}}) = \\
& \prod_{l=1}^{{n}_{{\ensuremath{m_{\gamma\gamma}}\xspace}}}
\left ( \frac{\sum_{k=1}^{{n}_{b}} \Delta \sigma_{k}^{{\ensuremath{\text{fid}}}} K_{k}^{ij}(\vec{\theta_{\mathrm{S}}})
S_{k}^{ij}({\ensuremath{m_{\gamma\gamma}}\xspace}^l|\vec{\theta_{\mathrm{S}}}) L + n_{\mathrm{OOA}}^{ij}
S_{\mathrm{OOA}}^{ij}({\ensuremath{m_{\gamma\gamma}}\xspace}^l|\vec{\theta_{\mathrm{S}}})
+ n_{\text{bkg}}^{ij} B^{ij}
({\ensuremath{m_{\gamma\gamma}}\xspace}^l|\vec{\theta_{\mathrm{B}}})}{ n_{\text{sig}}^{ij} + n_{\text{bkg}}^{ij} } \right )^{{n}^{lij}_{\text{ev}}},
\end{split}$$
where:
- ${n}_{{\ensuremath{m_{\gamma\gamma}}\xspace}}$ is the number of bins of the [$m_{\gamma\gamma}$]{}distribution and ${n}_{\mathrm{b}}$ is the number of kinematic bins for the given observable;
- $\Delta \vec{\sigma}^{{\ensuremath{\text{fid}}}} = (\Delta \sigma_1^{{\ensuremath{\text{fid}}}}, \dots ,\Delta \sigma_{n_{\mathrm{b}}}^{{\ensuremath{\text{fid}}}})$ is the vector of fiducial cross sections being measured, multiplied by the branching fraction of the diphoton decay channel;
- $K_{\mathrm{k}}^{ij}$ are the response matrices, which represent the efficiency that an event in the $k$-th kinematic bin at generator level is reconstructed in the $ij$-th reconstruction-level category (with the index $i$ running over the [$\sigma_{m}^{D}$]{}categories and the index $j$ running on the kinematic bins);
- the functions $S_{k}^{ij}$ and $B^{ij}$ are the signal and background probability distribution functions in [$m_{\gamma\gamma}$]{}for the bin $ijk$, which are described in the Sections \[sec:sigmodel\] and \[sec:bgmodel\], respectively;
- $L$ is the total integrated luminosity analyzed;
- ${n}^{ij}_{\text{ev}}$, ${n}_{\text{sig}}^{ij}$, ${n}_{\text{bkg}}^{ij}$ are the numbers of observed, signal and background events in the $ij$th reconstruction-level category, respectively;
- the terms ${n}_{\mathrm{OOA}}^{ij} S_{\mathrm{OOA}}^{ij}$ represent the contributions to the Higgs boson signal originating outside of the fiducial phase space. The contribution of the out-of-acceptance (OOA) Higgs boson signal is estimated from simulation to be approximately 1% of the total expected SM signal;
- the parameters $\vec{\theta_{\mathrm{S}}}$ and $\vec{\theta_{\mathrm{B}}}$ are the nuisance parameters associated with the signal and background models, respectively.
The complete likelihood is given in Eq. (\[eq:likelihood2\]):
$$\label{eq:likelihood2}
\mathcal{L}(\text{data} | \Delta \vec{\sigma}^{{\ensuremath{\text{fid}}}}, \vec{{n}}_{\text{bkg}} , \vec{\theta_{\mathrm{S}}},
\vec{\theta_{\mathrm{B}}}) =
\prod_{i=1}^{\mathrm{n_\text{cat}}}
\prod_{j=1}^{{n}_{\mathrm{b}}}
\mathcal{L}_{ij}
\mathrm{Pois}( n^{ij}_{\text{ev}} | n_{\text{sig}}^{ij} + n_{\text{bkg}}^{ij}) \mathrm{Pdf}(\vec{\theta_{\mathrm{S}}}) \mathrm{Pdf}(\vec{\theta_{\mathrm{B}}}) ,$$
where:
- ${n}_{\text{cat}}$ is the number of categories in [$\sigma_{m}^{D}$]{};
- $\mathrm{Pois}$ and $\mathrm{Pdf}$ indicate the Poisson distribution and the nuisance parameters probability density function, respectively.
The unfolding to the particle-level cross sections is achieved by extracting the vector $\Delta \vec{\sigma}^{{\ensuremath{\text{fid}}}}$ directly from the likelihood fit, providing unfolded unregularized cross sections. No regularization of the results is applied, since the bins chosen are sufficiently larger than the resolution for a given observable. The uncertainties and the correlation matrices are obtained from the test statistic $\mathrm{q}(\Delta\vec{\sigma}^{{\ensuremath{\text{fid}}}})$ defined below and asymptotically distributed as a $\chi^2$ with $n_{\mathrm{b}}$ degrees of freedom [@Cowan:2010st]: $$\mathrm{q}(\Delta \vec{\sigma}^{\ensuremath{\text{fid}}}) = - 2 \log \left (
\frac{ \mathcal{L}( \Delta \vec{\sigma}^{\ensuremath{\text{fid}}}| \hat{\vec{\theta}}_{\Delta \vec{\sigma}^{\ensuremath{\text{fid}}}} ) }
{ \mathcal{L}( \Delta \hat{\vec{\sigma}}^{\ensuremath{\text{fid}}}| \hat{\vec{\theta}} ) } \right ),$$ where $\vec{\theta} = ( n_{\text{bkg}}, \vec{\theta}_{\mathrm{S}},\vec{\theta}_{\mathrm{B}} )$. The notations $\hat{\vec{\theta}}$ and $\Delta \hat{\vec{\sigma}}^{\ensuremath{\text{fid}}}$ represent the best fit estimate of $\vec{\theta}$ and $\Delta \vec{\sigma}^{\ensuremath{\text{fid}}}$, respectively, and $\hat{\vec{\theta}}_{\Delta \vec{\sigma}^{\ensuremath{\text{fid}}}}$ indicates the best fit estimate of $\vec{\theta}$, conditional on the value of $\Delta \vec{\sigma}^{\ensuremath{\text{fid}}}$. The nuisance parameters, including the Higgs boson mass, are profiled in the fit across all the bins.
Signal model {#sec:sigmodel}
------------
For each observable, a parametric signal model is constructed separately for each fiducial-level bin (including an extra bin collecting the OOA events), reconstruction-level bin, and category in [$\sigma_{m}^{D}$]{}. Since the shape of the [$m_{\gamma\gamma}$]{}distribution is significantly different for events where the vertex has been correctly identified compared to other events, these two components are modeled separately. The model is built as a fit to a sum of up to five Gaussian distributions of the simulated invariant mass shape, modified by the trigger, reconstruction, and identification efficiency corrections estimated from data control samples, for each of the three values of [$m_{\PH}$]{} $\in\{120, 125, 130\}\GeV$. Signal models for other nominal values of [$m_{\PH}$]{} between $120$ and $130\GeV$ are produced by interpolating the fitted parameters. The final signal model for a given category and a reconstruction-level bin is obtained by summing the functions, normalized to the expected signal yields, for each fiducial-level bin and vertex identification scenario.
Background model {#sec:bgmodel}
----------------
A background model is produced for every bin of the observable and for each of the three categories in [$\sigma_{m}^{D}$]{}. A discrete profiling method [@Dauncey:2014xga], originally developed for the [$\PH\to\Pgg\Pgg$]{}decay observation analysis [@Khachatryan:2014ira], is used. The background is evaluated by fitting to the ${\ensuremath{m_{\gamma\gamma}}\xspace}$ distribution in data over the range $100<{\ensuremath{m_{\gamma\gamma}}\xspace}<180\GeV$.
The choice of the function used to fit the background in a particular event class is included as a discrete nuisance parameter in the formulation of the likelihood. Exponentials, power-law functions, polynomials in the Bernstein basis, and Laurent polynomials are used to represent $B({\ensuremath{m_{\gamma\gamma}}\xspace}|\vec{\theta_{B}})$ in Eq. (\[eq:likelihood1\]). A signal-plus-background hypothesis is fit to data by minimizing the value of twice the negative logarithm of the likelihood. All functions are tried, with a “penalty term” added to account for the number of free parameters in the fit. The penalized likelihood function ${\ensuremath{\widetilde{\mathcal{L}}}\xspace}_B$ for a single fixed background fitting function $B$ is defined as: $$-2\,\ln{\ensuremath{\widetilde{\mathcal{L}}}\xspace}_B=-2\,\ln{\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}\xspace}_B+N_{B},$$ where ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}\xspace}_B$ is the “unpenalized” likelihood function and $N_{B}$ is the number of free parameters in $B$. When fitting the complete likelihood, the number of degrees of freedom (number of exponentials, number of terms in the series, degree of the polynomial, etc.) is increased until no significant improvement occurs in the likelihood between $N+1$ and $N$ degrees of freedom for the fit to the data distribution. The improvement is quantified by extracting the $p$-value from the F-distribution between the fits using $N+1$ and $N$ degrees of freedom and requiring it to be smaller than $0.05$.
Systematic uncertainties {#sec:systematics}
========================
Systematic uncertainties listed in this section are included in the likelihood as nuisance parameters and are profiled during the minimization. Unless specified otherwise, the sources of uncertainty refer to the individual quantity studied, and not to the final yield. The total uncertainty in the inclusive and differential measurements is dominated by the statistical uncertainties.
The systematic uncertainties affecting the shape of the [$m_{\gamma\gamma}$]{}distribution are treated as Gaussian variations. Those considered in this analysis are as follows:
- *Vertex finding efficiency:* the largest contribution to the uncertainty comes from the modeling of the underlying event, plus the uncertainty in the measurement of the ratio of data and simulation efficiencies obtained using [$\cPZ\to\Pgmp\Pgmm$]{}events. It is handled as an additional nuisance parameter built into the signal model that allows the fraction of events in the right vertex/wrong vertex scenarios to change. The size of the uncertainty in the vertex selection efficiency is 1.5%;
- *Energy scale and resolution:* these corrections are studied with electrons from [$\cPZ\to\Pep\Pem$]{}and then applied to photons. The main source of systematic uncertainty is the different interactions of electrons and photons with the material upstream from the ECAL. Uncertainties are assessed by changing the $\RNINE$ distribution, the energy regression training (using electrons instead of photons), and the electron selection used to derive the corrections. The uncertainties in the different $\abs{\eta}$ and $\RNINE$ bins are propagated to the Higgs boson signal phase space in order to estimate the uncertainty in the additional energy smearing. In both cases, dedicated nuisance parameters are included as additional systematic terms in the signal model and amount to less than about 0.5%, depending on the photon category.
The sources of systematic uncertainty having an impact mainly on the category yield, while leaving the shape of the [$m_{\gamma\gamma}$]{}distribution largely unaffected, are treated as log-normal uncertainties. In this analysis, the following are considered:
- *Integrated luminosity:* the systematic uncertainty is estimated from data to be 2.5% [@CMS:2017sdi];
- *Trigger efficiency:* the trigger efficiency is measured from [$\cPZ\to\Pep\Pem$]{} events using the tag-and-probe technique [@CMS:2011aa]; the size of the uncertainty is about 1%;
- *Photon selection:* the systematic uncertainty is taken as the uncertainty in the ratio between the efficiency measured in data and in simulation; it ranges from 0.3 to 3.2% and results in an event yield variation from 0.7 to 4.0% depending on the photon category;
- *Photon identification BDT score:* the uncertainties in the signal yields in the different categories of the analysis are estimated conservatively by propagating the uncertainty in the BDT inputs, which are estimated from the observed discrepancies between data and simulation, to the final photon identification BDT shape. This uncertainty has an effect of 3–5% on the signal yield, depending on the category;
- *Per-photon energy resolution estimate:* this is parametrized as a rescaling of the resolution estimate by $\pm5$% about the nominal value;
- *Jet energy scale and resolution corrections:* the uncertainties in these quantities are propagated to the final signal yields and induce event migrations between jet bins. The size of such migrations is in the 10–20% range, depending on the jet bin;
- *Pileup identification for jets:* this uncertainty is estimated in events with a boson and one balanced jet. The full discrepancy between data and simulation in the identification score of jets is taken as the estimated uncertainty. It results in migrations from one jet bin to another, whose size is $<$1%;
- *Background modeling:* the choice of the background parametrization is handled using the discrete profiling method. This is automatically included as a statistical uncertainty in the shape of the background function and no additional systematic uncertainty needs to be added;
- *tagging efficiency:* this is evaluated by varying the ratio between the measured tagging efficiency in data and simulation within its uncertainty [@Chatrchyan:2012jua]. The resulting uncertainty in the signal yield is $<$1%;
- *Lepton identification:* for both electrons and muons, the uncertainty is computed by varying the ratio of the efficiency measured in data and simulation by its uncertainty. The resulting differences in the selection efficiency, for observables involving leptons, is less than 1%;
- *Missing transverse momentum:* the size of this uncertainty is computed by shifting the momentum scale and resolution of the of every particle-flow candidate entering the computation of , by an amount that depends on the type of the reconstructed object, as described in Ref. [@CMS-PAS-JME-16-004]. This has an effect on the yield per category below 1%; This results in events migrating from one bin to another and from one category to another for observables involving ;
- *PDF uncertainties:* the effect of the uncertainty from the choice of PDF is assessed by estimating the relative yield variation in each bin of the observable variables and category, after re-weighting the events of the simulated signal sample. The re-weighting is done using the PDF4LHC15 combined PDF set and NNPDF3.0 [@Ball:2014uwa; @Demartin:2010er] using the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">mc2hessian</span> procedure [@Carrazza:2015aoa]. The category migrations are found to be less than 0.3%;
- *Renormalization and factorization scale uncertainty:* the size of this uncertainty is estimated by varying the renormalization and factorization scales. The effect on category migrations is found to be negligible.
Results {#sec:results}
=======
The reconstructed diphoton invariant mass distributions are shown in Fig. \[fig:dataFitsFiducial\] for the three [$\sigma_{m}^{D}$]{}categories. The signal-plus-background fit is performed simultaneously in all three categories to extract the inclusive fiducial cross section. The best fit value of the inclusive fiducial cross section is: $$\hat{\sigma}_{\mathrm{fiducial}}=84\pm11\stat\pm7\syst\unit{fb}=84\pm13 \text{ (stat+syst)}\unit{fb}$$ The total uncertainty ($13\unit{fb}$) is dominated by its statistical component ($11\unit{fb}$). The primary contributions to the systematic component ($7\unit{fb}$) arise from the uncertainties in the photon identification BDT score and in the per-photon energy resolution estimate, described in Section \[sec:systematics\]. The corresponding likelihood scan is shown in Fig. \[fig:fidLikelihoodScan\], together with the theoretical prediction for the cross section. In the measurement of both inclusive and differential fiducial cross sections, the Higgs boson mass is treated as a nuisance parameter and profiled in the likelihood maximization. The value of the profiled mass is compatible with the world average [@PhysRevLett.114.191803].
The theoretical prediction for the inclusive cross section is $\sigma^{\text{theory}}_{\text{fiducial}}
= 73 \pm 4\unit{fb}$. The measured value is in agreement with the prediction within 1 standard deviation. The prediction is computed using simulated events generated with , where each of the Higgs boson production mechanisms is normalized to the predictions from Ref. [@LHCHXSWG:YR4]. The simulated events are used to compute the fiducial phase space acceptance for the SM Higgs boson with a mass of 125.09, corresponding to the measured world average value [@PhysRevLett.114.191803], and this value is then multiplied by the corresponding total cross section and branching fraction quoted in Ref. [@LHCHXSWG:YR4]. The uncertainties in the cross section and branching ratio predictions are also taken from Ref. [@LHCHXSWG:YR4] and propagated to the final prediction. The fiducial phase space acceptance is estimated to be 0.60 for the SM Higgs boson. This value amounts to 0.60, 0.60, 0.52, and 0.52 for $\Pg\Pg\PH$, VBF, V, and [$\ttbar\PH$]{}production, respectively. The associated QCD scale uncertainty is estimated by independently varying the renormalization and factorization scales used in the calculation by a factor of 2 upwards and downwards, excluding the combinations (1/2, 2) and (2, 1/2), and it amounts to approximately 1% of the acceptance value. The acceptance for the $\Pg\Pg\PH$ production mode is estimated using events generated with , both with and without weighting the events to match the prediction from the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">nnlops</span>]{} program, leading in both cases to a change of about 1%.
The measurements of the differential cross sections as functions of the observables under study are reported in Figs. \[fig:expPrecision1\]–\[fig:expPrecision6\]. The figures show the best fit value, the $1$ standard deviation uncertainty resulting from the likelihood scans for each bin of each observable, and the systematic contribution to the total uncertainty. The measurements are compared to theoretical predictions obtained using different generators for the calculation of the spectrum of the observables, with the cross section and branching fraction values taken from Ref. [@LHCHXSWG:YR4]. The contributions from the VBF, V, and [$\ttbar\PH$]{}production mechanisms are simulated with the program. For the $\Pg\Pg\PH$ contribution, three different predictions are calculated and each of these in turn is added to the VBF, V, and [$\ttbar\PH$]{}contributions. The $\Pg\Pg\PH$ contribution is simulated with the program and its events are weighted to match the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">nnlops</span>]{} prediction, as explained in Section \[sec:samples\]. For the observables inclusive in the number of jets or describing the kinematic observables of the first jet, the prediction for the $\Pg\Pg\PH$ contribution is also simulated using the program. The theoretical prediction for the ${\ensuremath{\abs{\Delta\phi^{\gamma\gamma,{\ensuremath{j_{\text{1}}}}{\ensuremath{j_{\text{2}}}}}}}\xspace}$ spectrum is known to be not infrared-safe for values close to $\pi$ [@LHCHXSWG:YR3], with large uncertainties related to soft jet production in $\Pg\Pg\PH$ events. In this regime the theoretical uncertainties obtained with scale variations tend to be underestimated. This effect is particularly relevant in the last bin of the spectrum corresponding to the values $3.05$–$\pi$.
![The diphoton mass spectrum in data (black points), together with the best signal-plus-background fit (red lines), for each [$\sigma_{m}^{D}$]{}category employed for the measurement of the inclusive fiducial cross section, as defined in Section \[sec:categorization\]. The two bands indicate the one and two standard deviation uncertainty in the background component.[]{data-label="fig:dataFitsFiducial"}](Figure_002-a.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![The diphoton mass spectrum in data (black points), together with the best signal-plus-background fit (red lines), for each [$\sigma_{m}^{D}$]{}category employed for the measurement of the inclusive fiducial cross section, as defined in Section \[sec:categorization\]. The two bands indicate the one and two standard deviation uncertainty in the background component.[]{data-label="fig:dataFitsFiducial"}](Figure_002-b.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}\
![The diphoton mass spectrum in data (black points), together with the best signal-plus-background fit (red lines), for each [$\sigma_{m}^{D}$]{}category employed for the measurement of the inclusive fiducial cross section, as defined in Section \[sec:categorization\]. The two bands indicate the one and two standard deviation uncertainty in the background component.[]{data-label="fig:dataFitsFiducial"}](Figure_002-c.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
![Likelihood scan (black curve) for the fiducial cross section measurement, where the value of the SM Higgs boson mass is profiled in the fit. The measurement is compared to the theoretical prediction (vertical red line), shown with its uncertainty (red hatched area), and it is found in agreement within the uncertainties.[]{data-label="fig:fidLikelihoodScan"}](Figure_003.pdf){width="49.50000%"}
![Measurement of the differential cross section (black points) as functions of ${\ensuremath{\pt^{\gamma\gamma}}\xspace}$, ${\ensuremath{N_{\text{jet}}}\xspace}$, ${\ensuremath{\abs{y^{\gamma\gamma}}}\xspace}$, and ${\ensuremath{\abs{\cos(\theta^*)}}\xspace}$. The error bars indicate $1$ standard deviation uncertainty. The systematic component of the uncertainty is shown by the blue band. The measurements are compared to different simulation programs (histograms) with their uncertainties (hatched areas), all normalized to the same theoretical predictions from Ref. [@LHCHXSWG:YR4]. When the last bin of the distribution is an overflow bin, the normalization of the cross section in that bin is indicated in the figure. []{data-label="fig:expPrecision1"}](Figure_004-a.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![Measurement of the differential cross section (black points) as functions of ${\ensuremath{\pt^{\gamma\gamma}}\xspace}$, ${\ensuremath{N_{\text{jet}}}\xspace}$, ${\ensuremath{\abs{y^{\gamma\gamma}}}\xspace}$, and ${\ensuremath{\abs{\cos(\theta^*)}}\xspace}$. The error bars indicate $1$ standard deviation uncertainty. The systematic component of the uncertainty is shown by the blue band. The measurements are compared to different simulation programs (histograms) with their uncertainties (hatched areas), all normalized to the same theoretical predictions from Ref. [@LHCHXSWG:YR4]. When the last bin of the distribution is an overflow bin, the normalization of the cross section in that bin is indicated in the figure. []{data-label="fig:expPrecision1"}](Figure_004-b.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}\
![Measurement of the differential cross section (black points) as functions of ${\ensuremath{\pt^{\gamma\gamma}}\xspace}$, ${\ensuremath{N_{\text{jet}}}\xspace}$, ${\ensuremath{\abs{y^{\gamma\gamma}}}\xspace}$, and ${\ensuremath{\abs{\cos(\theta^*)}}\xspace}$. The error bars indicate $1$ standard deviation uncertainty. The systematic component of the uncertainty is shown by the blue band. The measurements are compared to different simulation programs (histograms) with their uncertainties (hatched areas), all normalized to the same theoretical predictions from Ref. [@LHCHXSWG:YR4]. When the last bin of the distribution is an overflow bin, the normalization of the cross section in that bin is indicated in the figure. []{data-label="fig:expPrecision1"}](Figure_004-c.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![Measurement of the differential cross section (black points) as functions of ${\ensuremath{\pt^{\gamma\gamma}}\xspace}$, ${\ensuremath{N_{\text{jet}}}\xspace}$, ${\ensuremath{\abs{y^{\gamma\gamma}}}\xspace}$, and ${\ensuremath{\abs{\cos(\theta^*)}}\xspace}$. The error bars indicate $1$ standard deviation uncertainty. The systematic component of the uncertainty is shown by the blue band. The measurements are compared to different simulation programs (histograms) with their uncertainties (hatched areas), all normalized to the same theoretical predictions from Ref. [@LHCHXSWG:YR4]. When the last bin of the distribution is an overflow bin, the normalization of the cross section in that bin is indicated in the figure. []{data-label="fig:expPrecision1"}](Figure_004-d.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
![Measurement of the differential cross section (black points) as functions ${\ensuremath{\pt^{{\ensuremath{j_{\text{1}}}}}}\xspace}$, ${\ensuremath{\abs{y^{{\ensuremath{j_{\text{1}}}}}}}\xspace}$, ${\ensuremath{\abs{\Delta\phi^{\gamma\gamma,{\ensuremath{j_{\text{1}}}}}}}\xspace}$, and ${\ensuremath{\abs{\Delta y^{\gamma\gamma,{\ensuremath{j_{\text{1}}}}}}}\xspace}$. The error bars indicate $1$ standard deviation uncertainty. The systematic component of the uncertainty is shown by the blue band. The measurements are compared to different simulation programs (histograms) with their uncertainties (hatched areas), all normalized to the same theoretical predictions from Ref. [@LHCHXSWG:YR4]. When the last bin of the distribution is an overflow bin, the normalization of the cross section in that bin is indicated in the figure.[]{data-label="fig:expPrecision2"}](Figure_005-a.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![Measurement of the differential cross section (black points) as functions ${\ensuremath{\pt^{{\ensuremath{j_{\text{1}}}}}}\xspace}$, ${\ensuremath{\abs{y^{{\ensuremath{j_{\text{1}}}}}}}\xspace}$, ${\ensuremath{\abs{\Delta\phi^{\gamma\gamma,{\ensuremath{j_{\text{1}}}}}}}\xspace}$, and ${\ensuremath{\abs{\Delta y^{\gamma\gamma,{\ensuremath{j_{\text{1}}}}}}}\xspace}$. The error bars indicate $1$ standard deviation uncertainty. The systematic component of the uncertainty is shown by the blue band. The measurements are compared to different simulation programs (histograms) with their uncertainties (hatched areas), all normalized to the same theoretical predictions from Ref. [@LHCHXSWG:YR4]. When the last bin of the distribution is an overflow bin, the normalization of the cross section in that bin is indicated in the figure.[]{data-label="fig:expPrecision2"}](Figure_005-b.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}\
![Measurement of the differential cross section (black points) as functions ${\ensuremath{\pt^{{\ensuremath{j_{\text{1}}}}}}\xspace}$, ${\ensuremath{\abs{y^{{\ensuremath{j_{\text{1}}}}}}}\xspace}$, ${\ensuremath{\abs{\Delta\phi^{\gamma\gamma,{\ensuremath{j_{\text{1}}}}}}}\xspace}$, and ${\ensuremath{\abs{\Delta y^{\gamma\gamma,{\ensuremath{j_{\text{1}}}}}}}\xspace}$. The error bars indicate $1$ standard deviation uncertainty. The systematic component of the uncertainty is shown by the blue band. The measurements are compared to different simulation programs (histograms) with their uncertainties (hatched areas), all normalized to the same theoretical predictions from Ref. [@LHCHXSWG:YR4]. When the last bin of the distribution is an overflow bin, the normalization of the cross section in that bin is indicated in the figure.[]{data-label="fig:expPrecision2"}](Figure_005-c.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![Measurement of the differential cross section (black points) as functions ${\ensuremath{\pt^{{\ensuremath{j_{\text{1}}}}}}\xspace}$, ${\ensuremath{\abs{y^{{\ensuremath{j_{\text{1}}}}}}}\xspace}$, ${\ensuremath{\abs{\Delta\phi^{\gamma\gamma,{\ensuremath{j_{\text{1}}}}}}}\xspace}$, and ${\ensuremath{\abs{\Delta y^{\gamma\gamma,{\ensuremath{j_{\text{1}}}}}}}\xspace}$. The error bars indicate $1$ standard deviation uncertainty. The systematic component of the uncertainty is shown by the blue band. The measurements are compared to different simulation programs (histograms) with their uncertainties (hatched areas), all normalized to the same theoretical predictions from Ref. [@LHCHXSWG:YR4]. When the last bin of the distribution is an overflow bin, the normalization of the cross section in that bin is indicated in the figure.[]{data-label="fig:expPrecision2"}](Figure_005-d.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
![Measurement of the differential cross section (black points) as functions of ${\ensuremath{\pt^{{\ensuremath{j_{\text{2}}}}}}\xspace}$, ${\ensuremath{\abs{y^{{\ensuremath{j_{\text{2}}}}}}}\xspace}$, ${\ensuremath{\abs{\Delta\phi^{{\ensuremath{j_{\text{1}}}},{\ensuremath{j_{\text{2}}}}}}}\xspace}$, and ${\ensuremath{\abs{\Delta\phi^{\gamma\gamma,{\ensuremath{j_{\text{1}}}}{\ensuremath{j_{\text{2}}}}}}}\xspace}$. The error bars indicate $1$ standard deviation uncertainty. The systematic component of the uncertainty is shown by the blue band. The measurements are compared to two different simulation programs (histograms) with their uncertainties (hatched areas), both normalized to the same theoretical predictions from Ref. [@LHCHXSWG:YR4]. When the last bin of the distribution is an overflow bin, the normalization of the cross section in that bin is indicated in the figure. []{data-label="fig:expPrecision3"}](Figure_006-a.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![Measurement of the differential cross section (black points) as functions of ${\ensuremath{\pt^{{\ensuremath{j_{\text{2}}}}}}\xspace}$, ${\ensuremath{\abs{y^{{\ensuremath{j_{\text{2}}}}}}}\xspace}$, ${\ensuremath{\abs{\Delta\phi^{{\ensuremath{j_{\text{1}}}},{\ensuremath{j_{\text{2}}}}}}}\xspace}$, and ${\ensuremath{\abs{\Delta\phi^{\gamma\gamma,{\ensuremath{j_{\text{1}}}}{\ensuremath{j_{\text{2}}}}}}}\xspace}$. The error bars indicate $1$ standard deviation uncertainty. The systematic component of the uncertainty is shown by the blue band. The measurements are compared to two different simulation programs (histograms) with their uncertainties (hatched areas), both normalized to the same theoretical predictions from Ref. [@LHCHXSWG:YR4]. When the last bin of the distribution is an overflow bin, the normalization of the cross section in that bin is indicated in the figure. []{data-label="fig:expPrecision3"}](Figure_006-b.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}\
![Measurement of the differential cross section (black points) as functions of ${\ensuremath{\pt^{{\ensuremath{j_{\text{2}}}}}}\xspace}$, ${\ensuremath{\abs{y^{{\ensuremath{j_{\text{2}}}}}}}\xspace}$, ${\ensuremath{\abs{\Delta\phi^{{\ensuremath{j_{\text{1}}}},{\ensuremath{j_{\text{2}}}}}}}\xspace}$, and ${\ensuremath{\abs{\Delta\phi^{\gamma\gamma,{\ensuremath{j_{\text{1}}}}{\ensuremath{j_{\text{2}}}}}}}\xspace}$. The error bars indicate $1$ standard deviation uncertainty. The systematic component of the uncertainty is shown by the blue band. The measurements are compared to two different simulation programs (histograms) with their uncertainties (hatched areas), both normalized to the same theoretical predictions from Ref. [@LHCHXSWG:YR4]. When the last bin of the distribution is an overflow bin, the normalization of the cross section in that bin is indicated in the figure. []{data-label="fig:expPrecision3"}](Figure_006-c.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![Measurement of the differential cross section (black points) as functions of ${\ensuremath{\pt^{{\ensuremath{j_{\text{2}}}}}}\xspace}$, ${\ensuremath{\abs{y^{{\ensuremath{j_{\text{2}}}}}}}\xspace}$, ${\ensuremath{\abs{\Delta\phi^{{\ensuremath{j_{\text{1}}}},{\ensuremath{j_{\text{2}}}}}}}\xspace}$, and ${\ensuremath{\abs{\Delta\phi^{\gamma\gamma,{\ensuremath{j_{\text{1}}}}{\ensuremath{j_{\text{2}}}}}}}\xspace}$. The error bars indicate $1$ standard deviation uncertainty. The systematic component of the uncertainty is shown by the blue band. The measurements are compared to two different simulation programs (histograms) with their uncertainties (hatched areas), both normalized to the same theoretical predictions from Ref. [@LHCHXSWG:YR4]. When the last bin of the distribution is an overflow bin, the normalization of the cross section in that bin is indicated in the figure. []{data-label="fig:expPrecision3"}](Figure_006-d.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
![Measurement of the differential cross section (black points) as functions of ${\ensuremath{\abs{\overline{\eta}_{{\ensuremath{j_{\text{1}}}}{\ensuremath{j_{\text{2}}}}} - \eta_{\gamma\gamma}}}\xspace}$, ${\ensuremath{m^{{\ensuremath{j_{\text{1}}}}{\ensuremath{j_{\text{2}}}}}}\xspace}$, and ${\ensuremath{\abs{\Delta\eta^{{\ensuremath{j_{\text{1}}}},{\ensuremath{j_{\text{2}}}}}}}\xspace}$. The error bars indicate $1$ standard deviation uncertainty. The systematic component of the uncertainty is shown by the blue band. The measurements are compared to two different simulation programs (histograms) with their uncertainties (hatched areas), both normalized to the same theoretical predictions from Ref. [@LHCHXSWG:YR4]. When the last bin of the distribution is an overflow bin, the normalization of the cross section in that bin is indicated in the figure.[]{data-label="fig:expPrecision4"}](Figure_007-a.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![Measurement of the differential cross section (black points) as functions of ${\ensuremath{\abs{\overline{\eta}_{{\ensuremath{j_{\text{1}}}}{\ensuremath{j_{\text{2}}}}} - \eta_{\gamma\gamma}}}\xspace}$, ${\ensuremath{m^{{\ensuremath{j_{\text{1}}}}{\ensuremath{j_{\text{2}}}}}}\xspace}$, and ${\ensuremath{\abs{\Delta\eta^{{\ensuremath{j_{\text{1}}}},{\ensuremath{j_{\text{2}}}}}}}\xspace}$. The error bars indicate $1$ standard deviation uncertainty. The systematic component of the uncertainty is shown by the blue band. The measurements are compared to two different simulation programs (histograms) with their uncertainties (hatched areas), both normalized to the same theoretical predictions from Ref. [@LHCHXSWG:YR4]. When the last bin of the distribution is an overflow bin, the normalization of the cross section in that bin is indicated in the figure.[]{data-label="fig:expPrecision4"}](Figure_007-b.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}\
![Measurement of the differential cross section (black points) as functions of ${\ensuremath{\abs{\overline{\eta}_{{\ensuremath{j_{\text{1}}}}{\ensuremath{j_{\text{2}}}}} - \eta_{\gamma\gamma}}}\xspace}$, ${\ensuremath{m^{{\ensuremath{j_{\text{1}}}}{\ensuremath{j_{\text{2}}}}}}\xspace}$, and ${\ensuremath{\abs{\Delta\eta^{{\ensuremath{j_{\text{1}}}},{\ensuremath{j_{\text{2}}}}}}}\xspace}$. The error bars indicate $1$ standard deviation uncertainty. The systematic component of the uncertainty is shown by the blue band. The measurements are compared to two different simulation programs (histograms) with their uncertainties (hatched areas), both normalized to the same theoretical predictions from Ref. [@LHCHXSWG:YR4]. When the last bin of the distribution is an overflow bin, the normalization of the cross section in that bin is indicated in the figure.[]{data-label="fig:expPrecision4"}](Figure_007-c.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
![Measurement in a VBF-enriched region of the fiducial phase space of the differential cross section (black points) as functions of ${\ensuremath{\pt^{{\ensuremath{j_{\text{2}}}}}}\xspace}$, ${\ensuremath{\abs{\Delta\phi^{{\ensuremath{j_{\text{1}}}},{\ensuremath{j_{\text{2}}}}}}}\xspace}$, and ${\ensuremath{\abs{\Delta\phi^{\gamma\gamma,{\ensuremath{j_{\text{1}}}}{\ensuremath{j_{\text{2}}}}}}}\xspace}$. The error bars indicate $1$ standard deviation uncertainty. The systematic component of the uncertainty is shown by the blue band. The measurements are compared to two different simulation programs (histograms) with their uncertainties (hatched areas), both normalized to the same theoretical predictions from Ref. [@LHCHXSWG:YR4]. When the last bin of the distribution is an overflow bin, the normalization of the cross section in that bin is indicated in the figure.[]{data-label="fig:expPrecision5"}](Figure_008-a.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![Measurement in a VBF-enriched region of the fiducial phase space of the differential cross section (black points) as functions of ${\ensuremath{\pt^{{\ensuremath{j_{\text{2}}}}}}\xspace}$, ${\ensuremath{\abs{\Delta\phi^{{\ensuremath{j_{\text{1}}}},{\ensuremath{j_{\text{2}}}}}}}\xspace}$, and ${\ensuremath{\abs{\Delta\phi^{\gamma\gamma,{\ensuremath{j_{\text{1}}}}{\ensuremath{j_{\text{2}}}}}}}\xspace}$. The error bars indicate $1$ standard deviation uncertainty. The systematic component of the uncertainty is shown by the blue band. The measurements are compared to two different simulation programs (histograms) with their uncertainties (hatched areas), both normalized to the same theoretical predictions from Ref. [@LHCHXSWG:YR4]. When the last bin of the distribution is an overflow bin, the normalization of the cross section in that bin is indicated in the figure.[]{data-label="fig:expPrecision5"}](Figure_008-b.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}\
![Measurement in a VBF-enriched region of the fiducial phase space of the differential cross section (black points) as functions of ${\ensuremath{\pt^{{\ensuremath{j_{\text{2}}}}}}\xspace}$, ${\ensuremath{\abs{\Delta\phi^{{\ensuremath{j_{\text{1}}}},{\ensuremath{j_{\text{2}}}}}}}\xspace}$, and ${\ensuremath{\abs{\Delta\phi^{\gamma\gamma,{\ensuremath{j_{\text{1}}}}{\ensuremath{j_{\text{2}}}}}}}\xspace}$. The error bars indicate $1$ standard deviation uncertainty. The systematic component of the uncertainty is shown by the blue band. The measurements are compared to two different simulation programs (histograms) with their uncertainties (hatched areas), both normalized to the same theoretical predictions from Ref. [@LHCHXSWG:YR4]. When the last bin of the distribution is an overflow bin, the normalization of the cross section in that bin is indicated in the figure.[]{data-label="fig:expPrecision5"}](Figure_008-c.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
![Measurement of the differential cross section (black points) as function of ${\ensuremath{\pt^{\gamma\gamma}}\xspace}$ and ${\ensuremath{N_{\text{jet}}}\xspace}$ simultaneously. The error bars indicate $1$ standard deviation uncertainty. The systematic component of the uncertainty is shown by the blue band. The measurements are compared to different simulation programs (histograms) with their uncertainties (hatched areas), all normalized to the same theoretical predictions from Ref. [@LHCHXSWG:YR4]. The normalization of the cross section in last, overflow bin is indicated in the figure.[]{data-label="fig:expPrecision8"}](Figure_009-a.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![Measurement of the differential cross section (black points) as function of ${\ensuremath{\pt^{\gamma\gamma}}\xspace}$ and ${\ensuremath{N_{\text{jet}}}\xspace}$ simultaneously. The error bars indicate $1$ standard deviation uncertainty. The systematic component of the uncertainty is shown by the blue band. The measurements are compared to different simulation programs (histograms) with their uncertainties (hatched areas), all normalized to the same theoretical predictions from Ref. [@LHCHXSWG:YR4]. The normalization of the cross section in last, overflow bin is indicated in the figure.[]{data-label="fig:expPrecision8"}](Figure_009-b.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}\
![Measurement of the differential cross section (black points) as function of ${\ensuremath{\pt^{\gamma\gamma}}\xspace}$ and ${\ensuremath{N_{\text{jet}}}\xspace}$ simultaneously. The error bars indicate $1$ standard deviation uncertainty. The systematic component of the uncertainty is shown by the blue band. The measurements are compared to different simulation programs (histograms) with their uncertainties (hatched areas), all normalized to the same theoretical predictions from Ref. [@LHCHXSWG:YR4]. The normalization of the cross section in last, overflow bin is indicated in the figure.[]{data-label="fig:expPrecision8"}](Figure_009-c.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
![Measurement of the differential cross section (black points) as functions of $\ptmiss$, ${\ensuremath{N_{\text{jet}}^{\cPqb}}\xspace}$, and ${\ensuremath{N_{\text{lepton}}}\xspace}$. The error bars indicate $1$ standard deviation uncertainty. The systematic component of the uncertainty is shown by the blue band. The measurements are compared to different simulation programs (histograms) with their uncertainties (hatched areas), all normalized to the same theoretical predictions from Ref. [@LHCHXSWG:YR4]. When the last bin of the distribution is an overflow bin, the normalization of the cross section in that bin is indicated in the figure.[]{data-label="fig:expPrecision6"}](Figure_010-a.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![Measurement of the differential cross section (black points) as functions of $\ptmiss$, ${\ensuremath{N_{\text{jet}}^{\cPqb}}\xspace}$, and ${\ensuremath{N_{\text{lepton}}}\xspace}$. The error bars indicate $1$ standard deviation uncertainty. The systematic component of the uncertainty is shown by the blue band. The measurements are compared to different simulation programs (histograms) with their uncertainties (hatched areas), all normalized to the same theoretical predictions from Ref. [@LHCHXSWG:YR4]. When the last bin of the distribution is an overflow bin, the normalization of the cross section in that bin is indicated in the figure.[]{data-label="fig:expPrecision6"}](Figure_010-b.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}\
![Measurement of the differential cross section (black points) as functions of $\ptmiss$, ${\ensuremath{N_{\text{jet}}^{\cPqb}}\xspace}$, and ${\ensuremath{N_{\text{lepton}}}\xspace}$. The error bars indicate $1$ standard deviation uncertainty. The systematic component of the uncertainty is shown by the blue band. The measurements are compared to different simulation programs (histograms) with their uncertainties (hatched areas), all normalized to the same theoretical predictions from Ref. [@LHCHXSWG:YR4]. When the last bin of the distribution is an overflow bin, the normalization of the cross section in that bin is indicated in the figure.[]{data-label="fig:expPrecision6"}](Figure_010-c.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
The precision in the measurement of the differential fiducial cross sections varies widely depending on the observable under study. The observable that allows the most precise measurement and the largest number of bins is ${\ensuremath{\pt^{\gamma\gamma}}\xspace}$, where 8 bins are defined and the measurements have uncertainties around 40% on average, as shown in Fig. \[fig:expPrecision1\] (top left). The observables ${\ensuremath{\abs{y^{\gamma\gamma}}}\xspace}$ and ${\ensuremath{\abs{\cos(\theta^*)}}\xspace}$ yield measurements with uncertainties at the level of $\sim$35% in 5 bins, reported in Fig. \[fig:expPrecision1\] (bottom left and right, respectively). The uncertainties in the measurement as a function of the jet multiplicity, ${\ensuremath{N_{\text{jet}}}\xspace}$, presented in Fig. \[fig:expPrecision1\] (top right), range from $\sim$25% for the $0$-jet bin up to $\gtrsim$100% for the high jet multiplicity bins. For the observables describing the properties of the first additional jet ${\ensuremath{j_{\text{1}}}}$, shown in Fig. \[fig:expPrecision2\], the average uncertainty is $\sim$50% with four bins, with the exception of ${\ensuremath{\pt^{{\ensuremath{j_{\text{1}}}}}}\xspace}$, where $5$ bins are used and the uncertainties are around 70%. The spectrum of the observables involving two jets, displayed in Figs. \[fig:expPrecision3\] and \[fig:expPrecision4\], is measured with uncertainties ranging between $\sim$70 and $\sim$90% and employing three bins, except for ${\ensuremath{m^{{\ensuremath{j_{\text{1}}}}{\ensuremath{j_{\text{2}}}}}}\xspace}$ for which 5 bins are defined. As the measurements as functions of ${\ensuremath{\pt^{{\ensuremath{j_{\text{2}}}}}}\xspace}$, ${\ensuremath{\abs{\Delta\phi^{{\ensuremath{j_{\text{1}}}},{\ensuremath{j_{\text{2}}}}}}}\xspace}$, and ${\ensuremath{\abs{\Delta\phi^{\gamma\gamma,{\ensuremath{j_{\text{1}}}}{\ensuremath{j_{\text{2}}}}}}}\xspace}$ are restricted to the VBF-enriched region of the phase space, the uncertainties are between 110 and 150%, as shown in Fig. \[fig:expPrecision5\]. The double differential measurement as a function of ${\ensuremath{\pt^{\gamma\gamma}}\xspace}$ and ${\ensuremath{N_{\text{jet}}}\xspace}$, reported in Fig. \[fig:expPrecision8\], allows the extraction of the cross section in 9 bins with uncertainties ranging from $\sim$35 to $\sim$60%. The measurements as a function of ${\ensuremath{N_{\text{jet}}^{\cPqb}}\xspace}$, ${\ensuremath{N_{\text{lepton}}}\xspace}$, and $\ptmiss$, presented in Fig. \[fig:expPrecision6\], have uncertainties, in all bins except the first, of 200–250%. In the first bin, which contains the vast majority of the selected events, the uncertainties are comparable to the uncertainty in the inclusive cross section measurement. The results are found to be in agreement with the SM predictions within the uncertainties.
The measurement of the inclusive fiducial cross section is also performed in regions of the fiducial phase space. These regions, as described in Section \[sec:observables\], represent a very limited fraction ($\sim$10$^{-3}$) of the baseline phase space and target individual production mechanisms of the Higgs boson. The results of these measurements are summarized in Fig. \[fig:summaryInclusive\], where selected bins of the differential measurements are also reported, in order to provide a more comprehensive summary. The measurements are compared to the corresponding theoretical predictions, obtained using simulated signal events, with the $\Pg\Pg\PH$ simulated events weighted to match the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">nnlops</span>]{} program prediction. The values of the cross section and the branching fraction are taken from Ref. [@LHCHXSWG:YR4]. The uncertainties in the measurements are around $250$% for the *1-lepton, high* and *1-lepton, low* cross sections, and $\sim$350% for the *$\geq$1-lepton, $\geq$1-b-jet* cross section. The measurements are found to be compatible with the SM prediction.
![The measurement of the differential cross section (black points) for different regions of the phase space, listed on the vertical axis. The black error bars indicate the $1$ standard deviation uncertainty and its systematic component is shown by the blue band. The measurements are found in agreement with the theoretical predictions (orange hatched area), normalized to the predictions from Ref. [@LHCHXSWG:YR4]. The measured value of some of the cross sections is found to be compatible with the background-only hypothesis.[]{data-label="fig:summaryInclusive"}](Figure_011.pdf){width="75.00000%"}
Summary {#sec:conclusions}
=======
Measurements of the inclusive and differential fiducial cross sections for production of the Higgs boson in the diphoton decay channel have been performed using an integrated luminosity of [[$35.9\fbinv$]{}]{}of proton-proton collision data collected by the CMS experiment at a center-of-mass energy of $13\TeV$. The measurements of the differential cross sections are reported as functions of a set of observables characterizing the diphoton system and particles produced in association with the Higgs boson. The measurements are performed for isolated photons in the fiducial phase space defined by requiring that both photons are isolated and within the pseudorapidity $\abs{\eta^{\gamma}}<2.5$ and $\pt/m_{\gamma\gamma}>1/3 (1/4)$ for the leading (subleading) photon. In this fiducial phase space, the cross section is measured to be $84\pm13\unit{fb}$, compared with a theoretical prediction of $73\pm4\unit{fb}$. The double-differential measurement is performed as a function of the transverse momentum of the diphoton system and the jet multiplicity in the event.
A subset of the differential observables describing the kinematics of the system of two additional jets is studied in a vector-boson-fusion enriched fiducial phase space. The inclusive cross section is also measured in three regions of the fiducial phase space, additionally requiring the presence of one selected lepton and missing transverse momentum $\ptmiss<100$, or one selected lepton and $\ptmiss\geq100$, or at least one selected lepton and at least one -tagged jet, respectively. The measurements are in agreement within the uncertainties with the predictions for the production of a standard model Higgs boson.
We congratulate our colleagues in the CERN accelerator departments for the excellent performance of the LHC and thank the technical and administrative staffs at CERN and at other CMS institutes for their contributions to the success of the CMS effort. In addition, we gratefully acknowledge the computing centers and personnel of the Worldwide LHC Computing Grid for delivering so effectively the computing infrastructure essential to our analyses. Finally, we acknowledge the enduring support for the construction and operation of the LHC and the CMS detector provided by the following funding agencies: BMWFW and FWF (Austria); FNRS and FWO (Belgium); CNPq, CAPES, FAPERJ, FAPERGS, and FAPESP (Brazil); MES (Bulgaria); CERN; CAS, MoST, and NSFC (China); COLCIENCIAS (Colombia); MSES and CSF (Croatia); RPF (Cyprus); SENESCYT (Ecuador); MoER, ERC IUT, and ERDF (Estonia); Academy of Finland, MEC, and HIP (Finland); CEA and CNRS/IN2P3 (France); BMBF, DFG, and HGF (Germany); GSRT (Greece); NKFIA (Hungary); DAE and DST (India); IPM (Iran); SFI (Ireland); INFN (Italy); MSIP and NRF (Republic of Korea); MES (Latvia); LAS (Lithuania); MOE and UM (Malaysia); BUAP, CINVESTAV, CONACYT, LNS, SEP, and UASLP-FAI (Mexico); MOS (Montenegro); MBIE (New Zealand); PAEC (Pakistan); MSHE and NSC (Poland); FCT (Portugal); JINR (Dubna); MON, RosAtom, RAS, RFBR, and NRC KI (Russia); MESTD (Serbia); SEIDI, CPAN, PCTI, and FEDER (Spain); MOSTR (Sri Lanka); Swiss Funding Agencies (Switzerland); MST (Taipei); ThEPCenter, IPST, STAR, and NSTDA (Thailand); TUBITAK and TAEK (Turkey); NASU and SFFR (Ukraine); STFC (United Kingdom); DOE and NSF (USA).
Individuals have received support from the Marie-Curie program and the European Research Council and Horizon 2020 Grant, contract No. 675440 (European Union); the Leventis Foundation; the A. P. Sloan Foundation; the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation; the Belgian Federal Science Policy Office; the Fonds pour la Formation à la Recherche dans l’Industrie et dans l’Agriculture (FRIA-Belgium); the Agentschap voor Innovatie door Wetenschap en Technologie (IWT-Belgium); the F.R.S.-FNRS and FWO (Belgium) under the “Excellence of Science - EOS" - be.h project n. 30820817; the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (MEYS) of the Czech Republic; the Lendület (“Momentum") Program and the János Bolyai Research Scholarship of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, the New National Excellence Program ÚNKP, the NKFIA research grants 123842, 123959, 124845, 124850 and 125105 (Hungary); the Council of Science and Industrial Research, India; the HOMING PLUS program of the Foundation for Polish Science, cofinanced from European Union, Regional Development Fund, the Mobility Plus program of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education, the National Science Center (Poland), contracts Harmonia 2014/14/M/ST2/00428, Opus 2014/13/B/ST2/02543, 2014/15/B/ST2/03998, and 2015/19/B/ST2/02861, Sonata-bis 2012/07/E/ST2/01406; the National Priorities Research Program by Qatar National Research Fund; the Programa Estatal de Fomento de la Investigaci[ó]{}n Cient[í]{}fica y T[é]{}cnica de Excelencia María de Maeztu, grant MDM-2015-0509 and the Programa Severo Ochoa del Principado de Asturias; the Thalis and Aristeia programs cofinanced by EU-ESF and the Greek NSRF; the Rachadapisek Sompot Fund for Postdoctoral Fellowship, Chulalongkorn University and the Chulalongkorn Academic into Its 2nd Century Project Advancement Project (Thailand); the Welch Foundation, contract C-1845; and the Weston Havens Foundation (USA).
The CMS Collaboration \[app:collab\]
====================================
=5000=500=5000
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Artificial intelligence (AI) has been applied in phishing email detection. Typically, it requires rich email data from a collection of sources, and the data usually contains private information that needs to be preserved. So far, AI techniques are solely focusing on centralized data training that eventually accesses sensitive raw email data from the collected data repository. Thus, a privacy-friendly AI technique such as federated learning (FL) is a desideratum. FL enables learning over distributed email datasets to protect their privacy without the requirement of accessing them during the learning in a distributed computing framework. This work, to the best of our knowledge, is the first to investigate the applicability of training email anti-phishing model via FL.
Building upon the deep neural network model, in particular, Recurrent Convolutional Neural Network for phishing email detection, we comprehensively measure and evaluate the FL-entangled learning performance under various settings, including balanced and imbalanced data distribution among clients, scalability, communication overhead, and transfer learning. Our results positively corroborate comparable performance statistics of FL in phishing email detection to centralized learning. As a trade-off to privacy and distributed learning, FL has a communication overhead of 0.179 GB per global epoch per its clients. Our measurement-based results find that FL is suitable for practical scenarios, where data size variation, including the ratio of phishing to legitimate email samples, among the clients, are present. In all these scenarios, FL shows a similar performance of testing accuracy of around 98%. Besides, we demonstrate the integration of the newly joined clients with time in FL via transfer learning to improve the client-level performance. The transfer learning-enabled training results in the improvement of the testing accuracy by up to 2.6% and fast convergence.
author:
- Chandra Thapa
- Jun Wen Tang
- Sharif Abuadbba
- Yansong Gao
- Yifeng Zheng
- 'Seyit A. Camtepe'
- Surya Nepal
- Mahathir Almashor
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: 'FedEmail: Performance Measurement of Privacy-friendly Phishing Detection Enabled by Federated Learning'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Email is the most usual means of formal communication. At the same time, it is exploited as a common tool for phishing attacks, where attackers disguise as a trustworthy entity and try to install malware or obtain sensitive information such as login credentials and bank details of the recipient. Based on the phishing and email fraud statistics 2019 [@phishingreport1], phishing accounts for 90% of data breaches, which leads to an average financial loss of \$3.86 million. Moreover, phishing attacks cost American business half a billion dollars a year [@mathews2017phishing], and it is increasing. Recently, COVID-19 drives phishing emails up to an unprecedented level by over 600% [@covidphishing].
Correspondingly, there are various techniques devised to protect users from phishing attacks. These techniques can be generally divided into two categories, namely traditional methods, and artificial intelligence (AI) based methods. The traditional method is verification based, where emails arefiltered out by comparing with references, specifically, known email formats, which relies on either a list of phishing emails (blacklist), or a list of legitimate emails (whitelist), or the contents of the known phishing emails. However, email formats can be easily manipulated with time by the attackers, which renders traditional method inefficient. AI-based methods learn to classify an email as phishing or legitimate with a high probability (e.g., 0.99848 [@fang2019phishing]). This method is context aware, and it can continuously learn from the newly available email data samples and adapts to handle the new attack formats/cases efficiently on time. AI-based methods can be further broadly classified into two parts, namely conventional ML-based and deep learning (DL) based methods. The performance of a conventional ML-based method depends on delicate feature selection (e.g., semantic and syntax) and processing. Such feature engineering usually requires domain knowledge and trials, so that it is time-consuming and laborious, which hinders improvements against evolving threats. Moreover, it is hard to capture full contextual information of email data. Naive Bayes, Support Vector Machine, and Decision Tree are examples of conventional ML-based methods [@review1]. On the contrary, a DL-based method feeds the input directly to the system, and it extracts the critical features and the contextual information by itself. This contributes to high efficiency as well as better performance. Convolutional Neural Network [@CNNemail] and Recurrent Convolutional Neural Network [@fang2019phishing] are typical examples of the DL-based method. Although DL-based methods are preferable over other methods considering its performance and automated feature engineering, as a trade-off, it requires a considerable amount of email data.
Unfortunately, emails are sensitive to clients, and disclosure to third parties is not preferred. Thus, the organisations or companies are reluctant to share their email data for the improvement of the anti-phishing DL model. Even anonymization of the email is problematic because it can be easily circumvented — attackers can exploit various characteristics, e.g., social graphs to re-identify the victim’s entity [@gao2018resisting]. As such, it is non-trivial to aggregate emails for centralized analysis. Besides, a recent work [@ho2019detecting] emphasizes the strict ethical concerns when accessing and analyzing the emails of 92 organizations even with the access permission. Along with access control, strict rules are required to be followed: Firstly, the emails are encrypted during fetching; secondly, only authorized employees at the email analyzing agent can access the data (under the standard, strict access control policies); thirdly, personally identifying information or sensitive data disclosed to the authorized employees must not be shared with others; once the model is built, all the encrypted email must be deleted [@cidon2019high]. For any purpose, improperly centralized data management could violate specific rules such as reusing the data indiscriminately and risk-agnostic data processing [@gdprviolations] required by General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) [@gdpr] and HIPAA [@hipaa2003]. Therefore, even with the users’ permission to use their data for agreed tasks (e.g., DL), handling the email data under a centralized cloud is still risky under the set of privacy regulations. Overall, there is an urgent need to process a DL-based method without accessing the raw email data for anti-phishing purposes. Recently, collaborative learning among a large number of participants has become popular, where a joint DL model can be trained by harvesting the rich distributed data held by each participant without accessing them. One most popular technique is federated learning (FL) [@fedlearningMcMahan17; @fed2; @kairouz2019advances]. To the best of our knowledge, the applicability of FL for email anti-phishing has not been explicitly investigated. In this paper, we take the first empirical measurement of email anti-phishing performance by leveraging FL.
Our contributions
-----------------
This work examines the following five research questions that aim to capture the practical scenarios and challenges.
- **(Distributed email learning) Can FL be applied to learn from distributed email repositories to achieve a comparable model accuracy as the DL anti-phishing models trained on centralizedemail repository?** Based on the measurements, FL achieves a comparable performance to centralized learning. For example, 98.852% of testing accuracy with two clients. Though centralized learning has slightly higher (e.g., by 0.466%) testing accuracy, it is not privacy friendly. Thus for email learning with privacy, FL can be a suitable technique in phishing detection. Details are provided in Section \[sec:distributed learning\].
- **(Scalability) How would the number of clients affect FL accuracy and convergence?** Based on the measurements, an increase in the number of clients in FL has a slightly negative effect on the convergence of the accuracy curve and its maximum value. However, more clients (more email datasets) can be available in the FL model training for phishing detection. **RQ5** addresses some benefits to accuracy. Details are provided in Section \[sec:scalability\].
- **(Communication overhead) What is the communication overhead resulting from FL?** Based on the measurements, FL has a communication overhead as a trade-off to privacy. We quantify the overhead and find it the same of around 0.179GB for all cases of up to twenty clients under our setting. Details are provided in Section \[sec:communication overhead\].
- **(Imbalanced data setup) Can we learn from various clients who have different sizes of localdatasets in FL?** Based on the measurements, FL performs well over imbalanced data distribution, including different phishing to legitimate email ratios. More precisely, the performance is similar despite imbalanced data distribution among clients, thus making FL suitable in these scenarios. Details are in Section \[sec:imbalance data\].
- **(Transfer learning) Can we utilize the pre-trained model on a similar dataset for a better performance?** This work implements transfer learning (TL) to improve the client-level performance in the cases where clients available with time in the training process. A fast convergence in the accuracy curve and an increase in its maximum value are observed with TL. Details are in Section \[sec:transfer learning\].
Background
==========
Centralized learning
--------------------
Centralized learning (CL) is normally performed by aggregating all available datasets (e.g., phishing and legitimate emails) at one central repository. Then it performs centralized machine learning on the aggregated dataset. Refer to Algorithm \[algo:centralizedtraining\] for more information. During the learning process, a modeler has access to the raw data, which is shared by one or more clients, thus making it unsuitable if the data is private such as email samples. Besides, in the era of big data and deep learning, it is non-trivial to maintain the required resources, including storage and computation, in CL. Thus, recently, there is a rise in distributed learning such as, in particular, FL.
Federated learning
------------------
Federated learning [@fedlearningMcMahan17] allows parallel DL training across distributed clients, and pushes the computation to the edge devices (i.e., clients). Figure \[fig:fedlearning\] illustrates an overview of FL. There are four exemplified clients with their local email datasets and one coordinating server. Firstly, each client $i$ trains the model on their local email datasets $D_i$ and produce the local model $W^i_t$ at time instance $t$, for $i\in \{1,2,3, 4\}$. Secondly, all clients upload their local models to the server. Then the server performs the weighted averaging (i.e., aggregation) of the local models and updates the global model $W_{t+1}$. Finally, the global model is broadcast to all clients, and this completes the one round of FL process. This process continues until the model converges. In FL, the server synchronizes the training process across the clients. Over the entire training process, only the models (i.e., model parameters) are transmitted between the clients and the server. Thus, a client (e.g., financial institution) does not require to share their raw email data to the server (e.g., coordinated by an email analyzer) during the training process. Thus, the data are always local and confidential that makes FL a privacy-preserving technique.
Transfer learning
-----------------
Transfer learning [@transferlearning] utilizes the pre-trained ML model in the related dataset to the current dataset. It provides a faster convergence and good performance in the current dataset due to the transfer of the previous knowledge in the related dataset. Figure \[fig:onlinelearning\] illustrates an example overview of transfer learning in the similar dataset. Firstly, at time $t$, model $W_t$ trains on the email dataset $D_1$ with a performance (e.g., accuracy) of $P_{11}$. Secondly, at time $t'$, $W_t$ trains on the email dataset $D_2$ and evolves to $W_{t'}$, which has a performance of $P_{22}$ on $D_2$, and $P_{21}$ on $D_1$. The transfer learning focuses on the improvement of the $P_{22}$ on $D_2$, and does not care about $P_{21}$ on $D_1$. It is applicable both in CL and FL settings, and useful to train the model even with fewer data samples.
Experimental setup {#sec:experimentalsetup}
==================
Datasets
--------
In this work, phishing and legitimate email samples are collected from three popular sources, namely First Security and Privacy Analytics Anti-Phishing Shared Task (IWSPA-AP) [@IWSPA-AP], Nazario’s phishing corpora(Nazario) [@nazario], and Enron Email Dataset (Enron) [@enron]. The dataset contains email samples with both header[^1] and without header: IWSPA-AP has both types, whereas all email samples in Nazario and Enron have the header accompanied by the body. Overall, the data source includes Wikileaks archives, SpamAssassin, IT departments of different universities, synthetic emails created by Data engine [@dada], Enron (emails generated by employees of Enron corporation), and Nazario (personal collection). To provide more insight into the email samples, we present some frequently appeared words in them as follows:
- IWSPA-AP phishing email (a) with header includes *account, PayPal, please, eBay, link, security, update,bank, online,* and *information*, and (b) without header includes *text, account, email, please, information, click, team, online,* and *security*. IWSPA-AP legitimate email (a) with header includes *email, please, new, sent, party, people, Donald, state,* and *president*, and (b) without header includes *text, link, national, US, Trump,* and *democratic*.
- Nazario includes *important, account, update, please, email, security, PayPal, eBay, bank, access, information, item, click, confirm,* and *service.*
- Enron includes *text, plain, subject, please, email, power, image, time, know, this, message, information,* and *energy.*
We have considered the [*updated email dataset*]{} from the sources till this date, e.g., Nazario’s phishing corpus 2019. In total, the experimental dataset has $23475$ email samples, and Table \[data\_info\] shows the number of emails extracted from each source.
Source Phishing (P) Legitimate (L) P+L
-------- -------------- ---------------- -------
1132 9174 10306
8890 0 8890
0 4279 4279
10022 13453 23475
: The number of email samples.
\[data\_info\]
DL model selection: THEMIS model
--------------------------------
\[sec:modelSelection\]
![An overview of THEMIS model.[]{data-label="fig:themis"}](Fig/themis.pdf)
THEMIS is one of the recent models, which has been demonstrated to be highly effective for phishing email detection. It employs Recurrent Convolutional Neural Network (RCNNs) and models emails at multiple levels, including char-level email header, word-level email header, char-level email body, and word-level email body [@fang2019phishing]. This way, it captures the deep underlying semantics of the phishing emails efficiently and consequently making THEMIS better than existing DL-based methods, that are limited to the natural language processing and deep learning [@deeplearingemail].
**Model Overview**: Fig. \[fig:themis\] illustrates a system overview of the THEMIS model. Firstly, THEMIS extracts the char-level and word-level of email header and body, and then an embedding layer converts all these levels to the respective vector representation. Afterward, it feeds each vector representation into RCNN model [@lai2015recurrent] and learns a representation for the email header and email body, respectively. THEMIS RCNN consists of four Bidirectional-Long Short-Term Memory (Bi-LSTM) that obtain the left and right semantic information of a specific location with its embedding information from the above four vectors, thus forming something called a triple. Next, these triples are mapped into specified dimensions using a tanh activation function. The longitudinal max polling is then applied to obtain four different representations, which will be paired to form only two representations for the header and the body. As the email header representation and body representation have varying degrees of impact on phishing detection, an attention mechanism is applied to compute a weighted sum of the two representations, and this produces an ultimate representation of the whole email, which is further processed to produce the classification result. For more details of the THEMIS model, we refer readers to [@fang2019phishing].
It is reported that THEMIS can achieve up to 99.848% of overall testing accuracy. Considering its high efficacy in phishing detection, we thus chose this model as a CL baseline across all our FL-based experiment settings.
Data preparation {#sec:datasetpreparation}
----------------
The email dataset has two types of file formats, viz text file (.txt), and mbox file (.mbox). Each email is a single text file if the email sample is in the text format. In the mbox format, all messages are concatenated and stored as plain text in a single file. Moreover, each message starts with the four characters “From” followed by a space. Both types of the email files are firstly parsed into two parts, namely email header and email body, and then subjected to further processing, including cleaning and tokenization to produce char level and word level sequences (described in the following paragraph). By considering equal phishing and legitimate email samples from the total dataset (of 23475 data samples), we prepare the experimental dataset of size 20044 (i.e., $2 \times 10022$) — to be precise, 10022 is aligned with the number of phishing emails while the number of legitimate emails is 13453. Moreover, the new dataset has four parts - phishing header, phishing body, legitimate header, and legitimate body - each part with 10022 samples. The experimental dataset is equally and uniformly distributed in all our distributed setup with multiple clients except for the cases with the imbalanced dataset (where the number of phishing and legitimate email samples varies with the case). For example, cases with five clients have a dataset of size 4008 (i.e., around 20044 divided by 5) in each client. For all experiments, the training-to-testing data split ratio is 80:20.
### Extraction of Header and Body
The class of the python module, called [@emailheader], is used to extract the email header, and this separates the header and body part of the email samples. In the header section, we consider only the *Subject* and the *Content-Type* field, which are deemed essential for phishing detection. This separation is done by using the python library called the regular expression (RE) module [@re].
### Cleaning of the Extracted Header and Body
The python library [@soup] and [@htmlparser] are used to clean the text information in HTML format. Besides, we use RE for the plain text (both in header and body) cleaning by removing punctuation and non-alphabetic characters. To filter out the stop words from the header and body, we use of the nltk packages () [@nltk] of python.
### Tokenisation
To get the char-level and word-level sequences of the tokens for both header and body parts, the Tokenizer class provided by library [@tokenizer] is used. Basically, this is to encode each character/word as a unique integer as required by the input format of the embedding layer. Two main functions are used for tokenization; these are ‘fit\_on\_texts,’ which updates internal vocabulary based on a list of texts, and ‘texts\_to\_sequences,’ which transforms each text in texts to a sequence of integers by considering only words known by the tokenizer. In all our measurements, we keep 50, 100, 150, and 300 as the length of the four sequences of tokens, which are word-level header, char-level header, word-level body, and char-level body, respectively.
Experimental steps
------------------
For the purpose of performance measurements, we use High-performance Computing (HPC) platform that is built on *Dell EMC’s PowerEdge* platform. It has the *Tesla P100-SXM2-16GB* GPU model. All code is written in Python 3.6.1, and the THEMIS model, that has a RCNN, is implemented by using TensorFlow 2.2.5 [@tensorflow] and Keras 2.2.5 [@keras] framework. In all measurements, we keep the same random seed, i.e., random.seed(123). We run centralized model training and federated model training under various settings in our experiments, but with the same learning rate of 0.0001 and batch size of 256. Refer to Algorithm \[algo:centralizedtraining\] and \[algo:fedtraining\] for details on training steps of CL and FL, respectively.
Initialize THEMIS model $W_t$
Measured Experimental Results
=============================
To ease the presentation of the measurement results on the experimental setup (Section \[sec:experimentalsetup\]), we divide this section into five parts according to the five research questions. Each part addresses one research question, providing corresponding results and conclusion/discussion.
Distributed email learning
--------------------------
\[sec:distributed learning\]
**Can FL be applied to learn from distributedemail repositories to achieve a comparable model accuracy as the DL anti-phishing models trained on centralized email repository?**
Figure \[fig:compare\] depicts the model testing and training convergences of accuracy curves with the global epoch for CL and FL with two, five, and ten clients. For the observation window of 45 global epochs, the figure demonstrates a training accuracy of 99.838% in CL, and 99.794% in FL (with two clients). Besides, the maximum testing accuracy is 99.351% in CL[^2] and 98.852% in FL. This shows that CL marginally outperforms (by 0.499%) the FL (with two clients) in this case. However, the overall performance of the FL is notable and comparable to CL. Refer to Figure \[fig:tab:scores\] in Appendix \[appendix:A1\] for more results.
As FL is performed without sharing any private email contents to the central repository (data always reside in the client), the convergences of the FL training and testing clearly show that the answer to the [**RQ1**]{} is affirmative. Besides privacy, FL is computationally efficient than CL since the computation (ML training/testing) is distributed among the clients. In this setup, we reasonably assume that the email organisations (clients) are with resourceful computation to jointly training FL model to preserve the privacy of email samples.
Scalability {#sec:scalability}
-----------
**How would the number of clients affect FL accuracy and convergence?**
Figure \[fig:compare\] illustrates the results from the measurement with two, five, and ten clients in FL. It shows that the maximum training accuracy of 99.794%, 99.576%, and 98.666% accuracy in FL with two, five, and ten clients, respectively. For the testing set, the maximum accuracy is 98.852%, 97.731%, and 96.85% for FL corresponding to two, five, and ten clients, respectively. It is not surprising that the convergence is slower, and performance gradually degraded with the increase in the number of clients. For more measurement results, refer to Figure \[fig:tab:scores\] in Appendix \[appendix:A1\]. It is expected that the number of clients/organisations participated in anti-phishing is usually limited, e.g., ten, correspondingly, the performance degradation resulted from an increasing number of participants is thus constrained.
Communication overhead
----------------------
\[sec:communication overhead\]
**What is the communication overhead resulting from FL?**
Herein, we quantify the communication overhead in FL with two, five, ten, and twenty clients.
![Average data communication in centralized and federated learning (FL) with various number of clients.[]{data-label="fig:datacom"}](Fig/datacom.png){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
For the overhead, we measure the data uploaded (i.e., a sum of the data packet size of $W_t^k$ and $n_k$) and download (i.e., data packet size of $W_{t+1}$) to and from the server, respectively, and it is averaged by the total number of the participating clients. In CL, we do not consider a client-server setup; thus, the communication overhead is zero. On the other hand, FL has communication overhead as a trade-off to preserve data privacy. For example, in two client setup, the average total communication size per global epoch per client is 0.178794768 GB and 0.178794749 GB during upload to the server and download from the server, respectively. Figure \[fig:datacom\] illustrates the results. It shows that the communication overhead per client per global epoch is the same for all cases of up to twenty clients. The consistent communication overhead over multiple clients makes FL suitable for distributed training with a large number of clients. Moreover, the overhead can be easily addressed by a well-connected setup with wired or wireless connections between the server and clients participated in the anti-phishing framework. There is a slight difference in the upload size and the download size because at each client in FL, the download is always the weights of the model, whereas the upload is the weights of the model and the size of the local datasets (which is required to carry out weighted model averaging in server based on Algorithm \[algo:fedtraining\]).
Imbalanced Data {#sec:imbalance data}
---------------
**Can we learn from various participants who have different sizes of local datasets in FL?**
So far, we have considered equal data distribution across the clients. Now in this measurement, we examine the performance of FL under an imbalanced data setup. In this regard, we consider two, five and ten clients, and variation in the local data sizes based on the maximum percentage of the variation provided by the term “$\mathsf{var}$.” For example, if $\mathsf{var} = 10\%$, then the variation of the data across the five clients is given by $[-10\%, -5\%, 0\%, +5\%, +10\%]$, where -10% referred to the 10% less local data, and +10% referred to the 10% more data in the respective clients. This means, 3606, 3806, 4008, 4208, and 4408 local data samples are resided in clients 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, respectively, if $\mathsf{var} = 10\%$. This way, we create a variation of the sizes of the local data by maintaining the total size of the datasets. In this measurement, we perform two experiments; firstly, by keeping the phishing to legitimate email samples ratio the same for all clients (i.e., 50:50 of phishing and legitimate email samples), and secondly with unequal ratio among clients.
![Testing accuracy curves showing the impact of different local data sizes provided by different $\mathsf{var}$ among clients to their convergence in FL with five clients.[]{data-label="fig:data_size"}](Fig/data_size.png){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
### Same phishing to legitimate email samples ratio across clients
The result of our measurement for 10%, 20%, 50%, and 80% variations in the sizes of the local dataset in FL among five clients is depicted in Figure \[fig:data\_size\], which shows that the convergence of the test accuracy curves fluctuate slightly until the global epoch of 10, then remains stable afterwards. All cases with different $\mathsf{var}$ maintain an overall testing accuracy of around 98%. Similar trend is persistent in the training phase. Refer to Figures \[fig:data\_size\_train\] and \[fig:tab:scores\_var\] in Appendix \[appendix:A2\] for more results. Besides, the convergence trend is also similar for the cases with two and ten clients. For details, refer to Figure \[fig:data\_size\_test\_u2\], \[fig:data\_size\_train\_u2\] and \[fig:tab:scores\_var\_u2\] in Appendix \[appendix:A3\], and Figure \[fig:data\_size\_test\_u10\], \[fig:data\_size\_train\_u10\] and \[fig:tab:scores\_var\_u10\] in Appendix \[appendix:A4\]. The similarity in performance despite variations in the local data sizes amongst clients indicate the FL’s resilience (mostly enabled by weighted averaging) to the data size variations.
### Different legit email to phishing email samples ratio across clients
Figure \[fig:p\_l\_ratio\] depicts the results of our measurement for FL among five clients having the same size of the local dataset but all with (i) 10:90 (first case), (ii) 30:70 (second case), and (iii) 70:30 (third case) phishing to legitimate email samples (P/L) ratios. We choose the specific ratios for the test purpose so that the P/L ratio remains distinct. This setup is more practical than the setup with the same P/L ratio, as this has a bias in the samples. The measurements in this section have $\mathsf{var}=0$. The figure shows that until the global epoch of 15, there is a difference in the performance, where the first case (i.e., 10:90 P/L ratio) with the lower phishing email samples was not performing well compared with other cases with higher phishing email samples. However, after the epoch, all cases converge similarly to provide an overall testing accuracy of around 98% (refer to Figure \[fig:tab:scores\_ph\] in Appendix \[appendix:A2\] for more results).
For the cases with two and ten clients, the results follow the similar pattern as observed in the case with five clients. However, the performance of the case with 10:90 P/L ratio jumps at different global epochs; jumps after 5 and 27 global epochs in the cases with two clients and ten clients, respectively. For details, refer to Figure \[fig:p\_l\_ratio\_test\_u2\], \[fig:p\_l\_ratio\_train\_u2\], \[fig:tab:scores\_ph\_u2\], \[fig:p\_l\_ratio\_train\_u10\], and \[fig:tab:scores\_ph\_u10\] in Appendices \[appendix:A3\] and \[appendix:A4\].
![Testing accuracy curves showing the impact of different legit email to phishing email samples ratios in the local dataset to their convergence in FL with five clients under various data distribution settings.[]{data-label="fig:p_l_ratio"}](Fig/ratio.png){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
Based on the aforementioned results, the answer to the [**RQ4**]{} is affirmative, and FL demonstrates a similar overall performance despite variations in the data distribution across clients.
Transfer learning
-----------------
\[sec:transfer learning\]
**Can we utilize the pre-trained model on the similar dataset for a better performance?**
In this section, we perform three experiments to demonstrate the effects and benefits of transfer learning in phishing detection in distributed setup, which correspondingly answer the above research question ([**RQ5**]{}).
### Experiment 1: A client-level and overall effects of adding one new client in FL via transfer learning
In this experiment, we consider five clients in total, where the first four clients (C1–C4) participate in the FL until 15 global epochs and train the model collaboratively. Afterward, the transfer learning is carried out only with the fifth client, and the training proceeds for the next 15 global epochs (i.e., until 30 global epochs). In other words, the model is only trained by the fifth client for the last 15 epochs. Besides, for the performance evaluation, the testing results are computed for all five clients throughout the process. This experiment examines how a newly joining client member can perform FL to improve its performance in phishing detection compare to simply using the pre-trained model (on a similar dataset) for the detection.
The experimental result depicted in Figure \[fig:asyn\_var80\] is for the case with $\mathsf{var} = 80$, which provides the variations in the sizes of the local dataset (i.e., \[-80%, -40%, 0%, +40%, +80%\]) to capture a practical setting among the five clients. The figure shows that the average test accuracy of the first four clients is slightly higher than the fifth client (not participated in the learning process) until 15 global epochs. Afterward, the average testing accuracy of the fifth client improves by 2.6% than the others since its training dataset trains the model. This performance decreases with the lesser variation in the sizes of the local dataset; for example, the improvement is only 0.84% with $\mathsf{var} = 0$. For more details, refer to Figure \[fig:asyn\_var0\_test\], \[fig:asyn\_var30\] and \[fig:asyn\_var50\] in Appendix \[appendix:A5\]. Overall results show that the evolved model (after training by client 5) is still relevant to the first four clients (C1–C4) as their average testing results with and without client 5 differ only nominally. Nonetheless, the fifth client boosts the accuracy of phishing detection in its local dataset by performing transfer learning under the FL setup.
### Experiment 2: A client-level and overall effects of continuously adding new clients in FL
In this experiment, the learning process is started with the first client, and then one new client is joined continuously at an interval of 10 global epochs as the training proceeds. Refer to Table \[tab:explain\] for details. This experiment simulates the practical cases where more than one client (different than the Experiment 1) is available with time during model training and demonstrates how the newly available clients can continue to perform FL to contribute accuracy improvements for phishing detection.
[|c|c|]{} **Round** & **Involvement of clients**\
0 to 9 & Only the first client.\
10 to 19 & Only the first and second client.\
20 to 29 & Only the first, second and third client.\
30 to 39 & First, second, third and fourth client.\
40 to 50 & All five clients.\
\
The result depicted in Figure \[fig:asyn2\_var0\] is for the case with the same size of the local dataset among the five clients, which are gradually added to the learning process, as stated in Table \[tab:explain\]. As per expectation, it shows that the testing accuracy improves for each client when it is added to FL via transfer learning. For example, the average testing accuracy jumps by around 13% for client 2 when it joins client 1 in training the model at global epoch 10. The testing performance is carried out for all clients; however, the training result is carried only when the client is involved in the model training. Thus, the accuracy before a client joins the training is zero in Figure \[figb:asyn2\_var0\]. The performance pattern is similar for the case with $\mathsf{var} = 80$ (refer to Figure \[fig:asyn2\_var80\] in Appendix \[appendix:A6\]).
### Experiment 3: Benefits of the transfer learning to the newly participated client in the learning process
In this experiment, we analyze the performance of client 1, which we assume a newly participating client, with and without transfer learning. For this, we consider five clients with a variation in their dataset provided by $\mathsf{var} = 80$ (this means that client 1 has 80% fewer data samples than client 3). In the transfer learning setup, the model is firstly trained by the four clients (client 2 to client 5) for 15 global epochs, and then the resulting model (pre-trained model) is further trained by client 1 on its local email data samples. On the other hand, for the case without transfer learning, client 1 performs CL on its local email dataset.
The experimental result is depicted in Figure \[fig:asyn2\_var80\_e3\]. It shows that transfer learning outperforms CL along with a fast convergence for client 1. Moreover, at the global epoch of 45, the testing accuracy in transfer learning is 1.87% higher than CL. For more results, refer to Figure \[fig:exp3\_extra\] in Appendix \[appendix:A7\].
Based on the results from the above three experiments in this section, it is clear that transfer learning is useful for the performance boosting in phishing detection under the federated setup.
Related Works
=============
Centralized learning in phishing detection
------------------------------------------
A centralized email analysis based on AI-based methods for phishing detection has been explored for a long time. Conventional ML-based techniques such as decision trees, logistic regression, random forests, AdaBoost, and support vector machines are analyzed in phishing detection [@Abu-NimehNWN07; @BergholzBGMPS10; @VermaSH12; @vazhayil2018ped; @GutierrezKCAGCB18; @adaboostML]. These techniques are based on feature engineering, which requires in-depth domain knowledge and trials. On the other hand, DL-based methods include deep neural networks [@SmadiAZ18], convolutional neural networks (CNNs) [@CNNemail], deep belief networks [@zhang2017phishing], bidirectional LSTM with supervised attention [@sys8], and recurrent convolutional neural networks [@fang2019phishing]. These works are mostly based on natural language processing techniques for phishing detection. While most existing works have focused on the effective detection of general phishing emails, there are few works that consider specialised phishing attacks, including spear phishing attacks [@GasconUSR18] and business email compromise attacks [@cidon2019high] in specific contexts. Despite the usefulness, all the above works operate under a setting where emails must be centralized for analysis and thus do not provide privacy protection of email datasets.
Cryptographic Deep Learning Training
------------------------------------
There have been attempts on cryptographic approaches for supporting DL model training over encrypted data, which applies to the training of deep neural network models for phishing email detection while preserving privacy. In [@MohasselZ17], Mohassel and Zhang propose the first system design SecureML for privacy-preserving neural network training. In their system, multiple data providers can secretly share their data among two cloud servers, which will then conduct the training procedure over the secret-shared data. They rely on the secure computation techniques, e.g., secret sharing and garbled circuits, to design a secure two-party computation protocol, allowing two cloud servers to compute in the ciphertext domain the linear operations (addition and multiplication) as well as the non-linear activation functions. Later, Wagh et al. [@WaghGC19] propose a design that works in the three-server model and is purely based on the lightweight secret sharing technique, with better performance than SecureML. This work assumes an adversary model where none of the three cloud servers will deviate from the protocol. The work in [@MohasselR18] also operates under a similar three-server setting, yet achieves more robust security against malicious adversaries who deviate arbitrarily. This line of work presents valuable research endeavours in enabling [deep neural network]{} training over encrypted data. Yet, it has to rely on additional architectural assumptions (i.e., non-colluding cloud servers) and also incurs substantial performance overheads (up to orders of magnitude slower) when compared to the plain text baseline.
Federated Learning
------------------
FL is attractive, especially when the data is sensitive, like in the financial sector (banks) and the medical sector (hospitals) [@rieke2020future]. There have been several works in FL though none of them specifically address phishing email detection. Some works include the following: Google has used FL for next-word prediction in a virtual keyboard for smartphones words [@hard2018federated], Leroy [*et al.*]{} applied FL for speech keyword spotting [@leroy2019federated], Gao [*et al.*]{} [@gao2019hhhfl] propose to use FL to train a joint model over heterogeneous ECG medical data to preserve the data privacy of each party, and Yang [*et al.*]{} [@yang2019ffd] applied FL to detect credit card fraud.
Limitations and future work
===========================
There are various other techniques such as homomorphic encryption [@gentry] (a cryptographic approach) and differential privacy [@diffprivacybook] used [*along with*]{} FL for guaranteed and provable privacy, respectively. However, homomorphic encryption increases computational overhead, and differential privacy degrades the performance as a trade-off. The integration of these techniques to FL in phishing detection remains as future work.
Conclusion
==========
This work took the first step to implement federated learning (FL) for privacy-preserving email phishing detection. Built upon the state-of-art deep learning model that is delicately designed for email phishing detection as a centralized learning baseline, our comprehensive measurements under FL demonstrated promising results while preserving the privacy of the email content. More specifically, the deep learning model performance under FL was as good as that of centralized learning under various practical scenarios, including imbalanced data distribution among clients. Besides, this work leveraged transfer learning to enable fast convergence of accuracy curves and improved accuracy in client-level phishing detection.
In FL, the email data samples always reside in the email data custodians, e.g., participating organizations in the phishing detection from different geographic locations, and data is not shared among the participants. Thus, considering this inherent privacy-preservation feature, it potentially unleashes the willingness of more clients (thus more data) contributing to the deep learning in email phishing detection to improve the model performance, including the client-level performance, by harnessing data integration in FL as illustrated in this paper.
Acknowledgement
===============
The work is partially supported by the Cyber Security Cooperative Research Centre, Australia. Authors acknowledge Professor Rakesh Verma from the University of Houston, USA, for the IWSPA-AP corpus.
Supplemental results {#appendix:1}
====================
Distributed learning and Scalability (additional result) {#appendix:A1}
--------------------------------------------------------
![[]{data-label="fig:tab:scores"}](Fig/scores.png){width="0.7\columnwidth"}
Imbalanced data setup - two clients (additional cases) {#appendix:A3}
------------------------------------------------------
![[]{data-label="fig:data_size_test_u2"}](Fig/data_size_test_u2.png){width="0.7\columnwidth"}
![[]{data-label="fig:data_size_train_u2"}](Fig/data_size_train_u2.png){width="0.7\columnwidth"}
![[]{data-label="fig:tab:scores_var_u2"}](Fig/scores_var_u2.png){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
![[]{data-label="fig:p_l_ratio_test_u2"}](Fig/ratio_test_u2.png){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
![[]{data-label="fig:p_l_ratio_train_u2"}](Fig/ratio_train_u2.png){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
![[]{data-label="fig:tab:scores_ph_u2"}](Fig/scores_ph_u2.png){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
Imbalanced data setup - five clients (additional results) {#appendix:A2}
---------------------------------------------------------
![[]{data-label="fig:data_size_train"}](Fig/data_size_train.png){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
![[]{data-label="fig:tab:scores_var"}](Fig/scores_var.png){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
![[]{data-label="fig:p_l_ratio_train"}](Fig/ratio_train.png){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
![[]{data-label="fig:tab:scores_ph"}](Fig/scores_ph.png){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
Imbalanced data setup - ten clients (additional cases) {#appendix:A4}
------------------------------------------------------
![[]{data-label="fig:data_size_test_u10"}](Fig/data_size_test_u10.png){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
![[]{data-label="fig:data_size_train_u10"}](Fig/data_size_train_u10.png){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
-5pt
![[]{data-label="fig:tab:scores_var_u10"}](Fig/scores_var_u10.png){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
-5pt
![[]{data-label="fig:tab:scores_ph_u10"}](Fig/scores_ph_u10.png){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
Transfer learning - Experiment 1 (additional cases) {#appendix:A5}
---------------------------------------------------
![[]{data-label="fig:asyn_var0_test"}](Fig/e1_test_var0.png){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
![[]{data-label="fig:asyn_var0_train"}](Fig/e1_train_var0.png){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
-5pt
Transfer learning - Experiment 2 (additional case) {#appendix:A6}
--------------------------------------------------
Transfer learning - Experiment 3 (additional result) {#appendix:A7}
----------------------------------------------------
![[]{data-label="fig:exp3_extra"}](Fig/e3_test_extra_var80.png){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
[^1]: Email header precedes the email body and contains information of the header fields, including *To, Subject, Received, Content-Type, Return-Path,* and *Authentication-Results.*
[^2]: The accuracy in the THEMIS paper [@fang2019phishing] is 99.848%, which is slightly higher than the accuracy in our experiment. This can be due to various reasons, including email data samples, sample size, and model hyper-parameters. We consider email samples with and without headers, but THEMIS paper studies only with the header. Besides, our dataset is up to date with 23475 samples, whereas THEMIS paper has 8780 samples.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The application of Mission Critical Machine Type Communication (MC-MTC) in wireless systems is currently a hot research topic. Wireless systems are considered to provide numerous advantages over wired systems in e.g. industrial applications such as closed loop control. However, due to the broadcast nature of the wireless channel, such systems are prone to a wide range of cyber attacks. These range from passive eavesdropping attacks to active attacks like data manipulation or masquerade attacks. Therefore it is necessary to provide reliable and efficient security mechanisms. Some of the most important security issues in such a system are to ensure integrity as well as authenticity of exchanged messages over the air between communicating devices. In the present work, an approach on how to achieve this goal in MC-MTC systems based on Physical Layer Security (PHYSEC) is presented. A new method that clusters channel estimates of different transmitters based on a Gaussian Mixture Model is applied for that purpose. Further, an experimental proof-of-concept evaluation is given and we compare the performance of our approach with a mean square error based detection method.'
author:
-
bibliography:
- 'references\_v1.bib'
title: Physical Layer Authentication for Mission Critical Machine Type Communication using Gaussian Mixture Model based Clustering
---
Introduction {#intro}
============
[[^1]]{}
Recently, a new trend in the area of wireless systems is the operation of MC-MTC as for instance closed loop control applications. These have much higher requirements regarding reliability, availability and especially latency compared to common applications such as media streaming or web browsing over IEEE 802.11 based wireless systems or today’s cellular systems. Another important requirement in the area of MC-MTC is the fact that secure transmission of data has to be taken into account. Due to the sensitive information transmitted in e. g. industrial or automotive scenarios, it is necessary to guarantee a high degree of information security. Especially authenticity as well as integrity of the transmitted data has to be ensured to prohibit a wide range of possible active cyber attacks. For this purpose identification and authentication of received messages is necessary in order to be sure of the originator of that data before it is consumed and processed by the respective application.\
Although there are conventional cryptography techniques to ensure authenticity as well as integrity of message payload, these require a lot of resources. Especially they lead to increase in message size due to the fact that, for example message authentication codes (MAC) which are used in IEEE 802.15.4 based systems, add a kind of check sum to the actual message payload. In IEEE 802.15.4 based systems either a 4, 8 or 16 Byte MAC is added to the respective payload. The recommendation of the IETF is to either use a CMAC, e. g. based on AES-128 block cipher, or a HMAC which is based on a cryptographic hash function. For AES-128 based CMAC a maximum shortening to 64 Bit is recommended, while for HMAC a minimum MAC size of 80 Bit is recommended. If we now assume that the payload of a MC-MTC packet has a length of 32 Byte (the dimension of this assumption is e.g. confirmed by [@Osman.2015]), then the payload overhead regarding the MAC size for AES-128 CMAC of 8 Byte would be already $20\%$. This means that a latency overhead of at least $20\%$ is added by only applying means to guarantee message authenticity and integrity. Another important issue is, that key based schemes such as message authentication codes are only able to protect the message payload from the mentioned attacks. An attacker is still able to perform attacks such as address spoofing, or even worse, record a message and replay it after a while. Due to these drawbacks, another idea is to check for authenticity of a message at a lower level by taking physical properties of the radio link signal in time domain, as well as in spatial domain into account. In this work, a keyless approach for this based on estimating the wireless channel at link level is presented. As mentioned, MC-MTC and closed loop control applications are considered here, which in combination seems to be a perfect case for our approach, as we can assume that frequent and periodic data transmissions and with this channel estimation at the same rate is carried out. For experimental evaluation, we consider an OFDM system and based on the respective frequency domain channel estimations, we decide from which source a received data packet was transmitted.\
The remainder of the work is organized as follows. In section \[related work\] we give a short overview on related work with respect to previous considered approaches and in section \[system\_model\] we describe the system model. Our approach of Gaussian Mixture Model based clustering is presented in section \[approach\]. In section \[results\] we present the results of our work and section \[CONC\] finally concludes the paper.
Related Work {#related work}
============
Several approaches on exploiting the wireless channel for security purposes, also known as PHYSEC, have been investigated recently. In [@Jorswieck.2015] a good overview on this topic is given. While many works have focused on extracting secret keys between two communicating devices, such as [@Guillaume.], [@Zenger.2014], [@Ambekar.2014], the focus of our work is on guaranteeing secure transmission with respect to authenticity of data packets from one device to another. One of the first works considering that idea has been for example [@Xiao.2007], where an approach based on simulation of the wireless channel and hypothesis testing is presented for static scenarios and is later in [@Xiao.2008] extended to time-variant scenarios. In [@Pei.2014], two approaches based on machine learning, Support Vector Machine and Linear Fisher Discriminant Analysis, are presented. The approach considered in [@Tugnait.2010] is similar to our approach, as they propose a CSI-based authentication method for a single carrier system. The second approach considered in [@Tugnait.2010] is whiteness of residuals testing. In [@Shi.2013] an RSS-based approach for body area networks is presented. The work in [@Refaey.2014] considers a multilayer approach based on OFDM to guarantee authentication of TCP packets. A Gaussian Mixture Model based technique in combination with exploitation of the channel responses for different antenna modes is considered in [@Gulati.2013].
System model {#system_model}
============
In this section we describe the system model and the attacker model including the mentioned active attacks. Further, the channel model is introduced and we explain how to exploit PHYSEC techniques, actually frequent channel estimation, in order to overcome these attack scenarios.
Attacker model
--------------
We consider two users, Alice and Bob, who want to exchange authenticated messages with each other. For this work we define that Bob is the legal transmit node who wishes to send some sensitive information to the legal receiver node Alice. Alice must make sure that Bob is the true transmitter of these messages. A third party Eve tries to masquerade as Bob and sends messages to Alice as well (see Fig. \[attacker\_model\]). A typical scenario for an attacker Eve is that he is at a spatially different location compared to Bob and uses advanced equipment such as directed antennas and high sensitivity receivers to maximize his range to his benefit. We also assume perfect knowledge of the underlying communication protocol at Eve to run active attacks such as masquerade attacks, replay attacks or address spoofing attacks. It is not assumed that Eve is gaining physical access to Alice or Bob to accomplish invasive attacks such as hardware modification. Further, other active attacks such as Denial-of-Service attacks due to jamming are not considered as well. It is assumed, that the legal communicating participants Bob and Alice have already carried out initial user authentication to each other and have set up trust in a secure way. Attacks on the initial authentication stage are not considered. The goal is now to authenticate the messages transmitted from Bob to Alice in a secure way, which as well takes the requirements of MC-MTC into account, especially minimization of transmission latency.\
![System and Attacker Model[]{data-label="attacker_model"}](attacker_model+system_model_NEW.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
Channel model and channel estimation
------------------------------------
Due to the mentioned drawbacks of message authenticity checking based on conventional cryptography, such as message authentication codes, and the special requirements of MC-MTC, a more promising approach is to use characteristics of the wireless channel and the physical layer to decide about the origin of a received message. In our work, we focus on channel estimations which are computed at the receiver in any OFDM based system to perform for example channel equalization. In contrast to PHYSEC techniques such as secret key generation, which are based on the assumption that there is a lot of temporal variation in the wireless channel, our approach relies on the fact that the wireless channel does not vary significantly during subsequent channel measurements. However, the same idea that yields for both is to make use of the advantage of the fast spatial decorrelation property of wireless channels. For our work in particular, this means, that e.g. Alice receives messages from the legal transmit node Bob and estimates the actual channel $\mathbf{\hat{H}}$ as $$\mathbf{H}=[|h_1|,\ldots, |h_M|]
\label{eq:}$$ with $|h_l|$ being the magnitude of the gain of the $l$-th subcarrier and $l=1,\ldots,M$. Due to the receiver noise figure or thermal noise, channel estimation is not perfect, which means that errors occur ($\mathbf{H}\ne\mathbf{\hat{H}}$). These influences can be modelled as a gaussian random variable $\mathbf{N}$ with zero mean and variance $\mathbf{\sigma_N^2}$. The transmit signal $\mathbf{X}$ will be received as $$\mathbf{Y}=\mathbf{\hat{H}}\cdot \mathbf{X} + \mathbf{N}
\label{eq:}$$ and consequently the channel is estimated as $$\mathbf{H}=\mathbf{\hat{H}}+\frac{\mathbf{N}}{\mathbf{X}}.
\label{eq:}$$ The idea is now that if an attacker Eve tries to transmit messages masqueraded as Bob, the channel measured by Alice is another one compared to the channel regarding to Bob. Basically, if we denote the channel estimates with $\mathbf{H}_{\mbox{\scriptsize AB}}$ and $\mathbf{H}_{\mbox{\scriptsize AE}}$ taken due to Bob and Eve respectively, this yields $\mathbf{H}_{\mbox{\scriptsize AE}} \ne \mathbf{H}_{\mbox{\scriptsize AB}}$. Due to the distance $d_{\mbox{\scriptsize BE}}$ between the attacker node Eve and the legal transmitter node Bob (which needs to be more than the wavelength of the transmitted signal), Eve is not able to masquerade without further effort due to the mentioned fast spatial decorrelation property of the channel. We can now use the estimated channel conditions by Alice to identify the originator of the respective message by means of clustering based on a Gaussian Mixture Model.
Gaussian Mixture Model for PHYSEC based Authentication {#approach}
======================================================
This section deals with Gaussian Mixture Models which are used to cluster the channel estimates in combination with the EM algorithm. The result of this process is then used to make a decision about the corresponding transmitter of received data packets.
Gaussian Mixture Model
----------------------
A mixture of Gaussians $$f(\mathbf{x})=\sum_{k=1}^{K}\pi_k \mathcal{N}(\mathbf{x}|\bm{\mu}_k,\mathbf{\Sigma}_k)
\label{eq:}$$ is consisting of $K$ Gaussian densities $f_k(\mathbf{x})=\mathcal{N}(\mathbf{x}|\bm{\mu}_k,\mathbf{\Sigma}_k)$ which each have a mean $\bm{\mu}_k$ and a covariance matrix $\mathbf{\Sigma}_k$. The mixtures are weighted by mixing coefficients $\bm{\pi}=\{\pi_1,\ldots,\pi_K\}$ which are normalized yielding $$\sum_{k=1}^K\pi_k=1.
\label{eq:}$$ These mixing coefficients further fulfill the property to be probabilities, technically they are prior probabilities. The goal is now to calculate the posterior probability $$p_{i,k}^{(j)}=\frac{\pi_k^{(j)}\mathcal{N}(x_i|\mu_k^{(j)},\Sigma_k^{(j)})}{\sum_{k=1}^K\pi_k^{(j)}\mathcal{N}(x_i|\mu_k^{(j)},\Sigma_k^{(j)})}
\label{eq:}$$ of each new set of data points $x_i$ with $i=1,\ldots,N$, i. e. each new channel estimate, which denotes the likelihood of this data belonging to a certain component of the mixture. The posterior probability is updated during the expectation step of the EM algorithm. In the maximization step the parameter values are updated. The weighting coefficients are calculated as $$\pi_k^{(j+1)}=\frac{\sum_{i=1}^N p_{i,k}^{(j)}}{N},
\label{eq:}$$ whereas the updated mean and covariance values are calculated as $$\mu_k^{(j+1)}=\frac{\sum_{i=1}^N p_{i,k}^{(j)}x_i}{\sum_{i=1}^N p_{i,k}^{(j)}}
\label{eq:}$$ and $$\Sigma_k^{(j+1)}=\frac{\sum_{i=1}^N p_{i,k}^{(j)}(x_i-\mu_{k}^{(j)})(x_i-\mu_{k}^{(j)})^T}{\sum_{i=1}^N p_{i,k}^{(j)}}
\label{eq:}$$ for the $j$-th iteration of the EM algorithm respectively.
Physical Layer Authentication based on Clustering
-------------------------------------------------
To make a decision on received data packets from any transmitter, we need to determine how likely it is that a new set of data belongs to one of the gaussian mixture components. In our case we have $K=2$ mixture components, one for Bob and one for Eve each. If the channel estimate fits to the cluster modeling Bob, then Alice will assume that Bob is the true transmitter. She further can use this new information to update the gaussian mixture model, which improves the accuracy of it. Due to temporal variations, if e.g. one or more users have some degree of mobility, it is even necessary to continuously update the model online after a certain time to catch up with these variations. If the likelihood of belonging to Bobs cluster of a new set of data is below a certain threshold, then Alice assumes that it was introduced by Eve. In order to build an initial model and help Alice to identify who is belonging to which cluster, Bob needs to send some training messages to Alice. Alice will then use the cluster component with the most data sets from this training phase as the cluster belonging to Bob. To now attack our system, we assume that a message is either send to Alice by Bob or Eve by a given probability respectively. The probability of Eve transmitting (masqueraded as Bob) is also known as the attack intensity ($AI$). For each message, we decide about the originator based on the current model. After $N$ received messages, the model is updated based on these $N$ new data sets and the current GMM properties $(\bm{\pi},\bm{\mu},\mathbf{\Sigma})_m$ ($m$ denotes the index of the blocks of data sets) yielding the new model $(\bm{\pi},\bm{\mu},\mathbf{\Sigma})_{m+1}$. By doing this, the historical data that was used to build the model initially does not need to be stored. As a result of this, we get two performance parameters, the detection probability $P_{\mbox{\scriptsize D}}$ and the false alarm rate $P_{\mbox{\scriptsize FA}}$. $$P_{\mbox{\scriptsize D}}=p_{i,B}((\pi_{B},\bm{\mu}_{B},\mathbf{\Sigma}_{B})_m|\mathbf{H}_{m,i} \mathrm{\ due\ to\ Eve}) < th
\label{eq:}$$ denotes the probability of detecting Eve as the transmitter of the $i$-th message of the $m$-th set of messages under the condition that it was truly sent by Eve and $$P_{\mbox{\scriptsize FA}}=p_{i,B}((\pi_{B},\bm{\mu}_{B},\mathbf{\Sigma}_{B})_{m}|\mathbf{H}_{m,i} \mathrm{\ due\ to\ Bob}) < th
\label{eq:}$$ the probability of detecting Eve as transmitter of that message under the condition that it was truly sent by Bob.
Results
=======
In this section we describe our setup for the experimental evaluation and show the final results of our work.
Experimental setup
------------------
To evaluate our concepts, we use USRP N210 SDR platforms from Ettus Research with SBX daughterboards. We use GNURadio OFDM transmitter and receiver blocks to process data packets and perform channel estimation on each received data packet. A setup with an FFT size of $64$ is considered and $48$ active subcarriers. The cyclic prefix length is $16$ samples at a baseband sample rate of $3.125$ MSps, whereas the carrier frequency is $2.45$ GHz. For each received data packet, the initial channel taps are calculated based on the known Schmidl and Cox preamble [@Schmidl.1997] which is also used to calculate the frequency offset at the receiver (actually this preamble consists of two OFDM symbols). In each message, this preamble is followed by $37$ data symbols yielding a time resolution of 998.4 $\mu$s for the channel estimations. As a first step, we consider a static setup where all participants do not move during transmitting and receiving. The environment is a mixed office/lab area with a lot of objects and metal walls. Due to this we assume at least some amount of multipath propagation existing and with this frequency selective channels. We record data for several different locations of Bob and Eve respectively, yielding multiple different constellations of Alice/Bob and Alice/Eve pairs as shown in Fig. \[environment\].
![Environment with different Alice and Bob/Eve positions[]{data-label="environment"}](environment_new.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
Performance of GMM based Clustering
-----------------------------------
In order to evaluate the performance of the GMM based clustering, the detection probability $P_{\mbox{\scriptsize D}}$ as well as the false alarm rate $P_{\mbox{\scriptsize FA}}$ are considered and plotted in form of a ROC curve, where each data point is a pair of $P_{\mbox{\scriptsize D}}$ and $P_{\mbox{\scriptsize FA}}$ values at a certain threshold. We considered a block size of $N=1000$ data sets in order to update our GMM and use one block for training the model and $99$ data blocks in order to test it. The attack intensity is kept at $50\%$. Fig. \[roc\_methods\_1\] shows the performance of our GMM based method compared to the simpler method of mean square error (MSE) based detection considered in [@Weinand.2016] for the case, that all $48$ active carriers are used for the detection. It can be seen that the GMM method outperforms the MSE based method. While the detection rate of the MSE method is $81.03\%$ at a false alarm rate of $5.83\%$, the detection rate of the GMM based method is $99.97\%$ (if cases of ill-conditioned covariance matrices are avoided) at the same false alarm rate. Even at a false alarm rate of $0.1\%$, the GMM method has a detection rate of $99.93\%$.
Fig. \[roc\_M\] shows the influence of the accuracy of the channel estimation in form of different amounts of equally spaced estimated points in frequency domain, ranging from $M=48$ (each active data carrier considered) to $M=3$ (every $16$-th active data carrier considered). In Fig. \[roc\_M\_1\], the respective ROC curves are shown in linear scale and Fig. \[roc\_M\_2\] shows them in logarithmic scale. In case of $M=3$, the detection rate is $97.97\%$ at a false alarm rate of $1\%$, while in case of the channel estimation with $48$ estimated bins, the detection rate is at $99.98\%$ at the same false alarm rate. For other values of $M$, the detection rate is at $99.77\%$, $99.93\%$ and $99.96\%$ for $M=6$, $M=12$ and $M=24$ respectively.
Discussion of Results
---------------------
The experimental evaluation of our method shows, that the performance of our GMM based clustering method increases as the feature space, which is in our case the number of estimated subcarrier per message $M$, also increases. If a false alarm rate of $1\%$ is considered, the performance gain in case of $M=48$ is $2.05\%$ compared to $M=3$. Additionally, we proved that the GMM method performs better than the MSE detection method. Here, in case of a false alarm rate of $5.83\%$, the performance gain of the GMM over MSE method is $23.37\%$.
Conclusion and Future Work {#CONC}
==========================
Our proposed method of taking characteristics of the physical layer into account in order to identify and authenticate transmitters of MC-MTC messages seems to be a promising technique in order to achieve that goal in a very efficient way. The combination of both, MC-MTC and clustering of channel estimates is essential considering system efficiency, as both rely on frequent transmission of data packets. We can reuse channel estimations and make decisions on the authenticity of received data packets with little effort. Though the maximum achieved detection rate is high at $99.98\%$, the method needs still to be improved in order to get more reliable decisions. To gain robustness due to errors in channel estimations induced by noise, approaches such as in [@Ambekar.2012b] might be suited in order to reduce this effect based on pre-processing of channel estimates. Another issue that needs to be investigated is the amount of training data used in order to initialize the model, as well as the assumed attack intensity. Additionally we also want to focus on a mobile setup with little to moderate velocities in order to verify, that the method also works well under these conditions.
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
A part of this work has been supported by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research of the Federal Republic of Germany (BMBF) in the framework of the project 16KIS0267 HiFlecs. The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of their colleagues, although the authors alone are responsible for the content of the paper which does not necessarily represent the project.
[^1]: This is a preprint, the full paper has been published in Proceedings of 2017 IEEE 85th Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC2017-Spring), ©2017 IEEE. Personal use of this material is permitted. However, permission to use this material for any other purposes must be obtained from the IEEE by sending a request to [email protected].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present an unified framework to identify spectra of Jacobi matrices. We give applications to long-standing conjecture of Chihara ([@Chihara1], [@Chihara2]) concerning one-quarter class of orthogonal polynomials, to the conjecture posed by Roehner and Valent [@BRGV] concerning continuous spectra of generators of birth and death processes and to spectral properties of operators studied by Janas, Moszyński [@JM1] and Pedersen [@SP].'
address: |
Grzegorz Świderski\
Instytut Matematyczny\
Uniwersytet Wrocławski\
Pl. Grunwaldzki 2/4\
50-384 Wrocław\
Poland
author:
- Grzegorz Świderski
bibliography:
- 'Jacobi.bib'
title: |
Spectral properties\
of unbounded Jacobi matrices with\
almost monotonic weights
---
Introduction
============
Given sequences $\{a_n\}_{n=0}^\infty$ and $\{b_n\}_{n=0}^\infty$ such that $a_n > 0$ and $b_n \in \mathbb{R}$ we set $$C =
\left(
\begin{array}{cccccc}
b_0 & a_0 & 0 & 0 & 0 &\ldots \\
a_0 & b_1 & a_1 & 0 & 0 & \ldots \\
0 & a_1 & b_2 & a_2 & 0 & \ldots \\
0 & 0 & a_2 & b_3 & a_3 & \ldots \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots& \ddots
\end{array}
\right).$$ The operator $C$ is defined on the domain $\operatorname{Dom}(C) = \{ x \in \ell^2 \colon C x \in \ell^2\}$, where $$\ell^2 = \{ x \in \mathbb{C}^{\mathbb{N}} \colon \sum_{n=0}^\infty |x_n|^2 < \infty \}$$ and is called a *Jacobi matrix*.
The study of Jacobi matrices is motivated by connections with orthogonal polynomials and classical moment problem (see e.g. [@BS1]). Also every self-adjoint operator can be represented as a direct sum of Jacobi matrices. In particular, generators of birth and death processes may be seen as Jacobi matrices acting on weighted $\ell^2$ spaces.
There are several approaches to the problem of the indentification of the spectrum of unbounded Jacobi matrices. A method often used is based on subordination theory (see e.g. [@SLC], [@JN1], [@MM]). Another technique uses the analysis of commutator between Jacobi matrix and a suitable chosen matrix (see e.g. [@JS1]). The case of Jacobi matrices with monotonic weights was considered mainly by Dombrowski (see e.g. [@JD1]), where the author developed commutator techniques which enabled qualitative spectral analysis of examined operators.
The present article is motivated by commutator techniques of Dombrowski and some ideas of Clark [@SLC]. In fact, commutators do not appear here directly but are hidden in some of our expressions.
Let $C$ be a Jacobi matrix and assume that the matrix $C$ is self-adjoint. The spectrum of the operator $C$ will be denoted by $\sigma(C)$, the set of all its eigenvalues by $\sigma_p(C)$ and the set of all accumulation points of $\sigma(C)$ by $\sigma_{ess}(C)$. For a real number $x$ we define $x^- = \max(-x,0)$.
Our main result is the following theorem.
\[twSpektrumOgolne\] Let $C$ be a Jacobi matrix. If there is a positive sequence $\{ \alpha_n \}$ such that
&\_[n ]{} a\_n = , &\
&\_[n=1]{}\^\^- < ,\
&\_[n=1]{}\^ | - | < ,\
&\_[n=0]{}\^| - | < ,\
&\_[n=0]{}\^ = ,\
&\_[n ]{} = 1,\
&\_[n ]{} < 2
then the Jacobi matrix $C$ is self-adjoint and satisfies $\sigma_p(C) = \emptyset$, and $\sigma(C) = \mathbb{R}$.
The importance of Theorem \[twSpektrumOgolne\] lies in the fact that we have a flexibility in the choice of the sequence $\alpha_n$. Some choices of the sequence $\alpha_n$ are given in Section \[sec:specialCases\]. The simplest case is the following result.
\[twB\] Assume
&\_[n ]{} a\_n = , &\
&\_[n=0]{}\^ = ,\
&\_[n=0]{}\^\^- < ,\
&\_[n ]{} < 2,\
&\_[n=0]{}\^ < .
Then the Jacobi matrix $C$ is self-adjoint and satisfies $\sigma_p(C) = \emptyset$ and $\sigma(C) = \mathbb{R}$.
In [@JDSP1 Lemma 2.6] it was proven that if the nonnegative sequence $a_n^2 - a_{n-1}^2$ is bounded and $b_n \equiv 0$ then the matrix $C$ has no eigenvalues. Corollary \[twB\] gives additional information that in this case holds $\sigma(C) = \mathbb{R}$. Moreover, the assumptions of Corollary \[twB\] are weaker than the conditions of [@JDSP1 Lemma 2.6].
In Section \[sec:Examples\] we provide examples showing sharpness of Corollary \[twB\]. In particular, condition (b) is necessary in the class of monotonic sequences $\{ a_n \}$ and condition (c) could not be replaced by $[(a_{n+1}/a_n)^2 - 1]^- \rightarrow 0$. Corollary \[twC\] shows that in general condition (d) is necessary. Unfortunately, we do not know whether condition (d) is implied by the rest of the assumptions. Author knows only examples satisfying assumptions of Corollary \[twB\] when $|b_n|/a_n \rightarrow 0$.
In Section \[sec:TheoremAAppl\] we apply Corollary \[twB\] to resolve a conjecture (see [@BRGV]) about continuous spectra of generators of birth and death processes. We also present there applications to the following conjecture.
\[hipChiharaX\] Assume that a Jacobi matrix $C$ is self-adjoint, $b_n \rightarrow \infty$, the smallest point $\rho$ of $\sigma_{ess}(C)$ is finite and $$\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \frac{a_n^2}{b_n b_{n+1}} = \frac{1}{4}.$$ Then $\sigma_{ess}(C) = [\rho, \infty)$.
A direct consequence of Corollary \[twB\] providing easy to check additional assumptions to Conjecture \[hipChiharaX\] is the following result.
\[twC\] Assume
&\_[n ]{} a\_n = , &\
&\_[n=0]{}\^ = ,\
&\_[n=0]{}\^\^- < ,\
&\_[n ]{} \[a\_[n-1]{} - b\_n + a\_n\] = M.
Then the Jacobi matrix $C$ satisfies $\sigma_{ess}(C) = [-M, \infty)$. Moreover, if $a_{n+1}/a_n \rightarrow 1$ then $$\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \frac{a_n^2}{b_n b_{n+1}} = \frac{1}{4}.$$
Let us present ideas behind the proof of Theorem \[twSpektrumOgolne\]. Let the difference operator $J$ be defined by $$(J x)_n = -i \alpha_{n-1} x_{n-1} + i \alpha_n x_{n+1} \quad (n \geq 0)$$ for a positive sequence $\{ \alpha_n \}_{n=0}^\infty$ and $\alpha_{-1}=x_{-1}=0$. Then we define commutator $K$ on finite sequences by the formula $$-2iK = C J - J C.$$ The expression $S_n = \langle K(p^n), p^n \rangle$, where $p^n = (p_0, p_1, \ldots, p_n, 0, 0, \ldots)$, $\{p_k\}$ is the formal eigenvector of $C$ and $\langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle$ is the scalar product on $\ell^2$, proved to be an useful tool to show that the matrix $C$ has continuous spectrum (see e.g. [@JD1], [@JDSP1], [@JDSP3]).
Important observation is that we can give closed form for $S_n$ (see ). To the author’s knowledge this closed form has been known only for $\alpha_n = a_n$ (see [@JD3]). Related expression for $\alpha_n \equiv 1$ was analysed in [@SLC]. Adaptation of techniques from [@SLC] allow us to circumvent technical difficulties present in Dombrowski’s approach. Extending definition of $S_n$ to generalized eigenvectors (see ) enable us to show that $\sigma(C) = \mathbb{R}$.
The article is organized as follows: in Section \[sec:Tools\] we present definitions and well-known facts important for our argument. In Section \[sec:TheoremA\] we prove Theorem \[twSpektrumOgolne\], whereas in Section \[sec:specialCases\] we show its variants. In particular, we identify spectra of operators considered in [@SP] and [@JM1]. In Section \[sec:TheoremAAppl\] we present applications of Corollary \[twB\] to some open problems. Finally, in the last section we discuss the necessity of the assumptions of Corollary \[twB\]. We present also examples showing that in some cases Corollary \[twB\] is stronger than results known in the literature.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
---------------
The author would like to thank Ryszard Szwarc and Bartosz Trojan for their helpful suggestions concerning the presentation of this article.
Tools {#sec:Tools}
=====
Given a Jacobi matrix $C$, $\lambda \in \mathbb{R}$ and real numbers $(a,b) \neq (0,0)$ we introduce a generalized eigenvector $\{ u_n \}$ by asking $$\label{defUWektorWlasny}
\begin{gathered}
u_0 = a, \quad u_1 = b, \\
a_n u_{n+1} = (\lambda - b_n) u_n - a_{n-1} u_{n-1} \quad (n \geq 1).
\end{gathered}$$ Furthermore we define the sequence of polynomials $$\label{defWielomianyOrtogonalne}
\begin{gathered}
p_{-1}(\lambda) = 0, \quad p_0(\lambda) = 1, \\
a_n p_{n+1}(\lambda) = (\lambda - b_n) p_n(\lambda) - a_{n-1} p_{n-1}(\lambda) \quad (n \geq 0).
\end{gathered}$$ The sequence $\{ p_n(\lambda) \}$ is a formal eigenvector of matrix $C$ associated with an eigenvalue $\lambda$.
Observe that $\{ p_n(\cdot) \}_{n=0}^\infty$ is a sequence of polynomials. Moreover, the sequence is orthonormal with respect to the measure $\mu(\cdot) = \langle E(\cdot) \delta_0, \delta_0 \rangle$, where $E$ is the spectral resolution of the matrix $C$, $\langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle $ is the scalar product on $\ell^2$ and $\delta_0 = (1, 0, 0, \ldots)$.
The following propositions are well-known. We include them for the sake of completeness.
\[spektrumUogolnioneWektoryWlasne\] Let $\lambda \in \mathbb{R}$. If every generalized eigenvector $\{ u_n \}$ does not belong to $\ell^2$ then the matrix $C$ is self-adjoint, $\lambda \notin \sigma_p(C)$ and $\lambda \in \sigma(C)$.
[@BS1 Theorem 3] asserts that $C$ is self-adjoint provided that at least one generalized eigenvector $\{u_n\} \notin \ell^2$. Direct computation shows that $\lambda \in \sigma_p(C)$ if and only if $\{ p_n(\lambda) \} \in \ell^2$. Therefore the matrix $C$ is self-adjoint and $\lambda \notin \sigma_p(C)$.
Observe that the vector $x$ such that $(C - \lambda I) x = \delta_0$ satisfies the following recurrence relation $$\begin{gathered}
b_0 x_0 + a_0 x_1 = \lambda x_0 + 1, \\
a_{n-1} x_{n-1} + b_n x_n + a_n x_{n+1} = \lambda x_n \quad (n \ge 1).
\end{gathered}$$ Hence $x$ is a generalized eigenvector, thus $x \notin \ell^2$. Therefore the operator $C - \lambda I$ is not surjective, i.e. $\lambda \in \sigma(C)$.
\[odbicieSpektrum\] Let $C$ and $\widehat{C}$ be Jacobi matrices defined by sequences $\{a_n\}$, $\{b_n\}$ and $\{a_n\}$, $\{-b_n\}$ respectively. Then $$\sigma(C) = -\sigma(\widehat{C}), \quad \sigma_p(C) = -\sigma_p(\widehat{C}),$$
Let $U$ be the diagonal matrix with a sequence $\{ (-1)^n \}_{n=0}^\infty$ on the main diagonal. From the identity $$U C U^{-1} = - \widehat{C}$$ and equality of domains the conclusion follows.
\[restrykcjeC\] Let $C$ be a self-adjoint Jacobi matrix associated with the sequence $b_n \equiv 0$. Let $C_e$ and $C_o$ be restrictions of $C \cdot C$ to the subspaces $\operatorname{span}\{\delta_{2k} \colon k \in \mathbb{N}\}$ and $\operatorname{span}\{\delta_{2k+1} \colon k \in \mathbb{N}\}$ respectively. Then $C_e$ and $C_o$ are Jacobi matrices associated with $$\label{wzoryNaC2}
\begin{gathered}
a_n^e = a_{2n} a_{2n+1}, \quad b_n^e = a_{2n-1}^2 + a_{2n}^2\\
a_n^o = a_{2n+1} a_{2n+2}, \quad b_n^o = a_{2n}^2 + a_{2n+1}^2.
\end{gathered}$$ respectively. Moreover, $C_o$ and $C_e$ are self-adjoint and $$\sigma(C_o) = \sigma(C_e) = \left( \sigma(C) \right)^2, \quad \sigma_p(C_o) = \sigma_p(C_e) = \left( \sigma_p(C) \right)^2,$$ when $0 \notin \sigma_p(C)$ and $0 \notin \sigma_p(\widetilde{C})$, where $\widetilde{C}$ is a self-adjoint Jacobi matrix associated with the sequences $\{a_{n+1}\}_{n=0}^\infty$ and $\widetilde{b}_n \equiv 0$, and for a set $X$ we define $X^2 = \{ x^2 \colon x \in X \}$.
By direct computation it may be proved that $C_o$ and $C_e$ satisfies .
Let $\{p_n^e\}$ be the sequence of associated polynomials to the matrix $C_e$. Then [@BS1 Theorem 3] asserts that $C_e$ is self-adjoint provided $\{p_n^e(0)\} \notin \ell^2$. It is known that $p_{2n}(x) = p_n^e(x^2)$ (see e.g. [@JDSP2 Section 4]). Since $p_{2k+1}(0)=0$ and $0 \notin \sigma_p(C)$ we have $$\infty = \sum_{n=0}^\infty p_n^2(0) = \sum_{n = 0}^\infty p^2_{2n}(0) = \sum_{n=0}^\infty \left( p_n^e(0) \right)^2.$$ Therefore $C_e$ is self-adjoint.
Assume that $0 \notin \sigma_p(\widetilde{C})$. Observe that $C_o = \widetilde{C}_e$. Therefore the previous argument applied to $\widetilde{C}$ implies also that $C_o$ is self-adjoint.
The conclusion of spectra follows from e.g. [@JDSP2 Section 4].
Proof of the main theorem {#sec:TheoremA}
=========================
Given a generalized eigenvector $\{ u_n \}$ and a positive sequence $\{ \alpha_n \}$ we set $$\begin{aligned}
\label{SN1}
S_n = a_{n-1} \alpha_{n-1} u_{n-1}^2 + a_n \alpha_n u_n^2 - (\lambda - b_n) \alpha_{n-1} u_{n-1} u_n \quad (n \geq 1).
\end{aligned}$$ Using the identity $a_{n-1} u_{n-1} = (\lambda - b_n)u_n - a_n u_{n+1}$ we get an equivalent formula $$\begin{aligned}
\label{SN2}
S_n = \frac{\alpha_{n-1}}{a_{n-1}} a_n^2 u_{n+1}^2 + a_n \alpha_n u_n^2 - \frac{\alpha_{n-1}}{a_{n-1}} a_n (\lambda - b_n) u_{n+1} u_n \quad (n \geq 1).
\end{aligned}$$
The sequence $S_n$ for $\alpha_n = a_n$ was previously used in the study of Jacobi matrices, but only in the case of *bounded* ones (see e.g. [@JD3], [@DN]). In the case of unbounded operators a sequence similar to $S_n$ for $\alpha_n \equiv 1$ was also used in [@SLC].
The following proposition is an adaptation of [@SLC Lemma 3.1].
\[faktAsymptotyka\] Let $\{ u_n \}$ be a generalized eigenvector associated with $\lambda \in \mathbb{R}$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{S}_n &= u_{n+1}^2 + u_n^2.
\end{aligned}$$ Assume that $a_n \rightarrow \infty$, and $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \frac{\alpha_{n-1}}{\alpha_n} \frac{a_n}{a_{n-1}} = 1, \quad \limsup_{n \rightarrow \infty} \frac{|b_n|}{a_n} < 2.
\end{aligned}$$ Then there exist constants $c_1>0, c_2>0$ such that for sufficiently large $n$ $$c_1 a_n \alpha_n \leq \frac{S_n}{\widetilde{S}_n} \leq c_2 a_n \alpha_n.$$
Observe that from the representation we have that $S_n$ is a quadratic form with respect to variables $u_n$ and $u_{n+1}$. Let the minimal and the maximal value of $S_n$ under the condition $\widetilde{S}_n = 1$ be denoted by $w_n^{\text{min}}$ and $w_n^{\text{max}}$ respectively. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{2 w_n^{\text{min}}}{a_n \alpha_n} &= 1 + \frac{\alpha_{n-1}}{\alpha_n} \frac{a_n}{a_{n-1}} - \sqrt{\left(1 - \frac{\alpha_{n-1}}{\alpha_n} \frac{a_n}{a_{n-1}} \right)^2 + \left(\frac{\alpha_{n-1}}{\alpha_n} \frac{a_n}{a_{n-1}} \frac{\lambda - b_n}{a_n} \right)^2},\\
\frac{2 w_n^{\text{max}}}{a_n \alpha_n} &= 1 + \frac{\alpha_{n-1}}{\alpha_n} \frac{a_n}{a_{n-1}} + \sqrt{\left(1 - \frac{\alpha_{n-1}}{\alpha_n} \frac{a_n}{a_{n-1}} \right)^2 + \left(\frac{\alpha_{n-1}}{\alpha_n} \frac{a_n}{a_{n-1}} \frac{\lambda - b_n}{a_n} \right)^2}.
\end{aligned}$$ Letting $n \rightarrow \infty$ we see that for large $n$ there is a positive upper and lower bound of the above expressions. What ends the proof.
\[wniosekDodatniKomutator\] Under the assumptions of Proposition \[faktAsymptotyka\], together with $$\quad \sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{1}{a_n \alpha_n} = \infty,$$ if $\liminf S_n > 0$ then $u \notin \ell^2$.
Since $\liminf S_n > 0$ by Proposition \[faktAsymptotyka\] there exists a constant $c > 0$ such that for every $n$ sufficiently large we have $$\frac{c}{a_n \alpha_n} \leq \widetilde{S}_n$$ what ends the proof.
Now we are ready to prove Theorem \[twSpektrumOgolne\].
By virtue of Corollary \[wniosekDodatniKomutator\] it is enough to show that $\liminf S_n > 0$ for every generalized eigenvector $\{ u_n \}$.
By Proposition \[faktAsymptotyka\] there exists $N$ such that for every $n \geq N$ holds $S_n > 0$. Let us define $F_n = (S_{n+1} - S_n) / S_n$. Then $S_{n+1} / S_n = 1 + F_n$, thus $$\frac{S_n}{S_N} = \prod_{k=N}^{n-1} (1 + F_n).$$ Hence $$\label{sumowalnoscFN}
\sum_{n=1}^\infty F_n^- < \infty.$$ implies $\liminf S_n > 0$. Observe that by and we get $$S_{n+1} - S_n = \left( a_{n+1} \alpha_{n+1} - \frac{\alpha_{n-1}}{a_{n-1}} a_n^2 \right) u_{n+1}^2 + \left( \frac{\alpha_{n-1}}{a_{n-1}} a_n (\lambda - b_n) - \alpha_n (\lambda - b_{n+1}) \right) u_{n+1} u_n.$$ Therefore $$\begin{gathered}
F_n = \frac{S_{n+1} - S_n}{S_n} = \Bigg[ \left( a_{n+1} \alpha_{n+1} - \frac{\alpha_{n-1}}{a_{n-1}} a_n^2 \right) \frac{u_{n+1}^2}{\widetilde{S}_n} \\
+ \left( \frac{\alpha_{n-1}}{a_{n-1}} a_n (\lambda - b_n) - \alpha_n(\lambda - b_{n+1}) \right) \frac{u_n u_{n+1}}{\widetilde{S}_n} \Bigg] \frac{\widetilde{S}_n}{S_n},
\end{gathered}$$ where $\widetilde{S}_n = u_n^2 + u_{n+1}^2$. By Proposition \[faktAsymptotyka\] and $|u_n u_{n+1}| / \widetilde{S}_n \leq 1$, there exists a constant $c > 0$ such that $$F_n^- \leq \frac{c}{a_n \alpha_n} \left( \left[ a_{n+1} \alpha_{n+1} - \frac{\alpha_{n-1}}{a_{n-1}} a_n^2 \right]^- + \left|\frac{\alpha_{n-1}}{a_{n-1}} a_n (\lambda - b_n) - \alpha_n (\lambda - b_{n+1}) \right| \right).$$ Since $$\frac{1}{a_n \alpha_n} \left[ a_{n+1} \alpha_{n+1} - \frac{\alpha_{n-1}}{a_{n-1}} a_n^2 \right]^- = \left[ \frac{a_{n+1}}{a_n} \frac{\alpha_{n+1}}{\alpha_n} - \frac{a_n}{a_{n-1}} \frac{\alpha_{n-1}}{\alpha_n} \right]^-$$ and $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{1}{a_n \alpha_n} \left|\frac{\alpha_{n-1}}{a_{n-1}} a_n (\lambda - b_n) - \alpha_n (\lambda - b_{n+1}) \right| = \left| \lambda \left( \frac{1}{a_{n-1}} \frac{\alpha_{n-1}}{\alpha_n} - \frac{1}{a_n} \right) + \left( \frac{b_{n+1}}{a_n} -\frac{b_n}{a_{n-1}} \frac{\alpha_{n-1}}{\alpha_n} \right)\right| \\
\leq \frac{|\lambda|}{a_{n-1}} \left| \frac{\alpha_{n-1}}{\alpha_n} - \frac{a_{n-1}}{a_n} \right| + \left| \frac{b_{n+1}}{a_n} - \frac{b_n}{a_{n-1}} \frac{\alpha_{n-1}}{\alpha_n} \right|
\end{gathered}$$ we obtain .
\[UwagaSubordynacja\] If we replace the condition (b) by
&\_[n=0]{}\^| - | < ,&
then $\limsup S_n < \infty$ and consequently $c_1/(a_n \alpha_n) \leq \widetilde{S}_n \leq c_2/(a_n \alpha_n)$ for $c_1>0, c_2>0$. Hence by using subordination method we can show that the spectrum of the matrix $C$ is purely absolutely continuous (see e.g. [@SLC], [@JN1]).
Special cases {#sec:specialCases}
=============
In this section we are going to show a few choices of the sequence $\{ \alpha_n \}$ from Theorem \[twSpektrumOgolne\]. In this way we show flexibility of our approach.
The following theorem was proven in [@JM1 Theorem 1.6] and is a generalization of [@SLC Theorem 1.10]. In the proof the authors analyse transfer matrices. Therefore our argument gives an alternative proof.
\[twClark\] Assume that
&\_[n ]{} a\_n = , &\
&\_[n=0]{}\^ = ,\
& { }, { } { } ,\
&\_[n ]{} < 2.
Then $\sigma(C) = \mathbb{R}$ and the matrix $C$ has purely absolutely continuous spectrum.
Let $\alpha_n \equiv 1$. By virtue of Remark \[UwagaSubordynacja\] we need to check the assumptions (b’), (d) and (f) of Theorem \[twSpektrumOgolne\].
Since the sequence $\{ a_{n-1}/a_n \}$ is of bounded variation it is convergent to a number $a$. From the condition (b) we have $a \geq 1$, whereas the condition (a) gives $a \leq 1$. Thus the sequence $\{ a_{n+1}/a_n \}$ is of bounded variation as well. This proves the conditions (b’) and (f) of Theorem \[twSpektrumOgolne\].
The sequence $\{ b_{n+1}/a_n \}$ is of bounded variation because $\frac{b_{n+1}}{a_n} = \frac{b_{n+1}}{a_{n+1}} \cdot \frac{a_{n+1}}{a_n}$. The proof is complete.
The next theorem imposes very simple conditions on Jacobi matrices. In Section \[sec:TheoremAAppl\] we show its applications, furthermore in Section \[sec:Examples\] we discuss sharpness of the assumptions.
\[twSpektrumAKwadrat\] Assume
&\_[n ]{} a\_n = , &\
&\_[n=0]{}\^ = ,\
&\_[n=0]{}\^\^- < ,\
&\_[n ]{} < 2,\
&\_[n=0]{}\^ < .
Then the Jacobi matrix $C$ is self-adjoint and satisfies $\sigma_p(C) = \emptyset$ and $\sigma(C) = \mathbb{R}$.
Apply Theorem \[twSpektrumOgolne\] with $\alpha_n = a_n$.
Special cases of the following theorem were examined in [@SP] and [@JM1] using commutator methods.
\[twJanasMoszynskiPedersen\] Let $\log^{(i)}$ be defined by $\log^{(0)}(x) = x, \log^{(i+1)}(x) = \log(\log^{(i)}(x))$. Let $g_j(n) = \prod_{i=1}^j \log^{(i)}(n)$. Assume that for positive numbers $K, N$ and for a summable nonnegative sequence $c_n$
&\_[n ]{} a\_n = , &\
&1 - c\_n 1 + + \_[j=1]{}\^K + c\_n n > N,\
& { b\_n } \_[n=0]{}\^ < ,\
&\_[n=1]{}\^ < .
Then $\sigma_p(C) = \emptyset$ and $\sigma(C) = \mathbb{R}$.
We can assume that $\log^{(K)}(N) > 0$. Set $$\alpha_n =
\begin{cases}
1 & \text{ for } n < N, \\
\frac{n g_K(n)}{a_n} & \text{ otherwise.}
\end{cases}$$ To get the conclusion we need to check the assumptions (b), (d) and (c) of Theorem \[twSpektrumOgolne\].
To show Theorem \[twSpektrumOgolne\](b) let us observe that the assumption (b) of the present theorem gives $$\left( \frac{a_n}{a_{n-1}} \right)^2 \leq 1 + \frac{2}{n} + \sum_{j=1}^K \frac{2}{n g_j(n)} + c_n'$$ for a summable sequence $c_n'$. Therefore $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{a_{n+1}}{a_n} \frac{\alpha_{n+1}}{\alpha_n} - \frac{a_n}{a_{n-1}} \frac{\alpha_{n-1}}{\alpha_n} = \frac{n+1}{n} \frac{g_K(n+1)}{g_K(n)} - \left( \frac{a_n}{a_{n-1}} \right)^2 \frac{n-1}{n} \frac{g_K(n-1)}{g_K(n)} \\
\geq \frac{n+1}{n} \frac{g_K(n+1)}{g_K(n)} - \frac{n-1}{n} \left( 1 + \frac{2}{n} + \sum_{j=1}^K \frac{2}{n g_j(n)} + c_n' \right) \frac{g_K(n-1)}{g_K(n)} \\
\geq \frac{n+1}{n} \frac{g_K(n+1)}{g_K(n)} - \left( \frac{n+1}{n} + \sum_{j=1}^K \frac{2}{n g_j(n)} + c_n' \right) \frac{g_K(n-1)}{g_K(n)}.
\end{gathered}$$ Since the functions $g_j$ are increasing, we have $$\label{rownJM1}
\geq \frac{n-1}{n} \left( \frac{g_K(n+1) - g_K(n-1)}{g_K(n)} \right) - \frac{g_K(n-1)}{n g_K(n)} \sum_{j=1}^K \frac{2}{g_j(n-1)} - c_n'.$$ Next, observe that $$g'_K(x) = g_K(x) \sum_{j=1}^K \frac{(\log^{(j)})'(x)}{\log^{(j)}(x)}.$$ Therefore $$g_K'(x) = g_K(x) \sum_{j=1}^K \frac{1}{x g_j(x)}.$$ Hence Taylor’s formula applied to $g_K$ at the point $n-1$ gives $$(n-1)[g_K(n+1) - g_K(n-1)] = g_K(n-1) \sum_{j=1}^K \frac{2}{g_j(n-1)} + 2 (n-1)g_K''(\xi)$$ for $\xi \in (n-1, n+1)$. Direct computation shows $|g_K''(x)| \leq c/x^{3/2}$ for $x$ sufficiently large and a constant $c > 0$. Therefore the right-hand side of is summable.
Next, since $$\frac{b_{n+1}}{a_n} - \frac{b_n}{a_{n-1}} \frac{\alpha_{n-1}}{\alpha_n} = \frac{b_{n+1} - b_n}{a_n} + \frac{b_n}{a_{n-1}} \left( \frac{a_{n-1}}{a_n} - \frac{\alpha_{n-1}}{\alpha_n} \right)$$ the condition Theorem \[twSpektrumOgolne\](d) reduces to showing Theorem \[twSpektrumOgolne\](c): $$\label{warunekC}
\sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{1}{a_{n-1}} \left| \frac{a_{n-1}}{a_n} - \frac{n-1}{n} \frac{g_K(n-1)}{g_K(n)} \frac{a_n}{a_{n-1}} \right| < \infty.$$ For constants $K'$ and $c > 0$ we have $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{a_{n-1}}{a_n} - \frac{n-1}{n} \frac{g_K(n-1)}{g_K(n)} \frac{a_n}{a_{n-1}} \geq \frac{1}{1 + \frac{K'}{n} + c_n} - \left( 1 - \frac{1}{n} \right) \left( 1 + \frac{K'}{n} + c_n \right) \geq -\frac{c}{n} - c_n'
\end{gathered}$$ for a summable sequence $c_n'$. On the other hand $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{a_{n-1}}{a_n} - \frac{n-1}{n} \frac{g_K(n-1)}{g_K(n)} \frac{a_n}{a_{n-1}} \leq \frac{1}{1-c_n} - \left( 1 - \frac{1}{n} \right) \frac{g_K(n-1)}{g_K(n)} (1-c_n) \\
= 1 - \frac{g_K(n-1)}{g_K(n)} + c_n' = \frac{g_K(n) - g_K(n-1)}{g_K(n)} + c_n'
\end{gathered}$$ for a summable sequence $c_n'$. Hence as previously Taylor’s formula applied to $g_K$ at the point $n-1$ gives $$\frac{a_{n-1}}{a_n} - \frac{n-1}{n} \frac{g_K(n-1)}{g_K(n)} \frac{a_n}{a_{n-1}} \leq \frac{c}{n} + c''_n$$ for a constant $c > 0$ and summable sequence $c''_n$. Finally, condition (d) leads to .
When we compare Theorem \[twSpektrumAKwadrat\] with Theorem \[twJanasMoszynskiPedersen\], we see that Theorem \[twJanasMoszynskiPedersen\] is interesting only in the case when $\sum_{n=0}^\infty 1/a_n^2 < \infty$. In this case the condition Theorem \[twJanasMoszynskiPedersen\](d) is satified.
The sequence similar to $\alpha_n = n a_n^{-1}$ was used in the proof of [@SP Theorem 4.1] and [@JM1 Theorem 2.1]. There was shown that under the stronger assumptions (which in particular imply $c_n \equiv 0$, $b_n \equiv 0$ and $K=0$) the measure $\mu$ is absolutely continuous. Whether $\sigma(C) = \mathbb{R}$ was not investigated.
Let $K > 0$. Fix $M$ such that $\log^{(K)}(M) > 0$. Then for the sequences $a_n = (n+M) g_K(n+M)$ and $b_n \equiv 0$ the assumptions of Theorem \[twJanasMoszynskiPedersen\] are satisfied.
Applications of Theorem \[twSpektrumAKwadrat\] {#sec:TheoremAAppl}
==============================================
Birth and death processes
-------------------------
Given sequences $\{\lambda_n\}_{n=0}^\infty$ and $\{\mu_n\}_{n=0}^\infty$ such that $\lambda_n > 0, \mu_{n+1} > 0 \ (n \geq 0)$ and $\mu_0 \geq 0$ we set $$\label{postacUS}
Q =
\left(
\begin{array}{cccccc}
-(\lambda_0 + \mu_0) & \lambda_0 & 0 & 0 &\ldots \\
\mu_1 & -(\lambda_1 + \mu_1) & \lambda_1 & 0 & \ldots \\
0 & \mu_2 & -(\lambda_2 + \mu_2) & \lambda_2 & \ldots \\
0 & 0 & \mu_3 & -(\lambda_3 + \mu_3) & \ldots \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots
\end{array}
\right).$$ Let us define $$\ell^2(\pi) = \{ x \in \mathbb{C}^\mathbb{N} \colon \sum_{n=0}^\infty \pi_n |x_n|^2 < \infty \}, \quad \langle x, y \rangle_{\ell^2(\pi)} = \sum_{n=0}^\infty \pi_n x_n \overline{y_n}$$ where $$\pi_0 = 1, \quad \pi_n = \frac{\lambda_0 \lambda_1 \ldots \lambda_{n-1}}{\mu_1 \mu_2 \ldots \mu_n}.$$
The operator $Q$ is well-defined on the domain $\operatorname{Dom}(Q) = \{ x \in \ell^2(\pi) \colon Q x \in \ell^2(\pi)\}$. Notice that any sequence with finite support belongs to $\operatorname{Dom}(Q)$. If the operator $Q$ is self-adjoint it is of a probabilistic interest to examine the spectrum $\sigma(Q)$ of the operator $Q$ (see e.g. [@SKJMG]).
\[twBDProcess\] Let $a = (\mu_1, \lambda_1, \mu_2, \lambda_2, \mu_3, \lambda_3, \ldots)$. Assume
&\_[n ]{} a\_n = , &\
&\_[n=0]{}\^ = ,\
&\_[n=0]{}\^\^- < .
Then the matrix $Q$ is self-adjoint and satisfies $\sigma_p(Q) = \emptyset$ and $\sigma(Q) = (-\infty, 0]$.
Let $P$ be a diagonal matrix with entries $\sqrt{\pi_n}$ on the main diagonal. Then we have $\bar{C} = P Q P^{-1}$, where $\bar{C}$ is the Jacobi matrix associated with sequences $\bar{a}_n = \sqrt{\lambda_n \mu_{n+1}}$ and $\bar{b}_n = -(\lambda_n + \mu_n)$ (see [@MK Section 2]). Since the matrix $P \colon \ell^2(\pi) \rightarrow \ell^2$ is an isometry (hence $P$ and $P^{-1}$ are bounded) it is enough to consider only the spectrum of $\bar{C}$. By virtue of Proposition \[odbicieSpektrum\] it is sufficient to consider the spectrum of the matrix $\widehat{C}$, corresponding with the sequences $\{a_n\}$ and $\{-b_n\}$.
Let us consider the case $\mu_0 = 0$. Let $\widetilde{b}_n \equiv 0$ and $$\widetilde{a} = (\sqrt{\lambda_0}, \sqrt{\mu_1}, \sqrt{\lambda_1}, \sqrt{\mu_2}, \sqrt{\lambda_2}, \ldots).$$ Observe that by Proposition \[restrykcjeC\] we have $\widetilde{C}_e = \widehat{C}$. Hence, by Theorem \[twSpektrumAKwadrat\] the conclusion follows.
Next, suppose that $\mu_0 > 0$. Let $\widetilde{b}_n \equiv 0$ and $$\widetilde{a} = (\sqrt{\mu_0}, \sqrt{\lambda_0}, \sqrt{\mu_1}, \sqrt{\lambda_1}, \sqrt{\mu_2}, \sqrt{\lambda_2}, \ldots).$$ Applying Proposition \[restrykcjeC\] to $\widetilde{C}_o = \widehat{C}$ by Theorem \[twSpektrumAKwadrat\] we finish the proof.
In [@BRGV] the following conjecture about spectral properties of operators of the form was stated.
\[hipotezaValent\] Assume that $$\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \mu_n/\lambda_n = 1, \quad \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \lambda_n/n^\alpha = a$$ for constants $a > 0$ and $0 < \alpha \leq 2$. Then $\sigma_p(Q) = \emptyset$.
In [@Chihara3] it was shown that without additional assumptions the conjecture is false. In Theorem \[twBDProcess\] we provide sufficient conditions when Conjecture \[hipotezaValent\] holds.
It is worthwhile to compare Theorem \[twBDProcess\] with results obtained in [@MK]. Let $$\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \mu_n / \lambda_n = q \quad (0 < q < \infty).$$ Then in [@MK] was concluded that under additional assumptions (which in particular imply $\lambda_{k+1}/\lambda_k \rightarrow 1, \ \mu_{k+1} / \mu_k \rightarrow 1$, $\lambda_k \rightarrow \infty$ and $\alpha < 1$) the matrix Q satisfies $\sigma_{ess}(Q) = \emptyset$. However, there is a problem in the proof of Lemma 1(iii) on the page 69. The author states that $\lVert F D^{-1} \rVert_{\ell^2} < 1$ if for a certain $\zeta > 0$ $$\frac{\sqrt{\lambda_k \mu_{k+1}}}{\lambda_k + \mu_k + \zeta} < \frac{1}{2}, \quad \frac{\sqrt{\lambda_k \mu_{k+1}}}{\lambda_{k+1} + \mu_{k+1} + \zeta} < \frac{1}{2}.$$ In fact what we need is $$\frac{\sqrt{\lambda_k \mu_{k+1}}}{\lambda_k + \mu_k} < \frac{1}{2} - \epsilon, \quad \frac{\sqrt{\lambda_k \mu_{k+1}}}{\lambda_{k+1} + \mu_{k+1}} < \frac{1}{2} - \epsilon$$ for certain $\epsilon > 0$, which, under the assumption $q = 1$ is impossible because the left-hand sides converge to $1/2$. In fact Theorem \[twBDProcess\] implies the *opposite* conclusion to results from [@MK].
Note that $$\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \frac{\lambda_n \mu_{n+1}}{(\lambda_n + \mu_n) (\lambda_{n+1} + \mu_{n+1})} = \frac{q}{(1+q)^2}$$ what under the assumption $q \neq 1$ is strictly less than $1/4$. Therefore [@Chihara3 Theorem 1] (for a functional analytic proof see [@Szwarc Theorem 2.6]) combined with Proposition \[odbicieSpektrum\] implies that if the matrix $Q$ is self-adjoint and $\lambda_k \rightarrow \infty$ then $\sigma_{ess}(Q) = \emptyset$.
Chihara’s conjecture
--------------------
In [@Chihara4] (see also [@Chihara5 IV-Theorem 4.2]) the following result was proven.
\[twChihara14\] Assume that a Jacobi matrix $C$ is self-adjoint, $b_n \rightarrow \infty$, the smallest point $\rho$ of $\sigma_{ess}(C)$ is finite and $$\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \frac{a_n^2}{b_n b_{n+1}} = \frac{1}{4}.$$ Then the set $\{ x \colon p_n(x) = 0, n \in \mathbb{N} \}$ of the zeros of orthogonal polynomials $\{ p_n \}$ is dense in $[\rho, \infty)$.
It suggests the following conjecture stated in [@Chihara1] and [@Chihara2].
\[hipChihara\] Let the assumptions of Theorem \[twChihara14\] be satisfied. Then $\sigma_{ess}(C) = [\rho, \infty)$.
The following theorem gives sufficient (and easy to verify) additional conditions for Conjecture \[hipChihara\] to hold. In fact every Jacobi matrix with $b_n \equiv 0$ and $a_{n+1}/a_n \rightarrow 1$ from this article provides an example (via Proposition \[restrykcjeC\]) when Conjecture \[hipChihara\] holds.
\[twChihara\] Assume
&\_[n ]{} a\_n = , &\
&\_[n=0]{}\^ = ,\
&\_[n=0]{}\^\^- < ,\
&\_[n ]{} \[a\_[n-1]{} - b\_n + a\_n\] = M.
Then the Jacobi matrix $C$ satisfies $\sigma_{ess}(C) = [-M, \infty)$. Moreover, if $a_{n+1}/a_n \rightarrow 1$ then $$\label{granica14}
\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \frac{a_n^2}{b_n b_{n+1}} = \frac{1}{4}.$$
We show by a direct computation. Without loss of generality we may assume that $M = 0$. Let $-r_n = a_{n-1} - b_n + a_n$. Then $a_{n-1} - (b_n-r_n) + a_n = 0$. Let $\widetilde{C}$ be the Jacobi matrix for sequences $\widetilde{a}_n = a_n, \ \widetilde{b}_n = b_n - r_n$. The matrix $R = C - \widetilde{C}$ defines a compact self-adjoint operator on $\ell^2$ (because $r_n \rightarrow 0$). Hence, by the Weyl perturbation theorem (see [@Weyl]), $\sigma_{ess}(C) = \sigma_{ess}(\widetilde{C})$. Theorem \[twBDProcess\] implies that $\sigma_{ess}(\widetilde{C}) = (-\infty, 0]$. Finally, Proposition \[odbicieSpektrum\] applied to the matrix $\widetilde{C}$ finishes the proof.
Examples {#sec:Examples}
========
Let $b_n \equiv 0, \ \epsilon > 0, \ a_0 = \epsilon$ and $a_{2k - 1} = a_{2k} = \widetilde{a}_k \ (k \geq 1)$ for a sequence $\widetilde{a}_k, \ \widetilde{a}_k \rightarrow \infty$. Then the matrix $C$ is always self-adjoint. Moreover, $0$ is its eigenvalue if and only if $$\sum_{k=0}^\infty \left( \frac{a_0 a_2 \ldots a_{2k}}{a_1 a_3 \ldots a_{2k+1}} \right)^2 = \epsilon^2 \sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{1}{\widetilde{a}_k^2} < \infty,$$ (see e.g. [@JDSP2 Theorem 3.2]). Therefore the condition Theorem \[twSpektrumAKwadrat\](b) could not be weakened even for the class of monotonic sequences $a_n$.
In [@MM] it was shown that for $\widetilde{a}_k = k^\alpha, \ (\alpha \in (0,1))$ the spectrum $\sigma(C) = \mathbb{R}$. In case $\alpha \leq 1/2$ the measure $\mu(\cdot) = \langle E(\cdot) \delta_0, \delta_0 \rangle$ is absolutely continuous, whereas for $\alpha > 1/2$ the measure $\mu$ is absolutely continuous on the set $\mathbb{R} \backslash \{ 0 \}$.
Let $b_n \equiv 0$ and $a_n = n^\alpha + c_n \ (0 < \alpha \leq 2/3)$ where $c_{2n} = 1$ and $c_{2n+1} = 0$. Then (see [@DJMP]) $\sigma(C) = \mathbb{R} \backslash (-1,1)$ and the measure $\mu$ is absolutely continuous on $\mathbb{R} \backslash [-1,1]$. It shows that the condition Theorem \[twSpektrumAKwadrat\](c) could not be replaced by $[(a_{n+1}/a_n)^2 - 1]^- \rightarrow 0$.
Let $a_0 = 1$ and for $k! \leq n < (k+1)!$ we define $a_n = \sqrt{k!}$. For $n > 0$ we have $$\frac{a_{n+1}}{a_n} =
\begin{cases}
\sqrt{k} & \text{if $n+1=k!$} \\
1 & \text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}$$ Define $b_n \equiv 0$. We have $a_n \leq \sqrt{n+1}$. Therefore $\sum_{n=0}^\infty 1/a_n^2 = \infty$. Observe that the assumptions of Theorem \[twSpektrumAKwadrat\] are satisfied. Moreover, $a_{n+1}/a_n \nrightarrow 1$ and [@JN1 Theorem 3.1] nor [@JDSP1 Lemma 2.6] cannot be applied.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Block Coordinate Update (BCU) methods enjoy low per-update computational complexity because every time only one or a few block variables would need to be updated among possibly a large number of blocks. They are also easily parallelized and thus have been particularly popular for solving problems involving large-scale dataset and/or variables. In this paper, we propose a primal-dual BCU method for solving linearly constrained convex program in multi-block variables. The method is an accelerated version of a primal-dual algorithm proposed by the authors, which applies randomization in selecting block variables to update and establishes an $O(1/t)$ convergence rate under convexity assumption. We show that the rate can be accelerated to $O(1/t^2)$ if the objective is strongly convex. In addition, if one block variable is independent of the others in the objective, we then show that the algorithm can be modified to achieve a linear rate of convergence. The numerical experiments show that the accelerated method performs stably with a single set of parameters while the original method needs to tune the parameters for different datasets in order to achieve a comparable level of performance.
[**Keywords:**]{} primal-dual method, block coordinate update, alternating direction method of multipliers (ADMM), accelerated first-order method.
[**Mathematics Subject Classification:**]{} 90C25, 95C06, 68W20.
author:
- 'Yangyang Xu[^1]'
- 'Shuzhong Zhang[^2]'
bibliography:
- 'alm.bib'
- 'bcd.bib'
- 'mblk-adm.bib'
title: 'Accelerated Primal-Dual Proximal Block Coordinate Updating Methods for Constrained Convex Optimization[^3]'
---
Introduction
============
Motivated by the need to solve large-scale optimization problems and increasing capabilities in parallel computing, block coordinate update (BCU) methods have become particularly popular in recent years due to their low per-update computational complexity, low memory requirements, and their potentials in a distributive computing environment. In the context of optimization, BCU first appeared in the form of block coordinate descent (BCD) type of algorithms which can be applied to solve unconstrained smooth problems or those with separable nonsmooth terms in the objective (possibly with separable constraints). More recently, it has been developed for solving problems with nonseparable nonsmooth terms and/or constraint in a primal-dual framework.
In this paper, we consider the following linearly constrained multi-block structured optimization model: $$\label{eq:mb-prob}
\min_x f(x)+\sum_{i=1}^M g_i(x_i), \st \sum_{i=1}^M A_i x_i =b,$$ where $x$ is partitioned into disjoint blocks $(x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_M)$, $f$ is a smooth convex function with Lipschitz continuous gradient, and each $g_i$ is proper closed convex and possibly non-differentiable. Note that $g_i$ can include an indicator function of a convex set $\cX_i$, and thus can implicitly include certain separable block constraints in addition to the nonseparable linear constraint.
Many applications arising in statistical and machine learning, image processing, and finance can be formulated in the form of including the basis pursuit [@chen2001atomic], constrained regression [@james2013pcreg], support vector machine in its dual form [@cortes1995svm], portfolio optimization [@markowitz1952portfolio], just to name a few.
Towards finding a solution for , we will first present an accelerated proximal Jacobian alternating direction method of multipliers (Algorithm \[alg:ajadmm\]), and then we generalize it to an accelerated [*randomized*]{} primal-dual block coordinate update method (Algorithm \[alg:arpdc\]). Assuming strong convexity on the objective function, we will establish $O(1/t^2)$ convergence rate results of the proposed algorithms by adaptively setting the parameters, where $t$ is the total number of iterations. In addition, if further assuming smoothness and the full-rankness we then obtain linear convergence of a modified method (Algorithm \[alg:rpdc-lin\]).
Related methods
---------------
Our algorithms are closely related to randomized coordinate descent methods, primal-dual coordinate update methods, and accelerated primal-dual methods. In this subsection, let us briefly review the three classes of methods and discuss their relations to our algorithms.
### Randomized coordinate descent methods {#randomized-coordinate-descent-methods .unnumbered}
In the absence of linear constraint, Algorithm \[alg:arpdc\] specializes to randomized coordinate descent (RCD), which was first proposed in [@nesterov2012rcd] for smooth problems and later generalized in [@richtarik2014iteration; @Lu_Xiao_rbcd_2015] to nonsmooth problems. It was shown that RCD converges sublinearly with rate $O(1/t)$, which can be accelerated to $O(1/t^2)$ for convex problems and achieves a linear rate for strongly convex problems. By choosing multiple block variables at each iteration, [@richtarik2012parallel] proposed to parallelize the RCD method and showed the same convergence results for parallelized RCD. This is similar to setting $m>1$ in Algorithm \[alg:arpdc\], allowing parallel updates on the selected $x$-blocks.
### Primal-dual coordinate update methods {#primal-dual-coordinate-update-methods .unnumbered}
In the presence of linear constraints, coordinate descent methods may fail to converge to a solution of the problem because fixing all but one block, the selected block variable may be uniquely determined by the linear constraint. To perform coordinate update to the linearly constrained problem , one effective approach is to update both primal and dual variables. Under this framework, the alternating direction method of multipliers (ADMM) is one popular choice. Originally, ADMM [@Glowinski1975; @gabay1976dual] was proposed for solving two-block structured problems with separable objective (by setting $f=0$ and $M=2$ in ), for which its convergence and also convergence rate have been well-established (see e.g. [@boley2013local; @deng2012global; @HeY12-adm; @monteiro2010iteration]). However, directly extending ADMM to the multi-block setting such as may fail to converge; see [@chen2016direct] for a divergence example of the ADMM even for solving a linear system of equations. Lots of efforts have been spent on establishing the convergence of multi-block ADMM under stronger assumptions (see e.g. [@cai2014directstrong; @chen2016direct; @li2015convergent; @lin2015global; @gao2015first]) such as strong convexity or orthogonality conditions on the linear constraint. Without additional assumptions, modification is necessary for the ADMM applied to multi-block problems to be convergent; see [@deng2013parallel; @He-Hou-Yuan; @he2012alternating; @xu2016hybrid] for example. Very recently, [@GXZ-RPDCU2016] proposed a randomized primal-dual coordinate (RPDC) update method, whose asynchronous parallel version was then studied in [@xu2017async-pdc]. Applied to , RPDC is a special case of Algorithm \[alg:arpdc\] with fixed parameters. It was shown that RPDC converges with rate $O(1/t)$ under convexity assumption. More general than solving an optimization problem, primal-dual coordinate (PDC) update methods have also appeared in solving fixed-point or monotone inclusion problems [@pesquet2014class; @peng2016arock; @combettes2015stochastic; @peng2016cf]. However, for these problems, the PDC methods are only shown to converge but no convergence rate estimates are known unless additional assumptions are made such as the strong monotonicity condition.
### Accelerated primal-dual methods {#accelerated-primal-dual-methods .unnumbered}
It is possible to accelerate the rate of convergence from $O(1/t)$ to $O(1/t^2)$ for gradient type methods. The first acceleration result was shown by Nesterov [@nesterov1983method] for solving smooth unconstrained problems. The technique has been generalized to accelerate gradient-type methods on possibly nonsmooth convex programs [@FISTA2009; @nesterov2013gradient]. Primal-dual methods on solving linearly constrained problems can also be accelerated by similar techniques. Under convexity assumption, the augmented Lagrangian method (ALM) is accelerated in [@he2010aalm] from $O(1/t)$ convergence rate to $O(1/t^2)$ by using a similar technique as that in [@FISTA2009] to the multiplier update, and [@xu2017accelerated-alm] accelerates the linearized ALM using a technique similar to that in [@nesterov2013gradient]. Assuming strong convexity on the objective, [@goldstein2014fast] accelerates the ADMM method, and the assumption is weakened in [@xu2017accelerated-alm] to assuming the strong convexity for one component of the objective function. On solving bilinear saddle-point problems, various primal-dual methods can be accelerated if either primal or dual problem is strongly convex [@chambolle2011first; @dang2014randomized; @bredies2016accelerated]. Without strong convexity, partial acceleration is still possible in terms of the rate depending on some other quantities; see e.g. [@ouyang2015accelerated; @chen2014optimal].
Contributions of this paper
---------------------------
We accelerate the proximal Jacobian ADMM [@deng2013parallel] and also generalize it to an accelerated primal-dual coordinate updating method for linearly constrained multi-block structured convex program, where in the objective there is a nonseparable smooth function. With parameters fixed during all iterations, the generalized method reduces to that in [@GXZ-RPDCU2016] and enjoys $O(1/t)$ convergence rate under mere convexity assumption. By adaptively setting the parameters at different iterations, we show that the accelerated method has $O(1/t^2)$ convergence rate if the objective is strongly convex. In addition, if there is one block variable that is independent of all others in the objective (but coupled in the linear constraint) and also the corresponding component function is smooth, we modify the algorithm by treating that independent variable in a different way and establish a linear convergence result. Numerically, we test the accelerated method on quadratic programming and compare it to the (nonaccelerated) RPDC method in [@GXZ-RPDCU2016]. The results demonstrate that the accelerated method performs efficiently and stably with the parameters automatically set in accordance of the analysis, while the RPDC method needs to tune its parameters for different data in order to have a comparable performance.
Nomenclature and basic facts
----------------------------
**Notations.** [For a positive integer $M$, we denote $[M]$ as $\{1,\ldots,M\}$.]{} We let $x_S$ denote the subvector of $x$ with blocks indexed by $S$. Namely, if $S=\{i_1, \ldots, i_m\}$, then $x_S=(x_{i_1},\ldots, x_{i_m})$. Similarly, $A_S$ denotes the submatrix of $A$ with columns indexed by $S$, and $g_S$ denotes the sum of component functions indicated by $S$. [We use $\nabla_i f(x)$ for the partial gradient of $f$ with respect to $x_i$ at $x$ and $\nabla_S f(x)$ with respect to $x_S$. For a nondifferentiable function $g$, $\tilde{\nabla} g(x)$ denotes a subgradient of $g$ at $x$.]{} We reserve $I$ for the identity matrix and use $\|\cdot\|$ for Euclidean norm. Given a symmetric positive semidefinite (PSD) matrix $W$, for any vector $v$ of appropriate size, we define $\|v\|_W^2=v^\top W v$, [and $$\label{eq:def-Delta}
\Delta_W(v^+,v^o,v)=\frac{1}{2}\big[\|v^+-v\|_W^2-\|v^o-v\|_W^2+\|v^+-v^o\|_W^2\big].$$ If $W=I$, we simply use $\Delta(v^+,v^o,v)$. ]{} Also, we denote $$\label{eq:nota-Phi}
{ g(x)=\sum_{i=1}^m g_i(x_i),}\quad F(x)=f(x)+g(x),\quad\Phi(\hat{x},x,\lambda)=F(\hat{x})-F(x)-\langle\lambda, A\hat{x}-b\rangle.$$
**Preparations.** [ A point $(x^*,\lambda^*)$ is called a Karush-Kuhn-Tucker (KKT) point of if ]{} $$\label{eq:kkt-conds}
0\in\partial F(x^*)-A^\top \lambda^*,\quad Ax^*-b=0.
$$ [ For convex programs, the conditions in are sufficient for $x^*$ to be an optimal solution of , and they are also necessary if a certain qualification condition holds (e.g., the Slater condition: there is $x$ in the interior of the domain of $F$ such that $Ax=b$). ]{} Together with the convexity of $F$, implies $$\label{eq:1stopt-cond}
\Phi(x,x^*,\lambda^*)\ge 0,\,\forall x.$$
We will use the following lemmas as basic facts. [ The first lemma is straightforward to verify from the definition of $\|\cdot\|_W$; the second one is similar to Lemma 3.3 in [@GXZ-RPDCU2016]; the third one is from Lemma 3.5 in [@GXZ-RPDCU2016].]{}
For any vectors $u, v$ and symmetric PSD matrix $W$ of appropriate sizes, it holds that $$\label{uv-cross}
u^\top W v = \frac{1}{2}\left[\|u\|_W^2-\|u-v\|_W^2+\|v\|_W^2\right].$$
\[lem:xy-rate\] Given a function $\phi$, for a given $x$ and a random vector $\hat{x}$, if for any $\vlam$ (that may depend on $\hat{x}$) it holds $\EE\Phi(\hat{x},x,\lambda)\le \EE \phi(\lambda),$ then for any $\gamma>0$, we have $$\EE\big[F(\hat{x})-F(x)+\gamma\|A\hat{x}-b\|\big]\le \sup_{\|\vlam\|\le \gamma}\phi(\vlam).$$
Let $\hat{\lambda}=-\frac{\gamma(A\hat{x}-b)}{\|A\hat{x}-b\|}$ if $A\hat{x}-b\neq 0$, and $\hat{\lambda}=0$ otherwise. Then $$\Phi(\hat{x},x,\hat{\lambda})=F(\hat{x})-F(x)+\gamma \|A\hat{x}-b\|.$$ In addition, since $\|\hat{\lambda}\|\le \gamma$, we have $\phi(\hat{\lambda})\le \sup_{\|\lambda\|\le \gamma}\phi(\lambda)$ and thus $\EE \phi(\hat{\lambda})\le \sup_{\|\lambda\|\le \gamma}\phi(\lambda)$. Hence, we have the desired result from $\EE\Phi(\hat{x},x,\hat{\lambda})\le \EE \phi(\hat{\lambda})$.
\[lem:equiv-rate\] Suppose $\EE\big[F(\hat{x})-F(x^*)+\gamma\|A\hat{x}-b\|\big] \le \epsilon.$ Then, $$\EE\|A\hat{x}-b\|\leq \frac{\epsilon}{\gamma-\|\lambda^*\|}, \mbox{ and } -\frac{\epsilon\|\lambda^*\|}{\gamma-\|\lambda^*\|}\le\EE\big[F(\hat{x})-F(x^*)\big] \leq \epsilon,$$ where $(x^*,\lambda^*)$ satisfies the optimality conditions in , and we assume $\|\lambda^*\|< \gamma$.
**Outline.** The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section \[sec:ajadmm\] presents the accelerated proximal Jacobian ADMM and its convergence results. In section \[sec:arpdc\], we propose an accelerated primal-dual block coordinate update method with convergence analysis. Section \[sec:linear\] assumes more structure on the problem and modifies the algorithm in section \[sec:arpdc\] to have linear convergence. Numerical results are provided in section \[sec:numerical\]. Finally, section \[sec:conclusion\] concludes the paper.
Accelerated proximal Jacobian ADMM {#sec:ajadmm}
==================================
In this section, we propose an accelerated proximal Jacobian ADMM for solving . At each iteration, the algorithm updates all $M$ block variables in parallel by minimizing a linearized proximal approximation of the augmented Lagrangian function, and then it renews the multiplier. Specifically, it iteratively performs the following updates:
\[eq:ajadmm\] $$\begin{aligned}
&x_i^{k+1}=\argmin_{x_i} \left\langle \nabla_i f(x^k)-A_i^\top(\lambda^k-\beta_k r^k), x_i\right\rangle + g_i(x_i) + \frac{1}{2}\|x_i-x_i^k\|_{P_i^k},\, i=1,\ldots, M,\label{eq:ajadmm-x}\\
&\lambda^{k+1}=\lambda^k-\rho_k r^{k+1},\label{eq:ajadmm-lam}\end{aligned}$$
where $\beta_k$ and $\rho_k$ are scalar parameters, $P^k$ is an $M\times M$ block diagonal matrix with $P_i^k$ as its $i$-th diagonal block for $i=1,\ldots,M$, and $r^k=Ax^k-b$ denotes the residual. Note that consists of $M$ independent subproblems, and they can be solved in parallel.
Algorithm \[alg:ajadmm\] summarizes the proposed method. It reduces to the proximal Jacobian ADMM in [@deng2013parallel] if $\beta_k,\rho_k$ and $P^k$ are fixed for all $k$ and there is no nonseparable function $f$. We will show that adapting the parameters as the iteration progresses can accelerate the convergence of the algorithm.
**Initialization:** choose $x^1$, set $\lambda^1=0$, and let $r^1=Ax^1-b$
Technical assumptions
---------------------
Throughout the analysis in this section, we make the following assumptions.
\[assump:saddle-pt\] There exists $(x^*,\lambda^*)$ satisfying the KKT conditions in .
\[assump:full-lip-F\] $\nabla f$ is Lipschitz continuous with modulus $L_f$.
\[assump:str-cvx-F\] [The function $g$ is strongly convex with modulus $\mu>0$. ]{}
The first two assumptions are standard, and the third one is for showing convergence rate of $O(1/t^2)$, where $t$ is the number of iterations. [ Note that if $f$ is strongly convex with modulus $\mu_f>0$, we can let $f\gets f-\frac{\mu_f}{2}\|\cdot\|^2$ and $g\gets g+\frac{\mu_f}{2}\|\cdot\|^2$. This way, we have a convex function $f$ and a strongly convex function $g$. Hence, Assumption \[assump:str-cvx-F\] is without loss of generality.]{} With only convexity, Algorithm \[alg:ajadmm\] can be shown to converge at the rate $O(1/t)$ with parameters fixed for all iterations, and the order $1/t$ is optimal as shown in the very recent work [@li2016optimal].
Convergence results
-------------------
In this subsection, we show the $O(1/t^2)$ convergence rate result of Algorithm \[alg:ajadmm\]. First, we establish a result of running one iteration of Algorithm \[alg:ajadmm\].
\[lem:1iter-ajadmm\] Under Assumptions \[assump:full-lip-F\] and \[assump:str-cvx-F\], let $\{(x^k,\lambda^k)\}$ be the sequence generated from Algorithm \[alg:ajadmm\]. Then for any $k$ and $(x,\lambda)$ such that $Ax=b$, it holds that $$\label{eq:1iter-ajadmm}
\begin{aligned}
&~\Phi(x^{k+1},x,\lambda) \\
\le &~ \frac{1}{2\rho_k}\left[\|\lambda-\lambda^k\|^2-\|\lambda-\lambda^{k+1}\|^2+\|\lambda^k-\lambda^{k+1}\|^2\right]-\beta_k\|r^{k+1}\|^2 \\
&~-\frac{1}{2}\left[\|x^{k+1}-x\|_{P^k-\beta_k A^\top A+\mu I}^2-\|x^k-x\|_{P^k-\beta_k A^\top A}^2+\|x^{k+1}-x^k\|_{P^k-\beta_k A^\top A - L_f I}^2\right].
\end{aligned}$$
Using the above lemma, we are able to prove the following theorem.
\[thm:ajadmm-g\] Under Assumptions \[assump:full-lip-F\] and \[assump:str-cvx-F\], let $\{(x^k,\lambda^k)\}$ be the sequence generated by Algorithm \[alg:ajadmm\]. Suppose that the parameters are set to satisfy $$\label{eq:ajadmm-para-1}
0<\rho_k\le 2\beta_k,\quad P^k\succeq \beta_k A^\top A+ L_f I,\,\forall k\ge 1,$$ and there exists a number $k_0$ such that for all $k\ge 2$, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{k+k_0+1}{\rho_k} &\le& \frac{k+k_0}{\rho_{k-1}}, \label{eq:ajadmm-para-2} \\
(k+k_0+1)(P^k-\beta_k A^\top A) &\preceq& (k+k_0)(P^{k-1}-\beta_{k-1} A^\top A+\mu I). \label{eq:ajadmm-para-3}\end{aligned}$$ Then, for any $(x,\lambda)$ satisfying $Ax=b$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k=1}^t(k+k_0+1)\Phi(x^{k+1},x,\lambda) +\sum_{k=1}^t\frac{k+k_0+1}{2}(2\beta_k-\rho_k)\|r^{k+1}\|^2& & \nonumber \\ +\frac{t+k_0+1}{2}\|x^{t+1}-x\|^2_{P^t-\beta_t A^\top A+\mu I}
&\le & \phi_1(x,\lambda), \label{eq:ajadmm-rate-g}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\label{eq:def-lit-phi}\phi_1(x,\lambda)=\frac{k_0+2}{2\rho_1}\|\lambda-\lambda^1\|^2 + \frac{k_0+2}{2}\|x^1-x\|^2_{P^1-\beta_1 A^\top A}.$$
In the next theorem, we provide a set of parameters that satisfy the conditions in Theorem \[thm:ajadmm-g\] and establish the $O(1/t^2)$ convergence rate result.
\[thm:ajadmm-spc\] Under Assumptions \[assump:saddle-pt\] through \[assump:str-cvx-F\], let $\{(x^k,\lambda^k)\}$ be the sequence generated by Algorithm \[alg:ajadmm\] with parameters set to: [ $$\label{eq:ajadmm-para-spc}
\beta_k=\rho_k=k\beta,\quad P^k=kP+L_f I,\,\forall k\ge 1,$$ ]{} where $P$ is a block diagonal matrix satisfying $0\prec P-\beta A^\top A\preceq \frac{\mu}{2}I$. Then, $$\label{eq:ajadmm-rate-spc}
\max\left\{\beta\|r^{t+1}\|^2,\ \|x^{t+1}-x^*\|^2_{P-\beta A^\top A}\right\}
\le \frac{2}{t(t+k_0+1)}\phi_1(x^*,\lambda^*),$$ where $k_0=\frac{2L_f}{\mu}$, and $\phi_1$ is defined in . In addition, letting $\gamma=\max\left\{ 2\|\lambda^*\|,1+\|\lambda^*\|\right\}$ and $$T=\frac{t(t+2k_0+3)}{2},\quad \bar{x}^{t+1}=\frac{\sum_{k=1}^t (k+k_0+1)x^k}{T},$$ we have
\[eq:ajadmm-erg-rate-spc\] $$\begin{aligned}
&|F(\bar{x}^{t+1})-F(x^*)|\le \frac{1}{T}\max_{|\|\lambda\|\le\gamma}\phi_1(x^*,\lambda),\\
&\|A\bar{x}^{t+1}-b\|\le \frac{1}{T\max\{1,\|\lambda^*\|\} }\max_{\|\lambda\|\le\gamma}\phi_1(x^*,\lambda).\end{aligned}$$
Accelerating randomized primal-dual block coordinate updates {#sec:arpdc}
============================================================
In this section, we generalize Algorithm \[alg:ajadmm\] to a randomized setting where the user may choose to update a subset of blocks at each iteration. Instead of updating all $M$ block variables, we randomly choose a subset of them to renew at each iteration. Depending on the number of processors (nodes, or cores), we can choose a single or multiple block variables for each update.
The algorithm
-------------
Our algorithm is an accelerated version of the randomized primal-dual coordinate update method recently proposed in [@GXZ-RPDCU2016], [for which we shall use RPDC as its acronym.[^4]]{} At each iteration, it performs a block proximal gradient update to a subset of randomly selected primal variables while keeping the remaining ones fixed, followed by an update to the multipliers. Specifically, at iteration $k$, it selects an index set $S_k\subset \{1,\ldots,M\}$ with cardinality $m$ and performs the following updates:
\[eq:fw-arpdc\] $$\begin{aligned}
&x_i^{k+1}=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}\argmin\limits_{x_i}\langle \nabla_i f(x^k)-A_i^\top(\lambda^k-\beta_k r^k), x_i\rangle+g_i(x_i)+\frac{\eta_k}{2}\|x_i-x_i^k\|^2, &\text{ if } i\in S_k,\\[0.1cm]
x_i^k,& \text{ if }i\not\in S_k\end{array}\right.\label{eq:fw-arpdc-x}\\
& r^{k+1}=r^k+\sum_{i\in S_k}A_i(x_i^{k+1}-x_i^k),\\
& \lambda^{k+1}=\lambda^k - \rho_k r^{k+1},\label{eq:fw-arpdc-lam}\end{aligned}$$
where $\beta_k, \rho_k$ and $\eta_k$ are algorithm parameters, and their values will be determined later. Note that we use $\frac{\eta_k}{2}\|x_i-x_i^k\|^2$ in for simplicity. It can be replaced by a PSD matrix weighted norm square term as in , and our convergence results still hold.
Algorithm \[alg:arpdc\] summarizes the above method. If the parameters $\beta_k, \rho_k$ and $\eta_k$ are fixed during all the iterations, i.e., constant parameters, the algorithm reduces to a special case of the RPDC method in [@GXZ-RPDCU2016]. Adapting these parameters to the iterations, we will show that Algorithm \[alg:arpdc\] enjoys faster convergence rate than RPDC if the problem is strongly convex.
**Initialization:** choose $x^1$, set $\lambda^1=0$, let $r^1=Ax^1-b$, and choose parameter $m$
Convergence results
-------------------
In this subsection, we establish convergence results of Algorithm \[alg:arpdc\] under Assumptions \[assump:saddle-pt\] and \[assump:str-cvx-F\], and also the following partial gradient Lipschitz continuity assumption.
\[assump:lip-F\] For any $S\subset\{1,\ldots,M\}$ with $|S|=m$, $\nabla_S f$ is Lipschitz continuous with a uniform constant $L_m$.
Note that if $\nabla f$ is Lipschitz continuous with constant $L_f$, then $L_m\le L_f$ and $L_M = L_f$. In addition, if $x^+$ and $x$ only differ on a set $S\subset [M]$ with cardinality $m$, then $$\label{eq:S-lip-ineq}
f(x^+) \le f(x) + \langle \nabla f(x), x^+-x\rangle + \frac{L_m}{2}\|x^+-x\|^2.$$
Similar to the analysis in section \[sec:ajadmm\], we first establish a result of running one iteration of Algorithm \[alg:arpdc\]. Throughout this section, we denote $\theta=\frac{m}{M}$.
\[lem:1iter\] Under Assumptions \[assump:str-cvx-F\] and \[assump:lip-F\], let $\{(x^k,\lambda^k)\}$ be the sequence generated from Algorithm \[alg:arpdc\]. Then for any $x$ such that $Ax=b$, it holds $$\begin{aligned}
& ~\EE\left[\Phi(x^{k+1},x,\lambda^{k+1})+(\beta_k-\rho_k)\|r^{k+1}\|^2+ \frac{\mu}{2}\|x^{k+1}-x\|^2\right] \label{eq:sum-bd1} \\
\le & ~(1-\theta)\EE\left[\Phi(x^k,x,\lambda^k)+\beta_k\| r^k\|^2+\frac{\mu}{2}\|x^k-x\|^2\right] - \EE\left[\Delta_{\eta_k I-\beta_k A^\top A}(x^{k+1},x^k,x) - \frac{L_m}{2} \|x^{k+1}-x^k\|^2\right]. \nonumber
$$
When $\mu=0$ (i.e., is convex), Algorithm \[alg:arpdc\] has $O(1/t)$ convergence rate with fixed $\beta_k,\rho_k,\eta_k$. This can be shown from , and [a similar result in slightly different form]{} has been established in [@GXZ-RPDCU2016 Theorem 3.6]. For completeness, we provide its proof in the appendix.
\[thm:naccl\] Under Assumptions \[assump:saddle-pt\] and \[assump:lip-F\], let $\{(x^k,\lambda^k)\}$ be the sequence generated from Algorithm \[alg:arpdc\] with $\beta_k=\beta,\rho_k=\rho,\eta_k=\eta$ for all $k$, satisfying $$0<\rho\le \theta\beta,\quad \eta\ge L_m+\beta\|A\|_2^2,$$ where $\|A\|_2$ denotes the spectral norm of $A$. Then
$$\begin{aligned}
&\big|\EE [F(\bar{x}^t)-F(x^*)]\big|\le \frac{1}{1+\theta (t-1)}\max_{\|\lambda\|\le \gamma}\phi_2(x^*,\lambda),\\
&\EE\|A\bar{x}^t-b\|\le \frac{1}{(1+\theta (t-1))\max\{1, \|\lambda^*\|\} }\max_{\|\lambda\|\le \gamma}\phi_2(x^*,\lambda),\end{aligned}$$
where $(x^*,\lambda^*)$ satisfies the KKT conditions in , $\gamma=\max\{\|2\lambda^*\|, 1+\|\lambda^*\|\}$, and $$\bar{x}^t=\frac{x^{t+1}+\theta\sum_{k=2}^t x^k}{1+\theta (t-1)},\quad \phi_2(x,\lambda)=(1-\theta)\left(F(x^1)-F(x)\right)+\frac{\eta}{2}\|x^1-x\|^2+\frac{\theta\|\lambda\|^2}{2\rho}.$$
When $F$ is strongly convex, the above $O(1/t)$ convergence rate can be accelerated to $O(1/t^2)$ by adaptively changing the parameters at each iteration. The following theorem is our main result. It shows an $O(1/t^2)$ convergence result under certain conditions on the parameters. Based on this theorem, we will give a set of parameters that satisfy these conditions, thus providing a specific scheme to choose the paramenters.
\[thm:rate0\] Under Assumptions \[assump:str-cvx-F\] and \[assump:lip-F\], let $\{(x^k,\lambda^k)\}$ be the sequence generated from Algorithm \[alg:arpdc\] with parameters satisfying the following conditions for a certain number $k_0$:
\[eq:para-conds\] $$\begin{aligned}
\theta(k+k_0+1)&\ge& 1,\,\forall k\ge 2,\label{eq:cond1}\\
(\beta_{k-1}-\rho_{k-1})(k+k_0)&\ge & (1-\theta)(k+k_0+1)\beta_k,\,\forall 2\le k \le t,\label{eq:cond2}\\
\frac{\theta(k+k_0+1)-1}{\rho_{k-1}}&\ge&\frac{\theta(k+k_0+2)-1}{\rho_k},\,\forall\, 2\le k\le t-1,\label{eq:cond3}\\
\frac{\theta(t+k_0+1)-1}{\rho_{t-1}}&\ge&\frac{t+k_0+1}{\rho_t},\,\label{eq:cond4}\\
\beta_k(k+k_0+1)&\ge &\beta_{k-1}(k+k_0),\,\forall k\ge 2,\label{eq:cond5}\\
(k+k_0+1)(\eta_k-L_m)I&\succeq &\beta_k(k+k_0+1)A^\top A,\,\forall k\ge 1,\label{eq:cond6}\\
(k+k_0)\eta_{k-1}+\mu\big(\theta(k+k_0+1)-1\big)&\ge & (k+k_0+1)\eta_k,\,\forall k\ge 2.\label{eq:cond7}\end{aligned}$$
Then for any $(x,\lambda)$ such that $Ax=b$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
& & (t+k_0+1) \EE\Phi(x^{t+1},x,\lambda)+\sum_{k=2}^t\big(\theta(k+k_0+1)-1\big)\EE\Phi(x^k,x,\lambda)\nonumber\\
&\le & (1-\theta)(k_0+2)\EE\left[\Phi(x^1,x,\lambda^1)+\beta_1\| r^1\|^2+\frac{\mu}{2}\|x^1-x\|^2\right]+\frac{\eta_1(k_0+2)}{2}\EE\|x^1-x\|^2 \nonumber \\
& &+\frac{\theta(k_0+3)-1}{2\rho_1}\EE\|\lambda^1-\lambda\|^2-\frac{t+k_0+1}{2}\EE\|x^{t+1}-x\|_{(\mu+\eta_t) I-\beta_t A^\top A}^2 . \label{eq:sum-bd4}\end{aligned}$$
Specifying the parameters that satisfy , we show $O(1/t^2)$ convergence rate of Algorithm \[alg:arpdc\].
\[prop:param-cond\] The following parameters satisfy all conditions in :
\[eq:paras\] $$\begin{aligned}
&\beta_k= \frac{\mu(\theta k+2+\theta)}{2\rho\|A\|_2^2},\,\forall k\ge 1,\label{eq:paras-beta}\\
&\rho_k=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{\theta \beta_k}{(6-5\theta)}, & \text{ for }1\le k\le t-1,\\[0.2cm]
\frac{(t+k_0+1)\rho_{t-1}}{\theta(t+k_0+1)-1}, &\text{ for }k=t
\end{array}
\right.\label{eq:paras-rho}\\
&\eta_k=\rho\beta_k\|A\|_2^2+L_m,\,\forall k\ge 1,\label{eq:paras-eta}\end{aligned}$$
where $\rho\ge 1$ and $$k_0=\frac{4}{\theta}+\frac{2L_m}{\theta \mu}.\label{eq:paras-k0}$$
\[thm:rate1\] Under Assumptions \[assump:saddle-pt\], \[assump:str-cvx-F\] and \[assump:lip-F\], let $\{(x^k,\lambda^k)\}$ be the sequence generated from Algorithm \[alg:arpdc\] with parameters taken as in . Then $$\label{eq:rate-obj-feas}
\big|\EE[F(\bar{x}^{t+1})-F(x^*)]\big|\le \frac{1}{T}\max_{\|\lambda\|\le \gamma}\phi_3(x^*,\lambda),\quad \EE\|A\bar{x}^{t+1}-b\|\le \frac{1}{T\max\{1,\|\lambda^*\|\}}\max_{\|\lambda\|\le \gamma}\phi_3(x^*,\lambda),$$ where $\gamma=\max\{2\|\lambda^*\|, 1+\|\lambda^*\|\}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{x}^{t+1} &=& \frac{(t+k_0+1)x^{t+1}+\sum_{k=2}^t\big(\theta(k+k_0+1)-1\big)x^k}{T}, \\
\phi_3(x, \lambda) &=&(1-\theta)(k_0+2)\left[F(x^1)-F(x)+\beta_1\|r^1\|^2+\frac{\mu}{2}\|x^1-x\|^2\right] \\
& & +\frac{\eta_1(k_0+2)}{2}\|x^1-x\|^2+\frac{\theta(k_0+3)-1}{2\rho_1}\|\lambda\|^2\end{aligned}$$ and $$T= (t+k_0+1)+\sum_{k=2}^t\big(\theta(k+k_0+1)-1\big).$$ In addition, $$\EE\|x^{t+1}-x^*\|^2\le \frac{2\phi_3(x^*,\lambda^*)}{(t+k_0+1)\left(\frac{(\rho-1)\mu}{2\rho}(\theta t + \theta + 2)+2\mu+L_m\right)}.$$
Linearly convergent primal-dual method {#sec:linear}
======================================
In this section, we assume some more structure on and show that a linear rate of convergence is possible. If there is no linear constraint, Algorithm \[alg:arpdc\] reduces to the RCD method proposed in [@nesterov2012rcd]. It is well-known that RCD converges linearly if the objective is strongly convex. However, with the presence of linear constraints, mere strong convexity of the objective of the primal problem only ensures the smoothness of its Lagrangian dual function, but not its strong concavity. Hence, in general, we do not expect linear convergence by only assuming strong convexity on the primal objective function. To ensure linear convergence on both the primal and dual variables, we need additional assumptions.
Throughout this section, we suppose that there is at least one block variable being absent in the nonseparable part of the objective, namely $f$. For convenience, we rename this block variable to be $y$, and the corresponding component function and constraint coefficient matrix as $h$ and $B$. Specifically, we consider the following problem $$\label{eq:mb-prob-y}
\min_{x,y} f(x_1,\ldots,x_M)+\sum_{i=1}^M g_i(x_i)+h(y), \st \sum_{i=1}^M A_ix_i+By=b.$$
[One example of is the problem that appears while computing a point on the central path of a convex program. Suppose we are interested in solving $$\label{eq:genral-cp}
\min_x f(x_1,\ldots,x_M), \st \sum_{i=1}^M A_ix_i \le b, \, x_i\ge 0, i = 1,\ldots, M.$$ Let $y= b - \sum_{i=1}^M A_ix_i$ and use the log-barrier function. We have the log-barrier approximation of as follows: $$\label{eq:genral-cp-logbar}
\min_{x, y} f(x_1,\ldots,x_M) - \mu \sum_{i=1}^M e^\top \log x_i - \mu e^\top \log y, \st \sum_{i=1}^M A_ix_i + y = b,$$ where $e$ is the all-one vector. As $\mu$ decreases, the approximation becomes more accurate. ]{}
Towards a solution to , we modify Algorithm \[alg:arpdc\] by updating $y$-variable after the $x$-update. Since there is only a single $y$-block, to balance $x$ and $y$ updates, we do not renew $y$ in every iteration but instead update it in probability $\theta=\frac{m}{M}$. Hence, roughly speaking, $x$ and $y$ variables are updated in the same frequency. The method is summarized in Algorithm \[alg:rpdc-lin\].
**Initialization:** choose $(x^1,y^1)$, set $\lambda^1=0$, and choose parameters $\beta,\rho,\eta_x,\eta_y, m$. Let $r^1=Ax^1+By^1-b$ and $\theta=\frac{m}{M}$.
Technical assumptions
---------------------
In this section, we denote $z=(x,y,\lambda)$. Assume $h$ is differentiable. Similar to , a point $z^*=( x^*, y^*,\vlam^*)$ is called a KKT point of if
\[kkt\] $$\begin{aligned}
&0\in\partial F( x^*)- A^\top\vlam^*,\label{kkt1}\\
&\nabla h( y^*)- B^\top\vlam^*=0,\label{kkt2}\\
& A x^*+ B y^*- b=0\label{kkt3}.\end{aligned}$$
Besides Assumptions \[assump:str-cvx-F\] and \[assump:lip-F\], we make two additional assumptions as follows.
\[assump:saddle-pt-lin\] There exists $z^*=(x^*,y^*,\lambda^*)$ satisfying the KKT conditions in .
\[assump:str-cvx-h\] The function $h$ is strongly convex with modulus $\nu$, and its gradient $\nabla h$ is Lipschitz continuous with constant $L_h$.
The strong convexity of $F$ and $h$ implies
\[scvx-Fh\] $$\begin{aligned}
F(x^{k+1})-F(x^*)-\langle\tilde{\nabla}F(x^*),x^{k+1}-x^*\rangle &\ge &\, \frac{\mu}{2}\|\vx^{k+1}-\vx^*\|^2,\label{scvx-F}\\
\langle \vy^{k+1}-\vy^*, \nabla h(\vy^{k+1})-\nabla h(\vy^*)\rangle &\ge &\, \nu\|\vy^{k+1}-\vy^*\|^2.\label{scvx-h}\end{aligned}$$
Convergence analysis
--------------------
Similar to Lemma \[lem:1iter\], we first establish a result of running one iteration of Algorithm \[alg:rpdc-lin\]. It can be proven by similar arguments to those showing Lemma \[lem:1iter\].
\[lem:linear-1step\] Under Assumptions \[assump:str-cvx-F\], \[assump:lip-F\], and \[assump:str-cvx-h\], let $\{( x^k, y^k,\vlam^k)\}$ be the sequence generated from Algorithm \[alg:rpdc-lin\]. Then for any $k$ and $(x,y,\lambda)$ such that $Ax+By=b$, it holds $$\begin{aligned}
& & \EE\varphi(z^{k+1},z)+( \beta -\rho)\EE \|r^{k+1}\|^2+\frac{1}{\rho}\EE\Delta(\lambda^{k+1},\lambda^k,\lambda)\nonumber\\
& &+\EE\left[\Delta_P(x^{k+1},x^k,x)-\frac{L_m}{2}\|x^{k+1}-x^k\|^2\right]+\EE\Delta_Q(y^{k+1},y^k,y)\nonumber\\
&\le &
(1-\theta)\EE\varphi(z^k,z)+\beta(1 -\theta)\EE \|r^k\|^2+\frac{1-\theta}{\rho}\EE\Delta(\lambda^k,\lambda^{k-1},\lambda) \nonumber \\
& & + \beta \EE\langle A(x^{k+1}- x), B( y^{k+1}- y^k)\rangle+\beta(1 -\theta)\EE\langle B(y^k- y),A(x^{k+1}-x^k)\rangle. \label{lin-ineq1-1Y}\end{aligned}$$ where $P=\eta_x I-\beta A^\top A$, $Q=\eta_y I-\beta B^\top B,$ and $$\label{eq:def-varphi}
\varphi(z^k,z)=F(x^k)-F(x)+\frac{\mu}{2}\|x^k-x\|^2+\big\langle y^k- y,{\nabla} h(y^k)\big\rangle-\big\langle \lambda, Ax^k+By^k-b\big\rangle.$$
In the following, we let $$\label{eq:def-Psi}
\Psi(z^k,z^*)=F(x^k)-F(x^*)-\langle\tilde{\nabla}F(x^*),x^k-x^*\rangle+\big\langle y^k- y^*,\nabla h(y^k)-\nabla h(y^*)\big\rangle,$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
& & \psi(z^k,z^*;P,Q,\beta,\rho,c,\tau) \nonumber \\
&=& (1-\theta)\EE\Psi(z^k,z^*)+\frac{\beta(1 -\theta)}{2}\EE \|r^k\|^2+\frac{1}{2}\EE\|x^{k}- x^*\|^2_{P+\mu(1-\theta)I}+\frac{1}{2}\EE\|y^{k}- y^*\|^2_{Q+\frac{\beta(1 -\theta)}{\tau}B^\top B}\nonumber\\
& &
+\frac{1}{2\rho}\EE\left[\|\lambda^{k}-\lambda^*\|^2-(1-\theta)\|\lambda^{k-1}-\lambda^*\|^2+\frac{1}{\theta}\|\lambda^{k}-\lambda^{k-1}\|^2\right]. \label{eq:def-psi}\end{aligned}$$
The following theorem is key to establishing linear convergence of Algorithm \[alg:rpdc-lin\].
\[thm-pre\] Under Assumptions \[assump:str-cvx-F\] through \[assump:str-cvx-h\], let $\{( x^k, y^k,\vlam^k)\}$ be the sequence generated from Algorithm \[alg:rpdc-lin\] with $\rho=\theta\beta$. Let $0<\alpha<\theta$ and $\gamma=\max\left\{\frac{8\|A\|_2^2}{\alpha\mu},\frac{8\|B\|_2^2}{\alpha\nu}\right\}$. Choose $\delta,\kappa\ge0$ such that $$\label{eq:cond-kappa-del}
2\left[\begin{array}{cc}1-(1-\theta)(1+\delta) & (1-\theta)(1+\delta)\\(1-\theta)(1+\delta)& \kappa-(1-\theta)(1+\delta)\end{array}\right]\succeq \left[\begin{array}{cc}\theta & 1-\theta\\ 1-\theta & \frac{1}{\theta}-(1-\theta)\end{array}\right],$$ and positive numbers $\eta_x,\eta_y,c,\tau_1,\tau_2,\beta$ such that
\[eq:paras-lin\] $$\begin{aligned}
P &\succeq& \beta(1-\theta)\tau_2 A^\top A+L_m I\label{eq:choice-P-mat}\\
Q &\succeq& 8c Q^\top Q + 4c\rho^2(1-\theta)(1+\frac{1}{\delta})B^\top B B^\top B+\beta\tau_1 B^\top B.\label{eq:choice-Q-mat}$$
Then it holds that $$\begin{aligned}
& &(1-\alpha)\EE\Psi(z^{k+1},z^*)+\frac{1}{2}\EE \|x^{k+1}- x^*\|^2_{P+(\frac{\alpha\mu}{2}+\mu)I-\frac{\beta}{\tau_1}A^\top A}+\frac{1}{2}\EE\|y^{k+1}- y^*\|^2_{Q+(\frac{3\alpha\nu}{2}-8cL_h^2)I}\nonumber\\
& &+\big(\frac{\beta-\rho}{2}+\frac{1}{\gamma}\big)\EE \|r^{k+1}\|^2-\left(c\rho^2\big(\kappa+2(1-\theta)(1+\frac{1}{\delta})\big)+2c(\beta-\rho)^2\right) \EE \|B^\top r^{k+1}\|^2\nonumber \\
& & +\left(\frac{1}{2\rho}+\frac{c}{2}\sigma_{\min}(BB^\top)\right)\EE\left[\|\lambda^{k+1}-\lambda^*\|^2
-(1-\theta)\|\lambda^{k}-\lambda^*\|^2+\frac{1}{\theta}\|\lambda^{k+1}-\lambda^k\|^2\right]\nonumber \\
& \le & \psi(z^k,z^*;P,Q,\beta,\rho,c,\tau_2). \label{lin-ineq5-1Y}\end{aligned}$$
Using Theorem \[thm-pre\], a linear convergence rate of Algorithm \[alg:rpdc-lin\] follows.
\[thm-linear\] Under Assumptions \[assump:str-cvx-F\] through \[assump:str-cvx-h\], let $\{( x^k, y^k,\vlam^k)\}$ be the sequence generated from Algorithm \[alg:rpdc-lin\] with $\rho=\theta\beta$. Let $0<\alpha<\theta$ and $\gamma=\max\left\{\frac{8\|A\|_2^2}{\alpha\mu},\frac{8\|B\|_2^2}{\alpha\nu}\right\}$. Assume that $B$ is full row-rank and $\max\{\|A\|_2,\|B\|_2\}\le 1$. Choose $\delta,\kappa,\eta_x,\eta_y,c,\beta,\tau_1,\tau_2$ satisfying and , and in addition,
\[eq:paras-lin2\] $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\alpha}{2}\mu +\theta\mu &>& \frac{\beta}{\tau_1}\label{eq:paras-lin2-tau1}\\
\frac{3\alpha\nu}{4} &>& 4cL_h^2+\frac{\beta(1-\theta)}{2\tau_2}\label{eq:paras-lin2-c1}\\
\frac{1}{\gamma} &>& c\rho^2\left(\kappa+2(1-\theta)(1+\frac{1}{\delta})\right)+2c(\beta-\rho)^2.\label{eq:paras-lin2-c2}\end{aligned}$$
Then $$\label{eq:lin-cvg-ineq}
\psi(z^{k+1},z^*;P,Q,\beta,\rho,c,\tau_2)\le \frac{1}{\eta} \psi(z^k,z^*;P,Q,\beta,\rho,c,\tau_2),$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\eta &=&\min\left\{\frac{1-\alpha}{1-\theta},\, 1+\frac{\frac{\alpha}{2}\mu+\theta\mu-\frac{\beta}{\tau_1}}{\eta_x+\mu(1-\theta)},1+\frac{\frac{3\alpha\nu}{4}-4cL_h^2-\frac{\beta(1-\theta)}{2\tau_2}}{\frac{\eta_y}{2}+\frac{\beta(1-\theta)}{2\tau_2}},\,\right.\\
& & \hspace{1cm}
\left.1+\frac{\frac{2}{\gamma}-2c\rho^2\left(\kappa+2(1-\theta)(1+\frac{1}{\delta})\right)-4c(\beta-\rho)^2}{\beta(1-\theta)},\,1+c\rho\sigma_{\min}(BB^\top)\right\}>1.\end{aligned}$$
We finish this section by making a few remarks.
We can always rescale $A,B$ and $b$ without essentially altering the linear constraints. Hence, the assumption $\max\{\|A\|_2,\|B\|_2\}\le 1$ can be made without losing generality. From , it is easy to see that [when $P\succ 0$ and $Q\succ0$]{}, $(x^k,y^k)$ converges to $(x^*,y^*)$ R-linearly in expectation. In addition, note that $$\begin{aligned}
& & \|\lambda^{k+1}-\lambda^*\|^2-(1-\theta)\|\lambda^k-\lambda^*\|^2+\frac{1}{\theta}\|\lambda^{k+1}-\lambda^k\|^2\\
&=& \theta\|\lambda^{k+1}-\lambda^*\|^2+2(1-\theta)\langle\lambda^{k+1}-\lambda^*,\lambda^{k+1}-\lambda^k\rangle + (\frac{1}{\theta}-1+\theta)\|\lambda^{k+1}-\lambda^k\|^2\\
&\ge& \left(\theta-\frac{(1-\theta)^2}{\frac{1}{\theta}-1+\theta}\right)\|\lambda^{k+1}-\lambda^*\|^2 \\
&=& \frac{\theta}{\frac{1}{\theta}-1+\theta}\|\lambda^{k+1}-\lambda^*\|^2.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, also implies an R-linear convergence of $\lambda^k$ to $\lambda^*$ in expectation.
We give examples of parameters that satisfy the conditions required in Theorem \[thm-linear\]. First consider the case of $\theta=1$, i.e., all blocks are updated at each iteration. In this case, we can choose $\delta=0,\kappa=\frac{1}{2}$ to satisfy and $\eta_x=\beta\|A\|_2^2+L_f$ to satisfy and let $\alpha=\frac{1}{2}$ and $\tau_1=\frac{\beta}{\mu}$ to ensure that holds. Finally, choose $\eta_y>\big(\beta+\frac{\beta^2}{\mu}\big)\|B\|_2^2$ and $c$ sufficiently small, and all other conditions in Theorem \[thm-linear\] are satisfied. Next consider the case of $\theta<1$. We can choose $\delta=\frac{\theta}{4(1-\theta)}$ and $\kappa=\frac{3}{\theta}+\frac{3\theta}{4}-2$ to satisfy , and let $\alpha=\frac{\theta}{2}$, $\tau_1=\frac{\beta}{\theta\mu}$, $\tau_2=\frac{2\beta(1-\theta)}{\nu}$, $\eta_x=\beta(1+(1-\theta)\tau_2)\|A\|_2^2+L_m$, and $\eta_y>\beta(1+\tau_1)\|B\|_2^2$. With such choices, all other conditions required in Theorem \[thm-linear\] hold when $c$ is sufficiently small.
If there is only one $x$-block and there is no $f$ function, then Algorithm \[alg:rpdc-lin\] reduces to the so-called linearized ADMM. To show the linear convergence of the linearized ADMM, one scenario in [@deng2012global Theorem 3.1] assumes[^5] the strong convexity of $g$ and $h$, the smoothness of $h$, and the full row-rankness of $B$. In Theorem \[thm-linear\], we make the same assumptions, and so our result can be considered as a generalization.
Numerical experiments {#sec:numerical}
=====================
The aim of this section is to test the practical performance of the proposed algorithms. We test Algorithm \[alg:arpdc\] on quadratic programming $$\label{eq:qp}
\min_x F(x)=\frac{1}{2} x^\top Q x + c^\top x, \st Ax=b,\, x\ge0,$$ [and Algorithm \[alg:rpdc-lin\] on the log-barrier approximation of linear programming $$\label{eq:log-b-lp}
\min_{x,y} c^\top x - e^\top \log x - e^\top \log y, \st Ax+y = b,\, x_i\le u_i, \forall i.$$ ]{}
**Quadratic programming.** Two types of randomized implementations are considered: one with fixed parameters and the newly introduced one with adaptive parameters, which shall be called nonadaptive RPDC and adaptive RPDC respectively. Note that the former reduces to the method proposed in [@GXZ-RPDCU2016] when applied to . The purpose of the experiment is to test the effect of acceleration for the latter approach. The data was generated randomly as follows. We let $Q=HDH^\top\in\RR^{n\times n}$, where $H$ is Gaussian randomly generated orthogonal matrix and $D$ is a diagonal matrix with $d_{ii}=1+(i-1)\frac{L-1}{n-1},\,i=1,\ldots,n$. Hence, the smallest and largest singular values of $Q$ are 1 and L respectively, and the objective of is strongly convex with modulus $1$. The components of $c$ follow standard Gaussian distribution, and those of $b$ follow uniform distribution on $[0,1]$. We let $A=[B, I]\in\RR^{p\times n}$ to guarantee the existence of feasible solutions, where $B$ was generated according to standard Gaussian distribution. In addition, we normalized $A$ so that it has a unit spectral norm.
[In the test, we fixed $n=2000, p=200$ and varied $L$ among $\{10, 100, 1000\}$.]{} For both nonadaptive and adaptive RPDC, we evenly partitioned $x$ into $40$ blocks, i.e., each block consists of 50 coordinates, and we set $m=40$, i.e., all blocks are updated at each iteration. For the adaptive RPDC, we set the values of its parameters according to with $\rho=1$, and those for the nonadaptive RPDC were set based on Theorem \[thm:naccl\] with $\rho=\beta,\, \eta=100+\beta,\,\forall k$ where $\beta$ varied among $\{1,10,100,1000\}$. Figures \[fig:qp-p200-c10\] through \[fig:qp-p200-c1000\] plot the objective values and feasibility violations by Algorithm \[alg:arpdc\] under these two different settings. From these results, we see that adaptive RPDC performed well for all three datasets with a single set of parameters while the performance of the nonadaptive one was severely affected by the penalty parameter.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\beta=1$ $\beta=10$ $\beta=100$ $\beta=1000$
![Results by Algorithm \[alg:arpdc\] with adaptive parameters and nonadaptive parameters for solving with problem size $n=2000, p=200$ and condition number 10. The latter uses different penalty parameter $\beta$. Top row: difference of objective value to the optimal value $|F(x^k)-F(x^*)|$; bottom row: violation of feasibility $\|Ax^k-b\|$.[]{data-label="fig:qp-p200-c10"}](pics/qp-G-obj-n2000-m200-rhox1-cond10.eps "fig:"){width="20.00000%"} ![Results by Algorithm \[alg:arpdc\] with adaptive parameters and nonadaptive parameters for solving with problem size $n=2000, p=200$ and condition number 10. The latter uses different penalty parameter $\beta$. Top row: difference of objective value to the optimal value $|F(x^k)-F(x^*)|$; bottom row: violation of feasibility $\|Ax^k-b\|$.[]{data-label="fig:qp-p200-c10"}](pics/qp-G-obj-n2000-m200-rhox10-cond10.eps "fig:"){width="20.00000%"} ![Results by Algorithm \[alg:arpdc\] with adaptive parameters and nonadaptive parameters for solving with problem size $n=2000, p=200$ and condition number 10. The latter uses different penalty parameter $\beta$. Top row: difference of objective value to the optimal value $|F(x^k)-F(x^*)|$; bottom row: violation of feasibility $\|Ax^k-b\|$.[]{data-label="fig:qp-p200-c10"}](pics/qp-G-obj-n2000-m200-rhox100-cond10.eps "fig:"){width="20.00000%"} ![Results by Algorithm \[alg:arpdc\] with adaptive parameters and nonadaptive parameters for solving with problem size $n=2000, p=200$ and condition number 10. The latter uses different penalty parameter $\beta$. Top row: difference of objective value to the optimal value $|F(x^k)-F(x^*)|$; bottom row: violation of feasibility $\|Ax^k-b\|$.[]{data-label="fig:qp-p200-c10"}](pics/qp-G-obj-n2000-m200-rhox1000-cond10.eps "fig:"){width="20.00000%"}
![Results by Algorithm \[alg:arpdc\] with adaptive parameters and nonadaptive parameters for solving with problem size $n=2000, p=200$ and condition number 10. The latter uses different penalty parameter $\beta$. Top row: difference of objective value to the optimal value $|F(x^k)-F(x^*)|$; bottom row: violation of feasibility $\|Ax^k-b\|$.[]{data-label="fig:qp-p200-c10"}](pics/qp-G-fea-n2000-m200-rhox1-cond10.eps "fig:"){width="20.00000%"} ![Results by Algorithm \[alg:arpdc\] with adaptive parameters and nonadaptive parameters for solving with problem size $n=2000, p=200$ and condition number 10. The latter uses different penalty parameter $\beta$. Top row: difference of objective value to the optimal value $|F(x^k)-F(x^*)|$; bottom row: violation of feasibility $\|Ax^k-b\|$.[]{data-label="fig:qp-p200-c10"}](pics/qp-G-fea-n2000-m200-rhox10-cond10.eps "fig:"){width="20.00000%"} ![Results by Algorithm \[alg:arpdc\] with adaptive parameters and nonadaptive parameters for solving with problem size $n=2000, p=200$ and condition number 10. The latter uses different penalty parameter $\beta$. Top row: difference of objective value to the optimal value $|F(x^k)-F(x^*)|$; bottom row: violation of feasibility $\|Ax^k-b\|$.[]{data-label="fig:qp-p200-c10"}](pics/qp-G-fea-n2000-m200-rhox100-cond10.eps "fig:"){width="20.00000%"} ![Results by Algorithm \[alg:arpdc\] with adaptive parameters and nonadaptive parameters for solving with problem size $n=2000, p=200$ and condition number 10. The latter uses different penalty parameter $\beta$. Top row: difference of objective value to the optimal value $|F(x^k)-F(x^*)|$; bottom row: violation of feasibility $\|Ax^k-b\|$.[]{data-label="fig:qp-p200-c10"}](pics/qp-G-fea-n2000-m200-rhox1000-cond10.eps "fig:"){width="20.00000%"}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\beta=1$ $\beta=10$ $\beta=100$ $\beta=1000$
![Results by Algorithm \[alg:arpdc\] with adaptive parameters and nonadaptive parameters for solving with problem size $n=2000, p=200$ and condition number 100. The latter uses different penalty parameter $\beta$. Top row: difference of objective value to the optimal value $|F(x^k)-F(x^*)|$; bottom row: violation of feasibility $\|Ax^k-b\|$.[]{data-label="fig:qp-p200-c100"}](pics/qp-G-obj-n2000-m200-rhox1-cond100.eps "fig:"){width="20.00000%"} ![Results by Algorithm \[alg:arpdc\] with adaptive parameters and nonadaptive parameters for solving with problem size $n=2000, p=200$ and condition number 100. The latter uses different penalty parameter $\beta$. Top row: difference of objective value to the optimal value $|F(x^k)-F(x^*)|$; bottom row: violation of feasibility $\|Ax^k-b\|$.[]{data-label="fig:qp-p200-c100"}](pics/qp-G-obj-n2000-m200-rhox10-cond100.eps "fig:"){width="20.00000%"} ![Results by Algorithm \[alg:arpdc\] with adaptive parameters and nonadaptive parameters for solving with problem size $n=2000, p=200$ and condition number 100. The latter uses different penalty parameter $\beta$. Top row: difference of objective value to the optimal value $|F(x^k)-F(x^*)|$; bottom row: violation of feasibility $\|Ax^k-b\|$.[]{data-label="fig:qp-p200-c100"}](pics/qp-G-obj-n2000-m200-rhox100-cond100.eps "fig:"){width="20.00000%"} ![Results by Algorithm \[alg:arpdc\] with adaptive parameters and nonadaptive parameters for solving with problem size $n=2000, p=200$ and condition number 100. The latter uses different penalty parameter $\beta$. Top row: difference of objective value to the optimal value $|F(x^k)-F(x^*)|$; bottom row: violation of feasibility $\|Ax^k-b\|$.[]{data-label="fig:qp-p200-c100"}](pics/qp-G-obj-n2000-m200-rhox1000-cond100.eps "fig:"){width="20.00000%"}
![Results by Algorithm \[alg:arpdc\] with adaptive parameters and nonadaptive parameters for solving with problem size $n=2000, p=200$ and condition number 100. The latter uses different penalty parameter $\beta$. Top row: difference of objective value to the optimal value $|F(x^k)-F(x^*)|$; bottom row: violation of feasibility $\|Ax^k-b\|$.[]{data-label="fig:qp-p200-c100"}](pics/qp-G-fea-n2000-m200-rhox1-cond100.eps "fig:"){width="20.00000%"} ![Results by Algorithm \[alg:arpdc\] with adaptive parameters and nonadaptive parameters for solving with problem size $n=2000, p=200$ and condition number 100. The latter uses different penalty parameter $\beta$. Top row: difference of objective value to the optimal value $|F(x^k)-F(x^*)|$; bottom row: violation of feasibility $\|Ax^k-b\|$.[]{data-label="fig:qp-p200-c100"}](pics/qp-G-fea-n2000-m200-rhox10-cond100.eps "fig:"){width="20.00000%"} ![Results by Algorithm \[alg:arpdc\] with adaptive parameters and nonadaptive parameters for solving with problem size $n=2000, p=200$ and condition number 100. The latter uses different penalty parameter $\beta$. Top row: difference of objective value to the optimal value $|F(x^k)-F(x^*)|$; bottom row: violation of feasibility $\|Ax^k-b\|$.[]{data-label="fig:qp-p200-c100"}](pics/qp-G-fea-n2000-m200-rhox100-cond100.eps "fig:"){width="20.00000%"} ![Results by Algorithm \[alg:arpdc\] with adaptive parameters and nonadaptive parameters for solving with problem size $n=2000, p=200$ and condition number 100. The latter uses different penalty parameter $\beta$. Top row: difference of objective value to the optimal value $|F(x^k)-F(x^*)|$; bottom row: violation of feasibility $\|Ax^k-b\|$.[]{data-label="fig:qp-p200-c100"}](pics/qp-G-fea-n2000-m200-rhox1000-cond100.eps "fig:"){width="20.00000%"}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\beta=1$ $\beta=10$ $\beta=100$ $\beta=1000$
![Results by Algorithm \[alg:arpdc\] with adaptive parameters and nonadaptive parameters for solving with problem size $n=2000, p=200$ and condition number 1000. The latter uses different penalty parameter $\beta$. Top row: difference of objective value to the optimal value $|F(x^k)-F(x^*)|$; bottom row: violation of feasibility $\|Ax^k-b\|$.[]{data-label="fig:qp-p200-c1000"}](pics/qp-G-obj-n2000-m200-rhox1-cond1000.eps "fig:"){width="20.00000%"} ![Results by Algorithm \[alg:arpdc\] with adaptive parameters and nonadaptive parameters for solving with problem size $n=2000, p=200$ and condition number 1000. The latter uses different penalty parameter $\beta$. Top row: difference of objective value to the optimal value $|F(x^k)-F(x^*)|$; bottom row: violation of feasibility $\|Ax^k-b\|$.[]{data-label="fig:qp-p200-c1000"}](pics/qp-G-obj-n2000-m200-rhox10-cond1000.eps "fig:"){width="20.00000%"} ![Results by Algorithm \[alg:arpdc\] with adaptive parameters and nonadaptive parameters for solving with problem size $n=2000, p=200$ and condition number 1000. The latter uses different penalty parameter $\beta$. Top row: difference of objective value to the optimal value $|F(x^k)-F(x^*)|$; bottom row: violation of feasibility $\|Ax^k-b\|$.[]{data-label="fig:qp-p200-c1000"}](pics/qp-G-obj-n2000-m200-rhox100-cond1000.eps "fig:"){width="20.00000%"} ![Results by Algorithm \[alg:arpdc\] with adaptive parameters and nonadaptive parameters for solving with problem size $n=2000, p=200$ and condition number 1000. The latter uses different penalty parameter $\beta$. Top row: difference of objective value to the optimal value $|F(x^k)-F(x^*)|$; bottom row: violation of feasibility $\|Ax^k-b\|$.[]{data-label="fig:qp-p200-c1000"}](pics/qp-G-obj-n2000-m200-rhox1000-cond1000.eps "fig:"){width="20.00000%"}
![Results by Algorithm \[alg:arpdc\] with adaptive parameters and nonadaptive parameters for solving with problem size $n=2000, p=200$ and condition number 1000. The latter uses different penalty parameter $\beta$. Top row: difference of objective value to the optimal value $|F(x^k)-F(x^*)|$; bottom row: violation of feasibility $\|Ax^k-b\|$.[]{data-label="fig:qp-p200-c1000"}](pics/qp-G-fea-n2000-m200-rhox1-cond1000.eps "fig:"){width="20.00000%"} ![Results by Algorithm \[alg:arpdc\] with adaptive parameters and nonadaptive parameters for solving with problem size $n=2000, p=200$ and condition number 1000. The latter uses different penalty parameter $\beta$. Top row: difference of objective value to the optimal value $|F(x^k)-F(x^*)|$; bottom row: violation of feasibility $\|Ax^k-b\|$.[]{data-label="fig:qp-p200-c1000"}](pics/qp-G-fea-n2000-m200-rhox10-cond1000.eps "fig:"){width="20.00000%"} ![Results by Algorithm \[alg:arpdc\] with adaptive parameters and nonadaptive parameters for solving with problem size $n=2000, p=200$ and condition number 1000. The latter uses different penalty parameter $\beta$. Top row: difference of objective value to the optimal value $|F(x^k)-F(x^*)|$; bottom row: violation of feasibility $\|Ax^k-b\|$.[]{data-label="fig:qp-p200-c1000"}](pics/qp-G-fea-n2000-m200-rhox100-cond1000.eps "fig:"){width="20.00000%"} ![Results by Algorithm \[alg:arpdc\] with adaptive parameters and nonadaptive parameters for solving with problem size $n=2000, p=200$ and condition number 1000. The latter uses different penalty parameter $\beta$. Top row: difference of objective value to the optimal value $|F(x^k)-F(x^*)|$; bottom row: violation of feasibility $\|Ax^k-b\|$.[]{data-label="fig:qp-p200-c1000"}](pics/qp-G-fea-n2000-m200-rhox1000-cond1000.eps "fig:"){width="20.00000%"}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**Linear programming.** In this test, we apply Algorithm \[alg:rpdc-lin\] to the problem , where we let $f(x)=c^\top x, g(x)=-e^\top \log x$ and $h(y)= -e^\top \log y$. The purpose of this experiment is to demonstrate the linear convergence of Algorithm \[alg:rpdc-lin\].
We generated $A\in\RR^{200\times 2000}$ and $c$ according to the standard Gaussian distribution and $b$ by the uniform distribution on $[\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2}]$. The upper bound was set to $u_i=10,\forall i$. We treated $x$ as a single block and set the algorithm parameters to $\beta=0.1$, $\eta_x=\beta\|A\|_2^2$, and $\eta_y=\beta\big(1+\frac{2.001\beta}{3\mu}\big)$. This setting satisfies the conditions required in Theorem \[thm-linear\] if $\alpha$ is sufficiently close to 1. Note that $g$ and $h$ do not have uniform strong convexity constants but they are both strongly convex on a bounded set. Figure \[fig:lp\] shows the convergence behavior of Algorithm \[alg:rpdc-lin\]. From the figure, we can clearly see that the algorithm linearly converges to an optimal solution.
![Results by Algorithm \[alg:rpdc-lin\] on the problem with $A\in \RR^{200\times 2000}$. Left: difference of objective value to the optimal value $|F(x^k)+h(y^k)-F(x^*)-h(y^*)|$; Right: violation of feasibility $\|Ax^k+By^k-b\|$[]{data-label="fig:lp"}](pics/obj_lp_ip_n2000-m200.eps "fig:"){width="32.00000%"} ![Results by Algorithm \[alg:rpdc-lin\] on the problem with $A\in \RR^{200\times 2000}$. Left: difference of objective value to the optimal value $|F(x^k)+h(y^k)-F(x^*)-h(y^*)|$; Right: violation of feasibility $\|Ax^k+By^k-b\|$[]{data-label="fig:lp"}](pics/res_lp_ip_n2000-m200.eps "fig:"){width="32.00000%"}
Conclusions {#sec:conclusion}
===========
In this paper we propose an accelerated proximal Jacobian ADMM method and generalize it to an accelerated randomized primal-dual coordinate updating method for solving linearly constrained multi-block structured convex programs. We show that if the objective is strongly convex then the methods achieve $O(1/t^2)$ convergence rate where $t$ is the total number of iterations. In addition, if one block variable is independent of others in the objective and its part of the objective function is smooth, we have modified the primal-dual coordinate updating method to achieve linear convergence. Numerical experiments on quadratic programming and log-barrier approximation of linear programming have shown the efficacy of the newly proposed methods.
Technical proofs: Section \[sec:ajadmm\]
========================================
In this section, we give the detailed proofs of the lemmas and theorems in section \[sec:ajadmm\]. The following lemma will be used a few times. Note that when $S=[M]$, the result is deterministic.
\[lem:S-basic-ineq\] Let $S$ be a uniformly selected subset of $[M]$ with cardinality $m$ and $x^o$ be a vector independent of $S$. Suppose $x^+$ is a random vector dependent on $S$ and its coordinates out of $S$ are the same as $x^o$. Let $\beta\in\RR$, $\lambda^o$ and $r^o$ be vectors independent of $S$, and $W$ a positive semidefinite $M\times M$ block diagonal matrix. If $$\nabla_{S} f(x^o)+\tilde{\nabla}g_S(x_S^+)-A_S^\top(\lambda^o- \beta r^o)+W_S(x_S^+-x_S^o)=0,$$ then for any $x$, it holds that $$\begin{aligned}\label{eq:S-basic-ineq}
&~ \EE_S\left[F(x^+)-F(x)+\frac{\mu}{2}\|x^+-x\|^2-\left\langle A(x^+-x), \lambda^o-\beta r^o\right\rangle\right] \\
\le &~ (1- \theta)\left[F(x^o)-F(x)+\frac{\mu}{2}\|x^o-x\|^2-\big\langle A(x^o-x), \lambda^o-\beta r^o\big\rangle\right]\\
&~-\frac{1}{2}\EE_S\left[\|x^+-x\|_W^2-\|x^o-x\|_W^2+\|x^+-x^o\|_{W-L_m I}^2\right],
\end{aligned}$$ where $\theta=\frac{m}{M}$, $L_m$ is given in Assumption \[assump:lip-F\], and the expectation is taken on $S$.
For any $x$, we have $$\left\langle x_S^+-x_S, \nabla_{S} f(x^o)+\tilde{\nabla}g_S(x_S^+)-A_S^\top(\lambda^o- \beta r^o)+W_S(x_S^+-x_S^o)\right\rangle=0.$$ We split the left hand side of the above equation into four terms and bound each of them as below. First, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:S-f-term}
&~\EE_S\left\langle x^+_S-x_S, \nabla_{S} f(x^o)\right\rangle\cr
=&~\EE_S\left\langle x^+-x^o, \nabla f(x^o)\right\rangle + \EE_S\left\langle x^o_S-x_S, \nabla_S f(x^o)\right\rangle\cr
\ge & ~\EE_S \left[f(x^+)-f(x^o)-\frac{L_m}{2}\|x^+-x^o\|^2\right] + \theta[f(x^o)-f(x)]\cr
=&~ \EE_S\left[f(x^+)-f(x)-\frac{L_m}{2}\|x^+-x^o\|^2\right] - (1- \theta)[f(x^o)-f(x)],\end{aligned}$$ where the first equality uses the fact $x_i^+=x_i^o,\,\forall i\not\in S$, and the inequality follows from the uniform distribution of $S$, the convexity of $f$, and also the inequality .
Secondly, it follows from the strong convexity of $g$ that $$\label{eq:S-g-term-1}
\left\langle x^+_S-x_S, \tilde{\nabla} g_S(x_S^+)\right\rangle\ge g_S(x_S^+) - g_S(x_S) + \sum_{i\in S}\frac{\mu}{2}\|x_i^+-x_i\|^2.$$ Since $g_S(x_S^+) - g_S(x_S)=g(x^+) - g(x^o) + g_S(x_S^o)- g_S(x_S)$ and $\EE_S[g_S(x_S^o)- g_S(x_S)]=\theta [g(x^o)-g(x)]$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:S-g-term-2}
\EE_S[g_S(x_S^+) - g_S(x_S)]=&~\EE_S[g(x^+) - g(x^o)]+\theta [g(x^o)-g(x)] \cr
=&~\EE_S[g(x^+)-g(x)]-(1-\theta) [g(x^o)-g(x)].\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, it holds $\EE_S\sum_{i\in S}\frac{\mu}{2}\|x_i^+-x_i\|^2=\frac{\mu}{2}\left(\EE_S\|x^+-x\|^2-(1-\theta)\|x^o-x\|^2\right).$ Hence, taking expectation on both sides of yields $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:S-g-term}
&~\EE_S\left\langle x^+_S-x_S, \tilde{\nabla} g_S(x_S^+)\right\rangle\cr
\ge &~\EE_S \left[ g(x^+) - g(x)+\frac{\mu}{2}\|x^+-x\|^2\right]-(1-\theta)\left[ g(x^o) - g(x)+\frac{\mu}{2}\|x^o-x\|^2\right]. \end{aligned}$$
Thirdly, by essentially the same arguments on showing , we have $$\label{eq:S-lam-term}
\EE_S \left\langle x^+_S-x_S, -A_S^\top (\lambda^o-\beta r^o)\right\rangle = -\EE_S \left\langle A(x^+-x), \lambda^o-\beta r^o\right\rangle + (1-\theta) \big\langle A(x^o-x), \lambda^o-\beta r^o\big\rangle.$$ Fourth, note $\left\langle x^+_S-x_S, W_S(x_S^+-x_S^o)\right\rangle=\left\langle x^+-x, W(x^+-x^o)\right\rangle$, and thus by , $$\label{eq:S-P-term}
\EE_S\left\langle x^+_S-x_S, W_S(x_S^+-x_S^o)\right\rangle=\frac{1}{2}\EE_S\left[\|x^+-x\|_W^2-\|x^o-x\|_W^2+\|x^+-x^o\|_W^2\right].$$ The desired result is obtained by adding , , , and , and recalling $F=f+g$.
Proof of Lemma \[lem:1iter-ajadmm\]
-----------------------------------
From , we have the optimality condition $$\nabla f(x^k)-A^\top(\lambda^k-\beta_kr^k)+\tilde{\nabla} g(x^{k+1})+P^k(x^{k+1}-x^k)=0.$$ Hence, for any $x$ such that $Ax=b$, it follows from the definition of $\Phi$ in and Lemma \[lem:S-basic-ineq\] with $S=[M]$, $x^o=x^k$, $\lambda^o=\lambda^k$, $\beta=\beta_k$, $x^+=x^{k+1}$, and $W=P^k$ that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:opt-ineq2}
\Phi(x^{k+1},x,\lambda)
\le &~ \left\langle Ax^{k+1}-b,\lambda^k-\beta_kr^k\right\rangle - \left\langle Ax^{k+1}-b, \lambda\right\rangle\cr
&~-\frac{1}{2}\EE_S\left[\|x^{k+1}-x\|_{P^k+\mu I}^2-\|x^k-x\|_{P^k}^2+\|x^{k+1}-x^k\|_{P^k-L_f I}^2\right].\end{aligned}$$ Using the fact $\lambda^{k+1}=\lambda^k-\rho_k(Ax^{k+1}-b)$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:opt-ineq2-1}
\left\langle Ax^{k+1}-b,\lambda^k-\lambda\right\rangle=&~\frac{1}{\rho_k}\left\langle\lambda^k-\lambda^{k+1},\lambda^k-\lambda\right\rangle\cr
\overset{\eqref{uv-cross}}=&~\frac{1}{2\rho_k}\left[\|\lambda-\lambda^k\|^2-\|\lambda-\lambda^{k+1}\|^2+\|\lambda^k-\lambda^{k+1}\|^2\right].\end{aligned}$$ In addition, we write $r^k=r^k-r^{k+1}+r^{k+1}=r^{k+1}-A(x^{k+1}-x^k)$ and have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:opt-ineq2-2}
&~\left\langle Ax^{k+1}-b,-\beta_k r^k\right\rangle\cr
=&~-\beta_k\|r^{k+1}\|^2+\beta_k\left\langle A(x^{k+1}-x), A(x^{k+1}-x^k)\right\rangle\cr
\overset{\eqref{uv-cross}}=&~-\beta_k\|r^{k+1}\|^2+\frac{\beta_k}{2}\left[\|A(x^{k+1}-x)\|^2-\|A(x^k-x)\|^2+\|A(x^{k+1}-x^k)\|^2\right]\end{aligned}$$ Substituting and into gives the inequality in .
Proof of Theorem \[thm:ajadmm-g\]
---------------------------------
First, we have $$\begin{aligned}
& & \sum_{k=1}^t\frac{k+k_0+1}{2\rho_k}\left[\|\lambda-\lambda^k\|^2-\|\lambda-\lambda^{k+1}\|^2\right]\nonumber \\
&=& \frac{k_0+2}{2\rho_1}\|\lambda-\lambda^1\|^2-\frac{t+k_0+1}{2\rho_t}\|\lambda-\lambda^{t+1}\|^2+\sum_{k=2}^t
\left(\frac{k+k_0+1}{2\rho_k}-\frac{k+k_0}{2\rho_{k-1}}\right)\|\lambda-\lambda^k\|^2 \nonumber \\
&\overset{\eqref{eq:ajadmm-para-2}}\le& \frac{k_0+2}{2\rho_1}\|\lambda-\lambda^1\|^2 . \label{eq:ajadmm-g-lam}\end{aligned}$$ In addition, $$\begin{aligned}
& &-\sum_{k=1}^t\frac{k+k_0+1}{2}\left(\|x^{k+1}-x\|_{P^k-\beta_k A^\top A+\mu I}^2-\|x^k-x\|_{P^k-\beta_k A^\top A}^2\right)\nonumber \\
&=& \frac{k_0+2}{2}\|x^1-x\|_{P^1-\beta_1 A^\top A}^2-\frac{t+k_0+1}{2}\|x^{t+1}-x\|_{P^t-\beta_t A^\top A+\mu I}^2\nonumber \\
& & +\frac{1}{2}\sum_{k=2}^t\left((k+k_0+1)\|x^k-x\|_{P^k-\beta_k A^\top A}^2-(k+k_0)\|x^k-x\|_{P^{k-1}-\beta_{k-1}A^\top A+\mu I}^2\right)\nonumber \\
&\overset{\eqref{eq:ajadmm-para-3}}\le & ~\frac{k_0+2}{2}\|x^1-x\|_{P^1-\beta_1 A^\top A}^2-\frac{t+k_0+1}{2}\|x^{t+1}-x\|_{P^t-\beta_t A^\top A+\mu I}^2. \label{eq:ajadmm-g-x}\end{aligned}$$ Now multiplying $k+k_0+1$ to both sides of and adding it over $k$, we obtain by using and , and noting $\|\lambda^k-\lambda^{k+1}\|^2=\rho_k^2\|r^{k+1}\|^2$ and $\|x^{k+1}-x^k\|_{P^k-\beta_k A^\top A - L_f I}^2 \ge 0$.
Proof of Theorem \[thm:ajadmm-spc\]
-----------------------------------
From the choice of $k_0$ and the condition $P-\beta A^\top A \preceq \frac{\mu}{2} I$, it is not difficult to verify $$(k+k_0+1)\left[kP-k\beta A^\top A+L_f I\right]\preceq (k+k_0)\left[(k-1)P-(k-1)\beta A^\top A+(L_f+\mu)I\right],\,\forall k\ge 1.$$ Hence, the condition in holds. In addition, it is easy to see that all conditions in and also hold. Therefore, we have , which, by taking parameters in and $x=x^*$, reduces to $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k=1}^t(k+k_0+1)\Phi(x^{k+1},x^*,\lambda) +\sum_{k=1}^t\frac{k(k+k_0+1)}{2}\beta\|r^{k+1}\|^2& &\nonumber \\
+\frac{t+k_0+1}{2}\|x^{t+1}-x^*\|^2_{t(P-\beta A^\top A)+(L_f+\mu) I}
&\le & \phi_1(x^*,\lambda), \label{eq:ajadmm-rate-spc-1}\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the fact $\lambda^1=0$.
Letting $\lambda=\lambda^*$, we have from and that (by dropping nonnegative $\Phi(x^{k+1},x^*,\lambda^*)$’s): $$\frac{t(t+k_0+1)}{2}\beta\|r^{t+1}\|^2+\frac{t+k_0+1}{2}\|x^{t+1}-x^*\|^2_{t(P-\beta A^\top A)+(L_f+\mu) I}
\le \phi_1(x^*,\lambda^*),$$ which indicates . In addition, from the convexity of $F$ and , we have that for any $\lambda$, it holds $\frac{t(t+2k_0+3)}{2}\Phi(\bar{x}^{t+1},x^*,\lambda)\le\phi_1(x^*,\lambda),$ which together with Lemmas \[lem:xy-rate\] and \[lem:equiv-rate\] implies .
Technical proofs: Section \[sec:arpdc\]
=======================================
In this section, we give the proofs of the lemmas and theorems in section \[sec:arpdc\].
Proof of Lemma \[lem:1iter\]
----------------------------
From the update in , we have the optimality condition: $$\label{eq:opt-cond}
\nabla_{S_k} f(x^k)-A_{S_k}^\top(\lambda^k-\beta_k r^k)+\tilde{\nabla} g_{S_k}(x_{S_k}^{k+1})+\eta_k (x_{S_k}^{k+1}-x_{S_k}^k) = 0.$$ It follows from the update rule of $\lambda$ that $$-\langle Ax^{k+1}-b, \lambda^k\rangle = - \langle Ax^{k+1}-b, \lambda^{k+1}\rangle - \rho_k\|r^{k+1}\|^2.$$ Plugging and the above equation into with $S=S_k, \lambda^o=\lambda^k, \beta=\beta_k, x^o=x^k$, $x^+=x^{k+1}$, $W=\eta_k I$, and $x$ satisfying $Ax=b$, we have the desired result by taking expectation and recalling the definition of $\Delta$ in and $\Phi$ in .
Proof of Theorem \[thm:naccl\]
------------------------------
Let $\beta_k=\beta, \rho_k=\rho$ and $\eta_k=\eta$ in , and also note $\mu=0$ and $\eta \ge L_m+\beta\|A\|^2$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
& ~\EE\left[\Phi(x^{k+1},x,\lambda^{k+1})+(\beta-\rho)\|r^{k+1}\|^2\right]\\
\le & ~(1-\theta)\EE\left[\Phi(x^k,x,\lambda^k)+\beta\| r^k\|^2\right] - \frac{1}{2}\EE\left[\|x^{k+1}-x\|^2_{\eta I-\beta A^\top A}-\|x^{k}-x\|^2_{\eta I-\beta A^\top A}\right]. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Summing the above inequality over $k=1$ through $t$ and noting $\rho\le \theta \beta$ give $$\begin{aligned}
& ~\EE\left[\Phi(x^{t+1},x,\lambda^{t+1})+(\beta-\rho)\|r^{t+1}\|^2\right] + \theta \sum_{k=1}^{t-1}\EE\Phi(x^{k+1},x,\lambda^{k+1})\label{eq:sum-bd1-prf} \\
\le & ~(1-\theta)\EE\left[\Phi(x^1,x,\lambda^1)+\beta\| r^1\|^2\right] + \frac{1}{2}\|x^1-x\|^2_{\eta I-\beta A^\top A}. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ By the update of $\lambda$, it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:sum-bd1-prf2}
\theta\sum_{k=1}^{t-1} \Phi(x^{k+1},x,\lambda^{k+1})=&~\theta\sum_{k=1}^{t-1} \left[\Phi(x^{k+1},x,\lambda)+\frac{1}{\rho} \langle\lambda^{k+1}-\lambda, \lambda^{k+1}-\lambda^k\rangle\right]\cr
=&~\theta\sum_{k=1}^{t-1} \Phi(x^{k+1},x,\lambda)+\frac{\theta}{2\rho}\sum_{k=1}^{t-1} \left[\|\lambda^{k+1}-\lambda\|^2-\|\lambda^{k}-\lambda\|^2+\|\lambda^{k+1}-\lambda^k\|^2\right]\cr
=&~\theta\sum_{k=1}^{t-1} \Phi(x^{k+1},x,\lambda)+\frac{\theta}{2\rho}\left[\|\lambda^{t}-\lambda\|^2-\lambda^1-\lambda\|^2+\sum_{k=1}^{t-1}\|\lambda^{k+1}-\lambda^k\|^2\right]\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:sum-bd1-prf3}
\Phi(x^{t+1},x,\lambda^{t+1}) = &~\Phi(x^{t+1},x,\lambda) - \langle \lambda^t - \lambda - \rho r^{t+1}, r^{t+1}\rangle\cr
=&~\Phi(x^{t+1},x,\lambda)- \langle \lambda^t - \lambda, r^{t+1}\rangle+\rho \|r^{t+1}\|^2.\end{aligned}$$ Since $\rho \le \theta\beta$, by Young’s inequality, it holds $$\beta\|r^{t+1}\|^2 - \langle \lambda^t - \lambda, r^{t+1}\rangle + \frac{\theta}{2\rho}\|\lambda^{t}-\lambda\|^2 \ge0.$$ Then plugging and into , we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:sum-bd1-prf4}
&~\EE\Phi(x^{t+1},x,\lambda) +\theta\sum_{k=1}^{t-1} \EE \Phi(x^{k+1},x,\lambda)\cr
\le &~(1-\theta)\EE\left[\Phi(x^1,x,\lambda^1)+\beta\| r^1\|^2\right] + \frac{1}{2}\|x^1-x\|^2_{\eta I-\beta A^\top A} + \frac{\theta}{2\rho}\EE\|\lambda^1-\lambda\|^2\cr
\le &~ \EE\phi_2(x,\lambda),\end{aligned}$$ where in the last inequality we have used $\lambda^1=0$, $\theta>0$ and $\| r^1\|^2=\|x^1-x\|^2_{\beta A^\top A}$.
Therefore, from the convexity of $F$, it follows that $\EE \Phi(\bar{x}^{t},x^*,\lambda) \le \frac{1}{1+\theta (t-1)}\EE\phi_2(x^*,\lambda),\,\forall \lambda$, and we obtain the desired result from Lemmas \[lem:xy-rate\] and \[lem:equiv-rate\].
Proof of Theorem \[thm:rate0\]
------------------------------
We first establish a few inequalities below.
\[prop2\] If , and hold, then $$\begin{aligned}
& &-\sum_{k=1}^t(k+k_0+1) \EE\left[\Delta_{\eta_k I-\beta_k A^\top A}(x^{k+1},x^k,x)-\frac{L_m}{2}\|x^{k+1}-x^k\|^2\right]\cr
& &-\frac{\mu(t+k_0+1)}{2}\EE\|x^{t+1}-x\|^2-\sum_{k=2}^t\frac{\mu\big(\theta(k+k_0+1)-1\big)}{2}\EE\|x^k-x\|^2\cr
&\le &\frac{\eta_1(k_0+2)}{2}\EE\|x^1-x\|^2-\frac{(t+k_0+1)}{2}\EE\|x^{t+1}-x\|^2_{(\mu+\eta_t)I-\beta_t A^\top A}. \label{eq:sum-xterm}\end{aligned}$$
This inequality can be easily shown by noting that for any $1\le k\le t$, the weight matrix of $\frac{1}{2}\|x^{k+1}-x^k\|^2$ is $ \beta_k(k+k_0+1)A^\top A-(k+k_0+1)(\eta_k-L_m)I$, which is negative semidefinite, and for any $2\le k\le t$, the weight matrix of $\frac{1}{2}\|x^{k}-x\|^2$ is $$\big[\beta_{k-1}(k+k_0)-\beta_k(k+k_0+1)\big]A^\top A+\left[ (k+k_0+1)\eta_k-(k+k_0)\eta_{k-1}-\mu\big(\theta(k+k_0+1)-1\big)\right]I,$$ which is also negative semidefinite.
\[prop3\] If , and hold, then $$\begin{aligned}
& &-\frac{t+k_0+1}{\rho_t}\EE\Delta(\lambda^{t+1},\lambda^t,\lambda)-\sum_{k=2}^t\frac{\theta(k+k_0+1)-1}{\rho_{k-1}}\EE\Delta(\lambda^{k},\lambda^{k-1},\lambda)\cr
&\le& \frac{\theta(k_0+3)-1}{2\rho_1}\EE\|\lambda^1-\lambda\|^2. \label{eq:sum-lamterm}\end{aligned}$$
On the left hand side of , the coefficient of each $\frac{1}{2}\|\lambda^{k+1}-\lambda^k\|^2$ is negative. For $2\le k\le t-1$, the coefficient of $\frac{1}{2}\|\lambda^k-\lambda\|^2$ is $\frac{\theta(k+k_0+2)-1}{\rho_k}-\frac{\theta(k+k_0+1)-1}{\rho_{k-1}}$, which is nonpositive; the coefficient of $\frac{1}{2}\|\lambda^t-\lambda\|^2$ is $\frac{t+k_0+1}{\rho_t}-\frac{\theta(t+k_0+1)-1}{\rho_{t-1}}$, which is nonpositive; the coefficient of $\frac{1}{2}\|\lambda^{t+1}-\lambda\|^2$ is also nonpositive. Hence, dropping these nonpositive terms, we have the desired result.
Now we are ready to prove Theorem \[thm:rate0\].
\[of Theorem \[thm:rate0\]\]
Multiplying $k+k_0+1$ to both sides of , summing it up from $k=1$ through $t$, [and moving the terms about $\Phi(x^k,x,\lambda^k)+\frac{\mu}{2}\|x^k-x\|^2$ and $\|r^k\|^2$ to the left hand side for $2\le k\le t$]{} give $$\begin{aligned}
& &(t+k_0+1) \EE\left[\Phi(x^{t+1},x,\lambda^{t+1})+(\beta_t-\rho_t)\|r^{t+1}\|^2+ \frac{\mu}{2}\|x^{t+1}-x\|^2\right]\cr
& &+\sum_{k=2}^t\big(\theta(k+k_0+1)-1\big)\EE\left[\Phi(x^k,x,\lambda^k)+\frac{\mu}{2}\|x^k-x\|^2\right]\cr
& &+\sum_{k=2}^t\big((\beta_{k-1}-\rho_{k-1})(k+k_0)-(1-\theta)(k+k_0+1)\beta_k\big)\EE\| r^k\|^2\cr
&\le & (1-\theta)(k_0+2)\EE\left[\Phi(x^1,x,\lambda^1)+\beta_1\| r^1\|^2+\frac{\mu}{2}\|x^1-x\|^2\right] \label{eq:sum-bd2} \\
& &-\sum_{k=1}^t(k+k_0+1) \EE\left[\Delta_{\eta_k I-\beta_k A^\top A}(x^{k+1},x^k,x)-\frac{L_m}{2}\|x^{k+1}-x^k\|^2\right]. \nonumber
$$ Hence, from and , it follows that $$\label{eq:use-Ax-xterm}
\begin{aligned}
&~(t+k_0+1) \EE\Phi(x^{t+1},x,\lambda^{t+1})+\sum_{k=2}^t\big(\theta(k+k_0+1)-1\big)\EE\Phi(x^k,x,\lambda^k)\\
\le &~ (1-\theta)(k_0+2)\EE\left[\Phi(x^1,x,\lambda^1)+\beta_1\| r^1\|^2+\frac{\mu}{2}\|x^1-x\|^2\right]\\
&~+\frac{\eta_1(k_0+2)}{2}\EE\|x^1-x\|^2-\frac{t+k_0+1}{2}\EE\|x^{t+1}-x\|^2_{(\mu+\eta_t)I-\beta_t A^\top A}.
\end{aligned}$$ In addition, from the update of $\lambda$ in , we have $$\label{eq:lam-eq}
\langle\lambda^{k+1}-\lambda, Ax^{k+1}-b\rangle=-\frac{1}{\rho_k}\langle\lambda^{k+1}-\lambda,\lambda^{k+1}-\lambda^k\rangle=-\frac{1}{\rho_k}\Delta(\lambda^{k+1},\lambda^k,\lambda),$$ and thus $$\begin{aligned}
& &(t+k_0+1)\EE\langle\lambda^{t+1}-\lambda, Ax^{t+1}-b\rangle+\sum_{k=2}^t\big(\theta(k+k_0+1)-1\big)\EE\langle\lambda^k-\lambda, Ax^k-b\rangle\cr
&=&-\frac{t+k_0+1}{\rho_t}\EE\Delta(\lambda^{t+1},\lambda^t,\lambda)-\sum_{k=2}^t\frac{\theta(k+k_0+1)-1}{\rho_{k-1}}\EE\Delta(\lambda^{k},\lambda^{k-1},\lambda)\cr
&\overset{\eqref{eq:sum-lamterm}}\le &\frac{\theta(k_0+3)-1}{2\rho_1}\EE\|\lambda^1-\lambda\|^2. $$ Since $\Phi(x^k,x,\lambda)=\Phi(x^k,x,\lambda^k)+\langle \lambda^k-\lambda, Ax^k-b\rangle,$ we obtain the desired result by adding the above inequality to .
Proof of Proposition \[prop:param-cond\]
----------------------------------------
Note that implies $k_0\ge\frac{4}{\theta}$, and thus must hold. Also, it is easy to see that holds with equality from the second equation of . Since $I\succeq \frac{A^\top A}{\|A\|_2^2}$, we can easily have by plugging in $\beta_k$ and $\eta_k$ defined in and respectively.
To verify , we plug in $\rho_k$ defined in the first equation of , and it is equivalent to requiring that for any $2\le k\le t-1$ $$\frac{\theta(k+k_0+1)-1}{\theta (k-1)+2+\theta}\ge\frac{\theta(k+k_0+2)-1}{\theta k+2+\theta}\Longleftrightarrow 1+\frac{\theta(k_0+1)-3}{\theta k+2}\ge1+\frac{\theta(k_0+1)-3}{\theta k+2+\theta}.$$ The inequality on the right hand side obviously holds, and thus we have .
Plugging in the formula of $\beta_k$, is equivalent to $$(\theta k+2+\theta)(k+k_0+1)\ge (\theta k+2)(k+k_0),$$ which holds trivially, and thus follows.
With the given $\beta_k$ and $\rho_k$, becomes $\frac{6}{6-5\theta}(\theta k+2)(k+k_0)\ge (k+k_0+1)(\theta k+2+\theta),\,\forall 2\le k\le t,$ which is equivalent to $\frac{6}{6-5\theta}\ge \frac{(k_0+3)(3\theta+2)}{(k_0+2)(2\theta+2)}$. Note that $\frac{k_0+3}{k_0+2}$ is decreasing with respect to $k_0\ge0$ and also $\frac{6}{6-5\theta}\ge \frac{(\frac{3}{\theta}+3)(3\theta+2)}{(\frac{3}{\theta}+2)(2\theta+2)}$. Hence, is satisfied from the fact $k_0\ge \frac{4}{\theta}$. Finally, we show . Plugging in $\eta_k$, we have that becomes $$(k+k_0)\left(\frac{\mu}{2}\left(\theta k+2\right)+L_m\right)+\mu\big(\theta(k+k_0+1)-1\big)\ge (k+k_0+1)\left(\frac{\mu}{2}\left(\theta k+2+\theta\right)+L_m\right),\,\forall k\ge 2,$$ which is equivalent to $k_0+1\ge \frac{4}{\theta}+\frac{2L_m}{\theta\mu}$. Hence, for $k_0$ given in , must hold. Therefore, we have verified all conditions in .
Proof of Theorem \[thm:rate1\]
------------------------------
From Proposition \[prop:param-cond\], we have the inequality in that, as $\lambda^1=0$, reduces to $$\begin{aligned}
& &(t+k_0+1) \EE\Phi(x^{t+1},x,\lambda)+\sum_{k=2}^t\big(\theta(k+k_0+1)-1\big)\EE\Phi(x^k,x,\lambda)\nonumber\\
&\le & \phi_3(x,\lambda)-\frac{t+k_0+1}{2}\EE\|x^{t+1}-x\|_{(\mu+\eta_t) I-\beta_t A^\top A}^2.\label{eq:sum-bd4-1}\end{aligned}$$
For $\rho\ge1$, we have $$\label{eq:rate1-mu-ineq}(\mu+\eta_t) I-\beta_t A^\top A\succeq \left(\frac{(\rho-1)\mu}{2\rho}(\theta t + \theta + 2) + \mu+L_m\right)I.$$ Letting $x=x^*$ and using the convexity of $F$, we have from and the above inequality that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:sum-bd6}
\EE\left[F(\bar{x}^{t+1})-F(x^*)-\big\langle\lambda,A\bar{x}^{t+1}-b\big\rangle \right]\le \frac{1}{T}\EE\phi_3(x^*,\lambda),\,\forall \lambda,\end{aligned}$$ which together with Lemmas \[lem:xy-rate\] and \[lem:equiv-rate\] with $\gamma=\max(2\|\lambda^*\|, 1+\|\lambda^*\|)$ indicates .
In addition, note $$\Phi(x^{t+1},x^*,\lambda^*)\ge\frac{\mu}{2}\|x^{t+1}-x^*\|^2.$$ Hence, letting $(x,\lambda)=(x^*,\lambda^*)$ in and using , we have from that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:rate-pt}
\frac{t+k_0+1}{2}\left(\frac{(\rho-1)\mu}{2\rho}(\theta t + \theta + 2)+2\mu+L_m\right)\EE\|x^{t+1}-x^*\|^2
\le \phi_3(x^*,\lambda^*),\end{aligned}$$ and the proof is completed.
Technical proofs: Section \[sec:linear\]
========================================
In this section, we provide the proofs of the lemmas and theorems in section \[sec:linear\].
Proof of Lemma \[lem:linear-1step\]
-----------------------------------
Note $r^{k+1}-r^k=A(x^{k+1}-x^k)+B(y^{k+1}-y^k)$. Hence by , we have $$\begin{aligned}\label{eq:lin1-r-term}
\left\langle A(x^{k+1}-x),-\beta r^k\right\rangle
=&~-\beta\left\langle A(x^{k+1}-x), r^{k+1}\right\rangle+\beta\left\langle A(x^{k+1}-x), B(y^{k+1}-y^k)\right\rangle\\
&~+\frac{\beta}{2}\left[\|A(x^{k+1}-x)\|^2-\|A(x^k-x)\|^2+\|A(x^{k+1}-x^k)\|^2\right].
\end{aligned}$$ In addition, $\langle A(x^{k+1}-x), \lambda^k\rangle = \langle A(x^{k+1}-x), \lambda^{k+1}+\rho r^{k+1}\rangle$. Plugging this equation and into with $x^o=x^k, \lambda^o=\lambda^k, x^+=x^{k+1}, W=\eta_x I$ and taking expectation yield $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:lin-convg-ineq1}
&~ \EE\left[F(x^{k+1})-F(x)+\frac{\mu}{2}\|x^{k+1}-x\|^2-\big\langle A(x^{k+1}-x), \lambda^{k+1}\big\rangle+(\beta-\rho)\big\langle A(x^{k+1}-x), r^{k+1}\big\rangle\right] \nonumber\\
&~+\frac{1}{2}\EE\left[\|x^{k+1}-x\|_P^2-\|x^k-x\|_P^2+\|x^{k+1}-x^k\|^2_{P-L_mI}\right]\nonumber\\
\le &~ (1- \theta)\EE\left[F(x^k)-F(x)+\frac{\mu}{2}\|x^k-x\|^2-\big\langle A(x^k-x), \lambda^k-\beta r^k\big\rangle\right]\\
&~+\beta\EE\left\langle A(x^{k+1}-x), B(y^{k+1}-y^k)\right\rangle,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $P=\eta_x I-\beta A^\top A$.
From , the optimality condition for $ \tilde{y}^{k+1}$ is $$\label{eq:opt-y}
\nabla h( \tilde{y}^{k+1})- B^\top\vlam^k+ \beta B^\top\vr^{k+\frac{1}{2}} +\eta_y (\tilde{y}^{k+1}-y^k)=\vzero.$$ Since $\Prob(y^{k+1}=\tilde{y}^{k+1})=\theta,\, \Prob(y^{k+1}=y^k)=1-\theta,$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
& &\EE\left\langle y^{k+1}- y, \nabla h( y^{k+1})- B^\top\vlam^{k}
+ \beta B^\top r^{k+\frac{1}{2}}+\eta_y(y^{k+1}-y^k)\right\rangle\cr
&=&(1-\theta)\EE\left\langle y^k- y, \nabla h( y^k)- B^\top\vlam^k
+ \beta B^\top r^{k+\frac{1}{2}}\right\rangle,\end{aligned}$$ or equivalently, $$\begin{aligned}
& &\EE\left\langle y^{k+1}- y, \nabla h( y^{k+1})- B^\top\vlam^{k+1}
+( \beta -\rho) B^\top r^{k+1}- \beta B^\top B(y^{k+1}-y^k)+\eta_y(y^{k+1}-y^k)\right\rangle\cr
&=&(1-\theta)\EE\left\langle y^k- y, \nabla h( y^k)- B^\top\vlam^k
+ \beta B^\top r^k\right\rangle+\beta(1-\theta) \EE\left\langle B(y^k- y),A(x^{k+1}-x^k)\right\rangle. \label{opt-1Y}\end{aligned}$$ Recall $Q=\eta_y I -\beta B^\top B$. We have $$\left\langle y^{k+1}- y, - \beta B^\top B(y^{k+1}-y^k)+\eta_y(y^{k+1}-y^k)\right\rangle = \frac{1}{2}\left[\|y^{k+1}- y\|_Q^2-\|y^k- y\|_Q^2+\|y^{k+1}- y^k\|_Q^2\right].$$ Therefore adding to , noting $Ax+By=b$, and plugging with $\rho_k=\rho$, we have the desired result.
Proof of Theorem \[thm-pre\]
----------------------------
Before proving Theorem \[thm-pre\], we establish a few inequalities. First, using Young’s inequality, we have the following results.
For any $\tau_1,\tau_2>0$, it holds that $$\begin{aligned}
& &\langle A(x^{k+1}- x^*), B( y^{k+1}- y^k)\rangle\le\frac{1}{2\tau_1}\|A(x^{k+1}-x^*)\|^2+\frac{\tau_1}{2}\|B(y^{k+1}-y^k)\|^2,\label{cross-xy-term1}\\
& &\langle B(y^k- y^*),A(x^{k+1}-x^k)\rangle\le\frac{1}{2\tau_2}\|B(y^k- y^*)\|^2+\frac{\tau_2}{2}\|A(x^{k+1}-x^k)\|^2.\label{cross-xy-term2}\end{aligned}$$
In addition, we are able to bound the $\lambda$-term by $y$-term and the residual $r$. The proofs are given in Appendix \[sec:pf-lem-c1\] and \[sec:pf-lem-c2\].
\[lem:bd-lam-by-y\] For any $\delta>0$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{bd-lam-term-n}
& &\EE\|B^\top(\lambda^{k+1}-\lambda^*)\|^2-(1-\theta)(1+\delta)\EE\|B^\top(\lambda^k-\lambda^*)\|^2\cr
&\le & 4\EE\big[L_h^2\|y^{k+1}-y^*\|^2+\|Q(y^{k+1}-y^k)\|^2\big]+2(\beta-\rho)^2\EE\|B^\top r^{k+1}\|^2\\
& &+2\rho^2(1-\theta)(1+\frac{1}{\delta})\EE\big[\|B^\top r^{k+1}\|^2+\|B^\top B(y^{k+1}-y^k)\|^2\big].\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
\[lem:ineq-lam-term\] Assume . Then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ineq-lam-term}
& &\frac{\sigma_{\min}(BB^\top)}{2}\big[\|\lambda^{k+1}-\lambda^*\|^2-(1-\theta)\|\lambda^{k}-\lambda^*\|^2+\frac{1}{\theta}\|\lambda^{k+1}-\lambda^k\|^2\big]\cr
&\le &\|B^\top(\lambda^{k+1}-\lambda^*)\|^2-(1-\theta)(1+\delta)\|B^\top(\lambda^k-\lambda^*)\|^2+\kappa\|B^\top(\lambda^{k+1}-\lambda^k)\|^2,\end{aligned}$$ where $\sigma_{\min}(BB^\top)$ denotes the smallest singular value of $BB^\top$.
\[lem:three-lemma-together\] Let $c,\delta,\tau_1,\tau_2$ and $\kappa$ be constants satisfying the conditions in Theorem \[thm-pre\]. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:three-lemma-together}
&~\beta \EE\big\langle A(x^{k+1}- x^*), B( y^{k+1}- y^k)\big\rangle+\beta(1 -\theta)\EE\big\langle B(y^k- y^*),A(x^{k+1}-x^k)\big\rangle\cr
&~+\frac{c}{2}\sigma_{\min}(BB^\top)\EE\big[\|\lambda^{k+1}-\lambda^*\|^2-(1-\theta)\|\lambda^{k}-\lambda^*\|^2+\frac{1}{\theta}\|\lambda^{k+1}-\lambda^k\|^2\big]\cr
\le &~ \frac{1}{2}\EE\|x^{k+1}- x^k\|_{P-L_mI}^2+\frac{\beta}{2\tau_1}\EE\|A(x^{k+1}-x^*)\|^2\\
&~+\frac{1}{2}\EE\|y^{k+1}- y^k\|_Q^2+\frac{\beta(1-\theta)}{2\tau_2}\EE\|B(y^k-y^*)\|^2+4cL_h^2\EE\|y^{k+1}-y^*\|^2\cr
&~+\left[c\rho^2\left(\kappa+2(1-\theta)\big(1+\frac{1}{\delta}\big)\right)+2c(\beta-\rho)^2\right]\EE\|B^\top r^{k+1}\|^2.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Now we are ready to show Theorem \[thm-pre\].
\[of Theorem \[thm-pre\]\]
Letting $(x,y,\lambda)=(x^*,y^*,\lambda^*)$ in , plugging into it, and noting $Ax^*+By^*=b$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
& &\EE\Psi(z^{k+1},z^*)+( \beta -\rho)\EE \|r^{k+1}\|^2+\EE \left[\Delta_P(x^{k+1},x^k, x^*)-\frac{L_m}{2}\|x^{k+1}- x^k\|^2\right]\nonumber\\
& &+\EE\Delta_Q(y^{k+1},y^k, y^*)+\frac{\mu}{2}\EE\|x^{k+1}-x^*\|^2+\frac{1}{\rho}\EE\Delta(\lambda^{k+1},\lambda^{k},\lambda^*)\nonumber\\
&\le &
(1-\theta)\EE\Psi(z^k,z^*)+\beta(1 -\theta)\EE \|r^k\|^2+\frac{1-\theta}{\rho}\EE\Delta(\lambda^{k},\lambda^{k-1},\lambda^*)+\frac{\mu(1-\theta)}{2}\EE\|x^k-x^*\|^2 \nonumber\\
& &+ \beta \EE\big\langle A(x^{k+1}- x^*), B( y^{k+1}- y^k)\big\rangle+\beta(1 -\theta)\EE\big\langle B(y^k- y^*),A(x^{k+1}-x^k)\big\rangle, \label{lin-ineq2-1Y}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Psi$ is defined in . Note $$\begin{aligned}
&~\frac{1}{\rho}\Delta(\lambda^{k+1},\lambda^{k},\lambda^*)\\
=&~\frac{1}{2\rho}\big[\|\lambda^{k+1}-\lambda^*\|^2-(1-\theta)\|\lambda^{k}-\lambda^*\|^2
+\frac{1}{\theta}\|\lambda^{k+1}-\lambda^k\|^2\big]-\frac{\rho}{2}(\frac{1}{\theta}-1)\|r^{k+1}\|^2 - \frac{\theta}{2\rho}\|\lambda^{k}-\lambda^*\|^2,\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
&~\frac{1-\theta}{\rho}\Delta(\lambda^{k},\lambda^{k-1},\lambda^*)\\
=&~\frac{1}{2\rho}\big[\|\lambda^{k}-\lambda^*\|^2-(1-\theta)\|\lambda^{k-1}-\lambda^*\|^2
+\frac{1}{\theta}\|\lambda^{k}-\lambda^{k-1}\|^2\big]-\frac{\rho}{2}(\frac{1}{\theta}-(1-\theta))\|r^k\|^2- \frac{\theta}{2\rho}\|\lambda^{k}-\lambda^*\|^2.\end{aligned}$$
Adding to and plugging the above two equations yield $$\begin{aligned}
& &\EE\Psi(z^{k+1},z^*)+( \beta -\rho)\EE \|r^{k+1}\|^2+\EE \left[\Delta_P(x^{k+1},x^k, x^*)-\frac{L_m}{2}\|x^{k+1}- x^k\|^2\right]\nonumber\\
& &+\EE\Delta_Q(y^{k+1},y^k, y^*)+\frac{\mu}{2}\EE\|x^{k+1}-x^*\|^2-\frac{\rho}{2}(\frac{1}{\theta}-1)\EE\|r^{k+1}\|^2 - \frac{\theta}{2\rho}\EE\|\lambda^{k}-\lambda^*\|^2\nonumber\\
& &+\left(\frac{1}{2\rho}+\frac{c}{2}\sigma_{\min}(BB^\top)\right)\EE\big[\|\lambda^{k+1}-\lambda^*\|^2-(1-\theta)\|\lambda^{k}-\lambda^*\|^2+\frac{1}{\theta}\|\lambda^{k+1}-\lambda^k\|^2\big]\nonumber\\
&\le &
(1-\theta)\EE\Psi(z^k,z^*)+\beta(1 -\theta)\EE \|r^k\|^2 -\frac{\rho}{2}(\frac{1}{\theta}-(1-\theta))\EE\|r^k\|^2- \frac{\theta}{2\rho}\EE\|\lambda^{k}-\lambda^*\|^2 \nonumber\\
&&+\frac{1}{2\rho}\EE\big[\|\lambda^{k}-\lambda^*\|^2-(1-\theta)\|\lambda^{k-1}-\lambda^*\|^2
+\frac{1}{\theta}\|\lambda^{k}-\lambda^{k-1}\|^2\big]\nonumber\\
& &+\frac{\mu(1-\theta)}{2}\EE\|x^k-x^*\|^2+\frac{1}{2}\EE\|x^{k+1}- x^k\|_{P-L_mI}^2+\frac{\beta}{2\tau_1}\EE\|A(x^{k+1}-x^*)\|^2\nonumber\\
& &+\frac{1}{2}\EE\|y^{k+1}- y^k\|_Q^2+\frac{\beta(1-\theta)}{2\tau_2}\EE\|B(y^k-y^*)\|^2+4cL_h^2\EE\|y^{k+1}-y^*\|^2\cr
& &+\left[c\rho^2\left(\kappa+2(1-\theta)\big(1+\frac{1}{\delta}\big)\right)+2c(\beta-\rho)^2\right]\EE\|B^\top r^{k+1}\|^2. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Using the definition in to expand $\Delta_P(x^{k+1},x^k, x^*)$ and $\Delta_Q(y^{k+1},y^k, y^*)$ in the above inequality, and then rearranging terms, we have $$\begin{aligned}
& &\EE\Psi(z^{k+1},z^*)+\left(( \beta -\rho)-\frac{\rho}{2}(\frac{1}{\theta}-1)\right)\EE \|r^{k+1}\|^2\cr
& & -\left[c\rho^2\left(\kappa+2(1-\theta)\big(1+\frac{1}{\delta}\big)\right)+2c(\beta-\rho)^2\right]\EE\|B^\top r^{k+1}\|^2\cr
& &+\EE \left[\frac{1}{2}\|x^{k+1}-x^*\|_P^2+\frac{\mu}{2}\|x^{k+1}-x^*\|^2-\frac{\beta}{2\tau_1}\|A(x^{k+1}-x^*)\|^2\right]\nonumber\\
& &+\EE\left[\frac{1}{2}\|y^{k+1}-y^*\|_Q^2-4cL_h^2\|y^{k+1}-y^*\|^2\right] \nonumber\\
& &+\left(\frac{1}{2\rho}+\frac{c}{2}\sigma_{\min}(BB^\top)\right)\EE\big[\|\lambda^{k+1}-\lambda^*\|^2-(1-\theta)\|\lambda^{k}-\lambda^*\|^2+\frac{1}{\theta}\|\lambda^{k+1}-\lambda^k\|^2\big]\nonumber\\
&\le &
(1-\theta)\EE\Psi(z^k,z^*)+\beta(1 -\theta)\EE \|r^k\|^2 -\frac{\rho}{2}(\frac{1}{\theta}-(1-\theta))\EE\|r^k\|^2 + \frac{1}{2}\EE\|x^{k}-x^*\|_P^2 \nonumber\\
& &+\frac{\mu(1-\theta)}{2}\EE\|x^k-x^*\|^2+\frac{1}{2}\EE\|y^{k}- y^*\|_Q^2+\frac{\beta(1-\theta)}{2\tau_2}\EE\|B(y^k-y^*)\|^2\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{1}{2\rho}\EE\big[\|\lambda^{k}-\lambda^*\|^2-(1-\theta)\|\lambda^{k-1}-\lambda^*\|^2
+\frac{1}{\theta}\|\lambda^{k}-\lambda^{k-1}\|^2\big]. \label{lin-ineq2-1Y-21}\end{aligned}$$ Since $\rho = \theta\beta$, it holds $$( \beta -\rho)-\frac{\rho}{2}(\frac{1}{\theta}-1) = \frac{\beta-\rho}{2}, \quad \beta(1 -\theta)-\frac{\rho}{2}(\frac{1}{\theta}-(1-\theta))\le \frac{\beta(1-\theta)}{2},$$ and thus the inequality implies $$\begin{aligned}
& &\EE\Psi(z^{k+1},z^*)+\frac{ \beta -\rho}{2}\EE \|r^{k+1}\|^2 -\left[c\rho^2\left(\kappa+2(1-\theta)\big(1+\frac{1}{\delta}\big)\right)+2c(\beta-\rho)^2\right]\EE\|B^\top r^{k+1}\|^2\cr
& &+\EE \left[\frac{1}{2}\|x^{k+1}-x^*\|_P^2+\frac{\mu}{2}\|x^{k+1}-x^*\|^2-\frac{\beta}{2\tau_1}\|A(x^{k+1}-x^*)\|^2\right]\nonumber\\
& &+\EE\left[\frac{1}{2}\|y^{k+1}-y^*\|_Q^2-4cL_h^2\|y^{k+1}-y^*\|^2\right] \nonumber\\
& &+\left(\frac{1}{2\rho}+\frac{c}{2}\sigma_{\min}(BB^\top)\right)\EE\big[\|\lambda^{k+1}-\lambda^*\|^2-(1-\theta)\|\lambda^{k}-\lambda^*\|^2+\frac{1}{\theta}\|\lambda^{k+1}-\lambda^k\|^2\big]\nonumber\\
&\le & \psi(z^k,z^*; P,Q,\beta,\rho,c,\tau_2),\label{lin-ineq2-1Y-22}\end{aligned}$$ where $\psi$ is defined in .
From , it follows that $$\label{eq:ineq-Psi-term} (1-\alpha)\Psi(z^{k+1},z^*)+\frac{\alpha\mu}{2}\|x^{k+1}-x^*\|^2+\alpha\nu\|y^{k+1}-y^*\|^2\le \Psi(z^{k+1},z^*) .$$ In addition, note that $$\begin{aligned}
\|r^{k+1}\|^2 &=&\|Ax^{k+1}+By^{k+1}-(Ax^*+By^*)\|^2\cr
&\le & 2\|A\|_2^2\|x^{k+1}-x^*\|^2+2\|B\|_2^2\|y^{k+1}-y^*\|^2\cr
&\le & \gamma\left(\frac{\alpha\mu}{4}\|x^{k+1}-x^*\|^2+\frac{\alpha\nu}{4}\|y^{k+1}-y^*\|^2\right),\end{aligned}$$ and thus $$\label{eq:ineq-r-term}
\frac{1}{\gamma}\|r^{k+1}\|^2\le \frac{\alpha\mu}{4}\|x^{k+1}-x^*\|^2+\frac{\alpha\nu}{4}\|y^{k+1}-y^*\|^2.$$ Adding and to gives the desired result.
Proof of Theorem \[thm-linear\]
-------------------------------
From $0<\alpha<\theta$, the full row-rankness of $B$, and the conditions in , it is easy to see that $\eta>1$. Next we find lower bounds of the terms on the left hand of . Since $\eta\le \frac{1-\alpha}{1-\theta}$, we have $$\label{eq:lin-convg-Phi-term} \eta(1-\theta)\Psi(z^{k+1},z^*)\le (1-\alpha)\Psi(z^{k+1},z^*).$$ Note $\|A\|_2\le 1$ and $$\left(\frac{\alpha\mu}{2}+\mu-\frac{\beta}{\tau_1}\right)I\succeq \frac{\frac{\alpha\mu}{2}+\theta\mu-\frac{\beta}{\tau_1}}{\eta_x+\mu(1-\theta)}(\eta_x I-\beta A^\top A)+ \frac{\frac{\alpha\mu}{2}+\theta\mu-\frac{\beta}{\tau_1}}{\eta_x+\mu(1-\theta)}\mu(1-\theta)I +\mu(1-\theta)I.$$ Hence, from $\eta\le 1+\frac{\frac{\alpha\mu}{2}+\theta\mu-\frac{\beta}{\tau_1}}{\eta_x+\mu(1-\theta)}$ and $P=\eta_x I-\beta A^\top A$, it follows that $$\label{eq:lin-convg-x-term}
\eta\|x^{k+1}- x^*\|^2_{P+\mu(1-\theta)I}
\le \|x^{k+1}- x^*\|^2_{P+(\frac{\alpha\mu}{2}+\mu)I-\frac{\beta}{\tau_1}A^\top A}.$$ Similarly, since $$\left(\frac{3\alpha\nu}{2}-8c L_h^2\right)I\succeq \frac{\frac{3\alpha\nu}{2}-8c L_h^2-\frac{\beta(1-\theta)}{\tau_2}}{\eta_y+\frac{\beta(1-\theta)}{\tau_2}}(\eta_y I-\beta B^\top B) +\frac{\frac{3\alpha\nu}{2}-8c L_h^2-\frac{\beta(1-\theta)}{\tau_2}}{\eta_y+\frac{\beta(1-\theta)}{\tau_2}}\frac{\beta(1-\theta)}{\tau_2}I+\frac{\beta(1-\theta)}{\tau_2}I,$$ $Q=\eta_y I-\beta B^\top B$, and $B^\top B \preceq I$, we have $$\label{eq:lin-convg-y-term}
\eta\|y^{k+1}- y^*\|^2_{Q+\frac{\beta(1 -\theta)}{\tau_2}B^\top B}
\le \|y^{k+1}- y^*\|^2_{Q+(\frac{3\alpha\nu}{2}-8cL_h^2)I}.$$ For the $r$-term, we note from the definition of $\eta$ that $$\eta\frac{ \beta(1-\theta)}{2}\le \big(\frac{ \beta(1-\theta)}{2}+\frac{1}{\gamma}\big)-\left(c\rho^2\big(\kappa+2(1-\theta)(1+\frac{1}{\delta})\big)+2c(\beta-\rho)^2\right).$$ In addition, since $\|B\|_2\le 1$, it holds $\|B^\top r^{k+1}\|\le \|r^{k+1}\|$, and thus $$\label{eq:lin-convg-r-term}\eta\frac{ \beta(1-\theta)}{2}\|r^{k+1}\|^2\le \big(\frac{ \beta(1-\theta)}{2}+\frac{1}{\gamma}\big)\|r^{k+1}\|^2-\left(c\rho^2\big(\kappa+2(1-\theta)(1+\frac{1}{\delta})\big)+2c(\beta-\rho)^2\right) \|B^\top r^{k+1}\|^2.$$ Finally, it is obvious to have $$\label{eq:lin-convg-lam-term}
\begin{aligned}
&~ \frac{\eta}{2\rho}\left[\|\lambda^{k+1}-\lambda^*\|^2-(1-\theta)\|\lambda^{k}-\lambda^*\|^2+\frac{1}{\theta}\|\lambda^{k+1}-\lambda^k\|^2\right]\\
\le &~\left(\frac{1}{2\rho}+\frac{c}{2}\sigma_{\min}(BB^\top)\right)\left[\|\lambda^{k+1}-\lambda^*\|^2-(1-\theta)\|\lambda^{k}-\lambda^*\|^2+\frac{1}{\theta}\|\lambda^{k+1}-\lambda^k\|^2\right].
\end{aligned}$$
Therefore, we obtain by the definition of $\psi$ and adding through .
Proof of Lemma \[lem:bd-lam-by-y\] {#sec:pf-lem-c1}
----------------------------------
Let $
\tilde{\lambda}^{k+1}=\lambda^k-\rho(Ax^{k+1}+B\tilde{y}^{k+1}-b).
$ Then from the update of $y$, we have $$\label{eq:lemmac2-lam-ineq}
\begin{aligned}
&~\EE\|B^\top(\lambda^{k+1}-\lambda^*)\|^2\\
=&~\theta\EE\|B^\top(\tilde{\lambda}^{k+1}-\lambda^*)\|^2+(1-\theta)\EE\|B^\top(\lambda^k-\lambda^*-\rho(Ax^{k+1}+By^k-b))\|^2.
\end{aligned}$$
Below we bound the two terms on the right hand side of . First, the definition of $\tilde{\lambda}^{k+1}$ together with implies $$\label{eq:tlam}
B^\top\tilde{\lambda}^{k+1}=\nabla h(\tilde{y}^{k+1})+Q(\tilde{y}^{k+1}-y^k)+(\beta-\rho)B^\top (Ax^{k+1}+B\tilde{y}^{k+1}-b).$$ Hence, by the Young’s inequality and the condition in , we have $$\label{eq:lemmac2-kkt2-ineq}
\begin{aligned}
&~\theta\EE\|B^\top(\tilde{\lambda}^{k+1}-\lambda^*)\|^2\cr
\le&~2\theta\EE\|\nabla h(\tilde{y}^{k+1})-\nabla h(y^*)+Q(\tilde{y}^{k+1}-y^k)\|^2+2\theta(\beta-\rho)^2\EE\|B^\top (Ax^{k+1}+B\tilde{y}^{k+1}-b)\|^2.
\end{aligned}$$ Since $\Prob(y^{k+1}=\tilde{y}^{k+1})=\theta$ and $\Prob(y^{k+1}=y^k)=1-\theta$, it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
&~\EE\|\nabla h(y^{k+1})-\nabla h(y^*)+Q(y^{k+1}-y^k)\|^2\\
=&~\theta\EE\|\nabla h(\tilde{y}^{k+1})-\nabla h(y^*)+Q(\tilde{y}^{k+1}-y^k)\|^2+(1-\theta)\EE\|\nabla h(y^k)-\nabla h(y^*)\|^2,
\end{aligned}$$ and thus $$\theta\EE\|\nabla h(\tilde{y}^{k+1})-\nabla h(y^*)+Q(\tilde{y}^{k+1}-y^k)\|^2\le \EE\|\nabla h(y^{k+1})-\nabla h(y^*)+Q(y^{k+1}-y^k)\|^2.$$ Similarly, $$\theta(\beta-\rho)^2\EE\|B^\top (Ax^{k+1}+B\tilde{y}^{k+1}-b)\|^2\le (\beta-\rho)^2\EE\|B^\top (Ax^{k+1}+B y^{k+1}-b)\|^2.$$ Plugging the above two equations into and applying the Young’s inequality and also the Lipschitz continuity of $\nabla h$ give $$\label{eq:lemmac2-kkt2-ineq2}
\theta\EE\|B^\top(\tilde{\lambda}^{k+1}-\lambda^*)\|^2
\le4\EE\big[L_h^2\|y^{k+1}-y^*\|^2+\|Q(y^{k+1}-y^k)\|^2\big]+2(\beta-\rho)^2\EE\|B^\top r^{k+1}\|^2.$$
In addition, from the Young’s inequality, it follows for any $\delta>0$ that $$\|B^\top(\lambda^k-\lambda^*-\rho(Ax^{k+1}+By^k-b))\|^2\le (1+\delta)\|B^\top(\lambda^k-\lambda^*)\|^2+\rho^2(1+\frac{1}{\delta})\|B^\top(Ax^{k+1}+By^k-b)\|^2.$$ Note $\|B^\top(Ax^{k+1}+By^k-b)\|^2\le 2\|B^\top r^{k+1}\|^2+2\|B^\top B(y^{k+1}-y^k)\|^2$. Therefore, plugging and the above two inequalites into , we complete the proof.
Proof of Lemma \[lem:ineq-lam-term\] {#sec:pf-lem-c2}
------------------------------------
It is straightforward to verify $$\begin{aligned}
&~\|B^\top(\lambda^{k+1}-\lambda^*)\|^2-(1-\theta)(1+\delta)\|B^\top(\lambda^k-\lambda^*)\|^2+\kappa\|B^\top(\lambda^{k+1}-\lambda^k)\|^2\cr
=&~\left[\begin{array}{c}\lambda^{k+1}-\lambda^*\\\lambda^{k+1}-\lambda^k
\end{array}\right]^\top\left[\begin{array}{cc}(1-(1-\theta)(1+\delta))
&(1-\theta)(1+\delta)\\(1-\theta)(1+\delta)&(\kappa-(1-\theta)(1+\delta))\end{array}\right]\otimes BB^\top\left[\begin{array}{c}(\lambda^{k+1}-\lambda^*)\\(\lambda^{k+1}-\lambda^k)
\end{array}\right],\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
&~\left[\begin{array}{c}\lambda^{k+1}-\lambda^*\\\lambda^{k+1}-\lambda^k
\end{array}\right]^\top\left[\begin{array}{cc}\theta & (1-\theta)\\ (1-\theta) & (\frac{1}{\theta}-(1-\theta))\end{array}\right]\otimes I\left[\begin{array}{c}\lambda^{k+1}-\lambda^*\\ \lambda^{k+1}-\lambda^k
\end{array}\right]\cr
= &~\left[\|\lambda^{k+1}-\lambda^*\|^2-(1-\theta)\|\lambda^{k}-\lambda^*\|^2+\frac{1}{\theta}\|\lambda^{k+1}-\lambda^k\|^2\right].\end{aligned}$$ Hence, we have the desired result from and the inequality $U\otimes V\succeq \sigma_{\min}(V) U\otimes I$ for any PSD matrices $U$ and $V$.
Proof of Lemma \[lem:three-lemma-together\]
-------------------------------------------
From and , we have $$\beta(1 -\theta)\frac{\tau_2}{2}\|A(x^{k+1}-x^k)\|^2\le \frac{1}{2}\|x^{k+1}- x^k\|_{P-L_mI}^2,$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
& & 4c\|Q(y^{k+1}-y^k)\|^2+2c\rho^2(1-\theta)(1+\frac{1}{\delta})\|B^\top B(y^{k+1}-y^k)\|^2
+\frac{\beta\tau_1}{2}\|B(y^{k+1}-y^k)\|^2\nonumber \\
&\le & \frac{1}{2}\|y^{k+1}- y^k\|_Q^2.$$ The desired result is then obtained by adding the above two inequalities together with $\beta$ times of , $\beta(1-\theta)$ times of , $c$ times of both and , and also noting $\lambda^{k+1}-\lambda^k=-\rho r^{k+1}$.
[^1]: [email protected]. Department of Mathematical Sciences, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
[^2]: [email protected]. Department of Industrial & Systems Engineering, University of Minnesota
[^3]: This work is partly supported by NSF grant DMS-1719549 and CMMI-1462408.
[^4]: In fact, [@GXZ-RPDCU2016] presents a more general algorithmic framework. It assumes two groups of variables, and each has multi-block structure. Our method in Algorithm \[alg:arpdc\] is an accelerated version of one special case of Algorithm 1 in [@GXZ-RPDCU2016].
[^5]: Besides the scenario that $g$ and $h$ are strongly convex, $h$ is smooth, and $B$ is of full row-rank, [@deng2012global Theorem 3.1] also shows linear convergence of the linearized ADMM under three other different scenarios.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Sz. Rogoziński'
- 'L. Machura'
- 'J. Łuczka [^1]'
title: 'Current characteristics of mesoscopic rings in quantum Smoluchowski regime [^2]'
---
Introduction
============
Mesoscopic systems lay at the border between macroscopic and microscopic worlds. Mesoscopic systems, consisting of a large number of atoms, are too big to study their properties by the quantum methods of individual atoms, and are too small to apply physical laws of the macro-world. For their description and modeling one should combine both methods appreciating and recognizing the role of quantum and classical processes. The appearance of a new length scale - the phase coherence length $l_c$ of electronic wave functions - introduces various regimes for transport phenomena influenced by quantum interference effects. The mesoscopic regime is characterized by small length scales and low temperatures. When the temperature is lowered, the phase coherence length increases and the mesoscopic regime is extended to larger length scales. At sub-Kelvin temperatures, the length scales are of the order of micrometers. The most prominent mesoscopic effects are: the Aharonov-Bohm oscillations in the conductance of mesoscopic structures, the quantum Hall effects, the universal conductance fluctuations and persistent currents in mesoscopic normal metal rings threaded by a magnetic flux. Persistent currents have been known to exist in superconductors in which they are related to the existence of a state with zero resistance and the fact that a superconductor is a perfect diamagnet. The existence of persistent currents in normal (i.e. non-superconducting) metals is, in fact, a manifestation of the famous Aharonov-Bohm effect. Persistent currents have been predicted by Hund in 1938 [@hund] and re-discovered later by others [@but]. Inspired by these findings, the first experiment was performed in the early 1990s by measuring the magnetization of an array of about ten million not connected micron-sized copper rings [@buh]. Other experiments also supported existence of persistent currents [@chandra]. We should also recall recent definitive measurements of persistent currents in nanoscale gold and aluminium rings [@harris; @bluhm]. The team [@harris] has developed a new technique for detecting persistent currents that allows to measure the persistent current over a wide range of temperatures, ring sizes, and magnetic fields. They have used nanoscale cantilevers, an entirely novel approach to indirectly measure the current through changes in the magnetic force it produces as it flows through the ring. The second team [@bluhm] has studied thirty three individual rings, in which they have employed a scanning technique (a SQUID microscope). The rings are very small, each only between one and two micrometers in diameter and 140 nanometers thick. They are made of high-purity gold. Each was scanned individually, unlike past experiments on persistent currents conducted by other groups. In total they were scanned approximately 10 million times. Both works mark the first time that the theory has been [*experimentally proven*]{} to a high degree.
In our previous papers [@rogo] we have proposed a two-fluid model for the dynamics of the magnetic flux that passes through a mesoscopic ring. It is described in terms of an ordinary differential equation with an additional random force. It is analogous to the well known model of a capacitively and a resistively shunted Josephson junction [@barone]. The classical part consists of ’normal’ electrons carrying dissipative current. The quantum part is formed by those electrons which maintain their phase coherence around the circumference of the ring (it is a counterpart of the Cooper pairs of the electrons in the superconducting systems). The effective dynamics is than determined by a classical Langevin equation [@lutz] with a Johnson noise describing classical thermal equilibrium fluctuations. For low temperatures, quantum nature of thermal fluctuations should be taken into account. To this aim we apply the approach based on the so called quantum Smoluchowski equation as introduced in Ref. [@ankerhold1] and in other versions in the following Refs. [@luczka; @ankerhold2; @coffey].
The paper is organized as follows. First, in the Sec. 2, we present a model of capacitively and resistively shunted Josephson junction in order to demonstrate readers the analogy between both models. Next, in the Sec. 3, we briefly present our model for the flux dynamics in the normal metal rings. In the Sec. 4, we define the quantum Smoluchowski regime following by the Sec. 5, presenting the dimensionless variables and parameters. In the Sec. 6, we study the current characteristics in the stationary states for both classical and quantum Smoluchowski domain. We end this work with the summary and conclusions.
Superconducting ring
====================
For clarity of modeling the current characteristics in non-superconducting rings, we present the well-known approach to describe a quasi-classical regime of superconducting rings. To this aim, let us consider a superconducting loop (ring, cylinder, torus) interrupted by a Josephson junction. This element is a basic unit of various SQUID devices. The phase difference $\psi$ of the Cooper pair wave function across the junction is related to the magnetic flux $\phi$ threading the ring via the relation [@barone] $$\label{relat}
\psi =2\pi (n-\phi/\phi_0),$$ where $2\pi n$ is the phase change per cycle around the ring and $\phi_0=h/2e$ is the flux quantum. When the external magnetic field is applied, the total flux is $$\label{L}
\phi =\phi_e + L I,$$ where $\phi_e$ is the flux generated by an applied external magnetic field, $L$ is the self-inductance of the ring and $I$ is the total current flowing in the ring. We model the Josephson element in terms of the resistively and capacitively shunted junction for which the current consists of three components [@kos], namely, $$\label{IJ}
I = I_C + I_R + I_J = \frac{ \phi - \phi_e}{L},$$ where $I_C$ is a displacement current accompanied with the junction capacitance $C$, $I_R$ is a normal (Ohmic) current characterized by the normal state resistance $R$ and $I_J$ is the Josephson supercurrent. In the right-hand side, the relation (\[L\]) has beed used.
Combining Eqs. (\[relat\])-(\[IJ\]) with the second Josephson relation $d\psi/dt=2eU/\hbar$, where $U$ is the voltage drop across the junction, we get the Langevin-type equation in the form [@barone] $$\label{JJ}
C\frac{d^2 \phi}{dt^2}+\frac{1}{R}\frac{d \phi}{dt} + I_0 \sin \phi =- \frac{ \phi - \phi_e}{L}
%-\frac{\partial}{\partial\phi} V(\phi)
+\sqrt{\frac{2k_BT}{R}}\Gamma(t).$$ This equation has a mechanical interpretation: it can describe the ’position’ $\phi(t)$ of the Brownian particle moving in the washboard potential $$\label{C}
W(\phi)= \frac{(\phi -\phi_e)^2}{2L} - I_0 \cos \phi.$$ The first term originates from the external bias and the self–inductive interaction of the magnetic flux whereas the second term is the supercurrent modified by the quantum flux. The ubiquitous thermal equilibrium noise $\Gamma(t)$ consists of Johnson noise associated with the resistance $R$. The parameter $k_B$ denotes the Boltzmann constant and $T$ is temperature of the system. The Johnson noise is modeled by $\delta$-correlated Gaussian white noise of zero mean, $\langle\Gamma(t)\rangle = 0$, and unit intensity, i.e., $\langle\Gamma(t) \Gamma(u)\rangle = \delta(t-u)$.
Normal metal ring
=================
Now, let us consider a non-superconducting ring. When the external magnetic field is applied, the actual flux is given by $$\label{LL1}
\phi =\phi_e + L I,$$ where $\phi_e$ is the flux generated by an applied external magnetic field, $L$ is the self-inductance of the ring and $I$ is the total current flowing in the ring. At zero temperature, the ring displays persistent and non-dissipative currents $I_{P}$ run by phase-coherent electrons. It is analogue of the Josephson supercurrent $I_J$. At non-zero temperature, a part of electrons becomes ’normal’ (non-coherent) and the amplitude of the persistent current decreases. Moreover, resistance of the ring and thermal fluctuations should be taken into account. Therefore for temperatures $T>0$, the total current consists of three parts, namely, $$\label{I}
I=I_C + I_R + I_{P} = \frac{ \phi - \phi_e}{L}.$$ What we need is the expression for the persistent current $I_{P}$. It is s function of the magnetic flux $\phi$ and depends on the parity of the number of coherent electrons. Let $p$ denotes the probability of an even number of coherent electrons and $1-p$ is the probability of an odd number of coherent electrons. Then the persistent current can be expressed in the form [@cheng] $$\begin{aligned}
I_{P}=I_{P}(\phi)=p\,I_{E}(\phi)+(1-p)\,I_{O}(\phi),\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{persi}
I_{E}(\phi)=I_{O}(\phi +\phi_0/2)
=I_0\sum_{n=1}^\infty A_n(T/T^*) \cos(nk_F l) \sin ( 2n\pi \phi /\phi _0), \end{aligned}$$ where $I_0$ is the maximal current at zero temperature. The temperature dependent amplitudes are determined by the relation [@cheng] $$\begin{aligned}
A_n(T/T^*)= \frac{4T}{\pi T^*}\frac{\exp(-nT/T^*)}{1-\exp(-2nT/T^*)}
,\end{aligned}$$ where the characteristic temperature $T^*$ is proportional to the energy gap $\Delta _F$ at the Fermi surface, $k_F$ is the Fermi momentum and $l$ is the circumference of the ring. If the number $N$ of electrons is fixed then $k_F=\pi N/l$ and the persistent current takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{per2}
I_{P}(\phi) =I_0\sum_{n=1}^\infty A_n(T/T^*)\sin ( 2n\pi \phi /\phi _0) [p + (-1)^n (1-p)].\end{aligned}$$ As a result, from Eq. (\[I\]) we obtain the equation of motion in the form [@rogo] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{PC}
C\frac{d^2\phi}{dt^2} + \frac{1}{R}\frac{d\phi}{dt} =
-\frac{1}{L}(\phi-\phi_{e}) + I_{P}(\phi)
+ \sqrt{\frac{2 k_BT}{R}}\;\Gamma (t) \nonumber\\
%\nonumber\\
= - \frac{dV(\phi)}{d\phi} + \sqrt{\frac{2 k_BT}{R}}\;\Gamma (t),\end{aligned}$$ where the “potential” $V(\phi)$ reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{W}
V(\phi)&=&\frac{1}{2L} \left(\phi - \phi_e\right)^2
+ \phi_0 I_0\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}
\frac{A_n(T/T^*)}{2n\pi} \cos\left(2n\pi \frac{\phi}{\phi_0}\right) \;[p+(-1)^n (1-p)]. \end{aligned}$$ In the above Langevin equation, $C$ and $L$ are, respectively, the capacitance and inductance of the ring. It was shown [@kopietz], that the energy associated with long-wavelength and low-energy charge fluctuations is determined by classical charging energies and therefore the ring behaves as it were a classical capacitor. The flux dependence of these energies yields the contribution to the persistent current [@capac1]. The capacitance becomes essential if the ring accommodates a stationary impurity or a quantum dot [@dot]. Moreover, in the mesoscopic domain the standard description of a capacitor in terms of the geometric capacitance (that relates the charge on the plate to the voltage across the capacitor) gives way to a more complex notion of capacitance which depends on the properties of conductors [@butikerC].
Note that Eqs. (\[JJ\]) and (\[PC\]) have a similar structure. The difference is not only in the form of the potential but also in temperature dependence of the potential in the case the normal metal rings.
Quantum Smoluchowski regime
===========================
In both models (for superconducting and non-superconducting rings), thermal equilibrium fluctuations are modeled as classical fluctuations of zero correlation time. When temperature is lowered, quantum nature of fluctuations starts to play a role, fluctuations become correlated and leading quantum corrections should be taken into account. It is not a simple task and a general method how to incorporate quantum corrections in a case described by Eq. (\[PC\]) is not known. However, in the quantum Smoluchowki regimes [@ankerhold1], where the charging effects (related to the capacitance $C$) can be neglected, the system can be described by the “overdamped” Langevin equation - the so-named quantum Smoluchowski equation [@ankerhold1; @luczka]. For a Brownian particle it corresponds to neglecting inertial effects related to the mass of a particle. The quantum Smoluchowski equation has the same structure as a classical Smoluchowski equation, in which the diffusion coefficient $D_0=k_BT/R$ is modified due to quantum effects like tunnelling, quantum reflections and purely quantum fluctuations. In terms of the Langevin equation (\[PC\]), it assumes the form $$\label{QOV}
\frac{1}{R}\frac{d\phi}{dt} = - \frac{dV(\phi)}{d\phi} +
\sqrt{2D_{ \Lambda}(\phi)}\;\Gamma (t).$$ This equation has to be interpreted in the Ito sense [@gard]. The modified diffusion coefficient $D_{ \Lambda}(\phi)$ takes the form [@luczka] $$\begin{aligned}
D_{ \Lambda}(\phi)=\frac{D_0}{1-\Lambda V''(\phi)/k_BT}, \end{aligned}$$ where the prime denotes differentiation with respect to the argument of the function. The quantum correction is characterized by the parameter $\Lambda$. It measures a deviation of the quantal flux fluctuations from its classical counterpart, namely, $$\label{Lam1}
\Lambda=\langle \phi^2\rangle_{Q} -\langle \phi^2\rangle_{C},$$ where $\langle \cdots \rangle$ denotes equilibrium average, the subscripts $Q$ and $C$ refer to quantal and classical cases, respectively. Let us determine the range of applicability of the quantum Smoluchowski regime. The classical Smoluchowski limit corresponds to the case when charging effects can be neglected. Formally, one can put $C=0$ in the inertial term of Eq. (\[PC\]), which is related to the strong damping limit of the Brownian particle. In the case studied here it means that [@ankerhold1] $$\label{ineq1}
\omega_0 CR \ll 1,$$ where the frequency $\omega_0$ is a typical frequency of the bare system and its inverse corresponds to a characteristic time of the system. In such a case, Eq. (\[Lam1\]) takes the form [@rogo] $$\label{Lam3}
\Lambda = \frac{ \hbar R}{\pi}\left[ \gamma +
\Psi\left(1+\frac{\hbar}{2\pi CR k_BT}\right) \right],$$ where the psi function $\Psi(z)$ is the logarithmic derivative of the Gamma function and $\gamma \simeq 0.5772$ is the Euler constant.
The separation of time scales, on which the flux relaxes and the conjugate observable (a charge) is already equilibrated, requires the second condition, namely, $$\label{ineq2}
\omega_0 CR \ll k_BT/\hbar \omega_0.$$ In the deep quantum regime, i.e. when $$\label{ineq3}
k_BT \ll \frac{\hbar}{2\pi CR},$$ the correction parameter (\[Lam3\]) simplifies to the form $$\label{ln}
\Lambda=\frac{\hbar R}{\pi}\left[\gamma+\ln\left(\frac{\hbar}{2\pi CR k_BT}\right)\right].$$ In order to identify precisely the quantum Smoluchowski regime, we have to determine a typical frequency $\omega_0$ or the corresponding characteristic time $\tau_0 \propto 1/\omega_0$. There are many characteristic times in the system, which can be explicitly extracted from the evolution equation (\[PC\]), e.g. $CR$, $\hbar/ k_BT$, $\phi_0/(RI_0)$. The characteristic time $\tau_0 = L/R$ is the inductive time of the ring and for a typical mesoscopic ring, $L/R$ is in the picosecond range. Therefore, in the quantum Smoluchowski regime, all the above inequalities (\[ineq1\]), (\[ineq2\]) and (\[ineq3\]) should be fulfilled for $\omega_0 =2\pi/\tau_0$. Because the diffusion coefficient cannot be negative, the parameter $\Lambda$ should be chosen small enough to satisfy the condition $D_{\Lambda}(\phi)\ge 0$ for all values of $\phi$.
The “overdamped” Langevin equation (\[QOV\]) describes a classical Markov stochastic process and its probability density $P(\phi, t)$ obeys the Fokker-Planck equation [@gard], namely, $$\label{FP}
\frac{1}{R} \, \frac{\partial}{\partial t} P(\phi, t) = \frac{\partial}{\partial \phi} \left[
\frac{dV(\phi)}{d\phi} P(\phi, t) \right] + \frac{\partial^2}{\partial \phi^2}
\left[ D_{\Lambda}(\phi) P(\phi, t) \right] .$$ We wish to analyze an averaged stationary current $\langle I \rangle$ flowing in the ring which can be obtained from Eq. (\[I\]): $$\label{Ia}
\langle I \rangle = \frac{1}{L} \left[ \langle \phi \rangle - \phi_e \right],$$ where the averaged stationary magnetic flux $ \langle \phi \rangle$ is calculated from the equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{phia}
\langle \phi \rangle = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \phi \; P(\phi) d \phi, \quad
P(\phi) = \lim_{t \to \infty} P(\phi, t), \end{aligned}$$ where $P(\phi)$ is a stationary probability density, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Ps}
P(\phi)= C_0 D^{-1}_{\Lambda}(\phi)
\exp\left[- U(\phi)\right], \end{aligned}$$ where $C_0$ is the normalization constant and the generalized thermodynamic potential $U(\phi)$ reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{thermo}
U(\phi) =\int \frac{dV(\phi)}{d\phi} {D^{-1}_{\Lambda}(\phi)}\;d\phi.\end{aligned}$$ Because the potential $V(\phi)$ depends on the external flux $\phi_e$, the averaged stationary current (\[Ia\]) is a non-linear function of $\phi_e$. Eqs. (\[Ia\]) - (\[thermo\]) form a closed set of equations from which the current characteristics $\langle I \rangle = f(\phi_e)$ as a certain function $f$ of the external magnetic flux $\phi_e$ can be obtained. It is an analogous of the current-voltage characteristics for electrical circuits.
Dimensionless variables and parameters
======================================
To analyze the current-flux characteristics in the stationary state, we first introduce dimensionless variables and parameters. The rescaled flux $x=\phi/\phi_0$. Then Eq. (\[Ia\]) can be rewritten in the dimensionless form $$\label{LL}
i = \langle x \rangle -x_e, \quad i= \langle I \rangle L/\phi_0, \quad x_e=\phi_e/\phi_0,$$ where $i, \langle x \rangle$ and $x_e$ are dimensionless averaged current, averaged flux and external flux, respectively.
The stationary probability density $p(x)$ takes the $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ps}
p(x)= N_0 D^{-1}(x) \exp\left[-\Psi_{\lambda}(x)\right], \end{aligned}$$ where $N_0$ is the normalization constant and the generalized thermodynamic potential reads $$\label{Psi}
\Psi_{\lambda}(x) =\int\frac{dV(x)}{dx} \,D^{-1}_{\lambda}(x) \,dx.$$ The rescaled potential reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{V(x)}
V(x)=\frac{1}{2}(x-x_e)^2 + B(x),\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{B}
B(x)= \alpha \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{A_n(T_0)}{2n\pi} \cos(2n\pi x) [p + (-1)^n (1-p)]\end{aligned}$$ with the dimensionless temperature $T_0=T/T^*$ and $\alpha = LI_0/\phi_0$. The rescaled modified diffusion function $D_{\lambda}(x)$ assumes the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{D(x)}
D_{\lambda}(x)=\frac{\beta^{-1}} {1-\lambda\beta V''(x)} \end{aligned}$$ with $\beta^{-1}= k_BT/2E_m = k_0 T_0$, the elementary magnetic flux energy $E_m=\phi_0^2/2L$ and $k_0= k_BT^*/2E_m$ is the ratio of two characteristic energies. The dimensionless quantum correction parameter $$\label{lam}
\lambda = \lambda_0 \left[ \gamma +
\Psi\left(1+ \frac{\epsilon}{T_0}\right) \right],
\quad
\lambda_0=\frac{ \hbar R}{\pi\phi_0^2},
\quad
\epsilon = \frac{\hbar/2\pi CR}{k_BT^*}.$$ Remember that the Smoluchowski regime corresponds to the strong coupling limit. For classical systems, i.e. when the quantum correction parameter $\lambda =0$, the stationary state is a Gibbs state, i.e. $p(x) \propto \exp[-\beta V(x)]$. For quantum systems, due to the $x$-dependence of the modified diffusion coefficient $D_{\lambda}(x)$, the stationary state (\[ps\]) is not a Gibbs state. However, it is a thermal equilibrium state.
![(color online) The dimensionless current $i$ [*vs*]{} the external magnetic flux $x_e$ for three values of the probability $p$ of an even number of coherent electrons in the ring. Please note that one can obtain the persistent current for slightly asymmetric case $p=0.48$ just by shifting the presented characteristic for $p=0.52$ by $ x_e = 0.5 $. It is the case of “classical” thermal fluctuations, i.e. when the quantum correction parameter $\lambda_0 =0$. Other dimensionless parameters are: $\alpha = 0.1$, $T_0 = 0.5$, $k_0 = 0.08$. []{data-label="fig1"}](fig1){width="49.00000%"}
Current – flux characteristics in stationary states {#current-flux}
===================================================
A persistent current is a periodic function of the magnetic flux with a period given by a single-electron flux unit $\phi_0=h/e$. To what extent the current is highly sensitive to a variety of subtle effects such as an electron–electron interaction, defects, disorder, coupling to an environment and other degrees of freedom, it is still a topic of controversy and persistent discussion. Fortunately, novel techniques developed recently such as the microtorsional magnetometer [@harris] and scanning SQUID [@bluhm] allow to measure the persistent current in metal rings over a wide range of magnetic fields, temperatures and ring sizes. Like many mesoscopic effects, the persistent current in real systems depends on the particular realization of disorder and thus varies between nominally identical rings, cf. the term $\cos(nk_Fl)$ in Eq. (\[persi\]) which in practice is random. In Fig. 1 we depict the well-known dependence of current upon the external magnetic flux $x_e$ for three selected values of the probability $p$ of an even number of coherent electrons in the ring. The choice of values of $p$ is arbitrary but shapes of the current are similar to those observed in experiments.
We now focus on the influence of quantum thermal fluctuations on persistent currents. The deviation from the “classicality” is measured by the dimensionless parameter $\lambda$ which depends on $\lambda_0$ (the material constant) and temperature, see Eq. (\[lam\]). It is instructive to compare basic quantities characterizing the system. In Fig. 2 we show the generalized thermodynamic potential $\Psi_{\lambda}(x)$, the modified diffusion function $D_{\lambda}(x)$ and the stationary probability density $p(x)$ for two values of the quantum correction strength $ \lambda_0 $. Three panels (a), (b) and (c) are presented for the case $x_e =0$ (the vanishing external flux). The case $\lambda_0 =0$ corresponds to classical thermal fluctuations and $\Psi_{0}(x)$ is a bare potential $V(x)/k_0 T_0$. We note that the generalized thermodynamic potential $\Psi_{\lambda}(x)$ for various $\lambda$ changes only slightly. On the contrary, the state-dependent diffusion function is a periodic function of the magnetic flux and possess maxima and minima. It is a radical difference to the classical case $\lambda =0$ for which $D_0(x)=D_0=k_0T_0$ is a constant function (thin solid blue line and thin dashed red line in panel (c)). The maxima of $D_{\lambda}(x)$ can be interpreted as a higher effective local temperature. They are located at $x_e=1/4 \; \mbox{mod}(1/2)$. The impact of quantum corrections on the stationary probability density $p(x)$ seems to be rather insignificant. One can observe a small deformation around the peak of the density: for lower temperature and non-zero $\lambda_0$ the peak becomes slightly higher and narrower and the tails do not diverge in the quantum case as fast as in the classical one.
![(color online) Four characteristics of the normal metallic ring in the absence (panels a – c) and presence (panel d) of the external flux are demonstrated for two values of the dimensionless temperature: $ T_0 = 0.5, 0.8 $ and for two different values of the quantum fluctuations strength: $ \lambda_0 = 0, 0.001 $. The key for reading this plot is as the following: blue (solid) lines denote curves corresponding to the lower temperature $T_0 = 0.5 $ and the red (dashed) lines correspond to the higher temperature $ T_0 = 0.8 $; the thin lines correspond to $ \lambda_0 = 0 $ (classical thermal fluctuations) and the thick lines correspond to $ \lambda_0 = 0.001 $ (quantum thermal fluctuations). In panel (a) we present the thermodynamic potential defined in (\[Psi\]). In the classical case ($ \lambda_0 = 0 $) it reduces to $ V(x) / k_0 T_0 $. One can notice only small deviations from the classical case when the rescaled parameter $ \lambda_0 $ is increased to $ 0.001 $. On the panel (b) we illustrate the corresponding stationary probability density function $ p(x) $. The bell – shaped curve in the classical limit is slightly deformed for non-zero $ \lambda_0 $. The peak tends to be narrower and reach higher values and the tails decay slower as we increase $ \lambda_0 $. This effect is stimulated collectively by the thermodynamic potential and the effective diffusion presented on panels (a) and (c), respectively. Please note that for the classical case, the flux dependence of $ D_\lambda(x) $ disappears and constantly equals $ k_0 T_0 = 0.04 $ for $ T_0 = 0.5 $ and $ 0.064 $ for $ 0.8 $. The most significant influence of the temperature is found in panel (d), where the current–flux characteristics are displayed. For small external load, around flux $ x_e = 0 $, the system responses in a completely different way for two selected temperatures. For $ T_0 = 0.5 $ in both classical and quantum cases the persistent current is paramagnetic. If we, however, increase the temperature to $ T_0 = 0.8 $, the situation changes drastically and the susceptibility for this higher temperature becomes diamagnetic. Other rescaled parameters are set as the following $\alpha = 0.1$, $k_0 = 0.08$, $p = 0.48$, $\epsilon = 100$. []{data-label="fig2"}](fig2){width="99.00000%"}
Finally, we analyze the influence of quantum thermal fluctuations on the current-flux characteristics $i=i(x_e)$. It is illustrated in panel (d) of Fig. 2 and in Fig. 3. Two solid blue lines in panel (d) of Fig. 2 are qualitatively similar to the experimental curve shown in figure S6(A) in the Supporting Online Material [@supp] of the paper [@harris]. We observe that in all cases of quantum thermal fluctuations the amplitude of persistent currents is reduced in comparison to classical thermal fluctuations case ($\lambda_0=0$) both in the paramagnetic regime ($T_0=0.5$) and diamagnetic regime ($T_0=0.8$). The parameter regime depicted in Fig. 3 is much more interesting. For $T_0=0.6$, in the “classical” case, the persistent current is [*paramagnetic*]{}, i.e. $i= \eta x_e$ with the positive slope $\eta > 0$ in the vicinity of $x_e =0$. It is a linear response regime where the transport coefficient (susceptibility) $\eta = \lim_{x_e \to 0} [i(x_e)/x_e]$.
![(color online) The dimensionless current $i$ [*vs*]{} the external magnetic flux $x_e$ for two values of the dimensionless temperature $ T_0 = 0.6, 0.642 $ and two values of the parameter $ \lambda_0 = 0$ (classical thermal fluctuations) and $ 0.001 $ (quantum thermal fluctuations). Again, the key for reading this plot is as for the previous figure: blue (solid) lines denote curves corresponding to the lower temperature $ T_0 = 0.6 $ and the red (dashed) lines correspond to the higher temperature $ T_0 = 0.642 $; the thin lines correspond to $ \lambda_0 = 0 $ and thick lines corresponds to $ \lambda_0 = 0.001 $. The most significant influence of the ’quantum parameter’ $ \lambda_0$ is found for the rescaled temperature $ T_0 = 0.6 $, where the current $ i $ changes its behavior from paramagnetic to diamagnetic one just by adjusting $ \lambda_0 $ from $ 0 $ to $ 0.001 $. Moreover, for the presented set of the system parameters we can find characteristic cross-temperature at $ T_0 = 0.642 $ where the magnetic susceptibility is zero in the classical case and diamagnetic in quantum, see red (dashed) line for details. Rescaled parameters are set as the following $\alpha = 0.1$, $k_0 = 0.08$, $p = 0.48$, $\epsilon = 100$. []{data-label="fig3"}](fig3){width="49.00000%"}
If temperature is a litlle bit higher ($T_0=0.642$), the susceptibility $\eta =0$ zero in the classical case. If quantum corrections are taken into account, the susceptibility $\eta < 0$ , the slope of the $i-x_e$ curve in negative and the current becomes diamagnetic. The most interesting observation is that the persistent current can change its character from the paramagnetic to diamagnetic phase and the sign of the low-field magnetic response depends on the level of the quantum corrections. Our detailed numerical analysis shows that the sign of magnetic susceptibility can easily be affected by system parameters and therefore is not robust against small perturbations. This is what has been observed in many experiments regarding the paramagnetic or/and diamagnetic persistent currents. The best illustration of what we state here is the response of 15 nominally identical ring presented in Fig. 2 in Ref. [@bluhm]: e.g. for the ring 1 the current is paramagnetic while for the ring 2 it is diamagnetic.
Conclusions
===========
In many cases and for various systems at the “intermediate” temperatures, the semi-classical theory is insufficient and the quantum corrections should be involved. It has been shown in the literature that in the strong friction limit, the quantum effects are restricted not only to low temperatures and therefore they should be incorporated for the higher temperatures as well. This is so because the quantum fluctuations, even if reduced for one variable, are enlarged for the conjugate variable. The dynamics as well as the stationary states in this regime can be modeled by the quantum Smoluchowski equation. In other words, the quantum non-Markovian stochastic process is approximated by the classical Markovian process with the modified, state-dependent diffusion function.
The role of the quantum corrections on the current-flux characteristics is addressed in this work. A general conclusion is that the quantum thermal fluctuations reduce the amplitude of the persistent currents: the current amplitude is always smaller than the corresponding “classical” one. In the quantum case, the diffusion constant becomes a periodic function of the magnetic flux. Maxima and minima of the diffusion function can be interpreted in terms of the higher and lower local temperature. There are parameters regimes where the system response changes the character from the paramagnetic to diamagnetic, when the quantum effects of thermal fluctuations increases. It would be interesting to extend the current study by including the time-dependent drivings modeled by the time-periodic magnetic fields. One could expect novel transport phenomena like a negative susceptibility which for Brownian particles corresponds to negative mobility [@mach] or negative conductances [@kos].
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
The work supported by the ESF Program [*Exploring the Physics of Small Devices*]{}. J. [Ł]{}. wishes to thank Lutz Schimansky-Geier for long-term friendship, hospitality and collaboration. Sto lat, Lutz!
[99]{}
F. Hund, Ann. Phys. (Leipzig) [**32**]{}, 102 (1938).
I. O. Kulik, JETP Lett. [**11**]{}, 275 (1970); M. Büttiker, Y. Imry, R. Landauer, Phys. Lett. A [**96**]{}, 365 (1993).
L. P. Lévy, G. Dolan, J. Dunsmuir, and H. Bouchiat, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**64**]{}, 2074 (1990).
V. Chandrasekhar, R. A. Webb, M. J. Brandy, M. B. Ketchen, W. J. Gallagher, and A. Kleinsasser, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**67**]{}, 3578 (1991); D. Mailly, C. Chapelier and A. Benoit, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**70**]{}, 2020 (1993); B. Reulet, M. Ramin, H. Bouchiat, and D. Mailly, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{}, 124 (1995); E. M. Q. Jariwala, P. Mohanty, M. B. Ketchen, R. A. Webb, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{}, 1594 (2001); W. Rabaut, L. Saminadayar, D. Mailly, K. Hasselbach, A. Benoît, B. Etienne, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{}, 3124 (2001); R. Deblock, R. Bel, B. Reulet, H. Bouchiat, D. Mailly, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**89**]{}, 206803 (2002).
A. C. Bleszynski-Jayich, W. E. Shanks, B. Peaudecerf, E. Ginossar, F. von Oppen, L. Glazman, and J. G. E. Harris, Science [**326**]{}, 272 (2009).
H. Bluhm, N. C. Koshnick, J. A. Bert, M. E. Huber, and K. A. Moler, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**102**]{}, 136802 (2009).
J. Dajka, L. Machura, S, Rogoziński, and J. Łuczka, Phys. Rev. B [**76**]{}, 045337 (2007); J. Dajka, S. Rogoziński, Ł. Machura, J. Łuczka, Acta Physica Polonica B [**38**]{}, 1737 (2007); L. Machura, J. Dajka, and J. Łuczka, J. Stat. Mech. P01030 (2009).
A. Barone, G. Paterno, [*Physics and applications of the Josephson effect*]{}, Wiley, New York (1982)
A. Neiman, L. Schimansky-Geier, T. Vadivasova, V. S. Anishchenko, V. Astakhov, [*Nonlinear Dynamics of Chaotic and Stochastic Systems*]{}, Springer, Berlin (2007); J. [Ł]{}uczka, M. Niemiec and E. Piotrowski, Phys. Lett. A [**167**]{}, 475 (1992). J. Ankerhold, P. Pechukas, H. Grabert, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{}, 086801 (2001).
Ł. Machura, M. Kostur, P. Hänggi, P. Talkner, J. Łuczka Phys. Rev. E [**70**]{}, 031107 (2004); J. Łuczka, R. Rudnicki, P. Hänggi, Physica A [**351**]{}, 60 (2005).
J. Ankerhold, Europhys. Lett. [**67**]{}, 280 (2004); J. Ankerhold, P. Pechukas, H. Grabert, Chaos [**15**]{}, 026106 (2005); S. A. Maier and J. Ankerhold, Phys. Rev. E [**81**]{}, 021107 (2010) . W. T. Coffey, Y. P. Kalmykov, S. V. Titov, and L. Cleary, Phys. Rev. E [**78**]{}, 031114 (2008); Phys. Rev. B [**79**]{}, 054507 (2009); L. Cleary, W. T. Coffey, Y. P. Kalmykov, and S. V. Titov, Phys. Rev. E [**80**]{}, 051106 (2009). M. Kostur, L. Machura, P. Talkner, P. Hänggi, J. [Ł]{}uczka, Phys. Rev. B [**77**]{}, 104509 (2008). H.F. Cheung, Y. Gefen, E.K. Riedel and W.H. Shih Phys. Rev. B [**37**]{} ,6050 (1989).
P. Kopietz, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**70**]{}, 3123 (1993).
Y. Imry, B.L. Altshuhler, in [*Nanostructures and Mesoscopic Phenomena*]{}, eds. W.P. Kirk and M.A. Reed, Academic San Diego (1992).
A. A. Aligia, Phys. Rev. B [**66**]{}, 165303 (2002); Guo–Hui Ding and Bing Dong, Phys. Rev. B [**67**]{}, 195327 (2003).
M. Büttiker, Physica Scripta [**T54**]{}, 104 (1994).
C.W. Gardiner, [*Handbook of stochastic methods*]{}, Springer, Berlin (1983).
Supporting Online Material for Ref. [@harris]: www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/326/5950/272/DC1. M. Kostur, L. Machura, P. Hänggi, J. [Ł]{}uczka and P. Talkner, Physica A [**371**]{}, 20 (2006).
[^1]:
[^2]: The work dedicated to Prof. Lutz Schimansky-Geier on the occasion of his 60th birthday.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The Lichtenbaum-Quillen conjecture (LQC) relates special values of zeta functions to algebraic K-theory groups. The Ausoni-Rognes red-shift conjectures generalize the LQC to higher chromatic heights in a precise sense. In this paper, we propose an alternate generalization of the LQC to higher chromatic heights and prove a highly nontrivial case this conjecture. In particular, if the $n$-th Greek letter family is detected by a commutative ring spectrum $R$, then we conjecture that the $n+1$-st Greek letter family will be detected by the algebraic K-theory of $R$. We prove this in the case $n=1$ for $R=K(\mathbb{F}_q)_p$ where $p\ge 5$ and $q$ is prime power generator of the units in $\mathbb{Z}/p^2\mathbb{Z}$. In particular, we prove that the commutative ring spectrum $K(K(\mathbb{F}_q)_p)$ detects the $\beta$-family. The method of proof also implies that the $\beta$-family is detected in iterated algebraic K-theory of the integers. Consequently, one may relate iterated algebraic K-theory groups of the integers to modular forms satisfying certain congruences.'
author:
- 'Gabe Angelini-Knoll'
bibliography:
- 'sources.bib'
title: 'Detecting the $\beta$-family in iterated algebraic K-theory of finite fields'
---
Introduction
============
Following Waldhausen [@MR764579], the famous Lichtenbaum-Quillen conjecture states that the map $$\label{LQmap} K_n(A;\bZ/\ell\bZ)\to K_n^{\operatorname{\text{\'et}}}(A; \bZ/ \ell\bZ)$$ from algebraic K-theory to étale algebraic K-theory is an isomorphism for $n$ sufficiently large where $A$ is a nice regular ring with $\ell$ invertible in $A$ and $\ell$ is an odd prime [@MR0422392; @MR0406981]. Since algebraic K-theory satisfies Nisnevich descent and étale algebraic K-theory satisfies étale descent, the question can be translated into the question of whether the map from motivic cohomology to étale cohomology is an isomorphism in a range. In this way, the conjecture was resolved by M. Rost and V. Voevodsky as a consequence of their proof of the Bloch-Kato conjecture.
Thomason showed in [@MR826102] that $K_n^{\operatorname{\text{\'et}}}(A; \bZ/ \ell \bZ)\cong \beta^{-1}K_n(A; \bZ/ \ell\bZ)$ under the same conditions on $A$ where $\beta$ is the Bott element in $K_{2}(A; \bZ/ \ell \bZ)$. From the perspective of homotopy theory, we may therefore view the map as the map on $\pi_n$ induced by the map of spectra $$S/\ell \wedge K(A) \rightarrow v_1^{-1}S/\ell \wedge K(A)$$ where $S/\ell$ is the cofiber of multiplication by $\ell$. Here the map $v_1\co \Sigma^{2p-2} S/\ell \to S/\ell$ is a $v_1$-self map which has the property that no iterate of it with itself is null homotopic. This allows us to define $v_1^{-1}S/\ell$ as the homotopy colimit of the diagram $$S/\ell \overset{v_1}{\longrightarrow} \Sigma^{-2p+2}S/\ell \overset{v_1}{\longrightarrow} \Sigma^{-4p+4}S/\ell \overset{v_1}{\longrightarrow} \ldots$$ of spectra. The effect of inverting the Bott element is the same as the effect of inverting $v_1$ by work of Snaith [@MR750689] as interpreted by Waldhausen [@MR764579 Sec. 4].
The original motivation of the Lichtenbaum-Quillen conjecture was to relate algebraic K-theory groups to special values of zeta functions. For $A$ the ring of integers in a totally real number field $F$ and $\ell$ an odd prime, Wiles proved that quotients of étale cohomology groups of $A[1/\ell]$ recover special values of the Dedekind zeta function $\zeta_F$ [@MR1053488]. The Lichtenbaum-Quillen conjecture then gives a correspondence between algebraic K-theory groups and special values of Dedekind zeta functions. Notably these special values correspond to the $v_1$-periodic part of $S/\ell _*K(A)$ because they are detected in $v_1^{-1}S/\ell _* K(A)$.
As another specific example, consider the algebraic K-theory of finite fields $\mathbb{F}_q$ where $q$ is a prime power that topologically generates the ring $\bZ_\ell^{\times}$ and $\ell$ is an odd prime (or equivalently $q$ generates the units in $\bZ/\ell^2\bZ$). D. Quillen [@MR0315016] computed $K_n(\mathbb{F}_q)$ for all $n$ and after localizing at $\ell$, there is an isomorphism $$K_{2s-1}(\mathbb{F}_q;\bZ_{(\ell)})\cong \bZ/\ell^{\nu_\ell(k)+1}\bZ$$ where $s=(\ell-1)k$ and $\nu_{\ell}(k)$ is the $\ell$-adic valuation of $k$. The order of the group $K_{2s-1}(\mathbb{F}_q;\bZ_{(\ell)})$ corresponds exactly to the $\ell$-adic valuation of the denominator of $B_{s}/2s$ where $B_s$ is the $s$-th Bernoulli number. Recall that Bernoulli numbers are the coefficients in the Taylor series $$\frac{x}{e^x-1}=\sum_{s\ge 0} B_s \frac{x^s}{s!}$$ and the special values of the Riemann zeta function satisfy $\zeta(-s)=(-1)^sB_s/(s+1)$ for $s\ge 0$.
This example is intimately tied to stable homotopy theory as well. J.F. Adams showed that the image of the J-homomorphism from the homotopy groups of the stable orthogonal group to the stable homotopy groups of spheres is highly nontrivial and the classical Bott periodicity in the homotopy groups of the stable orthogonal group corresponds to periodicity in the stable homotopy groups of spheres [@MR0198470]. In fact, the $\ell$-local image of the J-homomorphism exactly corresponds to the image of the map $\pi_*(S_{(\ell)})\to K_{2(\ell-1)k-1}(\mathbb{F}_q;\bZ_{(\ell)})$ when $\ell$ is an odd prime. The image of J therefore bridges the fields of homotopy theory and number theory. The spectrum $H\mathbb{F}_q$ detects $v_0$-periodicity in the sense that $\ell^k=v_0^k$ is nontrivial in the image of the Hurewicz map $\pi_*S\to \pi_*H\mathbb{F}_q$. Therefore, we have observed an instance where algebraic K-theory of a spectrum that detects $v_0$-periodic elements detects $v_1$-periodic elements. One goal of this introduction is to formulate a precise conjecture about a higher chromatic height generalization of this phenomena. The main theorem of this paper is evidence for this conjecture at a higher chromatic height.
In chromatic stable homotopy theory, we study periodic families of elements in the homotopy groups of spheres. The first such family, due to J.F. Adams [@MR0198470] and H. Toda [@MR0111041], is the $\alpha$-family, which consists of maps $\alpha_k$ defined as the composites $$\xymatrix{ \alpha_k\co \Sigma^{(2\ell-2)k}S \ar[r]^{i_0} & \Sigma^{(2\ell-2)k}S/\ell \ar[r]^(.6){v_1^k} & S/\ell \ar[r]^{\delta_0}& \Sigma S }$$ where $\ell$ is an odd prime. The elements $\alpha_k$ are $\ell$-torsion elements in the groups $\pi_{2(\ell-1)k-1}S$. These elements are in the image of the J-homomorphism at odd primes $\ell$ and as discussed earlier they are also detected in algebraic K-theory of finite fields of order $q$ when $q$ generates $(\mathbb{Z}/\ell^2\mathbb{Z})^{\times}$. In particular, they correspond to certain special values of the Riemann zeta function. Now, consider the cofiber of the periodic self-map $v_1\co\Sigma^{2p-2}S/\ell\rightarrow S/\ell$ denoted $V(1)$. When $\ell\ge 5$, there exists a periodic self-map $v_2\co \Sigma^{2\ell^2-2}V(1)\to V(1)$ and there is an associated periodic family of elements in the homotopy groups of spheres called the $\beta$-family. In particular, L. Smith [@MR0275429] proved that the maps $$\xymatrix{ \beta_k\co \Sigma^{(2\ell^2-2)k}S\ar[r]^{i_0i_1} & \Sigma^{(2\ell^2-2)k}V(1)\ar[r]^(.6){v_2^k} & V(1) \ar[r]^{\delta_0\delta_1} & \Sigma^{2\ell} S }$$ are nontrivial. This family of elements also has a deep connection to number theory by work of Behrens [@MR2469520]. In particular, Behrens showed that the (divided) $\beta$-family is related to a family of modular forms satisfying certain congruences [@MR2469520 Thm. 1.3].
In the language of chromatic homotopy theory, the $\alpha$-family is a periodic family of height one and the $\beta$-family is a periodic family of height two. There are a family of homology theories $K(n)_*$ called Morava K-theory which are useful for detecting periodicity of chromatic height $n$ in the homotopy groups of spheres. The coefficients of Morava K-theory are $K(n)_*\cong \mathbb{F}_\ell[v_n^{\pm 1}]$ for $n\ge 1$ and $K(0)_*$ is rational homology. We say a $\ell$-local finite cell $S$-module $V$ has type $n$ if the groups $K(n)_*V\not\cong 0$ and the groups $K(n-1)_*V$ vanish. By the celebrated periodicity theorem of Hopkins-Smith [@MR1652975], any $\ell$-local finite spectrum $V$ of type $n$ admits a periodic self map $$v_n^m\co\Sigma^{(2\ell^n-2)m}V\rightarrow V.$$ We can therefore define $v_n^{-1}V$ in the same way that we defined $v_1^{-1}S/\ell$. We can also construct the $n$-th Greek letter family by including into the bottom cell, iterating $v_n^m$ $k$-times, and then projecting onto the top cell. However, it is highly non-trivial to prove that Greek letter elements that are constructed in this way are actually nonzero.
The study of Greek letter family elements was significantly expanded by the groundbreaking work of Miller-Ravenel-Wilson [@MR0458423] using the chromatic spectral sequence $$\label{chrom ss} E_1^{*,*}= \bigoplus_{i\ge 0} Ext_{BP_*BP}^{*,*}(BP_*,v_i^{-1}BP_*/(\ell^{\infty},v_1^{\infty},\dots,v_{i-1}^{\infty}))\Rightarrow Ext_{BP_*BP}^{*,*}(BP_*,BP_*)$$ which converges to the input of the $BP$-Adams spectral sequence. If the class $$v_n^k/\ell^{i_0}v_1^{i_1}\dots v_{n-1}^{i_{n-1}}\in Ext_{BP_*BP}^0(BP_*,v_i^{-1}BP_*/(\ell,v_1,\dots,v_{i-1}))$$ in the $E_1$-page of survives the chromatic spectral sequence, we will write $$\alpha^{(n)}_{k/(i_{n-1},i_{n-2},\dots i_0)}\in Ext_{BP_*BP}^{*,*}(BP_*,BP_*)$$ for its image in the abutment of the chromatic spectral sequence. We will refer to the collection of all such elements for a fixed $n$ as the $n$-th divided (algebraic) Greek letter family and when any of the $i_j$ for $0\le j\le n-1$ are $1$ we omit them from the notation. If the elements $\alpha^{(n)}_k$ survive the $BP$-Adams spectral sequence, then we will refer to the collection as the *$n$-th Greek letter family*. The advantage of this approach is that the elements in the input of the chromatic spectral sequence always exist. The question of whether or not certain Greek letter elements exist in homotopy can then be approached by determining whether certain elements in the chromatic spectral sequence and the $BP$-Adams spectral sequence are permanent cycles.
We will say that a (commutative) ring spectrum $R$ *detects* the $n$-th Greek letter family in the homotopy groups of spheres if each element $\alpha^{(n)}_k$ is non-trivial in the image of the unit map $$\pi_*S\lra \pi_*R.$$ We conjecture the following higher chromatic height analogue of the Lichtenbaum-Quillen conjecture, which is in the same spirit as the red-shift conjectures of Ausoni-Rognes [@AR08]. For the following conjecture, suppose the $n$-th and the $n+1$-st Greek letter family are nontrivial elements in $\pi_*S$ for a given prime $\ell$.
\[Greek red\] If $R$ is a commutative ring spectrum that detects the $n$-th Greek letter family, then $K(R)$ detects the $n+1$-st Greek letter family.
We can now state the main theorem of this paper. As discussed earlier, the spectrum $K(\bF_q)_\ell$ detects the $\alpha$-family for $\ell\ge 5$ and $q$ a prime power that generates $(\mathbb{Z}/\ell^2\mathbb{Z})^{\times}$. The main theorem of this paper is a proof of Conjecture \[Greek red\] in the case $n=1$ where $R=K(\bF_q)_\ell$. For the following theorem, let $\ell\ge 5$ be a prime and $q$ a prime power that generates $(\mathbb{Z}/\ell^2\mathbb{Z})^{\times}$. One can easily check that $\ell=5$ and $q=2$ is an example of such $\ell$ and $q$.
The commutative ring spectrum $K(K(\bF_q)_\ell)$ detects the $\beta$-family.
In particular, the method of proof also provides the following higher Lichtenbaum-Quillen-type result about iterated algebraic K-theory of the integers.
The commutative ring spectrum $K(K(\mathbb{Z}))$ detects the $\beta$-family.
In [@MR2469520], M. Behrens gives a description of the $\beta$-family in terms of modular forms satisfying certain congruences. From this point of view, our main result may be viewed as a higher chromatic height version of the Lichtenbaum-Quillen conjecture. It is therefore a step towards the larger program of understanding the arithmetic of commutative ring spectra.
The $\beta$-elements $\beta_k$ that we detect only agree with the divided $\beta$-family elements $\beta_{k/i,j}$ of M. Behrens [@MR2469520] when $i=j=1$. To make the connection to arithmetic more tight, it would be desirable to detect the entire divided $\beta$-family in iterated algebraic K-theory of finite fields. It is a long term goal of the author’s to show that, in fact, the entire divided $\beta$-family is detected in iterated algebraic K-theory of finite fields and consequently iterated algebraic K-theory of the integers.
Conventions
-----------
Let $\Sp$ be the category of symmetric spectra in pointed simplicial sets with the positive flat stable model structure. Most of the results here can also be proven for other models of the stable homotopy category since they depend only on the homotopy category, but the proof relies on the author’s joint paper with A. Salch [@thhmay] which uses this model for the stable homotopy category.
Co-modules $M$ over a Hopf algebroid $(E_*,E_*E)$ will always be considered with left co-action $$\psi_M^{E} :M\rightarrow E_*E\otimes_{E_*} M$$ and we will simply write $\psi$ when the module $M$ and the Hopf algebroid $(E,E_*E)$ is understood from the context. The main examples of interest are $E=H\bF_p$, where $E_*E$ is the dual Steenrod algebra $\mathcal{A}_*$, and $E=BP$. We write $$\Delta_{E} : E_*E \rightarrow E_*E \otimes_{E_*} E_*E$$ for the co-product of the Hopf-algebroid $E_*E$ or simply $\Delta$ when $E$ is understood from the context. When $E=H\bF_p$, this is the co-product in the dual Steenrod algebra $\mathcal{A}_*\cong P(\bar{\xi}_i \text{ }|\text{ }i\ge 1)\otimes E(\bar{\tau}_i \text{ }| \text{ }i\ge 0)$ which is defined on each algebra generator by the formulas $$\begin{array}{c}
\Delta (\bar{\xi}_n)=\underset{i+j=n}{\sum}\bar{\xi}_i\otimes\bar{\xi}_j^{p^i}\\
\Delta(\bar{\tau}_n)=1\otimes \bar{\tau}_n + \underset{i+j=n}{\sum} \bar{\tau}_i \otimes \bar{\xi}_j^{p^i}.
\end{array}$$ Here, by $\bar{x}$ we mean $\chi{x}$ where $\chi\co \mathcal{A}_*\rightarrow \mathcal{A}$ is the antipode structure map of the Hopf-algebra $\mathcal{A}_*$. When $E=BP$, the co-product on elements of $BP_*BP\cong \mathbb{Z}_{(p)}[v_1,v_2, \dots]\otimes \mathbb{Z}_{(p)}[t_1,t_2, \dots]$ is defined by the formula $$\begin{array}{c}
\Delta (t_n)=\underset{i+j=n}{\sum^F}t_i\otimes t_j^{p^i}
\end{array}$$ where $F$ is the formal group law of $BP$ associated to the complex orientation $MU\rightarrow BP$, which equips $BP$ with the universal $p$-typical formal group law. Throughout, we will write $H_*(-)$ for $H_*(-;\bF_p)$; i.e, homology with $\bF_p$-coefficients. Also, throughout we will work at a prime $p\ge 5$ and we will let $q$ be a prime power that topologically generates $\mathbb{Z}_p^{\times}$ or equivalently generates the units in $\bZ/p^2\bZ$. We will write $\bZ_p$ for $p$-complete integers and $X_p$ for the $p$-completion of a spectrum, which agrees with the Bousfield localization $L_{S/p}X$ at the mod $p$ Moore spectrum $S/p$. We will write $\dot{=}$ to indicate that an equality holds up to multiplication by a unit in $\mathbb{F}_p$. In the introduction, we used $\ell$ to denote our fixed prime because that is more closely aligned with conventions in étale cohomology, but the author is a homotopy theorist at heart and therefore can’t resist using $p$ to denote our fixed prime, which is more common in chromatic homotopy theory.
Acknowledgements
----------------
This paper grew out of the author’s Ph.D. thesis. The author would like to thank Andrew Salch for many discussions on the material in this paper and for his constant support and encouragement. Also, the author would like to thank Bob Bruner for offering his insight about the homological homotopy fixed point spectral sequence.
Overview of the toolkit {#prelim}
=======================
The THH-May spectral sequence for $K(\mathbb{F}_q)_p$
-----------------------------------------------------
We recall necessary results and definitions from the author’s paper [@K1localsphere] and the author’s joint paper with A. Salch [@thhmay] since they will be cited later.
A filtered commutative ring spectrum $I$ is a cofibrant object in $\Comm \Sp^{\mathbb{N}^{\op}}$ where $\Comm \Sp^{\mathbb{N}^{\op}}$ has the model structure created by the forgetful functor to $\Sp^{\mathbb{N}^{\op}}$ and $\Sp^{\mathbb{N}^{\op}}$ has the projective model structure. (See [@thhmay Sec. 4.1] for a discussion of why these model structures exist and have the desired properties). We write $I_i$ for $I$ evaluated on the natural number $i$. The associated graded of $I$ is defined as a commutative ring spectrum $E_0I$ in [@thhmay] and it is defined so that, after forgetting the commutative monoid structure, it is the spectrum $\vee_{i\ge 0} I_i/I_{i+1}$ where $I_i/I_{i+1}$ is the cofiber of the map $I_{i+1}\rightarrow I_i$. (Note that since I is cofibrant, the map $I_{i+1}\rightarrow I_i$ is a cofibration and $I_i$ is cofibrant for each $i$ so the cofiber agrees with the homotopy cofiber.)
This definition differs slightly from that in [@thhmay Def 3.1.2]. A cofibrant object in $\Comm \Sp^{\mathbb{N}^{\op}}$ is always a decreasingly filtered commutative monoid in $\Sp$ in the sense of [@thhmay Def 3.1.2] the converse is not always true. We will therefore work with a smaller category of filtered commutative ring spectra then in [@thhmay], but it will be sufficient for our purposes.
As was proven in [@thhmay Thm 4.2.1], an example of a filtered commutative ring spectrum associated to a connective commutative ring spectrum $R$ is the Whitehead filtration $$\dots \rightarrow \tau_{\ge 2} R \rightarrow \tau_{\ge 1}R \rightarrow \tau_{\ge 0} R$$ which is equipped with structure maps $\rho_{i,j}:\tau_{\ge i} R\wedge \tau_{\ge j} R \rightarrow \tau_{\ge i+j}R$. Here $\tau_{\ge s}R$ is a spectrum with $\pi_i(\tau_{\ge s}R)\cong 0$ for $i<S$ that is equipped with a map $\tau_{\ge s}R\to R$ that induces an isomorphism on homotopy groups $\pi_i$ for $i\ge s$. We write simply $\tau_{\ge \bullet} R$ for the filtered commutative ring spectrum constructed in [@thhmay Thm 4.2.1] as a cofibrant object in $\Comm \Sp^{\mathbb{N}^{\op}}$.
There is a spectral sequence associated to a filtered commutative ring spectrum $I$ in topological Hochschild homology for any connective spectrum homology theory $E_*$ $$E^1_{*,*}=E_{*,*}(THH(E_0I))\Rightarrow E_*(THH(I_0))$$ which we call the $E$-THH-May spectral sequence.
When $I=\tau_{\ge \bullet} R$ we simply write $H\pi_*R$ for $E_0I$. It is a generalized Eilenberg-Maclane spectrum so whenever $\pi_kR$ is a finitely generated abelian group for all $k$ and $E=S/p$, $H\bF_p$, $V(1)$, or $BP\wedge V(1)$, then $E_*THH(E_0I)$ is a graded $H\bF_p$-algebra and we can apply the following lemma to compute the input.
The following lemma is a consequence of the fact that all $H\bF_p$-modules are equivalent to a wedge of suspensions of $H\bF_p$ and an Adams spectral sequence argument, see [@MR2928844] for an alternate proof.
\[prim\] Let $M$ be an $H\bF_p$-algebra. Then $M$ is equivalent to a wedge of suspensions of $H\bF_p$, and the Hurewicz map $$\pi_*M\lra H_*M$$ induces an isomorphism between $\pi_*M$ and the subalgebra of $\mathcal{A}_*$-co-module primitives contained in $H_*M$.
Using the lemma above, we can compute the $E_1$-page of the $H\bF_p\wedge V(1)$-THH-May spectral sequence. For details see [@K1localsphere].
\[Bok1\] There is an isomorphism of $\mathcal{A}_*$-comodule algebras $$\begin{array}{l} (H\mathbb{F}_p\wedge V(1))_* THH(H\pi_*K(\bF_q)_p)\cong \\
\cA_*\otimes E(\epsilon_1)\otimes P(\tilde{v}_1)\otimes E(\sigma \bar{\xi}_1, \sigma \tilde{v}_1 )\otimes P(\mu_2) \otimes HH_*(S/p_*(H\pi_*K(\bF_q)_p))
\end{array}$$ where the $\cA_*$-co-action is the usual one, that is the coproduct in $\mathcal{A}_*$, on elements in $\cA_*$ and the remaining co-actions are primitive.
We can compute the input of the $V(1)$-THH-May spectral sequence using Lemma \[prim\].
\[computation\]There is an isomorphism of graded $\mathbb{F}_p$-algebras $$V(1)_*THH(H\pi_*K(\bF_q)_p))\cong E(\lambda_1, \epsilon_1, \sigma \tilde{v}_1)\otimes P(\mu_1, \tilde{v}_1)\otimes HH_*(S/p_*(H\pi_*K(\bF_q)_p))$$ where $|\epsilon_1|=|\lambda_1|=|\sigma \tilde{v}_1|=2p-1$, $|\alpha_1|=2p-3$, $|\mu_1|=2p$, $|\tilde{v}_1|=2p-2$, and $|\sigma \alpha_1|=2p-2$.
Our computations build on the computation of homology of topological Hochschild homology of $K(\bF_q)_p$ due to Angeltveit-Rognes [@MR2171809].
\[HFpj\] There is an isomorphism of $\mathcal{A}_*$-comodule algebras $$H_*K(\bF_q)_p\cong P(\tilde{\xi}_1^p,\tilde{\xi}_2,\bar{\xi}_3,...)\otimes E(\tilde{\tau}_2,\bar{\tau}_3, ...)\otimes E(b) \cong (\mathcal{A}//A(1))_*\otimes E(b)$$ where all the elements in $(\mathcal{A}//A(1))_*$ besides $\tilde{\tau}_2$, $\tilde{\xi}_1^p$, and $\tilde{\xi}_2$, and $b$ have the usual $\mathcal{A}_*$-co-action and the co-action on the remaining elements $\tilde{\tau}_2$, $\tilde{\xi}_1^p$, $\tilde{\xi}_2$, and $b$ are\
-- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\psi(b)=1\otimes b$
$\psi(\tilde{\xi}_1^p)= 1\otimes \tilde{\xi}_1^p -\tau_0\otimes b + \bar{\xi}_1^p\otimes 1 $
$\psi(\tilde{\xi}_2)= 1\otimes \tilde{\xi}_2+\bar{\xi}_1\otimes \tilde{\xi}_1^p +\tau_1\otimes b + \bar{\xi}_2\otimes 1$
$\psi(\tilde{\tau}_2)= 1\otimes \tilde{\tau}_2 +\bar{\tau}_1\otimes \tilde{\xi}_1^p + \bar{\tau}_0\otimes \tilde{\xi}_2 - \tau_1 \tau_0\otimes b + \bar{\tau}_2\otimes 1 .$
-- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is also an isomorphism $$H_*THH(K(\bF_q)_p)\cong H_*K(\bF_q)_p\otimes E(\sigma \tilde{\xi}_1^p,\sigma \tilde{\xi}_2)\otimes P(\sigma \tilde{\tau}_2)\otimes \Gamma(\sigma b)$$ of $\mathcal{A}_*$-co-modules and $H_*K(\bF_q)_p$-algebras. The $\mathcal{A}_*$-co-action is given by using the formula $$\psi(\sigma x)=(1\otimes \sigma)\circ \psi(x)$$ and the previously stated co-actions.
We now recall the computation of $V(1)$-homotopy of topological Hochschild homology of $K(\bF_q)_p$ where $p\ge 5$ and $q$ is a prime power that generates $(\mathbb{Z}/p^2\mathbb{Z})^{\times}$ in [@K1localsphere].
\[mod p v\_1 THH K\]There is an isomorphism of graded $\mathbb{F}_p$-algebras $$V(1)_*THH(K(\bF_q)_p)\cong P(\mu_2)\otimes \Gamma(\sigma b)\otimes\bF_p\{1,\alpha_1,\lambda_1',\lambda_2\alpha_1, \lambda_2\lambda_1', \lambda_2\lambda_1'\alpha_1\}.$$ where $\alpha_1\cdot (\lambda_2\lambda_1')=\lambda_1' \cdot (\lambda_2\alpha_1)= \lambda_2\lambda_1'\alpha_1$.
The generalized homological homotopy fixed point spectral sequence
------------------------------------------------------------------
In this section, we summarize and extend results from Sections 2-4 of [@BR05]. The main generalization is from $H\mathbb{F}_p$ to a connective homology theory $E_*$ such that $E$ is a ring spectrum and $E_*$ is a graded $\mathbb{F}_p$-algebra.
Let $\bT\subset \bC^{\times}$ be the circle group, and let $X$ be a $\bT$-spectrum. We let $E\bT=S(\bC^{\infty})$, the unit sphere in $\bC^{\infty}$, where $\bT$ acts on $\bC$ by rotation and on $\bC^{\infty}$ coordinate-wise. It is well known that there is a $\bT$-equivariant filtration of $E\bT_+$ $$\label{eq filt}\emptyset \hra S(\bC)_+ \hra S(\bC^2)_+ \subset \dots \hra E\bT_+.$$ such that the cofiber of each map $S(\bC^{n})_+\hra S(\bC^{n+1})_+$ is $\bT_+\wedge S^{2n}$ for $n\ge 0$. We may produce a tower of cofiber sequences by applying the functor $F(-,X)^{\bT}$ to the tower of $\bT$-equivariant cofibrations and, since we will take $F(E\bT_+,X)^{\bT}$ as our model for $X^{h\bT}$, we have $X^{h\bT}=\underset{k}{\text{lim }} F(S(\bC^n)_+,X)^\bT$. Since, by adjunction, $$F(\bT_+ \wedge S^{2n}, X)^{\bT}\cong F(S^{2n}, X)=\Sigma^{-2n}X,$$ we can apply a connective homology theory $E_*(-)$ to the tower of cofiber sequences above to produce the unrolled exact couple of $E_*E$ co-modules $$\xymatrix{
\dots \ar[r] & E_{*}F(S(\bC^{n+1})_+,X)^\bT \ar[r]^{i} & E_{*}F(S(\bC^{n})_+,X)^\bT \ar[r]^{i} \ar[d]^{j} & E_{*}F(S(\bC^{n})_+,X)^\bT \ar[r] \ar[d]^{j} & \dots \\
& \dots & E_{*} \Sigma^{-2n} X \ar[ul]^{k} & 0 \ar[ul]^{k} & \dots
}$$ where $j$ shifts degree by $-1$.
Then there exists a spectral sequence with input $$\label{E2 of ss}
E^2_{s,t} \cong
\begin{cases}
E_tX & \text{ if } s=-2n \\
0 & \text{ otherwise}
\end{cases}$$ which conditionally converges to $$E_{s+t}^cX^{h\bT} := \lim E_{s+t}F(S(\bC^k),X)^\bT.$$ which we will refer to as *continuous $E$-homology of $X^{h\bT}$*. In order to identify the $E^2$-page in a particularly nice way, we will use an extra assumption on $E$.
Suppose $E_*$ is a graded $\mathbb{F}_p$-algebra, then the $E^2$ page of can be identified as follows: $$E^2_{*,*} =H_{gp}^*(\bT,\bF_p)\otimes E_*X.$$ where $H_{gp}^*(\bT,\bF_p)=H^*(B\bT,\bF_p)\cong P(t)$ where $|t|=-2$.
Let $E$ be a ring spectrum such that $E_*$ a connective graded $\mathbb{F}_p$-algebra. There is a natural homological spectral sequence of $E_*E$ co-modules $$E^2_{*,*}=P(t)\otimes E_*(X)$$ which strongly converges to $E_*^c(X^{h\bT})$ when $E_*X$ is finite type or the spectral sequence collapses at the $E_{*,*}^N$-page for some $N\ge 2$, and conditionally converges otherwise. If, in addition, $X$ is a commutative ring spectrum, then this is a spectral sequence of $E_*E$-comodule algebras where $E_*X$ has the Pontryagin product.
The proof is the same as that of [@BR05] and therefore we omit it here.
\[prop:d2homofixedpoint\] Suppose $E_*THH(R)$ is a non-negatively graded graded $\mathbb{F}_p$-vector space. The $d^2$ differentials in the generalized homological homotopy fixed point spectral sequence associated to $THH(R)$ are of the form $$d^2(x)=t\sigma x.$$ where $t$ is the generator of $H_{gp}^{-*}(\bT;\mathbb{F}_p)\cong P(t)$ in degree $-2$.
The proof is essentially the same as that of Bruner-Rognes and therefore we omit it.
In the sequel, we will write $T_k(R)$ for $F(S(\mathbb{C}^k)_+,THH(R))^{\bT}$. Note that there is a truncated homotopy fixed point spectral sequence with $k$ columns converging to $E_*(T_k(R))$ and $$\lim E_*T_k(R) = E_*^c(THH(R)^{h\bT}).$$ Classically, negative cyclic homology $HC^{-}_*(A)$ of a commutative ring $A$ is $\pi_*(B^{\cy}_{\otimes}(A)^{h\bT}$ where $\pi_*B^{\cy}_{\otimes}(A)$ is the usual Hochschild homology of $A$. This lead Hesselholt [@2016arXiv160201980H] to coin the term topological negative cyclic homology for the $\bT$-homotopy fixed points $THH(R)^{h\bT}$ of topological Hochschild homology of a commutative ring spectrum $R$ and use notation $TC^{-}(R)$ to denote this object. We will continue to follow this convention and also write $E_*^c(TC^{-}(R))$ for $E_*^c(THH(R)^{h\bT})$.
Detecting the $\beta$-family in iterated algebraic K-theory of finite fields
============================================================================
Detecting $v_2$ and $\beta_1$
-----------------------------
The mod $p$ Moore spectrum $S/p$ and the Smith-Toda complex $V(1)$ are defined so that they fit into exact triangles $$\xymatrix{ S \ar[r]^p & S \ar[r]^{i_0} & S/p \ar[r]^{j_0} & \Sigma S }$$ and $$\xymatrix{ \Sigma^{2p-2}S/p \ar[r]^{v_1} & S/p \ar[r]^{i_1} & V(1) \ar[r]^{j_1} & \Sigma^{2p-1}S/p }$$ in the stable homotopy category of spectra. We will abuse notation and write $i_1\co \pi_*S/p\to \pi_*V(1)$ and $i_0i_1\co \pi_*S\to V(1)$ for the maps induced by $i_0$, $i_1$ and $i_0\circ i_1$ respectively.
In the proof of the following proposition, we will will make use of differentials in both the generalized homological homotopy fixed point spectral sequence and the Adams spectral sequence. To differentiate between the two, we use notation $d^r$ for differentials in the generalized homological homotopy fixed point spectral sequence and we use the notation $d_r$ for differentials in the Adams spectral sequence. The following argument is inspired an argument of Ausoni-Rognes [@MR1947457 Prop. 4.8].
\[perm classes\] The classes $v_2$, $i_0i_1\beta_1$, and $i_1\beta_1'$ in $V(1)_*$ map nontrivially to the classes $t\mu_2$, $t\sigma b$, and $t\sigma \tilde{\xi}_1^p$ respectively in $V(1)_{*}TC^{-}(K(\bF_q)_p).$
First, $v_2$ is represented by $\bar{\tau}_2\otimes 1,$ $\beta_1'$ is represented by $\bar{\xi}_1^p\otimes 1$ and $\beta_1$ is represented by $$\label{b10Adams} b_{1,0}=\Sigma_{i=1}^{p-1}\frac{1}{p}\binom{p}{i} \bar{\xi}_1^i\otimes \bar{\xi}_1^j\otimes 1,$$ in the $E_1$-page of the Adams spectral sequence that converges to $\pi_*V(1)$ by [@Liu62] (cf. Section 9 of [@MR0458423]). We consider the map of Adams spectral sequences $$\text{Ext}_{\mathcal{A}_*}^{*,*}(\bF_p, H_*V(1))\lra \text{Ext}_{\mathcal{A}_*}^{*,*}(\bF_p, H_*V(1)\otimes T_2(K(\bF_q)_p) )$$ induced by the unit map $$\xymatrix{ V(1)\wedge S \ar[rr]^(.4){1_{V(1)}\wedge \eta }&& V(1)\wedge T_2(K(\bF_q)_p) )}.$$ We see that $\bar{\tau}_2\otimes 1$, $\bar{\xi}_1^p\otimes 1$, and $b_{1,0}$ are permanent cycles in the source, which map to classes of the same name in the target. Since the elements in the source are infinite cycles, this implies that the elements that they map to are infinite cycles as well. We then have to check that these classes are not boundaries.
We can eliminate the possibility of a $d_1$ differential with $\bar{\tau}_2\otimes 1$ as a co-boundary by computing the differential in the cobar complex for $H_*V(1)\otimes H_*T_2(K(\bF_q)_p)$ on each class of the correct degree. If the $\bar{\tau}_2$ is an element in $H_*(T_2(K(\bF_q))$ with $\psi(\bar{\tau}_2)=\bar{\tau}_2\otimes 1+1\otimes\bar{\tau}_2$, then $d_1(\bar{\tau}_2)=\bar{\tau}_2\otimes 1$. However, the two-column homological homotopy fixed point spectral sequence computing $H_*T_2(K(\bF_q)_p)$ has a differential $d^2(\bar{\tau}_2)=t\mu_2$, by Proposition \[prop:d2homofixedpoint\] and the fact that $\mu_2=\sigma \bar{\tau}_2$. Therefore, the class $\bar{\tau}_2$ does not survive to $H_*T_2(K(\bF_q)_p)$.
The only other classes in the the right degree in $H_*V(1)\otimes H_*T_2(K(\bF_q)_p)$ to be the source of a $d_1$ hitting $\bar{\tau}_2\otimes 1$ are $\sigma \tilde{\xi}_2$ and $\bar{\tau}_1\sigma b$. However, $\sigma b$ is primitive so $ d_1(\sigma b)=0$. Also, we can compute directly $d_1(\sigma \tilde{\xi}_2)=\bar{\xi}_1\otimes \sigma \tilde{\xi}_1^p +\bar{\tau}_1\otimes \sigma b$ and $d_1(\bar{\tau}_1)=\bar{\tau}_1\otimes 1+ \bar{\tau}_0\otimes \bar{\xi}_1$. Therefore, $$d_1(\alpha \bar{\tau}_1\sigma b+\beta \sigma \tilde{\xi}_2)=\alpha (\bar{\tau}_1\otimes \sigma b+\bar{\tau}_0\otimes \bar{\xi}_1 \sigma b)+\beta(\bar{\xi}_1\otimes \sigma \tilde{\xi}_1^p +\bar{\tau}_1\otimes \sigma b)\ne \bar{\tau}_2\otimes 1$$ for any $\alpha,\beta\in \mathbb{F}_p$. Therefore, $\bar{\tau}_2\otimes 1$ survives to the $E_{2}$-page. There are no possible longer differentials hitting $\bar{\tau}_2\otimes 1$ because $\bar{\tau}_2\otimes 1$ is in Adams filtration one; hence, it is a permanent cycle.
We eliminate the possibility that the class $\bar{\xi}_1^p\otimes 1$ is a boundary of a $d_1$ by the same method. As in the previous argument, the truncated homotopy fixed point spectral sequence converging to $H_*T_2(K(\bF_q)_p)$ has a differential $d^2(\bar{\xi}_1^p)=\sigma \bar{\xi}_1^p$ by Proposition \[prop:d2homofixedpoint\], so the class $\bar{\xi}_1^p$ does not survive to become a class in $H_*T_2(K(\bF_q)_p)$. Therefore, the only classes that are in the right degree in $H_*V(1)\wedge T_2(K(\bF_q)_p)$ to have $\bar{\xi}_1^p\otimes 1$ as their co-boundary are $$\{ \bar{\tau}_0\sigma \bar{\xi}_1^p, \sigma b. \}$$ However, $d_1(\sigma b)=0$, since it is a co-module primitive, and $$d_1(\bar{\tau}_0\sigma \tilde{\xi}_1^p)=1\otimes \bar{\tau}_0\sigma \bar{\xi}_1^p - \bar{\tau}_0\otimes \sigma \tilde{\xi}_1^p -1\otimes \bar{\tau}_0\sigma \tilde{\xi}_1^p\ne \bar{\xi}_1^p\otimes 1$$ modulo boundaries. The class $ \bar{\xi}_1^p\otimes 1$ is in Adams filtration one so it cannot be the target of a longer differential, therefore it is a permanent cycle.
For $b_{1,0}$, we need to check that it is not the boundary of a $d_1$ or a $d_2$, because it is in Adams filtration two. We first need to check that it is not a boundary of an element in $\mathcal{A}_*\otimes H_*V(1)\wedge T_2(K(\bF_q)_p).$ We check the differential in the cobar complex on all the elements here in the right degree. These classes are $$\left \{
\begin{array}{l}
1\otimes \sigma b, \mbox{ }
\bar{\tau}_0 \otimes \bar{\tau}_0 t\tilde{\xi}_1^p, \mbox{ }
\bar{\xi}_1^{p-1}\otimes \bar{\tau}_0\bar{\tau}_1, \mbox{ }
\bar{\xi}_1^{p-2}\bar{\tau}_0\bar{\tau}_1 \otimes \bar{\tau}_0\bar{\tau}_1, \\
\bar{\xi}_1^{p-1}\bar{\tau}_0\otimes\bar{\tau}_1,\mbox{ }
\bar{\xi}_1^{p-1}\bar{\tau}_1\otimes\bar{\tau}_0, \mbox{ }
\bar{\xi}_1^{p-1}\bar{\tau}_1\bar{\tau}_0\otimes 1,\mbox{ }
\bar{\xi}_1^p \otimes 1
\end{array}
\right \}$$ where $\tilde{\xi}_1^p$ has a coproduct coming from $H_*K(\bF_q)$ and $\bar{\xi}_1^p$ has the co-action coming from the coproduct on $\mathcal{A}_*$. Recall that Milnor computed the co-action of $\mathcal{A}_*$ on $$H^*(\mathbb{C}P^{\infty},\bF_p)\cong H^*(B\bT; \bF_p) \cong H^*(\bT;\bF_p),$$ and the co-action on the class $t$ is $$\psi(t)=\Sigma_{i\ge 0} \bar{\xi}_i\otimes t^{p^i},$$ see [@MR0099653]. Therefore, in the input of the truncated homotopy fixed point spectral sequence computing $V(1)_*T_2(K(\bF_q)_p)$, the $\mathcal{A}_*$ co-action on $t$ is primitive.
We compute the differential in the cobar complex on each of the elements that could possibly have the class representing $\beta_1$ as a target: $$\begin{array}{rcl}
d_1(1\otimes \sigma b) &=& 1 \otimes 1 \otimes \sigma b \\
d_1(\bar{\tau}_0 \otimes \bar{\tau}_0 t\tilde{\xi}_1^p)&=& \bar{\tau}_0\otimes \bar{\tau}_0\otimes t \tilde{\xi}_1^p + \bar{\tau}_0\otimes \bar{\xi}_1^p\otimes t\bar{\tau}_0+\bar{\tau}_0\otimes \bar{\tau}_0\otimes \bar{\tau}_0tb \\
d_1(\bar{\xi}_1^{p-1}\otimes \bar{\tau}_0\bar{\tau}_1 ) &=& 1\otimes \bar{\xi}_1^{p-1}\otimes \bar{\tau}_0\bar{\tau}_1 - \Delta(\bar{\xi}_1^{p-1})\otimes \bar{\tau}_0\bar{\tau}_1 + \bar{\xi}_1^{p-1}\otimes \psi(\bar{\tau}_0\bar{\tau}_1) \\
&=& -\sum_{i=1}^{p-2} \binom{p-1}{i} \bar{\xi}_1^{p-i-1}\otimes \bar{\xi}_1^i \otimes \bar{\tau}_0\bar{\tau}_1 +\bar{\xi}_1^{p-1}\otimes \bar{\tau}_0\otimes \bar{\tau}_1 \\
&&+\bar{\xi}_1^{p-1}\otimes \bar{\tau}_0\bar{\tau}_1 \otimes 1 +\bar{\xi}_1^{p-1}\otimes \bar{\tau}_1\otimes\bar{\tau}_0 +\bar{\xi}_1^{p-1}\otimes \bar{\tau}_0\otimes \bar{\tau}_0\bar{\xi}_1 \\
\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{rcl}
d_1(\bar{\xi}_1^{p-2}\bar{\tau}_0\bar{\tau}_1 \otimes \bar{\tau}_0\bar{\tau}_1 )&=&1\otimes \bar{\xi}_1^{p-2}\bar{\tau}_0\bar{\tau}_1- \Delta(\bar{\xi}_1^{p-2}\bar{\tau}_0\bar{\tau}_1)\otimes \bar{\tau}_0\bar{\tau}_1+ \bar{\xi}_1^{p-2}\bar{\tau}_0\bar{\tau}_1 \otimes \psi( \bar{\tau}_0\bar{\tau}_1) \\
&=&1\otimes \bar{\xi}_1^{p-2}\bar{\tau}_0\bar{\tau}_1 \otimes \bar{\tau}_0\bar{\tau}_1-\sum_{i=0}^{p-2}\binom{p-2}{i}\bar{\xi}_1^i\otimes \bar{\xi}_1^{p-i-2}\bar{\tau}_0\bar{\tau}_1\otimes\bar{\tau}_0\bar{\tau}_1 \\
&&-\sum_{i=0}^{p-2}\binom{p-2}{i}\bar{\xi}_1^i\bar{\tau}_0\otimes \bar{\xi}_1^{p-i-2}\bar{\tau}_1\otimes\bar{\tau}_0\bar{\tau}_1 -\sum_{i=0}^{p-2}\binom{p-2}{i}\bar{\xi}_1^i \bar{\tau}_0\bar{\tau}_1\otimes \bar{\xi}_1^{p-i-2}\otimes\bar{\tau}_0\bar{\tau}_1 \\
&&-\sum_{i=0}^{p-2}\binom{p-2}{i}\bar{\xi}_1^i \bar{\tau}_1\otimes \bar{\xi}_1^{p-i-2} \bar{\tau}_0\otimes\bar{\tau}_0\bar{\tau}_1 -\sum_{i=0}^{p-2}\binom{p-2}{i}\bar{\xi}_1^i \bar{\tau}_0\otimes \bar{\xi}_1^{p-i-2} \bar{\xi}_1\bar{\tau}_0\otimes\bar{\tau}_0\bar{\tau}_1\\
&&+ \bar{\xi}_1^{p-2}\bar{\tau}_0\bar{\tau}_1\otimes 1\otimes \bar{\tau}_0\bar{\tau}_1 + \bar{\xi}_1^{p-2}\bar{\tau}_0\bar{\tau}_1\otimes \bar{\tau}_0\otimes \bar{\tau}_0\\
&&+ \bar{\xi}_1^{p-2}\bar{\tau}_0\bar{\tau}_1\otimes \bar{\tau}_0\bar{\tau}_1 \otimes 1 + \bar{\xi}_1^{p-2}\bar{\tau}_0\bar{\tau}_1\otimes\bar{\tau}_1 \otimes \bar{\tau}_0 \\
\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{rcl}
d_1(\bar{\xi}_1^{p-1}\bar{\tau}_0\otimes\bar{\tau}_1 ) &=&1\otimes \bar{\xi}_1^{p-1}\bar{\tau}_0\otimes\bar{\tau}_1 -\Delta(\bar{\xi}_1^{p-1}\bar{\tau}_0)\otimes \bar{\tau}_1 +\bar{\xi}_1^{p-1}\bar{\tau}_0\otimes \psi( \bar{\tau}_1) \\
&=&1\otimes \bar{\xi}_1^{p-1}\bar{\tau}_0\otimes\bar{\tau}_1 - \sum_{i=0}^{p-1}\binom{p-1}{i}\bar{\xi}_1^i\otimes\bar{\xi}_1^{p-i-1}\bar{\tau}_0\otimes \bar{\tau}_1 \\
&&- \sum_{i=0}^{p-1}\binom{p-1}{i} \bar{\xi}_1^i\bar{\tau}_0\otimes\bar{\xi}_1^{p-i-1}\otimes \bar{\tau}_1 +\bar{\xi}_1^{p-1}\bar{\tau}_0\otimes 1\otimes \bar{\tau}_1 \\
&&+ \bar{\xi}_1^{p-1}\bar{\tau}_0\otimes \bar{\tau}_1\otimes 1 \\
\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{rcl}
d_1(\bar{\xi}_1^{p-1}\bar{\tau}_1\otimes\bar{\tau}_0 ) &=& 1\otimes \bar{\xi}_1^{p-1}\bar{\tau}_1\otimes\bar{\tau}_0 - \Delta (\bar{\xi}_1^{p-1}\bar{\tau}_1)\otimes \bar{\tau}_0 + \bar{\xi}_1^{p-1}\bar{\tau}_1\otimes 1 \otimes \psi(\bar{\tau}_0) \\
&=&1\otimes \bar{\xi}_1^{p-1}\bar{\tau}_1\otimes\bar{\tau}_0 -\sum_{i=0}^{p-1}\binom{p-1}{i} \bar{\xi}_1^i\otimes\bar{\xi}_1^{p-1-i}\bar{\tau}_1\otimes \bar{\tau}_0 \\
&&-\sum_{i=0}^{p-1}\binom{p-1}{i} \bar{\xi}_1^i\bar{\tau}_0\otimes\bar{\xi}_1^{p-1-i}\bar{\xi}_1\otimes \bar{\tau}_0 \\
&&-\sum_{i=0}^{p-1}\binom{p-1}{i} \bar{\xi}_1^i\bar{\tau}_1 \otimes\bar{\xi}_1^{p-1-i}\bar{\tau}_1\otimes \bar{\tau}_0 \\
&&+ \bar{\xi}_1^{p-1}\bar{\tau}_1\otimes 1 \otimes \bar{\tau}_0 + \bar{\xi}_1^{p-1}\bar{\tau}_1\otimes \bar{\tau}_0 \otimes 1 \\
\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{rcl}
d_1(\bar{\xi}_1^{p-1}\bar{\tau}_1\bar{\tau}_1\otimes 1 )&=& 1\otimes \bar{\xi}_1^{p-1}\bar{\tau}_1\bar{\tau}_1 \otimes 1 - \Delta( \bar{\xi}_1^{p-1}\bar{\tau}_1\bar{\tau}_1 )\otimes 1 + \bar{\xi}_1^{p-1}\bar{\tau}_1\bar{\tau}_1 \otimes 1\otimes 1 \\
&=& 1\otimes \bar{\xi}_1^{p-1}\bar{\tau}_1\bar{\tau}_1 \otimes 1 - \sum_{i=0}^{p-1}\binom{p-1}{i} \bar{\xi}_1^i\otimes\bar{\xi}_1^{p-1-i}\bar{\tau}_1\bar{\tau}_0\otimes 1 \\
&&-\sum_{i=0}^{p-1}\binom{p-1}{i} \bar{\xi}_1^i\bar{\tau}_0\otimes\bar{\xi}_1^{p-1-i}\bar{\xi}_1\bar{\tau}_0 \otimes 1 \\
&&-\sum_{i=0}^{p-1}\binom{p-1}{i} \bar{\xi}_1^i\bar{\tau}_1 \otimes\bar{\xi}_1^{p-1-i}\bar{\tau}_1\bar{\tau}_0 \otimes 1\\
&&- \sum_{i=0}^{p-1}\binom{p-1}{i} \bar{\xi}_1^i\bar{\tau}_0\otimes\bar{\xi}_1^{p-1-i}\bar{\tau}_1\otimes 1 \\
&&-\sum_{i=0}^{p-1}\binom{p-1}{i} \bar{\xi}_1^i\bar{\tau}_1\bar{\tau}_0 \otimes\bar{\xi}_1^{p-1-i}\bar{\tau}_1 \otimes 1 \\
&& + \bar{\xi}_1^{p-1}\bar{\tau}_1\bar{\tau}_1 \otimes 1\otimes 1 \\
d_1(\bar{\xi}_1^p \otimes 1 ) &=& 0.\\
\end{array}$$
If some linear combination of these elements has $b_{1,0}$ as a boundary, then there is a solution to the equation $$\begin{array}{rcl}
\Sigma_{i=1}^{p-1}\frac{1}{p}\binom{p}{i} \xi_1^i\otimes \xi_1^{p-i}\otimes 1 &=&a_1d_1(1\otimes \sigma b) +a_2d_1(\bar{\tau}_0 \otimes \bar{\tau}_0 t\tilde{\xi}_1^p)+a_3d_1(\bar{\xi}_1^{p-1}\otimes \bar{\tau}_0\bar{\tau}_1 ) \\
&&+a_4d_1(\bar{\xi}_1^{p-2}\bar{\tau}_0\bar{\tau}_1 \otimes \bar{\tau}_0\bar{\tau}_1 )+a_5d_1(\bar{\xi}_1^{p-1}\bar{\tau}_0\otimes\bar{\tau}_1 ) \\
&&+a_6d_1(\bar{\xi}_1^{p-1}\bar{\tau}_1\otimes\bar{\tau}_0 )+a_7 d_1(\bar{\xi}_1^{p-1}\bar{\tau}_1\bar{\tau}_1\otimes 1 )
\end{array}$$ for some elements $a_i\in\bF_p$ for $1\le i\le 7$; however, no such solutions to this equation exist so we can conclude that $b_{1,0}$ is not a boundary of a $d_1$. Since $b_{1,0}$ is in Adams filtration two, we still have to check that there is no $d_2$ differential hitting it in the Adams spectral sequence, $$\text{Ext}_{\mathcal{A}_*}^{*,*} (\bF_p , H_*(V(1)\wedge T_2(K(\bF_q)_p) ) \Rightarrow V(1)_*T_2(K(\bF_q)_p).$$ Since a $d_2$ would have to have its source on the $0$-line in degree $2p^2-2p-1$, it would have to be a class in $H_{2p^2-2p-1}V(1)\wedge T_2(K(\bF_q)_p)$.
We compute $$H_{2p^2-2p-1}V(1)\wedge T_2(K(\bF_q)_p)\cong \bF_p\{\bar{\tau}_0t\tilde{\xi}_1^p\},$$ since $d^2(b)=t\sigma b$ in the two column homotopy fixed point spectral sequence that computes $ H_*T_2(K(\bF_q)_p).$ Since $d_1(\bar{\tau}_0)=\bar{\tau}_0\otimes 1$, the Leibniz rule implies $$d_1(\bar{\tau}_0(t\tilde{\xi}_1^p))=(\bar{\tau}_0\otimes 1)\cdot d_1(t\tilde{\xi}_1^p)\ne 0,$$ since $d_1(t\tilde{\xi}_1^p)=\bar{\xi}_1^p\otimes t+\bar{\tau}_0\otimes tb\ne 0$. So $\bar{\tau}_0(t\tilde{\xi}_1^p)$ does not survive to the $E_2$-page and therefore it cannot support a differential hitting $b_{1,0}$. Therefore, the class $b_{1,0}$ is a permanent cycle.
We conclude the elements $v_2$, $\beta_1'$ and $\beta_1$ map nontrivially from $ V(1)_* S$ to $$V(1)_* T_2(K(\bF_q)_p)$$ via map induced by the unit map $S\to T_2(K(\bF_q)_p)$. In $V(1)_*T_2(K(\bF_q)_p)$, the only possible classes in the right degree to be $v_2$, $\beta_1'$ and $\beta_1$ are $t\mu_2$, $t\sigma b$ and $t\sigma \bar{\xi}_1^p$, respectively. The unit map factors through $V(1)_*TC^{-}(K(\bF_q)_p)$, so these classes pull back to classes in $V(1)_*TC^{-}(K(\bF_q)_p)$.
\[perm cycles homotopy fixed\] The classes $t\mu_2$, $t\sigma b$, and $t\sigma \tilde{\xi}_1^p$ are permanent cycles in the generalized homological homotopy fixed point spectral sequence $$H^*(\bT,V(1)_*THH(K(\mathbb{F}_q)_p))\Rightarrow V(1)_*THH(K(\mathbb{F}_q))^{h\mathbb{T}}.$$ in particular, $d_{2p-2}(t\mu_2)=0$, $d_{2p-2}(t\sigma b)=0$ and $d_{2p-2}(t\sigma \tilde{\xi}_1^p)=0$.
\[d2p-2\] There is a differential $d_{2p-2}(t)=t^p\alpha_1$ in the homotopy fixed point spectral sequence $$H^*(\bT,V(1)_*THH(K(\mathbb{F}_q)_p))\Rightarrow V(1)_*THH(K(\mathbb{F}_q))^{h\mathbb{T}}.$$
First, we can show that there is a differential $d_{2p-2}(t)=t^p\alpha_1$ in the homotopy fixed point spectral sequence $$H^*(\bT,V(1)_*K(\mathbb{F}_q)_p))\Rightarrow V(1)_*K(\mathbb{F}_q)_p^{h\mathbb{T}}.$$ where $K(\mathbb{F}_q)_p$ has trivial $\bT$-action, because $\alpha_1$ is an attaching map in $B\bT$. This has already been proven in [@MR1317117 Theorem 3.5], so we omit the details. There is an $\bT$-equivariant map of commutative ring spectra $$THH(K(\mathbb{F}_q)_p)\rightarrow K(\mathbb{F}_q)_p$$ which induces a map of homotopy fixed point spectral sequences and since this map sends $t$ to $t$ and $\alpha_1$ to $\alpha_1$, the differential $d_{2p-2}(t)=\alpha_1t^p$ also occurs in the homotopy fixed point spectral sequence $$H^*(\bT,V(1)_*THH(K(\mathbb{F}_q)_p))\Rightarrow V(1)_*THH(K(\mathbb{F}_q))^{h\mathbb{T}}.$$ Note that we could have also proven this directly by examining $\bT$-equivariant attaching maps in $E\bT$, but for the sake of brevity we give the simpler proof.
\[cor about d2p-2 diff\] There are differentials $d_{2p-2}(\mu)=-t^{p-1}\alpha_1\mu$ and $d_{2p-2}(\sigma b)=-t^{p-1}\alpha_1 \sigma b$.
This is immediate from Lemma \[d2p-2\] and Corollary \[perm cycles homotopy fixed\].
Now, the classes $\beta_k$ have the property that in the $BP$-Adams spectral sequence for $V(1)$ they are represented by the classes $$\binom{i}{2}v_2^{i-2}k_0 + i v_2^{i-1}b_{1,0},$$ where $$k_0= 2 t_1^p\otimes t_2 \otimes 1 -2t_1^p\otimes t_1^{p+1}\otimes 1 -t_1^{2p}\otimes t_1\otimes 1$$ which are in $BP$-Adams filtration two. We will therefore give a similar argument to the one in the proof of Proposition \[perm classes\], except that we will work in the $BP$-Adams spectral sequence in order to use the fact that the classes representing $\beta_k$ are in low $BP$-Adams filtration. To do this we must compute $BP\wedge V(1)_*T_k(K(\mathbb{F}_q)_p)$ up to possible $d^4$ differentials or longer.
The $BP\wedge V(1)$-THH-May spectral sequence
----------------------------------------------
In this section, we begin by computing the input of the $BP\wedge V(1)$-THH-May spectral sequence.
\[inputBPV\] There is an isomorphism of $(BP\wedge V(1))_*(H\pi_*( K(\bF_q)_p))$-algebras $$\label{eqBP} \begin{array}{l}(BP\wedge V(1))_*THH(H\pi_*K(\bF_q)_p)\cong \\
P(t_1,t_2, \dots )\otimes E(\epsilon_1, \lambda_1,\sigma v_1)\otimes P(v_1,\mu_1)\otimes HH_*(S/p_*(H\pi_*K(\bF_q)_p)),
\end{array}$$ and the Hurewicz map $$(BP\wedge V(1))_*THH(E_0(\tau_{\ge \bullet}K(\bF_q)_p))\rightarrow (H\bF_p\wedge BP\wedge V(1))_*THH(E_0(\tau_{\ge \bullet}K(\bF_q)_p) )$$ sends $t_1$ to $\bar{\xi}_1-\hat{\xi}_1,$ where $\bar{\xi}_1$ is the generator in degree $2p-2$ of $H_*BP$ and $\hat{\xi}_1$ is the generator in degree $2p-2$ of $H_*(V(1)\wedge THH(E_0(\tau_{\ge \bullet}K(\bF_q)_p) )$.
Recall that $V(1)\wedge THH(H\pi_*( K(\bF_q)_p))$ is a $V(1)\wedge H\pi_*( K(\bF_q)_p)$-algebra, and hence an $H\bF_p$ algebra, since $V(1)\wedge H\pi_*( K(\bF_q)_p)$ is itself an $H\bF_p$-algebra. Thus, there is an equivalence $$BP\wedge V(1)\wedge THH(H\pi_*( K(\bF_q)_p))\simeq BP\wedge H\bF_p\wedge_{H\bF_p} V(1)\wedge THH(H\pi_*( K(\bF_q)_p))$$ and by the collapse of the Künneth spectral sequence, the isomorphism holds.
Since $BP\wedge V(1)\wedge THH(H\pi_*( K(\bF_q)_p))$ is an $H\bF_p$-module we can use Lemma \[prim\], which states that $(BP\wedge V(1))_*THH(H\pi_*( K(\bF_q)_p))$ includes as the co-module primitives inside of $$(H\bF_p\wedge BP \wedge V(1))_*THH(H\pi_*( K(\bF_q)_p)).$$
We recall that by the Künneth isomorphism and Proposition \[Bok1\] there is an isomorphism of graded rings $$\begin{array}{l}
(H\bF_p\wedge BP \wedge V(1))_*THH(H\pi_*( K(\bF_q)_p))\cong \\
H_*(BP)\otimes E(\bar{\tau}_0,\bar{\tau}_1,\lambda_1,\sigma v_1)\otimes (A//E(0))_*\otimes P(v_1,\mu_1)\otimes HH_*(S/p_*(H\pi_*( K(\bF_q)_p)))
\end{array}$$ where we use the notation $(\mathcal{A}//E(0))_*\cong P(\hat{\xi}_1,\hat{\xi}_2, \dots ) \otimes E(\hat{\tau}_1,\hat{\tau}_2, \dots )$ and $H_*(BP)\cong P(\bar{\xi}_1,\bar{\xi}_2,\dots)$ to distinguish the two sets of generators. We also write $E(\bar{\tau}_0,\bar{\tau}_1)$ for the homology of $V(1)$. The co-action on $\bar{\xi}_i$, $\bar{\tau}_i$, $\hat{\tau}_i$ and $\hat{\xi}_i$ are the same as the coproduct in the dual Steenrod algebra, and hence for example $\bar{\xi}_1-\hat{\xi}_1$ is a co-module primitive, since $$\psi(\bar{\xi}_1 -\hat{\xi}_1)=1\otimes \bar{\xi}_1 +\bar{\xi}_1\otimes 1 - 1\otimes \hat{\xi}_1 - \bar{\xi}_1\otimes 1 =1\otimes \bar{\xi}_1 - 1\otimes \hat{\xi}_1.$$
The co-action on the remaining elements in degrees less than $2p^2-2$ is $$\begin{array}{ll}
\psi(\alpha_1)=1\otimes \alpha_1 & \psi(\sigma v_1)=1\otimes \sigma v_1 + \bar{\tau}_0\otimes \sigma \alpha_1 \\
\psi(\sigma \alpha_1)=1\otimes \sigma\alpha_1 & \psi(\lambda_1)=1\otimes \lambda_1 \\
\psi(\gamma_{p^k}(\sigma \alpha_1))=1\otimes \gamma_{p^k}(\sigma\alpha_1) & \psi(\mu_1)=1\otimes \mu_1+\bar{\tau}_0\otimes \lambda_1 \\
\psi(v_1)=1\otimes v_1 +\bar{\tau}_0\otimes \alpha_1.&
\end{array}$$ and we may observe that there are no other $\mathcal{A}_*$ co-module primitives in degree $2p-2$ other than $\bar{\xi}_1-\hat{\xi}_1$ so $t_1$ must map to $\bar{\xi}_1-\hat{\xi}_1$.
\[BPVTHHj\] There is an isomorphism of $(BP_*,BP_*BP)$-co-modules $$(BP\wedge V(1))_*THH(K(\bF_q)_p)\cong P(t_1^p,t_2,...)\otimes E(b)\otimes E(\sigma \bar{\xi}_1^p,\sigma \bar{\xi}_2)\otimes P(\mu_2)\otimes \Gamma(\sigma b)$$ where the co-action is given by $$\begin{array}{lcl}
\psi(t_1^p)=1\otimes t_1^p+t_1^p\otimes 1 &&\psi(\mu_2)=1\otimes \mu_2 \\
\psi(t_n)=\Delta(t_n) \text{ for } n\ge 2 && \psi(\gamma_{p^k}(\sigma b))=1\otimes \gamma_{p^k}(\sigma b) \\
\psi(b)=1\otimes b && \psi(\sigma x)=(1\otimes \sigma )*\psi(x) \\
\end{array}$$
We need to compute differentials in the $BP\wedge V(1)$-THH-May spectral sequence $$E^1_{*,*}=(BP\wedge V(1))_{*,*}THH(H\pi_*( K(\bF_q)_p)))\Rightarrow BP\wedge V(1)_{*}THH(K(\bF_q)_p)$$ so we examine the map of spectral sequences $$\xymatrix{ (BP\wedge V(1))_{*,*}THH(H\pi_*( K(\bF_q)_p)))\ar@{=>}[r]\ar[d]^{h} & BP\wedge V(1)_{*}THH(K(\bF_q)_p) \ar[d] \\
(H\bF_p\wedge BP\wedge V(1))_{*,*}THH(H\pi_*( K(\bF_q)_p))\ar@{=>}[r] & (H\bF_p\wedge BP\wedge V(1))_{*}THH(K(\bF_q)_p) . }$$ induced by the Hurewicz map $BP\rightarrow H\bF_p\wedge BP.$ Recall from Lemma \[inputBPV\] that $$\begin{array}{l} (BP\wedge V(1))_*THH(H\pi_*( K(\bF_q)_p))\cong \\ P(\xi_1,\xi_2, \dots )\otimes E(\epsilon_1, \lambda_1,\sigma v_1)\otimes P(v_1,\mu_1)\otimes HH_*(S/p_*(H\pi_*( K(\bF_q)_p))).\end{array}$$ We know that in the $H\bF_p\wedge BP\wedge V(1)$-THH-May spectral sequence the classes $\bar{\xi}_i$ for $i\ge 1$ and $\bar{\tau}_j$ for $j=0,1$ survive to $E^{\infty}$, since the output of the spectral sequence is known to be $$\begin{array}{l} (H\bF_p\wedge BP\wedge V(1))_{*}THH(K(\bF_q)_p) \cong \\
P(\bar{\xi}_1,\bar{\xi}_2,\dots)\otimes E(\bar{\tau}_0,\bar{\tau}_1)\otimes H_*(K(\bF_q)_p)\otimes E(\sigma \bar{\xi}_1^p,\sigma\bar{\xi}_2)\otimes P(\sigma \bar{\tau}_2)\otimes\Gamma(\sigma b) \end{array}$$ by Theorem \[HFpj\] and the Künneth isomorphism. This forces the same $d^1$ differentials that occur in the $H\mathbb{F}_p\wedge V(1)$-THH-May spectral sequence and consequently there is an additive isomorphism $$E^2_{*,*}=P(\xi_1,\xi_2, \dots )\otimes E(\epsilon_1, \lambda_1,\sigma v_1, \alpha_1)\otimes P(v_1,\mu_1)\otimes \Gamma(\sigma \alpha_1).$$ The map of spectral sequences is therefore again injective on $E^2$-pages. In the $H\mathbb{F}_p\wedge V(1)$-THH-May spectral sequence there are differentials $$\begin{array}{lll}
d^{2p-3}(\hat{\xi}_1)=\alpha_1 & d^r(\bar{\xi}_i)=0 & d^{2p-3}(\lambda_1)=\sigma \alpha_1\\
d^{2p-2}(\hat{\tau}_1)=v_1 & d^{2p-3}(\mu_1)=\sigma v_1 & d^r(\bar{\tau}_i)=0 \text{ for } i=0,1\\
d^r(\hat{\tau}_i)= 0 & \text{ for } i>0 & \\
\end{array}$$ for $r\ge 2$ and no further differentials. Since the Hurewicz map $h$ is injective and it sends $t_1$ to $\bar{\xi}_1-\hat{\xi}_1$, the differential $d^{2p-3}(t_1)$ in the top spectral sequence can be computed using the formula $$d^{2p-3}(t_1)=d^{2p-3}(h^{-1}(\bar{\xi}_1-\hat{\xi}_1))=h^{-1}d^{2p-3}(\bar{\xi}_1-\hat{\xi}_1)=h^{-1}(\alpha_1)=\alpha_1.$$ Similarly, $\epsilon_1$ maps to $\bar{\tau}_1-\hat{\tau}_1$ implying $d^{2p-2}(\epsilon_1)=v_1$. Hence, in the $BP\wedge V(1)$-THH-May spectral sequence there are differentials $$\begin{array}{llll}
d^{2p-3}(t_1)=\alpha_1, & d^{2p-3}(\lambda_1)=\sigma \alpha_1, & d^{2p-2}(\epsilon_1)=v_1, & d^{2p-2}(\mu_1)=\sigma v_1 .\\
\end{array}$$ On $E^2$-pages the map of spectral sequences induced by the Hurewicz map is again injective. Since $E^2\cong E^{\infty}$ in the target spectral sequence, the same is true in the source. This implies that the $BP\wedge V(1)$-THH-May spectral sequence collapses at the $E^2$-page.
By examining the long exact sequence $$BP_*V(1)\wedge K(\mathbb{F}_q)_p \rightarrow BP_*V(1)\wedge \ell \rightarrow BP_*V(1)\wedge \Sigma^{2p-2}\ell$$ we can determine that the co-action on $t_1^p$ and $t_i$ for $i\ge 2$ in $BP_*K(\mathbb{F}_q)_p$ is the same as the co-action on these elements in $BP_*V(1)\wedge \ell \cong P(t_1,t_2,\dots)$. Note that there is no hidden comultiplication on $t_1^p$ since there are no classes in degrees $2p^2-2p-(2p-2)$ or lower and the lowest degree element in $BP_*BP$ is in degree $2p-2$. The class $b$ is the class in lowest degree and therefore it is primitive. This produces the co-action on $b,t_1^p,t_i$ for $i\ge 2$ in $BP_*V(1)\wedge THH(K(\mathbb{F}_q)_p)$, by using the splitting of $BP_*BP$-co-modules $$BP_*V(1)\wedge THH(K(\mathbb{F}_q)_p) \cong BP_*V(1)\wedge K(\mathbb{F}_q)_p \oplus BP_*V(1)\wedge \overline{THH}(K(\mathbb{F}_q)_p)$$ induced by the splitting $THH(K(\mathbb{F}_q)_p) \simeq K(\mathbb{F}_q)_p\vee \overline{THH}(K(\mathbb{F}_q)_p)$, which we have because $K(\mathbb{F}_q)_p$ is a commutative ring spectrum.
The co-action on $\mu_2$ is primitive because $|\mu_2|=2p^2$ and there are no classes in degrees $2p^2-2p+2$ or $2p^2-4p+4$ or lower and the classes in $BP_*BP$ are in degrees congruent to zero mod $2p^n-2$ for some $n$. Similarly, the co-action on $\lambda_1'$ is primitive because there are no classes in degree $2p^2-2p+1 -(2p-2)$ or lower.
To determine the co-action on $\lambda_2$, note that there is an isomorphism $$\begin{array}{rcl} BP_*V(1)\wedge K(\mathbb{F}_q)_p &\cong& P(\bar{\xi}_1^p,\bar{\xi}_2, \dots ) \\
& \cong & P(t_1^p,t_2,\dots) \end{array}$$ so $\bar{\xi}_2$ and $t_2$ are two names for the same basis element up to multiplication by a unit. Similarly, $\bar{\xi}_1^p$ and $t_2$ are two names for the same basis element up to multiplication by a unit. The operation $\sigma$ gives $\lambda_2 = \sigma \bar{\xi}_2\dot{=}\sigma t_2 $ and $\lambda_1'\dot{=}\sigma t_1^p$ and we can therefore compute the co-action on $\lambda_2$ using the formula $\psi(\lambda_2)=(1\otimes \sigma )\Delta(t_2), $ due to [@MR2171809]. In other words, in $(BP\wedge V(1))_*THH(K\mathbb{F}_q)_p)$, $$\psi(\lambda_2)\dot{=}1\otimes \lambda_2+t_1\otimes \lambda_1' .$$
This just leaves the classes $\gamma_{p^k}(\sigma b)$ for $k>0$. Note that we already showed that in the input of $BP\wedge V(1)$-THH-May spectral sequence the classes $\gamma_{p^{k+1}}(\sigma \alpha_1)=\gamma_{p^{k}}(\sigma b)$ are primitive. Therefore, it suffices to check that there is not a hidden co-action in the THH-May spectral sequence. If the co-action contains terms of the form $x\otimes m$ where $|m|<|\gamma_{p^k}(\sigma \alpha_1)|$, then the May filtration of $m$ must be greater or equal to the May filtration of $\gamma_{p^k}(\sigma b)$.
Suppose the May filtration of $m$ is greater or equal to $p^{k+1}$, the May filtration of $\gamma_{p^k}(\sigma b)$. Then, since the only classes with positive May filtration are $\gamma_{p^j}(\sigma b)$, $b$, $\lambda_1'$, and $\lambda_2$, the class $m$ must be of the form $$(\gamma_{p^j}(\sigma b))^\ell b^{\epsilon_1} \lambda_1'^{\epsilon_2} \lambda_2^{\epsilon_3} z ,$$ for some possibly zero element $z$, where $0\le \ell<p$ and $\epsilon_1,\epsilon_2,\epsilon_3\in \{0,1\}$. Write $\mfilt(x)$ for the May filtration of an element, then $$\begin{array}{ll}
\mfilt(\gamma_{p^j}(\sigma b))=p^{j+1} & \mfilt(b)=1 \\
\mfilt(\lambda_1')=p-1 & \mfilt(\lambda_2)=1 .
\end{array}$$ so $j,$ $\ell,$ $\epsilon_1,$ $\epsilon_2,$ and $\epsilon_3$ must satisfy $$\label{ineq} \ell p^{j+1}+\epsilon_1 +\epsilon_2(p-1) +\epsilon_3 \ge p^{k+1}.$$ We split into cases. If $k=1$, then $j\ge k-1$, and if $j=k-1$, then the inequality (\[ineq\]) only holds if $\ell=p-1$. In that case, $\epsilon_2$ must be $1$ and either $\epsilon_1$ or $\epsilon_3$ must be $1$. Thus, $$| (\gamma_{p^j}(\sigma b))^\ell b^{\epsilon_1} \lambda_1'^{\epsilon_2} \lambda_2^{\epsilon_3}| \ge (2p^2-2p)(p-1)+2p^2-2p+1+2p^2-2p-1 =2p^3-2p$$ But, $2p^3-2p>2p^3-2p^2=|\gamma_{p}(\sigma b) |$ contradicting the assumption that $|m|<|\gamma_p(\sigma b)|$. In the case $k>1$, then the inequality (\[ineq\]) only holds if $j\ge k$, but if $j\ge k$, then $$|(\gamma_{p^j}(\sigma b))^\ell|\ge 2p^{k+2}-2p^{k+1} =|\gamma_{p^k}(\sigma b) |$$ so again $m$ does not satisfy $|m|<|\gamma_{p^k}(\sigma b) |$. Thus, no such $m$ such that $|m|<|\gamma_{p^k}(\sigma b)|$ and $\mfilt(m)\ge \mfilt(\gamma_p^k(\sigma b))$ exists. This implies that there are no hidden co-actions and $\gamma_{p^k}(\sigma b)$ remains a co-module primitive.
\[S1BP\] In the generalized homological homotopy fixed point spectral sequence $$H^*(\bT, (BP\wedge V(1))_*THH(K(\mathbb{F}_q)_p))\Rightarrow (BP\wedge V(1))^c_*THH(K(\mathbb{F}_q)_p)$$ there are differentials $$\begin{array}{c}
d^2(t_1^p)\dot{=}t\lambda_1' \\
d^2(t_2)\dot{=}t\lambda_2\\
d^2(b)=t\sigma b
\end{array}$$ and no further $d^2$ differentials besides those generated from these $d^2$ differentials using the Leibniz rule.
This follows from Proposition \[prop:d2homofixedpoint\] and the fact that $\lambda_2\dot{=}\sigma t_2$ and $\lambda_1'\dot{=}\sigma t_1^p$ as discussed in the proof of Proposition \[BPVTHHj\].
\[rem coaction on t\] We will also need to know the co-action of $BP_*BP$ on $$BP_*V(1)\wedge T_{k+1}(K(\bF_q)_p),$$ which is isomorphic to $$P(\bar{\xi}_1^p,\bar{\xi}_2,...)\otimes E(b)\otimes E(\sigma \bar{\xi}_1^p,\sigma \bar{\xi}_2)\otimes P(\mu_2)\otimes \Gamma(\sigma b)\otimes P(t)/t^k$$ modulo differentials. This just amounts to describing the co-action on the class $t$ in the input of the generalized homological homotopy fixed point spectral sequence $$\label{input of ss} H^*(\bT,BP_*V(1)\wedge THH(K(\bF_q)_p)),$$ since the coaction on a subquotient of is determined by the coaction on .
Since we know that $\psi_{H\mathbb{F}_p}(t)=\sum_{i\ge 0} \bar{\xi}_i\otimes t$ and $t_i\dot{=} \bar{\xi}_i$ in $H_*BP$, the functor that sends the $\mathcal{A}_*$-comodule $H^*(\bT,\mathbb{F}_p)$ to the $BP_*BP$-comodule $H^*(\bT,\mathbb{F}_p)\otimes BP_*/(p,v_1)$ produces the coaction $$\psi_{BP}(t)=\sum_{i\ge 0} t_i \otimes t^{p^i}$$$H^*(\bT,\mathbb{F}_p)$.
Note that there is a truncated generalized homotopy fixed point spectral sequence with input $$\label{truncated} E^2_{*,*}=P(t)/t^{k+1}\otimes BP_*V(1)\wedge THH(K(\mathbb{F}_q)_p)$$ and abutment $BP_*V(1)\wedge T_{k+1}(K(\mathbb{F}_q)_p)$.
\[cor E\^4\] In the spectral sequence computing $BP_*V(1)\wedge T_{k+1}(K(\mathbb{F}_q)_p)$, there is an isomorphism between $E^4_{*,*}$ and $$\begin{array}{l}
\left (P(\bar{\xi}_1^{p^2},\bar{\xi}_2^p,\bar{\xi}_3,...)\otimes E(b\gamma_{p-1}(\sigma b) )\otimes E(\sigma \bar{\xi}_1^pt_1^{p^2-p},\sigma \bar{\xi}_2t_2^{p-1})\otimes P(\mu_2)\otimes \Gamma(\gamma_p(\sigma b))\otimes P(t)/t^{k+1}\right ) \oplus \\
\mathbb{F}_p\{ \lambda_1'(t_1^p)^{j_1-1},\lambda_2t_2^{j_2-1}, \gamma_{s}(\sigma b), t^k(t_1^p)^{j_1}, t^k(t_2)^{j_2},t^kb\gamma_{s-1}(\sigma b) | 1\le j_1<p, 1\le j_2<p,1\le s<p \} \otimes \\
\left ( P(\bar{\xi}_1^{p^2},\bar{\xi}_2^p,\bar{\xi}_3,...)\otimes E(b\gamma_{p-1}(\sigma b) )\otimes E(\sigma \bar{\xi}_1^pt_1^{p^2-p},\sigma \bar{\xi}_2t_2^{p-1})\otimes P(\mu_2)\otimes \Gamma(\gamma_p(\sigma b)) \right )
\end{array}$$ of $BP_*BP$ co-modules, where the coaction on an element $x\in E^4_{*,*}$ is determined multiplicatively by the coaction of classes in $BP_*V(1)\wedge THH(K(\mathbb{F}_q)_p)$ and the coaction of $t$ from Remark \[rem coaction on t\] modulo the differential $d^2$ determined in Corollary \[S1BP\].
This is a direct consequence of Corollary \[S1BP\] and the Leibniz rule.
Detecting the $\beta$ family in homotopy fixed points of topological Hochschild homology
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recall that $T_{k+1}(R)$ is defined to be the spectrum $F(S(\bC^{k+1})_+,THH(R))^{\bT}$. As noted before Proposition 1.4 in [@BR05], $T_{k+1}(R)$ is a commutative ring spectrum whenever $R$ is a commutative ring spectrum. In particular, $TC^{-}(R)$ is a commutative ring spectrum. We now recall a theorem, which is a consequence of computations of Ausoni-Rognes [@MR1947457].
\[AR thm\] The classes $v_2^k$ map to nonzero classes $(t\mu)^k$ under the unit map $$V(1)_*S \rightarrow V(1)_*T_{k+1}(\ell_p).$$
\[v2rem\] Since we showed $v_2$ maps to $t\mu_2$ under the unit map $V(1)_*S\rightarrow V(1)_*T_2(K(\mathbb{F}_q)_p)$ and the maps $$V(1)_*S \rightarrow T_{k+1}(K(\mathbb{F}_q)_p)\rightarrow V(1)_*T_{k+1}(\ell_p)$$ are ring maps for $k\ge 1$, the classes $v_2^k$ also map to $(t\mu_2)^k$ under the unit map $$V(1)_*S \rightarrow V(1)_*T_{k+1}(K(\mathbb{F}_q)_p).$$ We therefore know that $(t\mu)^k$ are permanent cycles in the $BP$-Adams spectral sequence and homotopy fixed point spectral sequences computing $V(1)_*T_{k+1}K(\mathbb{F}_q)_p$.
We will continue to use notation $d^r$ for differentials in the generalized homological homotopy fixed point spectral sequence and $d_r$ for differentials in the $BP$-Adams spectral sequence to differentiate the two.
\[beta\] The elements $\beta_i$ in $\pi_*S$ are detected by a unit times the class $$\binom{i}{2}(t\mu_2)^{i-2}t\lambda_1\lambda_2 + i(t\mu_2)^{i-1} t\sigma b$$ in $V(1)_*TC^{-}(K(\bF_q)_p)$; i.e., the elements $\beta_i\in \pi_{(2p^2-2)i-2p}S$ map to the nonzero elements $\binom{i}{2}(t\mu_2)^{i-1}t\lambda_1\lambda_2 + i(t\mu_2)^i t\sigma b$ in $V(1)_*TC^{-}(K(\bF_q)_p)$ up to multiplication by a unit.
Due to the length of this proof, we will break it into steps.
*Step 1: We will show that $v_2^{i}$ in the $BP_*BP$-cobar complex for $V(1)$ maps to $(t\mu)^i$ in the $BP_*BP$-cobar complex for $V(1)_*T_i(K(\bF_q)_p))$. As discussed in Remark \[v2rem\], we know that $v_2^i$ maps to $(t\mu)^i$ under the map $$V(1)_*\rightarrow V(1)_*T_{i+1}(K(\mathbb{F}_q)_p)$$ as a consequence of Theorem \[AR thm\]. By examining the map of THH-May spectral sequences induced by the unit map $\eta \wedge \id_{V(1)}:S\wedge V(1)\rightarrow BP\wedge V(1)$ and the subsequent map of generalized homological homotopy fixed point spectral sequences induced by this same map, we see that $(t\mu)^i$ maps to $(t\mu)^i$ under the map $$V(1)_*T_{i+1}(K(\mathbb{F}_q)_p)\rightarrow (BP\wedge V(1))_*T_{i+1}(K(\mathbb{F}_q)_p).$$ We also know the map $$\pi_*(\eta \wedge \id_{V(1)}): \pi_*(S\wedge V(1)) \rightarrow \pi_*(BP\wedge V(1))$$ sends the class $v_2^i$ to $v_2^i$ since the edge-homomorphism in the $BP$-Adams spectral sequence is a ring homomorphism. We then use the commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{
V(1)_*\ar[r] \ar[d] & V(1)_*T_{i+1}(K(\mathbb{F}_q)_p) \ar[d] \\
BP_*V(1)\ar[r] & (BP\wedge V(1))_*T_{i+1}(K(\mathbb{F}_q)_p)
}$$ to determine that $v_2^i\in BP_*V(1)$ maps to $(t\mu)^i\in(BP\wedge V(1))_*T_{i+1}(K(\mathbb{F}_q)_p)$ and also in the map of exact couples of the respective $BP$-Adams spectral sequences.*
*Step 2: We recall that the class $\beta_i$ is represented by $$\label{beta} \binom{i}{2}v_2^{i-2}k_0 + i v_2^{i-1}b_{1,0} \mod (p,v_1)$$ in $Ext_{BP_*BP}^{*,*}(BP_*,BP_*)$ where $$k_0= 2 t_1^p\otimes t_2 \otimes 1 -2t_1^p\otimes t_1^{p+1}\otimes 1 -t_1^{2p}\otimes t_1\otimes 1$$ and $$\label{b10ANSS} b_{1,0}= \sum_{i=1}^{p-1}\frac{1}{p}\binom{p}{i}t_1^{p-i}\otimes t_1^i \otimes 1$$ due to Ravenel [@rav1 Example 5.1.20]. We therefore need to check that the classes map to permanent cycles in the $BP_*BP$-cobar complex for $V(1)_*T_{i+1}(K(\bF_q)_p)).$*
We begin with the element $\beta_1$. We observe that the element $\beta_1$ is represented by the class $b_{1,0}$ in the $E_1$-page of the $BP$-Adams spectral sequence for $V(1)$ and it maps to a class of the same name in the cobar complex for the $BP_*BP$-co-module $BP_*V(1)\wedge T_2(K(\bF_q)_p);$ i.e. the $E_1$- page of the $BP$-Adams spectral sequence for $V(1)\wedge T_2(K(\bF_q)_p)$. Let $\bar{b}_{1,0}$ be the element in the $BP$-Adams spectral sequence for the sphere spectrum that maps to $b_{1,0}$. Then $\bar{b}_{1,0}$ in the $BP$-Adams spectral sequence for the sphere spectrum maps to in the Adams spectral sequence for the sphere spectrum by [@MR0458423 Thm. 9.4] and both are permanent cycles. Therefore using the square of spectral sequences and Proposition \[perm classes\], we know that $b_{1,0}$ is a permament cycle in the $BP$-Adams spectral sequence for $V(1)\wedge T_2(K(\bF_q)_p)$.
*Step 3: The class $b_{1,0}v_2^{k-1}$ represents $\beta_k$ in the $BP$-Adams spectral sequence for $V(1)$ when $k\equiv 1 \text{ mod } p$. It maps to $b_{1,0}(t\mu)^{k-1}$ in the $BP$-Adams spectral sequence for $V(1)\wedge T_k(K(\bF_q)_p)$ up to multiplication by a unit by the argument at the beginning of the proof and the fact that the cobar complex for $V(1)\wedge T_k(K(\bF_q)_p)$ is multiplicative. Since the class representing $\beta_{pm+1}$ is a permanent cycle in the $BP$-Adams spectral sequence for $V(1)$ (this follows from [@MR676562 Lemma 5.4]), the class $ \Sigma_{i=1}^{p-1}\frac{1}{p}\binom{p}{i}t_1^i\otimes t_1^{p-i}\otimes (t\mu_2)^{pk}$ is an infinite cycle in the $BP$-Adams spectral sequence for $V(1)\wedge T_{pk+1}(K(\bF_q)_p)$, but it could still be a co-boundary. It is on the two-line of the $BP$-Adams spectral sequence, so we just need to check that it is not the co-boundary of a $d^1$ or $d^2$ differential. Note that we will prove that, in fact, the element $b_{1,0}( t\mu_2)^{k-1}$ is never a boundary for any $k$. This only implies that $b_{1,0} v_2^{k-1}$ is a permanent cycle for all $k$ if it is already an infinite cycle for all $k$ in the $BP$-Adams spectral sequence for $V(1)$, which to the author’s knowledge is unknown when $k\not \equiv 1 \mod p$. We will break this into two further sub-steps. *Sub-step 1: If the class $ \Sigma_{i=1}^{p-1}\frac{1}{p}\binom{p}{i}t_1^i\otimes t_1^{p-i}\otimes (t\mu_2)^{k-1}$ is the co-boundary of a $d^1$, then there is a sum of classes $\sum_i a_i\otimes m_i\in BP_*BP \otimes_{BP_*}BP_*V(1)\wedge T_{k}(K(\bF_q)_p) $ such that $ d_1(\sum_ia_i\otimes m_i)\dot{=} b_{1,0}( t\mu_2)^{k-1}. $**
Recall that the co-action on $m$ is of the form $\psi(m)=1\otimes m+\sum_j a_j \otimes m_j$ where $|m_j|<|m|$. Observe that the only elements in $ (BP\wedge V(1))_*T_k(K(\bF_q)_p) $ whose co-action contains $ ( t\mu)^{k-1}$ as either $m$ or $m_j$ for some $j$ are classes of the form $( t\mu)^{k-1}y$ for some $y\in (BP\wedge V(1))_*T_k(K(\bF_q)_p)$ up to multiplication by a unit. The co-action of such a class is $$\psi(( t\mu)^{k-1}y)=(1\otimes ( t\mu)^{k-1})\psi(y),$$ and $\psi(y)$ must be of the form $$\psi(y)=1\otimes y+ z\otimes 1+ \sum b_i\otimes y_i$$ since $\psi(( t\mu)^{k-1}y)$ must have $1\otimes ( t\mu)^{k-1}$ as a term. Since the only classes in $ (BP\wedge V(1))_*T_k(K(\bF_q)_p) $ that have $z\otimes 1$ as a term in their co-action for some element $z\ne 0$ are the classes $t_1^{p}$ and $t_i$ for $i\ge 2$ the class $y$ must be a product of these. Since the internal degree of $a_i\cdot (\cdot t\mu)^{k-1}y$ must equal $(2p^2-2)k+2p^2-2p$, we have $$|a_i\cdot (\cdot t\mu)^{k-1}y|=(2p^2-2)(k-1)+|y|+|a_i|=(2p^2-2)k+2p^2-2p$$ so, the degree of $|y|+|a_i|$ must be $2p^2-2p$. However, the class $t_1^p$ is the element of lowest degree in the set $\{ t_1^p,t_2, \dots \}$ and $|t_1^p|=2p^2-2p$. Also, the only classes in degrees less than or equal to $2p^2-2p$ in $BP_*BP$ are powers of $v_1$ and $t_1$. Therefore, the only options are $y=t_1^p$ and $a_i=1$ or $a_i=t_1^{p-j}v_1^j$ for some $0\le j\le p$ and $y=1$. We know that $$\Delta(t_1^{p-j}v_1^j)=v_1^j\Delta(t_1^{p-j})=v_1^j*(t_1\otimes 1+1\otimes t_1)^{p-j}\text{ and }$$ $$\psi(t_1^p)=\Delta(t_1^p)=t_1^p\otimes 1+1\otimes t_1^p \mod p$$ So, we compute $$\begin{array}{rcl}
d_1(t_1^{p-j}v_1^j\otimes ( t\mu)^{k-1}) &=& 1\otimes t_1^{p-j}v_1^j\otimes (v\cdot t\mu)^{k-1} - \Delta(t_1^{p-j}v_1^j)\otimes ( t\mu)^{k-1})\\
&&+ t_1^{p-j}v_1^j\otimes \psi(( t\mu)^{k-1}) \\
&=&\bar{\Delta}(t_1^{p-j}v_1^j)\otimes ( t\mu)^{k-1} \\
&\ne& \Sigma_{i=1}^{p-1}\frac{1}{p}\binom{p}{i}t_1^i\otimes t_1^{p-i}\otimes ( t\mu_2)^{k-1}
\end{array}$$ and $$\begin{array}{rcl}
d_1(1\otimes t_1^p(t\mu)^{k-1}) & = & 1\otimes 1\otimes t_1^p( t\mu)^{k-1} - 1\otimes 1\otimes t_1^p( t\mu)^{k-1} \\
&&+1\otimes \psi( t_1^p(\mu)^{k-1}) \\
&=& 1\otimes t_1^p\otimes (t\mu)^{k-1} + 1\otimes 1\otimes t_1^p ( t\mu)^{k-1} \\
&\ne& \Sigma_{i=1}^{p-1}\frac{1}{p}\binom{p}{i}t_1^i\otimes t_1^{p-i}\otimes ( t\mu_2)^{k-1} \\
\end{array}$$ where $\bar{\Delta}(a_i)=\Delta(a_i)-a_i\otimes 1-1\otimes a_i$. Thus, $m_i\dot{=}( t\mu)^{k-1}$ for at least one $i$.
Now, if $m_i\dot{=}( t\mu)^{k-1}$ for only one $i$, then the element $a_i$ corresponding to $m_i$ must have reduced co-product $\Sigma_{i=1}^{p-1}\frac{1}{p}\binom{p}{i}t_1^i\otimes t_1^{p-i}+z$ for some element $z\in BP_*BP\otimes_{BP_*}BP_*BP$, up to multiplication by a unit; i.e., $$\bar{\Delta}(a_i)\dot{=}\Sigma_{i=1}^{p-1}\frac{1}{p}\binom{p}{i}t_1^i\otimes t_1^{p-i}+z .$$ The degree of $a_i$ must be $2p^2-2p$, so $a_i\dot{=}t_1^jv_1^{p-j}$. However, $$\begin{array}{rcl}
\bar{\Delta}(t_1^j v_1^{p-j})&=& v_1^{p-j}\bar{\Delta}(t_1^j) \\
&=& v_1^{p-j}(t_1\otimes 1+1\otimes t_1)^j -1\otimes t_1^jv_1^{p-j}-t_1^jv_1^{p-j}\otimes 1
\end{array}$$ and this does not equal $ b_{1,0}+z$ for any $j$, and any element $z\in BP_*BP\otimes_{BP_*}BP_*BP$.
Suppose that $m_i\dot{=}( t\mu)^{k-1}$ for $i\in I$ where $I$ contains more than one natural number. Then $ \psi(\sum_{i\in I} a_i) \dot{=} b_{1,0}+z'$ for some possibly trivial element $z'$ in $BP_*BP\otimes_{BP_*}BP_*BP$. However, we checked in the proof of Proposition \[perm classes\] that no class of the form $\sum_{i\in I} a_i$ has co-action $ b_{1,0} +z'$ and the same proof applies here.
Thus, there is no sum of classes $\sum_i a_i\otimes m_i$ such that $d_1(\sum_i a_i\otimes m_i)\dot{=}b_{1,0} (t\mu_2)^{k-1}$ and therefore the class $b_{1,0}(t\mu_2)^{k-1}$ survives to the $E_2$-page.
*Sub-step 2: Now suppose there is a class in bidegree $(2p^2k -2k+ 2p^2-2p+1,0)$ that is the source of a $d^2$ differential hitting $b_{1,0} (t\mu_2)^{k-1}.$ This class is therefore in $ BP_{2p^2k -2k+ 2p^2-2p+1}V(1)\wedge T_k(K(\bF_q)_p).$ Since this class is in an odd degree, we can classify all the classes that could possibly be in this degree as a linear combination of elements in the three families, $$\{ \lambda_1'z_1,\lambda_2z_2, t^{k-1}bz_3 \}$$ where $z_1$ and $z_2$ are some nontrivial product of even dimensional classes and $z_3$ is some nontrivial product of even dimensional classes that does not include $t\sigma b$ or $(t\mu_2)^j$ for any $j\ge 1$ as a factor since $t\sigma b\cdot t^{k-1}bz_3=t\mu_2\cdot t^{k-1}bz_3=0$.*
We can explicitly compute $d_1(\lambda_2)=\bar{\xi}_1\otimes \lambda_1'$ modulo differentials in the generalized homological homotopy fixed point spectral sequence. Therefore, by the Leibniz rule, $d_1(\lambda_2z_2)=(\bar{\xi}_1\otimes \lambda_1')z_2 + \lambda_2d_1( z_2)\ne 0.$ Therefore, the classes of the form $\lambda_2z_2$ do not survive to the $E_2$ page and cannot be the source of a $d_2$ differential hitting $b_{1,0} (t\mu_2)^{k-1}.$
We therefore just need to check elements of the form $t^kbz_3$ or $\lambda_1'z_1$ where $z_3$ does not contain $t\mu$ or $t\sigma b$ as a factor. Note that the Leibniz rule implies $$d_2(t^kbz_3)=d_2(t^kb)z_3+t^kbd_2(z_3)$$ and similarly, $$d_2(\lambda_1'z_2)=d_2(\lambda_1')z_2+\lambda_1'd_2(z_2)$$ so we need to check if $$\alpha(d_2(tb)z_3+tbd_2(z_3))+\beta(d_2(\lambda_1')z_2+\lambda_1'd_2(z_2))=(t\mu)^kt\sigma b$$ for some $\alpha,\beta\in \mathbb{F}_p$. However, note that the internal degree of $d_2(\lambda_1)$ is $2p^2-2p+2$ and there are no classes in that degree in $BP_*V(1)\wedge T_{k+1}(K(\bF_q)_p)\otimes BP_*^{\otimes j}$ for any $j\ge 0$. Thus, $d_2(\lambda_1')=0$, and we need to check if $$\alpha(d_2(tb)z_3+tbd_2(z_3))+\beta(\lambda_1'd_2(z_2))-(t\mu)^{k-1}t\sigma b=0$$ for any $\alpha, \beta\in \mathbb{F}_p$. Since $z_3$ cannot contain $t\mu$ or $t\sigma b$ as a factor, $tb$ is not a factor of $(t\mu)^kt\sigma b$, and $\lambda_1'$ is not a factor of $(t\mu)^{k-1}t\sigma b$, there are no such $\alpha$ and $\beta$ that make this equation hold. *Step 4: We now discuss how to detect the elements $\beta_{i}$ where $i\not \equiv 1 \mod p$. First, we will discuss how to detect $\beta_2$ in $V(1)_*T_3(K(\mathbb{F}_q)_p)$. The class $\beta_2$ is represented by $k_0+2b_{1,0}v_2 \mod (p,v_1)$ in the input of the $BP$-Adams spectral sequence for $S$. It is also a permanent cycle in the $BP$-Adams spectral sequence for $V(1)$ as a consequence of [@MR676562 Lemma 5.4]. It maps to the class $k_0+2b_{1,0}(t\mu)$ in $$BP_*BP\otimes_{BP_*} BP_*BP \otimes_{BP_*} BP_*V(1)\wedge T_3(K(\mathbb{F}_q)_p)$$ under the map of $E_1$-pages of $BP$-Adams spectral sequences induced by the map $V(1)\rightarrow V(1)\wedge T_3(K(\mathbb{F}_q)_p)$, by the remarks at the beginning of the proof and the multiplicativity of $E_1$-page of the $BP$-Adams spectral sequence.*
Recall that $ BP_*V(1)\wedge T_3(K(\mathbb{F}_q)_p) $ is isomorphic to $$H_*\left(P(t_1^p,t_2, \dots)\otimes E(b)\otimes E(\sigma t_1^p,\sigma t_2)\otimes P(\mu_2)\otimes \Gamma(\sigma b)\otimes P_3(t) ; d^2(x)=t\sigma x\right)$$ modulo $d^4$ differentials. We can therefore check every element in degree $4p^2-2p-2$ in $$BP_*BP\otimes_{BP_*} BP_*V(1)\wedge T_3(K(\mathbb{F}_q)_p)$$ to see if it has the element of interest as a boundary. We therefore make a table of all elements in this degree: $$\begin{array}{cccc}
\text{\sout{$t_1^p\otimes t_2$}} & v_1^it_1^{p+1-i} \otimes \sigma b & t_1^{p+1}\otimes \sigma b & v_1^{p+1}\otimes \sigma b \\
t_1^pt_2\otimes 1 & \text{\sout{$v_1^p\otimes t_2$}} & t_1^{p+1}v_1^p\otimes 1 & \text{\sout{$v_1\otimes (t_1^p)^2$}} \\
t_1^pv_2\otimes 1 & v_1^pt_2\otimes 1 & t_1^{2p}v_1\otimes 1 & v_1\otimes \gamma_2(\sigma b) \\
t_1^{2p+1}\otimes 1& v_1^pv_2\otimes 1 &\text{\sout{$t_1\otimes (t_1^p)^2$}} & \text{\sout{$v_1\otimes t_1^p\sigma b$}} \\
t_1^pt_2\otimes 1& v_1^{2p+1}\otimes 1 & t_1\otimes \gamma_2(\sigma b) & \text{\sout{$v_2\otimes t_1^p$}} \\
t_1^pv_1^{p+1}\otimes 1 & v_1^pt_2\otimes 1 & \text{\sout{$t_1\otimes t_1^p\sigma b$}} & v_2\otimes \sigma b \\
\text{\sout{$t_1^{p+1} \otimes t_1^p$}} & \text{\sout{$v_1^{p+1}\otimes t_1^p$}} & t_1v_1^{2p}\otimes 1 & v_1^it_1^{2p+1-i}\otimes 1 \\
\text{\sout{$t_2\otimes t_1^p$}} & \text{\sout{$v_1^it_1^{p-i}\otimes t_2$}} & \text{\sout{$1\otimes t_2\sigma b$}}& v_1^p\otimes t\mu \\
t_2\otimes \sigma b & v_1^it_1^{p-i}v_2\otimes 1 & t_1^p\otimes t\mu & 1\otimes \sigma b t\mu \\
\text{\sout{$1\otimes b \sigma t_2 $}} & v_1^it_1^{p-i}t_2\otimes 1 & \text{\sout{$1\otimes t_1^pt\mu$}} & \text{\sout{$1\otimes (tt_1^p)\mu$}} \\
\text{\sout{$1\otimes t_2 t_1^p$}} & \text{\sout{$v_1^it_1^{p+1-i} \otimes t_1^p$}} & v_1^it_1^{p-i}\otimes t\mu & \\
\end{array}$$ where the elements that are crossed out are elements that do not survive to the $E^4$ page in the generalized homological homotopy fixed point spectral sequence.
We can immediately rule out any element of the form $x\otimes 1$ where $x\in BP_*BP$ because if a class of this form hit the target class then it would have also happened in the source spectral sequence. We therefore just need to check the classes: $$\begin{array}{cccc}
v_1^it_1^{p-i}\otimes t\mu & v_2\otimes \sigma b & t_1^p\otimes t\mu & t_1^{p+1}\otimes \sigma b \\
1\otimes \sigma b t\mu & t_1\otimes \gamma_2(\sigma b) & v_1^p\otimes t\mu & v_1^{p+1}\otimes \sigma b \\
v_1^it_1^{p+1-i}\otimes \sigma b & v_1\otimes \gamma_2(\sigma b) & t_2\otimes \sigma b. & \\
\end{array}$$ We compute the $d_1$ differential on each of these classes: $$\begin{array}{l}
d_1(v_1^it_1^{p-i}\otimes t\mu ) =-v_1^i\sum_{j=1}^{p-i-1}\binom{p-i-1}{j}t_1^j\otimes t_1^{p-i-j-1}\otimes t\mu\\
d_1(1\otimes \sigma b t\mu) =1\otimes 1\otimes \sigma b t\mu \\
d_1(t_1^p\otimes t\mu) = -\sum_{i=1}^{p-1}\binom{p}{i}t_1^i\otimes t_1^{p-i}\otimes t\mu \equiv 0 \mod (p) \\
d_1(v_1^p\otimes t\mu) = v_1^p\otimes 1 \otimes t\mu \\
d_1(t_2\otimes \sigma b)\equiv -t_1^p\otimes t_1\otimes \sigma b \mod (p,v_1) \\
d_1(v_2\otimes \sigma b) =v_2\otimes 1\otimes \sigma b\\
d_1(t_1\otimes \gamma_2(\sigma b)) =0 \\
d_1(v_1\otimes \gamma_2(\sigma b)) =v_1\otimes 1\otimes \gamma_2( \sigma b )\\
d_1(t_1^{p+1}\otimes \sigma b)=-\sum_{i=1}^{p+1}\binom{p+1}{i}t_1^i\otimes t_1^{p+1-i}\otimes \sigma b \equiv t_1\otimes t_1^p \otimes \sigma b +t_1^p\otimes t_1 \otimes \sigma b \mod (p) \\
d_1(v_1^{p+1}\otimes \sigma b) =v_1^{p+1}\otimes 1\otimes \sigma b\\
d_1(v_1^it_1^{p+1-i}\otimes \sigma b)=-v_1^i\sum_{j=1}^{p+1-i}\binom{p-i+1}{j}t_1^j\otimes t_1^{p-i-j+1}\otimes \sigma b .\\
\end{array}$$ We observe that no linear combination these classes hits the element $k_0+2b_{1,0}(t\mu)$. Therefore, $k_0+2b_{1,0}(t\mu)$ survives to the $E_2$-page of the $BP$-Adams spectral sequence for $V(1)\wedge T_3(K(\mathbb{F}_q)_p)$.
We next need to check if it is the boundary of a $d_2$. However, all of the potential elements in $BP_{4p^2-4p-1}V(1)\wedge T_3(K(\mathbb{F}_q)_p)$ were killed by a $d^2$ differential in the generalized homological homotopy fixed point spectral sequence. Therefore, there are no elements with $k_0+2b_{1,0}v_2$ as a boundary.
The only classes in degree $4p^2-2p-2$ in $V(1)_*T_3(K(\mathbb{F}_q)_p)$ are $t\lambda_1'\lambda_2$ and $t\mu\sigma b$. Now, by Corollary \[cor about d2p-2 diff\] and the Leibniz rule, there is a differential $$d_{2p-2}( t\mu\sigma b)= - t^p\alpha_1\mu\sigma b$$ in the generalized homological homotopy fixed point spectral sequence that computes $$V(1)_*TC^{-}(K(\mathbb{F}_q)_p)$$ so the element $t\mu\sigma b$ does not survive to $V(1)_*TC^{-}(j)$. Therefore, $t\mu\sigma b$ cannot be in the image of the unit map $$V(1)_*S\rightarrow V(1)_*T_3(K(\mathbb{F}_q)_p$$ because this map factors through $V(1)_*TC^{-}(j)$; i.e., the diagram of ring spectra $$\xymatrix{
V(1)\ar[r]\ar[dr] & V(1)\wedge TC^{-}(j)\ar[d] \\
& V(1)\wedge T_3(K(\mathbb{F}_q)_p) }$$ commutes. Therefore, in degree $V(1)_{4p^2-2p-2}T_3(K(\mathbb{F}_q)_p)$ the image of the unit map is either $\mathbb{F}_p$ generated by a linear combination of $t\lambda_1'\lambda_2$ and $t\mu\sigma b$ or it is trivial in that degree. It cannot be trivial in degree $4p^2-2p-2$ because we just showed that there is a permanent cycle in the $BP$-Adams spectral sequence that survives to become an element in this degree in $V(1)_*T_3(K(\mathbb{F}_q)_p)$. Therefore, $V(1)_{4p^2-2p-2}T_3(K(\mathbb{F}_q)_p)\cong \mathbb{F}_p\{c\cdot t\lambda_1'\lambda_2+ c^{\prime}\cdot t\mu \sigma b\}$ where $c\ne 0$. Since $$0=d_{2p-2}(c\cdot t\lambda_1'\lambda_2+ c^{\prime}\cdot t\mu \sigma b)=c\cdot d_{2p-2}( t\lambda_1'\lambda_2)+c^{\prime}\cdot d_{2p-2}(t\mu \sigma b)=c\cdot d_{2p-2}( t\lambda_1'\lambda_2)-c^{\prime} \cdot t^p\alpha_1\mu\sigma b$$ where $c,c^{\prime} \in \mathbb{F}_p$ and $c\ne 0$. We see that $$d_{2p-2}( t\lambda_1'\lambda_2)=c^{-1}\cdot c^{\prime} \cdot t^p\alpha_1\mu\sigma b$$ and therefore $c'\ne 0$. Since we already identified that $t\mu$ is a permanent cycle and $b_{1,0}$ is a permanent cycle that represents the homotopy class $t\sigma b$, we know $2b_{1,0} t\mu $ is represents $2t\sigma b t\mu$ if it survives. Conequently, $c=1$ and $c'=2$ (up to multiplying each of these by the same unit).
*Step 5: We now discuss how to detect $\beta_k$ where $k\not \equiv 1 \mod p$. In this case, $\beta_k$ is represented by $\binom{k}{2}v_2^{k-1}k_0+kb_{1,0}v_2^{k}$, which maps to $(t\mu)^{k-1}(\binom{k}{2} k_0+kb_{1,0}(t\mu))$ so we just need to check the $d_1$ differentials on classes of the form $(t\mu)^{k-1}w$ where $w$ is an element in $BP_*BP\otimes_{BP_*}BP_*BP$. If the class $( t\mu_2)^{k}(2t_1^p\otimes t_2\otimes 1 -2t_1^p\otimes t_1^{1+p}\otimes 1-t_1^{2p}\otimes t_1\otimes 1)$ is the co-boundary of a $d_1$, then there is a sum of classes $\sum_i a_i\otimes m_i\in BP_*BP \otimes_{BP_*}BP_*V(1)\wedge T_{k}(K(\bF_q)_p)$ such that $d_1(\sum_ia_i\otimes m_i)\dot{=} ( t\mu_2)^{k}(2t_1^p\otimes t_2\otimes 1 -2t_1^p\otimes t_1^{1+p}\otimes 1-t_1^{2p}\otimes t_1\otimes 1).$*
*Sub-step 1: Recall that the co-action on $m$ is of the form $\psi(m)=1\otimes m+\sum_j a_j \otimes m_j$ where $|m_j|<|m|$. Again, observe that the only elements in $(BP\wedge V(1))_*T_k(K(\bF_q)_p) $ whose co-action contains $( t\mu)^{k-1}$ as either $m$ or $m_j$ for some $j$ are classes of the form $(t\mu)^{k-1}y$ for some $y\in (BP\wedge V(1))_*T_k(K(\bF_q)_p)$ up to multiplication by a unit. The co-action of such a class is $\psi(( t\mu)^{k-1}y)=(1\otimes ( t\mu)^{k-1})\psi(y),$ and $\psi(y)$ must be of the form $ \psi(y)=1\otimes y+ z\otimes 1+ \sum b_i\otimes y_i$ since $\psi(( t\mu)^{k-1}y)$ must have $1\otimes (t\mu)^{k-1}$ as a term, up to multiplication by a unit. Since the only classes in $(BP\wedge V(1))_*T_k(K(\bF_q)_p) $ that have a term $z\otimes 1$ in their co-action are the classes $t_1^{p}$, $t_i$ for $i\ge 2$ the class $y$ must be a product of these. Since $|(u\cdot t\mu)^{k-1}y|=(2p^2-2)(k-1)+|y|$ and the degree must equal $4p^2-2p+k(2p^2-2)$, the degree of $y$ must be $4p^2-2p$. However, the class $t_1^p$ is the element of lowest degree in the set $\{ t_1^p,t_2, \dots \}$ and $|t_1^p|=2p^2-2p$ and the next lowest degree element is $t_2$ with $|t_2|=2p^2-2$ so no product of classes in this set can be in degree $4p^2-2p$. Thus, $m_i\dot{=} (t\mu)^{k-1}$ for at least one $i$.*
Now, if $m_i\cdot=( t\mu)^{k-1}$ for only one $i$, then the element $a_i$ corresponding to $m_i$ must have reduced co-product $2t_1^p\otimes t_2\otimes 1 -2t_1^p\otimes t_1^{1+p}\otimes 1-t_1^{2p}\otimes t_1\otimes 1
+z$ for some class $z$ in $BP_*BP\otimes_{BP_*}BP_*BP$; i.e $$\bar{\Delta}(a_i)\dot{=} (2t_1^p\otimes t_2\otimes 1 -2t_1^p\otimes t_1^{1+p}\otimes 1-t_1^{2p}\otimes t_1\otimes 1).$$ The degree of $a_i$ must be $4p^2-2p$, so $a_i\dot{=} t_1^jv_1^{p-j}v_2^{\epsilon_1}t_2^{\epsilon_2}$.
However, $$\begin{array}{rcl}
\Delta(t_1^j v_1^{p-j}v_2^{\epsilon_1}t_2^{\epsilon_2})&=& v_1^{p-j}v_2^{\epsilon_1} (t_1\otimes 1 +1\otimes t_1)^j(t_2\otimes 1+ 1\otimes t_2+t_1^p\otimes t_1 )^{\epsilon_2}
\end{array}$$ and so $\bar{\Delta}(t_1^j v_1^{p-j}v_2^{\epsilon_1}t_2^{\epsilon_2})$ does not equal $$t_1^p\otimes t_2\otimes 1 -2t_1^p\otimes t_1^{1+p}\otimes 1-t_1^{2p}\otimes t_1\otimes 1+z$$ up to multiplication by a unit for any $j$, and any element $z\in BP_*BP\otimes_{BP_*}BP_*BP$.
Suppose that $m_i=( t\mu)^{k-1}$ for $i\in I$ where $I$ contains more than one natural number. Then $$\psi(\sum_{i\in I} a_i) \cdot{=} 2t_1^p\otimes t_2\otimes 1 -2t_1^p\otimes t_1^{1+p}\otimes 1-t_1^{2p}\otimes t_1\otimes 1+z'$$ for some possibly trivial element $z'$ in $BP_*BP\otimes_{BP_*}BP_*BP$. However, we checked in Step 4 that no class of the form $\sum_{i\in I} a_i\otimes 1$ has co-action $$(2t_1^p\otimes t_2\otimes 1 -2t_1^p\otimes t_1^{1+p}\otimes 1-t_1^{2p}\otimes t_1\otimes 1) +z'$$ and the same proof applies here. Thus, there is no sum of classes $\sum_i a_i\otimes m_i$ such that $$d_1(\sum_i a_i\otimes m_i)= (2t_1^p\otimes t_2\otimes 1 -2t_1^p\otimes t_1^{1+p}\otimes 1-t_1^{2p})\otimes (t\mu)^{k-1}$$ and therefore the class $ (2t_1^p\otimes t_2\otimes 1 -2t_1^p\otimes t_1^{1+p}\otimes 1-t_1^{2p})\otimes (t\mu)^{k-1} $ survives to the $E_2$-page.
*Sub-step 2: To see that there are no $d_2$ differentials that hit $\binom{k}{2}(t\mu)^{k-1}k_0+kb_{1,0}(t\mu)^{k}$ we need to check that no elements in $BP_{(2p^2-2)k+4p^2-2p-1}V(1)\wedge F(S(\mathbb{C}^k)_+,THH(j))^{\bT}$ for $k\ge 2$ have $\binom{k}{2}(t\mu)^{k-1}k_0+kb_{1,0}(t\mu)^{k}$ as a boundary. The only possible classes are elements in one of the families $$\{ (\lambda_1't_1^{p^2-p})z_1,(\lambda_2t_2^{p-1})z_2,(b\gamma_{p-1}(\sigma b))z_3 \}$$ where $z_i\in P(t_1^{p^2},t_2^p,t_3,\dots)\otimes E( \lambda_1't_1^{p^2-p},\lambda_2t_2^{p-1},b\gamma_{p-1}(\sigma b))\otimes P(\mu_2)\otimes \Gamma(\gamma_p(\sigma b))\otimes P(t )/t^{k+1}$ for $i=0,1,2$, or elements in one of the families $$\{ \lambda_1' y_1,\lambda_2y_2,(t^kb)y_3, \}$$ where $y_i\in P(t_1^{p},t_2,t_3,\dots)\otimes E( \lambda_1',\lambda_2,b)\otimes P(\mu_2)\otimes \Gamma(\sigma b)$ for $i=0,1,2$ by Corollary \[cor E\^4\]. There are differentials $$d_1(\lambda_1't_1^{p^2-p})=-t_1^{p^2-p}\otimes \lambda_1'$$ and $$d_1(\lambda_2t_2^{p-1})= (t_1\otimes \lambda_1')d_1(t_2^{p-1})$$ and $d_1(t_2^{p-1})\ne 0$, so these classes do not survive to the $E^2$ page and therefore no class in the families $\lambda_1' y_1$ and $\lambda_2y_2$ can be an element in the $E_2$-page that has $\binom{k}{2}(t\mu)^{k-1}k_0+kb_{1,0}(t\mu)^{k}$ as a boundary. We know $d_1(b\gamma_{p-1}(\sigma b))=0$, so in order for $b\gamma_{p-1}(\sigma b)z_3$ to survive to the $E_2$-page, $z_3$ must be a comodule primitive so that $d_1(z_3)=0$ as well and hence by the Leibniz rule $d_1(b\gamma_{p-1}(\sigma b)z_3)=0$. The only comodule primitives are products of elements in the set $\{ \mu_2, \gamma_{p^k}(\sigma b), t^k \mid k\ge 1 \}$. Since $|b\gamma_{p-1}(\sigma b)|=2p^3-2p^2-1$ and the homotopy degree of $\binom{k}{2}(t\mu)^{k-1}k_0+kb_{1,0}(t\mu)^{k}$ is $(2p^2-2)k+2p^2-2p-2$, then we must have $$|b\gamma_{p-1}(\sigma b)z_3|=(2p^2-2)k+2p^2-2p-2+1$$ so $|z_3|=(2p^2-2)k+2p^2-2p-2+1 -2p^3+2p^2+1$. However, $|\mu_2|\equiv 0\mod 2p^2$, $|\gamma_{p^k}(\sigma b)|\equiv 0\mod 2p^2$, $t^k\equiv -2k \mod 2p^2$, and $|z_3|\equiv -2k-2p \mod 2p^2$, so no product of elements in the set $\{ \mu_2, \gamma_{p^k}(\sigma b), t^k \mid k\ge 1 \}$ can be congruent to $|z_3|$ modulo $2p^2$ (note that we use the fact that $(t^k)^2=0$ here). Thus, there is no element that is both a comodule primitive and in the correct degree, so element of the form $b\gamma_{p-1}(\sigma b)z_3$ can have $\binom{k}{2}(t\mu)^{k-1}k_0+kb_{1,0}(t\mu)^{k}$ as a boundary. We now consider the elements in the second set of families of elements. Notice that in the second set of families, none of the elements $y_i$ have $t$ as a factor. First, we note that $d_1(\lambda_2)=t_1\otimes \lambda_1'$ so $\lambda_2y_2$ does not survive to the $E_2$ page and therefore it cannot have $\binom{k}{2}(t\mu)^{k-1}k_0+kb_{1,0}(t\mu)^{k}$ as a boundary. The elements $t^kb$ and $\lambda_1'$ are comodule primitives, so they survive to $E_2$. However, as we discussed before in order for $\lambda_1'y_1$ and $t^kby_3$ to survive to $E_2$ as well, then by the Leibniz rule $y_1$ and $y_3$ must be comodule primitives. $|\lambda_1'|=2p^2-2p+1$, and we know $$|\lambda_1'y_1|= (2p^2-2)k+2p^2-2p-2+1,$$ which implies $|y_1|=(2p^2-2)k+2p^2-2p-2+1-(2p^2-2p+1)=(2p^2-2)k-2$. Note that the only comodule primitives that $y_1$ could be are products of elements in the set $\{\mu_2, \gamma_{p^j}(\sigma b) \mid j\ge 0 \}$. We know $|\mu_2|\equiv 0 \mod 2p^2$ and $|\gamma_{p^j}(\sigma b)|\equiv 0 \mod 2p^2$ for $j\ge 0$. Since $|y_1|\equiv -2(k+1)$, the only way that a product of one of these classes could have the correct degree is if $k+1\equiv 0 \mod p^2$. However, that would imply that $k=p^2\ell+1$ for some integer $\ell$. In that case, $\binom{\ell p^2+1}{2}(t\mu)^{\ell p^2}k_0+(p^2\ell+1)b_{1,0}(t\mu)^{\ell p^2+1}=b_{1,0}(t\mu)^{pm+1}$ for $m=p\ell$, since $\binom{\ell p^2+1}{2}=(p^2+1)(p^2)/2\equiv 0\mod p$, in which case we already proved that $b_{1,0}(t\mu)^{pm+1}$ is a permanent cycle for $m\ge 1$ an integer. Therefore, this does not occur. The last case to consider is the family of classes $t^kby_3$. In this case, $$|t^kby_3|=(2p^2-2)k+2p^2-2p-2+1$$ implies that $|y_3|=(2p^2-2)k+2p^2-2p-2+1-(-2k+2p^2-2p-1)=2p^2k-2$. Again, the only comodule primitives in even degrees are products of elements in the set $\{\mu_2, \gamma_{p^j}(\sigma b) \mid j\ge 0 \}$. We observe that $|y_3|\equiv -2 \mod 2p^2$, whereas $|\mu_2|\equiv 0 \mod 2p^2$, and $| \gamma_{p^j}(\sigma b)|\equiv 0\mod 2p^2$ so no such element $y_3$ exists such that $d_1(t^kby_3)\ne 0$. Thus, there is no possible class in the correct degree at the $E_2$-page, which could have $\binom{k}{2}(t\mu)^{k-1}k_0+kb_{1,0}(t\mu)^{k}$ as a boundary when $k\not \equiv 1 \mod p$, which covers all the remaining cases.*
We now just need to show that the class in $V(1)_{(2p^2-2)k-2}T_k(K(\mathbb{F}_q)_p)$ is represented by $\binom{k}{2}(t\mu)^{k-1}k_0+kb_{1,0}(t\mu)^{k}$ is in fact $\binom{k}{2}(t\mu)^{k-1}(t\lambda_1'\lambda_2)+k(t\sigma b)(t\mu)^{k}$. To see this, note that $$\binom{k}{2}(t\mu)^{k-1}k_0+kb_{1,0}(t\mu)^{k}= \binom{k}{2}(t\mu)^{k-2}\left (k_0+2b_{1,0}(t\mu)\right )+(2k-k^2)(b_{1,0})(t\mu)$$ for $k\ge 1$ so since $k_0+2b_{1,0}(t\mu)$ survives to become $t\lambda_1'\lambda_2+2(t\sigma b)(t\mu)$, $t\mu$ survives to become $t\mu$ and $b_{1,0}$ survives to become $t\sigma b$, we see that $\binom{k}{2}(t\mu)^{k-1}k_0+kb_{1,0}(t\mu)^{k}$ survives to become $\binom{k}{2}(t\mu)^{k-1}(t\lambda_1'\lambda_2)+k(t\sigma b)(t\mu)^{k}$.
Detecting the $\beta$-family in iterated algebraic K-theory
-----------------------------------------------------------
The goal of this section is to prove that the $\beta$-family is detected in the iterated algebraic K-theory of finite fields. We prove this as a Corollary to Theorem \[beta\]. The proof relies on the fact that the trace map $K(R)\rightarrow TC^{-}(R)$ is a map of commutative ring spectra when $R$ is a commutative ring spectrum. The proof that the cyclotomic trace map $K(R)\to TC(R)$ is a map of commutative ring spectra when $R$ is a commutative ring spectrum is due to Hesselholt-Geisser [@MR1743237] for Eilenbrg-MacLane spectra and later Dundas [@dundas] and Blumberg-Gepner-Tabuada [@BGT14] for commutative ring spectra. The advantage of the approach of Blumberg-Gepner-Tabuada [@BGT14] is that they prove that the multiplicative cyclotomic trace map is also unique. This work builds on their proof that algebraic K-theory is the universal additive functor [@MR3070515] (also see Barwick [@MR3465850]).
We believe the fact that the trace map $K\to TC^{-}$ is multiplicative is well known, but it is not explicitly stated in the literature to our knowledge, so we include a proof. Note that by the Nikolaus-Scholze equalizer [@NS17 Cor. 1.5], there is a natural transformation $TC\to TC^{-}$ and therefore there exists a natural transformation $K\to TC^{-}$. The proof will then follow from the fact that algebraic K-theory is initial amongst multiplicative additive functors by [@BGT14 Cor. 7.2].
Suppose $R$ is a commutative ring spectrum, then the trace map $K(R)\to TC^{-}(R)$, which factors through $TC(R)$, is a map of commutative ring spectra.
By [@BGT14 Cor. 7.2], it suffices to show that $TC^{-}(-)$ is an $E_\infty$-object in the symmetric monoidal $\infty$-category of additive functors from $\text{Cat}_{\infty}^{\text{perf}}$, the $\infty$-category of small idempotent-complete stable infinity categories and exact functors, to the stable $\infty$-category of spectra, denoted $\operatorname{\rm Fun}_{\operatorname{\rm add}}(\text{Cat}_{\infty}^{\text{perf}},\operatorname{\rm S}_{\infty})^{\otimes}$. Since $E_{\infty}$-objects in a functor category of infinity stable categories are equivalent to commutative monoids in this functor category and by [@Gla16 Prop. 2.12] [@Day Ex. 3.2.2] an $E_{\infty}$-object in this functor category is equivalent to a lax symmetric monoidal functor. The fact that the functor $TC^{-}$ is lax symmetric monoidal follows by the diagram $$\xymatrix{
F(E\bT_+,THH(-))^{\bT}\wedge F(E\bT_+,THH(-))^{\bT}\ar[d]^{\wedge} \\
F((E\bT\times E\bT)_+,THH(-)\wedge THH(-))^{\bT})\ar[d]^{\mu_{\#}\Delta_+^{\#}} \\
F(E\bT_+,THH(-))^{\bT})
}$$ where $\Delta_+^{\#}$ is induced by the diagonal $\Delta_+\co E\bT_+\to (E\bT\times E\bT)_+$ and $\mu_{\#}$ is induced by the $E_{\infty}$-structure of $THH$ as an -object in $\operatorname{\rm Fun}_{\operatorname{\rm add}}(\text{Cat}_{\infty}^{\text{perf}},\operatorname{\rm S}_{\infty})^{\otimes}$ ( cf. [@BR05 Sec. 4]). Specifically, $$\Delta_+^{\#}=F(\Delta_+,THH(-)\wedge THH(-))^{\bT}$$ and $\mu_{\#}=F(E\bT_+,\mu)^{\bT}$ where $\mu\co THH(-)\wedge THH(-)\to THH(-)$ is the multiplication map of the $E_{\infty}$-object $THH$ in $\operatorname{\rm Fun}_{\operatorname{\rm add}}(\text{Cat}_{\infty}^{\text{perf}},\operatorname{\rm S}_{\infty})^{\otimes}$. The fact that $TC^{-}(-)$ is an additive functor follows from [@2016arXiv160201980H; @NS17], or see [@NCM Sec. 2.2.13].
The proof above implies by [@BGT14 Cor. 7.2] that there is a unique morphism from $K\to TC^{-}$ in the $\infty$-category of $E_{\infty}$-objects in $\operatorname{\rm Fun}_{\operatorname{\rm add}}(\text{Cat}_{\infty}^{\text{perf}},\operatorname{\rm S}_{\infty})^{\otimes}$, which is stronger than what is needed for the statement of the lemma. We give the simpler statement because that is the version that will be used in the next proof. In the end, the result will be a result about homotopy groups, so the change of model from the model category of symmetric spectra $\Sp$ to the infinity category of spectra $\operatorname{\rm S}_{\infty}$ should not be concerning.
\[betafamilyiniteratedKtheory\] Let $p\ge 5$ be a prime and $q$ be a prime power that generates $(\mathbb{Z}/p^2)^{\times}$ . The classes $\beta_i$ map from $\pi_*S$ to nonzero elements in $\pi_*K(K(\bF_q))$ under the unit map.
First, the classes $\beta_i$ in $V(1)_*$ map to $V(1)_*K(K(\bF_q)_p)_p$ under the unit map since the cyclotomic trace is multiplicative and therefore the map $$V(1)_*S\rightarrow V(1)_*TC^{-}(K(\bF_q)_p)$$ factors through $V(1)_*K(K(\bF_q)_p)$; i.e, there is a commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{
V(1)_*S \ar[drrr]_(.4){V(1)_*\eta_{TC^{-}(K(\bF_q)_p)}} \ar[rrr]^(.4){V(1)_*\eta_{K(K(\bF_q)_p)}} &&& V(1)_*K(K(\bF_q)_p) \ar[d]^{V(1)_* tr} \\
& && V(1)_*TC^{-}(K(\bF_q)_p). & \\
}$$ There is also a commuting diagram of ring spectra $$\xymatrix{
S\simeq S\wedge S \ar[r]^{1_{S} \wedge \eta} \ar[d]_{i_0i_1 \wedge 1_{S}} & S\wedge K(K(\bF_q)) \ar[d]_{i_0i_1 \wedge 1_{K(K(\bF_q))} }\ar[drr]^{i_0i_1 \wedge K(f_p)} && \\
V(1) \wedge S \ar[r]^(.4){1_{V(1)}\wedge \eta} & V(1)\wedge K(K(\bF_q)) \ar[rr]^{1_{V(1)}\wedge K(f_p)} && V(1)\wedge K(K(\bF_q)_p)
}$$ where $f_p:K(\bF_q)\rightarrow K(\bF_q)_p$ is the $p$-completion map and $\eta$ is the unit map. Since the classes $\beta_i$ pull back to $\pi_*S$ along the unit map and since they map nontrivially to classes in $\pi_*V(1)\wedge K (K(\bF_q)_p)$, they must map to nontrivial classes in $\pi_*K(K(\bF_q))$ under the unit map $$\pi_*S\rightarrow \pi_*K(K(\bF_q)).$$
\[betafamilyiniteratedKtheory2\] Let $\mathcal{O}_F$ be the ring of integers in a number field $F$ whose residue field is $\mathbb{F}_q$ for some prime power $q$ which generates $(\bZ/p^2\mathbb{Z})^{\times}$. Then the $\beta$-family is detected in $K(K(\mathcal{O}_F))$. In particular, the $\beta$-family is detected in $K(K(\bZ))$.
Let $F$ be a number field and $q$ a prime power satisfying the conditions in the statement of the corollary. Since $\mathcal{O}_F$ has residue field $\mathbb{F}_q$, there exists a map of commutative rings $\mathcal{O}_F\rightarrow \mathbb{F}_q$ inducing a map of commutative ring spectra $K(K(\mathcal{O}_F))\rightarrow K(K(\mathbb{F}_q))$. Therefore, there is a commutative diagram $$\label{diag ring of int}
\xymatrix{ S \ar[rr] \ar[dr] & &K(K(\mathbb{F}_q)) \\
& K(K(\mathcal{O}_F))\ar[ur]& }$$ of commutative ring spectra. Since the $\beta$-family is nontrivial in the image of the unit map $\pi_*S\to \pi_*K(K(\mathbb{F}_q))$, it is also nontrivial in the image of the unit map $\pi_*S\to \pi_*(K(K(\mathcal{O}_F)))$. In particular, let $p=5$, then $q=2$ generates $(\mathbb{Z}/25\mathbb{Z})^{\times}$ and consequently it topologically generates $\mathbb{Z}_5^{\times}$. Thus, there is a map of commutative rings $\mathbb{Z}\to \mathbb{F}_2$ inducing a map of commutative ring spectra $K(K(\mathbb{Z}))\to K(K(\mathbb{F}_2))$. Since the $\beta$-family is detected in $K(K(\mathbb{F}_2))$, by the same diagram with $\mathcal{O}_F=\mathbb{Z}$ we see that the $\beta$-family is detected in iterated algebraic K-theory of the integers.
Note that the $\alpha$-family is detected in $K(\bZ)$. Since $K_0(\mathbb{Z})\cong \mathbb{Z}$, there is a map of commutative ring spectra $K(\mathbb{Z})\to H\mathbb{Z}$. We may consider the infinite family of maps $$S\to \ldots \to K(K(K(\bZ)))\to K(K(\bZ))\to K(\bZ)$$ and a specialization of the Greek-letter family red-shift conjecture is that the $n$-th Greek letter family is in the image of the unit map $S\to K^{(n)}(\bZ)$ where $K^{(n)}(\bZ)$ is algebraic K-theory iterated $n$-times. As a consequence of Corollary \[betafamilyiniteratedKtheory2\], we have therefore proved this version of the conjecture for $n=2$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We investigate the evolution of entanglement in the Fenna-Matthew-Olson (FMO) complex based on simulations using the scaled hierarchical equations of motion (HEOM) approach. We examine the role of entanglement in the FMO complex by direct computation of the convex roof. We use monogamy to give a lower bound for entanglement and obtain an upper bound from the evaluation of the convex roof. Examination of bipartite measures for all possible bipartitions provides a complete picture of the multipartite entanglement. Our results support the hypothesis that entanglement is maximum primary along the two distinct electronic energy transfer pathways. In addition, we note that the structure of multipartite entanglement is quite simple, suggesting that there are constraints on the mixed state entanglement beyond those due to monogamy.'
address:
- 'Department of Chemistry and Birck Nanotechnology Center, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA'
- 'Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, Harvard University, 12 Oxford Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA'
- 'Department of Physics, Haverford College, Haverford, PA 19041'
author:
- Jing Zhu and Sabre Kais
- 'Alán Aspuru-Guzik'
- 'Sam Rodriques, Ben Brock and Peter J. Love'
bibliography:
- 'Entanglement.bib'
title: Multipartite Quantum Entanglement Evolution in Photosynthetic Complexes
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
Photosynthesis is one of the most common phenomena in nature. However, the details of photosynthetic processes are still under investigation. Recent experimental results show that long lived quantum coherences are present in various photosynthetic complexes [@Andrew-book; @Scholes-2010; @NatureReview]. One such protein complex, the Fenna-Matthews-Olson (FMO) complex from green sulphur bacteria [@FENNA1975], has attracted a great deal of experimental and theoretical attention due to its intermediate role in energy transport. The FMO complex acts as a molecular wire, transferring the excitation energy from the light-harvesting complex (LHC) to the reaction center (RC) [@FENNA1975; @Li1997; @Camara-Artigas2003; @Cheng-Fleming-2009]. In 2007, Engel et al [@Engel-2007] observed long-lasting quantum beating over a time scale of hundreds of femtoseconds by two-dimensional nonlinear spectroscopy. Evidence for quantum beating, and therefore long lived quantum coherence, was also found at room temperature [@Engel2].
The transport of electronic excitations through the protein complex of FMO is an example of energy transport in an open quantum system. The oscillations of the nuclear positions provide a bath or an environment for the electronic excitations. Since $2007$, several theoretical frameworks have been developed to model this phenomenon. For example, Aspuru-Guzik et al [@Alan-2008; @Alan-2009; @Alan-JPC-2009] introduced a non-Markov approximation based on the Lindblad formalism to investigate the effects on the efficiency of photosynthesis of the combination of quantum coherence and environmental interaction. Meanwhile, Ishizaki and coworkers [@Fleming-JCP-2009; @Fleming-PNAS-2009] utilized the hierarchical equations of motion (HEOM) approach to reproduce successfully the population beating in the FMO complex at both cryogenic and physiological temperature. More recently, Zhu and coworkers introduced the scaled HEOM approach for studying the robustness and quantum coherence in the FMO complex [@Ourpaper; @Shi2009a]. The scaled HEOM approach has been shown to provide reliable simulation results with considerable reduction in computational requirements. Using the HEOM equations, Rebentrost and Aspuru-Guzik showed that the non-Markovianity of the system is near-maximal for physiological conditions [@Alan2011Com]. Recently, many other approaches for the numerical computation of the time evolution and quantum features of this system have made FMO a target for benchmarking of methods for simulating open quantum systems [@Reichman2011; @PlenioDMRG2; @coker2010; @coker2011; @Mazziotti2011; @Mazziotti2011a; @Thorwart2011; @Lloyd2011; @Lloyd2011a; @Lloyd2011b; @cao2010; @cao2011; @Silbey2010; @Silbey2011; @Ratner2011; @Mukamel2010a].
Besides the modeling of population and coherence observed in experiment, these models also enable computation of the time evolution of entanglement [@Horodecki:2009p8660; @Kais2007]. The first study of entanglement in biological excitons was [@Thorwart:2009p8612], which studied the dynamics of the negativity [@Peres:1996p8927; @Horodecki:1996p8928] for a pair of chromophores coupled to a non-Markovian environment. Subsequent studies considered more chromophores, different excitation mechanisms and different entanglement measures. We briefly review this work here, for a more complete overview we refer the reader to a recent review [@Whaley:2010p8611]. In a recent study, Mukamel made a distinction between some apparent entanglement effects associated with the linear response, which can be eliminated by a coordinate transformation, and genuine entanglement that is fundamentally quantum in nature [@Mukamel2010]. Recently, Engel et al found a direct evidence of quantum transport in the FMO complex [@engel2011].
In [@Sarovar:2010p6945] two measures of entanglement relevant to FMO are defined. The first measure is the concurrence between chromophore $i$ and chromophore $j$. The concurrence is a well-known measure of entanglement between two two-level systems, and can be computed in closed form even for mixed states, and in the case of a density matrix restricted to the single exciton subspace takes the simple form $C_{ij} = 2|\rho_{ij}|$ [@Sarovar:2010p6945; @Wootters:1998p6991]. The second measure defined was a global measure related to the relative entropy of entanglement, defined by; $$\label{seREE}
E[\rho]=-\sum_{i=1}^N\ln\rho_{ii} -S(\rho)$$ where $S(\rho ) = -{\rm Tr}\rho \ln \rho$ is the von Neumann entropy of the state $\rho$. This measure is the relative entropy of entanglement specialized to the case where states only have support in the zero and one exciton subspace. The definition of the relative entropy of entanglement is $$E[\rho] = \min_\sigma {\rm Tr}(\rho\ln\rho - \rho\ln\sigma)$$ where the minimization is taken over all separable states $\sigma$. In the case of states restricted to zero or one excitons, the set of separable states becomes simply the set of diagonal density matrices, and so this minimization can be performed exactly, yielding the expression (\[seREE\]). We refer the reader to the supplementary materials of [@Sarovar:2010p6945] for more details. Both of the measures computed in [@Sarovar:2010p6945] rely on the fact that, in the single exciton subspace, coherence (meaning nonzero off diagonal elements of the density matrix in the standard basis) is necessary and sufficient for entanglement. Both concurrence, the relative entropy of entanglement and an entanglement witness introduced in [@Sarovar:2010p6945] show this clearly.
We introduce the notation that the bipartition of a system into subsystems $A$ and $B$ is denoted $A|B$, and when a subsystem consists of a set of chromophores we indicate it by a string of labels, so $12|367$ is the bipartition of the subsystem composed of chromophores one and two $(12)$, and the subsystem composed of chromophores three, six and seven $(367)$.
The two measures considered in [@Sarovar:2010p6945] were computed for an initial excitation at site one or six, at both $77K$ and $300K$, to probe both physiological conditions and the conditions of ultrafast spectroscopy experiments. For the system initialized with an exciton at site 1, they show the pairwise entanglement $1|2$, $1|3$, $1|5$ and also the pairwise entanglement $3|4$. Finite entanglement was found between all pairs of chromophores in [@Sarovar:2010p6945] - over distances comparable to the size of the FMO complex - $\leq 30$Å.
The logarithmic negativity is the only measure that is readily computable for all states, and in the case of states restricted to the single exciton subspace it may be computed across any cut of the set of seven chromophores into two subsets [@logneg; @Caruso:2010p8915; @Caruso:2009p8916]. Caruso [*et al.*]{} computed the logarithmic negativity across six cuts $1|234567$, $12|34567$, $123|4567$, $1234|567$, $12345|67$ and $123456|7$ in a simulation in which a single excitation was injected into site one [@Caruso:2010p8915]. The entanglement of site one with the rest $1|234567$ exhibited the largest peak value, with large oscillations taking it below the entanglements across the other cuts. This may be understood as the generation of entanglement from the delocalization of the injected exciton across the complex. In subsequent work, the logarithmic negativity was also computed (across the same cuts) for simulations in which direct injection of a single exciton is replaced by simulation of thermal injection and laser excitation. In the case of thermal injection the entanglement is reduced by a factor of roughly $50$, concomitant with a suppression of coherent oscillations. In the case of simulated laser excitation a large pulse of entanglement is observed, lasting about $0.15~{\rm ps}$.
In [@Fassioli:2010p8617] Fassioli et al move from consideration of the presence of entanglement in models of FMO to characterization of its functional role in transport. It is in this context that the variety of entanglement studies carried out could connect with functionality and delocalization ideas from physical chemistry. Those authors introduce an entanglement yield, based on an entanglement measure which is a sum of the squared concurrences or “tangles” (defined below) over all pairs of chromophores. $$E_T = \sum_{m,n>m} \tau(\rho_{m,n})$$ Because of monogamy of entanglement their measure is bounded above by a sum of the tangles of each chromophore with the rest. $$E_T \leq \frac{1}{2}\sum_{n} \tau(\rho_n)$$ This upper bound is equal to $7/2$ times the Meyer-Wallach measure for the seven chromophore system [@Meyer:2001p8917]. Interestingly, those authors point out a connection of this measure, and hence of the Meyer-Wallach measure, to a measure commonly used by the physical chemistry community of exciton delocalization: the inverse participation ratio [@Meier:1997p8934].
To make a connection between entanglement and transport Fassioli [*et al.*]{} [@Fassioli:2010p8617] define an entanglement yield - the integral of the entanglement (as given by a sum of pairwise tangles) weighted by the probability density for exciton absorption by the reaction center. This quantity is normalized by the quantum yield: the total probability that the exciton is trapped by the reaction center. The contributions to this quantity were divided into donor-donor, donor-acceptor contributions, where chromophores 1, 2 and 5, 6 are designated donors and chromophores 3 and 4 are acceptors. This study showed that entanglement peaks on a timescale relevant for transport, for simulations in which the initial exciton is localized on site one or site six. In particular those authors observe an inverse relationship between entanglement among donor sites and quantum efficiency, suggesting that entanglement among the donor chromophores (1,2 and 5,6) may be tuned to achieve the desired quantum efficiency. The authors of [@Fassioli:2010p8617] also introduce the idea of direct and indirect pathways - an indirect pathway involving transfer through chromophore seven. The connection between entanglement and transport was also made clear by the work of [@addone] in which it was shown that a high probability of exciton transfer was only achieved for large values of the entanglement.
In [@Bradler:2010p7069] a number of distinct measures of quantum correlation were computed: the quantum mutual information, quantum discord and single-excitation relative entropy of entanglement with respect to bipartite cuts $3|16$, $12|3$ and $3|124567$. These authors extended the work of [@Sarovar:2010p6945] by proving a simple formula for the relative entropy of entanglement across any bipartite cut for states restricted to the single exciton subspace.
It is the goal of the present work to provide a more complete picture of entanglement evolution during exciton transport. We also wish to further investigate the relationship of entanglement to the different transport pathways in the context of the HEOM model presented below. The paper is organized as the follows. In Section \[HEOM\] the detailed theoretical framework of the scaled HEOM approach is introduced. In Section \[ent\] the method used to compute the convex roof and hence obtain the entanglement is given. Section \[res\] contains our entanglement calculations. We use the monogamy bounds in order to validate our convex roof method - the monogamy bounds provide a lower bound on entanglement and our convex roof calculations provide an upper bound. We compute bipartite measures of entanglement (described in detail below) for many subsystems and bipartitions of the FMO complex, including calculations for all $63$ bipartitions of the full seven chromophore system in order to provide a full picture of the multipartite entanglement present during transport. We close the paper with some conclusions and directions for future work.
Method: Scaled Hierarchical Equations of Motion (HEOM) {#HEOM}
======================================================
The structure of the FMO complex was originally analyzed by Fenna and Matthews [@FENNA1975]. The FMO complex consists of three identical monomers arranged in a C3 symmetric structure. Each monomer works independently in the FMO complex. Each monomer is formed from seven bacteriochlorophylla (BChla) molecules. These molecules are the “sites” or “chromophores” referred to in the rest of the paper. Experimental results show that site $1$ and $6$ are close to the light Harvesting complex (LHC) and site $3$ and $4$ are next to the reaction center (RC) [@FENNA1975; @Li1997; @Camara-Artigas2003; @Cheng-Fleming-2009].
For all models used in the present paper, the Hamiltonian of the FMO complex and its interaction with the environment is taken to be: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{H} & =\mathcal{H_{S}}+\mathcal{H}_{B}+\mathcal{H}_{SB}\label{eq:htot}\\
\mathcal{H}_{S} & =\sum_{j=1}^{N}\varepsilon_{j}\,|j\rangle\langle j|+\sum_{j\neq k}J_{jk}\,\left(|j\rangle\langle k|+|k\rangle\langle j|\right)\label{eq:hs}\\
\mathcal{H}_{B} & =\sum_{j=1}^{N}\mathcal{H}_{B}^{j}=\sum_{j=1}^{N}\sum_{\xi=1}^{N_{jB}}\frac{P_{j\xi}^{2}}{2m_{j\xi}}+\frac{1}{2}m_{j\xi}\omega_{j\xi}^{2}x_{j\xi}^{2}\label{eq:hb}\\
\mathcal{H}_{SB} & =\sum_{j=1}^{N}\mathcal{H}_{SB}^{j}=-\sum_{j=1}^{N}|j\rangle\langle j|\cdot\sum_{\xi}c_{j\xi}\cdot x_{j\xi}=-\sum_{j=1}^{N}\mathcal{V}_{j}\cdot F_{j}\label{eq:hsb}\\
& \mbox{with }\mathcal{V}_{j}=|j\rangle\langle j|\mbox{ and }F_{j}=\sum_{\xi}c_{j\xi}\cdot x_{j\xi}\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
The terms $\mathcal{H}_{S}$, $\mathcal{H}_{B}$ and $\mathcal{H}_{SB}$ describe the Hamiltonian of the system, the bath, and the system-bath coupling respectively. The Hamiltonian is written in the single excitation subspace, so that the basis states $|j\rangle$ in Eq. \[eq:hs\] denotes that the $j$-th site is in its excited state and all other sites are in their ground states. The energy of site $j$ is denoted by $\varepsilon_{j}$ and $J_{jk}$ is the electronic coupling between site $j$ and $k$. $N$ is the number of sites, so that $N=7$ for the FMO complex. For the thermal bath $\mathcal{H}_{B}$, the harmonic oscillator model is applied. We assume that each site is coupled to the bath independently. The parameters $m_{j\xi}$, $\omega_{j\xi}$, $P_{j\xi}$ and $x_{j\xi}$ are mass, frequency, momentum and position operator of the harmonic bath associated with the $j$-th site respectively. The parameter $c_{j\xi}$ in Eq. \[eq:hsb\] represents the system-bath coupling constant between the $j$-th site and $\xi$-th phonon mode. The system and bath are assumed to be decoupled at $t=0$.
We can obtain the time evolution of the system density matrix $\rho\left(t\right)$ by tracing out the bath degrees of freedom $\rho\left(t\right)={\rm Tr}_{B}\left[\rho_{tot}\left(t\right)\right]={\rm Tr}_{B}\left[e^{\nicefrac{-i\mathcal{H}t}{\hbar}}\,\rho_{tot}\left(0\right)\,e^{\nicefrac{i\mathcal{H}t}{\hbar}}\right]$. The correlation function for a phonon bath can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
C_{j}\left(t\right) & =\frac{1}{\pi}\intop_{-\infty}^{\infty}d\omega\cdot J_{j}\left(\omega\right)\cdot\frac{e^{-i\omega t}}{1-e^{-\beta\hbar\omega}}\label{eq:correlation}\\
J_{j}\left(\omega\right) & =\sum_{\xi}\frac{c_{j\xi}^{2}\cdot\hbar}{2m_{j\xi}\cdot\omega_{j\xi}}\delta\left(\omega-\omega_{j\xi}\right)\label{eq:spec density}\end{aligned}$$ with $\beta=\nicefrac{1}{k_{B}T}$ . We assume that $J_{j}\left(\omega\right)$ is the same all sites, $J_{j}\left(\omega\right)=J\left(\omega\right)\;\forall\; j\mbox{s}$. We consider the time evolution of the system density matrix both with and without environmental interaction. For the isolated system, we set $J\left(\omega\right)=0$ and the time evolution of the density matrix for the system is given by: $$\frac{d}{dt}\rho\left(t\right)=-\frac{i}{\hbar}\left[\mathcal{H}_{S},\;\rho\left(t\right)\right]\label{eq:isolated}$$ One approach to the computation of the time evolution of the system density matrix is the hierarchical equation of motion (HEOM) approach, originally developed by Ishizaki and Fleming [@Fleming-PNAS-2009]. We use the scaled HEOM approach for reasons of computational efficiency [@Shi2009a; @Ourpaper].
In the scaled HEOM approach, the original spectral density function $J\left(\omega\right)$ (Eq. \[eq:spec density\]) is replaced by a Drude spectral density function $J\left(\omega\right)=\frac{2\lambda\gamma}{\hbar}\frac{\omega}{\omega^{2}+\gamma^{2}}$ where $\lambda$ is the reorganization energy and $\gamma$ is the Drude decay constant. Then the correlation function in Eq. \[eq:correlation\] can be expanded as $$\begin{aligned}
C_{j}\left(t>0\right) & =\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}c_{k}\cdot e^{-v_{k}t}\end{aligned}$$ with $v_{o}=\gamma$, which is the Drude decay constant, $v_{k}=\frac{2k\pi}{\beta\hbar}$ when $k\geqslant1$ and $v_{k}$ is known as the Matsuraba frequency. The constants $c_{k}$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
c_{0} & = & \frac{\eta\gamma}{2}\left[\cot\left(\frac{\beta\hbar\gamma}{2}\right)-i\right]\\
c_{k} & = & \frac{2\eta\gamma}{\beta\hbar}\cdot\frac{v_{k}}{v_{k}^{2}-\gamma^{2}}\;\; for\,\, k\geqslant1\end{aligned}$$
Using the scaled approach developed by Shi and coworkers [@Shi2009a] and applying the Ishizaki-Tanimura truncating scheme [@Tanimura; @Tanimura2] to the density matrix, the scaled density operator becomes: $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{d}{dt}\rho_{\boldsymbol{n}}=-\frac{i}{\hbar}\left[\mathcal{H}_{S},\;\rho_{\boldsymbol{n}}\right]-\sum_{j=1}^{N}\sum_{k=0}^{K}n_{jk}v_{k}\cdot\rho_{\boldsymbol{n}}-i\sum_{j=1}^{N}\sqrt{\left(n_{jk}+1\right)\left|c_{k}\right|}\,\left[\mathcal{V}_{j},\;\sum_{k}\rho_{\boldsymbol{n_{jk}^{+}}}\right]\\
-\sum_{j=1}^{N}\sum_{m=K+1}^{\infty}\frac{c_{jm}}{v_{jm}}\cdot\left[\mathcal{V}_{j},\,\left[\mathcal{V}_{j},\,\rho_{\boldsymbol{n}}\right]\right]-i\sum_{j=1}^{N}\sum_{k=0}^{K}\sqrt{\nicefrac{n_{jk}}{\left|c_{k}\right|}}\;\left(c_{k}\mathcal{V}_{j}\,\rho_{\boldsymbol{n_{jk}^{-}}}-c_{k}^{*}\rho_{\boldsymbol{n_{jk}^{-}}}\mathcal{V}_{j}\right)\label{eq:final HEOM}\end{gathered}$$ where the global index $\boldsymbol{n}$ denotes a set of nonnegative integers $\boldsymbol{n}\equiv\{n_{1},n_{2}\cdots\cdots,n_{N}\}=\{\{n_{10},n_{11}\cdots,n_{1K}\}\cdots\{n_{N0,}n_{N1}\cdots,n_{NK}\}\}$. The symbol $\boldsymbol{n_{jk}^{\pm}}$ refers to a set in which the number $n_{jk}$ is modified to $n_{jk}\pm1$ in the global index $\boldsymbol{n}$. The sum of $n_{jk}$ is called the tier ($\mathcal{N}$), $\mathcal{N}=\sum_{j,k}n_{jk}$. The global index $\boldsymbol{n}$ labels a set of density matrices in which $\rho_{\boldsymbol{0}}=\rho_{\{\{0,0,\cdots,0\}\cdots\cdots\{0,0,\cdots,0\}\}}$ is the system reduced density operator (RDO), and all others are considered as auxiliary density operators (ADOs). Although the RDO is the most important operator, the ADOs contain corrections to the system-bath interaction, arising from the non-equilibrium treatment of the bath. $K$ is the truncation level for the correlation function (Matsuraba frequency and constant $c_{k}$) and the cutoff for the tier of ADOs was set at $\mathcal{N}_{c}$. The scaled approach guarantees that all elements in the ADOs decay to zero for the upper levels in the hierarchy, while the Ishizaki-Tanimura truncating scheme decreases the truncation error. For a detailed derivation of this approach we refer the reader to [@Ourpaper]. We make use of the same parameters as [@Ourpaper], and we set the truncation levels $K=0$ and cutoff tier of ADOs $\mathcal{N}_{c}=4$. The reorganization energy and Drude decay constant are $\lambda_{j}=\lambda=35\;\unit{cm^{-1}}$ and $\gamma_{j}^{-1}=\gamma^{-1}=50\;\unit{fs}$.
By numerically integrating the differential equation Eq. \[eq:final HEOM\] using Mathematica, we calculated the density matrix of each time step during the evolution for $2500\unit{fs}$ with a time step of $2~{\rm fs}$. We performed simulations with two different initial states: site $1$ initially exited and site $6$ initially excited. The time series of the system density matrix so obtained is the data from which we calculate the entanglement between various different parts of the FMO complex. Before describing the results of those calculations, we first describe the method by which we compute entanglement measures for the mixed states of the seven chromophore system.
Entanglement analysis {#ent}
=====================
The FMO complex, considered as an assembly of seven chromophores, is a multipartite quantum system. As such, useful information about quantum correlations is obtained by computing the bipartite entanglement across any of the cuts that divide the seven chromophores into two subsystems. Similarly if we take the state of any subsystem of the FMO complex we can compute the entanglement across any cut of the reduced state of that subsystem.
The measures we compute in the present paper are bipartite - they determine a measure of the entanglement between two subsystems of the 7-chromophore system. Each measure alone only contains information concerning the bipartite entanglement across the bipartition. However, the nature of multipartite entanglement in the system is given by the bipartite entanglement across all possible bipartitions (see, for example, [@Horodecki:2009p8660], p. 890). One may therefore construct multipartite measures from multiple bipartite measures. Meyer and Wallach’s “Global” measure of entanglement is defined as a sum of bipartite measures (an average entanglement of each subsystem with the rest). Scott [@Scott:2004p8922] and Love [@Love:2007p8918] both generalized Meyer and Wallach’s measure to include information from further bipartitions in various averages. The first case in which interesting multiparite entanglement may occur is the case of three two-level systems. In this case a multipartite measure, the tangle, may be defined [@Coffman:2000p8919]. This first example of a multipartite measure may again be expressed as a difference of bipartite measures computed for different subsystems and bipartitions.
There are $63$ distinct bipartitions of the $7$ chromophores of FMO. The bipartite entanglement across all these measures contains all multipartite entanglement information about the full system. Ideally, one would compute all of these measures to obtain a complete picture of the correlations present among subsystems. Instead one may take subsystems and compute the entanglement across bipartitions of the subsystems. For example, by computing the entanglement between all pairs of chromophores. However, as Table \[comb\] shows, this leads to a large number of subsystems, and a large number of bipartitions for each subsystem.
$m$ $7\choose m$ Cuts Total Measures
----- -------------- ------ ---------------- -- --
2 21 1 21
3 35 3 105
4 35 7 $245$
5 21 15 $315$
6 7 31 $217$
7 1 63 $63$
: Subsystems and bipartite cuts relevant to the FMO system. One may take a subsystem reduced density matrix of any $m\leq7$ and consider all the bipartite cuts of each subsystem. This leads to a combinatoric explosion of different bipartite measures. Evidently it would be simpler to consider all cuts of the total system. We perform such convex roof calculations for the full seven chromophore system by restricting the convex roof to the single exciton manifold.[]{data-label="comb"}
Evidently, averaging together information from multiple bipartitions implies a loss of information, and in the present paper we simply display the measures corresponding to each bipartition directly. These calculations of bipartite measures across multiple bipartitions give us information concerning the multipartite entanglement present in the FMO system.
Entanglement measures
---------------------
The set of monotones defined in [@Love:2007p8918] for pure states of $n$ qubits is: $$\label{measure}
\eta_{S} = \frac{2^{|S|}}{2^{|S|}-1}\left(1-{\rm Tr}(\rho_{S}^{2})\right)$$ where $S$ is a set of $k$ two state quantum systems (usually qubits, but in the context of the present paper these are chromophores), so that $|S|=k$, and $\rho_{S}$ is the reduced density matrix of those $k$ qubits. For two qubits with $S=1$ this measure reduces to the square of the concurrence. In order to allow easy comparison with prior work computing the concurrence for these systems we compute the square root of these measures $\sqrt{\eta_S}$ for many bipartitions of various subsystems of the seven chromophore system. We also compute these measures for all bipartitions of the full seven chromophore system.
Monogamy of entanglement
------------------------
A fascinating property distinguishing entanglement from classical correlations is monogamy. Just as the simplest example of entanglement occurs for two qubits, the simplest example of monogamy occurs for three qubits. If, among three qubits $ABC$, the qubits $A$ and $B$ are maximally entangled, then qubit $C$ cannot be entangled at all with qubits $A$ and $B$. It is instructive to consider this from the point of view of the entanglement measures (Eq. \[measure\]). These measures are based on subsystem purity - if qubits $ABC$ are in a pure state and $A$ and $B$ are maximally entangled then the reduced state of qubits $AB$ is pure, hence so is the reduced state of qubit $C$, and hence qubit $C$ is unentangled with qubits $A$ and $B$. In fact, this property extends for three qubits to the case where the entanglement is not maximal. The monogamy constraint for pure states is expressed in terms of the tangles measuring the entanglement of qubit $A$ with a subsystem $B$: $$\label{tangle}
\tau_{A|B} = 2(1-{\rm Tr}\rho_A^2) = \eta_A.$$ where $\rho_A$ is the reduce density matrix of subsystem $A$. In terms of the measures (Eq. \[tangle\]) we obtain: $$\label{mono}
\tau_{A|B} + \tau_{A|C} \leq \tau_{A|BC}$$ This property of three qubit states was shown in [@Coffman:2000p8919], and the result for $n$ qubits was proved in [@Osborne:2006p8924]: $$\sum_{i=1, i\neq m}^n \tau_{m|i} \leq \tau(m|1,\dots m-1,m+1\dots n).$$ These imply corresponding relations among the measures $\eta_S$ that are equal to tangles of one qubit $S$ with the others.
In the context of models of exciton transport that are restricted to the single exciton subspace it is worth recalling that, in the case of pure states of three qubits, it is exactly states that are superpositions of Hamming weight one basis states that saturate the monogamy bound [@Coffman:2000p8919]. In fact it has been shown that pure generalized $W$ states and mixtures of pure generalized $W$ states with $|0\rangle\langle0|$ (which corresponds to states that are incoherent combinations of the single exciton subspace and the vacuum in the models we consider here) saturate the monogamy bounds [@SanKim:2008p8940]. For pure states we may therefore obtain the entanglement of each chromophore with the rest using the sum of the pairwise entanglements. However, these bounds are not known to be saturated for the mixed states of interest here. It should be noted that the entanglement properties of W-class states also enable experimental detection of entanglement in these states [@addtwo].
It is natural to ask whether monogamy holds beyond restrictions on the entanglement of single qubits to relationships between the entanglement of higher dimensional systems. Unfortunately, in general this is not the case [@Ou:2006p8925], as it can already be shown that states of qubits violate the analogous relation to (Eq. \[mono\]). For the single exciton manifold of W-class states a number of relations beyond monogamy are known [@SanKim:2008p8940]. The approach we take here is to determine relationships among the measures \[measure\], if any, by the direct computation of the measures. It is to the technical details of the calculation of these measures for mixed states that we turn in the next subsection.
Convex Roof Extension of Entanglement Monotones
-----------------------------------------------
The measures \[measure\] are defined for pure states. A general mixed state of a quantum system may also be entangled, and the measures \[measure\] can be extended to mixed states as follows. Given a density matrix $\rho$ and its set of ensemble representations $$\aleph \equiv \left\{p_{i},|\psi_{i}\rangle : \sum\limits_{i}{p_{i}|\psi_{i}\rangle\langle\psi_{i}|} = \rho \right\},$$ any entanglement monotone $\eta\left(|\psi\rangle\right)$ on pure states can be generalized to a monotone on mixed states, $E(\rho)$, defined by $$E(\rho) \equiv {\rm inf}_{\aleph} \left[\sum\limits_{i}{p_{i}\eta\left(|\psi_{i}\rangle\right)}\right]$$ which is also an entanglement monotone. Given a density matrix $\rho = \sum\limits_{i} {p_{i}|\psi_{i}\rangle\langle\psi_{i}|}$, define $$|\phi_{i}\rangle\sqrt{q_{i}}\equiv \sum\limits_{j} {U_{ij}|\psi_{j}\rangle\sqrt{p_{j}}},$$ where the $U_{ij}$’s are elements of a unitary matrix. It can then be shown that $\rho = \sum\limits_{i} {q_{i}|\phi_{i}\rangle\langle\phi_{i}|}$.
Since density matrices are hermitian they are always diagonalizable. We can therefore write $\rho = V\Lambda V^{\dagger}$; this matrix product can equivalently be written as the summation $\rho = \sum\limits_{i}{\lambda_{i}|v_{i}\rangle\langle v_{i}|}$, where the $\lambda_{i}$’s are the eigenvalues of $\Lambda$ and the $|v_{i}\rangle$’s are the basis-independent orthonormal kets corresponding to the columns of $V$. This is called the spectral ensemble of $\rho$. It is also useful to define $\tilde{\Phi}\equiv V\Lambda^{1/2}$, so that $\tilde{\Phi}\tilde{\Phi}^{\dagger}=\rho$. This object $\tilde{\Phi}$ contains all the information contained in a particular ensemble, and similar objects $\tilde{\Psi}\tilde{\Psi}^{\dagger}=\rho$ also correspond to ensembles. In fact, the unitary transform given in terms of a summation above corresponds to the matrix transformation $\tilde{\Phi}U$, where $U$ is unitary. If we define $\tilde{\Psi} = \tilde{\Phi}U$ for some unitary matrix $U$, then $\tilde{\Psi}\tilde{\Psi}^{\dagger}=\rho$. It can further be shown that the space of ensemble representations of $\rho$ is isomorphic to the unitary group [@KirkpatrickHJW]. Hence optimization over the space of ensembles can be reduced to an optimization problem over the unitary group. We give details of the parameterization of the unitary group used in our calculations in the Appendix.
Results {#res}
=======
In this section, we compute a number of entanglement measures for two, three, four, five and seven qubit subsystems. Our approach follows both that of [@Sarovar:2010p6945], in which pairwise entanglements were computed, and that of [@Caruso:2010p8915] in which the logarithmic negativity for several partitions of the full seven chromophore system were computed. We compute the measures $\sqrt{\eta_S}$ where $\eta_S$ is defined in eqn. \[measure\] for bipartitions of subsystems of two, three, four and five chromophores. For these calculations the convex roof optimization was performed in the full space of density matrices of dimension $2^7$. We then compute the measures $\sqrt{\eta_S}$ for all $63$ bipartitions of the full seven chromophore system for one initial condition, restricting the convex roof optimization to the single exciton manifold for reasons of computational tractability.
Two site subsystems
-------------------
The pairwise concurrences are a natural starting point because they can be computed exactly, and have been the subject of extensive prior study [@Sarovar:2010p6945]. We compute the reduced density matrix of each of the $21$ pairs of sites and calculate the concurrence in these two-site subsystems [@Wootters:1998p6991]. For the case in which site $1$ was initially excited the coherent oscillations of population occur mainly between sites $1$ and $2$ before the energy is transferred to sites $3$ and $4$ [@Fleming-PNAS-2009; @Ourpaper]. As a result of these coherent oscillations there is large pairwise entanglement between site $1|2$ [@Sarovar:2010p6945]. In the work of [@Sarovar:2010p6945], for times <900 (500) fs at 77K (300K) these measures are ordered: $1|2>1|3>1|5>3|4$. For the system of [@Sarovar:2010p6945] initialized with a single exciton at site 6 the entanglements 4|5, 4|7, 5|6, 3|4 are computed. For times < 100 fs these are ordered $5|6>4|5>4|7>3|4$.
![Evolution of pairwise concurrences in the FMO complex when site one is initially excited at $T=77\unit{K}$. This Figure shows all $21$ pairwise concurrences computed by the convex roof - these are equal to $\sqrt{\eta_S}$ for each subsystem of two sites, computed across the single bipartition of the pair. For entanglements $1|2$ and $1|3$ we also plot the exact concurrence - the agreement is good enough that the difference between the convex roof and the exact calculation is not visible. Because the monogamy bound is saturated in the single exciton manifold, these $21$ measures determine the entanglement of any single site with any subset of the others.[]{data-label="PairwiseS1"}](Images/Pairwise77KS1.pdf){width="75.00000%"}
In Figure \[PairwiseS1\] we plot the entanglement evolution of the FMO complex when site $1$ is initially excited at $T=77\unit{K}$. Figure \[PairwiseS1\] shows all 21 pairwise concurrences computed by the convex roof. For entanglements $1|2$ and $1|3$ we also plot the exact concurrence - the agreement is good enough that the difference between the convex roof and the exact calculation is not visible. In Figure \[PairwiseS2\] we plot the same data when site $6$ is initially excited at $T=77\unit{K}$. For bipartitions $5|6$ and $4|5$ we also plot the exact concurrence - again the agreement is good enough that the difference between the convex roof and the exact calculation is not visible. Figures \[PairwiseS1\] and \[PairwiseS2\] show the ordering $1|2>1|3>1|5$ as the significant concurrences for site one initially excited and $5|6>4|5$ as the significant concurrences when site six is initially excited. These results are consistent with those of [@Sarovar:2010p6945].
![Entanglement evolution in the FMO complex when site six is initially excited at $T=77\unit{K}$. This Figure shows all $21$ pairwise entanglements computed by the convex roof. For entanglements $5|6$ and $4|5$ we also plot the exact concurrence - the agreement is good enough that the difference between the convex roof and the exact calculation is not visible.[]{data-label="PairwiseS2"}](Images/Pairwise77KS6.pdf){width="75.00000%"}
These results on two chromophore subsystems help us identify a pathway involving sites $1234$ as significant for exciton transport when site $1$ is initially excited, and a pathway involving sites $6543$ as significant for exciton transport when site $6$ is initially excited. This is consistent with prior results on pairwise entanglement [@Sarovar:2010p6945; @Whaley:2010p8611]. These results also validate our convex roof computations, at least for the case of two chromophore systems. It is perhaps unsuprising that the convex roof optimization performs well in that setting and so we now turn our attention to larger subsystems.
Three site subsystems
---------------------
![Monogamy bound and convex roof computation of entanglements $1|34$, $2|34$, $12|3$ and $12|4$. Particularly in the first $200~{\rm fs}$ the convex roof closely matches the monogamy bound.[]{data-label="monogamy"}](Images/monogamybound.pdf){width="75.00000%"}
For any triplet of chromophores there are three bipartitions (for example, $1|23$, $2|13$ and $3|12$). Figure \[monogamy\] shows results for subsystems of three chromophores. We compute the entanglement measures $\sqrt{\eta_S}$ using the convex roof procedure among the triples of chromophores $134$ (for bipartition $1|34$, $S=1$), $234$ (for bipartition $2|34$, $S=2$) , $123$ (for bipartition $12|3$, $S=3$), and $124$ (for bipartition $12|4$, $S=4$). We also compute these same entanglements from the pairwise entanglements computed in the previous section using the monogamy bound. The results shown in Figure \[monogamy\] illustrate the utility of the monogamy bound [@SanKim:2008p8940] as a method of evaluating performance of the convex roof optimization. The convex roof performs well for three qubits, closely matching the monogamy bound.
![Entanglement evolution of FMO complex when site $1$ is initially excited at cryogenic temperature $T=77\unit{K}$. The triplet site entanglement among site $1$, $2$ and $3$ and also the pairwise site entanglement between any two of site $1$, $2$ and $3$ are plotted. The left panel shows the dynamics of the entanglement for the system alone while the right considers the effect of the environment \[S1pathway\]](Images/S177K_Pathway.pdf){width="75.00000%"}
Figure \[S1pathway\] shows the evolution of entanglement measures $\sqrt{\eta_S}$ across bipartitions $1|23$, $2|13$ and $3|12$ among the triplet of sites $123$ in both the isolated system and the system coupled to the environment. The left side of Figure \[S1pathway\] shows the evolution of entanglement for the isolated system, while the right side are results from the scaled HEOM approach. For the isolated system, the oscillations in population and entanglement will last forever. By comparison with the open system case, it is obvious that the environment has the effect of eliminating the coherent oscillations characteristic of closed system quantum dynamics. Both the isolated and the system with environment hit the maximum and minimum values at the same time during the evolution, which shows that the oscillations in the open system case are indeed the remnants of the coherent behavior in the closed system case. The entanglement evolution is not as smooth as ref. [@Sarovar:2010p6945], because the simulation data has been sampled every $10\unit{fs}$ in order to perform the entanglement calculations.
Fig.\[S1pathway\]b shows $\sqrt{\eta_1}$, the entanglement of subsystem $123$ across partition $1|23$. The pairwise concurrences across bipartitions $1|2$ of subsystem $12$ and $1|3$ of subsystem $13$ and the monogamy bound is also shown. The time series of $\sqrt{\eta_1}$ across bipartition $1|23$ reflects the coherent oscillation of the population and the time over which these oscillations last is the same as that in the population evolution which is around $400\unit{fs}$. The entanglement $\sqrt{\eta_S}$ across bipartition $1|23$ is predominantly due to the pairwise entanglement evolution between site $1|2$, particularly during the first few oscillations ($t<200\unit{fs}$). Beyond $200\unit{fs}$, the value of the measure $\sqrt{\eta_1}$, the entanglement of subsystem $123$ across partition $1|23$, becomes slightly larger than the pairwise entanglement site $1|2$, indicating that sites one and three have become entangled at this time.
Fig. \[S1pathway\]d, shows $\sqrt{\eta_2}$, the entanglement of subsystem $123$ across the bipartition $2|13$. This time series is similar to that of $1|23$, again because $\sqrt{\eta_2}$ is dominated by the entanglement of sites $1$ and $2$. Another interesting phenomena is the pairwise concurrence across bipartition $2|3$, which also shows coherent oscillations. Although the value of the concurrence is much smaller compared with the entanglement between site $1|2$, the oscillations of $2|3$ share the same frequency and hit the maximum and minimum value simultaneously.
Fig. \[S1pathway\]f shows $\sqrt{\eta_3}$, the entanglement of the triplet $123$ across the partition $3|12$, which is much smaller than the entanglement across bipartitions $1|23$ and $2|13$ and does not show significant coherent oscillations. For this case, in which site $1$ is initially excited, the dominant pairwise entanglement is $1|2$, which is consistent with the other results in the literature [@Sarovar:2010p6945; @Caruso:2010p8915; @Caruso:2009p8916]. Hence, one may understand the smaller value of this measure of entanglement by noticing that it is computed across a bipartition that does not separate sites $1$ and $2$.
As a result, we conclude that in this pathway: during the coherent evolution period (first $200\unit{fs}$), sites $3$ and $4$ are competing with each other to be entangled with sites $1$ and $2$. However, when the coherent evolution disappears, the entanglement between site $3$ and $4$ becomes dominant.
In order to check the effect of temperature on the entanglement evolution, we plotted the entanglement evolution at room temperature ($T=300\unit{T}$) for both site $1$ and site $6$ initially excited. The results at $300K$ are shown in Figure \[300KEn\]. By comparing with the evolution at $T=77\unit{K}$ shown in Figure \[PairwiseS1\], the coherent oscillations were reduced from $4$ to $2$ oscillations and the length of coherent oscillations was also reduced from $400\unit{fs}$ to $<250\unit{fs}$. The maximum entanglement during the evolution was also reduced due to the increase in temperature. For example, the maximumvalue of the masures $\sqrt{\eta_S}$ for bipartition $1|23$ of sites $123$ is $0.85$ at $77\unit{K}$ while that is around $0.73$ when $T=300\unit{K}$. In addition the entanglement goes to the equilibrium state much faster at $300\unit{K}$ than at $T=77\unit{K}$. It takes around $7\unit{ps}$ for the system to arrive at the equilibrium state at $T=77\unit{K}$, while at $T=300\unit{K}$ this takes around $1.5\unit{ps}$. These results all confirm that the scaled HEOM approach correctly reproduces the known effects of increasing temperature on the evolution of entanglement.
![Time evolution of entanglement for multiple sites at $T=300\unit{K}$. In the upper panel the entanglement measures $\sqrt{\eta_S}$ across the indicated bipartitions among sites $1$, $2$ and $3$ are shown when site $1$ is initially excited. For the lower panel, site $6$ is initially excited. \[300KEn\]](Images/300K_Entanglement.pdf){width="75.00000%"}
Four site subsystems
--------------------
There are four distinct bipartitions of the system into one site plus the rest and we may use the monogamy bounds to evaluate the performance of our convex roof calculations. However, there are also three distinct bipartitions of the four site subsystems into pairs of sites and we also compute measures $\sqrt{\eta_S}$ across these bipartitions ($12|34$, $13|24$, $14|23$).
![Measures of entanglement and monogamy bounds in a four qubit system when site $1$ is initially excited at temperature $T=77\unit{K}$. The measures $\sqrt{\eta_S}$ computed for bipartitions $4|123$, $7|123$ and $7|456$ by the convex roof and together with the monogamy bound are shown here. We see a larger variation in performance of the convex roof optimization here, with a smaller difference between the upper (convex roof) and lower (monogamy) bounds for $7|456$ and $7|123$ than for $4|123$. []{data-label="Quad1_3_S1"}](Images/Quad1_3_S1.pdf){width="75.00000%"}
In Figure \[Quad1\_3\_S1\] we evaluate the performance of our convex roof optimization using the monogamy bounds. As one can see, the difference between the upper and lower bounds is larger than for two and three chromophore systems, but is significantly smaller in the case shown in the lower panel where the values of the measures $\sqrt{\eta_S}$ are rather small ($\sqrt{\eta_S}<0.1$ for $7|456$).
![Time evolution of various entanglement measures for subsystem $1234$ for site $1$ initially excited at $T=77\unit{K}$. The concurrence for subsystem $34$ across bipartition $3|4$ and the measures $\sqrt{\eta_S}$ for subsystems $123$ and $124$ across bipartitions $3|12$ and $4|12$, respectively, are also shown. The measure $\sqrt{\eta_S}$ across bipartition $4|123$ is also shown. \[S1Site34\]](Images/Effect34_S1_77K.pdf){width="75.00000%"}
Next we examine the different roles of sites $3$ and $4$ in the pathway involving sites $1234$ for the case where site $1$ is initially excited. It is known that the destination of this pathway is the pair of sites $34$. However, the detailed roles of these two sites during the entanglement evolution is still not clear. Figure \[S1Site34\] shows the evolution of the entanglement measure $\sqrt{\eta_S}$ for the subsystem of chromophores $1234$ across partition $4|123$. The concurrence for the pair $34$ across partition $3|4$, and the measures $\sqrt{\eta_S}$ for triplets $123$ and $124$ across partitions $3|12$ and $4|12$ are also shown for comparison. Within the first $200$ fs we see coherent oscillations in which $3|12$ and $4|12$ are in antiphase, but where $4|123$ is in phase with $4|12$. The concurrence $3|4$ evolves in lockstep with the measure $\sqrt{\eta_S}$ across bipartition $4|123$ after $200$fs. The entanglement of $3|12$ and $4|12$ are also evolving comparably after $200$fs. This behavior is suggestive of an initial period (the first $200$ fs) in which the entanglement of chromophore $4$ with $123$ is fixed by its entanglement with chromophores $12$, and then a long - time behavior in which chromophore $4$ is entangled with chromophore $3$. This is consistent with a picture of energy transport in which a delocalized exciton passes from chromophores $12$ to chromophores $34$ - eventually landing at chromophore $3$.
In Figure \[Quad2\_2\] we show the measure $\sqrt{\eta_S}$ for subsystem $1234$ across partition $12|34$. This tells us the entanglement between pairs of chromophores $12$ and $34$ for the case where site $1$ is initially excited. Comparison of this figure with Figure \[S1Site34\] is instructive, as we see that the entanglement between the pairs of chromophores $12$ and $34$ is decreasing after the first $200$ fs - following the falling value of the concurrence of the pair $13$ across bipartition $1|3$. This makes sense in a picture of transport in which $12$ are the chromophores receiving the exciton when it is injected and $34$ receive the exciton before it passes to the reaction center.
![Entanglement measures for the four chromophore subsystem $1234$ when site $1$ is initially excited at temperature $T=77\unit{K}$. The measure $\sqrt{\eta_S}$ across bipartition $12|34$ was computed via the convex roof procedure and is shown here, together with the concurrences for pairs of chromomphores $13$, $14$, $23$ and $24$. We note that in this case, we see that the entanglement $12|34$ evolves similarly to both the $1|3$ and $2|3$ concurrences.[]{data-label="Quad2_2"}](Images/Quad2_2.pdf){width="75.00000%"}
We now turn to the case in which site $6$ is initially excited. Fig. \[S6pathway\] shows the evolution of entanglement measures $\sqrt{\eta_S}$ for the subsystem $4567$ in both the isolated and open system case. Similar to the case where site $1$ is initially excited, the measures $\sqrt{\eta_S}$ display coherent oscillations which persist as long as the oscillations in the population. The most significant concurrence is that for subsystem $56$ across bipartition $5|6$, for which the maximum value is $0.8$. The second most important pairs are sites $4|5$ and $4|6$, which have the maximum concurrence around $0.4$. On the other hand, the coherent oscillations for all three pairs share the same frequency and evolution trend after the $1$st beating. For subsystems $4567$ the measures $\sqrt{\eta_S}$ across bipartitions $6|457$ and $5|467$ have similar amplitude and time evolution. However, the measures $\sqrt{\eta_S}$ $3|567$ and $4|567$ are much smaller compared with the above two. Comparison of the measures $\sqrt{\eta_S}$ computed across bipartitions $4|567$, $5|467$, $6|457$ and $7|456$ by the convex roof (which gives an upper bound) with the monogamy bounds (which are lower bounds) shows that the convex roof is performing well in this case.
![Time evolution of concurrences and measures $\sqrt{\eta_S}$ for the FMO complex when site $6$ is initially excited at temperature $T=77\unit{K}$. The measures $\sqrt{\eta_S}$ are shown are for subsystem $4567$ across bipartitions $4|567$, $5|467$, $6|457$ and $7|456$. We also show the concurrences among the pairs of sites that determine the concurrence bounds for the measures $\sqrt{\eta_S}$ across bipartitions $4|567$, $5|467$, $6|457$ and $7|456$, and the concurrence bounds themselves. The left panel shows the isolated system evolution and the right panel shows the open system dynamics with environment. \[S6pathway\]](Images/S677K_Pathway.pdf){width="75.00000%"}
Five site subsystems
--------------------
For five qubits subsystems there are five partitions of the subsystem that divide one site from the other four, and ten partitions that divide two sites from the other three. We proceed as for the four site system, using the monogamy relations to evaluate the performance of the convex roof measure.
![Evolution of entanglement measures $\sqrt{\eta_S}$ for the subsystems of chromophores $12345$, $12346$ and $12347$ in the FMO complex at cryogenic temperature $T=77\unit{K}$ for site $1$ is initially excited. The measures $\sqrt{\eta_S}$ are computed across bipartitions $5|1234$, $6|1234$ and $7|1234$ and the corresponding monogamy bounds are also shown. Site $1$, $2$, $3$ and $4$ are sites evolved in the population pathway under this initial condition, and this data indicates that the entanglement of this subset ($1234$) of chromophores with the other three chromophores is small. \[OffpathS1\]](Images/OffPathway_S1_77K.pdf){width="75.00000%"}
Fig. \[OffpathS1\] shows the evolution of entanglement measures $\sqrt{\eta_S}$ for subsystem $12345$. The measures $\sqrt{\eta_S}$ across the three bipartitions $5|1234$, $6|1234$ and $7|1234$ are all small ($<0.25$) during the full time evolution. This shows that when site $1$ is initially excited, the measures $\sqrt{\eta_S}$ are only large between sites in the pathway, which are sites $1$, $2$, $3$ and $4$. We also plotted the monogamy bounds in Fig. \[OffpathS1\], this shows that, unsurprisingly, the difference between the convex roof optimization and the monogamy bound is larger in this case - likely showing that the convex roof optimization is not performing as well in the five qubit case as it does for three and four qubits.
For the case in which site $1$ is initially excited, we only see significant values of the entanglement measures within the sites $1234$ in the pathway. We would like to know if this is also the case when site $6$ is initially excited. Figure \[OffpathS6\] shows the entanglement measure $\sqrt{\eta_S}$ for subsystems $14567$ across bipartition $1|4567$ and subsystem $24567$ across bipartition $2|4567$. The maximum value of these entanglement measures is around $0.25$, which is much smaller compared than that for measures computed across bipartitions of the subsystem $4567$. This is consistent with the idea that entanglement is concentrated among the sites evolved in a specific pathway, with different pathways for different initial conditions.
![Time evolution of entanglement measures $\sqrt{\eta_S}$ in the FMO complex for site $6$ initially excited at cryogenic temperature $77\unit{K}$. The measures $\sqrt{\eta_S}$ are shown for subsystem $14567$ across bipartition $1|4567$ and subsystem $24567$ across bipartition $2|4567$. \[OffpathS6\]](Images/OffPathway_S6_77K.pdf){width="75.00000%"}
As for the case when site $1$ is initially excited, we also examined the roles of sites $3$ and $4$ in the case when site $6$ is initially excited (Fig. \[S6Site34\]). Just as in the case where site $1$ was initially excited (Figure \[S1Site34\]) we see an initial period with coherent oscillations in the entanglement in which the entanglement of $3$ with the rest and $4$ with the rest are in antiphase. This is followed by a later period in which sites $3$ and $4$ become entangled and the entanglement of $3$ with $4567$ is dominated by the entanglement of $3$ and $4$. As a result, the dominant pairwise entanglement changes from site $5|6$ to pair $3|4$ during the transport of the exciton from the injection site at site $6$ to the final state in which it is concentrated on sites $3$ and $4$.
![Time evolution of entanglement measures $\sqrt{\eta_S}$ in the FMO complex for site $6$ initially excited at $77\unit{K}$. (c.f. Figure \[S1Site34\]). The measures $\sqrt{\eta_S}$ are computed for subsystems $3567$ across bipartition $3|567$, subsystem $4567$ across bipartition $4|567$ and subsystem $34567$ across bipartition $3|4567$. \[S6Site34\]](Images/Effect34_S6_77K.pdf){width="75.00000%"}
Seven Site Calculations
-----------------------
The nature of multipartite entanglement in the FMO complex is encoded in the bipartite entanglement across multiple partitions. In the preceding sections we have attempted to build up a picture of multipartite entanglement by considering entanglement within subsystems, and across multiple bipartitions of many subsystems. However, the performance of the convex roof optimization worsens as one moves from three to four to five site subsystems, and these optimizations are not feasible using a general treatment of the full seven site system. However, we can restrict our optimization to include ensembles constructed only within the one-exciton subspace, and by doing so calculations of the full seven chromophore system become tractable.
In this subsection we present calculations of measures $\sqrt{\eta_S}$ for all bipartitions of the full seven chromophore system. There are $63$ such bipartitions, seven of which are partitions into one chromophore plus the rest. There are $21$ distinct partitions of the FMO complex into a pair of sites and a quintuplet, and $35$ partitions of the FMO complex into a triple and a quadruple of sites.
![Entanglement measures $\sqrt{\eta_S}$ for the full FMO system at $77K$ with site one initially excited. The measures $\sqrt{\eta_S}$ are shown for the partitions $1|23456$, $4|123567$, $5|123467$, $7|123456$ (solid lines), together with the corresponding monogamy bounds (dotted lines). These results illustrate the performance of the convex roof optimization and also show that the largest of these measures is that which gives the entanglement of chromophore $1$ with the rest, $1|23456$. \[bounds1\]](Images/BoundS1.pdf){width="75.00000%"}
Figures \[bounds1\] and \[bounds2\] show the time evolution of all measures $\sqrt{\eta_S}$ for the seven site system across the seven bipartitions into one chromophore and the other six, at $77K$ with site one initially excited. We compute these measures by the convex roof optimization restricted to the single exciton subspace, and also calculate the monogamy bounds. In this data we can see that only sites one and two exhbit significant ($>0.5$) values of the entanglement measures that undergo coherent oscillations. The remaining measures exhibit a rapid rise, but remain well below $0.5$ for the entire evolution.
![Entanglement measures $\sqrt{\eta_S}$ for the full FMO system at $77K$ with site one initially excited. The measures $\sqrt{\eta_S}$ are shown for the partitions $2|13456$, $3|124567$, $6|123457$ (solid lines), together with the corresponding monogamy bounds (dotted lines). These results illustrate the performance of the convex roof optimization and also show that the largest of these measures is that which gives the entanglement of chromophore $2$ with the rest, $1|23456$.\[bounds2\]](Images/BoundS2.pdf){width="75.00000%"}
From Figure \[PairwiseS1\] we see that the single pairwise concurrence of subsystem $12$ across bipartition $1|2$ exhibits coherent oscillations and large entanglement. Hence the picture of entanglement we obtain from Figures \[PairwiseS1\], \[bounds1\] and \[bounds2\] is that the entanglement of chromophores one and two with the rest is determined mainly by the entanglement of chromophore one with chromophore two. This is consistent with the picture obtained by examining small subsystems of the FMO complex - in which chromophores one and two initially share the excition before it moves into the other chromophores in the pathway $1234$ for the case in which chromophore one is initially excited.
![Entanglement measures $\sqrt{\eta_S}$ for the full FMO system at $77K$ with site one initially excited. These four plots show measures $\sqrt{\eta_S}$ computed across all $21$ bipartitions of the seven chromophore system into a pair of chromophores and the remaining quintuplet. Any measure that includes either chromophore $1$ or chromophore $2$ (but not both) on one side of the bipartition exhibits oscillations and the value of the measure is large. Any measure that has both chromophore $1$ and $2$ on the same side of the bipartition takes lower values and exhibits rapid growth in the first $100$ fs, but never exceeds $0.5$ in value. \[doubles\]](Images/Double.pdf){width="75.00000%"}
Figures \[PairwiseS1\], \[bounds1\] and \[bounds2\] give a picture of entanglement that is determined by the set of pairwise entanglements and the entanglement of single chromophores with the rest. Even in this case we are seeing aspects of the mutipartite nature of entanglement in this system, as these measures refer to different partitions of the system. However, there are many more partitions that in general can exhibit multipartite entanglement structure. The measures $\sqrt{\eta_S}$ for all bipartitions of the seven chromophore system into a pair of chromophores and the other five are shown in Figure \[doubles\] for the FMO system at $77K$ with site one initially excited. There are $21$ such partitions.
The measures $\sqrt{\eta_S}$ shown in Figure \[doubles\] exhibit two distinct types of behavior. Any measure $\sqrt{\eta_S}$ that is computed across a bipartition that separates sites $1$ and $2$ exhibits coherent oscillations and values of the measure that are large ($>0.5$). Any measure that is computed across a bipartition does not separate sites $1$ and $2$ has a rapid rise in the value of the measure initially by the value typically remains small $(<0.5)$.
![Entanglement measures $\sqrt{\eta_S}$ for the full FMO system at $77K$ with site one initially excited. These six plots show measures $\sqrt{\eta_S}$ computed across all $35$ bipartitions of the seven chromophore system into three of chromophores and the remaining four. Any measure that includes either chromophore $1$ or chromophore $2$ (but not both) on one side of the bipartition exhibits oscillations and the value of the measure is large. Any measure that has both chromophore $1$ and $2$ on the same side of the bipartition takes lower values and exhibits rapid growth in the first $100$ fs, but never exceeds $0.5$ in value. \[triples\]](Images/Triples.pdf){width="75.00000%"}
There remain further bipartitions of the seven chromophore FMO complex, namely those that divide the system into three chromophores and the remaining four. There are $35$ distinct bipartitions of this type, and the corresponding measures $\sqrt{\eta_S}$ are shown for the FMO complex at $77K$ in which site one is initially excited in Figure \[triples\]. The picture we obtain from Figure \[triples\] confirms that given by the previous measures displayed in Figures \[bounds1\], \[bounds2\] and \[doubles\]. Large ($>0.5$) values of the measures, and coherent oscillations, occur for any measure $\sqrt{\eta_S}$ computed across a bipartition that divided chromophore one from chromophore two. Any measure $\sqrt{\eta_S}$ computed across any bipartiton that does not separate chromophores one and two rises rapidly but remains small ($<0.5$) throughout the evolution.
Beyond the single exciton manifold
----------------------------------
In addition to computing the measures of entanglement $\sqrt{\eta_S}$ above, which are based on simulations by the HEOM method in the one-exciton subspace, we wish to investigate what the effect of the presence of either zero excitons or more than one exciton in the system. We conducted a number of tests where we reinserted the ground state density matrix $\rho_0 = |0000000\rangle\langle0000000|$ and the two-exciton density matrix $\rho_2 = |0000011\rangle\langle0000011|$ in order to determine how the measures of entanglement would be affected. In the first test, we inserted the ground state $\rho_0$ on its own, yielding the following expression for the density matrix (where $\rho_1$ is the density matrix for the single-exciton subspace): $$\rho = \frac{\rho_0+|\alpha|^2\rho_1}{1+|\alpha|^2}$$
In our second test, we added in the two-exciton subspace alone, without the ground state: $$\label{eqonetwo}
\rho = \frac{\rho_1+|\alpha|^2/2\rho_2}{1+|\alpha|^2/2}$$ We then inserted $\rho_0$ and $\rho_2$ as follows: $$\label{zeroonetwo}
\rho = \frac{\rho_0+|\alpha|^2\rho_1+|\alpha|^4/2\rho_2}{1+|\alpha|^2+|\alpha|^4/2}$$ When we added in both the vacuum state and the two-exciton subspace $|0000011\rangle\langle0000011|$ and varied $\alpha$, we found that for values as small as $|\alpha|^2 = .01$, the entanglement completely disappeared. We then experimented with adding in both the ground state and an exponentially decaying two-exciton subspace, $\rho_2 = e^{-\gamma t} |0000011\rangle\langle0000011|$, and, as expected, as $e^{-\gamma t}$ goes to zero, we recover some entanglement between sites 1 and 2, although the magnitude is still diminished by the presence of the vacuum state \[gamma\]. In order to get a sense of how quickly the entanglement recovers, we calculated the concurrence for the density matrix in equation \[zeroonetwo\], which includes the ground state $|0000000\rangle\langle0000000|$ and the two-exciton subspace $|0000011\rangle\langle0000011|$ scaled by a factor $\gamma \in [0, 1]$: $$\label{gamma}
\rho = \frac{\rho_0+|\alpha|^2\rho_1+\gamma|\alpha|^4/2\rho_2}{1+|\alpha|^2+\gamma|\alpha|^4/2}$$ The results are plotted in Figs. \[TwoExciton1\] and \[TwoExciton2\].
![A comparison of the effects of adding in the two-exciton subspace for different values of $|\alpha^2|$. The concurrence between sites one and two is plotted for the density matrix in equation \[eqonetwo\], with $|\alpha^2|= .5, .1, .01$.[]{data-label="onetwo"}](Images/TwoExcitonAlpha.pdf){width="75.00000%"}
![ A comparison of the effects of adding in the two-exciton subspace $\gamma|\alpha|^2|0000011\rangle\langle0000011|$ for different values of $\gamma$, with $|\alpha|^2=0.5$. The concurrence between sites one and two is plotted for the density matrix in \[zeroonetwo\], with $\rho_2=|0000011\rangle\langle0000011|$[]{data-label="TwoExciton1"}](Images/TwoExcitonGamma.pdf){width="75.00000%"}
![A curve showing how the amplitude of the concurrence between sites 1 and 2 at 21 fs varies as a function of $\gamma$, with the density matrix from \[zeroonetwo\], with $\rho_2 = |0000011\rangle\langle0000011|$ and $|\alpha|^2 = .5$.[]{data-label="TwoExciton2"}](Images/TwoExcitonComparisonGamma.pdf){width="75.00000%"}
Conclusions
===========
In summary, we used the direct computation of the convex roof to calculate the evolution of number of bipartite entanglement in the FMO complex via the scaled HEOM approach. For the simulations in which site $1$ is initially excited, the dominant pair is site $1$ and $2$, while in the cases where $6$ is initially excited site $5$ and $6$ are most entangled. This indicates that entanglement is dominant in the early stages of exciton transport, when the exciton is initially delocalized away from the injection site. In addition we observe that the entanglement mainly happens among the sites involved in the pathway. For the site $1$ initially excited case, the entanglement of site $5$, $6$ and $7$ is almost zero. For the site $6$ initially excited situation, there is seldom entanglement for site $1$ and $2$.
Although the final state is the same for both initial conditions, the role of site $3$ and site $4$ during the time evolution is different. For the initial condition where site $1$ is excited, the entanglement is transferred to site $3$ and then from site $3$ to site $4$. While for the site $6$ initially excited case, sites $4$ and $5$ first become entangled with site $6$ and then sites $3$ and $4$ become entangled. This is due to the fact that site $3$ has strong coupling with site $1$ and $2$, while site $4$ is coupled more strongly to sites $5$, $6$ and $7$.
The initial condition plays an important role in the entanglement evolution, the entanglement decays faster for the cases where site $6$ is initially excited compared with cases where the site $1$ is initially excited. This is consistent with recent models that include the nature of the excitation caused by the incident light, and which show a strong dependence of the amount of entanglement generated on the details of the excitation process [@addthree]. Increasing the temperature unsurprisingly reduces the amplitude of the entanglement and also decreases the time for the system goes to thermal equilibrium, in agreement with prior work.
Most entanglement measures computed previously for FMO were chosen on the basis of ease of calculation. The negativity and logarithmic negativity are straightforward to compute for all states [@Thorwart:2009p8612; @Caruso:2010p8915]. The global and bipartite relative entropy of entanglement can be made straightforward to compute by restriction to the single exciton subspace [@Bradler:2010p7069; @Sarovar:2010p6945]. The bipartite concurrence and tangles can be computed easily for pairs of chromophores [@Sarovar:2010p6945; @Fassioli:2010p8617]. In all cases the chosen measures of simplifications thereof enable one to avoid computing the convex roof over different ensembles representing a mixed state. In this paper we explored the difficulty of such calculations, and find that measures that yield the bipartite entanglement across cuts of 3,4, and 5 qubit subsystems may be computed with modest effort. We computed monogamy bounds to obtain a lower bound on a number of measures and the convex roof to obtain an upper bound. The closeness of these two bounds gives a measure of how well the convex roof is performing. For pure states in the single exciton manifold the monogamy bounds are saturated [@SanKim:2008p8940] - however this is not knwon to be the case for the mixed states of interest here. The convex roof technique enables us to extend the set of measures that have been computed for FMO, and also shows that the computation of entanglement for this system is not restricted by the difficulty of the convex roof procedure. This procedure could also be used, with no increase in computational cost, to analyze entanglement in multiexcitonic models.
For the full system of seven chromophores it was necessary to restrict the convex roof optimization to the single exciton subspace in order to make the calculations tractable. We performed a complete calculation of measures $\sqrt{\eta_S}$ across all $63$ bipartitions, which contains all information concerning the multipartite entanglement present in the system. The results of these calculations for site one initially excited confirm the conclusions of calculations on smaller subsystems: the structure of entanglement in this system can be understood in terms of pairwise entanglement. The fact that the other measures of entanglement add no new information to the picture is perhaps suprising. It remains to be seen whether this is a general (but currrently unproven) property of the single excitation subspace, or whether it is a property of the particular dynamics of the FMO system. We leave these questions to future investigations.
Acknowledgment
==============
This Project is supported by NSF CCI center, “Quantum Information for Quantum Chemistry(QIQC)”, Award number CHE-1037992, and by NSF award PHY-0955518.
The Cayley Map
--------------
The Cayley map is a self-inverse map from the algebra $u(N)$ to the group $U(N)$. The Cayley map is a map between a number of Lie algebras and their respective groups. It was introduced as a map from $so(N)$ to $SO(N)$ [@Cayley1846]. The Cayley map is defined by $$\label{Intro1}
\text{Cay}(a)= A = {\left(I-a\right)}{\left(I+a\right)}^{-1}$$ where $a$ is an element of the algebra being considered, and $A$ is an element of the group. Likewise, we have [$$\text{Cay}{A}=a={\left(I-A\right)} {\left(I+A\right)}^{-1} \label{Intro2}$$]{}
In the case of the unitary group, the Cayley map is a bijection between $u(N)$ and the set $U(N)-\mathscr{E}$, where $\mathscr{E}$ is the set of “exceptional elements.” $\mathscr{E}$ is the set of all elements $A$ such that $I+A$ is singular, and can be characterized as the set of all elements $A$ with at least one eigenvalue $-1$. The exceptional elements on $SO(3)$ are the reflections. For all such elements $E$, $I+E$ has a 0 eigenvalue, and is not invertible, so the Cayley map is not defined on these elements; however, this will not hinder our attempts to minimize $\eta$ over $U(N)$. Since we are performing numerical optimization, we only care that we can get arbitrarily close to a given local optimum. The closure of the image of the Cayley map on $u(N)$ is all of $U(N)$, so we will still be able to identify minima located at exceptional points.
Because $u(N)$ is easily parameterized by $N^2$ parameters, we can therefore parameterize $U(N)$ by $N^2$ parameters via the Cayley map. Given a set of $N^2$ parameters $\{p_1,\ldots,p_{N^2}\}$, the corresponding element of $U(N)$ is then: [$$A = \text{Cay}(a(p_1,\ldots,p_{N^2})) \label{Intro3}$$]{} where $a$ is the element of $u(N)$ given by the parameters $p_i$ under a standard parametrization. In the current work we use the basis of tensor products of Pauli matrices for the algebra $su(N)$. The virtue of the Cayley map is that it gives us an easily understood and easily implemented way to parameterize $U(N)$. The Cayley map thus provides somewhat simpler parametrization than that used in prior work on the convex roof optimization in [@Rothlisberger:2009p7007]. Comparison of the performance of our method with the simulated annealing approach described in Appendix B of [@Zyczkowski:1999p2567] shows a substantial advantage to parametrization by the Cayley map combined with steepest descent. We leave detailed comparison of our method with that of [@Rothlisberger:2009p7007], and the evaluation of other optimization techniques beyond steepest descent, to future work.
[^1]: Corresponding author, [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A great deal of significant progress has been seen in the study of information spreading on populations of networked individuals. A common point in many of past studies is that there is only one transition in the phase diagram of the final accepted size versus the transmission probability. However, whether other factors alter this phenomenology is still under debate, especially for the case of information spreading through many channels and platforms. In the present study, we adopt a two-layered network to represent the interactions of multiple channels and propose a SAR (Susceptible-Accepted-Recovered) information spreading model. Interestingly, our model shows a novel double transition including a continuous transition and a following discontinuous transition in the phase diagram, which originates from two outbreaks between the two layers of the network. Further, we reveal that the key factors are a weak coupling condition between the two layers, a large adoption threshold and the difference of the degree distributions between the two layers. Then, an edge-based compartmental theory is developed which fully explains all numerical results. Our findings may be of significance for understanding the secondary outbreaks of the information in real life.'
author:
- Jiao Wu
- Muhua Zheng
- Wei Wang
- Huijie Yang
- Changgui Gu
title: 'Double transition of information spreading in a two-layered network'
---
[GBK]{}
> In our life, with the fast development of the modern communication tools, people usually receive the information from multiple channels, such as face-to-face interactions, telephone, live chat, Facebook, Twitter and so on. Consequently, some new forms of information spreading have emerged from one geographical region to another. Thus, how to understand these new communication styles affecting the information spreading is a new challenging problem in network science. We here adopt a two-layered network to represent the interactions of multiple channels and propose a SAR (Susceptible-Accepted-Recovered) information spreading model. Our numerical simulations reveal that, contrary to previous work, there is a double transition, including a continuous transition and a following discontinuous transition in the final accepted size with respect to a transmission probability. Further, we demonstrate that the phenomenon of the double transition originates from two outbreaks in the two networks, which depends on a weak coupling condition between the two networks, the difference of the degree distributions between them, and a large adoption threshold in turn. Moreover, an edge-based compartmental theory is developed which perfectly agree with the numerical simulations. These findings may enrich our understanding of information spreading dynamics, especially in the aspect of information secondary outbreaks.
Introduction
============
The spreading process is currently one of the hottest topics in the field of complex networks, such as the spreading of epidemic, opinion, rumor, new technologies and behaviors and so on. So far, a great deal of significant progresses have been achieved including the infinitesimal threshold [@Pastor-Satorras:2001; @Boguna:2002; @Ferreira:2012; @Boguna:2013; @Parshani:2010; @Castellano:2010], reaction-diffusion model [@Colizza:2007a; @Colizza:2007b; @Andrea:2008; @Liu:2009], temporal and/or multilayer networks [@Boccaletti:2014; @Feng:2015; @Sahneh:2013; @Wang:2013; @Yagan:2013; @Newman:2005; @Marceau:2011; @Buono:2015; @Buono:2014; @Zhao:2014; @Zheng:2017; @Zheng:2018; @Holme:2012; @Perra:2012] etc (see the review Refs. [@Pastor:2015; @Barrat:2008; @Dorogovtsev:2008; @Wang:2017] for details). These models significantly increase our understanding on epidemic/information spreading and are very useful for public health authorities and relevant government departments to control the epidemic/information spreading.
A common point in all these contributions is that there is only one transition in the spreading process where the spreading range will be approximately zero when the transmission probability $\beta$ is less than a critical value $\beta_c$ and become nonzero when $\beta \geq
\beta_c$. Larger than the critical point $\beta_c$, the spreading range will be gradually increased with the further increase of $\beta$. On the other hand, in recent years, a novel double transition was observed on epidemic spreading process in some particular conditions, such as the network with a very heterogeneous and clustered structure [@Simon:2014; @Bhat:2017], epidemic spreading with an asymmetric interaction [@Allard:2017] and contagion processes with heterogeneous adoptability [@Min:2017] etc. The so-called double transition indicates that there are two critical values $\beta_c^1$ and $\beta_c^2$ in the spreading process. The first transition is between healthy and endemic phases, and the second transition is between two endemic phases with very different internal organizations. For example, Ref[@Allard:2017] shows that with $\beta
<\beta_c^{1}$, all outbreaks are microscopic and quickly die out; with $\beta_c^1<\beta <
\beta_c^{2}$, they observed a macroscopic epidemic within the network of homosexual contacts between males, with microscopic spillover into the rest of the population via bisexual males. While $\beta > \beta_c^{2}$, they found a more classic epidemic scenario in the sense that it is of macroscopic scale in most of the population.
Although some significant mechanisms of double transition have been uncovered in the previous studies, many gaps in our knowledge remain in spreading dynamics. For example, this unique double transition was observed only on epidemic spreading dynamics in some particular situations. However, the study of double transition on information spreading process is neglected, especially in the aspect of identifying the critical factors driving this phenomenon. As we know, the information spreading carries its special features, which is different with epidemic spreading, such as memory effects (i.e., previous contacts could impact the information spreading in current time [@Dodds:2004; @Lu:2011; @Zheng:2013]) and non-redundant contacts (people usually do not transfer an information item more than once to the same guy [@Wang:2015; @Wu:2018]). In addition, information spreading is affected by multiple channels from different types of contacts in different regions [@Brummitt:2012; @Lee:2014; @Min:2016]. For instance, when choosing which products to buy, ideas to accept, and behaviors to adopt, people are not only influenced by friends, colleagues and family in the same region through face-to-face interactions, but also affected by distant relatives and friends in another region through the telephone or Internet communication. In this sense, it is very necessary to investigate the double transition in the information spreading dynamics with the effects of multiple channels and memory of non-redundant information.
The effects of multiple channels on the spreading process have been widely investigated based on a powerful analytical framework: multilayer or multiplex networks[@Boccaletti:2014; @Feng:2015; @Sahneh:2013; @Wang:2013; @Yagan:2013; @Newman:2005; @Marceau:2011; @Buono:2015; @Buono:2014; @Zhao:2014; @Zheng:2017; @Zheng:2018], where the intra-links and inter-links represent the multiple social relations (channels) among individuals. So far, the majority of researches about multilayer networks are mainly focused on how the one-to-one interconnections influence the dynamic processes taking place on them [@Funk:2010; @Allard:2009; @Son:2012; @Sanz:2012; @Souza:2009; @Hackett:2016; @Dickison:2012; @Mendiola:2012]. However, to the best of our knowledge, few researchers pay attention to the information spreading with one-to-many interconnections, especially in the aspect of mathematical theory analysis. On the other hand, despite many studies have revealed that the interaction strength between different networks, degree-degree correlation, degree distribution and mean degree in each network play a critical role in the relevant dynamic processes[@Funk:2010; @Allard:2009; @Son:2012; @Sanz:2012; @Souza:2009; @Hackett:2016; @Dickison:2012; @Mendiola:2012], how the properties of the multilayer network structures affect the double transition of information spreading is still under debate in network science.
To fill these gaps, in this work, we propose a SAR (Susceptible-Accepted-Recovered) information spreading model on multilayer networks, where we emphasize the effects of multiple channels, memory and non-redundant contacts. Our numerical simulations reveal that, contrary to previous work, there is a double transition including a continuous transition and a following discontinuous transition in the final accepted size with respect to a transmission probability. Further, we demonstrate that the phenomenon of the double transition originates from two outbreaks between the two networks, which depends on a weak coupling condition between the two networks, the difference of the degree distributions between them, and a large adoption threshold in turn. To better understand the findings, an edge-based compartmental theory is developed which perfectly agree with the numerical simulations.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, a Susceptible-Accepted-Recovered (SAR) model on a two-layered network was proposed to describe the multiple channels information spreading. In Sec. III, an edge-based compartmental compartmental theory is given in detail. In Sec. V, simulation results are presented. Finally, in Sec. VI, the conclusions and discussions are presented.
The Susceptible-Accepted-Recovered model on a two-layered network
=================================================================
![(Color online). Sketch of the Susceptible-Accepted-Recovered (SAR) model on a two-layered network. “Black", “green" and “red" lines represent the links of the layer $\mathcal{A}$, $\mathcal{B}$ and the inter-layer $\mathcal{AB}$, respectively. $\beta_a$, $\beta_b$ and $\beta_{ab}$ denote the transmission probability of layers $\mathcal{A}$, $\mathcal{B}$ and $\mathcal{AB}$. At time $t$, the susceptible node $i$ in layer $\mathcal{A}$ may receive a piece of information from an accepted node in layer $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ with probability $\beta_a$ and $\beta_{ab}$, respectively. Once the node $i$ receives the information successfully from one accepted neighbor, the cumulative number $m$ of received information for node $i$ will increase $1$ and the accepted neighbor will not transmit the same information to the node $i$ any more. Assuming that the susceptible node $i$ has received the information $m$ times from the time step $0$ to $t$, the node $i$ will become accepted state if $m\geq T_A$. []{data-label="Fig:model"}](fig1.eps){width="1\linewidth"}
To understand the effects of multiple channels in the information spreading process, we here introduce a two-layered network with coupling between its two layers, i.e. the layer $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ in Fig. \[Fig:model\]. We let the two layers have the same size $N_a=N_b=N$ and their degree distributions $P_A(k)$ and $P_B(k)$ be different. We may imagine the layer $\mathcal{A}$ as a human communication network for one geographic region or community and the layer $\mathcal{B}$ for a separated region. There are two kinds of links for each node in the two-layered networks, i.e. intra-links within layer $\mathcal{A}$ or $\mathcal{B}$ and the inter-links between layer $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$. Each node could receive information not only through friends, colleagues and family with intra-links in the same region, but also from distant relatives and friends with inter-links in another region by the telephone and Internet. In details, we firstly generate two separated networks $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ with the same size $N$ and different degree distributions $P_A(k_a)$ and $P_B(k_b)$, respectively. Then, we add links randomly between $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ until the steps we planned. The average node degrees of layer $\mathcal{A}$, $\mathcal{B}$ and inter-layer $\mathcal{AB}$ is presented by $\langle k_a\rangle$, $\langle k_b\rangle$, and $\langle k_{ab}\rangle$, respectively. In the above way, we obtain an uncorrelated two-layered network.
To discuss information spreading in the two-layered network, we adopt a Susceptible-Accepted-Recovered (SAR) model. At each time step, a node can occupy only one of the three states: (i) Susceptible: the node has not received the information yet or has received the information but hesitate to accept it; (ii) Accepted: the node accepts the information and transmits it to its neighbors; (iii) Recovered: the node loses interest to the information and will not spread it any more. Thus, this Susceptible-Accepted-Recovered (SAR) model is similar to the SIR (Susceptible-Infected-Refractory) model in epidemiology.
The information spreading process can be described as follows:
\(i) At the beginning, a fraction $\rho_0$ of nodes are random uniformly chosen from the layer $\mathcal{A}$ as seeds (accepted state) to spread the first piece of information. All other nodes are in the susceptible state.
\(ii) At each time step $t$, the susceptible node $i$ in layer $\mathcal{A}$ may receive a piece of information from an accepted node in layer $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ with probability $\beta_a$ and $\beta_{ab}$ (see Fig. \[Fig:model\]), respectively. For the susceptible node in layer $\mathcal{B}$, the change of the nodes’ state is the same as in layer $\mathcal{A}$ but with probability $\beta_b$. Once the node $i$ receives the information successfully from an accepted neighbor, the cumulative number $m$ of received information for the node $i$ will increase one and this accepted neighbor will not transmit the same information to the node $i$ any more, i.e., non-redundant information transmission. As an individual has to remember the pieces of non-redundant information he or she received from neighbors before time $t$, the so-called non-redundant information memory is induced in our model.
\(iii) When a susceptible node $i$ has received the information $m$ times until time step $t$ and $m\geq T_A$ in layer $\mathcal{A}$ (or $m\geq T_B$ in layer $\mathcal{B}$), the node $i$ will become accepted state, where $T_A$ and $T_B$ is the adoption threshold of node in layer $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$, respectively. At the same time step, each accepted node will lose interest in transmitting the information and becomes recovered with probability $\mu$.
\(iv) The steps are repeated until there is no accepted node in the network.
In our numerical simulations, we set the network size $N_a=N_b=10\,000$, recovered probability $\mu=1.0$, $\beta_a=\beta_b=\beta$, and initially chose $\rho_0=0.05$ of nodes in layer $\mathcal{A}$ to be accepted.
theory
======
The edge-based compartmental theory on a single network
-------------------------------------------------------
Let us first illustrate the edge-based compartmental theory for a single network, by following the methods introduced in Refs. [@Wang:2015; @Volz:2008; @Miller:2011; @Shu:2016; @Miller:2012; @Miller:2013a; @Miller:2014]. We let $\rho_S(t)$, $\rho_A(t)$, and $\rho_R(t)$ be the densities of the Susceptible, Accepted, and Recovered nodes at time $t$, respectively. The spreading process will be ended when $t\rightarrow\infty$ and thus $\rho_R(\infty)$ represent the final fraction of accepted nodes.
We use a variable $\theta(t)$ to denote the probability that a node $v$ has not transmitted the information to the node $u$ along a randomly chosen edge by time $t$. For an uncorrelated, large and sparse network, the probability that a randomly chosen node $u$ of degree $k$ has received the information $m$ times from his/her neighbors at time $t$ is $$\label{eq:1}
\tau(k,m,\theta(t))=(_{m}^{k})\theta(t)^{k-m}(1-\theta(t))^{m}$$
Notice that a node with degree $k$ has the probability $1-\rho_0$ to be not one of the initial seeds. At the same time, the probability that a susceptible node $u$ with degree $k$ has received the information $m$ times and still does not accept it by time $t$ is $\sum_{m=0}^{T-1} \tau(k,m,\theta(t))$, where $T$ is the adoption threshold in the model. Combining the initial seeds and summing over all possible values of $m$, we obtain the probability that the node $u$ is still in the susceptible state at time $t$ as $$\label{eq:2}
s(k,t)=(1-\rho_0)\sum_{m=0}^{T-1} \tau(k,m,\theta(t))$$
Averaging over all $k$, the density of susceptible nodes (i.e., the probability of a randomly chosen individual is in the susceptible state) at time $t$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:3}
\rho_S(t)=\sum\limits_{k=0}^{\infty}P(k)s(k,t).\end{aligned}$$ where $P(k)$ is the degree distribution of the network. In order to solve $\rho_S(t)$, one needs to know $\theta(t)$. Since a neighbor $v$ of node $u$ may be susceptible, accepted, or recovered, $\theta(t)$ can be expressed as $$\label{eq:4}
\theta(t)=\Phi^S(t)+\Phi^A(t)+\Phi^R(t)$$ where $\Phi^S(t),\Phi^A(t),\Phi^R(t)$ is the probability that the neighbor $v$ is in the susceptible, accepted, recovery state, respectively, and has not transmitted the information to node $u$ through this connection. Once these three parameters derived, we will get the density of susceptible nodes at time $t$ by substituting them into Eq. (\[eq:1\])(\[eq:2\]) and then into Eq. (\[eq:3\]). For this purpose, in the following, we will focus on how to solve them.
To find $\Phi^S(t)$, we now consider a randomly chosen node $u$, and assume this node is in the cavity state, which means that it cannot transmit any information to its neighbors $v$ but can be informed by its neighbors. In this case, the neighbor $v$ can only get the information from its other neighbors except the node $u$. If a neighboring node $v$ of $u$ has degree $k'$, the probability that node $v$ has received $m$ pieces of the information at time $t$ will be $\tau(k'-1,m,\theta(t))=(_{m}^{k'-1})\theta(t)^{k'-1-m}(1-\theta(t))^{m}$. After received the information $m$ times, node $v$ still does not accept it with probability $(1-\rho_0)\sum_{m=0}^{T-1} \tau(k'-1,m,\theta(t))$. For uncorrelated networks, the probability that one edge from node $u$ connects with a node $v$ with degree $k'$ is $k'P(k')/\langle k \rangle$, where $\langle k\rangle$ is the mean degree of the network. So, summing over all possible $k'$, one obtains $$\label{eq:5}
\Phi^S(t)=(1-\rho_0) \frac{\sum\limits_{k'}k'P(k')\sum\limits_{m=0}^{T-1}\tau(k'-1,m,\theta(t))}{\langle k \rangle}$$
The growth of $\Phi^R(t)$ includes two consecutive events: firstly, an accepted neighbor has not transmitted the information successfully to node $u$ with probability $1-\beta$; secondly, the accepted neighbor has become recovered with probability $\mu$. Combining these two events, the $\Phi^A(t)$ to $\Phi^R(t)$ flux is $\mu(1-\beta)\Phi^A(t)$. Thus, one gets $$\label{eq:6}
\frac{d\Phi^R(t)}{dt}= \mu(1-\beta)\Phi^A(t)$$
Once the accepted neighbor $v$ transmits the information to $u$ successfully (with probability $\beta$), the $\Phi^A(t)$ to $1-\theta(t)$ flux will be $\beta\Phi^A(t)$, which means $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:7}
\frac{d(1-\theta(t))}{dt}=\beta\Phi^A(t).\end{aligned}$$ That is $$\label{eq:8}
\frac{d\theta(t)}{dt}=-\beta\Phi^A(t).$$
Combining Eqs. (\[eq:6\]) and (\[eq:8\]) and considering (as initial conditions) $\theta(0)=1$ and $\Phi^R(0)=0$, one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:9}
\Phi^R(t)=\frac{\mu[1-\theta(t)](1-\beta)}{\beta}.\end{aligned}$$
Substituting Eqs. (\[eq:5\]) and (\[eq:9\]) into Eq.(\[eq:4\]), we get an expression for $\Phi^A(t)$ in terms of $\theta(t)$. Then, one can rewrite Eq. (\[eq:8\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d\theta(t)}{dt}&=&-\beta\theta(t)+\mu(1-\theta(t))(1-\beta)\nonumber \\
&&+\frac{\beta(1-\rho_0)\sum_{k'}k'P(k')\sum\limits_{m=0}^{T-1}\tau(k'-1,m,\theta(t))}{\langle k\rangle} \label{eq:10}\end{aligned}$$
With $\theta(t)$ on hand, the equation of the system comes out to be $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:11}
\frac{d\rho_R(t)}{dt}&=&\mu \rho_A(t) \nonumber, \\
\rho_S(t)&=&\sum\limits_{k=0}^{\infty}P(k)s(k,t) \nonumber, \\
\rho_A(t)&=&1-\rho_S(t)-\rho_R(t).\end{aligned}$$
In fact, Eq. (\[eq:10\]) does not depend on Eq. (\[eq:11\]), so the system is governed by the single ordinary differential equation (\[eq:10\]). Although the resulting equation are simpler than those found by other methods, it can be proven to exactly predict the disease/information spreading dynamics in the large-population limit for different network topologies[@Wang:2015; @Volz:2008; @Miller:2011; @Shu:2016; @Miller:2012; @Miller:2013a; @Miller:2014].
The edge-based compartmental theory on a two-layered network
------------------------------------------------------------
Now, we develop an analogous theoretical framework from the single network to the case of two uncorrelated interconnected networks based on the approach in Refs. [@Zheng:2018], which is suited to the problems studied in our work. In particular, when one assumes that the population is made up of two layers, then $P_j(k_1,k_2)$ denote the probability that a node of layer $j$ has $k_1$ degree in layer $1$ and $k_2$ in layer $2$. For the sake of simplicity, one can name the two layers $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ as $1$ and $2$. Let $\beta_{j,l}$ be the rate of transmission across an edge from network $l$ to network $j$, and let us define $\mu$ to be the recovery rate of a node in any layer.
Firstly, let us define $\theta_{j,l}$ to be the probability that randomly chosen an edge $(u,v)$, node $v$ in layer $j$ ($j=1,2$) has not transmitted the information to the node $u$ in layer $l$ ($l=1,2$) by time $t$. For the considered case, we have $\theta_{1,2}$, $\theta_{1,1}$, $\theta_{2,1}$ and $\theta_{2,2}$ four variables. Once the four variables were obtained, we can solve the equations of the system.
Now, we will solve $\theta_{1,2}$ as an example in detail. Similarly to the the case of single network, a neighbor $v$ in layer 2 of node $u$ in layer 1 may be susceptible, accepted, or recovered. Then $\theta_{1,2}$ can be expressed as $$\label{eq:12}
\theta_{1,2}=\Phi^S_{1,2}+\Phi^A_{1,2}+\Phi^R_{1,2}$$ where $\Phi^S_{1,2}$, $\Phi^A_{1,2}$, $\Phi^R_{1,2}$ is the probability that the neighbor $v$ is in the susceptible, accepted, recovery state, and has not transmitted the information to node $u$ through this edge $(u,v)$.
Similarly, to find $\Phi^S_{1,2}$, the neighbor $v$ in layer 2 can only get the information from its other neighbors except the node $u$ in layer 1. Thus, the probability that the node $v$ with degree $(k_1,k_2)$ has received the information $m$ times from his/her neighbors at time $t$ is $\tau(k_1-1,n,\theta_{2,1})\tau(k_2,m-n,\theta_{2,2})$, where $\tau(k_1-1,n,\theta_{2,1})$ indicates the probability that the node $v$ received $n$ times information from $k_1-1$ neighbors with $\theta_{2,1}$ and $\tau(k_2,m-n,\theta_{2,2})$ is the probability that the node $v$ received the last $m-n$ times information from $k_2$ neighbors with $\theta_{2,2}$. It should be noted that function $\tau(k,m,\theta)=(_{m}^{k})\theta^{k-m}(1-\theta)^{m}$, which has the similar expression as Eq. (\[eq:1\]). After received the information $m$ times, node $v$ still does not accept it with probability $$\begin{aligned}
X_{1,2}=\sum\limits_{m=0}^{T_B-1}\sum\limits_{n=0}^{m}
\tau(k_1-1,n,\theta_{2,1})\tau(k_2,m-n,\theta_{2,2}) \label{eq:13}\end{aligned}$$ For uncorrelated networks, the probability that one edge from node $u$ connects with a node $v$ with degree $(k_1,k_2)$ is $\frac{k_1P_2(k_1,k_2)}{\sum_{k_1,k_2}k_1P_2(k_1,k_2)}$. Thus, one has
$$\begin{aligned}
\Phi^S_{1,2}&=& \frac{\sum\limits_{k_1,k_2}k_1P_2(k_1,k_2)X_{1,2}}{\sum\limits_{k_1,k_2}k_1P_2(k_1,k_2)} \label{eq:14}\end{aligned}$$
It is easily to know that the growth of $\Phi^R_{1,2}$ includes two consecutive events: first, an accepted neighbor has not transmitted the information to node $u$ via with probability $1-\theta_{1,2}$; second, the accepted neighbor has been recovered with probability $\mu$. Combining these two events, the $\Phi^A_{1,2}$ to $\Phi^R_{1,2}$ flux is $\mu(1-\theta_{1,2})\Phi^A_{1,2}$. Thus, one gets $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d\Phi^R_{1,2}}{dt}&=& \mu(1-\theta_{1,2})\Phi^A_{1,2} \label{eq:15}\end{aligned}$$
Once the accepted neighbor $v$ in layer 2 transmits the information to node $u$ in layer 1 successfully (with probability $\beta_{1,2}$), the $\Phi^A_{1,2}$ to $1-\theta_{1,2}$ flux will be $\beta_{1,2}\Phi^A_{1,2}$, which means $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d\theta_{1,2}}{dt}&=&-\beta_{1,2}\Phi^A_{1,2} \label{eq:16}\end{aligned}$$
Combining Eqs. (\[eq:15\]) and (\[eq:16\]), and considering the initial conditions $\theta_{1,2}(0)=1$ and $\Phi^R_{1,2}(0)=0$, one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi^R_{1,2}&=&\frac{\mu(1-\theta_{1,2})(1-\beta_{1,2})}{\beta_{1,2}} \label{eq:17}\end{aligned}$$ Substituting Eqs. (\[eq:14\]) (\[eq:17\]) into Eq.(\[eq:12\]) and then into (\[eq:16\]) , one gets
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:18}
\dot{\theta}_{1,2} &=& -\beta_{1,2}(\theta_{1,2}-\Phi^S_{1,2}-\Phi^R_{1,2})\nonumber\\
&=&-\beta_{1,2}\theta_{1,2}+\mu(1-\theta_{1,2})(1-\beta_{1,2})\nonumber\\
&&+\beta_{1,2} \frac{\sum\limits_{k_1,k_2}k_1P_2(k_1,k_2)X_{1,2}}{\sum\limits_{k_1,k_2}k_1P_2(k_1,k_2)}\end{aligned}$$
Similarly, one can write down $\theta_{1,1}$, $\theta_{2,1}$ and $\theta_{2,2}$ as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\theta}_{1,1} &=& -\beta_{1,1}(\theta_{1,1}-\Phi^S_{1,1}-\Phi^R_{1,1})\nonumber\\
&=& -\beta_{1,1}\theta_{1,1}+\mu(1-\theta_{1,1})(1-\beta_{1,1}) \nonumber\\
&&+\beta_{1,1} \frac{(1-\rho_0)\sum\limits_{k_1,k_2}k_1P_1(k_1,k_2)X_{1,1}}{\sum\limits_{k_1,k_2}k_1P_1(k_1,k_2)} \label{eq:19} \\
\dot{\theta}_{2,1}&=&\!-\beta_{2,1}(\theta_{2,1}-\Phi^S_{2,1}-\Phi^R_{2,1})\nonumber\\
&=&-\beta_{2,1}\theta_{2,1} +\mu(1-\theta_{2,1})(1-\beta_{2,1}) \nonumber\\
&&+ \beta_{2,1} \frac{(1-\rho_0)\sum\limits_{k_1,k_2}k_2P_1(k_1,k_2)X_{2,1}}{\sum\limits_{k_1,k_2}k_2P_1(k_1,k_2)}\label{eq:20}\\
\dot{\theta}_{2,2}&=&-\beta_{2,2}(\theta_{2,2}-\Phi^S_{2,2}-\Phi^R_{2,2})\nonumber\\
&=&-\beta_{2,2}\theta_{2,2} +\mu(1-\theta_{2,2})(1-\beta_{2,2})\nonumber\\
&&+\beta_{2,2} \frac{\sum\limits_{k_1,k_2}k_2P_2(k_1,k_2)X_{2,2}}{\sum\limits_{k_1,k_2}k_2P_2(k_1,k_2)}\label{eq:21}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
X_{1,1}&=&\sum\limits_{m=0}^{T_A-1}\sum\limits_{n=0}^{m}\tau(k_1-1,n,\theta_{1,1})\tau(k_2,m-n,\theta_{1,2}) \label{eq:22} \\
X_{2,1}&=&\sum\limits_{m=0}^{T_A-1}\sum\limits_{n=0}^{m}\tau(k_1,n,\theta_{1,1})\tau(k_2-1,m-n,\theta_{1,2}) \label{eq:23} \\
X_{2,2}&=&\sum\limits_{m=0}^{T_B-1}\sum\limits_{n=0}^{m}\tau(k_1,n,\theta_{2,1})\tau(k_2-1,m-n,\theta_{2,2}) \label{eq:24}\end{aligned}$$ It should be noted that as a node in layer $1$ has the probability $1-\rho_0$ not to be one of the initial seeds, after received the information $m$ times, node $v$ through a corresponding edge still does not accept it with probability $(1-\rho_0)X_{1,1}$ and $(1-\rho_0)X_{2,1}$ in Eqs. (\[eq:19\]) and (\[eq:20\]), respectively. With Eqs. (\[eq:18\]-\[eq:24\]) on hand, the densities associated with each distinct state can be obtained by $$\begin{cases}
\dot{R}_1=\mu A_1(t) \\
S_1(t)=(1-\rho_0)\sum\limits_{k_1,k_2}^\infty P_1(k_1,k_2)Y_1\\ \label{eq:25}
A_1(t)=1-S_1(t)-R_1(t)
\end{cases}$$
$$\begin{cases}
\dot{R}_2=\mu A_2(t) \\
S_2(t)=\sum\limits_{k_1,k_2}^\infty P_2(k_1,k_2)Y_2\\ \label{eq:26}
A_2(t)= 1-S_2(t)-R_2(t)
\end{cases}$$
where $$\begin{aligned}
Y_1=\sum\limits_{m=0}^{T_A-1}\sum\limits_{n=0}^{m}\tau(k_1,n,\theta_{1,1})\tau(k_2,m-n,\theta_{1,2})\label{eq:27}\\
Y_2=\sum\limits_{m=0}^{T_B-1}\sum\limits_{n=0}^{m}\tau(k_1,n,\theta_{2,1})\tau(k_2,m-n,\theta_{2,2})\label{eq:28}\end{aligned}$$ Eqs. (\[eq:25\]) and (\[eq:26\]) are the main theoretical results in this paper. To obtain the densities associated with each state, instead of getting the analytic solutions of Eqs. (\[eq:25\]) and (\[eq:26\]), we solve them by numerical integration and get the corresponding theoretical curves.
Results
=======
To study the effects of multiple channels on information spreading, we have performed extensive simulations with our model in coupled Scale-free (SF)[@Catanzaro:2005] and Erdos-Re̋nyi (ER) networks [@Albert:2002]. To compare the theoretical predictions with the numerical results, we also take into account coupled ER-ER and SF-SF networks in this work. Next, we mainly try to find out the key factors, which influence the emergence of the double transition on information spreading process.
The effects of multiple channels on the double transition
---------------------------------------------------------
![(Color online). Emergence of the double transition on information spreading process on SF-ER networks. (a) and (b) represent the density of final recovered nodes $\rho_R$ and variability $\Delta$ as a function of transmission probability $\beta$ with different average degree $\langle k_{ab}\rangle$, respectively. Squares, circles and up triangles represent $\langle k_{ab}\rangle=1$, $3$ and $5$, respectively. The symbols show the simulated results and the lines are the corresponding theoretical results in (a) from Eqs. (\[eq:25\]) and (\[eq:26\]). The results are averaged over $10^3$ independent realizations. The parameters are $N_a=N_b=10\,000$, $\mu=1.0$, $\beta_{ab}=0.5$, $T_A=T_B=2$, $\rho_0=0.05$, $P_A(k_a)\sim k_a^{-2.1}$, $\langle k_a\rangle=6$, $\langle k_b\rangle=6$. []{data-label="Fig:kab"}](fig2.eps){width="0.7\linewidth"}
To better quantify the spreading behavior, we let $\rho_S(t)$, $\rho_A(t)$ and $\rho_R(t)$ denote the fraction of susceptible, accepted and recovered nodes at time $t$ in the whole network. When the spreading is ended, the final size of recovered nodes can be denoted by $\rho_R$. A larger $\rho_R$ implies a larger spreading range at the final state. To numerically identify the effective spreading threshold $\beta_c$ of the SAR model, we use the variability measure[@Shu:2016; @Crepey:2015]: $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta=\frac{\sqrt{\langle \rho_R^2\rangle-\langle \rho_R\rangle^2}}{\langle \rho_R\rangle}
\label{eq:23}\end{aligned}$$ In general, the variability $\Delta$ exhibits a peak at a critical point[@Shu:2016; @Crepey:2015]. Thus, we estimate the numerical effective spreading threshold $\beta_c$ from the position of the peak of the variability.
Fig. \[Fig:kab\](a) shows the final size of recovered nodes $\rho_R$ as a function of transmission probability $\beta$ with different average degree $\langle k_{ab}\rangle$ on SF-ER networks. Fig. \[Fig:kab\](b) shows the variability $\Delta$ versus $\beta$ with corresponding $\langle k_{ab}\rangle$ in Fig. \[Fig:kab\](a). When the interaction strength is weak (i.e., $\langle k_{ab}\rangle$ is relatively small), the double transition occur on the information spreading process, which is indicated by two peaks of $\Delta$ in Fig. \[Fig:kab\](b). It has also found that the system undergoes a continuous transition from accepted free phase to accepted phase and a following discontinuous transition between the accepted phases. In addition, with the increasing of $\langle k_{ab}\rangle$, the second critical point $\beta_c^2$ close to the first one $\beta_c^1$. Once the coupling strength is strong enough ($\langle k_{ab}\rangle=5$), the two critical points merge into one, i.e., the second transition is vanished. These result have been confirmed by Eqs. (\[eq:25\]) and (\[eq:26\]) of the theory, see the lines in Fig. \[Fig:kab\](a). It is maybe helpful to understand the influence of $\langle k_{ab}\rangle$ on the double transition from the aspect of purely coupling in network structure. When the coupling strength is strong, a two-layered network behave as a solid single network [@Radicchi:2013; @Sahneh:2015]. In this case, the effect of multiple channels is not prominent and the spreading behavior is the same as the common one [@Wang:2015]. Therefore, a key factor determining the occurrence of double transition is a weak coupling between two networks.
, the red and green dash lines indicate the first and second critical point, respectively. The symbols show the simulated results and the solid lines are the corresponding theoretical results. All the parameters are set as Fig. \[Fig:kab\]. []{data-label="Fig:rhoAB"}](fig3.eps){width="0.8\linewidth"}
 with $\langle k_{ab}\rangle=1$. The symbols show the simulated results and the lines are the corresponding theoretical results. All the results are averaged over $100$ independent realizations and the parameters are the same as Fig. \[Fig:kab\]. []{data-label="Fig:timeseries"}](fig4.eps){width="0.8\linewidth"}
To gather a deeper understanding the double transition phenomenon, in Fig. \[Fig:rhoAB\] we also measure the densities of final recovered nodes $\rho_R^A$ and $\rho_R^B$ in the layer $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ as a function of transmission probability $\beta$, where Fig. \[Fig:rhoAB\](a), (b) and (c) report the cases of average degree $\langle k_{ab}\rangle=1$, $\langle k_{ab}\rangle=3$, and $\langle k_{ab}\rangle=5$, respectively. Based on the peaks of $\Delta$ in Fig. \[Fig:kab\](b), the red and green dash lines indicate the first and second critical point $\beta_c^1$ and $\beta_c^2$, respectively. Comparing with Fig. \[Fig:rhoAB\](a), (b) and (c), it is visible to observe that the first threshold $\beta_c^1$ is the same, indicating that the first critical point $\beta_c^1$ corresponds to the spreading threshold in layer $\mathcal{A}$. With the increase of $\beta$, more and more individuals have accepted the information in layer $\mathcal{A}$ and more information has been spread to layer $\mathcal{B}$. When the $\beta$ closes to the second threshold $\beta_c^2$, the system undergoes an abrupt transition. For a very strong coupling (see Fig. \[Fig:rhoAB\](c)), the two critical points merge into one, which shows a discontinues transition as the traditional threshold model [@Dodds:2004; @Wang:2015]. In addition, from Fig. \[Fig:rhoAB\](a) and (b), it is found that when $\beta_c^1<\beta<\beta_c^2$, the density of recovered nodes in layer $\mathcal{B}$ is not zero, indicating the information has been spread to a small fraction individuals in layer $\mathcal{B}$ but these small part accepted individuals are unable to trigger an outbreak of the information.
To better understand the spreading behavior around the second threshold $\beta_c^2$, we study the evolution of the nodes densities of susceptible $\rho_S(t)$, accepted $\rho_A(t)$, and recovered $\rho_R(t)$ in Fig. \[Fig:timeseries\], respectively. The green, yellow and blue symbols and lines represent the spreading cases of below, at and above the second critical point $\beta_c^2$, respectively. It is apparent to observe that when $\beta>\beta_c^2$ (see the blue symbols and lines), $\rho_A(t)$ shows two peaks in Fig. \[Fig:timeseries\](b) and $\rho_R(t)$ increases dramatically at the final stage in Fig. \[Fig:timeseries\](c), implying that the system undergoes a second outbreak.
The effects of the adoption threshold $T_A$ and $T_B$
------------------------------------------------------
![(Color online). The effects of the adoption threshold $T_A$ and $T_B$ on double transition. (a) and (b) show the dependence of the final recovered density $\rho_R$ on the transmission probability $\beta$ with different $T_A$ and $T_B$, respectively. (c) and (d) plot the corresponding variability $\Delta$ in the case of (a) and (b), respectively. The green, yellow and blue symbols and lines represent $T_A=1$, $2$, $3$ in (a)(c) and $T_B=1$, $2$, $3$ in (b)(d), respectively, where the symbols represent the simulated results and the lines are the corresponding theoretical results in (a) and (b) from Eqs. (\[eq:25\]) and (\[eq:26\]). The parameters are set as $T_B=2$ in (a) and $T_A=2$ in (b). The other ones are $N_a=N_b=10\,000$, $\mu=1.0$, $\beta_{ab}=0.5$, $\langle k_{ab}\rangle=2$, $\rho_0=0.05$, $P_A(k_a)\sim k_a^{-2.1}$, $\langle k_a\rangle=6$, $\langle k_b\rangle=6$.[]{data-label="Fig:TaTb"}](fig5.eps){width="0.8\linewidth"}
In general, the adoption threshold of the individuals will influence the phase transition on the spreading dynamics[@Dodds:2004; @Wang:2015]. In this sense, we next study the effects of the adoption threshold $T_A$ and $T_B$ on the double transition. Fig. \[Fig:TaTb\](a) and (b) show the dependence of the final recovered density $\rho_R$ on the transmission probability $\beta$ with typical $T_A$ and $T_B$, respectively. As is shown in Fig. \[Fig:TaTb\](a), when $T_A=1$, the phenomenon of double transition do not occur in the spreading process. The corresponding variability $\Delta$ clearly confirms this point in Fig. \[Fig:TaTb\](c). When $T_A=2$ and $T_A=3$, it is observed that the double transition emerge with the increasing of $\beta$. The corresponding variability $\Delta$ shows two peaks in Fig. \[Fig:TaTb\](c). Similarly, in Fig. \[Fig:TaTb\](b) and (d), we plot the final recovered density $\rho_R$ and the corresponding variability $\Delta$ as a function of transmission probability $\beta$ with different $T_B$, respectively. The results are similar to the case in Fig. \[Fig:TaTb\](a) and (c). It is obvious to know that increasing the adoption threshold impedes individuals from accepting the information. A larger value of adoption threshold means that the individual will accept the information only it receives the information more times from distinct neighbors. As a result, the individuals easily accept the information when the adoption threshold is small (i.e., $T_A=1$ or $T_B=1$). Particularly, when $T_A=1$, the information is spread fast in layer $\mathcal{A}$ and then the individuals in layer $\mathcal{B}$ know the information quickly. Thus we observe a macroscopic outbreak at the same time. While for the case of $T_B=1$, the individuals in layer $\mathcal{B}$ will accept the information once they received it one time. In this case, the information in layer $\mathcal{A}$ can spill into layer $\mathcal{B}$ easily and it is equivalent to a relatively strong interaction between the two layers, where the spreading process shows a synchronous outbreak behavior. Therefore, the double transition disappears in this situation.
Influence of network structure
------------------------------
![(Color online). The influence of network structure on double transition. (a) and (c) show $\rho_R$ and $\Delta$ versus $\beta$ with different degree exponent $\gamma_B$ in coupled SF-SF networks, respectively. (b) and (d) show $\rho_R$ and $\Delta$ versus $\beta$ with different $\langle k_a\rangle$ and $\langle k_b\rangle$ in coupled ER-ER networks, respectively. The degree exponent $\gamma_A=2.1$ is fixed in (a) and (c) and the other parameters are set as $\langle k_{ab}\rangle=2$, $T_A=T_B=2$, $N_a=N_b=10\,000$, $\mu=1.0$, $\beta_{ab}=0.5$, $\rho_0=0.05$. []{data-label="Fig:sf"}](fig6.eps){width="0.8\linewidth"}
![(Color online). The double transition disappears on coupled ER-ER networks. The dependence of the final recovered density $\rho_R$ on the transmission probability $\beta$ with different (a)$\langle k_{ab}\rangle$, (b) $T_A$ and (c) $T_B$, respectively. (d) (e) and (f) plot the corresponding variability $\Delta$ in the case of (a) (b) and (c), respectively. The parameters are set as $T_A=T_B=2$ in (a)(d); $T_B=2$ in (b)(e); $T_A=2$ in (c)(f), respectively. The other ones are $\langle k_a\rangle=\langle k_b\rangle=6$, $\langle k_{ab}\rangle=2$, $N_a=N_b=10\,000$, $\mu=1.0$, $\beta_{ab}=0.5$, $\rho_0=0.05$. []{data-label="Fig:er"}](fig7.eps){width="0.8\linewidth"}
One more key question is how the network topology affects the phenomenon of the double transition. To answer this question, we consider the influence of degree distribution of coupled SF-SF and ER-ER networks. Notice that the coupled SF-SF network is generated with the power-law degree distribution $P_A(k_a)\sim k_a^{-\gamma_A}$ and $P_B(k_b)\sim k_b^{-\gamma_B}$ in layer $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$, respectively, where $\gamma_A$ and $\gamma_B$ are the degree exponents. The smaller of the degree exponent is, the stronger of the heterogeneity of network structure will be. For fixed $\gamma_A=2.1$, Fig. \[Fig:sf\] (a) and (c) show $\rho_R$ and $\Delta$ versus $\beta$ with different degree exponent $\gamma_B$ in coupled SF-SF networks, respectively. It is found that when the $\gamma_B$ closes to $\gamma_A$, the phenomenon of the double transition is not prominent any more. As the difference of the heterogeneity in degree distribution between the two layers is not distinctive, the spreading speed in layer $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ are comparative. In this case, it is easy to observe the synchronous outbreak behavior between layer $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$. In fact, the result can be qualitatively explained as follows[@Wang:2015]: From our model, we know that hubs accept the information with more larger probability. With the increasing of network heterogeneity in layer $\mathcal{B}$, the network has a large number of nodes with very small degrees and more nodes with large degrees. At the beginning, the hubs facilitate the information spreading as they are more likely to receive the information from layer $\mathcal{A}$. After that, a large number of nodes in layer $\mathcal{B}$ with very small degrees will accept the information, resulting a similar behavior as layer $\mathcal{A}$ in the spreading process.
To deeply understand this point, we investigate a specific case with the same degree distribution in coupled ER-ER networks. As is shown in Fig. \[Fig:sf\](b) and (d), both the curves of $\rho_R$ and $\Delta$ indicate that the double transition disappears with different $\langle k_a\rangle$ and $\langle k_b \rangle$. What is more, for different cases of $\langle k_{ab}\rangle$, $T_A$ and $T_B$, the disappearance of the double transition is also found in Fig. \[Fig:er\]. In an ER network, the individuals are more likely to accept or not accept the information synchronously, which result in a discontinuous transition [@Wang:2015]. These results confirm again that the heterogeneity of degree distribution in each layer is very helpful for the appearance of the double transition.
Conclusions
===========
In recent years, researchers found that under certain conditions, there exists a double transition in the infected fraction versus the transmission probability on the epidemic spreading process. However, it is not clear whether it exists in the information spreading dynamics as the information spreading carries its special features, such as the effects of multiple channels, memory effects and non-redundant contacts etc. By combining these key factors in the information spreading dynamics, we indeed find the double transition in the phase diagram. These special features play a crucial role on the appearance of the double transition.
In summary, we have proposed a SAR model to describe the information spreading process on a two-layered network, where we emphasize the effects of multiple channels, memory and non-redundant contacts. Our simulation results show that there is a double transition in the phase diagram. Moreover, we find that such a phenomenon originates from two outbreaks between the two networks, which is a distinctive feature of a multilayer network of interactions. Further, we reveal that the double transition are driven by a weak coupling condition between the two layers, a large adoption threshold and the difference of the degree distributions betwen the two networks. An edge-based compartmental theory is developed which fully explains all numerical results. Our findings may be helpful for understanding the secondary outbreaks of the information in our life.
Acknowledgements
================
This work was partially supported by the NNSF of China under Grant No. 11505114 and No. 10975099, the Program for Professor of Special Appointment (Orientational Scholar) at Shanghai Institutions of Higher Learning under Grants No. QD2015016, and the Fundamental Research Funds for the central Universities under Grants No. YJ201830.
References
==========
R. Pastor-Satorras and A. Vespignani, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{}, 3200 (2001).
M. Boguna and R. Pastor-Satorras, Phys. Rev. E [**66**]{}, 047104 (2002).
S. C. Ferreira, C. Castellano and R. Pastor-Satorras, Phys. Rev. E [**86**]{}, 041125 (2012).
M. Boguna, C. Castellano and R. Pastor-Satorras, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**111**]{}, 068701 (2013).
R. Parshani, S. Carmi, and S. Havlin, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**104**]{}, 258701 (2010).
C. Castellano and R. Pastor-Satorras, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**105**]{}, 218701 (2010).
V. Colizza, R. Pastor-Satorras and A. Vespignani, Nature Phys. [**3**]{}, 276-282 (2007).
V. Colizza and A. Vespignani, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**99**]{}, 148701 (2007).
A. Baronchelli, M. Catanzaro and R. Pastor-Satorras, Phys. Rev. E [**78**]{}, 016111 (2008).
M. Tang, L. Liu and Z. Liu, Phys. Rev. E [**79**]{}, 016108 (2009).
S. Boccaletti, G. Bianconi, R. Criado, C. I. del Genio, J. Gómez-Gardeñes, M. Romance, I. Sendiña-Nadal, Z. Wang, and M. Zanin, Phys. Rep. **544**, 1 (2014).
L. Feng, C. P. Monterola, and Y. Hu, New J. Phys. **17**(6), 063025 (2015).
F. D. Sahneh, C. Scoglio, and F. N. Chowdhury, In 2013 American Control Conference (pp. 2307-2312). IEEE (2013).
H. Wang, Q. Li, G. D’Agostino, S. Havlin, H. E. Stanley, and P. Van Mieghem, Phys. Rev. E **88**(2), 022801 (2013).
O. Yagan, D. Qian, J. Zhang, and D. Cochran, IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. **31**(6), 1038-1048 (2013).
M. E. Newman, Phys. Rev. Lett. **95**(10), 108701 (2005). V. Marceau, P. A. Noël, L. Hébert-Dufresne, A. Allard, and L. J. Dubé, Phys. Rev. E **84**, 026105 (2011).
C. Buono, and L. A. Braunstein, Europhy. Lett. **109**(2), 26001 (2015).
C. Buono, L. G. Alvarez-Zuzek, P. A. Macri, and L. A. Braunstein, PloS One **9**(3), e92200 (2014).
Y. Zhao, M. Zheng and Z. Liu, Chaos [**24**]{}, 043129 (2014).
M. Zheng, M. Zhao, B. Min, and Z. Liu, Sci. Rep., **7**, 2424 (2017).
M. Zheng, W. Wang, M. Tang, J. Zhou, S. Boccaletti, and Z. Liu, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, **107** (2018) 135-142.
P. Holme and J. Saramaki, Phys. Rep. [**519**]{}, 97-125 (2012).
N. Perra, B. Goncalves, R. Pastor-Satorras and A. Vespignani, Sci. Rep. [**2**]{}, 469 (2012).
R. Pastor-Satorras, C. Castellano, P. V. Mieghem and A. Vespignani, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**87**]{}, 925 (2015).
A. Barrat, M. Barthelemy, and A. Vespignani, [*Dynamical Processes on Complex Networks*]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2008).
S. N. Dorogovtsev, A. V. Goltsev, and J. F. F. Mendes, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**80**]{}, 1275 (2008).
W. Wang, M. Tang, H. E. Stanley, and L. A. Braunstein, Rep. Prog. Phys., **80**(3), 036603 (2017).
P. Colomer-de Simon , M. Boguñá , Phys. Rev. X **4**, 041020 (2014).
U. Bhat, M. Shrestha, L. Hébert-Dufresne, Phys. Rev. E **95**, 012314 (2017).
A. Allard, B. M. Althouse, S. V. Scarpino, and L. Hébert-Dufresne, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA **114**(34), 8969-8973 (2017).
B. Min, and M. S. Miguel, arXiv:1712.05059 (2017).
P. S. Dodds, and D. J. Watts, Phys. Rev. Lett. **92** 218701 (2004).
L. Lü, D.-B. Chen, T. Zhou, New J. Phys. [**13**]{}, 123005 (2011).
M. Zheng, L. Lü, and M. Zhao, Phys. Rev. E **88**(1), 012818 (2013).
W. Wang, M. Tang, H. F. Zhang, and Y. C. Lai, Phys. Rev. E **92**, 012820 (2015).
J. Wu, M. Zheng, Z. K. Zhang, W. Wang, C. Gu, and Z. Liu, Chaos **28**(3), 033113 (2018).
C. D. Brummitt, K. M. Lee, and K. I. Goh, Phys. Rev. E **85**(4), 045102 (2012).
K. M. Lee, C. D. Brummitt, and K. I. Goh, Phys. Rev. E **90**(6), 062816 (2014).
B. Min, S. H. Gwak, N. Lee, and K. I. Goh, Sci. Rep. **6**, 21392 (2016).
S. Funk, and V. A. Jansen, Phys. Rev. E **81**, 036118 (2010).
A. Allard, P. A. Noël, L. J. Dubé, and B. Pourbohloul, Phys. Rev. E **79**, 036113 (2009).
S. W. Son, G. Bizhani, C. Christensen, P. Grassberger, and M. Paczuski, Europhy. Lett. **97**, 16006 (2012).
J. Sanz, C. Y. Xia, S. Meloni, and Y. Moreno, Phys. Rev. X **4**, 041005 (2014).
E. A. Leicht, and R. M. D’Souza, arXiv:0907.0894 (2009).
A. Hackett, D. Cellai, S. Gómez, A. Arenas, and J. P. Gleeson, Phys. Rev. X **6**(2), 021002 (2016).
M. Dickison, S. Havlin, and H. E. Stanley, Phys. Rev. E **85**, 066109 (2012).
A. Saumell-Mendiola, M. A. Serrano, and M. Boguñá, Phys. Rev. E **86**, 026106 (2012).
E. Volz, J. Math. Biol **56**(3), 293-310 (2008).
J. C. Miller, J. Math. Biol. **62**(3), 349-358 (2011).
P. Shu, W. Wang, M. Tang, P. Zhao, and Y. C. Zhang, Chaos **26**(6), 063108 (2016).
J. C. Miller, A. C. Slim, and E. M. Volz, J. R. Soc. Interface **9**(70), 890-906 (2012).
J. C. Miller, and E. M. Volz, PloS One **8**(8), e69162 (2013).
J. C. Miller, PloS one **9**(7), e101421 (2014).
M. Catanzaro, M. Boguñá, and R. Pastor-Satorras, Phys. Rev. E [**71**]{}, 027103 (2005).
R. Albert, and A.-L. Barabási, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**74**]{}, 47-97 (2002).
P. Crépey, F. P. Alvarez, and M. Barthélemy, Phys. Rev. E **73**, 046131 (2006).
F. Radicchi, and A.Arenas, Nat. Phys. **9**(11), 717-720 (2013).
F. D. Sahneh, C. Scoglio, and P. Van Mieghem, Phys. Rev. E **92**(4), 040801 (2015).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Previous methods for determining photonic quasicrystal (PQC) spectra have relied on the use of large supercells to compute the eigenfrequencies and/or local density of states (LDOS). In this manuscript, we present a method by which the energy spectrum and the eigenstates of a PQC can be obtained by solving Maxwell’s equations in higher dimensions for any PQC defined by the standard cut-and-project construction, to which a generalization of Bloch’s theorem applies. In addition, we demonstrate how one can compute band structures with defect states in the higher-dimensional superspace with no additional computational cost. As a proof of concept, these general ideas are demonstrated for the simple case of one-dimensional quasicrystals, which can also be solved by simple transfer-matrix techniques.'
author:
- 'Alejandro W. Rodriguez'
- 'Alexander P. McCauley'
- Yehuda Avniel
- 'Steven G. Johnson'
title: 'Computation and visualization of photonic quasicrystal spectra via Bloch’s theorem'
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
We propose a computational method to solve for the spectra and eigenstates of quasicrystalline electromagnetic structures by directly solving a periodic eigenproblem in a higher-dimensional lattice. Such photonic quasicrystals (PQCs) have a number of unique properties compared to ordinary periodic structures [@Chan98; @Cheng99; @Zoorob00:mse; @Zoorob00:nat; @DalNegro03; @Wang03:jphys; @Xie03; @Notomi04; @DellaVilla05; @Feng05; @Kim05; @Lifshitz05; @Vivas05; @Wiersma05; @DellaVilla06; @Freedman06; @Gauthier06:optcomm; @Parker06; @Zhang06; @Zhang06:solcomm; @Mnaymneh07], especially in two or three dimensions where they can have greater rotational symmetry and therefore offer some hope of complete photonic band gaps with lower index contrast [@Zoorob00:nat; @Kaliteevski01:jph; @Zhang01; @Hase02] than the roughly $2$:$1$ contrast currently required for periodic structures [@Maldovan04]. However, the study of two- and three-dimensional photonic quasicrystals has been hampered by the computational difficulty of modeling aperiodic structures, which has previously required large “supercell” calculations that capture only a portion of the infinite aperiodic lattice. Our method, in contrast, captures the entire infinite aperiodic structure in a single higher-dimensional unit cell, and we believe that this approach will ultimately be much more computationally tractable for two- and three-dimensional quasicrystals. The idea that many quasicrystals can be constructed by an irrational slice of a higher-dimensional lattice is well known [@Janot92; @Stadnik99; @Suck04], and in fact is the most common formulation of quasicrystals in two and three dimensions [@Wang03:jopt; @Man05; @Ledermann06], but the possibility of direct numerical calculations within the higher-dimensional space seems to have been little explored outside of some tight-binding calculations in quantum systems [@Lange83; @Lu87]. As a proof of concept, we demonstrate a first implementation of the technique applied to one-dimensional quasicrystals, such as the well known Fibonacci structure. Not only can we reproduce the spectrum from transfer-matrix calculations, but we also show that the higher-dimensional picture provides an interesting way to visualize the eigenmodes and compute defect states in the infinite aperiodic structure.
There have been several previous numerical approaches to simulating quasicrystal structures in electromagnetism and quantum mechanics. In one dimension, a typical quasicrystal is an aperiodic sequence of two or more materials, determined either by a slice of a higher-dimensional lattice [@Stadnik99] or by some “string concatenation” rule [@Janot92]. In either case, efficient $2
\times 2$ transfer-matrix methods are available that allow one to quickly compute the transmission spectra and density of states for supercells consisting of many thousands of layers [@Godreche92; @Huang01]. Two- and three-dimensional quasicrystals are almost always defined as an irrational slice (i.e., incommensurate Miller indices) of a higher-dimensional lattice; for example, the famous Penrose tiling can be viewed as a two-dimensional slice of a five-dimensional cubic lattice or of a four-dimensional root lattice $A_4$ [@Suck04]. In such cases, supercell computations of a finite portion of the infinite aperiodic structure (or a rational approximant thereof [@Godreche92; @Stadnik99]) require slower numerical methods, most commonly finite-difference time-domain (FDTD) simulations [@Gauthier05; @Kim05; @Gauthier06:optcomm] or planewave expansions [@Kaliteevski00:jmo; @DellaVilla06:ieee]. Unfortunately, these methods become very expensive for large supercells, nearly prohibitively so for three-dimensional quasicrystals—there have been experiments for 3D PQCs [@Man05; @Ledermann06], but as yet few theoretical predictions [@Stuerer07; @Zijlstra00]. With FDTD methods, for example, the PQC local density of states is typically integrated in Monte-Carlo fashion via random sources or initial conditions [@Wang03:jphys; @DellaVilla05; @Mnaymneh07], but many simulations are required to sample all possible modes in a large supercell. Also, the finite domain of a supercell becomes even more significant in higher dimensions where a tractable supercell is necessarily smaller, as there can be localized states [@Kim05; @DellaVilla06; @Gauthier06:optcomm; @Mnaymneh07] whose presence is dependent on the particular region of the PQC considered. Our method of computing the spectrum directly in the higher-dimensional unit cell, on the other hand, requires no supercell to capture the infinite aperiodic structure—it uniformly samples (up to a finite resolution) every possible supercell of the infinite quasicrystal, rather than any particular subsection. The influence of finite-resolution on the convergence of the spectrum can be systematically understood: one is not “missing” any part of the quasicrystal, so much as resolving the entire quasicrystal with lower resolution.
The structure of this paper is as follows: in [Sec. \[sec:cut\]]{} we review the “cut-and-project” method for defining a PQC as a slice of a higher-dimensional lattice, followed in [Sec. \[sec:computations\]]{} by a description of our computational method in the higher-dimensional lattice. There, we describe the extension of Maxwell’s equations to higher dimensions and also describe its solution in terms of a higher-dimensional Bloch planewave expansion. As a proof of concept, we present a sequence of one-dimensional examples in [Sec. \[sec:results\]]{}. First, we compare results for a one-dimensional “Fibonacci sequence” with standard one-dimensional transfer-matrix techniques. Second, as mentioned above, cut-and-project allows for a straightforward way of studying defects in the the quasicrystal with the same computational effort as the perfect PQC, and this is demonstrated in the one-dimensional “Fibonacci” example. Finally, we demonstrate the ease with which one can construct and explore different quasicrystals by continuously varying the cut angle.
Quasicrystals via cut-and-project {#sec:cut}
=================================
Given a periodic lattice, any lower dimensional cross-section of that lattice may be either periodic or quasi-periodic, depending upon the angle of the cross-section. For example, the periodic 2D cross-sections of a 3D crystal are the lattice planes, defined in crystallography by integer Miller indices. If the Miller indices have irrational ratios, on the other hand, the cross-section is aperiodic but still has long-range order because of the underlying higher-dimensional periodicity. This is what is known as a “cut-and-project” method of defining a quasicrystalline structure: as a slice of a periodic structure in a higher-dimensional “superspace” [@Janot92; @Stadnik99]. (For a thorough discussion of quasicrystals via cut-and-project, see [Ref.$\;$]{}.) Cut-and-project defines a specific class of quasicrystals; equivalently, and more abstractly, cut-and-project corresponds to structures whose Fourier transform has support spanned by a finite number of reciprocal basis vectors (the projection of the reciprocal lattice vectors from higher dimensions) [@Janot92; @Wang03:jopt]. This class includes most commonly considered quasicrystals in two or three dimensions, including the Penrose tiling [@Suck04], as well as many one-dimensional quasicrystals including a version of the Fibonacci structure.
For example, consider the Fibonacci PQC in one dimension formed from two materials $\varepsilon_A = 4.84$ and $\varepsilon_B = 2.56$ in layers of thickness $A$ and $B$, respectively, similar to a recent experimental structure [@DalNegro03]. The Fibonacci structure $S$ is then defined by the limit $n\to\infty$ of the string-concatenation rule $S_n = S_{n-2} S_{n-1}$ with starting strings $S_0=B$ and $S_1=A$ [@DalNegro03], generating a sequence $BABAABABAABA\cdots$. In the case where $B/A$ is the golden ratio $\tau = (1+\sqrt{5})/2$, exactly the same structure can be generated by a slice of a two-dimensional lattice as depicted in [Fig. \[fig:geom\]]{} [@Janot92]. The slice is at an angle $\phi$ with an irrational slope $\tan\phi =
1/\tau$, and the unit cell of the 2D lattice is an $A \times A$ square at an angle $\phi$ in a square lattice with period $(A+B)\sin\phi =
a$. Because the slope is irrational, the offset/intercept of the slice is unimportant: any slice at an angle $\phi$ intercepts the unit cell at infinitely many points, filling it densely.
![Unit cell of the Fibonacci superspace dielectric. The physical dielectric is obtained by taking a slice at an angle $\tan{\phi}=\tau$. Black/white are the dielectric constants of the structure factor material and air, chosen to be $\varepsilon = 4.84$ and $\varepsilon = 2.56$, respectively.[]{data-label="fig:geom"}](FIG-eps-supercell){width="40.00000%"}
For thickness ratios $B/A \neq \tau$, the Fibonacci structure cannot be constructed by cut-and-project, and in general string-concatenation rules can produce a different range of structures (such as the Thue-Morse PQC [@DalNegro04]) than cut-and-project. This is partly a question of definition—some authors reserve the term “quasicrystal” for cut-and-project structures [@Suck04]. In any case, cut-and-project includes a wide variety of aperiodic structures, including most of the structures that have been proposed in two or three dimensions (where they can be designed to have $n$-fold rotational symmetry for any $n$), and are the class of quasicrystals that we consider in this paper.
In general, let $d \leq 3$ be the number of physical dimensions of a quasicrystal structure generated by a $d$-dimensional “slice” of an $n$-dimensional periodic structure ($n>d$). Denote this slice by $X$ (the physical space) with coordinates ${\mathbf{x}} \in \mathbb{R}^d$, and denote the remaining $n-d$ coordinates by ${\mathbf{y}} \in
\mathbb{R}^{n-d}$ in the “unphysical” space $Y$ (so that the total $n$-dimensional superspace is $Z = X \oplus Y$). The primitive lattice vectors ${\mathbf{R}}_i \in Z$ define the orientation of the lattice with respect to the slice (rather than vice versa), with corresponding primitive reciprocal vectors ${\mathbf{G}}_i$ defined by the usual ${\mathbf{R}}_i \cdot {\mathbf{G}}_j = 2\pi
\delta_{ij}$ [@Janot92]. (The concept of an “irrational slice” is commonly used in the quasicrystal literature. However, a general definition of what is meant by an “irrational slice” seems difficult to find, and less evident in dimensions $d>2$. For a more precise definition of “irrational slice” in general dimensions and a proof that it is dense in the unit cell, see [Sec. \[sec:app\]]{}.)
The physical dielectric function $\varepsilon({\mathbf{x}})$ is then constructed by starting with a periodic dielectric function $\varepsilon({\mathbf{x}},{\mathbf{y}})$ in the superspace and evaluating it at a fixed ${\mathbf{y}}$ (forming the slice). Because an irrational slice is dense in the unit cell of the superspace [@Janot92], it doesn’t matter what value of ${\mathbf{y}}$ one chooses, as discussed below (as long as $\varepsilon$ is piecewise continuous). In principle, one could define the unit cell of $\varepsilon$ in the superspace to be any arbitrary $n$-dimensional function, but in practice it is common to “decorate” the higher-dimension unit cell with extrusions of familiar $d$-dimensional objects [@Janot92; @Suck04]. More precisely, “cut-and-project” commonly refers to constructions where a set of lattice points within a finite window of the cut plane are projected onto the cut plane, and this is equivalent to a simple cut where objects at the lattice points are extruded in the $y$ direction by the window width [@Janot92]. In particular, the extrusion window is commonly an inverted projection (shadow) of the unit cell onto the $y$ directions [@Janot92], although this is not the case for the Fibonacci construction of [Fig. \[fig:geom\]]{}.
(Note that the higher-dimensional lattice need not be hypercubic. For example, the Penrose tiling can be expressed as a two-dimensional slice of either a five-dimensional hypercubic lattice or of a non-orthogonal four-dimensional root lattice $A_4$ [@Suck04]. For computational purposes, the lower the dimensionality the better.)
Computations in Higher Dimensions {#sec:computations}
=================================
Although the cut-and-project technique is a standard way to *define* the quasicrystal structure, previous computational studies of photonic quasicrystals then proceeded to simulate the resulting structure only in the projected ($d$-dimensional) physical space. Instead, it is possible to extend Maxwell’s equations into the periodic $n$-dimensional superspace, where Bloch’s theorem applies to simplify the computation. By looking at only the unit cell in $n$ dimensions one can capture the infinite $d$-dimensional quasicrystal. Our development of this technique was inspired by earlier research on analogous electronic quasicrystals that applied a tight-binding method in two dimensions to compute the spectrum of a one-dimensional electronic quasicrystal [@Lange83; @Lu87].
Let us start with Maxwell’s equations in the physical space $X$ for the quasicrystal $\varepsilon({\mathbf{x}},{\mathbf{y}})$ at some fixed ${\mathbf{y}}$ (that is, ${\mathbf{y}}$ is viewed as a parameter, not a coordinate). Maxwell’s equations can be written as an eigenproblem for the harmonic modes ${\mathbf{H}}({\mathbf{x}},{\mathbf{y}}) e^{-i\omega
t}$ [@Joannopoulos95], where again ${\mathbf{y}}$ appears as a parameter. $$\nabla_{\mathbf{x}} \times \frac{1}{\varepsilon({\mathbf{x}},{\mathbf{y}})} \nabla_{\mathbf{x}} \times
{\mathbf{H}} = (\omega/c)^2 {\mathbf{H}} ,
\label{eq:eigenproblem}$$ where $\nabla_{\mathbf{x}}\;\times$ denotes the curl with respect to the ${\mathbf{x}}$ coordinates. Assuming that the structure is quasicrystalline, i.e. that $X$ is an irrational slice of the periodic superspace $Z$, then $\omega$ should not depend upon ${\mathbf{y}}$ [@Lange83]. The reason is that ${\mathbf{y}}$ only determines the offset of the “initial” slice of the unit cell (for ${\mathbf{x}} = 0$), but as we reviewed above the slice (considered in all copies of the unit cell) fills the unit cell densely. Therefore, any change of ${\mathbf{y}}$ can be undone, to arbitrary accuracy, merely by offsetting ${\mathbf{x}}$ to a different copy of the unit cell. An offset of ${\mathbf{x}}$ doesn’t change the eigenvalues $\omega$, although of course it offsets the eigenfunctions ${\mathbf{H}}$.
The fact that $\omega$ is independent of ${\mathbf{y}}$ allows us to re-interpret [Eq. [(\[eq:eigenproblem\])]{}]{}, without actually changing anything: we can think of ${\mathbf{y}}$ as a coordinate rather than a parameter, and the operator on the left-hand side as an operator in $d$-dimensional space. Note that ${\mathbf{H}}$ is still a three-component vector field, and $\nabla_{\mathbf{x}}\;\times$ is still the ordinary curl operator along the ${\mathbf{x}}$ directions, so this is not so much a higher-dimensional version of Maxwell’s equations as an extension of the unmodified ordinary Maxwell’s equations into a higher-dimensional parameter space. The ${\mathbf{y}}$ coordinate appears in the operator only through $\varepsilon$. Because $\omega$ is independent of ${\mathbf{y}}$, i.e. it is just a number rather than a function of the coordinates, the equation [(\[eq:eigenproblem\])]{} in higher dimensions is still an eigenproblem, and its spectrum of eigenvalues $\omega$ is the same as the spectrum of the $d$-dimensional quasicrystal, since the equations are identical. The physical solution is obtained by evaluating these higher-dimensional solutions at a fixed ${\mathbf{y}}$, say ${\mathbf{y}}=0$ (where a different ${\mathbf{y}}$ merely corresponds to an offset in ${\mathbf{x}}$ as described above).
For a real, positive $\varepsilon$, both the physical operator and the extended operator in in [Eq. [(\[eq:eigenproblem\])]{}]{} are Hermitian and positive semi-definite, leading to many important properties such as real frequencies $\omega$ [@Joannopoulos95].
Bloch’s theorem and numerics for quasicrystals
----------------------------------------------
Because the superspace eigenproblem is periodic, Bloch’s theorem applies: the eigenfunctions ${\mathbf{H}}({\mathbf{x}},{\mathbf{y}})$ can be written in the Bloch form ${\mathbf{h}}({\mathbf{z}}) e^{i{\mathbf{k}}\cdot{\mathbf{z}}}$, where ${\mathbf{h}}$ is a *periodic* function defined by its values in the unit cell, and ${\mathbf{k}}$ is the $n$-dimensional Bloch wavevector [@Joannopoulos95].
Here, ${\mathbf{k}}$ determines the phase relationship between ${\mathbf{H}}$ in different unit cells of the superspace, but it does not have a simple interpretation once the solution is projected into physical space. The reason is that ${\mathbf{h}}$, viewed as a function of ${\mathbf{x}}$, is again only quasiperiodic: translation in ${\mathbf{x}}$ “wraps” the slice into a different portion of the unit cell, so both ${\mathbf{h}}$ and $e^{i{\mathbf{k}}\cdot{\mathbf{z}}}$ change simultaneously and the latter phase cannot be easily distinguished. This prevents one from defining a useful phase or group velocity of the PQC modes.
The key point is that Bloch’s theorem reduces the eigenproblem to a finite domain (the $n$-dimensional unit cell), rather than the infinite domain required to describe the quasicrystal solutions in physical space. This means that standard numerical methods to find the eigenvalues of differential operators are immediately applicable. For example, since the solution ${\mathbf{h}}$ is periodic, one can apply a planewave expansion method [@Johnson2001:mpb] for ${\mathbf{h}}$: $${\mathbf{h}}({\mathbf{z}}) = \sum_{\mathbf{G}} \tilde{{\mathbf{h}}}_{\mathbf{G}} e^{i{\mathbf{G}}\cdot{\mathbf{z}}},$$ where the summation is over all $n$-dimensional reciprocal lattice vectors ${\mathbf{G}}$. Because the curl operations only refer to the ${\mathbf{x}}$ coordinates, $\nabla_{\mathbf{x}} \times {\mathbf{h}}$ is replaced by a summation over ${\mathbf{G}}_{\mathbf{x}} \times \tilde{{\mathbf{h}}}_{\mathbf{G}}$, where ${\mathbf{G}}_{\mathbf{x}}$ denotes ${\mathbf{G}}$ projected into $X$. The resulting eigenproblem for the Fourier coefficients $\tilde{{\mathbf{h}}}$ (once they are truncated to some wavevector cutoff) can be computed either by direct dense-matrix methods [@Golub96] or, more efficiently, by iterative methods exploiting fast Fourier transforms [@Johnson2001:mpb]. In the present paper, we do the former, which is easy to implement as a proof of concept, but for higher-dimensional computations an iterative method will become necessary.
We should also remind the reader that there is a constraint $\nabla_{\mathbf{x}}\cdot{\mathbf{H}} = 0$ on the eigenfunctions, in order to exclude unphysical solutions with static magnetic charges. In a planewave method, this leads to a trivial constraint $({\mathbf{k}}_{\mathbf{x}}
+ {\mathbf{G}}_{\mathbf{x}}) \cdot \tilde{{\mathbf{h}}} = 0$, again with ${\mathbf{k}}$ and ${\mathbf{G}}$ projected into $X$.
The spectrum of the quasicrystal {#sec:spectrum}
--------------------------------
With a familiar eigenproblem arising from Bloch’s theorem, such as that of a periodic physical structure, the eigenvalues form a band structure: discrete bands $\omega_n({\mathbf{k}})$ that are continuous functions of ${\mathbf{k}}$, with a finite number of bands in any given frequency range [@Kuchment01]. For a finite-resolution calculation, one obtains a finite number of these bands $\omega_n$ with some accuracy that increases with resolution, but even at low resolutions the basic structure of the low-frequency bands is readily apparent. The eigenvalues of the higher-dimensional quasicrystal operator of [Eq. [(\[eq:eigenproblem\])]{}]{}, on the other hand, are quite different.
The underlying mathematical reason for the discrete band structure of a physical periodic structure is that the Bloch eigen-operator for a periodic physical lattice, $(\nabla+i{\mathbf{k}})\times\frac{1}{\varepsilon}(\nabla+i{\mathbf{k}})\,\times$, is the inverse of a compact integral operator corresponding to the Green’s function, and hence the spectral theorem applies [@Gohberg00]. Among other things, this implies that the eigenvalues at any given ${\mathbf{k}}$ for a finite unit cell form a discrete increasing sequence, with a finite number of eigenvalues below any finite $\omega$. The same nice property does not hold for the operator extended to $n$ dimensions, because along the ${\mathbf{y}}$ directions we have no derivatives, only a variation of the scalar function $\varepsilon$. Intuitively, this means that the fields can oscillate very fast along the ${\mathbf{y}}$ directions without necessarily increasing $\omega$, allowing one to have infinitely many eigenfunctions in a finite bandwidth. More mathematically, an identity operator is not compact and does not satisfy the spectral theorem [@Gohberg00], and since the operator of [Eq. [(\[eq:eigenproblem\])]{}]{} is locally the identity along the ${\mathbf{y}}$ directions the same conclusion applies. This means that, when the ${\mathbf{y}}$ direction is included as a coordinate, it is possible to get an infinite number of bands in a finite bandwidth at a fixed ${\mathbf{k}}$.
In fact, as we shall see below, this is precisely what happens, and moreover it is what *must* happen in order to reproduce the well-known properties of quasicrystal spectra. It has been shown that quasicrystal spectra can exhibit a fractal structure [@Janot92], with infinitely many gaps (of decreasing size) in a finite bandwidth, and such a structure could not arise from an ordinary band diagram with a finite number of bands in a given bandwidth. Of course, once the unit cell is discretized for numerical computation, the number of degrees of freedom and hence the number of eigenvalues is finite. However, as the resolution is increased, not only do the maximum frequency and the accuracy increase as for an ordinary computation, but also the number of bands in a given bandwidth increases. Thus, as the resolution is increased, more and more of the fractal structure of the spectrum is revealed.
One-dimensional results {#sec:results}
=======================
As a proof of concept implementation of cut-and-project, we construct a Fibonacci quasicrystal in [Sec. \[sec:fib-band\]]{} using the projection method described above, compute the band structure as a function of the projected wave-vector $k_{d}$ and compare to a transfer-matrix calculation of the same quasicrystal structure. We also demonstrate the field visualization enabled by the projection method, both in the superspace ($n$ dimensions) as well as in the physical space ($d$ dimensions). In [Sec. \[sec:defects\]]{}, we demonstrate how this method can accommodate systems with defects without additional computational costs. Finally, we explore several one-dimensional quasicrystal configurations in [Sec. \[sec:tilt\]]{} by varying the cut angle $\phi$.
Fibonacci quasicrystal {#sec:fib-band}
----------------------
{width="\textwidth"}
![Enlarged view of the Fibonacci spectrum showing a gap with a spurious band crossing it. Insets show the magnetic field $|H_z|$ for the spurious band at various $k_x$—the localization of this mode around the $X$-parallel edges of the dielectric indicate that this is a discretization artifact.[]{data-label="fig:spurious-mode"}](FIG-spurious-spectrum){width="49.00000%"}
We solved [Eq. [(\[eq:eigenproblem\])]{}]{} numerically using a planewave expansion in the unit cell of the 2D superspace, as described above, for the 1D Fibonacci quasicrystal structure depicted in [Fig. \[fig:geom\]]{}. The resulting band diagram is shown in [Fig. \[fig:band-negro\]]{}(left), along with a side-by-side comparison of the local density of states in [Fig. \[fig:band-negro\]]{}(right) calculated using a transfer-matrix approach with a supercell of $10^4$ layers [@Li04]. The two calculations show excellent agreement in the location of the gaps, except for one or two easily-identified spurious bands inside some of the gaps, which are discussed in further detail below. The most important feature of [Fig. \[fig:band-negro\]]{}(left) is the large number of bands even in the finite bandwidth $\omega \in [0,0.4]$, with the number of bands increasing proportional to the spatial resolution (planewave cutoff). This is precisely the feature predicted abstractly above, in [Sec. \[sec:spectrum\]]{}: at a low resolution, one sees only the largest gaps, and at higher resolutions further details of the fractal spectrum are revealed as more and more bands appear within a given bandwidth, very different from calculations for periodic physical media. The important physical quantity is not so much the band structure, since ${\mathbf{k}}$ has no simple physical meaning as discussed previously, but rather the density of states formed by projecting the band structure onto the $\omega$ axis. In this density of states, the small number of spurious bands within the gaps, which arise from the discretization as discussed below, plays no significant role: the density of states is dominated by the huge number of flat bands (going to infinity as the resolution is increased), and the addition of one or two spurious bands is negligible.
The “spurious” bands that appear within some of the band gaps of the superspace calculation arise from the discretization of the dielectric interfaces parallel to the slice direction. Because the slice is at an irrational angle, it will never align precisely with a uniform grid, resulting in inevitable staircasing effects at the boundary. With ordinary electromagnetic simulations, these staircasing effects can degrade the accuracy [@Farjadpour06], but here the lack of derivatives perpendicular to the slice allows spurious modes to appear along these staircased edges (there is no frequency penalty to being localized perpendicular to the slice). Indeed, if one looks at the field patterns for the spurious modes, one of which is shown in the inset of [Fig. \[fig:band-negro\]]{}(right), one sees that the field intensity is peaked along the slice-parallel dielectric interfaces. Because they are localized to these interfaces and therefore dominated by the unphysical staircasing, the spurious modes behave quite differently from the “real” solutions and are easily distinguished qualitatively and quantitatively. Most importantly, as the resolution is increased, the number of spurious modes in a given gap does not increase like all of the other bands, because the thickness of the staircased interface region decreases proportional to the resolution. This makes the gaps in the band structure obvious: here, they are the only frequency ranges for which the number of eigenvalues does not increase with resolution. Equivalently, as noted above, the contribution of the spurious bands to the density of states is asymptotically negligible as resolution is increased.
![Plot of the magnetic field amplitude $|H_z|$ for a band-edge state taken along a slice of the two-dimensional superspace (in the $\phi$ direction). *Inset:* Two-dimensional superspace field profile (red/white/blue indicates positive/zero/negative amplitude).[]{data-label="fig:extended"}](FIG-extended-mode){width="48.00000%"}
Computing the eigenmodes in the higher-dimensional superspace immediately suggests a revealing visualization technique: instead of plotting the quasiperiodic fields as a function of the physical coordinates $x$ by taking a slice, plot them in the two-dimensional superspace. This has the advantage of revealing the entire infinite aperiodic field pattern in a single finite plot [@Lange83]. One such plot was already used above, to aid in understanding the spurious modes localized at staircased interfaces. A typical extended mode profile is shown in [Fig. \[fig:extended\]]{}, plotted both as a function of the physical coordinate $x$ for large supercell and also in the unit cell of the superspace (inset). In the inset superspace plot, one can clearly see the predicted field oscillations perpendicular to the slice plane, as well as a slower oscillation rate (inversely proportional to the frequency) parallel to the slice. In the plot versus $x$, one can see the longer-range quasi-periodic structure that arises from how the slice wraps around the unit cell in the superspace. The factor of three to four long-range variations in the field amplitude are suggestive of the critically localized states (power-law decay) that one expects to see in such quasicrystals [@Kohmoto83; @Ostlund83; @DalNegro03].
Defect modes {#sec:defects}
------------
![Dielectric for the Fibonacci chain with $\varepsilon=2.56$ (light blue), and a defect—an additional $\varepsilon=8.0$ layer, shown in gray.[]{data-label="fig:defect-eps"}](FIG-eps-defect){width="40.00000%"}
Much of the interest in quasicrystal band gaps, similar to the analogous case of band gaps in periodic structures, centers around the possibility of localized states: by introducing a defect in the structure, e.g. by changing the thickness of a single layer, one can create exponentially localized states in the gap [@Cheng99; @Bayindir01]. In periodic systems, because such defects break the periodicity, they necessitate a larger computational cell, or supercell, that contains many unit cells. In quasicrystal systems, however, one can introduce a localized defect without changing the higher-dimensional periodicity, and therefore compute localized defect modes with the same superspace method and computational cell.
Ideally, if one had infinite spatial resolution, a defect in the crystal would be introduced as a very thin perturbation parallel to the slice direction. As the thickness of this perturbation goes to zero, it intersects the physical slice at greater and greater intervals in the physical space, corresponding to localized defects that are separated by arbitrarily large distances. In practice, of course, the thickness of the perturbation is limited by the spatial resolution, but one can still obtain defects that are very widely separated—since the associated defect modes are exponentially localized, the coupling between the defects is negligible. In other words, one effectively has a very large supercell calculation, but expressed in only the unit cell of the higher-dimensional lattice.
![Varying the defect epsilon for resolutions 50 (blue) and 100 (red). The thickness of the defect is fixed to 0.02 lattice constants. The number of spurious modes increases with the resolution, the true defect state being the lowest of these modes.[]{data-label="fig:bands-epsilon"}](FIG-bands-defect){width="47.00000%"}
As an example, we changed an $\varepsilon=2.56$ layer to $\varepsilon
= \varepsilon_d$ at one place in the Fibonacci quasicrystal. The corresponding superspace dielectric function is shown in [Fig. \[fig:defect-eps\]]{}, where the defect is introduced as a thin ($0.02a$) strip of $\varepsilon_d$ parallel to the slice direction. We compute the band structure as a function of the defect dielectric constant $\Delta\varepsilon = \varepsilon_d - 2.56$, varying it from the normal dielectric $\varepsilon_d = 2.56$ up to $\varepsilon_d =
11$. The thickness of the defect in the unphysical direction was fixed to be $\approx 0.02$. The resulting eigenvalues as a function of $\Delta\varepsilon$ are shown in [Fig. \[fig:bands-epsilon\]]{} for two different spatial resolutions of $50$ (blue) and $100$ (red) pixels/$a$. When the resolution is $50$ the defect is only one pixel thick, the discretization effects might be expected to be large, although the frequency is within about 2% of the higher-resolution calculation. At the higher resolution, the frequency of the mode is converging (it is within 0.3% of a resolution-$200$ calculation, not shown). However, at the higher resolution there is a second, spurious mode due to the finite thickness (2 pixels) of the defect layer—this spurious mode is easily identified when the field is plotted [Fig. \[fig:def\]]{}(bottom), because it has a sign oscillation perpendicular to the slice (which would be disallowed if we could make the slice infinitesimally thin).
The defect modes for the resolution $100$ are plotted in [Fig. \[fig:def\]]{} for both the real and the spurious modes, versus the physical coordinate ($x$) and also in the superspace unit cell (insets). When plotted versus the physical coordinate $x$ on a semilog scale, we see that the modes are exponentially localized as expected. The defect mode appears at multiple $x$ values (every $\sim 20a$ on average) because the defect has a finite thickness—the physical slice intersects it infinitely many times (quasiperiodically), as discussed above. The spurious mode (bottom panel) is also exponentially localized; it has a sign oscillation perpendicular to the slice direction (inset) which causes it to have additional phase differences between the different defects.
![Semi-log plots of the magnetic field magnitude $H_z$ for the lowest (top) and highest (bottom) defect state for the configuration shown in [Fig. \[fig:defect-eps\]]{}. *Insets:* Two-dimensional superspace visualizations of the defect states. Note the additional node in the lower figure (corresponding to an unphysical oscillation).[]{data-label="fig:def"}](FIG-real-defect){width="48.00000%"}
![Semi-log plots of the magnetic field magnitude $H_z$ for the lowest (top) and highest (bottom) defect state for the configuration shown in [Fig. \[fig:defect-eps\]]{}. *Insets:* Two-dimensional superspace visualizations of the defect states. Note the additional node in the lower figure (corresponding to an unphysical oscillation).[]{data-label="fig:def"}](FIG-fake-defect){width="48.00000%"}
The advantages of the higher-dimensional (superspace) calculation over a traditional supercell calculation are more tenuous for this sort of defect calculation, because the exponential localization means that a relatively small supercell can be employed. On the other hand, this is an illustration of the versatility of the superspace approach and is a powerful tool for studying quasiperiodic structures with or without defects.
Continuously varying the cut angle {#sec:tilt}
----------------------------------
![Projected band structure vs. cut angle $\phi$, showing different one-dimensional quasicrystal realizations.[]{data-label="fig:phi"}](FIG-band-phi "fig:"){width="48.00000%"} ![Projected band structure vs. cut angle $\phi$, showing different one-dimensional quasicrystal realizations.[]{data-label="fig:phi"}](FIG-tilted-epsilons "fig:"){width="48.00000%"}
The cut-and-project construction of quasicrystals provides a natural way to parameterize a family of periodic and quasiperiodic structures, via the cut angle $\phi$. It is interesting to observe how the spectrum and gaps then vary with $\phi$.
As $\phi$ is varied continuously from $0^\circ$ to $45^\circ$, the structures vary from period $a$ to quasi-periodic lattices (for $\tan\phi$ irrational) to long-period structures ($\tan\phi$ rational with a large denominator) to a period $a\sqrt{2}$ crystal. As we change $\phi$, we rotate the objects in the unit cell, so that they are always extruded along the $y$ direction with a length equal to the projection of the unit cell onto $y$ \[$a(\sin\phi + \cos\phi)$\], corresponding the usual cut-and-project construction [@Janot92]. In this case, the spectrum varies continuously with $\phi$, where the rational $\tan \phi$ correspond to “rational approximants” of the nearby irrational $\tan \phi$ [@Stadnik99; @Wang03:jopt]. For a general unit cell with a rational $\tan \phi$, the physical spectrum might depend on the slice offset ${\mathbf{y}}$ and hence different from the total superspace spectrum, but this is not the case for dielectric structures like the one here, which satisfy a “closeness” condition [@Stadnik99] (the edges of the dielectric rods overlap when projected onto the $Y$ direction). This makes the structure ${\mathbf{y}}$-independent even for rational slices [@Stadnik99] The resulting structures are shown in the bottom panel of [Fig. \[fig:phi\]]{} for three values of $\phi$.
The corresponding photonic band gaps are shown in the top panel of [Fig. \[fig:phi\]]{}, as a continuous function of $\phi$. Only the largest gaps are shown, of course, since we are unable to resolve the fractal structure to arbitrary resolution. As might be expected, there are isolated large gaps at $\phi = 0^\circ$ and $\phi = 45^\circ$ corresponding to the simple $ABAB\cdots$ periodic structures at those angles (with period $a$ and $a/\sqrt{2}$, respectively, the latter resulting from two layers per unit cell). The $\phi = 45^\circ$ gap is at a higher frequency because of its shorter period, but interestingly it is not continuously connected to the $\phi = 0^\circ$ gap. The reason for this seems to be that the two gaps are dominated by different superspace reciprocal lattice vectors: $(1,0)\cdot2\pi/a$ for $\phi=0^\circ$, and $(1,1)\cdot2\pi/a$ for $\phi=45^\circ$. For intermediate angles, a number of smaller gaps open and then close. If we were able to show the spectrum with higher resolution, we would expect to see increasing numbers of these smaller gaps opening, leading to the well-known fractal structure that arises e.g. for the Fibonacci crystal.
This variation of gaps as a function of $\phi$ provides interesting possibilities for band-gap engineering. First, we see that we can get large gaps that are close to one another in the spectrum, whereas in a typical one-dimensional quarter-wave stack the gaps are at integer multiples of a given frequency [@Yeh88]. Even more complex combinations of gaps may arise for higher dimensional superspaces, since by including additional incommensurate reciprocal lattice vectors one may generate additional nearby gaps. Yet another interesting possibility would involve optimizing the layer thicknesses as a function of $\phi$ so as to maximize the largest band gap at every $\phi$ (or some other objective). The dielectric layers chosen in [Fig. \[fig:phi\]]{} were of fixed thickness $0.37a$ (and variable height equal to the projection of the unit cell along the $y$ direction as described above).
Concluding Remarks
==================
We have presented a numerical approach to computing the spectra of photonic quasicrystals by directly solving Maxwell’s equations extended to a periodic unit cell in higher dimensions, allowing us to exploit Bloch’s theorem and other attractive properties of computations for periodic structures. In doing so, we extended the conceptual approach of cut-and-project techniques, which were developed as a way to *construct* quasicrystals, into a way to *simulate* quasicrystals. Compared to traditional supercell techniques, this allows us to capture the entire infinite aperiodic quasicrystal in a single finite computational cell, albeit at only a finite resolution. In this way, the single convergence parameter of spatial resolution replaces the combination of resolution and supercell size in traditional calculations, in some sense uniformly sampling the infinite quasicrystal. The resulting computations, applied to the test case of a Fibonacci quasicrystal, display the unique features of quasicrystals in an unusual fashion, in terms of higher-dimensional band structures and visualization techniques. This technique also allows defects and variation of cut angle (continuously varying between periodic and aperiodic structures) in a straightforward way.
In future work, we plan to apply this approach to modeling higher-dimensional quasicrystal structures, where computing the spectrum is currently more challenging using existing supercell techniques. To make a higher-dimensional superspace calculation practical, one must use iterative eigensolver methods [@Johnson2001:mpb; @bai00] rather than the simple dense-matrix techniques employed for our test case. Iterative techniques are most efficient for computing a few eigenvalues at a time, and so it will be useful to employ iterative methods designed to compute “interior” eigenvalues [@Johnson2001:mpb; @bai00], allowing one to search directly for large gaps without computing the lower-lying modes. Alternatively, numerical techniques have been developed, based on filter-diagonalization methods, to directly extract the spectrum of many eigenvalues without computing the corresponding eigenvectors [@Mandelshtam02].
Appendix {#sec:app .unnumbered}
========
In this appendix, we give an explicit derivation of the fact that an “irrational” slice densely fills the superspace unit cell, or rather a definition of the necessary conditions to be an “irrational” slice. These concepts are widely used in the quasicrystal literature, but a precise definition seems hard to find (one commonly requires that all of the Miller indices have incommensurate ratios, but this condition is stronger than necessary).
Without loss of generality, we can consider the unit cell in the superspace $Z=\mathbb{R}^n$ to be the unit cube (related to any lattice by an affine transformation) with lattice vectors along the coordinate directions. The physical slice $X$ is $d$-dimensional, and it will be convenient to write the coordinates of a vector ${\mathbf{z}}$ as ${\mathbf{z}} = (s_1,\ldots,s_d,t_1,\ldots,t_{n-d}) =
({\mathbf{s}},{\mathbf{t}})$. By taking every coordinate modulo $1$, we can map $X$ to a set $\bar{X}$ consisting of $X$’s intersection with each unit cell. We wish to show necessary and sufficient conditions for $\bar{X}$ to densely fill the unit cell.
{width="47.00000%"}
Assuming that the slice is not orthogonal to any of the coordinate axes (as otherwise it would clearly not densely fill the unit cell), we can parameterize the points ${\mathbf{z}}$ of $X$ so that the last $n-d$ coordinates $(t_1, \ldots ,t_{n-d})$ are written as a linear function ${\mathbf{t}}(s_1,\ldots s_d) \equiv {\mathbf{t}}({\mathbf{s}})$ of the first $d$ coordinates.
Consider the set $T$ in $\mathbb{R}^{n-d}$ formed by the ${\mathbf{t}}({\mathbf{s}})$ coordinates of $X$ when the components of ${\mathbf{s}}$ take on integer values. This is a subset of $X$, and the corresponding set $\bar{T}$ formed by taking ${\mathbf{t}} \in T$ modulo 1 is a subset of $\bar{X}$. The key fact is that $\bar{X}$ is dense in the $n$-dimensional unit cell if and only if $\bar{T}$ is dense in the $(n-d)$-dimensional unit cell, and this is the case that we will analyze. This equivalence follows from the fact that $\bar{X}$ is simply $\bar{T}$ translated continuously along the slice directions (every point in $\bar{X}$ is related to a point in $\bar{T}$ by a simple projection). The set $T$ is a lattice in $\mathbb{R}^{n-d}$ consisting of all integer linear combinations of the basis vectors ${\mathbf{t}}_k = {\mathbf{t}}(s_j = \delta_{jk})$, since ${\mathbf{t}}({\mathbf{s}})$ is a linear function.
For each basis vector ${\mathbf{t}}_k$, it is a well-known fact [@Ott02] that if it consists of $m$ incommensurate irrational components, the set of integer multiples $\ell {\mathbf{t}}_k$ modulo 1 will densely fill an $m$-dimensional slice of the unit cell. More precisely, write ${\mathbf{t}}_k = \sum_{j=1\ldots m_k} \alpha_k^j
{\mathbf{b}}_k^j + {\mathbf{q}}_k$, where the ${\mathbf{b}}_k^j$ and ${\mathbf{q}}_k$ have purely rational components and the $\{ \alpha_j \}$ are incommensurate irrational numbers, and $m_k$ is therefore the number of incommensurate irrational components of ${\mathbf{t}}_k$. Then the set of integer multiples of ${\mathbf{t}}_k$ modulo 1 densely fills an $m_k$-dimensional slice of the unit cell of $\mathbb{R}^{n-d}$. The basis vectors of this slice are precisely the vectors ${\mathbf{b}}_k^j$, which are rational and therefore commensurate with the basis vectors of $\mathbb{R}^{n-d}$, while the vector ${\mathbf{q}}_k$ is simply a rational shift. This slice therefore cuts the unit cell of $\mathbb{R}^{n-d}$ a finite number of times.
The set $\bar{T}$ is then obtained as the direct sum of these dense slices for all $n-d$ vectors ${\mathbf{t}}_k$. This is then dense if and only if the set of vectors $\{ {\mathbf{b}}_k^j \}^{j=1\ldots
m_k}_{k=1\ldots d}$ spans $\mathbb{R}^{n-d}$. In other words, an “irrational slice,” which densely fills the unit cell, is one in which there are $n-d$ independent incommensurate slice components as defined above.
[10]{}
Y. S. Chan and Z. Y. Liu, “Photonic band gaps in two dimensional photonic quasicrystals,” [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{}, vol. 80, no. 5, pp. 956–959, 1998.
S. S. M. Cheng, L.-M. Li, C. T. Chan, and Z. Q. Zhang, “Defect and tranasmission properties of two-dimensional quasiperiodic photonic band-gap systems,” [*Phys. Rev. B*]{}, vol. 59, no. 6, pp. 4091–4099, 1999.
M. E. Zoorob, M. D. B. Charlton, G. J. Parker, J. J. Baumberg, and M. C. Netti, “Complete and absolute photonic bandgaps in highly symmetric photonic quasicrystals embedded in low regractive index materials,” [*Mat. Science and Eng.*]{}, vol. 74, pp. 168–174, 2000.
M. E. Zoorob, M. D. Charlton, G. J. Parker, J. J. Baumberg, and M. C. Netti, “Complete photonic bandgaps in $12$-fold symmetric quasicrystals,” [ *Nature*]{}, vol. 404, pp. 740–743, 2000.
L. Dal Negro, C. J. Oton, Z. Gaburro, L. Pavesi, P. Johnson, A. Lagendijk, R. Righini, M. Colocci, and D. Wiersma, “Light transport through the band-edge states of [Fibonacci]{} quasicrystals,” [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{}, vol. 90, no. 5, p. 055501, 2003.
Y. Wang, C. Bingying, and D. Zhang, “The density of states in quasiperiodic photonic crystals,” [*J. Phys.: Cond. Mat.*]{}, vol. 15, pp. 7675–7680, 2003.
P. Xie, Z.-Q. Zhang, and X. Zhang, “Gap solitons and soliton trains in finite-sized two-dimensional periodic and quasiperiodic photonic crystals,” [*Phys. Rev. E*]{}, vol. 67, p. 026607, 2003.
M. Notomi, H. Suzuki, T. Tamamura, and K. Edagawa, “Lasing action due to the two-dimensional quasiperiodicity of photonic qyasicrystals with [Penrose]{} lattice,” [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{}, vol. 92, no. 12, p. 123906, 2004.
D. V. A., S. Enoch, G. Tayeb, V. Pierro, V. Galdi, and F. Capolino, “Bang gap formation and multiple scattering in photonic quasicrystals with [Penrose]{}-type lattice,” [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{}, vol. 94, pp. 183903–183907, 2005.
Z. Feng, X. Zhang, Y. Wang, Z.-Y. Li, B. Cheng, and D.-Z. Zhang, “Negative refraction and imaging using $12$-fold-symmetry quasicrystals,” [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{}, vol. 94, no. 24, p. 247402, 2005.
S.-K. Kim, J.-H. Lee, S.-H. Kim, I.-K. Hwang, and Y.-H. Lee, “Photonic quasicrystal single-cell cavity mode,” [*Appl. Phys. Lett.*]{}, vol. 86, p. 031101, 2005.
R. Lifshitz, A. Arie, and A. Bahabad, “Photonic quasicrystals for nonlinear optical frequency conversion,” [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{}, vol. 95, p. 133901, 2005.
J. Romero-Vivas, D. N. Chigrin, A. V. Lavrinenko, and C. M. Sotomayor Torres, “Photonic quasicrystals for application in [WDM]{} systems,” [*Phys. Stat. Sol.*]{}, vol. 202, no. 6, pp. 997–1001, 2005.
D. S. Wiersma, R. Sapienza, S. Mujumdar, M. Colocci, M. Ghulinyan, and L. Pavesi, “Optics of nanostructured dielectrics,” [*J. Opt. A: Pure and Appl. Opt.*]{}, vol. 7, pp. S190–S197, 2005.
A. Della Villa, S. Enoch, G. Tayeb, V. Pierro, and V. Galdi, “Localized modes in photonic quasicrystals with [Penrose]{}-type lattice,” [*Opt. Express*]{}, vol. 14, no. 21, pp. 10021–10027, 2006.
B. Freedman, G. Bartal, M. Segev, R. Lifshitz, D. N. Christodoulides, and J. W. Fleischer, “Wave and defect dynamics in nonlinear photonic quasicrystals,” [*Nature*]{}, vol. 440, pp. 1166–1169, April 2006.
R. C. Gauthier and K. Mnaymneh, “[FDTD]{} analysis of $12$-fold photonic quasicrystal central pattern localized states,” [*Opt. Comm.*]{}, vol. 264, pp. 78–88, 2006.
G. J. Parker, M. D. B. Charlton, M. E. Zoorob, J. J. Baumberg, M. C. Netti, and T. Lee, “Highly engineered mesoporous structures for optical processing,” [*Phil. Trans. Soc. A*]{}, vol. 364, pp. 189–199, 2006.
Z. S. Zhang, B. Zhang, J. Xu, Z. J. Yang, Z. X. Qin, T. J. Yu, and D. P. Yu, “Effects of symmetry of [GaN]{}-based two-dimensional photonic crystal with quasicrystal lattices on enhancement of surface light extraction,” [ *Appl. Phys. Lett.*]{}, vol. 88, p. 171103, 2006.
J. Y. Zhang, H. L. Tam, W. H. Wong, Y. B. Pun, J. B. Xia, and K. W. Cheah, “Isotropic photonic bandgap in [Penrose]{} textured metallic microcavity,” [*Sol. State Comm.*]{}, vol. 138, pp. 247–249, 2006.
K. Mnaymneh and R. C. Gauthier, “Mode localization and band-gap formation in defect-free photonic quasicrystals,” [*Opt. Express*]{}, vol. 15, no. 8, pp. 5089–5099, 2007.
M. A. Kaliteevski, S. Brand, R. A. Abram, T. F. Krauss, P. Millar, and R. De La Rue, “Diffraction and transmission of light in low-refractive index [Penrose]{}-tiled photonic quasicrystals,” [*J. Phys: Cond. Mat.*]{}, vol. 13, pp. 10459–10470, 2001.
X. Zhang, Z.-Q. Zhang, and C. T. Chan, “Absolute photonic band gaps in $12$-fold symmetric photonic qusicrystals,” [*Phys. Rev. B*]{}, vol. 63, pp. 081105–081108, 2001.
M. Hase, H. Miyazaki, M. Egashira, N. Shinya, K. Kojima, and S.-i. Uchida, “Photonic band gap and anisotropic structures in transmission spectra of two-dimensional fivefold and eightfold symmetric quasiperiodic photonic crystals,” [*Phys. Rev. B*]{}, vol. 66, pp. 214205–214212, 2002.
M. Maldovan and E. L. Thomas, “Diamond-structured photonic crystals,” [ *Nature Materials*]{}, vol. 3, pp. 593–600, 2004.
C. Janot, [*Quasicrystals*]{}. Clarendon Press, 1992.
W. Steurer and T. Haibach, eds., [*Physical Properties of Quasicrystals*]{}, ch. 2. Springer, 1999.
J. B. Suck, M. Schreiber, and P. H"ussler, eds., [*Quasicrystals*]{}, ch. 2. Springer, 2004.
K. Wang, S. David, A. Chelnokov, and J. M. Lourtioz, “Photonic band gaps in quasicrystal-related approximant structures,” [*J. Mod. Opt.*]{}, vol. 50, no. 13, pp. 2095–2105, 2003.
W. Man, M. Megens, P. J. Steinhardt, and P. M. Chaikin, “Experimental measurement of the photonic crystal properties of icosahedral quasicrystals,” [*Nature*]{}, vol. 436, pp. 993–996, August 2005.
A. Ledermann, L. Cademartiri, M. Hermatschweiler, C. Tonninelli, G. A. Ozin, D. S. Weirsma, M. Wegener, and G. V. Freymann, “Three-dimensional silicon inverse photonic quasicrystals for infrared wavelengths,” [*Nature Mat.*]{}, vol. 5, December 2006.
C. de Lange and T. Janssen, “Electrons in incommensurate crystals: Spectrum and localization,” [*Phys. Rev. B*]{}, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 195–209, 1983.
J. P. Lu and J. L. Birman, “Electronic structure of a quasiperiodic system,” [*Phys. Rev. B*]{}, vol. 36, no. 8, pp. 4471–4474, 1987.
C. Godreche, “Indexing the diffraction spectrum of a non-pisot self-similar structure,” [*Phys. Rev. B*]{}, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 176–185, 1992.
X. Q. Huang, S. S. Juang, R. W. Peng, and A. Hu, “Perfect transmission and self-similar optical transmission spectra in symmetric [Fibonacci]{}-class multilayers,” [*Phys. Rev. B*]{}, vol. 63, pp. 245104–245112, 2001.
R. C. Gauthier and K. Mnaymueh, “Photonic band gaps properties of $12$-fold quasicrystal determined through fdtd analysis,” [*Opt. Express*]{}, vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 1985–1998, 2005.
M. A. Kaliteevski, S. Brand, R. A. Abram, T. F. Krauss, R. M. De La Rue, and P. Millar, “Two-dimensional penrose-tiled photonic quasicrystals: Diffraction of light and fractal density of modes,” [*J. Mod. Opt.*]{}, vol. 47, pp. 1771–1778, 2000.
A. Della Villa, V. Galdi, F. Capolino, V. Pierro, S. Enoch, and G. Tayeb, “A comparative study of representative categories of [EGB]{} dielectric quasi-crystals,” [*IEEE Ant. Wireless Prop. Lett.*]{}, vol. 5, pp. 331–333, 2006.
W. Steurer and D. Sutter-Widmer, “Photonic and phononic quasicrystals,” [ *J. Phys. D*]{}, vol. 40, pp. R229–R247, 2007.
E. S. Zijlstra and T. Janssen, “Non-spiky density of states of an icosahedral quasicrystal,” [*Europhys. Lett.*]{}, vol. 52, no. 5, pp. 578–583, 2000.
L. Dal Negro, M. Stolfi, Y. Yi, J. Michel, X. Duan, L. C. Kimerling, J. LeBlanc, and J. Haavisto, “Photon band gap properties and omnidirectional reflectance in si/si$\textrm{O}_2$ thue-morse quasicrystals,” [*Appl. Phys. Lett.*]{}, vol. 84, no. 25, pp. 5186–5188, 2004.
J. D. Joannopoulos, R. D. Meade, and J. N. Winn, [*Photonic Crystals: Molding the Flow of Light*]{}. Princeton Univ. Press, 1995.
S. G. Johnson and J. D. Joannopoulos, “Block-iterative frequency-domain methods for [M]{}axwell’s equations in a planewave basis,” [*Opt. Express*]{}, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 173–190, 2001.
G. H. Golub and C. F. Van Loan, [*Matrix Computations*]{}. Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 3rd ed., 1996.
G. Bao, L. Cowsar, and W. Masters, eds., [*Mathematical Modeling in Optical Science*]{}, vol. 22 of [*Frontiers in Applied Mathematics*]{}, ch. 7. SIAM, 2001.
I. Gohberg, S. Goldberg, and M. A. Kaashoek, [*Basic Classes of Linear Operators*]{}. Basel: Birkh[ä]{}user, 2000.
J. Li, D. Zhao, and Z. Liu, “Zero-$\bar{n}$ photonic band gap in a quasiperiodic stacking of positive and negative refractive index materials,” [*Phys. Lett. A*]{}, vol. 332, pp. 461–468, 2004.
A. Farjadpour, D. Roundy, A. Rodriguez, M. Ibanescu, P. Bermel, J. Burr, J. D. Joannopoulos, and S. G. Johnson, “Improving accuracy by subpixel smoothing in the finite-difference time domain,” [*Opt. Lett.*]{}, vol. 31, pp. 2972–2974, 2006.
M. Kohmoto, L. P. Kadanoff, and C. Tang, “Localization problem in one dimension: Mapping and escape,” [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{}, vol. 50, no. 23, pp. 1870–1872, 1983.
S. Ostlund, R. Pandit, D. Rand, H. Scheller, and E. Siggia, “One-dimensional [S]{}chrödinger equation with an almost periodic potential,” [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{}, vol. 50, no. 23, pp. 1873–1876, 1983.
M. Bayinding, E. Cubukcu, I. Bulu, and E. Ozbay, “Photonic band gaps and localization in two-dimensional metallic quasicrystals,” [*Europhys. Lett.*]{}, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 41–46, 2001.
P. Yeh, [*Optical Waves in Layered Media*]{}. New York: Wiley, 1988.
Z. Bai, J. Demmel, J. Dongarra, A. Ruhe, and H. Van Der Vorst, [*Templates for the Solution of Algebraic Eigenvalue Problems: A Practical Guide*]{}. Philadelphia: SIAM, 2000.
V. A. Mandelshtam and A. Neumaier, “Further generalization and numerical implementation of pseudo-time [S]{}chr[ö]{}dinger equations for quantum scattering calculations,” [*J. Theoretical Comput. Chem.*]{}, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–15, 2002.
E. Ott, [*Chaos in Dynamical Systems*]{}. Cambridge University Press, 2nd ed., 2002.
[^1]: A.M and A.R. contributed equally to this work
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We establish that, in an appropriate limit, qubits of communication should be regarded as composite resources, decomposing cleanly into independent correlation and transmission components. Because qubits of communication can establish ebits of entanglement, qubits are more powerful resources than ebits. We identify a new communications resource, the *zero-bit*, which is precisely half the gap between them; replacing classical bits by zero-bits makes teleportation asymptotically reversible. This decomposition of a qubit into an ebit and two zero-bits has wide-ranging consequences including applications to state merging, the quantum channel capacity, entanglement distillation, quantum identification and remote state preparation. The source of these results is the theory of approximate quantum error correction. The action of a quantum channel is reversible if and only if no information is leaked to the environment, a characterization that is useful even in approximate form. However, different notions of approximation lead to qualitatively different forms of quantum error correction in the limit of large dimension. We study the effect of a constraint on the dimension of the reference system when considering information leakage. While the resulting condition fails to ensure that the entire input can be corrected, it does ensure that all subspaces of dimension matching that of the reference are correctable. The size of the reference can be characterized by a parameter $\alpha$; we call the associated resource an $\alpha$-bit. Changing $\alpha$ interpolates between standard quantum error correction and quantum identification, a form of equality testing for quantum states. We develop the theory of $\alpha$-bits, including the applications above, and determine the $\alpha$-bit capacity of general quantum channels, finding single-letter formulas for the entanglement-assisted and amortised variants.'
author:
- Patrick Hayden
- Geoffrey Penington
bibliography:
- 'biblio.bib'
title: 'Approximate Quantum Error Correction Revisited:\'
---
\[thrm\][Lemma]{}
Introduction
============
In the theory of quantum information, the most fundamental communications resources are classical bits, qubits and shared entanglement. Those resources are related to each other through interconversion protocols. Teleportation converts an ebit of entanglement[^1] plus two classical bits (cbits) of communication into a qubit of communication [@PhysRevLett.70.1895]. Similarly, superdense coding converts a qubit of communication plus an ebit into two classical bits of communication [@PhysRevLett.69.2881]. Those relationships can be thought of as inequalities between resources: $$\begin{aligned}
1 \text{ ebit} + 2 \text{ cbits} &\geq 1 \text{ qubit} \quad \text{(Teleportation)} \label{eqn:teleportation}\\
1 \text{ qubit} + 1 \text{ ebit} &\geq 2 \text{ cbits} \quad \text{(Superdense coding)}.\end{aligned}$$ Harrow realised, however, that these inequalities are not tight. He introduced a new communications resource, the coherent bit or cobit, that was intermediate between classical and quantum communication [@harrow2004coherent]. It could substitute for the cbits in both inequalities, leading to $$\begin{aligned}
1 \text{ ebit} + 2 \text{ cobits} &\geq 1 \text{ qubit} + 2 \text{ ebits} \\
1 \text{ qubit} + 1 \text{ ebit} &\geq 2 \text{ cobits}.\end{aligned}$$ By cancelling resources on both sides of these inequalities, which corresponds to the catalytic use of resources, Harrow arrived at the identity $$\begin{aligned}
2 \text{ cobits} = 1 \text{ ebit} + 1 \text{ qubit}. \label{eqn:harrow}\end{aligned}$$ That is, the cobit is the arithmetic mean of an ebit and a qubit. This simple insight proved to be a powerful tool for deriving new quantum information protocols from old. (For a version of the argument without catalysis, see [@wilde:060303; @wildebook].)
In this article, we will continue in this tradition by introducing new communications resources, $\alpha$-bits, that upgrade other fundamental resource inequalities into identities. As will be described in more detail below, these $\alpha$-bits correspond to the ability to perform quantum error correction on arbitrary bounded-dimension subspaces, with the real number $0 \leq \alpha \leq 1$ characterizing the size of the subspace. The case $\alpha = 1$ is standard quantum error correction, while $\alpha = 0$ is closely related to quantum identification, a form of equality testing for quantum states.
It is a trivial consequence of their definitions that qubits are stronger than cobits are stronger than ebits: $$\begin{aligned}
1 \text{ qubit} \geq 1 \text{ cobit} \geq 1 \text{ ebit}.\end{aligned}$$ We show that the gap in each inequality is precisely a zero-bit. That is, $$\begin{aligned}
1 \text{ ebit} + 1 \text{ zero-bit} = 1 \text{ cobit} \quad \text{and} \quad
1 \text{ cobit} + 1 \text{ zero-bit} = 1 \text{ qubit}, \label{eqn:the-gaps}\end{aligned}$$ as illustrated in Figure \[fig:all-the-bits\].
Harrow’s identity is then an immediate consequence. More interestingly, these identities establish that both cobits and qubits are *composite* resources, decomposable in terms of weaker constituents asymptotically.
Combining the two identities of (\[eqn:the-gaps\]) yields a new form of teleportation with zero-bits substituting for classical bits: $$\begin{aligned}
1 \text{ ebit} + 2 \text{ zero-bits} &= 1 \text{ qubit}, \label{eqn:zero-bit-telep}\end{aligned}$$ with the inequality of (\[eqn:teleportation\]) now an identity. This identity decomposes qubit communication into a pure correlation part, the ebit, and a pure communication part, the zero-bits. Unlike when one substitutes cobits for cbits in teleportation, zero-bit-powered teleportation achieves qubit transmission and nothing else. In this sense, zero-bits are the minimal and thus most natural communications resource for teleportation. Moreover, by using resources catalytically to cancel (\[eqn:zero-bit-telep\]) against (\[eqn:teleportation\]), we find that zero-bits are weaker than cbits despite being quantum resources.
These conclusions are corollaries to the general theory of $\alpha$-bits, which in turn arise as natural tools for studying approximate quantum error correction [@schumachererror]. Relaxing the conditions of quantum error correction from exact [@knill1997theory; @bennett1996mixed] to approximate has long been known to yield surprising improvements [@leung1997approximate]. One of the most striking examples is that, while exact quantum error correcting codes can arbitrary errors on at most $1/4$ of the system at a time, approximate codes can correct errors on up to $1/2$ of the system even for vanishingly small errors (with sufficiently large systems) [@crepeau2005approximate]. The capacity of a channel to send qubits, its quantum capacity [@schumacher1996quantum], itself relies crucially on being allowed to make very small errors. If one requires absolute perfection then the resulting capacity is typically smaller, usually zero [@duan2013zero]. Of course, once one allows for the possibility of small errors, it becomes necessary to quantify those errors. Different reasonable definitions have, until now, all proven to be closely related to each other. Indeed, a wide variety of slightly different notions of quantum capacity are all known to be equal to each other [@kretschmann2004tema]. The focus of this article, however, will be on a form of approximate quantum error correction which is asymptotically distinct from the usual one.
Because the definitions involved are quite technical, we will begin by illustrating the basic phenomenon we are trying to capture with a relatively simple example: a channel induced by a Haar-random unitary transformation. Suppose we apply such a unitary $U$ to some large number $n$ of qubits then throw away a fraction that is slightly less than half. Call the input Hilbert space $A$, the qubits that are kept $B$ and the qubits that are discarded $E$. Now consider the fate of a typical pair of orthogonal pure states on $A$ in the limit of large $n$. Both will get mapped to states almost maximally entangled between $B$ and $E$. Moreover, because $E$ is much smaller than $B$, the reduced states on $E$ will be nearly maximally mixed and therefore effectively indistinguishable. For the same reason, the states on $B$ will have small rank relative to the dimension of $B$, which leads to their being nearly orthogonal.
In fact, due to strong measure concentration effects in high dimension, those properties will hold not just for one pair of orthogonal states on $A$, or two pairs, or even a countable number of pairs. It will hold for *all* pairs of orthogonal states in a subspace $S$ of $A$ that is almost as large as $A$ in qubit terms: $n - o(n)$ qubits. More generally, the map from $S$ to $A$ approximately preserves the pairwise distinguishability of states as measured by the trace distance despite shrinking the number of qubits by a factor of two [@winter:q-ID-1; @hayden2012weak]. Because the dimension of the state space of $B$ is roughly the square root of that of $S$, that would seem to be a paradox. The resolution is that the map encodes some of the geometry of the unit sphere into the eigenvalues of the state on $B$; pure state geometry is partially encoded into noise. At this point, we could simply define “sending the zero-bits of $S$” to mean approximately preserving the geometry of the unit sphere. The actual definition is slightly more complicated but also more useful and more generalisable.
Returning to the example, while the full subspace $S$ has been transmitted in some sense, it is clearly not possible to perform approximate quantum error correction and completely reverse the effect of the channel; doing so would lead to the quantum capacity of a qubit being greater than one, which by recursion would mean it was infinite. Geometry preservation does have an operational consequence, however. If we restrict the states to *any* two-dimensional subspace of $S$, then there is a decoding operation that will perform quantum error correction. The only catch is that the decoding operation will depend on the two-dimensional subspace in general. Note, however, that the encoding $S \hookrightarrow A$ and the channel do not. If we think of Alice sending Bob a state, then Bob must know which two-dimensional subspace the state is in while Alice does not.
What if Bob wishes to be able to decode larger subspaces of $S$? What fraction of the qubits do they then need to keep? To decode the entire space $S$ requires that essentially all the qubits be kept. It turns out that if they keep a fraction greater than $\frac{1+\alpha}{2}$ of the qubits then he can decode any subspace of up to $\alpha n$ qubits.[^2] We call this task universal approximate subspace error correction and say that $B$ contains the $\alpha$-bits of $S$. As before, the number of $\alpha$-bits is determined by the dimension of $S$ rather than the dimension of the subspaces Bob wishes to decode because the whole space $S$ is available to him; he just needs to make a choice about which subspace he is interested in. A zero-bit is then simply the special case of an $\alpha$-bit with $\alpha = 0$.
Quantum geometry preservation was studied in [@hayden2012weak], together with the very closely related task of quantum identification [@winter:q-ID-1; @winter:q-ID-2]. General universal subspace error correction is then the natural interpolation between the geometry preservation limit, where the subspaces are two-dimensional, and ordinary approximate quantum error correction, where the subspace is the complete space.
We are now ready to turn to the general formalism of $\alpha$-bits and universal approximate subspace error correction. Let $S(\mathcal{H})$ denote the set of density operators acting on Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$. Approximate quantum error correction in the usual sense is defined for a quantum channel $\mathcal{N}: S(A) \to S(B)$, defined to be a completely positive, trace-preserving map [@bennett1998quantum], by the existence of a decoding channel $\mathcal{D}: S(B) \to S(A) $ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:error}
\forall \rho \in S(RA), \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\, \lVert \left({\operatorname{Id}}\otimes \mathcal{D} \circ \mathcal{N} \right) \rho^{RA} - \rho^{RA} \rVert_1 < \varepsilon.\end{aligned}$$ The Hilbert space $R$ here is a reference system with which the space may be entangled. The capacity of a channel to send quantum information defined in this sense has long been understood to be the regularized maximum coherent information between the output of the channel and the reference system with which the input was entangled [@lloyd1997capacity; @shor2002quantum; @devetak2005private].
Universal approximate subspace error correction is an easier task, since the receiver is only required to be able to decode states in any subspace of their choice, up to some fixed maximum dimension $k$. In the limit of an asymptotically large Hilbert space, this task is inequivalent to standard approximate quantum error correction. This leads to surprising consequences. As we have already seen, a noiseless qubit channel can carry more than one qubit’s worth of information if we only need to be able to decode small subspaces. Meanwhile, a noiseless classical bit channel, which one would expect should be useless for quantum error correction, can have an (amortised) capacity which is strictly positive.
For any quantum channel, the Stinespring dilation theorem [@stinespring] states that there exists an ancilla space $E$ and isometry $V: A \hookrightarrow B \otimes E$ such that for all density matrices $\rho$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{N} (\rho) = {\operatorname{Tr}}_E V \rho V^\dagger.\end{aligned}$$ Since $E$ is uniquely defined up to isomorphisms, it follows that the so-called complementary channel $\mathcal{N}^c$, defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{N}^c (\rho) = {\operatorname{Tr}}_B V \rho V^\dagger,\end{aligned}$$ is also unique up to isomorphisms. A key insight in understanding quantum error correction [@schumachererror; @nielsen1998information; @devetak2005private; @kretschmann2008information] is that approximate error correction is possible if and only if the complementary channel is approximately completely forgetful. To make this notion more precise, we first define the $k$-diamond norm.
For a linear superoperator $\Gamma$, the $k$-diamond norm is defined by $$\lVert \Gamma \rVert_\diamond^{(k)} = \max_{\lVert X \rVert \leq 1} \lVert ({\operatorname{Id}}_k \otimes \Gamma) X \rVert_1$$ where the maximisation is over operators on $\mathbf{C}^k \otimes A$. The diamond norm, also known as the completely bounded trace norm, is then defined as $$\lVert \Gamma \rVert_\diamond = \sup_k \lVert \Gamma \rVert_\diamond^{(k)}$$
Because of the convexity of the trace norm, this supremum is always achieved on a rank-one operator (a pure quantum state in the case of a Hermiticity-preserving superoperator). Since any state in $S(A)$ can be purified by a reference system of dimension at most the dimension $d_A$ of $A$, the diamond norm is identical to the $d_A$-diamond norm.
\[$k$-forgetfulness\] We say that a channel $\mathcal{C}: S (A) \to S(B) $ is approximately $k$-forgetful if $$\lVert \mathcal{C} - \mathcal{R} \rVert_\diamond^{(k)} \leq \delta$$ where $\mathcal{R}$ is the channel taking all states to $\mathcal{C}\left(\omega\right)$ for $\omega$ the maximally mixed state in $S(A)$.
The case of $k=1$ is referred to simply as approximate forgetfulness, while the case of $k = d_A$, where the norm is the actual diamond norm is known as complete forgetfulness. For convenience, we will also refer to $\lfloor d_A^\alpha \rfloor$-forgetfulness, where $d_A$ is the dimension of the Hilbert space, simply as $\alpha$-forgetfulness.
As stated above, approximate quantum error correction in the sense of (\[eq:error\]) is equivalent to complete forgetfulness with a universal relation (independent of system size) between $\varepsilon$ and $\delta$. (See, *e.g.*, [@hayden2008decoupling].) Moreover, in exactly the same way, approximate forgetfulness was found to be equivalent to geometry preservation [@hayden2012weak], a result known as the weak decoupling duality. To begin to see why these notions of error correction are not equivalent, note that the tightest achievable bound on the diamond norm in terms of the 1-diamond norm is [@paulsen2002completely] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:diamond}
\lVert \Gamma \rVert_\diamond = \lVert \Gamma \rVert_\diamond^{(d_A)} \leq d_A\, \lVert \Gamma \rVert_\diamond^{(1)}.\end{aligned}$$ As a result, approximate geometry preservation to any fixed level of precision is not sufficient to usefully bound the error in decoding the entire space as $d_A \rightarrow \infty$. In sharp contrast, it should also be evident that exact geometry preservation (and hence universal subspace error correction) does imply exact quantum error correction. The two decoupling results turn out to have exactly the interpolation one would expect; we shall prove in Section \[sec:decoup\] that universal subspace error correction is equivalent to $k$-forgetfulness, where $k$ is the maximum dimension of the subspaces we wish to be able to decode.
In Section \[sec:cap\] we exploit this equivalence to develop a central result of the paper: a formula for the capacity of a quantum channel to send sufficient information for universal subspace error correction. As we saw above for a noiseless channel, this turns out to be a function of a parameter $\alpha$, where, if $d$ is the dimension of the Hilbert space and $k$ is the dimension of the subspace we want to measure, $$\begin{aligned}
k = d^\alpha.\end{aligned}$$ We refer to the resulting capacity as the $\alpha$-bit capacity of the channel. The theorem validates the definition of universal subspace quantum error correction by demonstrating that designing codes specifically tailored to a given size of subspace increases the transmission rate.
The general form of the $\alpha$-bit capacity is somewhat complicated, but with either of two possible relaxations it simplifies to the single letter formula $$\frac{1}{1+\alpha}\sup_{\Ket{\phi}} I(\mathcal{N},\phi)$$ where $I$ is the channel mutual information. The first relaxation is to give the two parties shared entanglement as a free resource - the entanglement-assisted capacity. The second possibility is to consider the amortised capacity of the channel, which is the incremental $\alpha$-bit capacity supplied by the channel in the presence of an arbitrarily large noiseless quantum side channel. Although the first of these will probably be more familiar to readers well acquainted with standard results about quantum capacities, in both cases the effect is simply to provide an additional source of coherence between the two parties. The amortised capacity is less studied because, as $\alpha \to 1$, the size of the side channel required becomes infinite, and so finite noiseless side channels are of no use in standard error correction. The entanglement-assisted capacity, on the other hand, has the expected limit as $\alpha \to 1$, namely the entanglement-assisted quantum capacity. If we take $\alpha = 0$, however, it becomes equal to the entanglement-assisted *classical* capacity. This second equality was noted in [@hayden2012weak] but was regarded there as a puzzling coincidence. In Section \[sec:cobits\] we explore how $\alpha$-bits can be used. Our first result is that combining $\alpha$-bit transmission with shared entanglement is enough to send classical information at a rate of $(1 + \alpha)$ cbits per $\alpha$-bit, providing an operational explanation for the coincidence described above. We then extend the argument to the case where entanglement is a limited resource by making use of the notion coherent classical bits, or *cobits*. We find that the identity $$\begin{aligned}
2 \,\, \text{cobits} = 1\,\, \text{qubit} + 1\,\, \text{ebit}\end{aligned}$$ generalises to $\alpha$-bits as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:harrow+}
(1+\alpha) \,\,\text{cobits} = 1 \,\,\alpha \text{-bit} + 1\,\, \text{ebit}.\end{aligned}$$ The identities involving zero-bits described at the start of the introduction are immediate consequences of these relations.
Section \[sec:cobits\] also derives a number of consequences from these identities. We find that zero-bits can substitute for classical bits in a wide variety of circumstances including teleportation, state merging, entanglement distillation, channel simulation and remote state preparation. We also strengthen the previously mentioned coherent information lower bound on the quantum capacity of a quantum channel, demonstrating that in addition to sending qubits at the coherent information rate, it is possible to simultaneously send zero-bits at a rate given by the mutual information with the environment.
The detailed proof of the $\alpha$-bit capacity theorem appears in Section \[sec:proof\]. Section \[sec:properties\] proves some important supplementary results, including an alternate characterisation of the $\alpha$-bit capacity and a single-letter formula for degradable channels. The $\alpha$-bit capacities of two simple quantum channels are studied as examples in Section \[sec:examples\]. A summary of our main results appears in Section \[sec:summary\]. The paper ends in Section \[sec:discussion\] with an argument that zero-bits and ebits should be regarded as the fundamental resources of quantum information, as well as speculations on how to extend the paradigm to classical communication.
Decoupling and universal subspace error correction {#sec:decoup}
==================================================
We first prove the duality between $k$-forgetfulness and universal subspace error correction. Our starting point is a well-known information-disturbance theorem.
\[Information-Disturbance [@kretschmann2008information]\] \[thrm:infdist\] Let $V: A \to B \otimes E$ be an isometric extension of the channel $\mathcal{N}: S(A) \to S(B)$ and let $\mathcal{N}^c: S(A) \to \mathcal{S} (E)$ be the complementary channel. Let $\mathcal{R}: S(A) \to S(E)$ be the channel taking all inputs to some fixed state $\sigma \in S(E)$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{4} \inf_\mathcal{D} \lVert \mathcal{D} \circ \mathcal{N} - {\operatorname{Id}}\rVert_\diamond^2 \leq \lVert \mathcal{N}^c -\mathcal{R} \rVert_\diamond \leq 2 \inf_\mathcal{D} \lVert \mathcal{D} \circ \mathcal{N} - {\operatorname{Id}}\rVert_\diamond^{1/2}.\end{aligned}$$ The infimums are over all quantum channels.
As discussed in the introduction, the diamond norm is equivalent to the $k$-diamond norm for any Hilbert space of dimension $k$. Furthermore by the convexity of the trace norm, the $k$-diamond norm for a superoperator on $S(A)$ is attained by a pure state on $\mathbf{C}^k \otimes A$, which necessarily has support only within some $k$-dimensional subspace of $A$. It is therefore clear that, for $\Gamma$ acting on $S(A)$, $$\begin{aligned}
\lVert \Gamma \rVert_\diamond^{(k)} \geq \lVert \tilde{\Gamma} \rVert_\diamond\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{\Gamma}$ is the restriction of $\Gamma$ to acting on $S(\tilde{A})$ for any subspace $\tilde{A} \subset A$ of dimension less than or equal to $k$. We can then arrive at the following theorem as a relatively simple consequence of the information-disturbance theorem
\[thrm:subspacedecoup\] Suppose we have a channel $\mathcal{N}$ such that the complementary channel $\mathcal{N}^c$ is $k$-forgetful, i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:kforget1}
\lVert \mathcal{N}^c - \mathcal{R} \rVert_\diamond^{(k)} \leq \varepsilon\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{R}$ takes all states to $\mathcal{N}^c (\rho)$ for some fixed state $\rho$. Then for any subspace $\tilde{A}$ of dimension less than or equal to $k$, there exists a decoding channel $\tilde{\mathcal{D}}: S(B) \to S(\tilde{A}) $ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\lVert \tilde{\mathcal{D}} \circ \tilde{\mathcal{N}} - {\operatorname{Id}}\rVert_\diamond \leq 2 \sqrt{2 \varepsilon}\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{\mathcal{N}}: \mathcal{S} (\tilde{A}) \to \mathcal{S} (B)$ is the restriction of $\mathcal{N}$ to $S(\tilde{A})$.
Conversely, if for all subspaces $\tilde{A} \subset A$ of dimension less than $k$ there exists a decoding channel $\tilde{\mathcal{D}}: S(B) \to S(\tilde{A}) $ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:decodedelta}
\lVert \tilde{\mathcal{D}} \circ \tilde{\mathcal{N}} - {\operatorname{Id}}\rVert_\diamond \leq \delta\end{aligned}$$ then $$\begin{aligned}
\lVert \mathcal{N}^c - \mathcal{R} \rVert_\diamond^{(k)} \leq 8 \sqrt{\delta}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{R}$ takes all states to $\mathcal{N}^c (\rho)$ for some $\rho \in \mathcal{S} (B)$.
Starting from $k$-forgetfulness, let us first choose a fixed subspace $\tilde{A}$ of dimension less than or equal to $k$. From (\[eq:kforget1\]), we know that for any state $\tilde{\rho} \in S(\tilde{A})$ $$\begin{aligned}
\lVert \mathcal{N}^c (\tilde{\rho}^A - \rho^A) \rVert_1 \leq \varepsilon.\end{aligned}$$ It follows from the triangle inequality that for all states $\sigma \in S(\tilde{A}R) $ $$\begin{aligned}
\lVert &\left( \mathcal{N}^c \otimes {\operatorname{Id}}\right) \left(\sigma^{AR} - \tilde{\rho}^A \otimes \sigma^R\right) \rVert_1 \nonumber\\ & \leq \lVert \left(\mathcal{N}^c \otimes {\operatorname{Id}}\right) \left(\sigma^{AR} - \rho^A \otimes \sigma^R \right) \rVert_1 + \lVert \mathcal{N}^c \left(\tilde{\rho}^A - \rho^A\right) \otimes \sigma^R \rVert_1 \leq 2 \varepsilon.\end{aligned}$$ Defining $\tilde{\mathcal{N}}^c$ as the restriction of $\mathcal{N}^c$ to $S(\tilde{A})$ and $\tilde{\mathcal{R}}$ as the channel taking all states to $\mathcal{N}^c (\tilde{\rho})$, we therefore find that $$\begin{aligned}
\lVert \tilde{\mathcal{N}}^c - \tilde{\mathcal{R}} \rVert_\diamond \leq 2 \varepsilon\end{aligned}$$ and hence by Theorem \[thrm:infdist\] there exists a decoding channel $\tilde{\mathcal{D}}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\lVert \tilde{\mathcal{D}} \circ \tilde{\mathcal{N}} - {\operatorname{Id}}\rVert_\diamond \leq 2 \sqrt{2 \varepsilon}.\end{aligned}$$
To prove the converse, we first fix a pure state $\Ket{\psi} \in A$. Let $\tilde{A}$ be a $k$-dimensional subspace containing $\ket{\psi}$ and let $\tilde{\mathcal{N}}^c$ be the restriction to $S(\tilde{A})$ of $\mathcal{N}^c$. Then by Theorem \[thrm:infdist\] there exists $\tilde{\mathcal{R}}$ taking all states to some fixed state $\sigma \in S(E)$ such that for any state $\omega \in \tilde{AR}$ $$\begin{aligned}
\lVert (\mathcal{N}^c \otimes {\operatorname{Id}}_{(k-1)}) \omega^{AR} - \sigma^E \otimes \omega^R \rVert_1 =\lVert (\mathcal{N}^c - \tilde{\mathcal{R}}) \otimes {\operatorname{Id}}_{(k-1)}\,\, \omega^{AR} \rVert_1 \leq \lVert \tilde{\mathcal{N}}^c - \tilde{\mathcal{R}} \rVert_\diamond \leq 2 \sqrt{\delta}.\end{aligned}$$ If $\mathcal{R}$ is the channel taking all states to $\mathcal{N}^c\, (\psi)$ then by the triangle inequality $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Nc}
\lVert (\mathcal{N}^c - \mathcal{R}) \otimes {\operatorname{Id}}_{(k-1)}\,\, \omega^{AR} \rVert_1 &\leq \lVert (\mathcal{N}^c - \tilde{\mathcal{R}}) \otimes {\operatorname{Id}}_k\,\, \omega^{AR} \rVert_1 + \lVert (\mathcal{N}^c(\psi) - \sigma) \otimes \omega^R \rVert_1 \leq 4 \sqrt{\delta}.\end{aligned}$$ If we now take $d_R = k-1$, then for any pure state $\Ket{\omega} \in AR$ we can choose $\tilde A$ such that $\ket{\omega} \in \tilde{AR}$ and hence (\[eq:Nc\]) is true. It follows by the convexity of the trace norm that $$\begin{aligned}
\lVert \mathcal{N}^c - \mathcal{R} \rVert_\diamond^{(k-1)} \leq 4 \sqrt{\delta}\end{aligned}$$ and hence using (\[eq:diamond\]) that $$\begin{aligned}
\lVert \mathcal{N}^c - \mathcal{R} \rVert_\diamond^{(k)} \leq 8 \sqrt{\delta}\end{aligned}$$ which completes the proof.
Alpha-bits and capacities {#sec:cap}
=========================
Alpha-bits
----------
We are interested in the capacity of quantum channels to transmit information about large Hilbert spaces in order to achieve universal subspace error correction for subspaces of some defined size. As we have seen in Section \[sec:decoup\], up to universal relations in the size of the error, universal subspace error correction for all fixed finite subspace sizes is equivalent to error correction for subspaces of dimension 2 (i.e. geometry preservation), which is well-understood. Similarly, when the subspace size is a fixed finite fraction of the entire space, universal subspace error correction is equivalent to ordinary quantum error correction.
The regime that still needs to be understood then is when the subspaces grow sublinearly a function of the dimension $d$ of the Hilbert space. A natural choice is for the subspaces to have maximum dimension $d^\alpha$ for $0 \leq \alpha \leq 1$. This leads to a channel capacity that depends only on $\alpha$ and naturally interpolates between the geometry preservation and quantum capacities. Since this interpolation is continuous,[^3] this capacity is sufficient to determine the capacity for any sublinear $f(d)$ simply by defining $$\alpha (f) = \underset{d \to \infty}{\lim\inf} \frac{\log f}{\log d}.$$
In fact, we shall need to very slightly modify the requirement in order to handle $\alpha=0$. In that case, the subspaces are $d^\alpha = 1$ dimensional, so decoding them is always trivial. Instead, we wish for $\alpha=0$ to correspond to decoding two-dimensional subspaces. (Any constant dimension two or larger is equivalent.) We shall therefore require that it be possible to decode all subspaces of dimension less than or equal to $d^\alpha + 1$ rather than $d^\alpha$. Since the decoding error grows at most linearly with the size of the subspace, the only effect of this change is to redefine the decoding error by at most a factor of two. Since we are only interested in whether the error tends to zero in certain limits, $d^\alpha + 1$ and $d^\alpha$ are completely equivalent for our purposes for $\alpha >0$ while using $d^\alpha + 1$ properly incorporates the case $\alpha = 0$. We therefore make the following definition.
\[$\alpha$-dit\] \[defn:adit\] Let Alice have a qudit in Hilbert space $S$ of dimension $d$. We say that she is able to transmit her state to Bob through $\mathcal{N}: S(A) \to S(B) $ as an $\alpha$-dit with error $\varepsilon$ if, for any subspace $\tilde{S}$ of $S$ with dimension less than or equal to $d^\alpha+1$, there exists a decoding channel $\tilde{\mathcal{D}}$ such that for all states $\Ket{\psi} \in \tilde{S}R$ $$\begin{aligned}
\left\lVert \left(\tilde{\mathcal{D}} \circ \mathcal{N} \circ \mathcal{E} \otimes {\operatorname{Id}}_R \right) \psi^{SR} - \psi^{SR} \right\rVert_1 \leq \varepsilon,\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{E}: S(S) \to S(B)$ is the encoding used by Alice for $S$.
Since the error $\varepsilon$ grows at most linearly with the size of the subspace that must be decoded, we will need to take the limit of large $d$ for $\alpha$-dits to become sharply defined and for $\alpha$-dits with different values of $\alpha$ not to be equivalent up to small rescalings in the allowed error $\varepsilon$. It is therefore necessary to define a normalisation of an $\alpha$-dit that is well-behaved as $d \to \infty$. This leads us naturally to a second definition.
\[$\alpha$-bit \[Informal[\]]{}\] Informally, we define an $\alpha$-bit to be $$\lim_{\varepsilon \to 0} \lim_{d \to \infty} \frac{1}{\log \,d} \,\,\,\alpha\text{-dits}.$$
We wil define an $\alpha$-bit more precisely in the specific contexts that we use the term and so we shall not attempt to provide a more formal definition here. It is of course unclear exactly what a limit means in this context; the basic intuition is that we shall require properties to hold for all sufficiently large $d$ for any fixed and sufficiently small $\varepsilon$. In general, the minimum size of the dimension $d$ will tend to infinity as the error $\varepsilon$ tends to zero.
It is important to note that an $\alpha$-bit is emphatically not the same as a single $\alpha$-dit with $d=2$. This might potentially be regarded as misleading given the relationship between qubits and qudits. However, it is hoped that in practice it should be clear, since in the case of $d=2$ an $\alpha$-dit is exactly equivalent to a noisy qubit and importantly has absolutely no dependence on $\alpha$. An $\alpha$-bit defined as an $\alpha$-dit with $d=2$ would therefore be a completely redundant notion.
\[Total error\] \[defn:total-error\] If Alice transmits $n$ $\alpha$-dits with errors $\{\varepsilon_i\}$, we define the total error $\varepsilon_{\text{tot}} = \sum_i \varepsilon_i$.
This definition will prove useful when we come to define the $\alpha$-bit capacity. We motivate its definition with the following lemma.
Let $\{\tilde S_i \subset S_i\}$, where the index $i$ parameterises a set of $\alpha$-dits, all have dimension less than or equal to $d^\alpha+1$ and have decoding channel $\tilde{\mathcal{D}}_i$ with error less than or equal to $\varepsilon_i$ as in Definition \[defn:adit\]. Then for all states $\ket{\psi} \in (\otimes_i \tilde S_i ) \bigotimes R$ $$\begin{aligned}
\left\lVert \bigotimes_i \left[\left( \tilde{\mathcal{D}}_i \circ \mathcal{N}_i \circ \mathcal{E}_i \right) \otimes {\operatorname{Id}}_R \right] \psi - \psi \right\rVert_1 \leq \varepsilon_{\text{tot}}.\end{aligned}$$
Since we are restricting to a specific set of error-correctable subspaces, this is just a question about ordinary quantum error correction. We define $$\Gamma_{i j...} = \left(\tilde{\mathcal{D}}_i \circ \mathcal{N}_i \circ \mathcal{E}_i\right) \otimes \left(\tilde{\mathcal{D}}_j \circ \mathcal{N}_j \circ \mathcal{E}_j\right)\otimes\cdots$$ where $\Gamma_{ij...}$ acts as the identity on all subsystems that are not listed. Then by the triangle inequality $$\begin{aligned}
\left\lVert \Gamma_{1 2...n} (\psi) - \psi \right\rVert_1 \leq \sum_{k=1}^{n} \left\lVert \Gamma_{1 2...k} (\psi) - \Gamma_{1 2...(k-1)}(\psi) \right\rVert_1.\end{aligned}$$ However, $\Gamma_{12..k} = \Gamma_k \Gamma_{12...(k-1)}$ and for any state $\rho$, we have $\left\lVert\Gamma_k (\rho) - \rho \right\rVert_1 \leq \varepsilon_k$ so $$\begin{aligned}
\left\lVert \Gamma_{1 2...n} \psi - \psi \right\rVert_1 \leq \sum_i \varepsilon_i = \varepsilon_{\text{tot}}.\end{aligned}$$
Capacities
----------
We are now ready to define the notion of an $\alpha$-bit capacity of a quantum channel.
\[$\alpha$-bit capacity\] \[def:abitcapacity\] We say that a rate $Q$ of $\alpha$-bit transmission through a channel $\mathcal{N}$ is achievable if, for all $\varepsilon > 0$ as well as sufficiently large $d$ and $n$, it is possible to transmit $$\left\lceil \frac{nQ}{\text{log}\, d}\right\rceil \,\,\,\,\alpha\text{-dits}$$ with total error $\varepsilon$ using the channel $\mathcal{N}^{\otimes n}$. The $\alpha$-bit capacity of $\mathcal{N}$ is then defined as the supremum over achievable rates.
Definition \[def:abitcapacity\] is not the only possible definition of the $\alpha$-bit capacity of a channel. Another fairly natural and slightly stricter definition of the achievability of a rate gives what we shall refer to as the single $\alpha$-dit capacity of the channel.
\[Single $\alpha$-dit capacity\] \[def:singleaditcapacity\] We say that a rate $Q$ of single $\alpha$-dit transmission through a channel $\mathcal{N}$ is achievable if for all $\varepsilon > 0$ as well as sufficiently large $n$ it is possible to transmit an $\alpha$-dit with dimension $$d =\left\lceil 2^{nQ}\right\rceil,$$ with error $\varepsilon$ using the channel $\mathcal{N}^{\otimes n}$. The single $\alpha$-dit capacity of $\mathcal{N}$ is then defined as the supremum over achievable rates.
Note that the single $\alpha$-dit capacity is still normalised in terms of $\alpha$-bits. However, the $\alpha$-bits are only allowed to form a single $\alpha$-dit, rather than arbitrarily many $\alpha$-dits. It is clear that if single $\alpha$-dit transmission at rate $Q$ is achievable then the same rate is achievable for $\alpha$-bit transmission and hence optimality of a given capacity for $\alpha$-bit transmission implies optimality of the same capacity for single $\alpha$-dit transmission. On the other hand achievability of a single $\alpha$-dit transmission rate does not follow from achievability of the same rate for $\alpha$-bit transmission. Our construction does achieve a single $\alpha$-dit capacity equal to the $\alpha$-bit capacity, but only by making catalytic use of a large amount of shared randomness.
The $\alpha$-bit capacity is in many ways the more natural quantity to consider, particularly in the context of the resource inequality framework explored in Section \[sec:cobits\]. If you sent $k_1$ $\alpha$-dits and subsequently sent another $k_2$ $\alpha$-dits, then you have sent $(k_1+k_2)$ $\alpha$-dits, just like for cbits or qubits. In contrast, sending an $\alpha$-dit with $d=d_1$ followed by an $\alpha$-dit with $d=d_2$ does not mean that you have sent an $\alpha$-dit with $d=d_1 d_2$.
As a trivial counterexample, let $\alpha= \frac{1}{2}$ and $d_1 = d_2 = d$. If sending two $\alpha$-dits was equivalent to sending one $\alpha$-dit with dimension $d^2$ then if Alice sent a state that is known by Bob as the second $\alpha$-dit, Bob would be able to decode a state of dimension $d$ on the joint system and would be guaranteed to be able to decode the first state he received. Clearly this is impossible without Bob being able to do full error-correction rather than just $\alpha = \frac{1}{2}$ universal subspace error correction.
We shall also formally define two further variants of the $\alpha$-bit capacity, which turn out to have a particularly simple form. To define the amortised $\alpha$-bit capacity we need to first introduce a noiseless quantum side channel ${\operatorname{Id}}_C$. The amortised capacity of a channel $\mathcal{N}$ is the increase in capacity from having the channel $\mathcal{N}$ as well as the side channel ${\operatorname{Id}}_C$, rather than just the side channel. We shall see in Theorem \[thrm:abitcapacity\] that the $\alpha$-bit capacity of a noiseless qudit channel is $$\frac{2\,\log d_C}{1+\alpha} \,\, \alpha\text{-bits}.$$ This leads to the following technical definition for the amortised $\alpha$-bit capacity.
\[Amortised $\alpha$-bit capacity\] \[def:amortised\] We say that a rate $Q$ of amortised $\alpha$-bit transmission through a channel $\mathcal{N}$ is achievable if, for all $\varepsilon > 0$ as well as sufficiently large $d$ and $n$, it is possible to transmit at least $$\left\lceil \frac{nQ + \frac{2}{1+\alpha} \log d_C}{\text{log}\, d}\right\rceil \,\,\,\,\alpha\text{-dits}$$ with total error $\varepsilon$ using the channel $\mathcal{N}^{\otimes n} \otimes {\operatorname{Id}}_C$ where the noiseless quantum side channel ${\operatorname{Id}}_C$ may have any size. The amortised $\alpha$-bit capacity of $\mathcal{N}$ is then defined as the supremum over achievable rates.
Finally, we define the entanglement-assisted $\alpha$-bit capacity. The definition is analogous to the definitions of entanglement-assisted quantum or classical capacities.
\[Entanglement-assisted $\alpha$-bit capacity\] We say that a rate $Q$ of entanglement-assisted $\alpha$-bit transmission through a channel $\mathcal{N}$ is achievable if, for all $\varepsilon > 0$ as well as sufficiently large $d$ and $n$, it is possible to transmit at least $$\left\lceil \frac{nQ}{\text{log}\, d} \right\rceil\,\,\,\,\alpha\text{-dits}$$ with total error $\varepsilon$ using the channel $\mathcal{N}^{\otimes n}$ and a shared maximally entangled state of unlimited size. The entanglement-assisted $\alpha$-bit capacity of $\mathcal{N}$ is then defined as the supremum over achievable rates.
While the entanglement-assisted $\alpha$-bit capacity is defined analogously to the $\alpha$-bit capacity for consistency, our achievability proof actually yields the stronger single $\alpha$-dit transmission in the entanglement-assisted setting.
As with essentially all types of channel capacity, the $\alpha$-bit capacity is characterized most succintly in terms of entropies of reduced density matrices. For a bipartite density matrix $\psi^{AB}$ we define the von Neumann entropy of $A$ $$H(A)_\psi = H(\psi^A) = - {\operatorname{Tr}}\left( \psi^A \log \psi^A \right).$$ The mutual information of the state is $$I(A;B)_\psi = H(A)_\psi + H(B)_\psi - H(AB)_\psi,$$ while the coherent information is $$I(A \rangle B)_\psi = \max\left[ H(B)_\psi - H(AB)_\psi,0\right].$$
\[$\alpha$-bit capacity\] \[thrm:abitcapacity\] The $\alpha$-bit capacity of a channel $\mathcal{N}: S(A) \to S(B)$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{Q}_\alpha (\mathcal{N}) = \sup_k \frac{1}{k} \mathcal{Q}^{(1)}_\alpha (\mathcal{N}^{\otimes k}),\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Qa1}
\mathcal{Q}_\alpha^{(1)} (\mathcal{N}) &= \sup_{\Ket{\psi}} \left[\min \left(\frac{1}{1+\alpha} I(A;B)_\rho, \frac{1}{\alpha} I(A \rangle B)_\rho\right)\right] \end{aligned}$$ for $\alpha > 0$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{Q}^{(1)}_0 (\mathcal{N}) = \sup_{\ket{\psi}} \big[ I(A;B)_\rho\,\, \text{ s.t. } \,\,I(A \rangle B)_\rho > 0 \big].\end{aligned}$$ $\Ket{\psi} \in A \otimes A'$ is a purification of any input state of the channel and we define $\rho =\left({\operatorname{Id}}\otimes \mathcal{N}\right) \psi$. The amortised $\alpha$-bit capacity (for $\alpha < 1$) and the entanglement-assisted capacity are both given by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{Q}_\alpha^{\text{am/ea}} (\mathcal{N}) = \frac{1}{1+\alpha} \sup_{\Ket{\psi}} I(A;B)_\rho.\end{aligned}$$
Theorem \[thrm:abitcapacity\] generalises both the quantum capacity formula of [@lloyd1997capacity; @shor2002quantum; @devetak2005private] (when $\alpha = 1$) and the quantum identification capacity formula of [@hayden2012weak] (when $\alpha=0$). Since the zero-bit capacity will play a special role in our discussion, it is worth noting that [@hayden2012weak] demonstrates that it is possible to achieve the single zero-dit capacity at the rate above, not just the slightly easier zero-bit capacity.
One of the most striking features of the theorem is that the amortised $\alpha$-bit capacity is positive for all non-trivial channels, even those that are purely classical. This is true even for $\alpha$ arbitrarily close to one, for which success translates to being able to quantum error correct arbitrary subspaces of the input with fractional size approaching one (as measured in qubits). $\alpha$-bit codes for $\alpha<1$ can therefore be used as quantum data transmission codes: transmission of $nQ$ $\alpha$-bits implies the transmission of $\alpha n Q$ qubits. This would suggest that the amortised quantum capacity should be equal to $$\label{eqn:wrong-quantum-capacity}
\lim_{\alpha\rightarrow 1} \frac{\alpha}{1+\alpha} \sup_{\ket{\psi}} I(A;B)_\rho
= \sup_{\ket{\psi}} \frac{1}{2} I(A;B)_\rho
= \mathcal{Q}_E,$$ the entanglement-assisted quantum capacity. Sadly, this is not the case. In the definition of the amortised $\alpha$-bit capacity, one subtracts from the total number of $\alpha$-bits transmitted the number that could have been transmitted by the noiseless side channel: $$\frac{1}{1+\alpha} \log d_C$$ for a side channel of dimension $d_C$. As applied to quantum data transmission, that corresponds to subtracting $$\label{eqn:wrong-amortisation}
\frac{2 \alpha}{1 + \alpha} \log d_C$$ from the total number of qubits transmitted. But the noiseless side channel could actually transmit $\log d_C$ qubits, which is strictly larger than (\[eqn:wrong-amortisation\]), so the subtraction fails to account for the full strength of the side channel applied to quantum data transmission. Since the prefactor in (\[eqn:wrong-amortisation\]) satisfies $$\lim_{\alpha\rightarrow 1} \frac{2 \alpha}{1+\alpha} = 1,$$ one might hope that the incorrect accounting would correct itself in the limit $\alpha\rightarrow 1$. However, it turns out that the size of the side channel, $\log d_C$, depends on $\alpha$ and even diverges superlinearly with $n$ as $\alpha\rightarrow 1$, ensuring that (\[eqn:wrong-quantum-capacity\]) is, in general, *not* the correct formula for the amortised quantum capacity. It is nonetheless instructive to see how, from the $\alpha$-bit perspective, the difficulty of finding a single-letter formula for the (amortised) quantum capacity arises from singular behavior at $\alpha=1$.
Here, we will only explain the basic construction used to prove Theorem \[thrm:abitcapacity\], postponing the somewhat technical detailed proof to Section \[sec:proof\]. The structure of the $\alpha$-bit code that we will use to achieve the capacity is given in Figure \[fig:abitcode\]. The encoding channel $\mathcal{E}$ (with Stinespring dilation $V_{\mathcal{E}}$) that we will use consists of a unitary map from input space $S$ to $A_t \otimes F$ where $A_t$ is a typical subspace of $A^n$ for some large number $n$ of channel uses and $F$ is an auxiliary Hilbert space which will be thrown away. We apply a unitary operator selected at random and known by both Alice and Bob from a unitary 2-design and then trace out $F$.
We are then able to prove that the complementary channel will be $\alpha$-forgetful (and so by Theorem \[thrm:subspacedecoup\] we can use the channel to transmit $\alpha$-dits) so long as the effective size of the environment $E^n F$ and reference $R$ is much smaller than the effective size of the Hilbert space $B^n$ transmitted to Bob. To make this more precise, we define $U_{\mathcal{N}}: A \to BE$ as a Stinespring dilation of $\mathcal{N}$ and choose some pure state $\ket{\rho} \in ABE$, using which we will construct the typical subspace $\hat A$. Then, in the limit of large $n$ we require that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:abit1}
H(B)_\rho > H(E)_\rho + f + \alpha s,\end{aligned}$$ where $f = \frac{1}{n} \log d_F$ and $s = \frac{1}{n} \log d_S = \frac{1}{\alpha n} \log d_R$.
The size of the code space $d_S$ is bounded by the total size of the typical subspace of $A^n$ and $F$. This gives a second constraint $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:abit2}
s < H(A)_\rho + f.\end{aligned}$$ Combining these inequalities, we find that $$\begin{gathered}
(1+\alpha) s + f + H(E)_\rho < H(B)_\rho + H(A)_\rho + f \\ \text{or, equivalently,} \quad
s < \frac{1}{1+\alpha} I(A;B)_\rho.\end{gathered}$$ If we can find $f$ such that both the original inequalities (\[eq:abit1\]) and (\[eq:abit2\]) can be simultaneously satisfied, then the corresponding rate $s$ will be achievable. Unfortunately this is not possible in general, because our construction only allows $f \geq 0$. This means that (\[eq:abit1\]) imposes the further constraint that a rate $s$ is only achievable if $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha s < H(B)_\rho - H(E)_\rho = I(A \rangle B)_\rho.\end{aligned}$$ Note that we were under no obligation to only have one channel use in the definition of the state $\ket{\psi}$. If we optimise over the number $k$ of channel uses that are used to construct $\ket{\psi}$, we obtain the $\alpha$-bit capacity given in Theorem \[thrm:abitcapacity\].
We shall see in Section \[sec:proof\] that either amortisation or entanglement-assistance removes the effect of the restriction that $f \geq 0$. For example, by using approximately $$n\left[ H(E)_\rho - H(B)_\rho + \alpha s \right] \,\,\,\text{ebits},$$ we are able to ensure that the effective size of the environment is much smaller than the effective size of Bob’s Hilbert space simply by sending not only the code space $S$ using the protocol given in Figure \[fig:abitcode\], but also Alice’s half of the Bell pairs. The cost is that this reduces the size of the code space that can be transmitted with $f=0$, giving a new constraint $$\begin{aligned}
s + \left[ H(E)_\rho - H(B)_\rho + \alpha s\right] < H(A)_\rho\end{aligned}$$ or $$\begin{aligned}
s < \frac{1}{1+\alpha} I(A;B)_\rho.\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, the optimised mutual information is additive [@adamicerf], unlike the coherent information. As a result,we do not need to consider the optimising $\ket{\psi}$ over multiple channel uses and we are left with the simple single letter formula given in Theorem \[thrm:abitcapacity\].
The only remaining challenge is to generate a sufficient supply of shared randomness between Alice and Bob to be able select randomly from a unitary 2-design. We will show that this can be seeded through the channel at arbitrarily small cost to the asymptotic rate.
Alpha-bits as resources {#sec:cobits}
=======================
Entanglement-assisted classical capacity of an $\alpha$-bit
-----------------------------------------------------------
When $\alpha = 0$, the entanglement-assisted $\alpha$-bit capacity of a channel given in Section \[sec:cap\] is equal to the entanglement-assisted classical capacity. This equality was noticed (for the amortised rather than entanglement-assisted) capacity in [@hayden2012weak] and was regarded as a puzzle. It turns out to have a very natural explanation; an $\alpha$-bit code for a channel achieving the entanglement-assisted $\alpha$-bit capacity can always be used directly together with additional free entanglement to achieve the entanglement-assisted classical capacity of the channel.
\[Entanglement-assisted classical capacity of an $\alpha$-bit\] We say that an\
entanglement-assisted classical transmission rate $C$ is achievable using $\alpha$-bits if, for all $\varepsilon > 0$, there exists $\delta > 0$, such that for all sufficiently large $d$, it is possible to transmit $\log \lceil d^C \rceil$ bits of classical information with error probability at most $\delta$, using an $\alpha$-dit with error $\varepsilon$ and free shared entanglement. Furthermore, we require that if $\varepsilon \to 0$, then $\delta \to 0$.
The entanglement-assisted classical capacity $\mathcal{C}^{\text{E}}_\alpha$ of an $\alpha$-bit is defined as the supremum over achievable rates $C$.
\[Entanglement-assisted classical capacity of an $\alpha$-bit\] \[thrm:alphaclassical\] The entanglement-assisted classical capacity $\mathcal{C}^{\text{E}}_\alpha$ of an $\alpha$-bit is $$\mathcal{C}^{\text{E}}_\alpha = 1+\alpha.$$
The optimality of this capacity is clear from Theorem \[thrm:abitcapacity\] since otherwise we would be able to exceed the entanglement-assisted classical capacity of any channel, which is given by the optimised mutual information [@ieee2002bennett], by using an $\alpha$-bit code for it. It therefore remains only to show the achievability of this rate, which we do by exhibiting a direct encoding to send $\left(1+\alpha\right) \log d$ cbits through an $\alpha$-dit with an error probability that tends to zero as $\varepsilon \to 0$.
Let $$\Ket{\Psi} =\frac{1}{\sqrt{d}} \sum_k \Ket{k}^C \Ket{k}^A$$ be a Bell state of two qudits, with $A$ held by Alice and $C$ by Bob. Let us suppose Alice wishes to send $\left(1+\alpha\right) \log d$ cbits to Bob, which we can treat as a message $0 \leq x < d$ and a second message $0 \leq y < d^\alpha$. By acting with a unitary $U^A_{xy}$ on her qudit, Alice can transform the state $\Ket{\Psi}$ into $$\begin{aligned}
\Ket{\Psi_{xy}} = \left(\mathbbm{1} \otimes U^A_{xy}\right) \Ket{\Psi} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{d}} \sum_k e^{\frac{2\pi x k i}{d}} \Ket{k}^C \Ket{k+y}^A.\end{aligned}$$ This gives a set of (roughly) $d^{1+\alpha}$ orthogonal states which the system might be in. Alice then sends her qudit to Bob as an $\alpha$-dit.
Now Bob knows a recovery map $\mathcal{D}_k$, with Stinespring dilation $V_k^B: B \to A E'$, for any subspace $S_k =\text{span}\{ \Ket{k}, \Ket{k+1},...\Ket{k+\lfloor d^\alpha \rfloor}\} \subseteq A$ such that for any state $\ket{\chi} \in S_k$ $$\begin{aligned}
(V_k^B \otimes \mathbbm{1}^E) U_{\mathcal{N}} \Ket{\chi}^{A} \quad \simeq \quad \Ket{\chi}^{A} \otimes \Ket{\Phi_k}^{E'E} \end{aligned}$$ where $U_{\mathcal{N}}$ is a Stinespring dilation of the encoding and channel used to transmit the $\alpha$-dit and $\Ket{\Phi_k}$ is a fixed pure state. By the subspace decoupling duality, the reduced density operator of $U_{\mathcal{N}} \ket{\chi}^A$ on $E$ is approximately the same for all states $\ket{\chi}$. Since we are free to redefine $V_k$ by an arbitrary unitary on $E'$, we (or rather Bob) can therefore always choose $V_k$ such that $\ket{\Phi_k}^{E'E} = \ket{\Phi}^{E'E}$ is independent of $k$ at the cost of a small increase in error.
Bob controls systems $B$ and $C$ of the state $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:defPsi'}
\ket{\Psi'_{xy}}^{CBE} = U_{\mathcal{N}} \ket{\Psi_{xy}}^{CA}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{d}} \sum_k \ket{k}^C U_{\mathcal{N}}\Ket{\alpha_k}^{A}\end{aligned}$$ where for all $k$, the state $\ket{\alpha_k} \in S_k$. As a result,if we define the isometry $V: CB \to CAE'$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:defV}
V = \sum_k \ket{k} \bra{k} \otimes V_k\end{aligned}$$ then $$\begin{aligned}
V \ket{\Psi'_{xy}} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{d}} \sum_k \Ket{k} V_k U_{\mathcal{N}} \Ket{\chi_k} \simeq \frac{1}{\sqrt{d}} \sum_k \Ket{k} \Ket{\chi}^{A} \Ket{\Phi}^{E'E}\end{aligned}$$ and so Bob can always recover the entire Bell state up to error that tends to zero as $\varepsilon \to 0$. Since the Bell states $\ket{\Psi_{xy}}^{CA}$ corresponding to different classical messages $(x,y)$ are all orthogonal, Bob can then just do a measurement in this basis in order to obtain the classical message.
To rigorously constrain the error in the classical message transmission unfortunately requires significantly more work. From the definition of an $\alpha$-dit with error $\varepsilon$, we know that for any state $\Ket{\gamma} \in S_k R$, $$\begin{aligned}
\left\lVert \left(\mathcal{D}_k \circ \mathcal{N}\right) \gamma - \gamma \right\rVert_1 \leq \varepsilon.\end{aligned}$$ We now use the inequalities [@FG98] $$\begin{aligned}
1 - \sqrt{F(\rho, \sigma)} \leq \frac{1}{2} \left\lVert \rho - \sigma \right\rVert_1 \leq \sqrt{1 - F(\rho,\sigma)},\end{aligned}$$ where the quantum fidelity $F(\rho,\sigma) = \left({\operatorname{Tr}}\sqrt{\sqrt{\rho}\sigma \sqrt{\rho}}\right)^2$, to show that the real part of the inner product between $$\begin{aligned}
\Ket{\chi'}^{AE'E} = (V_k^B \otimes \mathbbm{1}^E) U_{\mathcal{N}} \Ket{\chi}^{A} \quad \text{and} \quad \Ket{\chi}^{A} \otimes \Ket{\Phi_k}^{E'E} \end{aligned}$$ is close to one for all states $\ket{\chi} \in S_k$, for a fixed pure state $\ket{\Phi_k}$. Let us first choose some fixed state $\ket{\chi_k} \in S_k$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
\left\lVert \chi_k'^A - \chi_k^A \right\rVert_1 \leq \varepsilon\end{aligned}$$ and hence $$\begin{aligned}
F(\chi_k'^A, \chi_k^A \geq (1-\frac{\varepsilon}{2})^2 \geq 1 - \varepsilon.\end{aligned}$$ By Uhlmann’s Theorem [@uhlmann1976transition], this implies that there exists $\ket{\Phi_k} \in E'E$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:inner1}
\left|\braket{\chi'_k|\chi_k}\ket{\Phi_k}\right|^2 \geq 1 - \varepsilon.\end{aligned}$$ and $\braket{\chi'_k|\chi_k}\ket{\Phi_k}$ is real and positive. Now consider an arbitrary state $\ket{\chi} \in S_k$ and let $$\ket{\gamma} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left(\ket{0}^R \ket{\chi_k} + \ket{1}^R \ket{\chi}\right).$$ Then by the same arguments we just used, there exists $\ket{\Phi_\chi} \in E'E$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
{\operatorname{Re}}\left( \braket{\gamma'|\gamma}\ket{\Phi_\chi} \right) = \frac{1}{2}{\operatorname{Re}}\left(\braket{\chi'_k|\chi_k}\ket{\Phi_\chi} + \braket{\chi'|\chi}\ket{\Phi_\chi} \right) \geq 1 - \varepsilon.\end{aligned}$$ Hence we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:inner2}
{\operatorname{Re}}\left(\braket{\chi'_k|\chi_k}\ket{\Phi_\chi}\right) \geq 1 - 2 \varepsilon\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:inner3}
{\operatorname{Re}}\left(\braket{\chi'|\chi}\ket{\Phi_\chi}\right) \geq 1 - 2 \varepsilon.\end{aligned}$$ Suppose we know ${\operatorname{Re}}\braket{a|b} \geq 1 - \varepsilon_a$ and ${\operatorname{Re}}\braket{b|c} \geq 1 - \varepsilon_c$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:realinner}
{\operatorname{Re}}\braket{a|c} &= {\operatorname{Re}}\left(\braket{a|b}\braket{b|c} + \braket{a| \Pi^b_\bot |c}\right) \geq {\operatorname{Re}}\braket{a|b} {\operatorname{Re}}\braket{b|c} - \left|{\operatorname{Im}}\braket{a|b} {\operatorname{Im}}\braket{b|c} + \braket{a| \Pi^b_\bot |c}\right| \nonumber
\\&\geq 1 - \varepsilon_a - \varepsilon_c - 2 \sqrt{\varepsilon_a \varepsilon_c}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Pi^b_\bot$ is the projector onto the subspace orthogonal to $\ket{b}$ and the last inequality uses the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and the fact that $$\begin{aligned}
|{\operatorname{Im}}\braket{u|b}|^2 + \braket{u|\Pi^b_\bot|u} = 1 - |{\operatorname{Re}}\braket{u|b}|^2 \leq 2 \varepsilon_{u},\end{aligned}$$ where $u = a,c$. With this in hand, we see that (\[eq:inner1\]) and (\[eq:inner2\]) imply $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:inner4}
{\operatorname{Re}}\braket{\Phi_\chi| \Phi_k} \geq 1 - 6 \varepsilon\end{aligned}$$ and hence (\[eq:inner3\]) and (\[eq:inner4\]) imply $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:innerfinal}
{\operatorname{Re}}\braket{\chi'|\chi}\ket{\Phi_k} \geq 1 - 15 \varepsilon.\end{aligned}$$
Now we show that because the environment $E$ approximately forgets the input state, we can choose the states $\ket{\Phi_k}^{E'E}$ to be independent of $k$ at the cost of only a small increase in the error. By Theorem \[thrm:subspacedecoup\], for all $\ket{\chi_k}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\left\lVert \chi_k'^{E} - \chi_0'^E \right\rVert_1 \leq 4 \sqrt{\varepsilon}.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, by the triangle inequality and (\[eq:inner1\]), together with the monotonicity of the trace norm under partial traces, $$\begin{aligned}
\left\lVert \Phi_k^{E} - \Phi_0'^E \right\rVert_1 \leq \left\lVert \Phi_k^{E} - \chi_k'^E \right\rVert_1 + \left\lVert \chi_k'^{E} - \chi_0'^E \right\rVert_1 + \left\lVert \chi_0'^{E} - \Phi_0^E \right\rVert_1 \leq 8 \sqrt{\varepsilon}.\end{aligned}$$ By Uhlman’s Theorem, there exists a unitary $U_k$ acting only on $E'$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\left| \braket{\Phi_0|U_k| \Phi_k}\right|^2 \geq 1 - 8\sqrt{\varepsilon}.\end{aligned}$$ Since $V_k$ was only defined up to a unitary operator on $E'$, we can therefore always choose $V_k$ such that for all $k$, $\braket{\Phi_0|\Phi_k}$ is real and $$\begin{aligned}
\braket{\Phi_0|\Phi_k} \geq 1 - 8\sqrt{\varepsilon}\end{aligned}$$ and hence using (\[eq:realinner\]) and (\[eq:innerfinal\]) $$\begin{aligned}
{\operatorname{Re}}\left(\bra{\chi'}\ket{\chi}\ket{\Phi_0}\right) \geq 1 - 15 \varepsilon - 8 \sqrt{\varepsilon} - 2 \sqrt{8\times 15 \varepsilon^{3/2}} \geq 1 -45\sqrt{\varepsilon}.\end{aligned}$$
It then follows immediately that $$\begin{aligned}
{\operatorname{Re}}\left(\Bra{\Psi_{xy}} \Bra{\Phi_0}^{E'E} V \Ket{\Psi'_{xy}}\right) &= {\operatorname{Re}}\left(\Bra{\Psi_{xy}} \Bra{\Phi_0}^{E'E} \frac{1}{\sqrt{d}} \sum_k \Ket{k} V_k \,U_{\mathcal{N}} \Ket{\psi_k}\right) \\&\geq \frac{1}{d} \sum_{k,l} \delta_{k,l} \left(1-45\sqrt{\varepsilon}\right) \geq 1-45\sqrt{\varepsilon}.\end{aligned}$$ If Bob then performs a measurement on his recovered state in the $\{\ket{\Psi_{xy}}^{CA}\}$ basis, he will recover the classical message $xy$ with error probability at most $$\delta = 1-\min \Bra{\Psi_{xy}}U_{\mathcal{N}}^\dagger\, V^\dagger \,\Psi_{xy}^A \,V \,U_{\mathcal{N}}\ket{\Psi_{xy}} \leq 90 \sqrt{\varepsilon},$$ which manifestly is independent of dimension and tends to zero if $\varepsilon \to 0$.
The argument above demonstrates the surprisingly utility of $\alpha$-bits, and even zero-bits. It also illustrates that exploiting the forgetfulness of the channel, which limits leakage to the environment, is an effective proof strategy for working with $\alpha$-bits. Indeed, when $\alpha=0$, the subspaces $S_k$ in the proof above are always one-dimensional so performing quantum error correction of their contents is trivial and always possible, regardless of the choice of encoding. It would therefore be very awkward to directly apply the universal subspace quantum error correction condition. $d^\alpha$-forgetfulness, on the other hand, is exactly what is required to ensure the existence of the decoding maps $V_k$ which are at the heart of the proof.
Resources and cobits
--------------------
The notion of a cobit was introduced by Harrow in [@harrow2004coherent] as a way to turn resource inequalities involving classical and quantum bits into resource equalities. More operationally, replacing classical bits by cobits in communications protocols proved to be a remarkably fruitful source of new insights relating classical and quantum communication. A detailed formalism for manipulating such resources, known as the quantum resource calculus, was developed in [@resource]. We shall content ourselves here with a very brief and informal introduction to the topic.
If Alice holds system $A$ and Bob holds system $B$, we say that the isometry $V$ defined by $$\begin{aligned}
V \left( \alpha \ket{0}^A + \beta \ket{1}^A \right) = \alpha \ket{0}^A \ket{0}^B + \beta \ket{1}^A \ket{1}^B\end{aligned}$$ describes Alice sending a coherent bit or cobit to Bob. It can be interpreted as Alice sending a classical bit to Bob, but managing to keep the purification of the state herself so that no information about the state leaks out to the environment and the evolution of the complete system is unitary. Similarly, we shall refer to a Bell pair shared between Alice and Bob as an entangled bit or ebit.
Now we can introduce the notion of a resource inequality. Given two resources $X$ and $Y$, which may be qubits, cobits, cbits, ebits etc., we say that $$\begin{aligned}
X \geq Y\end{aligned}$$ if resource $X$ can be used to simulate resource $Y$. As a simple example, clearly Alice can use a cobit in order to send a cbit to Bob, just by sending the state $\ket{0}$ or $\ket{1}$. We therefore write $$\begin{aligned}
1 \,\,\text{cobit} \geq 1 \,\, \text{cbit}.\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, a cobit can be used to create (and hence simulate) an ebit by transmitting the state $\ket{0} + \ket{1}$, so $$\begin{aligned}
1 \,\,\text{cobit} \geq 1 \,\, \text{ebit}.\end{aligned}$$ Finally, a qubit can be used to simulate an cobit: Alice implements the isometry $V$ using two qubits that she holds and then sends one of the qubits to Bob. Hence $$\begin{aligned}
1 \,\,\text{qubit} \geq 1 \,\, \text{cobit}.\end{aligned}$$
We say that $$X {\stackrel{(c)}{\geq}}Y$$ with catalytic use of $Z$ if $$X + Z \geq Y + Z,$$ and we say that $$X {\stackrel{(a)}{\geq}}Y$$ if $n$ copies of resource $X$ can be used to approximately simulate $n$ copies of resource $Y$ for large $n$, with error tending to zero as $n \to \infty$. We shall always assume that catalytic use of additional resources is allowed in asymptotic resource equalities, since by reusing the catalytic resource many times, we can make the size of the catalytic resource arbitrarily small compared to the expended resources.
If resource $X$ can be used to simulate resource $Y$ and resource $Y$ can be used to simulate resource $X$, we say that the two resources are equal $$X = Y.$$ In [@harrow2004coherent], it was shown using simple variations of superdense coding and quantum teleportation that $$1\,\,\text{qubit} + 1\,\,\text{ebit} {\stackrel{(c)}{=}}2 \,\,\text{cobits}$$ with catalytic use of additional ebits.
The $\alpha$-bit/cobit resource identity
----------------------------------------
If we are to generalise the resource identity between cobits and qubits/ebits to $\alpha$-bits, it is clear that we must work in the limit of asymptotically large numbers of copies, since exact $\alpha$-dits of finite dimension are equivalent to qudits. We therefore need to formally define what we mean for a resource to be asymptotically equal to an $\alpha$-bit, since our original definition of an $\alpha$-bit was somewhat informal.
\[$\alpha$-bits in asymptotic resource inequalities\] We say that $$\begin{aligned}
k_1 \,\,X + k_2\,\, \alpha\text{-bits} {\stackrel{(a)}{\geq}}k_3 \,\,Y\end{aligned}$$ if for any $\varepsilon, \delta > 0$ there exists $\varepsilon'$ such that for all sufficiently large $d$ there exists sufficiently large $n$ such that:
1\. Using $\lfloor n k_1 \rfloor$ copies of $X$ together with $\lfloor \frac{n k_2}{\log \,d} \rfloor$ $\alpha$-dits with error $\varepsilon$ one can simulate $\lceil n \left(k_3 - \delta\right) \rceil$ copies of resource $Y$ with total error at most $\varepsilon'$.
2\. If $\varepsilon \to 0$, then $\varepsilon' \to 0$.
Conversely we say that $$\begin{aligned}
k_3 \,\,Y {\stackrel{(a)}{\geq}}k_1 \,\,X + k_2\,\, \alpha\text{-bits}\end{aligned}$$ if, for any $\varepsilon, \delta > 0$ and for sufficiently large $d$ there exists sufficiently large $n$, such that:
1\. Using $\lfloor n k_3 \rfloor$ copies of resource $Y$, one can simulate $\left\lceil n \left(k_1 - \delta\right)\right\rceil$ copies of resource $X$ together with $\left\lceil\frac{n \left(k_2 - \delta\right)}{\log\,d}\right\rceil$ $\alpha$-dits with total error at most $\varepsilon$.
The definition of using $\alpha$-bits to simulate a resource is noticeably more complicated than the definition of using a resource to simulate $\alpha$-bits. This is because we need the $\alpha$-dits to have finite error until after we take the limit of large $d$, even if they are a resource we are using rather than one we are simulating, otherwise the $\alpha$-dits simply become qudits.
We note the equivalence with our definition of the $\alpha$-bit capacity of a channel. Specifically $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \mathcal{N} \rangle {\stackrel{(a)}{\geq}}k \,\, \alpha\text{-bits},\end{aligned}$$ if and only if $k$ is less than or equal to the $\alpha$-bit capacity of $\mathcal{N}$.
It is important to make clear the distinction between a specific $\alpha$-bit code, which are many and varied, and the idealised notion of an $\alpha$-bit, which can be viewed as a black box where we only have access to a decoding channel for each subspace, which satisfies the required properties. When we make use of $\alpha$-bits as a resource, we only make use of these decoding channels and their properties, and so it does not matter which specific $\alpha$-bit code we might use. An alternative way to see that an $\alpha$-bit is a well-defined *single* asymptotic resource is to note that by making use of Theorem \[thrm:cobits\] below and by making catalytic use of entanglement, we can convert any particular $\alpha$-bit code into cobits (or indeed qubits) and then back into some particular ‘canonical’ $\alpha$-bit code with negligible asymptotic inefficiency.
\[thrm:cobits\] As asymptotic resources, and allowing catalytic use of entanglement assistance, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:harrow+again}
(1+\alpha)\,\, \text{cobits} {\stackrel{(a)}{=}}1 \,\,\alpha\text{-bit} + 1\,\, \text{ebit}\end{aligned}$$
We first show that we can use $n$ cobits to send $\left[\frac{n}{1+\alpha} - o(n)\right]$ $\alpha$-bits and have a net gain of $\left[\frac{n}{1+\alpha} - o(n)\right]$ ebits with error that tends to zero in the limit $n \to \infty$.
We claimed in Section \[sec:cap\], and will prove in Section \[sec:entangled\], that, for any channel $\mathcal{N}$, we can send $\alpha$-bits at an asymptotic rate of $$s = \frac{1}{1+\alpha} I(A:B)_\rho$$ by making use of ebits at any asymptotic rate $$\begin{aligned}
k > \alpha s + H(E)_\rho - H(B)_\rho \,\,\, \text{ebits per }\alpha\text{-bit}.\end{aligned}$$ We gave a brief sketch of a construction that achieves this rate in Section \[sec:cap\], and will provide full details in Section \[sec:entangled\]. In fact, because the cobit channel is well-behaved, various parts of the construction are easier than for a general channel $\mathcal{N}$. In particular, for any valid state $\rho$, $$\begin{aligned}
H(B)_\rho = H(E)_\rho.\end{aligned}$$ This means that the mutual information is maximised by the maximally mixed state on $A$. We do not need to worry about constructing a typical subspace because the complete space $A$ already has all the properties we will require to apply Lemma \[lemma:entangledrandom\]. We can therefore achieve any asymptotic $\alpha$-bit transmission rate of $$s = \frac{1}{1+\alpha} -\delta$$ for the noiseless cobit channel using an asyptotic entanglement-assistance rate of $$\begin{aligned}
k = \alpha s + \delta = \frac{\alpha}{1+\alpha} + \delta.\end{aligned}$$ for any $\delta > 0$.
Note that by the subspace decoupling duality, if for any fixed $k$, all subspaces of dimension $k$ can be decoded by $B$, then the channel $\mathcal{N}: S(A) \to S(B)$ must be approximately forgetful on the environment. In this case the ‘environment’ is entirely held by Alice since the cobit channel is unitary and our construction unitarily maps $S \otimes K$ into $A^n$, where $S$ is the code Hilbert space and $K$ is the half of the ebit Hilbert space held by Alice.
If we input maximally mixed code state, it is clear that Alice will be left with a maximally mixed reduced density matrix of dimension $$2^{n(s+k)} \geq 2^{n(1-2 \delta)}.$$ Since Alice’s subsystem approximately forgets the original state, all input states will leave Alice with a state very close to the maximally mixed state. However, the overall state held by Alice and Bob must still be pure, since the channel was unitary and we didn’t trace out any auxiliary system. So there must end up being $$n(1- 2 \delta) \,\,\text{ebits}$$ shared between Alice and Bob. Alice and Bob started with $$nk = \frac{\alpha n}{1+\alpha} + n \delta\,\, \,\,\text{ebits}$$ and they ended with $n(1-2\delta)$ ebits, which gives a net gain of $$\frac{n}{1+\alpha} - 3 n \delta\,\, \,\,\text{ebits}.$$ They have therefore achieved an asymptotic transmission rate arbitrarily close to one $\alpha$-bit plus one ebit per $1+\alpha$ cobits.
Now we have to show that they can use one ebit per $\alpha$-bit to achieve an asymptotic rate of cobit transmission arbitrarily close to $$1+\alpha.$$ This is effectively the same construction we used to send classical bits using $\alpha$-bits in Theorem \[thrm:alphaclassical\]. The coherence essentially comes for free from the definition of an $\alpha$-bit.
Alice and Bob again share a qudit $$\Ket{\Psi}^{AB} =\frac{1}{\sqrt{d}} \sum_k \Ket{k}^A \Ket{k}^B$$ but this time rather than having a classical message $xy$, Alice has a state $$\begin{aligned}
\ket{\chi}^C = \sum_{x,y} c_{xy} \ket{x y}^C.\end{aligned}$$ She then applies the unitary $$\begin{aligned}
U = \sum_{x,y} \ket{x y} \bra{x y}^C U_{xy}^A \end{aligned}$$ where $U^A_{xy}$ is defined as in the proof of Theorem \[thrm:alphaclassical\]. But as we have already shown, if Bob knows that the only possible operations that may have been applied to the state $\ket{\Psi}$ are the unitaries $U^A_{xy}$, he will always be able to approximately recover the state $$U^A_{xy} \ket{\Psi} = \ket{\Psi_{xy}}$$ if he is sent system $A$ as an $\alpha$-dit. Note that Alice and Bob originally shared $\log d$ ebits and they have transmitted $\log d$ $\alpha$-bits. Since the states $\ket{\Psi_{xy}}$ are orthogonal, there exists an isometry $V': B \to D E'$ such that for all $x,y$ $$\begin{aligned}
\ket{{xy}'} = V' U_{\mathcal{N}} \ket{\Psi_{xy}} \cong \ket{xy}^D \ket{\Phi_0}^{E'E}\end{aligned}$$ which gives the final state (up to any errors) $$\ket{\rho} = \sum_{x,y} c_{xy} \ket{xy}^C \ket{xy}^D.$$ Alice has sent $\left(1+\alpha\right) \log d$ cobits to Bob, which is the desired rate of cobit transmission.
All that remains is to show that the error in the cobit transmission tends to zero in a dimension independent way. We showed in the proof of Theorem \[thrm:alphaclassical\] that for all $x,y$ $$\begin{aligned}
{\operatorname{Re}}\left( \bra{xy}\bra{\Phi_0} V' U_{\mathcal{N}} \ket{\Psi_{xy}}\right) = {\operatorname{Re}}\left( \bra{\Psi_{xy}}\bra{\Phi_0} V U_{\mathcal{N}} \ket{\Psi_{xy}}\right) \geq 1 - 45 \sqrt{\varepsilon}.\end{aligned}$$ Hence $$\begin{aligned}
{\operatorname{Re}}\left(\bra{\rho}\bra{\Phi_0} \sum_{x,y} c_{xy} \ket{xy}^C \ket{xy'}\right) \geq \sum_{x,y} |c_{xy}|^2 (1 - 45 \sqrt{\varepsilon}) = 1 - 45 \sqrt{\varepsilon},\end{aligned}$$ and so we see that the error does indeed tend to zero in a dimension independent way.
Reversible teleportation and its consequences {#sec:telep}
---------------------------------------------
As indicated in the introduction, (\[eqn:harrow+again\]) implies a host of remarkable properties of $\alpha$-bits. Eliminating the entanglement implies that different $\alpha$-bits differ only by cobits $$1 \, \alpha\text{-bit} {\stackrel{(a)}{=}}1 \, \beta\text{-bit} + (\alpha - \beta) \text{ cobits}$$ or ebits $$\label{eqn:telep-gen}
(1 + \beta) \,\, \alpha\text{-bits} {\stackrel{(a)}{=}}(1+\alpha) \,\,\beta\text{-bits} + (\alpha-\beta) \text{ ebits}.$$ If we set $\beta = 1$ in (\[eqn:telep-gen\]), but leave $\alpha$ general we see that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:alpha-reverse}
(1 + \alpha) \text{ qubits} {\stackrel{(a)}{=}}2 \,\,\alpha\text{-bits} + (1 - \alpha) \text{ ebits}.\end{aligned}$$ This explains why amortisation and entanglement-assistance are equivalent for $\alpha$-bit communication with $\alpha < 1$. Each qubit asymptotically gives $\frac{2}{1+\alpha}$ $\alpha$-bits, which are subtracted in the amortisation, but it also gives $\frac{1-\alpha}{1+\alpha}$ ebits which are then a free additional resource that can be used. If $\alpha=1$, however, the entire capacity of the qubit is used to send a qubit (by definition) and so there is no free additional resource. Amortisation therefore provides no benefit.
We can interpret (\[eqn:telep-gen\]) as the $\alpha$-bit version of teleportation. In its most extreme form, with $\alpha = 1$ and $\beta = 0$, (\[eqn:telep-gen\]) becomes $$\label{eqn:telep-0}
1 \text{ qubit} {\stackrel{(a)}{=}}2 \text{ zero-bits} + 1 \text{ ebit},$$ which shows that zero-bits can substitute directly for classical bits in teleportation. Moreover, doing so results in a protocol that is reversible: one qubit of communication can also be converted asymptotically into two zero-bits and an ebit. So a pair of zero-bits is the minimal communications resource sufficient to accomplish teleportation.
Cancelling against the standard teleportation inequality also shows that $$\label{eqn:cbit-0bit}
1 \text{ cbit} {\stackrel{(a)}{\geq}}1 \text{ zero-bit}.$$ This may seem a bit puzzling since the zero-bit is a quantum mechanical resource. It allows for universal quantum error correction in constant-sized subspaces after all. But the entanglement-assisted zero-bit capacity of a classical bit channel is one, consistent with the inequality. An examination of the capacity proof reveals that the amount of entanglement required grows sublinearly with the number of bits sent so doesn’t appear in the asymptotic inequality. (Inequality (\[eqn:cbit-0bit\]) could also be inferred from amortised capacities. The size of the quantum side channel required depends only on the quality of the simulation and not the number of bits sent [@hayden2012weak; @fawzi2013low].)
With (\[eqn:telep-0\]) in hand, we can proceed to replace standard teleportation with zero-bit-powered teleportation in a wide range of applications. Consider, for example, the “father” inequality [@devetak2004family; @resource] $$\label{eqn:father}
\langle \mathcal{N}_{A' \rightarrow B} \rangle + \frac{1}{2} I(A;E) \text{ ebits}
{\stackrel{(a)}{\geq}}\frac{1}{2} I(A;B) \text{ qubits},$$ which states that given many uses of the channel $\mathcal{N}$, it is possible to perform entanglement-assisted quantum communication at the specified rates. The mutual informations can be evaluated with respect to any fixed state $\ket{\Psi}_{ABE} = ({\operatorname{Id}}_A \otimes V_{A'\rightarrow BE})\ket{\psi}_{AA'}$, for $V$ an isometric extension of $\mathcal{N}$. Substituting zero-bit teleportation on the right hand side gives $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \mathcal{N}_{A' \rightarrow B} \rangle + \frac{1}{2} I(A;E) \text{ ebits}
{\stackrel{(a)}{\geq}}\frac{1}{2} I(A;B) \left\{ \text{ebits} + 2 \,\, \text{zero-bits} \right\}\end{aligned}$$ then cancelling the entanglement on both sides confirms the conclusion of Theorem \[thrm:abitcapacity\] that, given entanglement assistance, zero-bits can be transmitted at the mutual information rate $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:father-0bits}
\langle \mathcal{N}_{A' \rightarrow B} \rangle + I(A\rangle E) \text{ ebits}
{\stackrel{(a)}{\geq}}I(A;B) \text{ zero-bits}.\end{aligned}$$ If instead we place the ebits on the other side of the equation, we see that $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \mathcal{N}_{A' \rightarrow B} \rangle
{\stackrel{(a)}{\geq}}I(A;B) \text{ zero-bits} + I(A\rangle B) \text{ ebits} .\end{aligned}$$ Since setting $\beta=0$ in (\[eqn:telep-gen\]) yields $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:alpha0e}
1\,\, \alpha\text{-bits} {\stackrel{(a)}{=}}(1+\alpha) \,\,0\text{-bits} + \alpha \text{ ebits},\end{aligned}$$ we see immediately how the $\alpha$-bit capacity in Theorem \[thrm:abitcapacity\] can be achieved. The channel $\mathcal{N}$ can be used to send $q$ $\alpha$-bits if it can simultaneously be used to send $(1+\alpha)q$ zero-bits and $\alpha q$ ebits. This requires a state such that $$I(A \rangle B) \geq \alpha \,q \,\,\,\,\,\text{ and }\,\,\,\,\,I(A;B) \geq (1+\alpha)\,q.$$
Another interesting manipulation again starts with the father inequality but doesn’t teleport all the qubits: $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \mathcal{N}_{A' \rightarrow B} \rangle + \frac{1}{2} I(A;E) \text{ ebits}
&{\stackrel{(a)}{\geq}}\frac{1}{2} I(A;E) \text{ qubits} + I(A\rangle B) \text{ qubits} \\
& {\stackrel{(a)}{=}}\frac{1}{2} I(A;E) \left\{ \text{ebits} + 2 \text{ zero-bits} \right\} + I(A\rangle B) \text{ qubits}.\end{aligned}$$ Cancelling the entanglement on both sides leaves $$\label{eqn:coherent+}
\langle \mathcal{N}_{A' \rightarrow B} \rangle {\stackrel{(a)}{\geq}}I(A\rangle B) \text{ qubits} + I(A;E) \text{ zero-bits}.$$ This is the famous statement that a quantum channel can transmit qubits at the coherent information rate [@lloyd1997capacity; @shor2002quantum; @devetak2005private]. But now we see that even as it does so, the channel can simultaneously transmit zero-bits at a rate given by the mutual information with the environment. This may provide some insight into why the maximised coherent information fails to provide a single-letter formula for the capacity. For any protocol achieving qubit transmission at the coherent information rate, there is generally another protocol transmitting qubits at the same rate as the original but simultaneously achieving positive rate zero-bit transmission. The original protocol therefore fails, in this sense, to exhaust the ability of the channel to send information. In the same spirit, we can also start from the “mother” inequality $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:mother}
\langle \rho_{AB} \rangle + \frac{1}{2} I(A;E) \text{ qubits}
{\stackrel{(a)}{\geq}}\frac{1}{2} I(A;B) \text{ ebits}.\end{aligned}$$ In this case, the mutual informations are to be taken with respect to any purification of $\rho_{AB}$ to $ABE$. Implementing the qubit transmission using zero-bit-powered teleportation leads to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:hashing}
\langle \rho_{AB} \rangle + I(A;E) \text{ zero-bits}
{\stackrel{(a)}{\geq}}I(A\rangle B) \text{ ebits}.\end{aligned}$$ This is the hashing lower bound on entanglement distillation [@bdsw96; @devetak2004relating], but now we see that it can be achieved by having Alice send Bob zero-bits instead of classical bits. This is non-trivial because zero-bits are asymptotically weaker resources than bits. (But, in practice, zero-bits are much harder to implement so the inequality is not likely to be practically useful.)
The mother protocol is also the basis for state merging, a version of teleportation that transfers the $A$ portion of a pure tripartite state on $ABR$ to $B$, optimally exploiting correlations between $A$ and $B$ [@horodecki2007quantum]. Because state merging can be implemented by starting with a version of the mother protocol and then teleporting the necessary qubits [@mother], it follows that we can merge using zero-bits instead of classical bits.
A similar story holds for the quantum reverse Shannon theorem, which states that in the presence of free entanglement, many uses of a noisy quantum channel can be simulated by communication of classical bits at a rate given the inverse of the channels entanglement-assisted classical capacity [@BDHSW09; @BCR09]. We saw earlier that zero-bits can simulate classical bits in the presence of free entanglement so one is free to substitute zero-bits for classical bits in the simulation. One consequence of the reverse Shannon theorem is that, again in the presence of free entanglement, any channel can simulate any other at a rate given by the ratio of the entanglement-assisted capacities. (\[eqn:alpha-reverse\]) says the same about $\alpha$-bits so can be regarded as the $\alpha$-bit version of the reverse Shannon theorem.
Unlike with standard teleportation, all the protocol transformations performed above are reversible. In the language of the resource calculus, they arise by substituting an identity instead of an inequality. As a result, the father inequality (\[eqn:father\]), the zero-bit capacity achievability inequality (\[eqn:father-0bits\]) and the strengthened coherent information rate inequality (\[eqn:coherent+\]) are all equivalent. Starting from one, the others follow by substitution of identities and simple manipulations. Likewise, the zero-bit version of the entanglement distillation hashing bound, inequality (\[eqn:hashing\]), is equivalent to the mother inequality (\[eqn:mother\]) and zero-bit state merging is equivalent to the mother version, sometimes called fully quantum Slepian-Wolf, in which qubits are transferred directly. It follows that any optimality statement about one of them translates into an optimality statement about all the others.
Zero-bits can even be substituted for classical bits in other variants of teleportation. Remote state preparation is the version of teleportation in which the sender knows which state she is trying to send to Bob. Giving Alice that knowledge reduces the communication requirement to one bit per qubit instead of two [@bennett2005remote]: $$1 \text{ cbit} + 1 \text{ ebit} {\stackrel{(a)}{\geq}}1 \text{ remote qubit}.$$ This inequality can be derived by teleportation from a stronger result [@harrow2004superdense; @hayden2006aspects]: $$1 \text{ qubit} + 1 \text{ ebit} {\stackrel{(a)}{\geq}}2 \text{ remote qubits}.$$ Repeating the now familiar argument, we can use zero-bit-powered teleportation instead to achieve $$\{ 2 \text{ zero-bits} + 1 \text{ ebit} \} + 1 \text{ ebit} {\stackrel{(a)}{\geq}}2 \text{ remote qubits},$$ or equivalently $$1 \text{ zero-bit} + 1 \text{ ebit} {\stackrel{(a)}{\geq}}1 \text{ remote qubit}.$$
These observations extend to the situation in which the state to be prepared is entangled between Alice and Bob. Using the results of [@abeyesinghe2006optimal] in the same manner as above, it is straightforward to derive the zero-bit analog of a result from [@harrow2004coherent]. Namely, if states are drawn identically and independently from the ensemble $\mathcal{E} = (p_j, \ket{\psi_j}_{AB})$, then in the limit of many copies, the sequence can be remotely prepared using a rate of $$\chi(\mathcal{E}^B) \text{ zero-bits} + H(\mathcal{E}^B) \text{ ebits},$$ where $\chi(\mathcal{E}^B)$ is the Holevo $\chi$ function [@Holevo73] of the ensemble of states $(p_j, {\operatorname{Tr}}_A \psi_j)$ and $H(\mathcal{E}^B)$ the average entropy of states in the ensemble.
A universal version of the protocol also exists that works for all sufficiently entangled states without the ensemble assumption, based on Proposition II.3 of [@abeyesinghe2006optimal]. Because zero-bits are defined only in the limit of diverging dimension, however, they cannot be applied, strictly speaking, to a single state of fixed dimension. A correct description of the universal protocol must therefore deal with the associated error in the universal subspace transmission. The same technicality complicates applying zero-bits in one-shot communications protocols [@D10; @DBWR10] but there is no fundamental obstacle to doing so. The conclusions should be qualitatively similar to the ones presented here in the memoryless setting.
Achievability and optimality of $\alpha$-bit capacities {#sec:proof}
=======================================================
This section consists entirely of the proof of Theorem \[thrm:abitcapacity\]. We first prove the achievability of the $\alpha$-bit capacity and the amortised $\alpha$-bit capacity, before moving on to the entanglement-assisted $\alpha$-bit capacity. Finally, we show that the capacities are optimal. The proof of the achievability in particular is somewhat long and technical. The relevant intuition for the $\alpha$-bit capacity case was previously discussed in Section \[sec:cap\].
Achievability of the $\alpha$-bit capacity and amortised $\alpha$-bit capacity
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We include the possibility of amortisation concurrently with the main proof, while postponing the discussion of entanglement assistance to Section \[sec:entangled\]. Our basic construction is similar to the one used in [@hayden2012weak] and is shown in Figure \[fig:amortisedabitcode\]; the input state of an $\alpha$-dit $\Ket{\phi} \in S$ is unitarily embedded into a typical subspace of $A^n$ tensored with $C$ and $F$ where $C$ and $F$ are ancilla spaces that are respectively used for the amortised side channel and thrown away. Making catalytic use of shared randomness, we first apply an element of the Clifford group chosen using the shared randomness, which allows us to transmit a large single $\alpha$-dit at the desired rate. Since the shared randomness is recovered, we can simply seed it initially using a relatively small set of uses of the channel, and then reuse it to send a large number of $\alpha$-dits.
Let $U_\mathcal{N}: A' \to B \otimes E$ be a Stinespring dilation of $\mathcal{N}$ and let $\ket{\psi} \in AA' \subset ABE$ be any state. We assume for convenience that $\ket{\psi}$ involves only one copy of $A$. As discussed in Section \[sec:cap\], we can of course consider inputs $\ket{\psi} \in A^k A'^k$ to $k$ copies of the channel for arbitrary $k$, and indeed to achieve the non-amortised $\alpha$-bit capacity we need to consider this possibility. However, since the proof works for any arbitrary quantum channel, it will work for the channel $\mathcal{N}^{\otimes k}$. We are therefore free to ignore this subtlety almost entirely.
It will turn out that a transmission rate $s = \frac{1}{n}\log d_S$ is achievable so long as we can find $c = \frac{1}{n}\log d_C$ and $f =\frac{1}{n} \log d_F$ such that it satisfies the following two bounds: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:bound1}
H(E)_\rho + f + \alpha s < H(B)_\rho + c.\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:bound2}
s < c + H(A)_\rho + f.\end{aligned}$$ As discussed in Section \[sec:cap\] for the non-amortised case, the first bound arises because the dimension of the code space $S$ must be less than the dimension of the space $C A^n F$ that we embed it into. Note that the dimension of $S$ may be much larger than total size of the inputs $CA^n$ of the main channel $\mathcal{N}^{\otimes n}$ and the auxiliary side channel if the encoding channel is non-unitary. However, we have defined the ancilla space $F$ so that the encoding $S \to C A^n F$ is an isometry, and then $F$ is thrown away to the environment.
The second bound ensures that the effective dimension of the environment and reference system is small compared to the effective dimension of the state that is received. The only change is that the space we embed the code space into and the space that Bob receives now include the auxiliary side channel $C$.
If we allow any $c,f \geq 0$ we can always simultaneously saturate both bounds. This gives a supremum on the amortised transmission rate of $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{Q}_\alpha^{\text{am}} = s - \frac{2}{1 +\alpha} c = \frac{1}{1 + \alpha} \left[ H(A)_\rho + H(B)_\rho - H(E)_\rho \right] = \frac{1}{1+\alpha}I(A;B)_\rho,\end{aligned}$$ since $\Ket{\psi}^{A'A}$ and $\Ket{\rho}^{ABE} = U_{\mathcal{N}} \ket{\psi}$ are both pure states. Hence, the amortised capacity given in Theorem \[thrm:abitcapacity\] is achievable.
However, if we do not allow amortisation, it is not always possible to adjust the ancilla spaces to satisfy both equalities simultaneously. If we require $c=0$ and $f \geq 0$, the two bounds can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{Q}_\alpha = s \leq \frac{1}{1+\alpha} I(A;B)_\rho\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{Q}_\alpha < \frac{1}{\alpha} \left[ H(B)_\rho - H(E)_\rho \right] = \frac{1}{\alpha} I(A \rangle B)_\rho.\end{aligned}$$ When we optimise over the state $\ket{\psi} \in A^k A'^k$ and the number $k$ of channel uses used to construct $\ket{\psi}$, this is sufficient to achieve the $\alpha$-bit capacity given in Theorem \[thrm:abitcapacity\].
Our task therefore is to show that any rate satisfying (\[eq:bound1\]) and (\[eq:bound2\]) is achievable. We begin the proof by defining typical subspaces of $A^n$, $B^n$ and $E^n$ using a construction first used in [@mother].
\[Typicality [@mother]\] \[lemma:typical\] Let $\Ket{\rho} \in A \otimes B \otimes E$ and $\Ket{\psi} = \Ket{\rho}^{\otimes n}$. For any $\delta$ sufficiently small and all sufficiently large $n$ there exist projectors $\Pi^B$ and $\Pi^E$ on $B^n$ and $E^n$ respectively as well as a projection $\Pi_t^A$ onto a fixed type subspace of $A^n$ such that the states $$\Ket{\psi_t} = \frac{\Pi_t^A \otimes \mathbbm{1}^B \otimes \mathbbm{1}^E \Ket{\psi}}{\sqrt{\Braket{\psi |\Pi_t^A \otimes \mathbbm{1}^B \otimes \mathbbm{1}^E| \psi}}},$$ and $$\Ket{\tilde\psi_t} = \frac{\Pi_t^A \otimes \Pi^B \otimes \Pi^E \Ket{\psi}}{\sqrt{\Braket{\psi | \Pi_t^A \otimes \mathbbm{1}^B \otimes \mathbbm{1}^E | \psi}}}$$ satisfy the following conditions for $X = A^n, B^n, E^n$:
1. $\psi_t^{A^n} = \frac{\Pi_t^A}{\text{Rank} (\Pi_t^A)}$
2. $\lVert \psi_t - \tilde\psi_t \rVert_1 \leq \varepsilon$
3. ${\operatorname{Tr}}\left(\left(\tilde \psi_t^X\right)^2\right) \leq 3 (1 - 3 \varepsilon)^{-1} 2^{-n \left(H(X)_\rho - \eta \delta\right)}$.
4. $2^{n\left(H(X) - \delta\right)} \leq \text{Rank}\,\, \Pi^X \leq 2^{n\left(H(X) + \delta\right)} $
5. The largest eigenvalue of $\tilde\psi_t^{E^n}$ is bounded from above by $$(1- 3 \varepsilon)^{-1} 2^{-n \left(H(X)_\rho - \eta \delta\right)}.$$
Here $\eta>0$ is a constant and $$0 < \varepsilon \leq e^{-\kappa n \delta^2}$$ for some constant $\kappa>0$.
This is exactly the result in [@mother], except that we include a specific upper bound on the decay of $\varepsilon$ at large $n$. It follows trivially from the definition of $\varepsilon$ in the original construction and the central limit theorem.
\[defn:con\] For convenience we define $\hat A = C A_t F$, $\hat B = CB^n$ and $\hat E = E^n F$. Additionally, we shall use the notation that for any state $\chi$, $$\tilde \chi = \Pi^{B} \Pi^{E} \chi \Pi^B \Pi^E$$ where the projectors $\Pi^X$ and $A_t$ are defined in Lemma \[lemma:typical\].
Our construction embeds $S$ into $\hat A$ which is possible so long as $d_{\hat A} \geq d_S$. $$\begin{aligned}
d_{\hat A} = d_C d_{A_t} d_F \geq 2^{n\left[c+f + H(A) - \delta\right]}.\end{aligned}$$ It follows that the embedding is possible at sufficiently large $n$ so long as (\[eq:bound2\]) applies.
We now generalise results from [@randomaverage] to show using a couple of lemmas that an encoding consisting of applying a shared random element of the Clifford group will be $\alpha$-forgetful in the environment so long as (\[eq:bound1\]) is true.
\[Random vs average states\] \[lemma:random\] For any state $\Ket{\phi}$ on $R \hat A$ let $\rho(U) = U \phi U^\dagger$ where $U$ is a unitary matrix acting on $\hat A$. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:average}
\left\langle {\operatorname{Tr}}\left( \tilde \rho^{\hat E R} - \tilde \Omega^{\hat E} \otimes \phi^R \right)^2 \right \rangle_U \leq \frac{d_{\hat A}^2}{d_{\hat A}^2 -1}{\operatorname{Tr}}\left(\tilde \Omega^{\hat B}\right)^2 \leq \frac{4}{3} {\operatorname{Tr}}\,\tilde \Omega^{\hat B^2}\end{aligned}$$ where the expectation is taken over the Haar measure of unitaries on $\hat A$ and $\Omega$ is the maximally mixed state on $\hat A$. Other notation used here is defined in Lemma \[lemma:typical\] and Definition \[defn:con\].
Note that since (using condition 1 of Lemma \[lemma:typical\]) $\psi_t$ is simply the Choi-Jamiolkowski state for the restriction of $U_{\mathcal{N}}$ to $A_t$, we get $$\Omega^{CB^nE^nF} = \Omega^C \otimes \psi_t^{B^nE^n} \otimes \Omega^F.$$ We will therefore be able to use condition 3 of Lemma \[lemma:typical\] to constrain the right hand side of (\[eq:average\]).
We write the Schmidt decomposition of $\Ket{\phi}$ as
$$\begin{aligned}
\Ket{\phi} = \sum_i \sqrt{p_i} \Ket{i}^R \Ket{\psi_i}^A\end{aligned}$$
Note that since since we are taking the average over unitaries on $A$ and the choice of basis for the reference system is arbitrary, the only relevant properties of $\Ket{\phi}$ are the eigenvalues of the reduced density matrices $\{ p_i \}$. In fact $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \tilde \rho \rangle = \tilde \Omega \otimes \phi^R.\end{aligned}$$ We therefore find that $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle {\operatorname{Tr}}\left( \tilde \rho^{\hat E R} - \tilde \Omega^{\hat E} \otimes \phi^R \right)^2 \right \rangle_U = \left\langle {\operatorname{Tr}}(\tilde \rho^{\hat E R^2})\right\rangle_U - {\operatorname{Tr}}\left\langle \tilde \rho^{\hat E R} \right\rangle_U^2,\end{aligned}$$ and hence to prove Lemma \[lemma:random\] we simply have to prove that $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle {\operatorname{Tr}}\tilde \rho^{\hat E R^2} \right \rangle_U \leq {\operatorname{Tr}}\left\langle\tilde \rho^{\hat ER} \right \rangle_U^2 + \frac{d_{\hat A}^2}{d_{\hat A}^2 -1}{\operatorname{Tr}}\left\langle \tilde \rho^B \right\rangle_U^2.\end{aligned}$$ To prove this we make use of the swap trick and introduce a second copy of all the Hilbert spaces, which we shall indicate by primes. Then $$\begin{aligned}
{\operatorname{Tr}}\left(\tilde \rho^{\hat ER^2}\right) = \sum_{i,j} p_i p_j {\operatorname{Tr}}\left[\left(U\Ket{\psi_i}\Bra{\psi_j}U^\dagger \otimes U\Ket{\psi_j}'\Bra{\psi_i}'U^\dagger \right) \Pi^{\hat E} \Pi^{\hat E'} F^{\hat E \hat E'} \otimes \Pi^{\hat B} \Pi^{\hat B'}\right]\end{aligned}$$ where $F^{\hat E \hat E'}$ is the swap operator on $\hat E$ and $\hat E'$ and we have carried out the trace over $R$ and $R'$ explicitly since it is independent of $U$.
We have now reduced the problem to finding $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:vij}
V_{ij} = \big\langle U\Ket{\psi_i}\Bra{\psi_j}U^\dagger \otimes U\Ket{\psi_j}'\Bra{\psi_i}'U^\dagger \big\rangle_U.\end{aligned}$$ Since $V_{ij}$ is invariant under $$\begin{aligned}
V_{ij} \to U \otimes U V_{ij} U^\dagger \otimes U^\dagger,\end{aligned}$$ it must be possible to write $$\begin{aligned}
V_{ij} = V_1 \delta_{ij} + V_2 \left(1-\delta_{ij}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore by standard results about representations of the unitary group, $V_1$ and $V_2$ will have the form $$\begin{aligned}
V_a = \alpha_a \Pi_{\text{sym}}^{\hat A \hat A'} + \beta_a \Pi_{\text{anti}}^{\hat A \hat A'}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Pi_{\text{sym}}^{\hat A \hat A'}$ and $\Pi_{\text{anti}}^{\hat A \hat A'}$ are projectors onto the symmetric and antisymmetric subspaces respectively of the product Hilbert space.
We calculate $V_1$ first, since it is identical to the calculation considered in [@randomaverage]. Since $$\begin{aligned}
\left( \Ket{\phi} \Bra{\phi} \otimes \Ket{\phi}' \Bra{\phi}' \right) \left( \Ket{ab} - \Ket{ba} \right) = 0 \,\,\,\, \forall \, a,b,\phi\end{aligned}$$ we know $\beta_1= 0$ and therefore $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_1 = \frac{1}{{\operatorname{Tr}}\,\Pi_{\text{sym}}^{\hat A \hat A'}} = \frac{2}{d_{\hat A}(d_{\hat A} +1)}.\end{aligned}$$ since $\Ket{\psi_i}$ is normalised.
If we take the same approach for the case $i \neq j$, using the orthonormality of the Schmidt decomposition we find that $$\begin{aligned}
{\operatorname{Tr}}\left(V_2\right) = {\operatorname{Tr}}\left(\alpha_2 \Pi_{\text{sym}}^{\hat A \hat A'} +\beta_2 \Pi_{\text{anti}}^{\hat A \hat A'}\right) = 0\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
{\operatorname{Tr}}\left(V_2 F^{\hat A \hat A'}\right) = {\operatorname{Tr}}\left(\alpha_2 \Pi_{\text{sym}}^{\hat A \hat A'} -\beta_2 \Pi^{\text{anti}}_{\hat A \hat A'}\right) = 1\end{aligned}$$ It follows that $$\begin{aligned}
V_2 = \frac{1}{d_{\hat A}(d_{\hat A} + 1)} \Pi_{\text{sym}}^{\hat A \hat A'} - \frac{1}{d_{\hat A}(d_{\hat A} - 1)} \Pi_{\text{anti}}^{\hat A \hat A'}.\end{aligned}$$ To complete the proof, we first write $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi_{\text{sym}}^{\hat A \hat A'} = \frac{1}{2} \left(\mathbbm{1}^{\hat A \hat A'} + F^{\hat A \hat A'}\right)\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi_{\text{anti}}^{\hat A \hat A'} = \frac{1}{2} \left(\mathbbm{1}^{\hat A \hat A'} - F^{\hat A \hat A'}\right)\end{aligned}$$ and then substitute our expression for $V_{ij}$ back into (\[eq:vij\]). $$\begin{aligned}
{\operatorname{Tr}}\left(\tilde \rho^{\hat ER^2}\right) = &\sum_i p_i^2\frac{d_{\hat A}^2}{d_{\hat A} (d_{\hat A} + 1)}\, \left({\operatorname{Tr}}\,\, \tilde \Omega^{\hat E^2} + {\operatorname{Tr}}\,\, \tilde \Omega^{\hat B^2}\right) \\&+ \sum_{i,j \neq i} p_i p_j \left(\frac{d_{\hat A}^2}{d_{\hat A}^2 -1} {\operatorname{Tr}}\,\, \tilde \Omega^{\hat B^2} - \frac{d_{\hat A}}{d_{\hat A}^2 - 1} {\operatorname{Tr}}\,\, \tilde \Omega^{\hat E^2} \right),\end{aligned}$$ and hence $$\begin{aligned}
{\operatorname{Tr}}\left(\tilde \rho^{\hat ER^2}\right) \leq \sum_i p_i^2 \,\,{\operatorname{Tr}}\,\, \tilde \Omega^{\hat E^2} + \frac{d_{\hat A}^2}{d_{\hat A}^2 -1} {\operatorname{Tr}}\,\, \tilde \Omega^{\hat B^2}\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle {\operatorname{Tr}}\tilde \rho^{\hat E R^2} \right \rangle_U \leq {\operatorname{Tr}}\left\langle\tilde \rho^{\hat ER} \right \rangle_U^2 + \frac{d_{\hat A}^2}{d_{\hat A}^2 -1}{\operatorname{Tr}}\left\langle \tilde \rho^B \right\rangle_U^2.\end{aligned}$$
The next step in the proof is to construct an encoding channel $\mathcal{E}$ such that the combination of the encoding and transmission channels $\left(\mathcal{N}^{\otimes n} \otimes {\operatorname{Id}}_C\right) \circ \mathcal{E}$ can be used to communicate an $\alpha$-dit. By Theorem \[thrm:subspacedecoup\], this is equivalent to the complementary channel to $\left(\mathcal{N}^{\otimes n} \otimes {\operatorname{Id}}_C\right) \circ \mathcal{E}$ being $\alpha$-forgetful.
Our encoding consists of embedding the code subspace $S$ into $\hat A$ and then applying a random element of a unitary 2-design known by both Alice and Bob. We shall also need that the number of elements in the 2-design grows subexponentially with the dimension $d_{\hat A}$ of the Hilbert space. A convenient example is the generalised Clifford group $G$, for which [@ieee1998calderbank; @wilson2009finite] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:cliffordsize}
\left|G\right| = 2^{O((\log d)^2)}.\end{aligned}$$
\[lemma:clifford\] We define the channel $\mathcal{C}_{\mathcal{N}}: S(\hat A) \to S(\hat B Z)$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{C}_{\mathcal{N}}(\rho) = \frac{1}{|\{U_i\}|}\sum_{i=1}^{|\{U_i\}|} {\operatorname{Id}}_C \otimes \mathcal{N}^{\otimes n} \left[{\operatorname{Tr}}_F \left(U_i \rho U_i^\dagger\right)\right] \otimes \ket{i} \bra{i}^Z\end{aligned}$$ where the sum is over the elements of any 2-design $\{ U_i \}$ of unitary matrices.
Then $$\begin{aligned}
\lVert \mathcal{C}_{\mathcal{N}}^c - \mathcal{R} \rVert_\diamond^{(d_R)} \leq \sqrt{\frac{4 \tilde d_{\hat E} d_R}{3\tilde d_B^{\text{eff}}}} + 3 \sqrt{\varepsilon}\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde d_{\hat E} = |F|\, \text{Rank}\,\, \Pi^E$ and $$\tilde d_{\hat B}^{\text{eff}} = \frac{1}{{\operatorname{Tr}}\left(\tilde \Omega^{\hat B^2} \right)}.$$
If we take the limit $n \to \infty$, then $\mathcal{C}_{\mathcal{N}}^c $ will be $d_R$-forgetful with vanishing error so long as $$H(E)_\rho + f + \alpha s < H(B)_\rho + c$$ which is simply (\[eq:bound1\]).
We note that $$\mathcal{C}_{\mathcal{N}}=\left(\mathcal{N}^{\otimes n} \otimes {\operatorname{Id}}_C\right) \circ \mathcal{E}$$ where $\mathcal{E}$ is the encoding channel that consists of applying a random element of $\{U_i\}$ known by both Alice and Bob. The Hilbert space $Z$ stores Bob’s copy of the shared random classical message. In practice, a copy of the same message will also be held by Alice, but for the purpose of defining a complementary channel in order to decide whether Bob is able to decode the state, we need to assume that the state held by Bob is purified only by the environment. In other words that there exists an isometry from a pure state held only by Alice to a pure state shared between Bob and the environment.
A unitary 2-design $\{U_i\}$ is defined by the property that for any polynomial $P_{2,2}(U,U^\dagger)$ that is at most quadratic in the elements of $U$ and quadratic in the elements of $U^\dagger$, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{|\{U_i\}|} \sum_{i=1}^{|\{U_i\}|} P_{2,2}(U_i,U_i^\dagger) = \int \text{dU} \,\,P_{2,2}(U,U^\dagger).\end{aligned}$$ It follows that Lemma \[lemma:random\] remains true when the expectation value is taken over the elements of a 2-design rather than the Haar measure on the entire unitary group. For the remainder of the proof, let $M = |\{U_i\}|$.
Let $\rho_i = U_i \phi U^\dagger_i$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{M}\sum_i {\operatorname{Tr}}\left( \tilde \rho_i^{\hat E R} - \tilde \Omega^{\hat E} \otimes \phi^R \right)^2 \leq \frac{4}{3} {\operatorname{Tr}}\,\tilde \Omega^{\hat B^2}.\end{aligned}$$ If we introduce an auxiliary Hilbert space $Z$ $$\begin{aligned}
{\operatorname{Tr}}\left(\frac{1}{M}\sum_i \tilde \rho_i^{\hat E R} \otimes \ket{i} \bra{i} - \frac{1}{M}\,\tilde \Omega^{\hat E} \otimes \phi^R \otimes \mathbbm{1}^Z \right)^2 \leq \frac{4}{3 M} {\operatorname{Tr}}\,\tilde \Omega^{\hat B^2}.\end{aligned}$$ In terms of the Hilbert-Schmidt or Schatten 2-norm, this becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\left\lVert\frac{1}{M}\sum_i \left(\tilde \rho_i^{\hat E R} - \,\tilde \Omega^{\hat E} \otimes \phi^R\right)\otimes \ket{i} \bra{i} \right\rVert_2 \leq \sqrt{\frac{4}{3 M} {\operatorname{Tr}}\,\tilde \Omega^{\hat B^2}}.\end{aligned}$$ However, the trace or Schatten 1-norm is bounded by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:1normbound}
\lVert X \rVert_1 \leq \sqrt{\text{Rank} (X)} \,\lVert X \rVert_2\end{aligned}$$ so $$\begin{aligned}
\left\lVert\frac{1}{M}\sum_i \left(\tilde \rho_i^{\hat E R} - \,\tilde \Omega^{\hat E} \otimes \phi^R\right)\otimes \ket{i} \bra{i} \right\rVert_1 \leq \sqrt{\frac{4 \,\tilde d_{\hat E} \, d_R}{3 \,\tilde d^{\text{eff}}_{\hat B}}}.\end{aligned}$$ This is almost the quantity we are interested in, except that we want it without the tildes. We can remedy this discrepancy by taking advantage of the triangle inequality for the trace norm $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\left\lVert\frac{1}{M}\sum_i \left(\rho_i^{\hat E R} - \, \Omega^{\hat E} \otimes \phi^R\right)\otimes \ket{i} \bra{i} \right\rVert_1 \leq &\left\lVert\frac{1}{M}\sum_i \left(\rho_i^{\hat E R} - \tilde \rho_i^{\hat E R}\right) \otimes \ket{i} \bra{i}\right\rVert_1 \\&+ \left\lVert\frac{1}{M}\sum_i \left(\tilde \rho_i^{\hat E R} - \,\tilde \Omega^{\hat E} \otimes \phi^R\right)\otimes \ket{i} \bra{i} \right\rVert_1 \\&+ \left\lVert \frac{1}{M}\,\left(\tilde \Omega^{\hat E} - \Omega^{\hat E}\right) \otimes \phi^R \otimes \mathbbm{1}^Z \right\rVert_1.
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ However, $$\begin{aligned}
\left\lVert\frac{1}{M}\sum_i \left(\rho_i^{\hat E R} - \tilde \rho_i^{\hat E R}\right) \otimes \ket{i} \bra{i}\right\rVert_1 \leq \left\lVert\frac{1}{M}\sum_i \left(\rho_i - \tilde \rho_i\right) \otimes \ket{i} \bra{i}\right\rVert_1\end{aligned}$$ and since $\{\rho_i\}$ and $\{\tilde \rho_i\}$ are all pure states $$\begin{aligned}
\left\lVert\frac{1}{M}\sum_i \left(\rho_i - \tilde \rho_i\right) \otimes \ket{i} \bra{i}\right\rVert_1 &\leq \sqrt{2M \, {\operatorname{Tr}}\left(\frac{1}{M}\sum_i \left(\rho_i - \tilde \rho_i\right) \otimes \ket{i} \bra{i}\right)^2} \\
&= \sqrt{\frac{2}{M} \sum_i {\operatorname{Tr}}\left(\rho_i - \tilde \rho_i\right)^2} \\
&= \sqrt{2 \left\langle {\operatorname{Tr}}\left(\rho(U) - \tilde \rho(U)\right)^2 \right\rangle_U} \\
&= \sqrt{2 \left\langle 1 - \braket{\phi|U^\dagger \Pi^B \Pi^E U |\phi}^2\right\rangle_U} \\
& \leq \sqrt{4 - 4\,{\operatorname{Tr}}\,\tilde \Omega} \\
& \leq 2 \sqrt{\varepsilon}.\end{aligned}$$ The first inequality uses the bound on the 1-norm given in (\[eq:1normbound\]). The first equality explicitly carries out the trace over $Z$. The second equality uses the fact that $\{U_i\}$ forms a unitary 2-design. The third equality uses the fact that $\rho(U)$ is pure and that $$\begin{aligned}
{\operatorname{Tr}}\left(\rho(U) \tilde \rho(U) \right) = {\operatorname{Tr}}\left(\tilde \rho(U)^2\right) = \braket{\phi|U^\dagger \Pi^B \Pi^E U |\phi}^2\end{aligned}$$ The second inequality uses the inequality $1-x^2 \leq 2-2x$ and the fact that $\left\langle \tilde \rho \right \rangle_U = \tilde \omega$. Finally, the last inequality follows from condition 2 of Lemma \[lemma:typical\] since $\tilde \Omega = \Omega^C \otimes \tilde \psi_t^{BE} \otimes \Omega^F$.
Similarly, $$\begin{aligned}
\left\lVert \frac{1}{M}\,\left(\tilde \Omega^{\hat E} - \Omega^{\hat E}\right) \otimes \phi^R \otimes \mathbbm{1}^Z \right\rVert_1 \leq
\left\lVert \Omega - \tilde \Omega \right\rVert_1 \leq \varepsilon\end{aligned}$$ which completes the proof of the main part of Lemma \[lemma:clifford\].
$\mathcal{C}_{\mathcal{N}}^c$ will become perfectly $\alpha$-forgetful in the large $n$ limit so long as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:lim0}
\lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{d_{\hat E} d_R}{d_{\hat B}^{\text{eff}}} = 0.\end{aligned}$$ We know that $$\begin{aligned}
d_R = \left\lfloor 2^{\alpha n s} \right\rfloor\end{aligned}$$ while $$\begin{aligned}
2^{n(f+ H(E) - \delta)} \leq\tilde d_{\hat E} \leq 2^{n(f+ H(E) + \delta)}\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1- 3\varepsilon}{3}\, 2^{n(c+ H(B) - \delta)} \leq \tilde d^{\text{eff}}_{\hat B} = \frac{|C|}{{\operatorname{Tr}}\, (\tilde \Omega^{B^n})^2} \leq 2^{n(c+ H(B) + \delta)}.\end{aligned}$$
This means that (\[eq:lim0\]) is true so long as $$H(E)_\rho + f + \alpha s < H(B)_\rho + c.$$
We have therefore shown that if Alice and Bob have a free supply of shared randomness then the $\alpha$-bit capacity and amortised $\alpha$-bit capacities are achievable by applying a random element of a unitary 2-design that is known by both Alice and Bob to a code space $S$ that is just the typical subspace $\hat A$. However, to show that the same rate is still achievable without this source requires some further work.
We will argue that the shared randomness can be reused many times, making its cost negligible. Doing so will require one more lemma.
\[lem:recycle-rand\] Let $\ket{\psi} \in R S_1 S_2 \cdots S_J$, $T$ any Hilbert space, and let $\{ \Gamma_i^{(j)} \}_{i=1}^I$ be a family of quantum channels acting on $S_j$ satisfying $$\label{eqn:shared-rand-reuse-hypo}
\frac{1}{I} \sum_i \left\| (\Gamma_i^{(j)} \otimes {\operatorname{Id}})(\varphi) - \varphi \right\|_1 \leq \varepsilon$$ for all states $\varphi$ on $S_j T$. Then $$\label{eqn:shared-rand-reuse}
\left\| \frac{1}{I} \sum_i {\ket{i}\bra{i}}^Z \otimes
( {\operatorname{Id}}^R \otimes \Gamma_i^{(1)} \otimes \cdots \otimes \Gamma_i^{(J)})(\psi)
- \frac{1}{I} \sum_i {\ket{i}\bra{i}}^Z \otimes \psi
\right\|_1 \leq J \varepsilon.$$
By the triangle inequality, the left hand side of (\[eqn:shared-rand-reuse\]) is bounded above by $$\begin{gathered}
\sum_{j=1}^J
\left\| \frac{1}{I} \sum_i {\ket{i}\bra{i}}^Z \otimes
( {\operatorname{Id}}^R \otimes \Gamma_i^{(1)} \otimes \cdots \otimes \Gamma_i^{(j)} \otimes {\operatorname{Id}}^{S_{>j}} )(\psi)
\right. \\-
\left. \frac{1}{I} \sum_i {\ket{i}\bra{i}}^Z \otimes ( {\operatorname{Id}}^R \otimes \Gamma_i^{(1)} \otimes \cdots \otimes \Gamma_i^{(j-1)} \otimes {\operatorname{Id}}^{S_{\geq j}})(\psi) \right\|_1\end{gathered}$$ which is less than or equal to $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{j=1}^J
\left\| \frac{1}{I} \sum_i {\ket{i}\bra{i}}^Z \otimes
( {\operatorname{Id}}^{RS_{\neq j}} \otimes \Gamma_i^{(j)} )(\psi)
- \frac{1}{I} \sum_i {\ket{i}\bra{i}}^Z \otimes \psi \right\|_1\end{aligned}$$ by the monotonicity of the trace distance with respect to quantum channels. The trace norm of a block diagonal operator is the sum of the trace norms of the blocks, however, so this last expression can be simplified to $$\sum_{j=1}^J \frac{1}{I} \sum_i
\left\|
( {\operatorname{Id}}^{RS_{\neq j}} \otimes \Gamma_i^{(j)} )(\psi)
- \psi \right\|_1,$$ which is bounded above by $J \varepsilon$ from (\[eqn:shared-rand-reuse-hypo\]).
Now suppose that the shared randomness in the $\alpha$-bit transmission protocol is recycled and the protocol repeated $J$ times. For each use of the protocol, had it been run using an independent sample of the shared randomness, the error for decoding any appropriately bounded subspace of the input would have been some $\varepsilon$. Defining $\Gamma_i^{(j)}$ to be the composition of the encoding, channel and decoding for the $j$th run of the protocol with sample value $i$ of the shared randomness allows us to apply Lemma \[lem:recycle-rand\] to conclude that the entire repeated protocol will have total error at most $J \epsilon$ in the sense of Definition \[defn:total-error\].
It then suffices to compare the size of the unitary 2-design with the decay of $\varepsilon$. The error $\varepsilon$ per single protocol $\alpha$-dit is exponentially small in the number $n$ of channel uses per $\alpha$-dit. We can therefore reuse the shared randomness to send a number $J$ of $\alpha$-dits that grows exponentially with $n$ in the large $n$ limit and still achieve any fixed total error $\varepsilon_{\text{tot}}$. We can then choose the unitary 2-design used in the encoding to be the generalised Clifford group, for which we know from (\[eq:cliffordsize\]) that the number of classical bits needed to define a particular element of the Clifford group on $m$ qubits is $O(m^2)$. Any non-trivial quantum channel necessarily has non-zero classical capacity. It follows that Alice can transmit the required shared randomness to Bob in a time that grows only quadratically with $n$. Meanwhile, as we showed above, this shared randomness can then be reused a number of times $J$ that grows exponentially with $n$. By taking the limit $n \to \infty$ we therefore see that there is no cost to the capacity from transmitting the shared randomness. This completes the proof of the achievability of the $\alpha$-bit capacity and amortised $\alpha$-bit capacity given in Theorem \[thrm:abitcapacity\].
Achievability of the entanglement-assisted $\alpha$-bit capacity {#sec:entangled}
----------------------------------------------------------------
We now consider the entanglement-assisted case. We need to show that any entanglement-assisted transmission rate less than $$\frac{1}{1+ \alpha} I(A; B)_\rho$$ is achievable. To do so we construct a variation of Lemma \[lemma:random\]. We first introduce two new Hilbert spaces $K$ and $L$ held by Alice and Bob respectively. The state $\ket{\chi}^{KL}$ is maximally entangled and provides the entanglement assistance for our construction. We then choose our code subspace $S$ so that $$S \otimes K \subseteq \hat A.$$
The basic setup is shown in Figure \[fig:entangledabitcode\]. We define $\hat A, \hat B, \hat E$ as before except that we no longer need the amortisation side-channel Hilbert space $C$. Also, since the shared entanglement can be used to supply the shared randomness used in the protocol, there is no need to repeat the protocol many times to reduce the shared randomness cost. As a result, the protocol achieves single $\alpha$-dit transmission, not just $\alpha$-bit transmission.
In our proof of the achievability of Theorem \[thrm:cobits\], we used the fact that $\alpha$-bits can be transmitted at any asymptotic rate below the entanglement-assisted $\alpha$-bit capacity, using any rate $$\begin{aligned}
k > \alpha s + H(E)_\rho - H(B)_\rho \,\,\, \text{ebits per }\alpha\text{-bit}.\end{aligned}$$ We shall see that this is possible so long as there is no asymptotic cost to the use of shared randomness. By Lemma \[lem:recycle-rand\], since our protocol can achieve errors that are exponentially small in the number of channel uses $n$ per $\alpha$-dit for any transmission rate below the entanglement-assisted $\alpha$-bit capacity, we can send reuse the shared randomness to send $\alpha$-dits a number of times that grows exponentiallys with $n$. However the number of shared random bits (and hence the number of ebits) required to generate the shared randomness grows only as $O(n^2)$ and so vanishes in the asymptotic limit. We do not show that the single $\alpha$-dit capacity is achievable with this limited supply of ebits, only that it is achievable with unlimited entanglement.
\[lemma:entangledrandom\] For any state $\Ket{\phi}$ on $R S$ let $\rho(U) = U \,\left(\chi \otimes \phi\right)\, U^\dagger$ where $U$ is a unitary matrix acting on $\hat A$. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:entrandom}
\left\langle {\operatorname{Tr}}\left( \tilde \rho^{\hat E R} - \tilde \Omega^{\hat E} \otimes \phi^R \right)^2 \right \rangle &\leq \frac{d_{\hat A}^2}{d_L\left(d_{\hat A}^2 -1\right)}{\operatorname{Tr}}\left(\tilde \Omega^{\hat B}\right)^2 + \frac{1}{d_{\hat A}^2 - 1} {\operatorname{Tr}}\left(\tilde \Omega^{\hat E}\right)^2
\\&\leq \frac{4}{3 \,d_L}{\operatorname{Tr}}\left(\tilde \Omega^{\hat B}\right)^2 + \frac{2}{d_{\hat A}^2} {\operatorname{Tr}}\left(\tilde \Omega^{\hat E}\right)^2\end{aligned}$$ where the expectation is taken over the Haar measure of unitaries on $\hat A$ and $\Omega$ is the maximally mixed state on $\hat A$.
The proof of this lemma is very similar to the proof of Lemma \[lemma:random\], but with a few additional complications. We first define $\{\ket{\chi_a} \}$ to be an orthonormal basis for $K$. Just as for Lemma \[lemma:random\] we introduce a second set of primed Hilbert spaces in order to rewrite ${\operatorname{Tr}}\left(\tilde \rho^{\hat ER^2}\right)$. If we also carry out the trace over $L$ explicitly we get $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle{\operatorname{Tr}}\left(\tilde \rho^{\hat ER^2}\right)\right\rangle = \sum_{i,j,a,b} \frac{p_i p_j}{d_L^2} \left\langle{\operatorname{Tr}}\left[ V^{ab}_{ij} \Pi^{\hat E} \Pi^{\hat E'} F^{\hat E \hat E'} \otimes \Pi^{\hat B} \Pi^{\hat B'}\right] \right\rangle\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:entprime}
V^{ab}_{ij} = \left(U\ket{\chi_a}\Ket{\psi_i}\bra{\chi_a}\Bra{\psi_j}U^\dagger \otimes U\ket{\chi_b}'\Ket{\psi_j}'\bra{\chi_b}'\Bra{\psi_i}'U^\dagger \right)\end{aligned}$$ If $a=b$, then $V^{ab}_{ij}$ is identical to $V_{ij}$ as defined in the proof of Lemma \[lemma:random\]. Therefore the total contribution to the right hand side of (\[eq:entprime\]) has upper bound $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:a=b}
\frac{1}{d_L}{\operatorname{Tr}}\left(\left\langle \tilde \rho_{\hat E R} \right\rangle^2\right) + \frac{d_{\hat A}^2}{d_L\left(d_{\hat A}^2 -1\right)} {\operatorname{Tr}}\left(\left\langle \tilde \rho_{\hat E R} \right\rangle^2\right).
\end{aligned}$$ Now we consider the $a \neq b$ terms. We know that $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle V^{a \neq b}_{ij} \right\rangle = \left(\alpha_1 \Pi_{\text{sym}}^{\hat A \hat A'} +\beta_1 \Pi_{\text{anti}}^{\hat A \hat A'}\right) \delta_{ij} + \left(\alpha_2 \Pi_{\text{sym}}^{\hat A \hat A'} +\beta_2 \Pi_{\text{anti}}^{\hat A \hat A'}\right) \left(1 - \delta_{ij} \right).\end{aligned}$$ However, $$\begin{aligned}
{\operatorname{Tr}}\,V^{a \neq b}_{i \neq j} = {\operatorname{Tr}}\left( V^{a \neq b}_{i \neq j} F^{\hat A \hat A'}\right) = 0\end{aligned}$$ so $\alpha_2 = \beta_2 =0$. On the other hand if $i=j$ $$\begin{aligned}
{\operatorname{Tr}}\,V^{a \neq b}_{i = j} = 1\end{aligned}$$ while $$\begin{aligned}
{\operatorname{Tr}}\left( V^{a \neq b}_{i = j} F^{\hat A \hat A'}\right) = 0.\end{aligned}$$ It follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle V^{a \neq b}_{i = j} \right\rangle &= \frac{1}{d_{\hat A}(d_{\hat A}+1)} \Pi_{\text{sym}}^{\hat A \hat A'} +\frac{1}{d_{\hat A}(d_{\hat A}-1)} \Pi_{\text{anti}}^{\hat A \hat A'} \\
&= \frac{1}{d_{\hat A}^2 - 1} \mathbbm{1}^{\hat A \hat A'} - \frac{1}{d_{\hat A} ( d_{\hat A}^2 - 1)} F^{\hat A \hat A'}.\end{aligned}$$ Inserting this into the right hand side of (\[eq:entprime\]) we find that the contribution from terms where $a \neq b$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:anotb}
\begin{split}
\frac{d_L - 1}{d_L} \sum_i p_i^2 &\left[ \frac{d_{\hat A}^2}{d_{\hat A}^2 - 1}{\operatorname{Tr}}\,\tilde \Omega^{\hat E^2} - \frac{d_{\hat A}}{d_{\hat A}^2 - 1} {\operatorname{Tr}}\,\tilde \Omega^{\hat B^2} \right] \\& \leq \left[\frac{\left(d_L -1\right)}{d_L} + \frac{1}{d_{\hat A}^2 - 1}\right] {\operatorname{Tr}}\left( \left\langle \tilde \rho^{\hat E R} \right \rangle^2\right).
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ Since $$\begin{aligned}
{\operatorname{Tr}}\left( \left\langle \tilde \rho^{\hat E R} \right \rangle^2\right) = {\operatorname{Tr}}\left(\tilde \Omega^{\hat E^2} \otimes \phi^{R^2} \right) = \left(\sum_i p_i^2 \right){\operatorname{Tr}}\left(\tilde \Omega^{\hat E^2}\right) \leq {\operatorname{Tr}}\left(\tilde \Omega^{\hat E^2}\right),\end{aligned}$$ combining the contributions from $a=b$ (\[eq:a=b\]) with the contributions from $a \neq b$ (\[eq:anotb\]) leads immediately to Lemma \[lemma:entangledrandom\].
The proof of the achievability of the entanglement-assisted $\alpha$-bit capacity now proceeds identically to the capacities we have already shown. We shall therefore make use of notation and results from the statement and proof of Lemma \[lemma:clifford\]. If we define $\mathcal{C}_{\mathcal{N}}: S(S) \to S(LB^nZ)$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{C}_{\mathcal{N}}(\rho) = \frac{1}{|\{U_i\}|}\sum_{i=1}^{|\{U_i\}|} {\operatorname{Id}}_L \otimes \mathcal{N}^{\otimes n} \left[{\operatorname{Tr}}_F \left(U_i \,\chi \otimes \rho\, U_i^\dagger\right)\right] \otimes \ket{i} \bra{i}^Z\end{aligned}$$ then $$\begin{aligned}
\lVert \mathcal{C}_{\mathcal{N}}^c - \mathcal{R} \rVert_\diamond^{(d_R)} \leq \sqrt{\tilde d_{\hat E} d_R \left[\frac{4}{3 \,d_L}{\operatorname{Tr}}\left(\tilde \Omega^{\hat B^2}\right) + \frac{2}{d_{\hat A}^2} {\operatorname{Tr}}\left(\tilde \Omega^{\hat E^2}\right)\right]}.\end{aligned}$$ Using conditions 3 and 4 of Lemma \[lemma:typical\], we see that the second term on the right hand side $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{2 \tilde d_{\hat E} d_R {\operatorname{Tr}}\left(\tilde \Omega^{\hat E^2}\right)}{d_{\hat A}^2} \leq 6\left(1-3 \varepsilon\right)^{-1} 2^{-n\left[(2-\alpha)s - (1+\eta)\delta\right]}\end{aligned}$$ and so will always tend to zero in the large $n$ limit for sufficiently small $\delta$. It follows that $\mathcal{C}_{\mathcal{N}}^c$ will be forgetful with vanishing error in the large $n$ limit so long as $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\lim_{n \to \infty} &\tilde d_{\hat E} d_R \frac{4}{3 \,d_L}{\operatorname{Tr}}\left(\tilde \Omega^{\hat B}\right)^2 \\&\leq \lim_{n \to \infty} 4 (1 - 3 \varepsilon)^{-1} 2^{-n \left[k + H(B)_\rho - H(E)_\rho - f - \alpha s - (1+\eta) \delta\right]} = 0
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where $k = \frac{1}{n} \log d_K = \frac{1}{n} \log d_L$. This is will be true for sufficiently small $\delta$ so long as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:entbound1}
k + H(B)_\rho > H(E)_\rho + f + \alpha s.\end{aligned}$$ The only other condition we used in our construction was that $$S \otimes K \subseteq \hat A$$ which is always possible for sufficiently large $n$ if $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:entbound2}
s + k < H(A)_\rho + f.\end{aligned}$$ These two conditions define the achievable entanglement-assisted $\alpha$-bit capacity in the same way that (\[eq:bound1\]) and (\[eq:bound2\]) defined the achievable amortised $\alpha$-bit capacity. The achievable $\alpha$-bit capacity can be found from either pair of equations by setting $c=k=0$.
In the entanglement-assisted case, $(f-k)$ can take any real value and so we can always find $(f-k)$ such that both inequalities are simultaneously satisfied. Any capacity $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{Q}^{\text{ent}}_\alpha = s < \frac{1}{1+\alpha}\left[H(A)_\rho + H(B)_\rho - H(E)_\rho \right]\end{aligned}$$ is therefore achievable.
As a final note, it should be clear that the use of entanglement assistance $k > 0$ is playing exactly the same role as the use of an amortised side channel $c > 0$ in effectively removing the constraint that $f \geq 0$. At first glance, Equations (\[eq:entbound1\]) and (\[eq:entbound2\]) are not the same as equations (\[eq:bound1\]) and (\[eq:bound2\]), but this is because the entanglement-assisted capacity is given by $\mathcal{Q}^{\text{ent}}_\alpha=s$ whereas the amortised capacity was given by $\mathcal{Q}^{\text{am}}_\alpha = s - \frac{2}{1+\alpha} c$. If we rewrite (\[eq:entbound1\]) and (\[eq:entbound2\]) in terms of $\mathcal{Q}^{\text{am}}_\alpha$ rather than $s$ we get $$\begin{aligned}
H(B)_\rho > H(E)_\rho + \left(f - \frac{1-\alpha}{1+\alpha} c\right) + \alpha \mathcal{Q}^{\text{am}}_\alpha,\\
\mathcal{Q}^{\text{am}}_\alpha < H(A)_\rho + \left(f - \frac{1-\alpha}{1+\alpha} c\right),\end{aligned}$$ which are manifestly equivalent to (\[eq:entbound1\]) and (\[eq:entbound2\]) except with $(f-l)$ replaced by $\left(f - \frac{1-\alpha}{1+\alpha} c\right)$. Both amortisation and entanglement-assistance replace $f \geq 0$ with a quantity that can take any real value. The one exception appears when $\alpha = 1$. Then $$\left(f - \frac{1-\alpha}{1+\alpha} c\right) = f \geq 0$$ for any finite $c$. This explains why amortisation with a noiseless side-channel, unlike entanglement-assistance, cannot provide an increase in the ordinary quantum capacity of a channel.
This is the same story that we saw from the resource identity point of view in Section \[sec:telep\]. Asymptotically the qubit side channel is equal to $\frac{2}{1+\alpha}$ $\alpha$-bits, plus $\frac{1-\alpha}{1+\alpha}$ ebits. It therefore provides entanglement-assistance (even once you amortise), but only for $\alpha <1$.
Optimality of the $\alpha$-bit capacities
-----------------------------------------
Again, we address the regular and amortised capacities simultaneously, and then deal with the entanglement-assisted capacity.
Suppose we have some $\alpha$-bit transmitting code space $S \subset B^n C \otimes E^n F \cong \hat B \otimes \hat E$ for $n$ copies of the channel $\mathcal{N}$. Let $R$ be a reference system of dimension $|S|^\alpha$. Let $\{ p_x, \psi_x \}$ be a pure-state ensemble of maximally-entangled states on $SR$ that decomposes the maximally mixed state $\omega$ on $SR$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:cbound1}
H(\hat B)_\omega \geq H(\hat B | X) = H(\hat E R | X) = H(\hat E)_\omega + \alpha \log S + \epsilon n + o(n)\end{aligned}$$ The first inequality follows from the concavity of entropy. The first equality follows because the ensemble consists only of pure states on $\hat B \hat E R$. The second equality follows from Theorem \[thrm:subspacedecoup\] since all the states in the ensemble will have reduced density matrices for the environment subsystem that are within distance $\epsilon$ of the reduced density matrix of the maximally mixed state of $S$. The Fannes inequality then tells us that the difference in entropies will be at most $\epsilon n + o(n)$ [@fannes].
Now consider an auxiliary system $A$ of the same size as $S$ and a maximally entangled state $\Ket{\Psi}$ on $SA$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:cbound}
\log |S| = H(A)_\Psi \leq H(A)_\Psi + H(\hat B)_\Psi - H(\hat E)_\Psi - \alpha \log |S| + \epsilon n + o(n)\end{aligned}$$ where the inequality follows because the additional terms on the right hand side of (\[eq:cbound\]) are greater than zero by (\[eq:cbound1\]). hence $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:cbound2}
\log |S| &\leq \frac{1}{1+\alpha} I(A;\hat B) = \frac{1}{1+\alpha} \left[ I(A;B^n) + I(A;C | B^n) + \epsilon n \right] + o(n) \\\frac{1}{n}\log |S|&
\leq \frac{1}{n}\left[\frac{1}{1+\alpha} I(A;B^n) + \frac{2}{1+\alpha} \log d_C + \frac{1}{1 + \alpha}\epsilon n + o(n)\right].\end{aligned}$$ In the limits $n \to \infty$ and $\epsilon \to 0$, this gives the amortised capacity from Theorem \[thrm:abitcapacity\]. Similarly, if we take $d_C = 1$, then (\[eq:cbound1\]) and (\[eq:cbound2\]) the $\alpha$-bit capacity from Theorem \[thrm:abitcapacity\] in the same limit.
The structure of a general entanglement-assisted code was given in Figure \[fig:entangledabitcode\]. First Alice combines the input state $S$ with some auxiliary system $K$ that is maximally entangled with $L$ held by Bob. She applies an isometry and then throws away some subsystem $F$ before sending the remaining system through $n$ copies of the channel $\mathcal{N}$ to Bob. If we again perform a redefinition to eliminate the isometry, we have $SG \subset B^n E^n F$. Again let $R$ be a reference system of dimension $|S|^{\alpha}$ and $\{ p_x, \psi_x \}$ be a pure-state ensemble of maximally-entangled states on $SR$ that decomposes the maximally mixed state $\omega$ on $SR$. Let $\hat B = L B^n$ and $\hat E = E^n F$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
H(L) + H(B^n) \geq H(\hat B)_\omega \geq H(\hat B | X) &= H(\hat E R| X) \\&= H(\hat E)_\omega + \alpha \log S + \varepsilon n + o(n)
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where the first inequality comes from the positivity of mutual information and the rest proceed by exactly the same arguments as in the previous case.
Now we again consider an auxiliary system $A$ of the same size as $S$ and a maximally entangled state $\Ket{\Psi}$ on $SA$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\log |S| &= H(A)_\Psi \\&\leq H(A) + H(L) + H(B^n) - H(\hat E) - \alpha \log |S| + \varepsilon n + o(n) \\
& \leq H(AK) + H(B^n) - H(\hat E) - \alpha \log |S| + \varepsilon n + o(n)
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ and hence $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{n}\log |S| \leq \frac{1}{n}\left[\frac{1}{1+\alpha} I(A;B^n) + \frac{1}{1+\alpha}\varepsilon n + o(n)\right]\end{aligned}$$ which gives the entanglement-assisted capacity from Theorem \[thrm:abitcapacity\] in the limit $n \to \infty$ and $\varepsilon \to 0$ since the mutual information is additive.
Properties of the $\alpha$-bit capacity {#sec:properties}
=======================================
Continuity and monotonicity {#sec:continuity}
---------------------------
It is clear from the definition given in Theorem \[thrm:abitcapacity\], that the entanglement-assisted $\alpha$-bit capacity is continuous in $\alpha$, as is the amortised $\alpha$-bit capacity for $\alpha < 1$.
Amortisation with an identity side channel does not provide an increase in the quantum capacity since for any state $\ket{\psi} \in A^n C A'^n C' \subseteq A^n C B^n E^n C'$ $$\begin{aligned}
I(A^n C \rangle B^n C')_{\psi} = H(B^n C')_\psi - H(E^n)_\psi &\leq H(B^n)_\psi + H(C')_\psi - H(E^n)_\psi \nonumber\\&\leq I(A^n \rangle B^n)_{\psi'} + \log d_C\end{aligned}$$ where $\ket{\psi'} \in A^n B^n E^n$ is a purification of $\psi^{B^nE^n}$, and so tensoring a quantum channel with an identity side channel cannot increase the quantum capacity by more than $\log d_C$. It follows that there is a discontinuity in the amortised $\alpha$-bit capacity at $\alpha = 1$ if the quantum capacity of the channel is strictly less than the entanglement-assisted quantum capacity.
It is less immediate that the $\alpha$-bit capacity is continuous, since the supremum of an infinite sequence of continuous functions may be discontinuous.
\[lemma:continuous\] The $\alpha$-bit capacity is a continuous and monotonically decreasing function of $\alpha$ for fixed channel $\mathcal{N}$.
We first prove that it is monotonically decreasing. This follows directly from the definition of an $\alpha$-dit. From Definition \[defn:adit\], we know that an $\alpha$-dit is automatically also a $\beta$-dit from all $\beta \leq \alpha$, since the subspaces that it must be possible to decode to qualify as a $\beta$-dit are a subset of those required to qualify as an $\alpha$-dit. It follows immediately that the $\alpha$-bit capacity must be monotonically decreasing as a function of $\alpha$.
Now we show continuity. Since we have already shown that $\mathcal{Q}_\alpha (\mathcal{N})$ is monotonically decreasing, it is sufficient for us to show that for any $\varepsilon_0 >0$ there exists $\delta_0$ such that for all $\delta \leq \delta_0$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{Q}_{\alpha+\delta} (\mathcal{N}) \geq \mathcal{Q}_\alpha (\mathcal{N}) - \varepsilon_0.\end{aligned}$$ Let us first consider $\alpha > 0$. From Theorem \[thrm:abitcapacity\], for all $\varepsilon > 0$ there exists $k, \ket{\psi} \in A'^k A^k$ and $\rho = \left({\operatorname{Id}}\otimes \mathcal{N}^{\otimes k}\right) \psi$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{k}\min \left(\frac{1}{1+\alpha} I(A;B)_\rho, \frac{1}{\alpha} I(A \rangle B)_\rho\right) \geq \mathcal{Q}_\alpha (\mathcal{N}) - \varepsilon.\end{aligned}$$ and hence $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{k}\min \left(\frac{1}{1+\alpha +\delta} I(A;B)_\rho, \frac{1}{\alpha+\delta} I(A \rangle B)_\rho\right) &\geq \frac{\alpha}{\alpha+\delta} \left(\mathcal{Q}_\alpha (\mathcal{N}) - \varepsilon\right) \\& \geq \left(1 - \frac{\delta}{\alpha}\right) \left(\mathcal{Q}_\alpha (\mathcal{N}) - \varepsilon\right).\end{aligned}$$ By making $\delta, \varepsilon$ sufficiently small we can always ensure that $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{Q}_{\alpha+\delta} (\mathcal{N}) \geq \frac{1}{k}\min \left(\frac{1}{1+\alpha +\delta} I(A;B)_\rho, \frac{1}{\alpha+\delta} I(A \rangle B)_\rho\right) \geq \mathcal{Q}_\alpha (\mathcal{N}) - \varepsilon_0.\end{aligned}$$ The zero-bit capacity, on the other hand, is equal to $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{Q}_{0} (\mathcal{N}) = \sup_{k,\ket{\psi}} \left(\frac{I(A;B)_\rho}{k} \,\,\text{ s.t. }\,\, I(A \rangle B)_\rho > 0 \right).\end{aligned}$$ If we take the limit of $\alpha \to 0$ from above we find that for any state $\ket{\psi}$ such that $I(A \rangle B)_\rho > 0$, $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{\alpha \to 0} \min \left(\frac{1}{1+\alpha} I(A;B)_\rho, \frac{1}{\alpha} I(A \rangle B)_\rho\right) = I(A;B)_\rho,\end{aligned}$$ while if $I(A \rangle B)_\rho = 0$ then $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{\alpha \to 0} \min \left(\frac{1}{1+\alpha} I(A;B)_\rho, \frac{1}{\alpha} I(A \rangle B)_\rho\right) = 0.\end{aligned}$$ We therefore find that $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{\alpha \to 0} \mathcal{Q}_{\alpha} (\mathcal{N}) = \sup_{k,\ket{\psi}} \left(\frac{I(A;B)_\rho}{k} \,\,\text{ s.t. }\,\, I(A \rangle B)_\rho > 0 \right).\end{aligned}$$ Since this is equal to $\mathcal{Q}_{0} (\mathcal{N})$, the $\alpha$-bit capacity is continuous at $\alpha=0$.
Correlation- and coherence-constrained phases
---------------------------------------------
There is an important alternative characterisation of the $\alpha$-bit capacity, which makes the intuition about the dependence of the capacity on $\alpha$ considerably clearer. We shall now prove its equivalence to the definition given in Theorem \[thrm:abitcapacity\]. For convenience we shall identify $A'$ with the image of $A'$ under $U_{\mathcal{N}}$. For any given state $\Ket{\phi} \in A A' \subseteq ABE$, we define $\alpha^{\phi}_{\text{crit}}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{1+\alpha^{\phi}_{\text{crit}}} I(A;B)_{\phi} = \frac{1}{\alpha^{\phi}_{\text{crit}}}I(A \rangle B)_{\phi}. \end{aligned}$$ Some algebra shows that this is equivalent to $$\alpha^{\phi}_{\text{crit}} = \frac{I(A \rangle B)_{\phi}}{H(A)_{\phi}}.$$ Since for all states $\ket{\phi}$ (see, *e.g.* [@wildebook]), $$\begin{aligned}
H(A)_\phi \geq\frac{1}{2} I(A;B)_{\phi} \geq I(A \rangle B)_{\phi},\end{aligned}$$ we see that $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha^{\phi}_{\text{crit}} \leq 1,\end{aligned}$$ for all states. Note that $\alpha^{\phi}_{\text{crit}}$ can be less than zero if $I(A \rangle B)_{\phi}$ is negative.
\[Correlation- and Coherence-constrained phases\] \[thrm:corrcoh\] Let $\Ket{\phi_0} \in A' \otimes A$ maximise $I(A;B)$. Moreover let $\Ket{\phi_0}$ also maximise coherent information subject to the constraint of having maximal mutual information. Then the formula for the $\alpha$-bit capacity derived in Theorem \[thrm:abitcapacity\] can be restated as follows. $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{Q}_\alpha (\mathcal{N}) = \sup_k \frac{1}{k} \mathcal{Q}^{(1)}_\alpha (\mathcal{N}^{\otimes k}),\end{aligned}$$ where for $\alpha \leq \alpha^{\phi_0}_{\text{crit}}$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{Q}_\alpha^{(1)} (\mathcal{N}) = \frac{1}{1+\alpha} I(A;B)_{\phi_0}\end{aligned}$$ while for $\alpha \geq \alpha^{\phi_0}_{\text{crit}}$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{Q}_\alpha^{(1)} (\mathcal{N}) = \sup_{\Ket{\psi}} \left(\frac{1}{\alpha} I(A \rangle B)_\psi \,\,\,\text{s.t.} \,\, \alpha^{\psi}_{\text{crit}} \leq \alpha \right). \end{aligned}$$ We shall refer to $\alpha \leq \alpha^{\phi_0}_{\text{crit}}$ as the correlation-constrained transmission phase and $\alpha \geq \alpha^{\phi_0}_{\text{crit}}$ as the coherence-constrained transmission phase.
More generally, we shall say that the transmision is correlation-constrained if $$\frac{1}{1+\alpha} I(A;B)_\psi \leq \frac{1}{\alpha} I(A \rangle B)_\psi$$ for the state $\ket{\psi}$ that maximises the capacity. We say that it is strictly correlation-constrained if the inequality is strict. Conversely we say that it is (strictly) coherence-constrained if the inequality goes the other way. Note that while the correlation-constrained phase will be strictly correlation-constrained for $\alpha < \alpha^{\phi_0}_{\text{crit}}$, the coherence-constrained phase may either be strictly coherence-constrained or both correlation- and coherence-constrained.
Suppose $\alpha \leq \alpha^{\phi_0}_{\text{crit}}$ and hence $\Ket{\phi_0}$ is constrained by its mutual information. Since $\Ket{\phi_0}$ maximises the mutual information, this must determine the capacity.
Conversely, suppose for a given $\alpha$, the $\alpha$-bit capacity is strictly constrained by the mutual information. In other words, for the state $\Ket{\phi}$ that determines the capacity $$\frac{1}{\alpha} I(A \rangle B)_\phi > \frac{1}{1+\alpha} I(A;B)_\phi.$$ Then we know by continuity that this condition will also be true within some sufficiently small neighbourhood of $\Ket{\phi}$. Therefore, since we defined $\Ket{\phi}$ to maximise the capacity, it follows that it must also be a local maximum of the mutual information.
However, the mutual information is a concave function of the (unpurified) input state $\phi^A$ [@adamicerf], which means, since the space of density matrices is convex, that local maxima are also global maxima. It follows that $\Ket{\phi}$ has the same mutual information as $\Ket{\phi_0}$ and hence from the definition of $\Ket{\phi_0}$ we know that $\alpha \leq \alpha^{\phi_0}_{\text{crit}}$; we are in the correlation-constrained phase.
Meanwhile, for all $\alpha \geq \alpha^{\phi_0}_{\text{crit}}$ the state $\Ket{\phi}$ that determines the capacity has $\frac{1}{\alpha} I(A' \rangle B)_\phi \leq \frac{1}{1+\alpha} I(A;B)_\phi$. The capacity will therefore be given by the maximal value of $\frac{1}{\alpha} I(A \rangle B)$ among states for which $$\frac{1}{\alpha} I(A' \rangle B)_\phi \leq \frac{1}{1+\alpha} I(A;B)_\phi,$$ or equivalently for which $$\alpha^{\phi}_{\text{crit}} \leq \alpha.$$ The transmission is coherence-constrained.
As an immediate corollary of Theorem \[thrm:corrcoh\], we observe that entanglement-assistance or amortisation allow an increase in transmission rate if and only if $$\alpha > \alpha^{\phi_0}_{\text{crit}},$$ and the transmission would otherwise be coherence-constrained. Entanglement-assistance and amortisation provide a free additional source of coherence which means that the transmission can always be made correlation-constrained. They do not, however, provide any improvement when the transmission is already correlation-constrained.
We also see that the $\alpha^{\phi_0}_{\text{crit}}$-bit capacity itself is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{\alpha^{\phi_0}_{\text{crit}}} I(A \rangle B)_{\phi_0} = \frac{1}{1 + \alpha^{\phi_0}_{\text{crit}}} I(A ; B)_{\phi_0} = H(A)_{\phi_0}.\end{aligned}$$ Since the $\alpha$-bit capacity is a monotonically decreasing function of $\alpha$, whenever the capacity is correlation-constrained, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{Q}_\alpha \geq H(A)_{\phi_0}.\end{aligned}$$ Conversely, if the $\alpha$-bit capacity is coherence-constrained, then there will exist $\ket{\phi}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{Q}_\alpha = \frac{1}{\alpha} I(A \rangle B)_{\phi}\end{aligned}$$ and $\alpha \geq \alpha^{\phi}_{\text{crit}}$. It follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{Q}_\alpha \leq H(A)_{\phi}.\end{aligned}$$ We observe that capacities which are strictly correlation-constrained are achieved by encodings with $f>0$ where the code space is strictly bigger than the effective size of the channel input $A^n$, while capacities that are strictly coherence-constrained are achieved by encodings where the code subspace is strictly smaller that the effective size of $A^n$.
These observations are exactly in accordance with previous discussion about the power of amortisation or entanglement-assistance. They can improve the capacity because they effectively remove the constraint that $f \geq 0$. This is only useful if you would need $f<0$ to simultaneously saturate (\[eq:abit1\]) and (\[eq:abit2\]), which is exactly when the transmission is strictly coherence-constrained for that choice of input state. From the resource identity point of view, entanglement assistance and amortisation are powerful when the $\alpha$-bit transmission is limited by the rate of ebits which may be sent through the channel; it provides no advantage when the constraint comes from the number of zero-bits which can be transmitted.
$\alpha$-bit capacity of degradable channels
--------------------------------------------
The $\alpha$-bit capacity takes a simpler form when we restrict to the case of degradable channels. These are channels which can be used to simulate their own complementary channel. In other words, a channel $\mathcal{N}$ is degradable if and only if there exists a quantum channel $\mathcal{M}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{N}^c = \mathcal{M} \circ \mathcal{N}\end{aligned}$$
Degradable channels have two nice properties that will be important for us. Firstly the maximal coherent information is additive, just like the mutual information. Secondly, the coherent information is a concave function of the input density matrix used [@coherentconcave]; again, this is always true for the mutual information, but we require degradability to know that it is true for the coherent information.
\[$\alpha$-bit capacity of degradable channels\] \[thrm:degradable\] The $\alpha$-bit capacity of a degradable channel $\mathcal{N}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{Q}_\alpha (\mathcal{N}) = \mathcal{Q}_\alpha^{(1)} (\mathcal{N}) = \sup_{\Ket{\psi}} \left[\min \left(\frac{1}{1+\alpha} I(A;B)_\rho, \frac{1}{\alpha} I(A \rangle B)_\rho\right)\right].\end{aligned}$$ $\Ket{\psi} \in A \otimes A'$ is a purification of any input state of the channel and we define $\rho =\left({\operatorname{Id}}\otimes \mathcal{N}\right) \psi$.
We need to show that $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{Q}_\alpha^{(1)} (\mathcal{N}^{\otimes n}) \leq n \mathcal{Q}_\alpha^{(1)} (\mathcal{N}).\end{aligned}$$ Then we would find that $$\begin{aligned}
\sup_k \frac{1}{k} \mathcal{Q}_\alpha^{(1)} (\mathcal{N}^{\otimes k}) = \mathcal{Q}_\alpha^{(1)} (\mathcal{N}),\end{aligned}$$ and hence the general form of the $\alpha$-bit capacity given in Theorem \[thrm:abitcapacity\] reduces to the form given in Theorem \[thrm:degradable\].
From the definition of $\mathcal{Q}_\alpha^{(1)}$, there must exist $\ket{\phi} \in {A A'^n}$ such that $$\min \left(\frac{1}{1+\alpha} I(A;B^n)_\rho, \frac{1}{\alpha} I(A \rangle B^n)_\rho\right) = \mathcal{Q}_\alpha^{(1)} (\mathcal{N}^{\otimes n}),$$ for $$\ket{\rho}^{A B^n E^n} = U_{\mathcal{N}}^{A'_1 \to B_1 E_1} \otimes U_{\mathcal{N}}^{A'_2 \to B_2 E_2} \otimes \cdot\cdot\cdot \otimes U_{\mathcal{N}}^{A'_n \to B_n E_n}\ket{\phi}.$$ Let $$\ket{\sigma_i}^{A B E A'^{(n-1)}} = U_{\mathcal{N}}^{A'_i \to B E} \ket{\phi},$$ and let $\ket{\theta} \in AB$ be a purification of $$\theta^B = \frac{1}{n} \sum_i \sigma_i^B.$$ Then $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{Q}_\alpha^{(1)} (\mathcal{N}^{\otimes n}) &= \min \left(\frac{1}{1+\alpha} I(A;B^n)_\rho, \frac{1}{\alpha} I(A \rangle B^n)_\rho\right)
\\&\leq \min \left(\frac{1}{1+\alpha} \sum_i I(AA'^{(n-1)};B)_{\sigma_i} , \frac{1}{\alpha} \sum_i I(AA'^{(n-1)} \rangle B)_{\sigma_i}\right)
\\&\leq n \min \left(\frac{1}{1+\alpha} I(A;B)_\theta, \frac{1}{\alpha} I(A \rangle B_1 B_2)_\theta\right)
\\&\leq n \mathcal{Q}_\alpha^{(1)} (\mathcal{N}).\end{aligned}$$ The first inequality follows from $$I(A;B^n)_\rho \leq \sum_i I(AA'^{(n-1)};B)_{\sigma_i} \,\,\,\,\, \text{and} \,\,\,\,\, I(A\rangle B^n)_\rho \leq \sum_i I(AA'^{(n-1)} \rangle B)_{\sigma_i},$$ which are the central results used to prove the additivity of the mutual information and the additivity of the coherent information for degradable channels, for example in the proofs of Theorems 12.4.1 and 12.5.4 in [@wildebook]. The second inequality follows from the concavity of the mutual information and the coherent information for degradable channels as a function of the unpurified channel input state. The final inequality follows from the definition of $\mathcal{Q}_\alpha^{(1)}$.
The $\alpha$-bit capacity of a degradable channel also breaks up into distinct phases, with a simpler structure than for a general channel.
\[Correlation- and Coherence-constrained phases for degradable channels\] \[thrm:degradphase\] Let $\Ket{\phi_0} \in A' \otimes A$ maximise $I(A;B)$. Moreover let $\Ket{\phi_0}$ also maximise coherent information subject to the constraint of having maximal mutual information. Similarly, let $\Ket{\phi_1} \in A' \otimes A$ maximise $I(A\rangle B)$ and also maximise the mutual information subject to the constraint of having maximal coherent information. Then the $\alpha$-bit capacity derived in Theorem \[thrm:abitcapacity\] can be restated as follows.
For $\alpha \leq \alpha^{\phi_0}_{\text{crit}}$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{Q}_\alpha (\mathcal{N}) = \frac{1}{1+\alpha} I(A;B)_{\phi_0}\end{aligned}$$ while for $\alpha^{\phi_0}_{\text{crit}} \leq \alpha \leq \alpha^{\phi_1}_{\text{crit}} $ $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{Q}_\alpha (\mathcal{N}) = \sup_{\Ket{\psi}} \left(\frac{1}{\alpha} H(A)_\psi \,\,\,\text{s.t.} \,\, \alpha^{\psi}_{\text{crit}} = \alpha \right). \end{aligned}$$ and for $\alpha \geq \alpha^{\phi_1}_{\text{crit}}$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{Q}_\alpha (\mathcal{N}) = \frac{1}{\alpha} I(A \rangle B)_{\phi_1}\end{aligned}$$ We shall refer to $\alpha \leq \alpha^{\phi_0}_{\text{crit}}$ as the strictly correlation-constrained phase and $\alpha \geq \alpha^{\phi_1}_{\text{crit}}$ as the strictly coherence-constrained phase. We shall refer to $\alpha^{\phi_0}_{\text{crit}} \leq \alpha \leq \alpha^{\phi_1}_{\text{crit}}$ as the critical region.
The strictly correlation-constrained phase is exactly the same as for a general channel. However, because the channel is degradable and so the coherent information is concave, the coherence-constrained phase naturally splits into two phases, a strictly-coherence constrained phase and a critical phase where the capacity is both coherence- and correlation-constrained.
The strictly coherence-constrained phase is easy to understand. Just as for the correlation-constrained phase, $$\frac{1}{\alpha} I(A \rangle B)_{\phi_1}$$ is trivially always an upper bound on the $\alpha$-bit capacity. Moreover, for $\alpha \geq \alpha^{\phi_1}_{\text{crit}}$, it is achievable and hence also a lower bound.
We argued in the proof of Theorem \[thrm:corrcoh\] that the capacity must be coherence-constrained for $\alpha \geq \alpha^{\phi_0}_{\text{crit}}$ because the mutual information is concave. However, because the amplitude damping channel is degradable, the coherent information is also concave and so by the same arguments, the capacity must also be correlation-constrained for $\alpha \leq \alpha^{\phi_1}_{\text{crit}}$. If the capacity is both correlation- and coherence-constrained then $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{1+\alpha} I(A:B)_\phi = \frac{1}{\alpha} I(A \rangle B)_\phi\end{aligned}$$ for the state $\ket{\phi}$ that optimises the capacity. Hence $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha = \alpha^{\phi}_{\text{crit}},\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{Q}_\alpha (\mathcal{N}) = H(A)_\phi,\end{aligned}$$ which completes the proof.
Capacities of example channels {#sec:examples}
==============================
Erasure channel
---------------
A simple example of a quantum channel for which the many quantum capacities can be computed exactly is the qubit erasure channel [@PhysRevLett.78.3217; @ieee2002bennett]. The $\alpha$-bit capacity of this channel turns out to also be exactly calculable. The definition of the channel is that with probability $\eta$ the qubit is transmitted perfectly, while with probability $1-\eta$ the state is lost and the receiver instead receives an erased state that we shall label $\ket{E}$. Mathematically, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{N}(\rho) = \eta \,\rho + \left(1-\eta\right)\Ket{E}\Bra{E}.\end{aligned}$$ This has a Stinespring dilation $U_{\mathcal{N}}$ defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
U_{\mathcal{N}} \left(\alpha \ket{0} + \beta \ket{1}\right) = \sqrt{\eta} &\left(\alpha \ket{0}_B \ket{E}_E +\beta \ket{1}_B \ket{E}_E \right) \\&+ \sqrt{1-\eta} \left(\alpha \ket{E}_B \ket{0}_E +\beta \ket{E}_B \ket{1}_E \right).
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ As a result,we see that the complementary channel of the erasure channel is simply the erasure channel with $\eta' = 1 - \eta$. Since applying two erasure channels gives an erasure channel with $\eta = \eta_1 \eta_2$, we see that the qubit erasure channel with $\eta \geq 0.5$ can simulate its complementary channel; it is degradable [@coherentadditive].
The erasure channel is invariant under the unitary group and hence the mutual and coherent informations only depend on the spectrum of the input density matrix. Since they are both concave, they must therefore both be maximised by the maximally mixed state $\omega$. Note that this means that critical region for the erasure channel has zero size. The channel has too much symmetry to have any non-trivial behaviour. To calculate the $\alpha$-bit capacity we therefore just have to find $$\begin{aligned}
\min \left[\frac{1}{1+\alpha}I(A;B)_\psi,\frac{1}{\alpha} I(A \rangle B)_\psi \right]\end{aligned}$$
for an arbitary maximally-entangled state $\ket{\psi} \in A'A$. Explicitly we find $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
I(A \rangle B)_\psi& = H(B)_\psi - H(E)_\psi\\& = -\left[\eta \log \left(\frac{\eta}{2}\right) + (1 - \eta) \log \left( 1-\eta \right)\right] + \left[(1-\eta) \log \left(\frac{1-\eta}{2}\right) + \eta \log \eta \right]
\\& = 2 \eta -1
\end{split}
\\I(A;B)_\psi& = H(A)_\psi + H(B)_\psi - H(E)_\psi = 2 \eta\end{aligned}$$ so the $\alpha$-bit capacity is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{Q}_\alpha (\mathcal{N}) = \min \left(\frac{2 \eta}{1 + \alpha}, \frac{2\eta - 1}{\alpha}\right).\end{aligned}$$ We also find that $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha^\psi_{\text{crit}} = 2 \eta - 1,\end{aligned}$$ and that the $\alpha^\psi_{\text{crit}}$-bit capacity $$\begin{aligned}
Q_{\text{crit}} = H(A)_\psi = 1.\end{aligned}$$
Amplitude damping channel
-------------------------
A less trivial example is the amplitude damping channel. The $\alpha$-bit capacity of this channel is only solvable numerically. However, unlike the $\alpha$-bit capacity of the erasure channel, which takes an exceptionally simple form because of its large amount of symmetry, the $\alpha$-bit capacity of the amplitude damping channel exhibits all the features that may generally be seen in the $\alpha$-bit capacity of a degradable quantum channel.
The amplitude damping channel is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{M}(\rho) = A_0 \,\rho\, A_0^\dagger + A_1 \,\rho\, A_1^\dagger,\end{aligned}$$ where the Kraus operators $A_i$ are $$\begin{aligned}
A_0 = \ket{0}\bra{0} + \sqrt{\eta} \ket{1}\bra{1}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
A_1 = \sqrt{1-\eta}\ket{0}\bra{1}.\end{aligned}$$ This has a Stinespring dilation $U_{\mathcal{M}}$ given by $$\begin{aligned}
U_{\mathcal{M}} \left( \alpha \ket{0} + \beta \ket{1} \right) = \alpha \ket{0}_B \ket{0}_E + \beta \left( \sqrt{\eta} \ket{1}_B \ket{0}_E + \sqrt{1-\eta}\ket{0}_B \ket{1}_E \right).\end{aligned}$$ We see that just like the erasure channel, the complementary channel to the amplitude damping channel is simply the amplitude damping channel with $\eta' = 1 - \eta$. Again applying multiple amplitude damping channels gives an amplitude damping channel with $\eta = \eta_1 \eta_2$ and hence the amplitude damping channel is degradable for $\eta \geq 0.5$.
The channel is invariant under the $U(1)$ symmetry generated by $$\ket{1}\bra{1} - \ket{0} \bra{0}$$ and so by concavity, the mutual and coherent information will both be maximised by an input reduced density matrix that is diagonal in the computational basis. We therefore only have to consider density matrices of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\rho = p \ket{1} \bra{1} + (1-p) \ket{0}\bra{0}. \end{aligned}$$ However, for general values of $\eta$ neither the mutual nor the coherent information will be maximised by the maximally mixed input state $p=0.5$. If $\ket{\psi}$ is a purification of $\rho$ then $$\begin{aligned}
I(A \rangle B)_\psi = H(B)_\psi - H(E)_\psi = h(\eta p) - h\left[(1-\eta)p\right],\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
h(p) = - p \log p - (1-p) \log \left(1-p\right),\end{aligned}$$ is the binary entropy function. Similarly, $$\begin{aligned}
I(A;B)_\psi = H(A)_\psi + H(B)_\psi - H(E)_\psi = h(p) + h(\eta p) - h\left[(1-\eta)p\right].\end{aligned}$$ The values of $p$ that maximise each of the mutual and coherent information as a function of $\eta$ are shown in Figure \[fig:optimal\_input\]. We see that $p$ is always closer to one half for the mutual information than the coherent information because $H(A)_\psi$ is maximised at $p=\frac{1}{2}$. Explicitly, the $\alpha$-bit capacity is therefore given by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{Q}_\alpha (\mathcal{M}) = \sup_p \left[\min \left( \frac{h(p) + h(\eta p) - h\left[(1-\eta)p\right]}{1+\alpha}, \frac{h(\eta p) - h\left[(1-\eta)p\right]}{\alpha}\right)\right].\end{aligned}$$ Unlike for the quantum erasure channel, we cannot take the supremum inside the minimum because the mutual and coherent information are not maximised by the same value of $p$.
\[t\]
[.565]{} ![$\alpha$-bit capacities for amplitude damping channels. The second figure depicts a zoomed-in version of the $\alpha$-bit capacity around the critical region for the $\eta=0.7$ amplitude damping channel to better display this important region. Unlike for the erasure channel, the transition between the strictly correlation- and coherence-constrained phases occurs over a finite region, rather than as a sharp kink. Additional, the transition from the correlation-constrained to the critical phase no longer occurs at exactly $\mathcal{Q}_\alpha = 1$.[]{data-label="fig:amplitude"}](amplitude.pdf "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
[.435]{} ![$\alpha$-bit capacities for amplitude damping channels. The second figure depicts a zoomed-in version of the $\alpha$-bit capacity around the critical region for the $\eta=0.7$ amplitude damping channel to better display this important region. Unlike for the erasure channel, the transition between the strictly correlation- and coherence-constrained phases occurs over a finite region, rather than as a sharp kink. Additional, the transition from the correlation-constrained to the critical phase no longer occurs at exactly $\mathcal{Q}_\alpha = 1$.[]{data-label="fig:amplitude"}](zoomed_in.pdf "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
This means that the amplitude-damping channel has a non-trivial critical region. However, in practice, the critical region for the amplitude damping channel turns out to be very small. As shown in Figure \[fig:critical\_region\], it reaches a maximum size of around $0.005$. As a result, the complete graph of the $\alpha$-bit capacity of the channel as shown in Figure \[fig:amplitude\] is dominated by the strictly coherence- and correlation-constrained phases where the behaviour is qualitatively the same as for the erasure channel. Additionally, because the derivative of the entropy of the maximally mixed state is zero, the $\alpha^{\phi_0}_{\text{crit}}$-bit capacity, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{Q}_\text{crit} = H(A)_{\phi_0}\end{aligned}$$ is very close to $H(A)_\omega = 1$. To make both these features visually clearer, we therefore also include a highly zoomed-in plot of the critical region for $\eta =0.7$ in Figure \[fig:amplitude\].
Summary of results {#sec:summary}
==================
This article has introduced the notion of universal approximate subspace quantum error correction. A $d$-dimensional channel that is correctable in this sense is known as an $\alpha$-dit channel, with $\alpha$ parameterising the size of the correctable subspaces. The subspace decoupling duality theorem establishes an equivalence between this new form of approximate quantum error correction and forgetfulness of the complementary channel. In addition:
- The $\alpha$-bit capacity of a channel $\mathcal{N}: S(A') \to S(B)$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{Q}_\alpha (\mathcal{N}) = \sup_k \frac{1}{k} \sup_{\ket{\psi} \in A'^kA^k} \min \left( \frac{1}{1+\alpha} I(A:B)_\rho, \frac{1}{\alpha} I(A \rangle B)_\rho \right),\end{aligned}$$ where $\rho = (\mathcal{N}^{\otimes k} \otimes {\operatorname{Id}}) \psi$, generalising the $\alpha=0$ formula determined in [@hayden2012weak]. It is a continuous monotonically-decreasing function of $\alpha$. For degradable channels, the formula is single-letter; it is only necessary to consider $k=1$. The $\alpha$-bit capacity is positive only for channels with positive quantum capacity but can significantly exceed it. This discrepancy is one of the main justifications for relaxing the definition of approximate quantum error correction.
- Define the amortised $\alpha$-bit capacity of a channel as the incremental $\alpha$-bit capacity supplied by the channel in the presence of a noiseless side channel. Both the amortised and entanglement-assisted $\alpha$-bit capacities are given by $$\frac{1}{1+\alpha} \sup_{\ket{\psi} \in A'A} I(A:B)_\rho$$ for $0 \leq \alpha < 1$. $\alpha=1$ corresponds to the usual notion of quantum error correction. Note, however, that the limit $\alpha \to 1$ of the amortised $\alpha$-bit capacity is equal to the *entanglement-assisted* quantum capacity. So in this amortised sense, even classical channels are valuable for quantum error correction! Of course, the amortised quantum capacity ($\alpha=1$) is equal to the *unassisted* quantum capacity. This discontinuity is because the size of the amortised side channel required diverges as $\alpha \to 1$.
- The $\alpha$-bit capacity of any given channel breaks down into distinct phases. For small values of $\alpha$ it is constrained by the mutual information, while at large values it is constrained by the coherent information. There can be an intermediate region where it is constrained by both. We calculate the $\alpha$-bit capacities of the erasure and amplitude-damping channels as illustrations.
- As asymptotic quantum resources, different species of $\alpha$-bits are related by the asymptotic resource identity $$(1 + \beta) \,\, \alpha\text{-bits} {\stackrel{(a)}{=}}(1+\alpha) \,\,\beta\text{-bits} + (\alpha-\beta) \text{ ebits}, \label{eqn:alpha-reverse}$$ which can be regarded as the $\alpha$-bit version of the quantum reverse Shannon theorem [@BDHSW09; @BCR09]. If we take $\alpha = 1$ and $\beta = 0$, we get zero-bit teleportation, Eq. (\[eqn:zero-bit-telep\]).
- Achieving the hashing bound $I(A\rangle B)_\rho$ for quantum data transmission over a channel $\mathcal{N}$ does not exhaust its utility for quantum communication; it can simultaneously be used to transmit zero-bits at the rate $I(A:E)_\rho$. This fact and the discontinuity of the amortised $\alpha$-bit capacity at $\alpha=1$ provide insight into why a single-letter formula for the quantum capacity has proven elusive.
- Zero-bits can substitute for classical bits at the same rate in a wide array of quantum information protocols including entanglement distillation, state merging, remote state preparation and channel simulation by replacing standard teleportation with zero-bit-powered teleportation. Because the latter is asymptotically reversible, optimality of these new protocols follows immediately from optimality of their “parents”.
Discussion {#sec:discussion}
==========
Zero-bits and ebits as fundamental resources
--------------------------------------------
Theorem \[thrm:cobits\] shows that zero-bits, $\alpha$-bits, qubits, cobits and ebits can all be written in terms just two independent resources in the asymptotic catalytic context that we focus on in this paper. However, there is an important sense in which zero-bits and ebits provide a preferred basis for this two-dimensional space.
Since the entanglement-assisted zero-bit capacity of a channel is finite, there is no number $k$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
k \,\,\text{ebits} {\stackrel{(a)}{\geq}}1\,\, \text{zero-bit},\end{aligned}$$ since otherwise we would be able to send infinitely many zero-bits just using the entanglement, without needing the channel at all. Indeed the fact that ebits cannot be used on their own to communicate is the reason that it makes sense to talk about entanglement-assisted capacities of any sort.
In contrast, it would be meaningless to talk about cobit-assisted capacities, for example, since we can communicate any other resource of interest, such as qubits, ebits or cbits, using only cobits. The same is true of qubits or $\alpha$-bits with $\alpha > 0$.
However, we can see that it is not possible to create entanglement (or any other quantum resource) using only zero-bits. Classical bits are stronger than zero-bits (with asymptotically small use of entanglement) and by definition it is impossible to increase entanglement using only classical communication.
As a result,we see that if rewrite any quantum resource that is a sum of qubits, ebits, cobits and $\alpha$-bits in terms of zero-bits and ebits as $$\begin{aligned}
Z(a,b) {\stackrel{(a)}{=}}a \,\,\text{zero-bits} + b\,\,\text{ebits},\end{aligned}$$ we firstly see that $$\begin{aligned}
Z(a,b) {\stackrel{(a)}{\geq}}0,\end{aligned}$$ if and only if $a,b \geq 0$. In other words $X(a,b)$ is a proper resource if and only if $a,b \geq 0$. Furthermore $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:productorder}
Z(a,b) {\stackrel{(a)}{\geq}}Z(a',b'),\end{aligned}$$ if and only if $a\geq b$ and $a' \geq b'$. We have therefore shown that the resource inequality partial ordering is simply the product ordering on $(a,b) \in \mathbbm{R}_{\geq 0} \times \mathbbm{R}_{\geq0}$ induced by the standard ordering of the real numbers.
This makes explicit why all the entanglement-assisted capacities are proportional to one another. If ebits are free, then resource costs are simply proportional to the number of zero-bits they contain. We could similarly calculate zero-bit-assisted channel capacities, which would simply be proportional to the entanglement-transmission capacity of the channel. For example, we see from (\[eq:alpha0e\]) that with free zero-bits then $$\begin{aligned}
1 \,\,\alpha\text{-bit} {\stackrel{(a)}{=}}\frac{1}{\alpha} \,\,\text{ebits}\end{aligned}$$ and hence the zero-bit assisted $\alpha$-bit capacity of a channel is $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{Q}_\alpha (\mathcal{N}) = \frac{1}{\alpha} \mathcal{Q}(\mathcal{N}),\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{Q}(\mathcal{N})$ is the quantum capacity of the channel.
Fitting cbits into the puzzle
-----------------------------
An important remaining open question is how traditional classical bits fit into this framework. The tightest known resource inequalities relating classical bits to the space spanned by zero-bits and ebits, which we shall refer to, for want of a better term, as the quantum plane, is $$\begin{aligned}
1 \,\,\text{cobit} {\stackrel{(a)}{=}}1 \,\,\text{ebit} + 1 \,\,\text{zero-bit} {\stackrel{(a)}{\geq}}1 \,\, \text{cbit} {\stackrel{(a)}{\geq}}1 \,\, \text{zero-bit}.\end{aligned}$$ We know from (\[eq:productorder\]) by the transitivity of resource inequalities that any tighter bounds involving resources in the quantum plane must be of the form $$\begin{aligned}
a \,\,\text{ebits} + 1 \,\,\text{zero-bit} {\stackrel{(a)}{\geq}}1 \,\, \text{cbit} {\stackrel{(a)}{\geq}}b \,\,\text{ebits} + 1 \,\, \text{zero-bit}.\end{aligned}$$ with $1 \geq a,b \geq 0$. Since classical communication cannot create entanglement, we cannot have $b>0$. Moreover since the classical capacity of the noiseless qubit channel is 1 [@Holevo73], we cannot have $a<1$ since then we would find $$\begin{aligned}
1 \,\,\text{qubit} {\stackrel{(a)}{=}}1 \,\,\text{ebit} + 2 \,\,\text{zero-bits} {\stackrel{(a)}{\geq}}\frac{1}{a} \,\,\text{cbits} + \left(2 - \frac{1}{a}\right) \,\,\text{zero-bits}. \end{aligned}$$ It is therefore impossible to give any tighter bounds on a cbit than that it is between a cobit and a zero-bit in terms of quantities in the quantum plane.
However, we might speculate as to whether there exist other resources that describe the gap between either cbits and zero-bits or cbits and cobits, just as zero-bits filled the gap between ebits and cobits, and the gap between cobits and qubits. Formally we could define $$\begin{aligned}
1 \,\,\text{X-bit} {\stackrel{(a)}{=}}1\,\, \text{cbit} - 1\,\, \text{zero-bit},\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
1 \,\,\text{Y-bit} {\stackrel{(a)}{=}}1\,\, \text{cobit} - 1\,\, \text{cbit},\end{aligned}$$ without (at least in this paper) attempting to give them any direct operational meaning. Some basic rearrangement tells us that $$\begin{aligned}
1 \,\,\text{X-bit} + 1 \,\,\text{Y-bit} {\stackrel{(a)}{=}}1\,\, \text{ebit},\end{aligned}$$ but that neither X-bits or Y-bits by themselves can create entanglement. This means that X-bits cannot be used to simulate Y-bits or vice-versa at any non-zero rate. Since ebits can be used to simulate both X-bits and Y-bits, X-bits and Y-bits cannot involve communication in the usual sense.
Since $$1\,\,\text{ebit} {\stackrel{(a)}{=}}1\,\,\text{X-bit} + 1\,\,\text{Y-bit}$$ cannot simulate zero-bits at any non-zero rate, no combination of X-bits and Y-bits can be used to simulate zero-bits. Similarly, since $$1 \,\,\text{cbit} {\stackrel{(a)}{=}}1\,\,\text{X-bit} + 1\,\,\text{zero-bit}$$ cannot simulate ebits at any non-zero rate, no combination of zero-bits and X-bits can be used to simulate Y-bits. Finally, since $$1 \,\,\text{qubit} {\stackrel{(a)}{=}}2 \,\,\text{zero-bits} + 1\,\, \text{X-bit} + 1\,\, \text{Y-bit},$$ only has a classical capacity of 1 cbit, no combination zero-bits and Y-bits can be used to simulate X-bits. We therefore find that if the resource $$Z(a,b,c) {\stackrel{(a)}{=}}a\,\,\text{zero-bits} + b\,\, \text{X-bits} + c\,\, \text{Y-bits},$$ then $$Z(a,b,c) {\stackrel{(a)}{\geq}}Z(a',b',c')$$ if and only if $a \geq a'$, $b \geq b'$ and $c \geq c'$. The resource inequality partial order again reduces to a product order, this time on $(a,b,c)$.
This framework would become far more meaningful if it were possible to give a direct operational definition of X-bits and Y-bits. It is an open question whether such a definition exists. In particular, it is very unclear what it would mean to have more Y-bits than X-bits. However, they do have natural intuitive meaning as the fundamental resources of correlation and coherence respectively. The zero-bit would then be the fundamental resource of communication. For example, an ebit gives both correlation and coherence between Alice and Bob, but does not allow communication; and indeed we see that it consists of an X-bit and a Y-bit, but no zero-bits. Similarly, a cbit allows communication and correlation, but gives no coherence. It consists of a zero-bit and an X-bit. If we upgrade the cbit to a cobit, we have added a Y-bit; we have made it into a coherent classical bit. Finally, a qubit has the same coherence and correlation as a cobit, but allows for more communication; it has an additional zero-bit.
Quantum identification and subspace identification
--------------------------------------------------
As mentioned previously, the zero-bit capacity was originally evaluated in [@hayden2012weak] under the name of the quantum identification capacity. Some of the supplementary results from [@hayden2012weak] proved difficult to generalise to the $\alpha > 0$ case.
For instance, the primary focus in [@hayden2012weak] was on the task of quantum identification, defined as the ability to approximately simulate the outcome of a two outcome projective measurement on the original state, so long as the one of the projectors has rank one. In other words, a quantum channel $\mathcal{N}: S(A) \to S(B)$ can be used for quantum identification so long as, for all pure states $\ket{\psi} \in A$, there exists $0 \leq P_\psi \leq \mathbbm{1}$ acting on $B$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
{\operatorname{Tr}}\left( P_\psi \,\mathcal{N}(\psi) \right) \geq 1- \varepsilon,\end{aligned}$$ for some small $\varepsilon$ while for any pure state $\ket{\psi_\bot} \bot \ket{\psi}$, $$\begin{aligned}
{\operatorname{Tr}}\left( P_\psi \,\mathcal{N}(\psi_\bot) \right) \leq \varepsilon.\end{aligned}$$ This is a strictly stronger condition than the ability to error correct any two-dimensional subspace (geometry preservation or $\alpha=0$ universal subspace error correction), which only ensures the existence of $0 \leq P_{\psi,\phi} \leq \mathbbm{1}$ for all orthogonal $\ket{\psi}, \ket{\phi}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
{\operatorname{Tr}}\left( P_{\psi,\phi} \,\mathcal{N}(\psi) \right) \geq 1- \varepsilon \,\,\,\,\,\text{ and }\,\,\,\,\, {\operatorname{Tr}}\left( P_{\psi,\phi} \,\mathcal{N}(\phi) \right) \leq \varepsilon.\end{aligned}$$ It turns out that one can make a minimax argument to prove that $P_{\psi,\phi}$ can be made independent of $\ket{\phi}$ and hence quantum identification is possible so long as some further technical conditions are met. These further conditions can be achieved by capacity-achieving zero-bit codes and hence the quantum identification capacity is the same as the zero-bit capacity.
One might hope to generalise the notion of quantum identification to the task of identifying a subspace of size $d^\alpha$ of a $d$-dimensional Hilbert space and show that, just as with zero-bits and qunatum identification, the subspace identification capacity is the same as the $\alpha$-bit capacity. There are two possible natural definitions for subspace identification, which we shall refer to as weak and strong subspace identification.
We can define weak subspace identification to be the ability to approximately simulate the outcome of the measurement $(P_S, \mathbbm{1} - P_S)$ where $P_S$ is the projector onto the subspace. Meanwhile, strong subspace identification is the ability to approximately simulate the outcome of the measurement $\left(P_1, P_2, ..., \mathbbm{1} - \sum_i P_i\right)$ where $\{P_i\}$ is any complete measurement of the subspace $S$. Clearly strong subspace identification implies both universal subspace error correction and weak subspace identification.
It is not manifest that weak subspace is sufficient by itself to give universal subspace error correction. However, by making $\log d_S$ weak subspace measurements using a binary search, one can simulate any strong subspace measurement, so weak subspace identification is equivalent to strong subspace identification and hence universal subspace error correction with an error at most a factor of $\log d_S$ larger. It is an open question whether this bound can be tightened further.
One might hope that the same techniques used to show that the quantum identification capacity is the same as the zero-bit capacity would extend to $\alpha$-bit and subspace identification capacities. Unfortunately a naive generalisation fails to give a bound on the error that does not grow with dimension size. It therefore remains unkown whether a subspace identification code (either weak or strong) can always achieve the $\alpha$-bit capacity.
Necessity of shared randomness
------------------------------
The quantum identification capacity (and hence the zero-bit capacity) was achieved in [@hayden2012weak] without the use of shared randomness. As a result,it is worth commenting briefly on why we found it necessary to make use of shared randomness to achieve the more general $\alpha$-bit capacity.
The basic approach used in [@hayden2012weak] closely mirrors the proof of the achievability of the $\alpha$-bit capacity given in this paper if we take the special case where $d_R = 1$ (i.e. $\alpha=0$) in showing that random states in $\hat A$ will on average be approximately forgetful in the limit of a large number $n$ of channel uses so long as the effective size of the environment grows less quickly than the effective size of the system received by Bob.
They then argue that if Alice uses a random subspace of $\hat A$ as her code space $S$, then randomly-chosen states in $S$ will also be random states in $\hat A$. Using a concentration of measure argument based on Levy’s lemma (see, *e.g.*, [@ledoux2005concentration]), they show that, for a function $f: \hat A \to \mathbbm{R}$, the probability that, for a randomly-chosen state $\ket{\phi} \in \hat A$, $$\begin{aligned}
\left\lvert f(\ket{\phi}) - \langle f \rangle \right\rvert \geq \delta\end{aligned}$$ decays exponentially with $d_{\hat A}$ as $d_{\hat A} \to \infty$ at large $n$. Since $S$ can be covered with an $\epsilon$-net whose size grows exponentially with $d_S$, they find that with high probability, every state in the $\epsilon$-net (and hence every state in $S$) will be approximately forgetful at large $n$ so long as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:lim}
\lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{d_S}{d_{\hat A}} = 0.\end{aligned}$$ It then follows that with high probability $S$ will be a zero-bit code.
Unfortunately attempting to generalise this argument to $\alpha > 0$ fails at the first hurdle. We now need to consider states in $SR$ rather than just states in $S$. Even if $S$ is a random subspace of $\hat A$, $SR$ will not be a random subspace of $\hat A R$, since it contains $R$ as a tensor product factor.
Since $R$ is small compared to $S$ or $\hat A$, almost all the states in an $\epsilon$-net of $SR$ will be very close to a maximally-entangled state. Since with high probability a random state in $\hat A R$ will also be very close to a maximally entangled state, it is possible to show that with high probability all the states in an $\epsilon$-net of $SR$ which are close to maximally-entangled will be forgetful on $\hat E R$ so long as (\[eq:lim\]) is true. However, this is only sufficient to show that any subspace of $S$ of dimension $\lfloor d_S^\alpha \rfloor$ is an entanglement-transmitting code. It does not ensure universal subspace quantum error correction.
It is possible that there exists a more subtle argument which derives a concentration rate that depends on the entanglement between $S$ and $R$ for the state in question and hence is able to show that shared randomness is not required. This would be valuable not merely for aesthetic reasons, but because it would also allow us to prove that the single $\alpha$-dit capacity is equal to the $\alpha$-bit capacity, since we wouldn’t need to repeatedly reuse the same shared randomness to send a large number of $\alpha$-dits.
Other open questions
--------------------
In addition to those stated above, there is a wealth of natural problems suggested by this work:
- **Explicit and efficient constructions of $\alpha$-bit transmission codes.** For $\alpha$-bits to be used in practice, it will be necessary to find methods for encoding and decoding them efficiently on quantum computers. The only efficient construction to date is an efficient zero-bit code of classical noiseless bit channels [@fawzi2013low]. It is unknown how even to construct codes for noiseless qubit channels.
- **Superactivation of the quantum capacity.** One of the most surprising results in quantum information theory is that combining two channels, each of which individually has zero quantum capacity, can make a channel with a non-zero capacity [@smith2008quantum]. This suggests that each channel contributes a distinct capability which is individually insufficient to send qubits. In this article, we have decomposed qubits into constituent entities, ebits and zero-bits, each of which is individually incapable of sending quantum information. Could some generalization of this decomposition be at work in superactivation?
- **Connection to approximate recovery maps.** Recently, advances relating near-saturation of the monotonicity of relative entropy to the existence of approximate recovery channels [@fawzi2014quantum; @Junge2015] have found numerous applications to physically relevant generalized forms of quantum error correction [@pastawski2016quantum; @kato2016information; @swingle2016mixed; @cotler2017entanglement]. One feature of the recovery channels is that they are themselves “universal” in a relevant sense. It would be interesting to see whether that framework would be useful for studying and understanding universal subspace quantum error correction.
- **Catalyst elimination**. The protocols constructed in Section \[sec:telep\] for zero-bit-powered state merging, entanglement distillation made catalytic use of other resources. The cost of the catalysts can typically be made negligible through repetition of the protocol, as we did here for shared randomness in the proof of the $\alpha$-bit capacity theorem. It would be satisfying to find direct proofs of the existence of the protocols described, however. This could eliminate them altogether in some cases or, at least, lead to better control of errors.
Acknowledgements
================
We thank David Ding, Michael Walter and Andreas Winter for valuable discussions. This work was supported by AFOSR (FA9550-16-1- 0082), CIFAR and the Simons Foundation,
[^1]: An ebit is another term for a Bell pair of two qubits.
[^2]: Technically, our construction requires the use of shared randomness to achieve this rate but it can be eliminated by block coding.
[^3]: As proved in Lemma \[lemma:continuous\], the $\alpha$-bit capacity is a continuous function of $\alpha$, as is the entanglement-assisted $\alpha$-bit capacity. However, the amortised $\alpha$-bit capacity has a discontinuity at $\alpha = 1$. As a result, it remains an open question to find and prove amortised universal subspace error correction capacities for subspace dimensions that grow sublinearly but faster than $d^\alpha$ for any $\alpha < 1$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Jahn-Teller theorem, proposed in 1937, predicts a distortional instability for a molecule that has symmetry based degenerate electronic states. In 1939 Krishnan emphasized the importance of this theorem for the arrangement of water molecules around the transition metal or rare earth ions in aqueous solutions and hydrated saltes, in a short and interesting paper published in Nature by pointing out atleast four existing experimental results in support of the theorem. This paper of Krishnan has remained essentially unknown to the practitioners of Jahn-Teller effect, eventhough it pointed to the best experimental results that were available, in the 30’s and 40’s, in support of Jahn-Teller theorem. Some of the modern day experiments are also in conformity with some specific suggestions of Krishnan.'
address: |
The Institute of Mathematical Sciences\
C.I.T. Campus\
Madras 600 113, India
author:
- 'G. Baskaran'
title: 'K S Krishnan and the early experimental evidences for the Jahn-Teller Theorem'
---
Jahn-Teller effect$^1$ is a beautiful and simple quantum phenomenon that occurs in molecules, transition metal complexes as well as solids containing transition metal or rare earth ions. It states roughly that ‘a localized electronic system that has a symmetry based orbital degeneracy, will tend to lift the degeneracy by a distortion that results in the reduction of the symmetry on which the degeneracy is based.’ In isolated systems such as a molecule or a transition metal complex it is a dynamical or quasi static phenomenon. They are called dynamic and static Jahn-Teller effects$^2$. When it occurs co-operatively in crystals it is a spontaneous symmetry breaking phenomenon and a crystal structure change. This is called a co-operative Jahn-Teller effect.
Even before Jahn-Teller theorem appeared, Krishnan and collaborators$^3$ performed a series of pioneering magneto crystalline anisotropy study of families of paramagnetic salts containing transition metal and rare earth ions lending good support to various new quantum mechanical ideas including those of Bethe, Kramers and Van Vleck on crystal field splitting and magneto crystalline anisotropy. In the biographical Memoirs of the Royal Society of London, K. Lonsdale and H.J. Bhaba$^4$ wrote: ‘The papers published by Krishnan during this period (30’s) in collaboration with B C Guha, S Banerjee and N C Chakravarty were the foundation stones of the modern fields of crystal magnetism and magnetochemistry’.
In the paramagnetic salts that Krishnan and collaborators studied the magnetic ions are well separated from each other by the intervening water molecules and also anion groups. As a result any direct or superexchange or dipolar interactions between the magnetic moments are weak; consequently any co-operative magnetic order such as antiferrmomagnetic order is pushed down to very low temperatures below 1 K. This enabled Krishnan and others to study in detail the magnetic properties of essentially isolated paramagnetic ions in various crystal field environments.
Jahn-Teller theorem and its experimental consequences has been studied in great detail in chemistry and physics particularly in the context of electron spin resonance experiments$^5$. In the simplest of transition metal complexes there is a cubic (octahedral) environment around the transition metal ion such as $Cu^{2+}$. The octahedral environment leads to a crystal field splitting of the five fold degenerate d level into an orbital doublet ($e_g$) and a triplet ($t_{2g}$).
In Krishnan and collaborator’s work one notices repeated reference to deviation from cubic electric field at the center of rare earth ions in several cases and transition metal ions in some cases as inferred from their own anisotropic magnetic susceptibility measurements. The most obvious causes for departure from regular cubic symmetry of the coordination clusters are inequivalence of the ligand atoms in the first or second co-ordination shell and forces of crystal packing. No one suspected that electronic orbital degeneracy can lead to an asymmetry such as a distortion of the octahedra with equivalent ligand atoms.
It is at this juncture the theoretical papers of Jahn and Teller appeared, which suggested another important cause for molecular asymmetry. And Krishnan readily appreciated the importance of this theorem for crystal field splitting and arrangement of water molecules around paramagnetic ions in aqueous solutions and wrote an interesting short paper in Nature$^6$ in 1939 that we reproduce here. It is interesting that Van Vleck$^7$, who very much admired$^8$ K S Krishnan, also developed his theory of Jahn-Teller effect for orbital doublets in paramagnetic ions in the same year.
In his paper KSK quotes at least four existing experimental results that support the Jahn-Teller theorem: i) x-ray data that is consistant with a small deviation of the perfect $H_2O$ octahedra around the paramagnetic ion in hydrated salts ii) magnetic data, mostly from his group, that exhibits strong magnetic anisotropy that is similar in magnitudes in various salts suggesting that the cause for any distortion arises from the electronic state of the paramagnetic ions rather than the surrounding atoms iii) asymmetry inferred from electronic absorption spectra of cation surrounded by water molecules in aqueous solutions studied by Freed et al. iv) magnetic double refraction exhibited by the aqueous solution of these salts, as observed experimentally by Raman and Chinchalkar and Haenny and v) the experimental observation of Chinchalkar that double refraction is absent experimentally when the paramagnetic ion is in an S-state (for example $Gd^{3+}$ or $Mn^{2+}$ which are orbital singlets)
Krishnan’s paper contained important suggestions and also looked at a slightly more complex system namely rare earth ions in aqueous solutions than the relatively simpler case of transition metal ions in solids. What Krishnan was looking for was perhaps static Jahn-Teller distortion at room temperature. The issue of timescale associated with the distortion dynamics and the nature of the experimental probe becomes important here. The Jahn-Teller cluster being a finite system, will either quantum mechanically tunnel among equivalent distorted configurations in a phase coherent manner with a short time period , or will hop to various equivalent distorted configurations incoherently through thermal fluctuations. Optical absorption, for example, is a short time scale measurement: it will see even dynamic distortions as a static one. The static susceptibility measurememt on the other hand is a low frequency probe. Any indication of distortion through this experiment will mean a nearly frozen distortion.
The choice of paramagnetic salts dissolved in water offers some special advantage too. A paramagnetic ion is typically surrounded by six water molecules forming a rigid octahedral complex. A coordination complex such as $[Cu (H_2 O)_6]^{2+}$, is loosely coupled to the environment namely water. This makes the restoring force against the Jahn-Teller distortion weaker, making a nearly static Jahn-Teller distortion feasible even at room temperatures. On the other hand, In the case of a solids, the Jahn-Teller distortion has to work against the packing forces of the crystal thereby reducing the Jahn-Teller stabilisation energy.
Many of Krishnan’s experiments involved rare earth ions. In view of the larger degeneracy and also the compactness of the f-orbitals, rare earth ions have some advantages as well as disadvantages. The compactness of the wave functions make the crystal field splitting smaller and also the quenching of angular momentum less important. On the other hand the spin orbit coupling, which can make the magnetic anisotropy stronger, is larger in the rare earth case. The larger degeneracy of the f-orbitals also leads to a proliferation of low lying multiplets making the theory as well the interpretations of the spectra hard. Perhaps because of these difficulties most of the classic studies of Jahn Teller effect seems to be confined to transition metal ion systems.
I will try to put some of Krishnan’s suggestions in the modern context. Now it is well known that the dynamic to static Jahn-Teller distortion cross over temperature, as measured by ESR measurements, ranges from 1K to more than 300K in a variety of systems$^{10}$. Some of these room temperature systems include $Cu^{2+}$ ion that Krishnan was referring to based preseumably on room temperature measurements. What I mean to say is that static Jahn-Teller distortion is not a very low temperature luxury that Krishan could have missed. Secondly, Krishnan was referring to some x-ray structural data as evidence for octahedral distortion. some modern EXAFS measurements$^{11}$ on $Cu^{2+}$ and $Cr^{2+}$ ions in aqueous solutions at room temperatures show the presence of a distorted octahedra with two copper-oxygen distances of about 2.00 Au and 2.3 Au.
Krishnan’s suggestion that the large magnetic double refraction observed by Raman and Chinchalkar and Haenny in aqueous solutions of paramagnetic ions is very interesting. This seems to be a compelling evidence for the Jahn-Teller distortion, as explained by Krishnan: the distorted octahedral complex, inview of the magnetic anisotropy arising from the large spin-orbit coupling, tend to align themselves in water along the magnetic fields causing double refraction. The absence of solid state effects and diluteness of the paramagnetc ions makes this argument very important: the system resembles somewhat an ideal gas of ‘octahedral molecules’ as far as the double refraction is concerned. I should also point out that I have not been able to find out in my short literature survey any later study of Jahn-Teller effect in aqueous solutions using the magnetic double refraction as a proble.
After this one paper on Jahn-Teller effect, Krishnan essentially left the field of crystal paramagnetism. Further he also never wrote any paper on the issue of Jahn-Teller effect.
The insightful suggestions of Krishnan, that came soon after the Jahn-Teller theorem, was never taken up for further study as far as I can see in the literature. This paper has remained unknown. One wonders why. One possible reason is the choice of rare earth ions, which as we mentioned earlier is complicated theoretically and also hard when it comes to interpretation of the experimental spectra. Another possible non scientific reason is as follows: a detailed followup paper or some further works by Krishnan$^9$ could have made Krishnan’s work known more and opened up the field of Jahn-Teller effect much earlier, making Krishnan a pioneer in one more beautiful field.
Detailed experimental confirmation of Jahn-Teller theorem became possible only after the ESR experiments of Bleaney and Bowers$^{12}$ in 1952 in $CuSiF_6.6H_2O$ and related family of paramagnetic salts, about 15 years after the enunciation of the theorem and Krishnan‘s supporting suggestions. The milestones included careful observation of the split ESR line below about 50K (indicating frozen distortion in the ESR time scales) and motional narrowed unsplit line above about 50K (indicating a dynamic distortion) for the copper salts.
Narly half a decade of experimental work on Jahn-Teller effect in the modern era is broadly consistant with the sixty year old suggestion of Krishnan. The practically unknown suggestions of Krishnan , however, remains as the only experimental support for the Jahn-Teller theorem covering a period of more than ten years, before the beginning of the modern era. As I mentioned earlier, the suggestion of magnetic double refraction by Krishnan may be still be useful in the modern context for Jahn-Teller effect study in the rich variety of new and old coordination complexes involving transition metal and rare earth metal ions.
[**Acknowledgement**]{}
I wish to thank Dr Tapan Kumar Kundu (RSIC, IIT Madras) for an informative discussion.
\
1) H.A. Jahn and E. Teller, Proc. Roy. Soc. [**A161**]{} 220 (1937)\
2) M.D. Sturge, in Solid State Physics, Eds. Seitz and Turnbull, vol. [**20**]{} page 91 (Academic Press, New Yor, 1967); I.B. Bersuker, Jahn-Teller effect and vibronic interactions in Modern Chemistry (Plenum, NY, 1984)\
3) Starting from 1933 Krishnan and collaborators wrote more than a dozen important papers on exhaustive study of magneto crystalline anisotropy in paramagnetic salts\
4) K Lonsdale and H J Bhabha in Biographical Memoirs of the Royal Society of London, 1962\
5) A. Abragam and B. Bleaney, Electron Paramagnetic Rosonance of transition metal ions (Clarendon Press, Oxford 1970)\
6) K. S. Krishnan, Nature, [**143**]{} 600 (1939)\
7) J. H. Van Vleck, J. Chem. Phys. [**7**]{} 72 (1039)\
8) P.W. Anderson, in his K.S. Krishnan Memorian Lecture devivered at NPL, Delhi in 12th January 1987, recalls warmly Van Vleck’s (Ph.D. supervisor of P W Anderson) admiration for K.S. Krishnan. Another such instance involving Van Vleck is quoted in the article by K.Lonsdale and H.J. Bhaba (ref. 4)\
9) A close look at K.S. Krishnan’s style of paper writing shows that typically he starts with a short letter style paper and ends with a series of long papers presenting the details of his experimental investigations. Roughly in each five, six years he goes for new pastures.\
10) T.K. Kundu and P.T. Manoharan, Chem. Phys. Lett. [**241**]{} 627 (1997); [**264**]{} 338 (1997); T.K. Kundu, Ph.D. Thesis (Chemistry Department, IIT, Madras 1997); Kundu notes that in solutions the counter ions can affect (renormalise) the cross over temperature considerably in some cases\
11) T.K. Sham, Chem. Phys. Lett. [**83**]{} 391 (1981); B. Beagley et al. J. Phys.: Conens. Matter, [**1**]{} 2395 (1989); A recent paper, Ralf Akesson et al., J. Phys. Chem. [**96**]{} 150 (1992), refers to some modern EXAFS measurements by I. Watanabe and N. Matsubayashi (Osaka) on the two copper-oxygen distances in the octahedra.\
12) B. Bleaney and K.D. Bowers, Proc. Phys. Soc. (London) [**A65**]{} 667 (1952)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'An algebraic version of a theorem due to Quillen is proved. More precisely, for a ground field $k$ we consider the motivic stable homotopy category $\mathrm{SH}(k)$ of ${\mathbf {P}}^1$-spectra, equipped with the symmetric monoidal structure described in [@BGL]. The algebraic cobordism ${\mathbf {P}}^1$-spectrum $\mathrm{MGL}$ is considered as a commutative monoid equipped with a canonical orientation $th^{\mathrm{MGL}} \in \mathrm{MGL}^{2,1}({\mathrm{Th}}(\mathcal O(-1)))$. For a commutative monoid $E$ in the category $\mathrm{SH}(k)$ it is proved that assignment $\varphi \mapsto \varphi(th^{\mathrm{MGL}})$ identifies the set of monoid homomorphisms $\varphi\colon \mathrm{MGL} \to E$ in the motivic stable homotopy category $\mathrm{SH}(k)$ with the set of all orientations of $E$. This result was stated originally in a slightly different form by G. Vezzosi in [@Vez].'
author:
- 'I. Panin[^1] [^2]'
- 'K. Pimenov'
- 'O. R[ö]{}ndigs[^3]'
date: 'September 26, 2007[^4]'
title: 'A universality theorem for Voevodsky’s algebraic cobordism spectrum'
---
Introduction
============
Quillen proved in [@Quillen:mu] that the formal group law associated to the complex cobordism spectrum $\mathrm{MU}$ is the universal one on the Lazard ring. As a consequence, the set of orientations on a commutative ring spectrum $E$ in the stable homotopy category is in bijective correspondence with the set of homomorphisms of ring spectra from $\mathrm{MU}$ to $E$ in the stable homotopy category. This result allowed a whole new approach to understanding the stable homotopy category, which is still actively pursued today.
On the algebraic side of things, there is a similar ${\mathbf {P}}^1$-ring spectrum $\mathrm{MGL}$ in the motivic stable homotopy category of a field $k$. The formal group law associated to $\mathrm{MGL}$ is not known to be the universal one, although unpublished work of Hopkins and Morel claims this if $k$ has characteristic zero. Nevertheless, the set of orientations on a ${\mathbf {P}}^1$-ring spectrum in the motivic stable homotopy category over $k$ can be identified in the same fashion.
\[thm:preliminaries\] Let $E$ be a commutative ${\mathbf {P}}^1$-ring spectrum over $k$. The set of orientations on $E$ is in bijection with the set of homomorphisms of ${\mathbf {P}}^1$-ring spectra from $\mathrm{MGL}$ to $E$ in the motivic stable homotopy category over $k$.
For a more detailed formulation, see \[UniversalityThm\]. Our main motivation to write this paper was to prove the universality theorem \[thm:preliminaries\] in a form convenient for its application in [@CV]. Theorem \[thm:preliminaries\] was stated originally in a slightly different form by G. Vezzosi in [@Vez], although he ignored certain aspects of the multiplicative structure on $\mathrm{MGL}$.
Preliminaries
-------------
We refer to [@BGL Appendix] for the basic terminology, notation, constructions, definitions, results. For the convenience of the reader we recall the basic definitions. Let $S$ be a Noetherian scheme of finite Krull dimension. One may think of $S$ being the spectrum of a field or the integers. Let ${\mathcal Sm}/S$ be the category of smooth quasi-projective $S$-schemes, and let ${\mathbf{sSet}}$ be the category of simplicial sets. A [*motivic space over*]{} $S$ is a functor $$A\colon {\mathcal Sm}/S^\mathrm{op} \to {\mathbf{sSet}}$$ (see [@BGL A.1.1]). The category of motivic spaces over $S$ is denoted $\mathbf{M}(S)$. This definition of a motivic space is different from the one considered by Morel and Voevodsky in [@MV] – they consider only those simplicial presheaves which are sheaves in the Nisnevich topology on ${\mathcal Sm}/S$. With our definition the Thomason-Trobaugh $K$-theory functor obtained by using big vector bundles is a motivic space on the nose. It is not a simplicial Nisnevich sheaf. This is why we prefer to work with the above notion of “space”.
We write $\mathrm{H}^{{\mathrm{cm}}}_\bullet (S)$ for the pointed motivic homotopy category and $\mathrm{SH}^{\mathrm{cm}}(S)$ for the stable motivic homotopy category over $S$ as constructed in [@BGL A.3.9, A.5.6]. By [@BGL A.3.11 resp. A.5.6] there are canonical equivalences to $\mathrm{H}_\bullet(S)$ of [@MV] resp. $\mathrm{SH}(S)$ of [@V1]. Both $\mathrm{H}^{\mathrm{cm}}_\bullet(S)$ and $\mathrm{SH}^{\mathrm{cm}}_\bullet(S)$ are equipped with closed symmetric monoidal structures such that the ${\mathbf {P}}^1$-suspension spectrum functor is a strict symmetric monoidal functor $$\Sigma^\infty_{{\mathbf {P}}^1} \colon \mathrm{H}^{\mathrm{cm}}_\bullet(S)\to \mathrm{SH}^{\mathrm{cm}}(S).$$ Here ${\mathbf {P}}^1$ is considered as a motivic space pointed by $\infty \in {\mathbf {P}}^1$. The symmetric monoidal structure $(\wedge,\mathbb{I}_S = \Sigma^\infty_{{\mathbf {P}}^1}S_+)$ on the homotopy category $\mathrm{SH}^{\mathrm{cm}}(S)$ is constructed on the model category level by employing symmetric ${\mathbf {P}}^1$-spectra. It satisfies the properties required by Theorem 5.6 of Voevodsky congress talk [@V1]. From now on we will usually omit the superscript $(-)^{\mathrm{cm}}$.
Every ${\mathbf {P}}^1$-spectrum $E = (E_0,E_1,\dotsc)$ represents a cohomology theory on the category of pointed motivic spaces. Namely, for a pointed motivic space $(A,a)$ set $$E^{p,q}(A,a)={\mathrm{Hom}}_{\mathrm{SH}_\bullet (S)}(\Sigma^\infty_{{\mathbf {P}}^1}(A,a), \Sigma^{p,q}(E))$$ and $E^{\ast,\ast}(A,a)= \oplus_{p,q} E^{p,q}(A,a)$. This definition extends to motivic spaces via the functor $A\mapsto A_+$ which adds a disjoint basepoint. That is, for a non-pointed motivic space $A$ set $E^{p,q}(A)=E^{p,q}(A_+,+)$ and $E^{\ast,\ast}(A)= \oplus_{p,q} E^{p,q}(A)$. Recall that there is a canonical element in $E^{2n,n}(E_n)$, denoted as $\Sigma^\infty_{{\mathbf {P}}^1}E_n(-n) \to E$. It is represented by the canonical map $(\ast,\dotsc,\ast,E_n,E_n\wedge {\mathbf {P}}^1,\dotsc) \to (E_0,E_1,\dotsc,E_n,\dotsc)$ of ${\mathbf {P}}^1$-spectra.
Every $X \in {\mathcal Sm}/S$ defines a representable motivic space constant in the simplicial direction taking an $S$-smooth scheme $U$ to $\mathrm{Hom}_{{\mathcal Sm}/S}(U,X)$. It is not possible in general to choose a basepoint for representable motivic spaces. So we regard $S$-smooth varieties as motivic spaces (non-pointed) and set $$E^{p,q}(X)=E^{p,q}(X_+,+).$$
Given a ${\mathbf {P}}^1$-spectrum $E$ we will reduce the double grading on the cohomology theory $E^{\ast,\ast}$ to a grading. Namely, set $E^m = \oplus_{m = p-2q}E^{p,q}$ and $E^{\ast}=\oplus_{m}E^m$. [*We often write*]{} $E^{\ast}(k)$ [*for*]{} $E^{\ast}(\mathrm{Spec}(k))$ [*below*]{}.
To complete this section, note that for us a ${\mathbf {P}}^1$-[*ring spectrum*]{} is a monoid $(E,\mu,e)$ in $(\mathrm{SH(S)},\wedge, \mathbb{I}_S)$. A [*commutative*]{} ${\mathbf {P}}^1$-ring spectrum is a commutative monoid $(E,\mu,e)$ in $(\mathrm{SH(S)},\wedge, 1)$. The cohomology theory $E^{\ast}$ defined by a ${\mathbf {P}}^1$-ring spectrum is a ring cohomology theory. The cohomology theory $E^{\ast}$ defined by a commutative ${\mathbf {P}}^1$-ring spectrum is a ring cohomology theory, however it is not necessary graded commutative. The cohomology theory $E^{\ast}$ defined by an oriented commutative ${\mathbf {P}}^1$-ring spectrum is a graded commutative ring cohomology theory [@PY].
Oriented commutative ring spectra
---------------------------------
Following Adams and Morel we define an orientation of a commutative ${\mathbf {P}}^1$-ring spectrum. However we prefer to use Thom classes instead of Chern classes. Consider the pointed motivic space ${\mathbf {P}}^{\infty}= {\operatornamewithlimits{colim}}_{n\geq 0} {\mathbf {P}}^n$ having base point $g_1 \colon S = {\mathbf {P}}^0 {\hookrightarrow }{\mathbf {P}}^\infty$.
The tautological “vector bundle” $\mathcal{T}(1) = \mathcal{O}_{{\mathbf {P}}^\infty}(-1)$ is also known as the Hopf bundle. It has zero section $z\colon {\mathbf {P}}^\infty {\hookrightarrow }\mathcal{T}(1)$. The fiber over the point $g_1 \in {\mathbf {P}}^{\infty}$ is $\mathbb{A}^1$. For a vector bundle $V$ over a smooth $S$-scheme $X$, with zero section $z\colon X {\hookrightarrow }V$, its [*Thom space*]{} ${\mathrm{Th}}(V)$ is the Nisnevich sheaf associated to the presheaf $Y \mapsto V(Y)/\bigl(V\minus z(X)\bigr)(Y)$ on the Nisnevich site ${\mathcal Sm}/S$. In particular, ${\mathrm{Th}}(V)$ is a pointed motivic space in the sense of [@BGL Defn. A.1.1]. It coincides with Voevodsky’s Thom space [@V1 p. 422], since ${\mathrm{Th}}(V)$ already is a Nisnevich sheaf. The Thom space of the Hopf bundle is then defined as the colimit ${\mathrm{Th}}(\mathcal{T}(1)) = {\operatornamewithlimits{colim}}_{n\geq 0} {\mathrm{Th}}\bigl(\mathcal{O}_{{\mathbf {P}}^n}(-1)\bigr)$. Abbreviate $T ={\mathrm{Th}}({\mathbf {A}}^1_S)$.
Let $E$ be a commutative ${\mathbf {P}}^1$-ring spectrum. The unit gives rise to an element $1\in E^{0,0}({\mathrm{Spec}}(k)_+)$. Applying the ${\mathbf {P}}^1$-suspension isomorphism to that element we get an element $\Sigma_{{\mathbf {P}}^1}(1) \in E^{2,1}({\mathbf {P}}^1,\infty)$. The canonical covering of ${\mathbf {P}}^1$ defines motivic weak equivalences $$\xymatrix{{\mathbf {P}}^1 \ar[r]^-\sim & {\mathbf {P}}^1/{\mathbf {A}}^1 &
{\mathbf {A}}^1/{\mathbf {A}}^1\minus \lbrace 0 \rbrace = T \ar[l]_-\sim}$$ of pointed motivic spaces inducing isomorphisms $E({\mathbf {P}}^1,\infty) \leftarrow E({\mathbf {A}}^1/{\mathbf {A}}^1\minus \lbrace 0 \rbrace) \rightarrow E(T)$. Let $\Sigma_{T}(1)$ be the image of $\Sigma_{{\mathbf {P}}^1}(1)$ in $E^{2,1}(T)$.
\[OrientationViaThom\] Let $E$ be a commutative ${\mathbf {P}}^1$-ring spectrum. A [*Thom orientation of*]{} $E$ is an element $th \in E^{2,1}({\mathrm{Th}}(\mathcal T(1))$ such that its restriction to the Thom space of the fibre over the distinguished point coincides with the element $\Sigma_{T}(1) \in E^{2,1}(T)$. A [*Chern orientation of*]{} $E$ is an element $c \in E^{2,1}({\mathbf {P}}^{\infty})$ such that $c|_{{\mathbf {P}}^1}= - \Sigma_{{\mathbf {P}}^1}(1)$. [*An orientation*]{} of $E$ is either a Thom orientation or a Chern orientation. One says that a Thom orientation $th$ of $E$ coincides with a Chern orientation $c$ of $E$ provided that $c = z^*(th)$ or equivalently the element $th$ coincides with the one $th(\mathcal O(-1))$ given by (\[ThomClass\]) below.
\[ThomAndChern\] The element $th$ should be regarded as the Thom class of the tautological line bundle $\mathcal{T}(1)= \mathcal O(-1)$ over ${\mathbf {P}}^{\infty}$. The element $c$ should be regarded as the Chern class of the tautological line bundle $\mathcal{T}(1)= \mathcal O(-1)$ over ${\mathbf {P}}^{\infty}$.
\[OrientationsOfMGLandK\] The following orientations given right below are relevant for our work. Here $\mathrm{MGL}$ denotes the ${\mathbf {P}}^1$-ring spectrum representing algebraic cobordism obtained below in Definition \[textMGL\], and $\mathrm{BGL}$ denotes the ${\mathbf {P}}^1$-ring spectrum representing algebraic $K$-theory constructed in [@BGL Theorem 2.2.1].
- Let $u_1: \Sigma^{\infty}_{{\mathbf {P}}^1}({\mathrm{Th}}(\mathcal{T}(1)))(-1) \to \mathrm{MGL}$ be the canonical map of ${\mathbf {P}}^1$-spectra. Set $th^{\mathrm{MGL}} =u_1 \in \mathrm{MGL}^{2,1}({\mathrm{Th}}(\mathcal{T}(1)))$. Since $th^{\mathrm{MGL}}|_{{\mathrm{Th}}(\mathbf{1})}= \Sigma_{{\mathbf {P}}^1}(1)$ in $\mathrm{MGL}^{2,1}({\mathrm{Th}}(\mathbf{1}))$, the class $th^{\mathrm{MGL}}$ is an orientation of $\mathrm{MGL}$.
- Set $c =(- \beta) \cup ([\mathcal O]-[\mathcal O(1)])
\in \mathrm{BGL}^{2,1}({\mathbf {P}}^{\infty})$. The relation (11) from [@BGL] shows that the class $c$ is an orientation of $\mathrm{BGL}$.
Oriented ring spectra and infinite Grassmannians {#OrientedSpectraAndTheory}
================================================
Let $(E,c)$ be an oriented commutative ${\mathbf {P}}^1$-ring spectrum. In this section we compute the $E$-cohomology of infinite Grassmannians and their products. The results are the expected ones – see Theorems \[CohomologyOfGr\] and \[CohomologyOfGrGr\].
The oriented ${\mathbf {P}}^1$-ring spectrum $(E,c)$ defines an oriented cohomology theory on ${\mathcal Sm}/S$ in the sense of [@PSorcoh Defn. 3.1] as follows. The restriction of the functor $E^{\ast,\ast}$ to the category ${\mathcal Sm}/S$ is a ring cohomology theory. By [@PSorcoh Th. 3.35] it remains to construct a Chern structure on $E^{\ast,\ast}|_{{\mathcal Sm}/S}$ in the sense of [@PSorcoh Defn. 3.2]. Let $\mathrm{H}_\bullet(k)$ be the homotopy category of pointed motivic spaces over $k$. The functor isomorphism ${\mathrm{Hom}}_{\mathrm{H}_\bullet(k)}(- , {\mathbf {P}}^{\infty}) \to \mathrm{Pic}(-)$ on the category ${\mathcal Sm}/S$ provided by [@MV Thm. 4.3.8] sends the class of the identity map ${\mathbf {P}}^\infty \to {{\mathbf {P}}^{\infty}}$ to the class of the tautological line bundle $\mathcal{O}(-1)$ over ${\mathbf {P}}^{\infty}$. For a line bundle $L$ over $X\in {\mathcal Sm}/S$ let $[L]$ be the class of $L$ in the group $\mathrm{Pic}(X)$. Let $f_L\colon X \to {\mathbf {P}}^{\infty}$ be a morphism in $\mathrm{H(k)}$ corresponding to the class $[L]$ under the functor isomorphism above. For a line bundle $L$ over $X\in {\mathcal Sm}/S$ set $c(L)=f^\ast_L(c) \in E^{2,1}(X)$. Clearly, $c(\mathcal{O}(-1))=c$. The assignment $L/X \mapsto c(L)$ is a Chern structure on $E^{\ast,\ast}|_{{\mathcal Sm}/S}$ since $c|_{{\mathbf {P}}^1}= - \Sigma_{{\mathbf {P}}^1}(1) \in E^{2,1}({\mathbf {P}}^1,\infty)$. With that Chern structure $E^{\ast,\ast}|_{{\mathcal Sm}/S}$ is an oriented ring cohomology theory in the sense of [@PSorcoh]. In particular, $(\mathrm{BGL},c^K)$ defines an oriented ring cohomology theory on ${\mathcal Sm}/S$.
Given this Chern structure, one obtains a theory of Thom classes $V/X \mapsto th(V) \in E^{2\mathrm{rank}(V),\mathrm{rank}(V)}\bigl({\mathrm{Th}}_X(V)\bigr)$ on the cohomology theory $E^{\ast,\ast}|_{{\mathcal Sm}/S}$ in the sense of [@PSorcoh Defn. 3.32] as follows. There is a unique theory of Chern classes $V \mapsto c_i(V) \in E^{2i,i}(X)$ such that for every line bundle $L$ on $X$ one has $c_1(L)=c(L)$. For a rank $r$ vector bundle $V$ over $X$ consider the vector bundle $W:= {\mathbf{1}} \oplus V$ and the associated projective vector bundle ${\mathbf {P}}(W)$ of lines in $W$. Set $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ThomBarClass}
\bar th(V)= c_r(p^\ast(V) \otimes \mathcal{O}_{{\mathbf {P}}(W)}(1)) \in E^{2r,r}({\mathbf {P}}(W)).\end{aligned}$$ It follows from [@PSorcoh Cor. 3.18] that the support extension map $$E^{2r,r}\bigl({\mathbf {P}}(W)/({\mathbf {P}}(W)\smallsetminus {\mathbf {P}}(\mathbf{1}))\bigr)
\to E^{2r,r}\bigl({\mathbf {P}}(W)\bigr)$$ is injective and $\bar th(E) \in E^{2r,r}\bigl({\mathbf {P}}(W)/({\mathbf {P}}(W)\smallsetminus {\mathbf {P}}(\mathbf{1}))\bigr) $. Set $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ThomClass}
th(E)= j^\ast(\bar th(E)) \in E^{2r,r}\bigl({\mathrm{Th}}_X(V)\bigr),\end{aligned}$$ where $j\colon {\mathrm{Th}}_X(V) \to {\mathbf {P}}(W)/ ({\mathbf {P}}(W) \smallsetminus {\mathbf {P}}({\bf 1}))$ is the canonical motivic weak equivalence of pointed motivic spaces induced by the open embedding $V{\hookrightarrow }{\mathbf {P}}(W)$. The assignment $V/X$ to $th(V)$ is a theory of Thom classes on $E^{\ast,\ast}|_{{\mathcal Sm}/S}$ (see the proof of [@PSorcoh Thm. 3.35]). Hence the Thom classes are natural, multiplicative and satisfy the following Thom isomorphism property.
\[ThomIsomorphism\] For a rank $r$ vector bundle $p\colon V \to X$ on $X\in {\mathcal Sm}/S$ with zero section $z\colon X{\hookrightarrow }V$, the map $$-\cup th(V)\colon E^{\ast,\ast}(X) \to E^{\ast+2r,\ast+r}\bigl(V/(V\minus z(X))\bigr)$$ is an isomorphism of two-sided $E^{\ast,\ast}(X)$-modules, where $-\cup th(V)$ is written for the composition map $\bigl(-\cup th(V)\bigr) \circ p^\ast$.
See [@PSorcoh Defn. 3.32.(4)].
Analogous to [@V1 p. 422] one obtains for vector bundles $V \to X$ and $W\to Y$ in ${\mathcal Sm}/S$ a canonical map of pointed motivic spaces ${\mathrm{Th}}(V) \wedge {\mathrm{Th}}(W) \to {\mathrm{Th}}(V \times_S W)$ which is a motivic weak equivalence as defined in [@BGL Defn. 3.1.6]. In fact, the canonical map becomes an isomorphism after Nisnevich (even Zariski) sheafification. Taking $Y=S$ and $W= \mathbf{1}$ the trivial line bundle yields a motivic weak equivalence ${\mathrm{Th}}(V) \wedge T \to Th(V \oplus \mathbf{1})$. The canonical covering of ${\mathbf {P}}^1$ defines motivic weak equivalences $$\xymatrix{T = {\mathbf {A}}^1/{\mathbf {A}}^1\minus \lbrace 0 \rbrace \ar[r]^-\sim & {\mathbf {P}}^1/{\mathbf {A}}^1 &
{\mathbf {P}}^1 \ar[l]_-\sim}$$ and the arrow $T = {\mathbf {A}}^1/{\mathbf {A}}^1\minus \lbrace 0 \rbrace \to {\mathbf {P}}^1/{\mathbf {P}}^1\minus \lbrace 0 \rbrace$ is an isomorphism. Hence one may switch between $T$ and ${\mathbf {P}}^1$ as desired.
\[ThomAndSuspension\] For $W=V \oplus {\mathbf{1}}$ consider the motivic weak equivalences $$\epsilon\colon {\mathrm{Th}}(V) \wedge {\mathbf {P}}^1 \to {\mathrm{Th}}(V) \wedge {\mathbf {P}}^1/{\mathbf {A}}^1 \leftarrow {\mathrm{Th}}(V) \wedge T \to {\mathrm{Th}}(W)$$ of pointed motivic spaces over $S$. The diagram $$\xymatrix{
E^{\ast+2r,\ast+r}({\mathrm{Th}}(V)) \ar[r]^-{\Sigma_{{\mathbf {P}}^1}} & E^{\ast+2r+2,\ast+r+1}({\mathrm{Th}}(V) \wedge {\mathbf {P}}^1) \\
E^{\ast+2r,\ast+r}({\mathrm{Th}}(V)) \ar[r]^-{\Sigma_{T}} \ar[u]^-{\mathrm{id}} & E^{\ast+2r+2,\ast+r+1}({\mathrm{Th}}(W))
\ar[u]_-{\epsilon^\ast}\\
E^{\ast,\ast}(X) \ar[r]^-{\mathrm{id}} \ar[u]^-{-\cup th(V)} & E^{\ast,\ast}(X) \ar[u]_-{-\cup th(W)}}$$ commutes.
Let ${\mathrm{Gr}}(n,n+m)$ be the Grassmann scheme of $n$-dimensional linear subspaces of ${\mathbf {A}}^{n+m}_S$. The closed embedding ${\mathbf {A}}^{n+m} = {\mathbf {A}}^{n+m}\times \{0\}
{\hookrightarrow }{\mathbf {A}}^{n+m+1}$ defines a closed embedding $$\label{eq:1}
{\mathrm{Gr}}(n,n+m){\hookrightarrow }{\mathrm{Gr}}(n,n+m+1).$$ The tautological vector bundle is denoted $\mathcal{T}(n,n+m)\to {\mathrm{Gr}}(n,n+m)$. The closed embedding (\[eq:1\]) is covered by a map of vector bundles $\mathcal{T}(n,n+m){\hookrightarrow }\mathcal{T}(n,n+m+1)$. Let ${\mathrm{Gr}}(n) = {\operatornamewithlimits{colim}}_{m\geq 0} {\mathrm{Gr}}(n,n+m)$, $\mathcal{T}(n) = {\operatornamewithlimits{colim}}_{m\geq 0} \mathcal{T}(n,n+m)$ and ${\mathrm{Th}}(\mathcal{T}(n)) = {\operatornamewithlimits{colim}}_{m\geq 0} {\mathrm{Th}}(\mathcal{T}(n,n+m))$. These colimits are taken in the category of motivic spaces over $S$.
\[FiniteGrassmannians\] It is not difficult to prove that $E^{\ast,\ast}({\mathrm{Gr}}(n,n+m))$ is multiplicatively generated by the Chern classes $c_i(\mathcal{T}(n,n+m))$ of the vector bundle $\mathcal{T}(n,n+m)$. This proves the surjectivity of the pull-back maps $E^{\ast,\ast}({\mathrm{Gr}}(n,n+m+1)) \to E^{\ast,\ast}({\mathrm{Gr}}(n,n+m))$ and shows that the canonical map $E^{\ast,\ast}({\mathrm{Gr}}(n)) \to {\varprojlim}E^{\ast,\ast}({\mathrm{Gr}}(n,n+m))$ is an isomorphism. Thus for each $i$ there exists a unique element $c_i= c_i(\mathcal T(n)) \in E^{2i,i}({\mathrm{Gr}}(n))$ which for each $m$ restricts to the element $c_i(\mathcal{T}(n,n+m))$ under the obvious pull-back map.
\[CohomologyOfGr\] Let $E$ be an oriented ${\mathbf {P}}^1$-ring spectrum. Then $$E^{\ast,\ast}({\mathrm{Gr}}(n))= E^{\ast,\ast}(k)[[c_1,c_2, \dots, c_n]]$$ is the formal power series ring. The inclusion $\mathrm{inc}_n\colon {\mathrm{Gr}}(n) {\hookrightarrow }{\mathrm{Gr}}(n+1)$ satisfies $\mathrm{inc}_n^\ast(c_m)=c_m$ for $m < n+1$ and $\mathrm{inc}^\ast_n(c_{n+1})=0$.
The case $n=1$ is well-known (see for instance [@PSorcoh Thm. 3.9]). For a finite dimensional vector space $W$ and a positive integer $m$ let ${\mathbf {F}}(m,W)$ be the flag variety of flags $W_1 \subset W_2 \subset \dots \subset W_m$ of linear subspaces of $W$ such that the dimension of $W_i$ is $i$. Let $\mathcal T^i(m,W)$ be the tautological rank $i$ vector bundle on ${\mathbf {F}}(m,W)$.
Let $V ={\mathbf {A}}^\infty$ be an infinite dimensional vector bundle over $S$ and set $e=(1,0,\dotsc)$. Then $V_n$ denotes the $n$-fold product of $V$, and $e^n_i\in V_n$ the vector $(0,\dotsc,0,e,0,\dotsc,0)$ having $e$ precisely at the $i$th position. Let $F(m)={\operatornamewithlimits{colim}}_W {\mathbf {F}}(m,W)$ and let $\mathcal T^i(m)={\operatornamewithlimits{colim}}_W \mathcal T^i(m,W)$, where $W$ runs over all finite-dimensional vector subspaces of $V_n$. Thus we have a flag $\mathcal T^1(m) \subset \mathcal T^2(m) \subset \dots \subset \mathcal T^m(m)$ of vector bundles over $F(m)$. Set $L^i(m)=\mathcal T^i(m)/\mathcal T^{i-1}(m)$. It is a line bundle over $F(m)$.
Consider the morphism $p_m\colon F(m) \to F(m-1)$ which takes a flag $W_1 \subset W_2 \subset \dots \subset W_m$ to the flag $W_1 \subset W_2 \subset \dots \subset W_{m-1}$. It is a projective vector bundle over $F(m-1)$ such that the line bundle $L^i(m)$ is its tautological line bundle. Thus there exists a tower of projective vector bundles $F(m) \to F(m-1) \to \dots \to F(1)= {\mathbf {P}}(V_n)$. The projective bundle theorem implies that $$E^{\ast,\ast}(F(n))=E^{\ast,\ast}(k)[[t_1,t_2, \dots, t_n]]$$ (the formal power series in $n$ variables), where $t_i=c(L^i(n))$ is the first Chern class of the line bundle $L^i(n)$ over $F(n)$.
Consider the morphism $q\colon F(n) \to {\mathrm{Gr}}(n)$, which takes a flag $W_1 \subset W_2 \subset \dots \subset W_n$ to the space $W_n$. It can be decomposed as a tower of projective vector bundles. In particular, the pull-back map $q^\ast\colon E^{\ast,\ast}({\mathrm{Gr}}(n)) \to E^{\ast,\ast}(F(n))$ is a monomorphism. It takes the class $c_i$ to the symmetric polynomial $\sigma_i= t_1t_2 \dots t_i + \dots + t_{n-i+1}\dots t_{n-1}t_n$. So the image of $q^\ast$ contains $E^{\ast,\ast}(k)[[\sigma_1,\sigma_2, \dots, \sigma_n]]$. It remains to check that the image of $q^\ast$ is contained in $E^{\ast,\ast}(k)[[\sigma_1,\sigma_2, \dots, \sigma_n]]$. To do that consider another variety.
Namely, let $V^0$ be the $n$-dimensional subspace of $V_n$ generated by the vectors $e^n_i$’s. Let $l^n_i$ be the line generated by the vector $e^n_i$. Let $V^0_i$ be a subspace of $V^0$ generated by all $e^n_j$’s with $j \leq i$. So one has a flag $V^0_1 \subset V^0_2 \subset \dots \subset V^0_n$. We denote this flag $F^0$. For each vector subspace $W$ in $V_n$ containing $V^0$ consider three algebraic subgroups of the general linear group $\mathbb{GL}_W$. Namely, set $$P_W= Stab(V^0),\ B_W= Stab(F^0), \ T_W= Stab(l^n_1,l^n_2,\dots,l^n_n).$$ The group $T_W$ stabilizes each line $l^n_i$. Clearly, $T_W \subset B_W \subset P_W$ and ${\mathrm{Gr}}(n,W)= \mathbb{GL}_W/P_W$, ${\mathbf {F}}(n,W)= \mathbb{GL}_W/B_W$ Set $M(n,W)= \mathbb{GL}_W/T_W$. One has a tower of obvious morphisms $$M(n,W) {\xrightarrow }{r_W} {\mathbf {F}}(n,W) {\xrightarrow }{q_W} {\mathrm{Gr}}(n,W).$$ Set $M(n)= {\operatornamewithlimits{colim}}_W M(n,W)$, where $W$ runs over all finite dimensional subspace $W$ of $V_n$ containing $V^0$. Now one has a tower of morphisms $$M(n) {\xrightarrow }{r} F(n) {\xrightarrow }{q} {\mathrm{Gr}}(n).$$ The morphisms $r_W$ can be decomposed in a tower of affine bundles. Hence it induces an isomorphism on any cohomology theory. The same then holds for the morphism $r$ and $$E^{\ast,\ast}(M(n))=E^{\ast,\ast}(k)[[t_1,t_2, \dots, t_n]].$$ Permuting vectors $e^n_i$’s yields an inclusion $\Sigma_n \subset GL(V^0)$ of the symmetric group $\Sigma_n$ in $\mathbb{GL}(V^0)$. The action of $\Sigma_n$ by the conjugation on $\mathbb{GL}_W$ normalizes the subgroups $T_W$ and $P_W$. Thus $\Sigma_n$ acts as on $M(n)$ so on ${\mathrm{Gr}}(n)$ and the morphism $q \circ r: M(n) \to {\mathrm{Gr}}(n)$ respects this action. Note that the action of $\Sigma_n$ on ${\mathrm{Gr}}(n)$ is trivial and the action of $\Sigma_n$ on $E^{\ast,\ast}(M(n))$ permutes the variable $t_1, t_2, \dots, t_n$. Thus the image of $(q \circ r)^*$ is contained in $E^{\ast,\ast}(k)[[\sigma_1,\sigma_2, \dots, \sigma_n]]$. Whence the same holds for the image of $q^*$. The Theorem is proven.
The projection from the product ${\mathrm{Gr}}(m) \times {\mathrm{Gr}}(n)$, to the $j$-th factor is called $p_j$. For every integer $i \geq 0$ set $c^{\prime}_i=p^*_1(c_i(\mathcal T(m)))$ and $c^{\prime\prime}_i=p^*_2(c_i(\mathcal T(n)))$
\[CohomologyOfGrGr\] Suppose $E$ is an oriented commutative ${\mathbf {P}}^1$-ring spectrum. There is an isomorphism $$E^{\ast,\ast}\bigl(({\mathrm{Gr}}(m)\times {\mathrm{Gr}}(n))\bigr)= E^{\ast,\ast}(k)[[c^{\prime}_1,c^{\prime}_2, \dots, c^{\prime}_m,
c^{\prime\prime}_1,c^{\prime\prime}_2, \dots, c^{\prime\prime}_n]]$$ is the formal power series on the $c^{\prime}_i$’s and $c^{\prime\prime}_j$’s. The inclusion $i_{m,n}\colon G(m) \times {\mathrm{Gr}}(n) {\hookrightarrow }G(m+1) \times G(n+1)$ satisfies $i^*_{m,n}(c^{\prime}_r)=c^{\prime}_r$ for $r < m+1$, $i^*_{m,n}(c^{\prime}_{m+1})=0$, and $i^*_{m,n}(c^{\prime\prime}_r)=c^{\prime\prime}_r$ for $r < n+1$, $i^*_{m,n}(c^{\prime\prime}_{n+1})=0$.
Follows as in the proof of Theorem \[CohomologyOfGr\].
The symmetric ring spectrum representing algebraic cobordism {#SpectrumMGL}
------------------------------------------------------------
To give a construction of the symmetric ${\mathbf {P}}^1$-ring spectrum $\mathrm{MGL}$, recall the external product of Thom spaces described in [@V1 p. 422]. For vector bundles $V \to X$ and $W\to Y$ in ${\mathcal Sm}/S$ one obtains a canonical map of pointed motivic spaces ${\mathrm{Th}}(V) \wedge {\mathrm{Th}}(W) \to {\mathrm{Th}}(V \times_S W)$ which is a motivic weak equivalence as defined in [@BGL Defn. 3.1.6]. In fact, the canonical map becomes an isomorphism after Nisnevich (even Zariski) sheafification.
The algebraic cobordism spectrum appears naturally as a $T$-spectrum, not as a ${\mathbf {P}}^1$-spectrum. Hence we describe it as a symmetric $T$-ring spectrum and obtain a symmetric ${\mathbf {P}}^1$-ring spectrum (and in particular a ${\mathbf {P}}^1$-ring spectrum) by switching the suspension coordinate (see [@BGL A.6.9]). For $m, n \geq 0$ let $\mathcal{T}(n,mn)\to {\mathrm{Gr}}(n,mn)$ denote the tautological vector bundle over the Grassmann scheme of $n$-dimensional linear subspaces of ${\mathbf {A}}^{mn}_S = {\mathbf {A}}^m_S\times_S \dotsm \times_S {\mathbf {A}}^m_S$. Permuting the copies of ${\mathbf {A}}^m_S$ induces a $\Sigma_n$-action on $\mathcal{T}(n,mn)$ and ${\mathrm{Gr}}(n,mn)$ such that the bundle projection is equivariant. The closed embedding ${\mathbf {A}}^m_S = {\mathbf {A}}^m_S\times \lbrace 0 \rbrace
{\hookrightarrow }{\mathbf {A}}^{m+1}_S$ defines a closed $\Sigma_n$-equivariant embedding ${\mathrm{Gr}}(n,mn){\hookrightarrow }{\mathrm{Gr}}(n,(m+1)n)$. In particular, ${\mathrm{Gr}}(n,mn)$ is pointed by $g_n\colon S = {\mathrm{Gr}}(n,n){\hookrightarrow }{\mathrm{Gr}}(n,mn)$. The fiber of ${\mathrm{Gr}}(n,mn)$ over $g_n$ is ${\mathbf {A}}^n_S$. Let ${\mathrm{Gr}}(n)$ be the colimit of the sequence $${\mathrm{Gr}}(n,n){\hookrightarrow }{\mathrm{Gr}}(n,2n) {\hookrightarrow }\dotsm {\hookrightarrow }{\mathrm{Gr}}(n,mn){\hookrightarrow }\dotsm$$ in the category of pointed motivic spaces over $S$. The pullback diagram $$\xymatrix{ \mathcal{T}(n,mn) \ar[r] \ar[d] & \mathcal{T}(n,(m+1)n) \ar[d] \\
{\mathrm{Gr}}(n,mn) \ar[r] & {\mathrm{Gr}}(n,(m+1)n)}$$ induces a $\Sigma_n$-equivariant inclusion of Thom spaces $${\mathrm{Th}}(\mathcal{T}(n,mn)) {\hookrightarrow }{\mathrm{Th}}(\mathcal{T}(n,(m+1)n)).$$ Let $\mathbb{MGL}_n$ denote the colimit of the resulting sequence $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:mglt}
\mathbb{MGL}_n = {\operatornamewithlimits{colim}}_{m\geq n} {\mathrm{Th}}(\mathcal{T}(n,mn))\end{aligned}$$ with the induced $\Sigma_n$-action. There is a closed embedding $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:111}
{\mathrm{Gr}}(n,mn)\times {\mathrm{Gr}}(p,mp) {\hookrightarrow }{\mathrm{Gr}}(n+p,m(n+p))\end{aligned}$$ which sends the linear subspaces $V{\hookrightarrow }{\mathbf {A}}^{mn}$ and $W{\hookrightarrow }{\mathbf {A}}^{mp}$ to the product subspace $V\times W {\hookrightarrow }{\mathbf {A}}^{mn}\times {\mathbf {A}}^{mp} = {\mathbf {A}}^{m(n+p)}$. In particular $(g_n,g_p)$ maps to $g_{n+p}$. The inclusion (\[eq:111\]) is covered by a map of tautological vector bundles and thus gives a canonical map of Thom spaces $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:2}
{\mathrm{Th}}(\mathcal{T}(n,mn)) \wedge {\mathrm{Th}}(\mathcal{T}(p,mp)) \to {\mathrm{Th}}(\mathcal{T}(n+p,
m(n+p)))\end{aligned}$$ which is compatible with the colimit (\[eq:mglt\]). Furthermore, the map (\[eq:2\]) is $\Sigma_n\times \Sigma_p$-equivariant, where the product acts on the target via the standard inclusion $\Sigma_n\times \Sigma_p\subseteq \Sigma_{n+p}$. After taking colimits, the result is a $\Sigma_n\times \Sigma_p$-equivariant map $$\begin{aligned}
\label{MglProduct} \mu_{n,p}\colon \mathbb{MGL}_n\wedge \mathbb{MGL}_p \to
\mathbb{MGL}_{n+p}\end{aligned}$$ of pointed motivic spaces (see [@V1 p. 422]). The inclusion of the fiber ${\mathbf {A}}^p$ over $g_p$ in $\mathcal{T}(p)$ induces an inclusion ${\mathrm{Th}}(\mathbb{A}^p)\subset {\mathrm{Th}}(\mathcal T(p))=\mathbb{MGL}_p$. Precomposing it with the canonical $\Sigma_p$-equivariant map of pointed motivic spaces $${\mathrm{Th}}(\mathbb{A}^1)\wedge {\mathrm{Th}}(\mathbb{A}^1)\wedge \dotsm \wedge {\mathrm{Th}}(\mathbb{A}^1) \to
{\mathrm{Th}}(\mathbb{A}^p)$$ defines a family of maps $e_p\colon(\Sigma^\infty_T S_+)_p = T^{\wedge p} \to \mathbb{MGL}_p$. Inserting it in the inclusion (\[MglProduct\]) yields $\Sigma_n\times \Sigma_p$-equivariant structure maps $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:str-mglt}
\label{MglSuspension} \mathbb{MGL}_n \wedge {\mathrm{Th}}(\mathbb{A}^1)\wedge
{\mathrm{Th}}(\mathbb{A}^1)\wedge \dotsm \wedge {\mathrm{Th}}(\mathbb{A}^1)
\to
\mathbb{MGL}_{n+p}\end{aligned}$$ of the symmetric $T$-spectrum $\mathbb{MGL}$. The family of $\Sigma_n\times \Sigma_p$-equivariant maps (\[MglProduct\]) form a commutative, associative and unital multiplication on the symmetric $T$-spectrum $\mathbb{MGL}$ (see [@J Sect. 4.3]). Regarded as a $T$-spectrum it coincides with Voevodsky’s spectrum $\mathbf{MGL}$ described in [@V1 6.3].
Let $\overline{T}$ be the Nisnevich sheaf associated to the presheaf $X \mapsto {\mathbf {P}}^1(X)/({\mathbf {P}}^1 - \{0\})(X)$ on the Nisnevich site ${\mathcal Sm}/S$. The canonical covering of ${\mathbf {P}}^1$ supplies an isomorphism $$\xymatrix{ T ={\mathrm{Th}}({\mathbf {A}}^1_S) \ar[r]^-\cong &\overline{T}}$$ of pointed motivic spaces. This isomorphism induces an isomorphism ${\mathbf{MSS}}_T(S) \cong {\mathbf{MSS}}_{\overline{T}}(S)$ of the categories of symmetric $T$-spectra and symmetric $\overline{T}$-spectra. In particular, $\mathbb{MGL}$ may be regarded as a symmetric $\overline{T}$-spectrum by just changing the structure maps up to an isomorphism. Note that the isomorphism of categories respects both the symmetric monoidal structure and the model structure. The canonical projection $p\colon {\mathbf {P}}^1 \to \overline{T}$ is a motivic weak equivalence, because ${\mathbf {A}}^1$ is contractible. It induces a Quillen equivalence $$\xymatrix{ {\mathbf{MSS}}(S)={\mathbf{MSS}}_{{\mathbf {P}}^1}(S) \ar@<0.7ex>[r]^-{p_\sharp} & {\mathbf{MSS}}_{\overline{T}}(S)\ar@<0.7ex>[l]^-{p^\ast}}$$ when equipped with model structures as described in [@J] (see [@BGL A.6.9]). The right adjoint $p^\ast$ is very simple: it sends a symmetric $\overline{T}$-spectrum $E$ to the symmetric ${\mathbf {P}}^1$-spectrum having terms $\bigl(p^\ast(E)\bigr)_n =E_n$ and structure maps $$\xymatrix@C=5em{E_n\wedge {\mathbf {P}}^1 \ar[r]^-{E_n\wedge p} & E\wedge \overline{T} \ar[r]^-{\mathrm{structure\ map}}
& E_{n+1}}.$$ In particular $\mathrm{MGL} :=p^\ast \mathbb{MGL}$ is a symmetric ${\mathbf {P}}^1$-spectrum by just changing the structure maps. Since $p^\ast$ is a lax symmetric monoidal functor, $\mathrm{MGL}$ is a commutative monoid in a canonical way. Finally, the identity is a left Quillen equivalence from the model category ${\mathbf{MSS}}^{\mathrm{cm}}(S)$ used in [@BGL] to Jardine’s model structure by the proof of [@BGL A.6.4]. Let $\gamma\colon \mathrm{Ho}({\mathbf{MSS}}^{\mathrm{cm}}(S)) \to {\mathrm{SH}}(S)$ denote the equivalence obtained by regarding a symmetric ${\mathbf {P}}^1$-spectrum just as a ${\mathbf {P}}^1$-spectrum.
\[textMGL\] Let $(\mathrm{MGL},\mu_\mathrm{MGL},e_\mathrm{MGL})$ denote the commutative ${\mathbf {P}}^1$-ring spectrum which is the image $\gamma(\mathrm{MGL})$ of the commutative symmetric ${\mathbf {P}}^1$-ring spectrum $\mathrm{MGL}$ in the motivic stable homotopy category ${\mathrm{SH}}(S)$.
Cohomology of the algebraic cobordism spectrum
----------------------------------------------
Let $E$ be an oriented commutative ${\mathbf {P}}^1$-ring spectrum and let $S={\mathrm{Spec}}(k)$ for a field $k$. We will compute $E^{\ast,\ast}(\mathrm{MGL})$ and $E^{\ast,\ast}(\mathrm{MGL} \wedge \mathrm{MGL})$ in this short section.
By [@BGL Cor. 2.1.4], the group $E^{\ast,\ast}(\mathrm{MGL})$ fits into the short exact sequence $$0 \to {\varprojlim}^{1}E^{\ast+2i-1,\ast+i}({\mathrm{Th}}(\mathcal T(i)))
\to E^{\ast,\ast}(\mathrm{MGL})
\to \varprojlim E^{\ast+2i,\ast+i}({\mathrm{Th}}(\mathcal T(i))) \to 0$$ where the connecting maps in the tower are given by the top line of the commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{
E^{\ast+2i-1,\ast+i}({\mathrm{Th}}(i)) &
E^{\ast+2i+1,\ast+i+1}({\mathrm{Th}}(i) \wedge {\mathbf {P}}^1) \ar[l]_-{\Sigma^{-1}_{{\mathbf {P}}^1}} &
E^{\ast+2i+1,\ast+i+1}({\mathrm{Th}}(i+1)) \ar[l] \\
E^{\ast,\ast}({\mathrm{Gr}}(i)) \ar[u]^-{-\cup th(\mathcal{T}(i))} &
E^{\ast,\ast}({\mathrm{Gr}}(i)) \ar[l]_-{{\mathrm{id}}}
\ar[u]_-{\epsilon^\ast \circ(-\cup th(\mathcal{T}(i)\oplus \mathbf{1}))} &
E^{\ast,\ast}({\mathrm{Gr}}(i+1)) \ar[l]_-{\mathrm{inc}_i^\ast} \ar[u]_-{-\cup th(\mathcal{T}(i+1))}}$$ Here $\epsilon\colon {\mathrm{Th}}(V) \wedge {\mathbf {P}}^1 \to Th(V\oplus \mathbf{1})$ is the canonical map described in Corollary \[ThomAndSuspension\]. The pull-backs $\mathrm{inc}^\ast_i$ are all surjective by Theorem \[ThomIsomorphism\]. So we proved the following
\[CohomologyOfMGL\] The canonical map $$E^{\ast,\ast}(\mathrm{MGL}) \to \varprojlim E^{\ast+2i,\ast+i}({\mathrm{Th}}(\mathcal T(i)))=
E^{\ast,\ast}(k)[[c_1,c_2,c_3,\dots]]$$ is an isomorphism of two-sided $E^{\ast,\ast}(k)$-modules.
Now compute $E^{\ast,\ast}(\mathrm{MGL} \wedge \mathrm{MGL})$. By [@BGL Cor. 2.1.5] the group $E^{\ast,\ast}(\mathrm{MGL} \wedge \mathrm{MGL})$ fits into the short exact sequence $$0 \to {\varprojlim}^{1}E^{\ast+4i-1,\ast+2i}({\mathrm{Th}}(\mathcal T(i)) \wedge {\mathrm{Th}}(\mathcal T(i)))
\to E^{\ast,\ast}(\mathrm{MGL} \wedge \mathrm{MGL})$$ $$\to \varprojlim E^{\ast+4i,\ast+2i}(Th(\mathcal T(i)) \wedge Th(\mathcal T(i))) \to 0.$$ Note that since ${\mathrm{Th}}(\mathcal T(i)) \wedge {\mathrm{Th}}(\mathcal T(i))\cong {\mathrm{Th}}(\mathcal T(i) \times \mathcal T(i))$, there is a Thom isomorphism $E^{\ast+4i-1,\ast+2i}({\mathrm{Th}}(\mathcal T(i) \times \mathcal T(i))) \cong E^{\ast-1,\ast}({\mathrm{Gr}}(i) \times {\mathrm{Gr}}(i))$ by Theorem \[ThomIsomorphism\]. The ${\varprojlim}^{1}$-group is trivial because the connecting maps coincide with the pull-back maps $$E^{*-1,*}({\mathrm{Gr}}(i+1) \times {\mathrm{Gr}}(i+1)) \to E^{*-1,*}({\mathrm{Gr}}(i) \times {\mathrm{Gr}}(i))$$ and these are surjective by Theorem \[CohomologyOfGrGr\]. This implies the following
\[CohomologyOfMGLMGL\] The canonical map $$E^{\ast,\ast}(\mathrm{MGL} \wedge \mathrm{MGL}) \to
\varprojlim E^{\ast+2i,\ast+i}({\mathrm{Th}}(\mathcal T(i)) \wedge {\mathrm{Th}}(\mathcal T(i)))=$$ $$E^{\ast,\ast}(k)[[c^{\prime}_1, c^{\prime\prime}_1, c^{\prime}_2, c^{\prime\prime}_2, \dots]]$$ is an isomorphism of two-sided $E^{\ast,\ast}(k)$-modules. Here $c^{\prime}_i$ is the $i$-th Chern class coming from the first factor of $\mathrm{Gr} \times \mathrm{Gr}$ and $c^{\prime\prime}_i$ is the $i$-th Chern class coming from the second factor.
A universality theorem for the algebraic cobordism spectrum
-----------------------------------------------------------
The complex cobordism spectrum, equipped with its natural orientation, is a universal oriented ring cohomology theory by Quillen’s universality theorem [@Quillen:mu]. In this section we prove a motivic version of Quillen’s universality theorem. The statement is contained already in [@Vez]. Recall that the ${\mathbf {P}}^1$-ring spectrum $\mathrm{MGL}$ carries a canonical orientation $th^{\mathrm{MGL}}$ as defined in \[OrientationsOfMGLandK\]. It is the canonical map $th^{\mathrm{MGL}}\colon \Sigma^{\infty}_{{\mathbf {P}}^1}(Th(\mathcal O(-1)))(-1) \to \mathrm{MGL}$ of ${\mathbf {P}}^1$-spectra.
\[UniversalityThm\] Let $E$ be a commutative ${\mathbf {P}}^1$-ring spectrum and let $S={\mathrm{Spec}}(k)$ for a field $k$. The assignment $\varphi \mapsto \varphi(th^{\mathrm{MGL}}) \in E^{2,1}({\mathrm{Th}}(\mathcal T(1)))$ identifies the set of monoid homomorphisms $$\begin{aligned}
\label{OrientationMap}
\varphi\colon \mathrm{MGL} \to E\end{aligned}$$ in the motivic stable homotopy category $\mathrm{SH}^{{\mathrm{cm}}}(S)$ with the set of orientations of $E$. The inverse bijection sends an orientation $th \in E^{2,1}({\mathrm{Th}}(\mathcal T(1)))$ to the unique morphism $$\varphi \in E^{0,0}(\mathrm{MGL})={\mathrm{Hom}}_{{\mathrm{SH}}(S)}(\mathrm{MGL},E)$$ such that $u_i^\ast(\varphi)= th(\mathcal T(i)) \in E^{2i,i}({\mathrm{Th}}(\mathcal T(i)))$, where $th(\mathcal T(i))$ is given by (\[ThomClass\]) and\
$u_i\colon \Sigma^{\infty}_{{\mathbf {P}}^1}({\mathrm{Th}}(\mathcal T(i)))(-i) \to \mathrm{MGL}$ is the canonical map of ${\mathbf {P}}^1$-spectra.
Let $\varphi\colon \mathrm{MGL}\to E$ be a homomorphism of monoids in ${\mathrm{SH}}(S)$. The class $th:=\varphi(th^{\mathrm{MGL}})$ is an orientation of $E$, because $$\varphi(th)|_{Th(\bf 1)}= \varphi(th|_{Th(\bf 1)})=
\varphi(\Sigma_{{\mathbf {P}}^1}(1))= \Sigma_{{\mathbf {P}}^1}(\varphi(1))= \Sigma_{{\mathbf {P}}^1}(1).$$ Now suppose $th^E \in E^{2i,i}({\mathrm{Th}}(\mathcal O(-1)))$ is an orientation of $E$. We will construct a monoid homomorphism $\varphi\colon \mathrm{MGL} \to E$ in ${\mathrm{SH}}(S)$ such that $u_i^*(\varphi)= th(\mathcal T(i))$ and prove its uniqueness. To do so recall that by Claim \[CohomologyOfMGL\] the canonical map $E^{\ast,\ast}(\mathrm{MGL}) \to \varprojlim E^{\ast+2i,\ast+i}({\mathrm{Th}}(\mathcal T(i)))$ is an isomorphism. The family of elements $th(\mathcal T(i))$ is an element in the $\varprojlim$-group, thus there is a unique element $\varphi \in E^{0,0}(\mathrm{MGL})$ with $u_i^*(\varphi)= th(\mathcal T(i))$.
We claim that $\varphi$ is a monoid homomorphism. To check that it respects the multiplicative structure, consider the diagram $$\xymatrix@C=6em{
\Sigma^{\infty}_{{\mathbf {P}}^1}({\mathrm{Th}}(\mathcal T(i)))(-i) \wedge \Sigma^{\infty}_{{\mathbf {P}}^1}({\mathrm{Th}}(\mathcal T(j)))(-j)
\ar[r]^-{\Sigma^{\infty}_{{\mathbf {P}}^1}(\mu_{i,j})(-i-j)} \ar[d]_-{u_i\wedge u_j} &
\Sigma^{\infty}_{{\mathbf {P}}^1}({\mathrm{Th}}(\mathcal T(i+j)))(-i-j) \ar[d]^-{u_{i+j}} \\
\mathrm{MGL} \wedge \mathrm{MGL} \ar[r]^-{\mu_{\mathrm{MGL}}} \ar[d]_-{\varphi \wedge \varphi}
& \mathrm{MGL} \ar[d]^-{\varphi} \\
E \wedge E \ar[r]^-{\mu_E} & E.}$$ Its enveloping square commutes in $\mathrm{SH}(S)$ by the chain of relations $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi \circ u_{i+j} \circ \Sigma^{\infty}_{{\mathbf {P}}^1}(\mu_{i,j})(-i-j) & = &
\mu^\ast_{i,j}(th(\mathcal T(i+j)))=
th(\mu^\ast_{i,j}(\mathcal T(i+j)))=
th(\mathcal T(i) \times \mathcal T(j)) \\ & = &
th(\mathcal T(i)) \times th(\mathcal T(j))=
\mu_E(th(\mathcal T(i)) \wedge th(\mathcal T(j))) \\ & = &
\mu_E \circ ((\varphi \circ u_i) \wedge (\varphi \circ u_j)).\end{aligned}$$ The canonical map $E^{\ast,\ast}(\mathrm{MGL} \wedge \mathrm{MGL})
\to
\varprojlim E^{\ast+4i,\ast+2i}(Th(\mathcal T(i)) \wedge Th(\mathcal T(i)))$ is an isomorphism by Claim \[CohomologyOfMGLMGL\]. Now the equality $$\varphi \circ u_{i+i} \circ \Sigma^{\infty}_{{\mathbf {P}}^1}(\mu_{i,i})(-2i)=
\mu_E \circ ((\varphi \circ u_i) \wedge (\varphi \circ u_i))$$ shows that $\mu_E \circ (\varphi \wedge \varphi) = \varphi \circ \mu_{\mathrm{MGL}}$ in $\mathrm{SH}(k)$.
To prove the Theorem it remains to check that the two assignments described in the Theorem are inverse to each other. An orientation $th \in E^{2,1}({\mathrm{Th}}(\mathcal O(-1)))$ induces a morphism $\varphi$ such that for each $i$ one has $\varphi \circ u_i = th(\mathcal T_i)$. And the new orientation $th^{\prime}:= \varphi(th^{\mathrm{MGL}})$ coincides with the original one, due to the chain of relations $$th^{\prime} = \varphi(th^{\mathrm{MGL}})= \varphi(u_1)= \varphi \circ u_1 =
th(\mathcal T(1))=th(\mathcal O(-1))=th.$$
On the other hand a monoid homomorphism $\varphi$ defines an orientation $th:= \varphi(th^{\mathrm{MGL}})$ of $E$. The monoid homomorphism $\varphi^{\prime}$ we obtain then satisfies $u^*_i(\varphi^{\prime})=th(\mathcal T(i))$ for every $i\geq 0$. To check that $\varphi^{\prime}=\varphi$, recall that $\mathrm{MGL}$ is oriented, so we may use Claim \[CohomologyOfMGL\] with $E= \mathrm{MGL}$ to deduce an isomorphism $$\mathrm{MGL}^{\ast,\ast}(\mathrm{MGL})
\to \varprojlim \mathrm{MGL}^{\ast+2i,\ast+i}({\mathrm{Th}}(\mathcal T(i))).$$ This isomorphism shows that the identity $\varphi^{\prime}=\varphi$ will follow from the identities $u^*_i(\varphi^{\prime})= u^*_i(\varphi)$ for every $i\geq 0$. Since $u^*_i(\varphi^{\prime})=th(\mathcal T_i)$ it remains to check the relation $u^*_i(\varphi)= th(\mathcal T(i))$. It follows from the
\[UandThom\] There is an equality $u_i= th^{\mathrm{MGL}}(\mathcal T(i) \in \mathrm{MGL}^{2i,i}({\mathrm{Th}}(\mathcal T(i)))$.
In fact, $u^\ast_i(\varphi)= \varphi \circ u_i = \varphi(u_i)=
\varphi(th^{\mathrm{MGL}}(\mathcal T(i)))=
th(\mathcal T(i))$. The last equality in this chain of relations holds, because $\varphi$ is a monoid homomorphism sending $th^{\mathrm{MGL}}$ to $th$. It remains to prove the Claim. We will do this in the case $i=2$. The general case can be proved similarly. The commutative diagram $$\xymatrix@C=5em{
\Sigma^{\infty}_{{\mathbf {P}}^1}{\mathrm{Th}}(\mathcal T(1))(-1) \wedge
\Sigma^{\infty}_{{\mathbf {P}}^1}{\mathrm{Th}}(\mathcal T(1))(-1)
\ar[r]^-{\Sigma^{\infty}_{{\mathbf {P}}^1}(\mu_{1,1})(-2)} \ar[d]_-{u_1\wedge u_1} &
\Sigma^{\infty}_{{\mathbf {P}}^1}{\mathrm{Th}}(\mathcal T(2))(-2) \ar[d]^-{u_2} \\
\mathrm{MGL} \wedge \mathrm{MGL} \ar[r]^-{\mu_{\mathrm{MGL}}} &\mathrm{MGL}}$$ in $\mathrm{SH}(k)$ implies that $$\mu^\ast_{1,1}(u_2)= u_1 \times u_1
\in \mathrm{MGL}^{4,2}({\mathrm{Th}}(\mathcal T(1)) \wedge {\mathrm{Th}}(\mathcal T(1)))=
\mathrm{MGL}^{4,2}({\mathrm{Th}}(\mathcal T(1) \times \mathcal T(1))).$$ The equalities $$\begin{aligned}
\mu^\ast_{1,1}(th^{\mathrm{MGL}}(\mathcal T(2))) & = &
th^{\mathrm{MGL}}(\mu^\ast_{1,1}(\mathcal T(2)))=
th^{\mathrm{MGL}}(\mathcal T(1) \times \mathcal T(1)) \\ & =&
th^{\mathrm{MGL}}(\mathcal T(1)) \times th^{\mathrm{MGL}}(\mathcal T(1))\end{aligned}$$ imply that it remains to prove the injectivity of the map $\mu^\ast_{1,1}$. Consider the commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{
\mathrm{MGL}^{\ast,\ast}({\mathrm{Th}}(\mathcal T(1) \times \mathcal T(1)))&
\mathrm{MGL}^{\ast,\ast}({\mathrm{Th}}(\mathcal T(2))) \ar[l]_-{\mu^\ast_{1,1}} \\
\mathrm{MGL}^{\ast,\ast}({\mathrm{Gr}}(1) \times {\mathrm{Gr}}(1)) \ar[u]^-{\mathrm{Thom}}_-\cong & \mathrm{MGL}^{\ast,\ast}({\mathrm{Gr}}(2))
\ar[l]_-{\nu^\ast_{1,1}} \ar[u]_-{\mathrm{Thom}}^\cong}$$ where the vertical arrows are the Thom isomorphisms from Theorem \[ThomIsomorphism\] and $\nu_{1,1}: {\mathrm{Gr}}(1) \times {\mathrm{Gr}}(1) {\hookrightarrow }{\mathrm{Gr}}(2)$ is the embedding described by equation (\[eq:111\]). For an oriented commutative ${\mathbf {P}}^1$-ring spectrum $(E,th)$ one has $E^{\ast,\ast}({\mathrm{Gr}}(2))=E^{\ast,\ast}(k)[[c_1,c_2]]$ (the formal power series on $c_1$, $c_2$) by Theorem \[CohomologyOfGr\]. From the other hand $$E^{\ast,\ast}({\mathrm{Gr}}(1) \times {\mathrm{Gr}}(1))= E^{\ast,\ast}(k)[[t_1,t_2]]$$ (the formal power series on $t_1$, $t_2$) by Theorem \[CohomologyOfGrGr\] and the map $\nu^\ast_{1,1}$ takes $c_1$ to $t_1+t_2$ and $c_2$ to $t_1t_2$. Whence $\nu^\ast_{1,1}$ is injective. The proofs of the Claim and of the Theorem are completed.
[MMM]{} \[References\]
*J. F. Jardine.* Motivic symmetric spectra. Doc. Math. 5 (2000), 445–553.
*F. Morel, V. Voevodsky.* ${\mathbf {A}}^1$-homotopy theory of schemes. Publ. Math. IHES 90, (1999), 45–143.
*I. Panin, K. Pimenov, O. Röndigs.* On Voevodsky’s algebraic $K$-theory spectrum $\mathrm{BGL}$. Preprint, 48 pages (2007). Available via [arXiv:0709.3905v1 \[math.AG\]]{}
*I. Panin, K. Pimenov, O. Röndigs.* On the relation of Voevodsky’s algebraic cobordism to Quillen’s $K$-theory. Preprint, 18 pages (2007). Available via [arXiv:0709.4124v1 \[math.AG\]]{}
*I. Panin.* ([*After I. Panin and A. Smirnov*]{}) Oriented cohomology theories on algebraic varieties, Special issue in honor of H. Bass on his seventieth birthday. Part III. $K$-Theory, 30 (2003), no. 3, 265–314.
*I. Panin, S. Yagunov.* Rigidity for orientable functors. J. Pure and Appl. Algebra, 172, (2002), 49–77.
*D. Quillen*. On the formal group laws of unoriented and complex cobordism theory. Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 75, 1293-1298 (1969)
*G. Vezzozi.* Brown-Peterson spectra in stable ${\mathbf {A}}^1$-homotopy theory. Rend. Semin. Mat. Univ. Padova 106, 47-64 (2001).
*V. Voevodsky.* $\mathbf{A}^1$-Homotopy theory. Doc. Math., Extra Vol. ICM 1998(I), 417-442.
[^1]: Universität Bielefeld, SFB 701, Bielefeld, Germany
[^2]: Steklov Institute of Mathematics at St. Petersburg, Russia
[^3]: Institut für Mathematik, Universität Osnabrück, Osnabrück, Germany
[^4]: The authors thank the SFB-701 at the Universität Bielefeld, the RTN-Network HPRN-CT-2002-00287, the RFFI-grant 03-01-00633a, and INTAS-05-1000008-8118 for their support.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A differential-difference operator is used to model the heat equation on a finite graph analogue of Poincaré’s upper half-plane. Finite analogues of the classical theta functions are shown to be solutions to the heat equation in this setting.'
address:
- |
Department of Mathematics and Statistics\
University of North Florida\
Jacksonville, FL 32224, USA
- |
Department of Mathematics\
University of California, Berkeley\
Berkeley, CA 94720, USA
author:
- 'M. R. DeDeo and Elinor Velasquez'
bibliography:
- 'heateqn.bib'
title: 'The Heat Equation on the Finite Poincaré Upper Half-Plane'
---
Introduction
============
Consider a finite graph $\varGamma$ with an arbitrary vertex set $V$ and some distinguished vertex $v_0 \in V$. We seek to determine the heat flow from vertex to vertex over continuous time. With regard to a specific initial condition, a solution to the above problem is modeled by the fundamental solution to the following set of equations: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-1}
&\left[
\frac{\partial}{\partial t} - \Delta
\right]u(v,t) = 0,\quad t>0,\nonumber\\
&\lim_{t\to 0+}
\sum_{v \in V} u(v,t) f(v) = f(v_0),\end{aligned}$$ for a fixed function $f$ on $V$, and $\Delta$ the combinatorial Laplacian defined on the graph $\varGamma$. In this paper, we compute an explicit solution for the heat equation, with initial data concentrated at a point on $\varGamma$, a graph which has been constructed to act as a finite analogue of the Poincaré upper half-plane. Specifically, $\varGamma$ is a finite Cayley graph associated with the group of rank 2 invertible matrices over a finite field of characteristic $q$, with edges created via the generating set of this group.
Solving for the fundamental solution to the heat equation on a bounded domain is a classical problem in partial differential equations. When the domain is the circle, for instance, the fundamental solution of the heat equation can be described by a theta function.
Solving the heat equation on $H$, the Poincaré upper half-plane amounts to computing the temperature function over time on an insulated, thin hyperbolic triangle [@Ter1]. This hyperbolic triangle is non-compact, yet analogues to classical theta functions occur when describing the fundamental solution. In this paper we determine domains in which theta functions occur as fundamental solutions to the heat equation.
The fundamental solution to the heat equation has applications to random walks on groups in probability theory. See Grigorchuk [@Gri], Levit-Molchanov [@LM], and Pagliacci [@Pag] for some recent results. In the work of Pagliacci, the fundamental solution takes the form of a time-dependent inverse problem over discrete variables where $\varGamma$ is a finite graph and a random walk takes place on $\varGamma$.
Begin with the initial position at $v_0 \in$ $V$ which can be viewed as the initial probability distribution $P_0(v)$ for some $v\in V$. The probability distribution after $n$ time-steps, $P_n(v)$, is completely determined by the initial state $P_0$ and the transition-matrix $A$, the adjacency matrix of the graph. Since the adjacency matrix is related to the combinatorial Laplacian, we obtain a set of difference only equations representing the linear heat equation on $\varGamma$. In this case, $\varGamma$ is a homogeneous tree of order $q + 1$.
Suppose $f: \varGamma \times \mathbb{N} \rightarrow \mathbb{C}$, such that $f(x,k) = f_k(x)$. Then the heat equation on $\varGamma$ described by Pagliacci is given by $$\label{pagl}
f_k(x) = \sum_{d(x,y)=1} p(x,y) f_{k-1}(y),$$ with initial condition $f_0 (x)$, $d$ the canonical distance function on $\varGamma$, and $p$ the transition probability on $V$.
In other words, Pagliacci defines the heat equation on $\varGamma$ using a weighted adjacency matrix for the Laplacian operator and a finite difference operator over $\mathbb{Z}$ for the time differential. There is no initial condition such as in (\[eq-1\]).
Not all investigations of the heat equation on a finite graph use a combinatorial Laplacian. In the work of Gavean, Okada, and Okada [@GOO], graphs of both finite and infinite vertex sets are considered, but the viewpoint is quite different. The functions are defined on the vertex set of $\varGamma$ as well as along the continuous segments of the graph, namely the edges. Thus the graphs considered in [@GOO] are equipped with a Riemannian structure and the Laplacian is induced from this structure. In other words, in [@GOO] the operator $\frac{\partial}{\partial t} - {\alpha}_j \frac{{\partial}^2}{\partial x^2},$ for $j \in \mathbb{N} $, is applied to functions on the graph $\varGamma$. For the results in this paper, we do not assume the functions to be evaluated on the edges of the graphs as in [@GOO].
This paper discusses the solutions connected to differential-difference operators of the form $\frac{\partial}{\partial t} - \Delta$ with $\Delta$ the combinatorial Laplacian. We believe this to be the first study of the heat equation via a differential-difference operator on a graph equipped with a graph-theoretic Laplacian operator. In addition, the domain is rich with structure, making the results nontrivial. Our technique for solution is an extension of the method of separation of variables on a non-abelian Cayley graph which involves special functions.
Classically, the heat equation on bounded domains, specifically on tori, yield theta functions as solutions. We study a finite analogue of the Poincaré upper half-plane, namely the finite upper half-plane introduced by Terras [@Ter2]. Using this case, we investigate the periodicity inherent in the solutions of bounded domains.
The solutions involve zonal spherical functions which come with a natural periodicity. In addition, the related theta functions are automorphic forms and the resultant periodicity interweaves representation theory with the heat equation. We hope this paper stimulates more study of this interplay.
Finite upper half-planes
========================
Fix $q \ge 3$ odd and $F_q$, a finite field of $q$ elements. Suppose $\delta \in F_q$ is not a square of any element of $F_q$. Then the finite upper half-plane is said to be the set $$H_q = \{ x + y\sqrt{\delta} \mid x \in F_q, y \in F_q^{\times} \},$$ with $F_q^{\times}$ the multiplicative group of $F_q$ [@Ter2]. Recall that the affine group is the subgroup
$$Aff(q) = \left\{ \begin{pmatrix} y&x\\ 0&1 \end{pmatrix}\right|(y,x) \in F_q^{\times} \times F_q\biggr\}$$
of $GL(2,F_q)$. Form a Cayley graph, denoted ${\varGamma}_q (H_q, H_q \times S)$, by taking $H_q$ as the vertex set and $H_q \times S$ as the edge set with $S$ the generating set of the affine group. Then, for $r \in F_q$,
$$S_r = \left\{ \begin{pmatrix} y&x\\ 0&1 \end{pmatrix} \right| x^2 = ry + \delta (y - 1)^2, y \in F_q^{\times}, x \in F_q \biggr\}.$$
Thus the constructed Cayley graph depends on which $S_r$, $r \in F_q$, is used to generate the edge set [@CPTTV]. If $e$ is an edge in the graph, then $e$ has $e_-$, $e_+$ as an initial and a terminal vertex, respectively. So the edge set $H_q \times S_r$ means that $e_- = z \in H_q$ and $e_+ = zs, s \in S_r$. With generating set $S_r$, the graph is connected.
Equip ${\varGamma}_q (H_q, H_q \times S)$ with the combinatorial Laplacian. Suppose $A$ is the adjacency matrix with entries $A_{z,w}$ = number of paths from vertex $z$ to vertex $w$, $z,w \in H_q$, and $I$ is the identity matrix of size $q(q-1)$. If $f \in C(H_q)$, the set of functions on $H_q$, the operator $\Delta :C(H_q) \rightarrow C(H_q)$, defined by $$\Delta f(x) = ((q+1)I -A)f(x),$$ is said to be the combinatorial Laplacian operator associated to ${\varGamma}_q (H_q, H_q \times S)$.
We require that the fundamental solution on $H_q$, $E(t;x,y_0)$, satisfy the following set of equations:
$$\label{eq-2}
\Delta E(t;x,y_0) -
\frac{\partial}{\partial t} E(t;x,y_0) = 0,
\quad t>0,$$
$$\label{eq-3}
\lim_{t\to 0+}\frac1{q(q-1)} \sum_{x \in H_q} E(t;x,y_0) f(x)= f(y_0),$$
following the notation of Benabdallah [@Ben] and Fischer, Jungster and Williams [@FJW]. The solution $E(t;x,y_0)$ is a function on $\mathbb{R} \times H_q \times \{ y_0 \}$. In other words, time $t$ and space $x$ are taken to be continuous and discrete variables, respectively, with the initial data concentrated at a point $y_0 \in H_q$.
Method of images
================
When $H$ is the Poincaré upper half-plane, an explicit solution to the heat equation with the initial condition $E(0,x) = f(x)$ is computed using the method of images [@Ter1]. Benabdallah [@Ben] uses the method of images to solve the heat equation, with an initial condition analogous to (\[eq-3\]) on compact, homogeneous spaces. We adapt Benabdallah’s technique to solve (\[eq-2\]) – (\[eq-3\]).
Let ${\varGamma}_q (GL(2,F_q),GL(2,F_q) \times S_{GL(2,F_q)})$ denote the Cayley graph formed by taking $GL(2,F_q)$ as the vertex set and $GL(2,F_q) \times S_{GL(2,F_q)}$ as the edge set with $S_{GL(2,F_q)}$ the generating set of $GL(2,F_q)$. Equip ${\varGamma}_q (GL(2,F_q),GL(2,F_q) \times S_{GL(2,F_q)})$ with the combinatorial Laplacian, ${\Delta}_{GL(2,F_q)}$.
Suppose $\delta$ is a non-square in $F_q$. Let
$$K =\left\{ \begin{pmatrix} a&\delta b\\ b&a \end{pmatrix} \right| a^2 - \delta b^2 = 1 \biggr\}.$$
Then $H_q = GL(2,F_q)/K$ is a homogeneous space with $GL(2,F_q)$ acting transitively on the points of $H_q$. If $\pi : GL(2,F_q) \rightarrow GL(2,F_q)/K$ and $f$ is a function on $H_q$, then $\Delta f \circ \pi = {\Delta}_{GL(2,F_q)} (f \circ \pi )$ with $\Delta$ and ${\Delta}_{GL(2,F_q)}$ the combinatorial Laplacians associated to ${\varGamma}_q (H_q, H_q \times S)$ and ${\varGamma}_q (GL(2,F_q),GL(2,F_q) \times S_{GL(2,F_q)})$, respectively.
\[Thm 4.1\] Suppose that $E_{GL(2,F_q)}(t;z) = E_{GL(2,F_q)}(t;z,e)$ denotes the fundamental solution for the heat equation with initial concentration at the identity $e$ on $GL(2,F_q)$ and ${\Delta}_{GL(2,F_q)}$. Then $$E(t;zK) = \frac1{q^2 - 1} \sum_{k \in K} E_{GL(2,F_q)} (t;zk),$$ is the fundamental solution to (\[eq-2\])–(\[eq-3\]) with initial concentration at the identity coset $K$. In other words, $E(t;zK) = E(t;zK,K)$.
The combinatorial Laplacian ${\Delta}_{GL(2,F_q)}$ is a left-invariant operator, analogous to the geometrical Laplacian. Let $f$ be a function on $GL(2,F_q)$. Left translation on $f$ is defined as $f^{g_1}
(x) = f(g_1,x)$ with $g_1, x \in GL(2,F_q)$.
Then $$\aligned
{\Delta}_{GL(2,F_q)} f^{g_1} (x) &= ((q+1)I -
A)f^{g_1} (x) \\
&= (q+1)f^{g_1} (x) - \sum_{s\in Kg_0K = S}
f^{g_1} (xs) \\
&= (q+1)f(g_1x) - \sum_{s\in S} f(g_1xs)
\\
&= ({\Delta}_{GL(2,F_q)} f)^{g_1} (x).
\endaligned$$
We see that if $E_{GL(2,F_q)}(t;x,y_0)$ is the fundamental solution for the heat equation on $GL(2,F_q)$ and ${\Delta}_{GL(2,F_q)}$, then $E_{GL(2,F_q)}(t;x,y_0)$ is invariant under left translations. This means that $E_{GL(2,F_q)}(t;gx,e) = E_{GL(2,F_q)}(t;x,g^{-1})$ for $e$ the identity in $GL(2,F_q)$. Thus $E_{GL(2,F_q)}(t;x,y_0)$ is invariant under the inner automorphisms of $GL(2,F_q)$.
We have a similar result for the fundamental solution on $H_q$: Since $H_q = GL(2,F_q)/K$, we have that $$\aligned E(t;gxK,gy_0K) &= E(t;xK,y_0K) \\ &= E(t;y_0^{-1}xK,K) \\ &= E(t;y_0^{-1}xK). \endaligned$$
Consider the function $\tilde E(t;zK)$ defined by $$\aligned \tilde E(t;zK) &= \frac1{q^2-1} \sum_{k\in K} E_{GL(2,F_q)} (t;zk) \\ &= \frac1{q^2-1} \sum_{k\in K} E_{GL(2,F_q)} (t;z,k^{-1}). \endaligned$$ Then, $$\aligned [\Delta \tilde E] (gK) &=\biggl[ {\Delta}_{GL(2,F_q)} \biggl( \frac1{q^2-1} \sum_{k\in K} E_{GL(2,F_q)} (t;\cdot ,k^{-1}) \biggr) \biggr] (g) \\ &=\biggl[ \frac1{q^2-1} \sum_{k\in K} {\Delta}_{GL(2,F_q)} E_{GL(2,F_q)} (t;\cdot ,k^{-1}) \biggr] (g) \\ &=\biggl[ \frac1{q^2-1} \sum_{k\in K} -\frac{\partial}{\partial t} E_{GL(2,F_q)} (t;\cdot ,k^{-1}) \biggr] (g) \\ &= \frac{\partial}{\partial t} \biggl[ \frac1{q^2-1} \sum_{k\in K} E_{GL(2,F_q)} (t;\cdot ,k^{-1}) \biggr] (g) \\ &=\biggl[ -\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \tilde E \biggr] (gK).
\endaligned$$
Additionally, for all functions $f$ defined on $H_q$, $$\aligned
\frac1{q(q-1)}\sum_{H_q} \tilde E (t;gK)f(gK)
&=
\frac1{q(q-1)}\sum_{H_q} f(gK)
\biggl[
\frac1{q^2-1}\sum_K E_{GL(2,F_q)} (t;gk)
\biggr]
\\
&=
\frac1{q(q-1)^2(q+1)}\sum_{GL(2,F_q)} f\circ
\pi (g)E_{GL(2,F_q)} (t;g).
\endaligned$$ In addition, $$\lim_{t \to 0+}
\frac1{q(q-1)^2(q+1)} \sum_{GL(2,F_q)}
E_{GL(2,F_q)} (t;g) f\circ \pi (g)
=
f\circ \pi (e)
=
f(K).$$
Thus $\tilde E (t;gK)$ = $E(t;gK)$ = $\frac1{q^2-1} \sum_{k\in K}
E_{GL(2,F_q)} (t;gk)$.
Suppose $\{ {\pi}^{\alpha} \mid \alpha \in \widehat{GL(2,F_q)} \}$, with $\widehat{GL(2,F_q)}$ the dual of $GL(2,F_q)$, is the set of equivalence classes of all unitary, irreducible representations of $GL(2,F_q)$. Let $\{ {\chi}^{\alpha} \mid \alpha \in
\widehat{GL(2,F_q)} \}$ be the corresponding character set. $E_{GL(2,F_q)}$ invariant under the inner automorphisms of $GL(2,F_q)$ implies that $E_{GL(2,F_q)}(t;g)$ is a class function. Therefore, by the Peter-Weyl theorem, we have that $$E_{GL(2,F_q)} (t;g)
=
\sum_{\alpha \in \widehat{GL(2,F_q)}}
\langle {\chi}^{\alpha} \mid E(t; \cdot ) \rangle
{\chi}^{\alpha} (g)$$ with $\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$ the inner product on $GL(2,F_q)$ and Haar measure $dg$ = $\frac1{q(q-1)^2(q+1)}$. Define $$a_{\alpha} (t) = \frac1{q(q-1)^2(q+1)}
\sum_{GL(2,F_q)} E(t;g)
{\chi}^{\alpha} (g^{-1}).$$
In other words, $a_{\alpha}$ is a Fourier coefficient, or rather, it is the Fourier transformed heat kernel $E(t;g)$, for $\alpha \in \widehat{GL(2,F_q)}$.
By Theorem \[Thm 4.1\],
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-4-1}
E(t;gK) &= \frac1{q^2-1}
\sum_{k \in K} E(t;gk) \nonumber\\
&=\frac1{q^2-1} \sum_{\alpha
\in \widehat{GL(2,F_q)}}
\sum_{k \in K} a_{\alpha} (t)
{\chi}^{\alpha} (gk).\end{aligned}$$
But $E_{GL(2,F_q)}(t;g)$ being a class function means that we can apply $\pi :GL(2,F_q)$$\rightarrow H_q$ to show that $E(t;gK) \in C(K\backslash GL(2,F_q)/K)$, the set of $K$-bi-invariant functions on $GL(2,F_q)$. Therefore, $E(t;gK)$ has an expansion in terms of zonal spherical functions.
Specifically, let $\widehat{GL(2,F_q)}_K$ denote the equivalence classes of irreducible, unitary representations of $GL(2,F_q)$ which are class 1 with respect to $K$. Let ${\omega}^{\alpha}$ denote the zonal spherical function associated to $\alpha \in \widehat{GL(2,F_q)}_K$. Then
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-4-2}
E(t;gK) &= \sum_{\alpha \in
\widehat{GL(2,F_q)}_K}
\langle{\omega}^{\alpha} \mid
E(t;\cdot )\rangle {\omega}^{\alpha}(gK)\nonumber\\
&= \frac1{q^2-1} \sum_{\alpha
\in \widehat{GL(2,F_q)}_K}
\sum_{k \in K}
\langle{\omega}^{\alpha} \mid E(t;\cdot )\rangle
{\omega}^{\alpha} (gk).\end{aligned}$$
Comparison with (\[eq-4-1\]) and (\[eq-4-2\]) permits the result: $$E(t;gK) = \sum_{\alpha \in
\widehat{GL(2,F_q)}_K} a_{\alpha} (t)
{\omega}^{\alpha} (gK).$$
Apply the Fourier transform with respect to $GL(2,F_q)/K$ to (\[eq-2\]). The result is that the heat kernel $$a_{\alpha} (t) = k_{\alpha}
e^{-{\lambda}_{\alpha}t},$$ with ${\lambda}_{\alpha}$ an eigenvalue of ${\Delta}_{GL(2,F_q)/K}$ = $\Delta$ and $$\aligned
k_{\alpha}
&=
a_{\alpha} (0)
=
\lim_{t\to 0+}\frac1{q(q-1)^2(q+1)} \sum_{GL(2,F_q)} E(t;g)
{\chi}^{\alpha} (g^{-1})
\\
&=
{\chi}^{\alpha} (e) = d_{\alpha}
\endaligned$$ where $d_{\alpha}$ denotes the dimension of the representation ${\pi}^{\alpha}$, $\alpha \in
\widehat{GL(2,F_q)}_K$. Now we only need to expand $E(t;gK)$ in terms of the class 1 representations. Since $E(t;gK) \in C(K\backslash GL(2,F_q)/K)$, $$e(t;gK) = E(t;KgK) = \sum_{\alpha \in
\widehat{GL(2,F_q)}_K}
d_{\alpha}
e^{-{\lambda}_{\alpha}t}
{\omega}^{\alpha} (KgK).$$ In other words, $$E(t;r) = \sum_{\alpha \in
\widehat{GL(2,F_q)}_K}
d_{\alpha} e^{-{\lambda}_{\alpha}t}
{\omega}^{\alpha} (r),$$ with $r$ the radius of an orbit or $K$-double coset in $H_q$.
Zonal spherical functions of $H_q$ split into two types: those associated to the principal series representations of $GL(2,F_q)$ and those associated to the cuspidal series representations of $GL(2,F_q)$. Let $U = \{ z \in F_q (\sqrt{\delta}) \mid z\bar z =1\}$.
Define $\epsilon$, ${\nu}_0$ to be the sign characters of $F_q^{\times}$ and $U$, respectively, equal to 1 on squares and to -1 on nonsquares of $F_q^{\times}$ and $U$, respectively. Define $N(\alpha ) = \alpha \overline{\alpha}$, $Tr(\alpha ) = \alpha + \overline{\alpha}$ as the norm and trace of $\alpha \in F_q(\sqrt{\delta})$, respectively. Recall that $S_r$, fixed $r \in F_q$, denotes the generating set of the affine group.
([@GaZ]) The zonal spherical functions of $H_q$ associated to the principal series of $GL(2,F_q)$ are the functions $$\aligned
&{\omega}^{\beta} (0) = 1 \\
&{\omega}^{\beta} (\infty ) = \beta
(-1) \\
&{\omega}^{\beta} (r) = \frac1{q+1}
\sum_{z\in S_r} \beta (I(z)),
\endaligned$$ with $\beta \in \widehat{F_q^{\times}}$, $r
\in F_q - \{ 1 \}$, and if $z = x + y\sqrt{\delta} \in H_q$, then $I(z) = y$.
([@SA]) The zonal spherical functions of $H_q$ associated to the cuspidal representations of $GL(2,F_q)$ are the functions $$\aligned
&{\omega}^{\nu} (0) = 1 \\
&{\omega}^{\nu} (\infty ) = - \omega
(-1) \\
&{\omega}^{\nu} (r) = \frac1{q+1}
\sum_{u \in U}
\epsilon
\biggl(
Tr
\biggl(
u - \frac{1+r}{1-r}
\biggr)
\biggr)
{\nu}_0 (u) \nu (u),
\endaligned$$ with $\nu \in \hat U$, $\nu \neq
{\nu}^{-1}$.
Using the Hecke algebra for the pair $(GL(2,F_q), K)$, we compute the eigenvalues of $\Delta$. Recall that the zonal spherical functions are simultaneously eigenfunctions and eigenvalues of invariant integral operators, or rather, Hecke algebras, in the case of a finite group. The adjacency matrix is an element of the Hecke algebra for $(GL(2,F_q), K)$. A trivial extension of the Hecke algebra to a larger algebra permits the zonal spherical functions to be eigenfunctions and eigenvalues of $\Delta$ as well. We see that both algebraic and geometric methods are equally useful for an explicit description of the fundamental solution on $H_q$. The following result is a consequence of all the previous theorems:
\[Thm 4.4\] The fundamental solution to (\[eq-2\])–(\[eq-3\]) is $$E(t;r) = \sum_{\beta \in
\widehat{F_q^{\times}}}
e^{-{\omega}^{\beta}(r)t}
{\omega}^{\beta}(r)
+
\sum_{\nu \in \hat U}
e^{-{\omega}^{\nu}(r)t}
{\omega}^{\nu}(r).$$
To summarize, in analogy to the case of the geometric Laplacian on $H$, the combinatorial Laplacian on $H_q$ permits a solution to the heat equation that is constant on the $K$-double cosets, or rather, the $S_r$ subsets of $H_q$.
Theta functions for $H_q$
=========================
We conclude with the construction of finite analogues of theta functions and with a theta function correspondence between the heat equation and the combinatorial Laplacian of $H_q$.
To explicitly describe theta functions for $H_q$, we need to be more explicit regarding the set of non-decomposable characters of $(F_q(\sqrt{\delta}))^{\times}$. If $q >
2$ and $\delta$ is a nonsquare of $F_q$, then there exist maps $\phi$, $\tilde{\nu}$ such that $$(F_q(\sqrt{\delta}))^{\times}
\overset{\phi}\to\rightarrow
(Z_{q^2})^{\times}
\overset{\tilde{\nu}}\to\rightarrow
\mathbb{C}^{\times}.$$ Let ${\tilde{\nu}}_j : (Z_{q^2})^{\times} \rightarrow \mathbb{C}^{\times}$ be defined by $${\tilde{\nu}}_j (k) = e^{\frac{2\pi
ijk}{q^2-1}}, \quad 1 \le k \le
q^2-1$$ for fixed $j$ = 1, 2,$\dots$, or $q^2-1$. If $\zeta$ is a generator of $(F_q(\sqrt{\delta}))^{\times}$, define $\phi:(F_q(\sqrt{\delta}))^{\times}
\rightarrow (Z_{q^2})^{\times}$ by the isomorphism $\phi ({\zeta}^m) = m$, $1
\le m \le q^2-1$. A non-decomposable character $\nu : (F_q(\sqrt{\delta}))^{\times}
\rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ can be defined as the composition $\nu = \tilde{\nu} \circ
\phi$.
In other words, $$\aligned
{\nu}_j ({\zeta}^m) &= e^
{
\left(
\frac{2\pi
ij}{q^2-1}\phi ({\zeta}^m)
\right)
}
\\
&= e^
{
\left(
\frac{2\pi ijm}{q^2-1}
\right)
}
,
\endaligned$$ for ${\zeta}^m \in (F_q(\sqrt{\delta}))^{\times}$ and fixed $j$ = 1, 2,$\dots$, or $q^2-1$. We have that $E(t;r) = E^p(t;r) + E^c(t;r)$, with $E^p(t;r)$ and $E^c(t;r)$ the terms in the fundamental solution resulting from the principal and cuspidal zonal spherical functions, respectively. Fix $\zeta$, generator of $(F_q(\sqrt{\delta}))^{\times}$, and $r \in F_q^{\times} -$ [1]{}.
Define $$\aligned
U &= \{ m \in Z_{q^2}^{\times} \mid
N({\zeta}^m) = 1\}, \\
V(r) &= \{ y \in F_q^{\times} \mid
x^2 = ry + \delta (y-1)^2, \text{ some } x
\in F_q \}.
\endaligned$$
Note that $(F_q(\sqrt{\delta}))^{\times}
\supset U \supset
F_q^{\times} \supset V(r)$.
Also, define $$\aligned
\mathcal{O}(r) &=
\{ m \in Z_{q^2}^{\times} \mid
Tr({\zeta}^m) - \frac{r+1}{r-1} =
k^2, \text{ some } k \in F_q^{\times}
\}, \\
\mathcal{N} &=
\{ m \in Z_{q^2}^{\times} \},
\endaligned$$ and $${\chi}_{\mathcal{A}} (m) =
\left\{
\aligned
&1, m\in \mathcal{A} \\
&0, \text{ otherwise }
\endaligned
\right.$$ for a fixed set $\mathcal{A}$. Therefore, the principal zonal spherical function takes the form: $${\omega}^l(r) = \frac1{q+1}
\sum_{m \in V(r)}
e^{\frac{2\pi ilm}{q-1}},
\quad l \in F_q^{\times}.$$
Set ${\lambda}_l^p (r) = (q+1){\omega}^l(r)$, the eigenvalue from the principal part. The superscript tells us to take ${\omega}^l$ to be the principal zonal spherical function. Thus, $$E^p(t;r) = \frac1{q+1} \sum_{(l,m) \in
F_q^{\times} \times V(r)}
e^{-{\lambda}_l^p (r)t + \frac{2\pi
ilm}{q-1}},$$ which is the principal part of the solution.
Similarly, the cuspidal zonal spherical function takes the form: $${\omega}^l(r) = \frac1{q+1}
\sum_{m \in U}
e^{2\pi i\big(
\frac{{\chi}_{\mathcal{0} (r)} (m) +
{\chi}_{\mathcal{N}} (m)}{2}
+ \frac{lm}{q^2-1}
\big)
}, \quad l \in Z_{q^2}^{\times}.$$ Set ${\lambda}_l^c (r) = (q+1){\omega}^l(r)$, the eigenvalue from the cuspidal part. The superscript tells us to take ${\omega}^l$ to be the cuspidal zonal spherical function. Thus, $$E^c(t;r) = \frac1{q+1} \sum_{(l,m) \in
Z_{q^2}^{\times} \times U}
e^{-{\lambda}_l^c (r)t +
2\pi i\big(
\frac{{\chi}_{\mathcal{O} (r)} (m) +
{\chi}_{\mathcal{N}} (m)}{2}
+ \frac{lm}{q^2-1}
\big)
},$$ which is the cuspidal part of the solution. We have proved the following theorem.
\[Thm 5.1\] The fundamental solution to (\[eq-2\])–(\[eq-3\]) has the explicit form: $$\label{eq-4}
E(t;r) = \frac1{q+1} \sum_{(l,m) \in
Z_{q^2}^{\times} \times U}
e^{-{\alpha}_r(l)t + 2\pi
i{\beta}_r(l,m)},$$ with $${\alpha}_r(l) =
\left\{
\aligned
&{\lambda}_l^p (r) + {\lambda}_l^c (r),
\quad l \in F_q^{\times} \\
&{\lambda}_l^c (r), \quad l \in
F_{q^2}^{\times} - F_q^{\times},
\endaligned
\right.$$ and $$2\pi i{\beta}_r(l,m) =
\left\{
\aligned
&\frac{{\chi}_{\mathcal{O} (r)} (m) +
{\chi}_{\mathcal{N}} (m)}{2}
+ \frac{lm(q+2)}{q^2-1}, \quad l \in
F_q^{\times},
m \in V(r) \\
&\frac{{\chi}_{\mathcal{O} (r)} (m) +
{\chi}_{\mathcal{N}} (m)}{2}
+ \frac{lm}{q^2-1}, \quad l \in
F_{q^2}^{\times} - F_q^{\times},
m \in U - V(r).
\endaligned
\right.$$
If $\tau \in H$, the Poincaré upper half-plane ($Im (\tau) > 0$), and $z \in \mathbb{C}$, then the analytic function $$\theta (z,\tau ) = \sum_{n \in Z}
e^{i\pi n^2\tau + 2\pi inz}$$ is the fundamental periodic solution to the heat equation whenever $\tau = it$, $t \in \mathbb{R}^{>0}$ [@Mum]. We say that $$\theta (z, it) = \sum_{n \in \mathbb{Z}}
e^{-\pi n^2t + 2\pi in z}$$ is a theta function on the lattice $\mathbb{Z}$.
Thus (\[eq-4\]) is a finite analogue of this classical function, and is thought of as the theta function on the finite lattice $F_{q^2}^{\times} \times U$ contained in the regular lattice $F_{q^2}^{\times} \times F_{q^2}^{\times}$, connected to $H_q$ via the combinatorial Laplacian $\Delta$. It would be an interesting problem to compare our results with those of Chung and Yau [@Chu].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
Ever since the discovery of Graphene by Geim, Novoselov and co-workers [@geim04; @geim07], a great deal of effort has been put to make Graphene functionalized by engineering a controllable band-gap between its valence and conduction bands. Hexagonal Boron Nitride ([*h*]{}-BN), having lattice constant very close to that of Graphene and an insulating band-gap of nearly 5eV, which can be easily synthesized in the form of monolayer flakes [@hBN06; @hBN07], provides a wide range of possibilities to mix with Graphene to yield a varying band-gap material depending on the degree of mixing [@geim09]. As such materials are of great importance in optoelectronic devices, a great deal of effort has been made to synthesize hexagonal CBN ([*h*]{}-CBN) monolayer and multilayer nanomaterials [@cnrrao09; @ajayan10; @dean10; @levendorf12] with varying concentration of C / BN.
Experimentally [*h*]{}-CBN was synthesized initially by Panchakarla et al [@cnrrao09] and by Ci et al [@ajayan10] using Chemical Vapour Deposition (CVD) technique, where concentration of C or BN was carefully controlled. All [*h*]{}-CBN samples were reported to exhibit semiconducting behavior showing a band-gap varying between a few meV to nearly an eV, a fact which has been verified by first-principles calculations [@ajayan13a]. Formation of a band-gap in Graphene, when doped by Boron and Nitrogen, has been studied earlier [@kan; @ding; @dutta; @pruneda; @bhowmick; @liu]. It was shown that upon Boron (hole) doping the Dirac cone in Graphene is moved above the Fermi level and a gap appears, whereas upon Nitrogen (electron) doping the Dirac cone is moved below the Fermi level [@sm12]. Upon co-doping of Graphene by both B and N a gap appears between the conduction and valence bands making [*h*]{}-CBN a semiconductor where the band gap depends sensitively on the degree of doping and also on the thickness of the layer.
Very recently, Liu et al [@ajayan13] have reported on synthesis of in-plane laterally grown heterostructures of Graphene and [*h*]{}-BN where these two materials are seamlessly integrated lithographically with varying domain sizes. This astounding synthesis of laterally grown hybrid C$_x$(BN)$_{1-x}$ two-dimensional heterostructure, with domain shapes such as circular dots, stripes and patterns etc of varying sizes and width, has made the possibility of device application of such materials a reality. Similar synthesis of hybrid [*h*]{}-CBN have been recently carried out by other groups [@gao; @gang; @liu14] using different experimental conditions.
Several calculations have been reported on the electronic structure [@kan; @ding; @dutta; @pruneda; @bhowmick; @liu; @yu11; @peng12] and also on the stability of C$_x$(BN)$_{1-x}$ [@jena11]. In this paper we calculate the phase stability of CBN from the free energy using a regular solution model and apply the transport theory of band electrons on our DFT bandstructure to obtain the temperature dependent resistivity at different concentration of C$_x$(BN)$_{1-x}$, which were not been addressed before.
Since, the interface between such domains can be either armchair or zigzag type, we have studied both the interfaces using a large $5 \times 5$ unit cell. Recently, few such calculations [@grossman12; @cnrrao13] have been reported, but these authors have defined different unit cell types for armchair and zigzag interfaces. In the present calculation the unit cells for both armchair and zigzag interfaces are consistently similar giving rise to hexagonal Brillouin zone for each of these interfaces. We have consistently varied the concentration of C (or BN) as 0.2, 0.4, 0.6 and 0.8 and have calculated the band structure, density of states, charge density and formation energy of C$_x$(BN)$_{1-x}$. Our calculated band structure for each of those interfaces show the emergence of Dirac-cone like features with increasing C concentration. [*h*]{}-BN has a band gap of nearly 5 eV whereas Graphene has zero band gap at the high symmetric K-point in the hexagonal Brillouin zone, so it is expected for the band gap to decrease with the increasing C concentration, ultimately becoming zero for $x=1$. We obtained a non-monotonic decrease of the band gap for C$_x$(BN)$_{1-x}$ with increasing $x$ and the concentration dependence of the band gap is different for the armchair and zigzag interfaces. Our calculated DOS and charge density indicate that the charge transfer effects might play important role in the band gap formation. Moreover, from the calculated formation energy, we studied the phase stability of C$_x$(BN)$_{1-x}$ using a regular solution model and estimated the order-disorder transition temperature. It was found that the onset of substitutional disorder would occur at temperatures of $\sim 3850$K and 6090K for the zigzag and armchair interfaces, respectively.
Finally, we use the Boltzmann transport theory applied to the band electrons [@ashcroft76] to calculate the electrical conductivity ($\sigma$)[@madsen06] from the bandstructure of C$_x$(BN)$_{1-x}$ calculated earlier. From the calculated $\sigma(T)$ we obtain the resistivity $\rho(T)$, which shows a linear behaviour when plotted in the logarithmic scale against $T^{-1}$, as expected for semiconductors and as measured experimentally for C$_x$(BN)$_{1-x}$ [@ajayan10; @ajayan13a].
Method of Calculation {#method-of-calculation .unnumbered}
=====================
We carried out the [*ab-initio*]{} DFT calculations on the $5 \times 5$ [*h*]{}-CBN unit-cell with armchair and zigzag (Fig. 1) interfaces using the Quantum Espresso code [@giannozzi09]. A hexagonal unit cell was chosen for both the armchair and zigzag case. The plane wave calculations assume periodicity and hence to avoid interactions between the sheets, a vacuum spacing of 13$\mathring {\rm A}$ was chosen. We have used the ultrasoft pseudopotential [@vanderbilt90] to describe the core electrons and the generalized gradient approximation (GGA) for the exchange-correlation kernel [@pbe96]. A kinetic energy cutoff of 40Ry was used for the plane-wave basis set and of 160Ry for the charge density, and an accuracy of $10^{-9}$Ry was obtained in the self-consistent calculation of total energy. The equilibrium lattice constants were obtained by minimizing the total energy with respect to the lattice constants by ensuring that the stress on each of the atoms are zero. The self-consistent calculations were performed using a converged Monkhorst-Pack $k$-point grids [@mp76] of $6 \times 6 \times 1$. Band structure calculations were performed for the equilibrium lattice constants with 150 $k$-points along the high-symmetric points $\Gamma$-K-M-$\Gamma$ in the irreducible hexagonal Brillouin zone for both armchair and zigzag interfaces.
![\[fig:wide\] $5 \times 5$ unit-cell of C$_x$(BN)$_{1-x}$ with armchair interface (a, b, c, d) and zigzag interface (e, f, g, h), between Graphene and [*h*]{}-BN domains, at $x$ = 0.2, 0.4, 0.6 and 0.8; respectively. Carbon atoms are denoted by yellow, Boron by grey and Nitrogen by blue colored balls; respectively.](RD-SM-Fig1.pdf)
We obtained the in-plane lattice constant $a_0$ as 2.466$\mathring{\rm A}$ and 2.508$\mathring{\rm A}$ for Graphene and [*h*]{}-BN, respectively, which compare well with the experimental values. For C$_x$(BN)$_{1-x}$ system the equilibrium lattice constant lies in between that of Graphene and [*h*]{}-BN and it was calculated for different concentrations for each interface types. The total density of states (DOS) and the partial densities of states (PDOS) projected on each orbital on the in-equivalent atoms in the unit cell were calculated for all concentrations and the L[ö]{}wdin charge [@soler95] is also obtained. The Xcrysden code [@xcrysden03] was used for visualizing the valence charge densities.
For the calculation of the resistivity $\rho(T)$ of C$_x$(BN)$_{1-x}$ from the calculated bandstructure we use the Boltzmann transport theory for band electrons as implemented in the code BoltzTrap [@madsen06]. This calculation involves the evaluation of the electron group velocity $v_{\alpha}(i,{\bf k})$ referring to $i$-th energy band and the $\alpha$-th component of the wave vector [**k**]{}, from the band dispersion $\varepsilon(i,{\bf k})$, expressed as, $$\begin{aligned}
v_{\alpha}(i,{\bf k}) &=& {1 \over \hbar} {\partial \varepsilon(i,{\bf k}) \over \partial k_{\alpha}}.\end{aligned}$$ The electrical conductivity tensor is then obtained from, where $\mu$ is the chemical potential, $f_{\mu}$ is the Fermi-Dirac distribution function, $V$ is the volume of the sample, and $\tau$ is the Drude relaxation time which is assumed to be isotropic and direction independent [@allen88; @allen92]. The resistivity is then obtained from the conducivity as, $\rho = 1/\sigma$. The relaxation time $\tau$ is typically $\sim 10^{-14}$s [@ashcroft76] but a precise value of this quantity is unknown for C$_x$(BN)$_{1-x}$. For the calculation of the resistivity of C$_x$(BN)$_{1-x}$ we have taken a very dense k-point grid of $40\times40\times1$ and even denser grid was taken at some concentrations for the band structure calculation using Quantum Espresso code, which was then fed into the BoltzTrap code for the transport calculation.
Results and Discussion {#results-and-discussion .unnumbered}
======================
(a) Electronic structure {#a-electronic-structure .unnumbered}
------------------------
In Fig. 2 we show the bandstructure and the corresponding density of states (DOS) of C$_x$(BN)$_{1-x}$ for $x = 0.2, 0.4, 0.6$ and $0.8$, for both armchair and zigzag interfaces between the Graphene and [*h*]{}-BN domains. The DOS shown in Fig. 2 refers to total DOS (including $2s$, $2p_x$, $2p_y$ and $2p_z$ contributions) of Carbon, Boron and Nitrogen atoms in the unit-cell and also the partial density of states (PDOS) of $2p_z$ orbitals on each of those atoms. The DOS and PDOS were calculated for all nonequivalent atoms in the unit-cell, so that in the figures they appear appropriately weighted. The Fermi energy is at the middle of the energy gap between the conduction and the valence bands. It should be recalled that $\pi$ and ${\pi}^*$ bands of carbon dominate the electronic structure of undoped Graphene around $E_F$, and ${\pi}^*$ bands of B and $\pi$ bands of N represent the conduction and valence bands of [*h*]{}-BN, above and below its energy gap [@sm11], respectively. It is clear from the DOS results shown in Fig. 2 that the nature of the bands around the energy gap of C$_x$(BN)$_{1-x}$ are essentially due to $2p_z$ states of C, B and N, as the total DOS is completely dominated by PDOS of $2p_z$ state, around 2.5eV each above and below the band gap for all concentrations.
![\[fig:wide\] The calculated bandstructure and the density of states (DOS) of C$_x$(BN)$_{1-x}$ at $x=0.2, 0.4, 0.6$ and $0.8$ for armchair (upper panel) and zigzag (lower panel) interfaces. The Fermi energy is at the centre of the band gap. The bands (blue) are shown in the high-symmetry directions $\Gamma$-K-M-$\Gamma$ in the hexagonal Brillouin zone. The total DOS is shown as full-line for C (red), N (violet) and B (green); the corresponding projected density of states (PDOS) of $2p_z$ states for each atoms being shown as dashed-line with similar colors, respectively. The DOS and PDOS are in arbitrary units.](RD-SM-Fig2.pdf)
The bandstructure in Fig. 2 shows that the band gap of C$_x$(BN)$_{1-x}$ decreases with increasing concentration of C. Since the band gap of undoped [*h*]{}-BN is calculated to be 4.76eV, the band gap of C$_x$(BN)$_{1-x}$ decreases from this value with increasing C-concentration upon mixing with Graphene until it becomes zero for $x=1$. The nature of the decrease of the band gap with increasing $x$ was found to be non-monotonic and different for armchair and zigzag interfaces between Graphene and [*h*]{}-BN domains as shown in Fig 3., to be discussed later. For the armchair interface the minimum band gap appears near the high symmetric M-point of the hexagonal Brillouin zone for $x = 0.2$ and $0.4$. For $x = 0.6$, C$_x$(BN)$_{1-x}$ behaves as an indirect band gap material for the armchair interface, with the minima of the conduction band lying between the high symmetric K- and M-points. This behavior changes at higher C-concentration when at $x = 0.8$, Dirac cone-like feature appears at the K-point in both armchair and zigzag interfaces, as expected for Graphene. For the zigzag interface, C$_x$(BN)$_{1-x}$ behaves as indirect gap material for $x = 0.2, 0.4$ and 0.6. At $x=0.8$ the direct band gap at K-point is very close to that of armchair case. We would like to emphasize that all our self-consistent calculations were performed by relaxing the lattice, but keeping the hexagonal symmetry, to assure zero strain in the unit cell. In this way, we have obtained the equilibrium in-plane lattice constant $a(x)$ for each concentration. We would like to add that our calculations were performed for the spin polarized case. The spin up and spin down components of the DOS happen to be exactly the same unlike reported by [@kan; @ding; @dutta; @pruneda; @bhowmick; @liu]. The reason for this is that those calculations are performed on nanoribbons. The spin polarization on each atom diminishes as we move into the nanoribbon [@charge]. In this paper all our calculations are studied on an infinite sheet and hence there are no spin polarization on any atom.
![\[fig:wide\] Various calculated physical properties of C$_x$(BN)$_{1-x}$ shown as a function of $x$, both for armchair (blue) and zigzag (red) interfaces between Graphene and [*h*]{}-BN domains. (a) The minimum band gap. (b) Band gap for the zigzag interface fitted with Eq (1), shown for present calculation (red), that of $8\times8$ cell (green) and that of $16\times16$ cell (violet) of Bernardi [*et al*]{} [@grossman12]. (c) Formation energy $\Delta E_B$ for both type of interfaces. Calculated data are shown as open circles. Parabolic fit by functions $4\,\Delta H\, x(1-x)$ are shown as dashed lines. A fit by a function of the form $H_0 + H_1\,x(1-x) + H_2\,x^2(1-x)^2$ are shown by solid lines. (d) The equilibrium in-plane lattice constant $a$. The dashed line refers to Vegard’s law.](RD-SM-Fig3.pdf)
In Fig. 3 the calculated band gap $E_g$, the formation energy $\Delta E_B$, and the equilibrium lattice constant $a$ are shown for C$_x$(BN)$_{1-x}$ as a function of $x$, for the armchair and zigzag interfaces. The calculated $E_g$ indicates Fig. 3(a), for both armchair and zigzag interfaces, the indirect band gap to be slightly smaller than the direct band gap at high-symmetric K-point for $x < 0.8$. For $x \geq 0.8$, the Dirac cone-like features start evolving and the band gap is a direct one at K-point. This non-monotonic behavior of $E_g$, which has also been observed in recently published calculations [@grossman12; @cnrrao13], is apparently not observed in the semiconductor alloys. This dependence can be incorporated by taking higher order concentration dependent terms in the optical bowing parameter [@zunger87], so we have fitted a fifth-order polynomial to best describe the $x$ dependence of $E_g$ for C$_x$(BN)$_{1-x}$, given as, $$\begin{aligned}
E_g(x) &=& [E_g^{\rm{\it h}BN} + E_0\, x + E_1\, x^2]\, (1-x) \nonumber \\
& & + [ E_2\, + E_3\, x]\, x^2(1-x)^2.\end{aligned}$$ Here, $E_g^{\rm{\it h}BN}$ is the energy gap of undoped [*h*]{}-BN, $E_0$ is the optical bowing parameter, $E_1, E_2, E_3$ are the higher order corrections to the bowing parameter, obtained by the fitting procedure given in Table 1. We observe that the concentration dependence of the band gap results of Bernardi [*et al*]{} [@grossman12] performed for larger zigzag interface unit-cell, fit nicely with the form given in Eq (1) shown in Fig 3(b).
(b) Formation energy and phase stability {#b-formation-energy-and-phase-stability .unnumbered}
----------------------------------------
The formation energy $\Delta E_B$ Fig. 3(c) was calculated using the equation, $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta E_B &=& E\{{\rm C}_x({\rm BN})_{1-x}, a(x) \} \nonumber \\
& & - [ x\- E({\rm C}, a_{\rm C}) + \ (1-x) \- E(h{\rm BN}, a_{h{\rm BN}})], \end{aligned}$$ where $E\{{\rm C}_x({\rm BN})_{1-x}, a(x) \}$ is the total energy per atom of C$_x$(BN)$_{1-x}$ at the equilibrium in-plane lattice constant $a(x)$; $E({\rm C}, a_{\rm C})$ and $E({\rm{\it h}BN}, a_{h{\rm BN}})$ are the total energies per atom of undoped Graphene and [*h*]{}-BN at the equilibrium in-plane lattice constants $a_{\rm C}$ and $a_{h{\rm BN}}$, respectively.
From the calculated formation energy, we investigated the phase stability [@lambrecht93; @neugebauer95] of C$_x$(BN)$_{1-x}$ by fitting the calculated data with a parabola, expressing $\Delta E_B(x) = 4\,\Delta H\, x(1-x)$, where $\Delta H$ is the formation energy at $x=0.5$. In the regular solution model, the entropy of mixing can be expressed as point probabilities or the concentration $x$ as, $S = -k_B[x\,\ln x + (1-x)\, \ln(1-x)]$, where $k_B$ is the Boltzmann constant. The Free energy is expressed as $F(T,x) = \Delta E_B(x) - T\,S$. At low temperatures $F(T,x)$ shows a maximum at $x=0.5$, and two minima located symmetrically away from $x=0.5$. With increasing temperature these two minima converge to give rise to a single minimum at a critical temperature $T_{C}$ at $x=0.5$. The critical temperature was obtained from the equation, fulfilling the condition that $d^2F/dx^2 < 0$ is unstable and bounded by the spinodal line, given by [@lambrecht93], $$\begin{aligned}
k_B\-T &=& 8\,\Delta H \, x(1-x).\end{aligned}$$ Thus, the critical temperature, $T_{C}=2\,\Delta H/k_B$, was estimated to be 3850K for the zigzag and 6090K for the armchair interfaces, respectively. Therefore it is expected C$_x$(BN)$_{1-x}$ would be in the disordered phase above those temperatures. A lower bound of $T_{C}$ can be obtained by estimating $\Delta H$ directly from interpolation of the calculated $\Delta E_B$ at $x=0.5$, yielding the transition temperatures to be 3390K and 5060K for the zigzag and armchair interfaces, respectively.
We have also investigated the phase stability of C$_x$(BN)$_{1-x}$ by using the fit $\Delta E_B(x) = H_0 + H_1\,x(1-x) + H_2\,x^2(1-x)^2$, which gives better than parabolic fit shown in Fig 3(c) as full lines. Inclusion of such higher order terms in $\Delta E_B(x)$ leads the transition from binodal to spinodal line to occur at temperatures lower than in the previous model. The free energy was calculated numerically and the $T_{C}$ was found to be 4869K for the armchair and 3389K for the zigzag interface [@charge], respectively. We would like to mention that above calculations for larger supercells are under investigation and will be reported later.
The in-plane lattice constant of C$_x$(BN)$_{1-x}$, $a(x)$ shows a deviation from Vegard’s law [@liou05] in Fig. 3(d), which has been fitted to, $$\begin{aligned}
a(x) &=& x\, a_{\rm C} + (1-x)\, a_{h{\rm BN}} + A\, x(1-x).\end{aligned}$$ Here, $A$ is the deviation parameter for the lattice constant $a$, obtained from fitting. The fitting parameters in Eqs. (1), (3) and (4) are given in Table 1.
![\[fig:wide\] $\ln(\rho(T))$ plotted against $T^{-1}$ for C$_x$(BN)$_{1-x}$ at different concentrations calculated from the Boltzmann transport theory [@madsen06] at different concentration.](RD-SM-Fig4.pdf)
(c) Resistivity from the Transport theory {#c-resistivity-from-the-transport-theory .unnumbered}
-----------------------------------------
Now we turn to our results of the resistivity $\rho(T)$ of C$_x$(BN)$_{1-x}$ from the transport calculations. The resistivity of CBN nanomaterials was measured earlier [@ajayan10; @ajayan13]. It was reported that $\ln(\rho)$ varies linearly with $T^{-1}$ for different concentration of B and N, indicating that CBN is semiconducting. The band gap $E_g$ of CBN was estimated from Eq. (7) [@ashcroft76]. In Fig. (4) we show the results of $\ln(\rho)$ against $T^{-1}$, assuming $\tau = 10^{-14}$s, for the zigzag interface of C$_x$(BN)$_{1-x}$ at $x=0,0.2,0.4,0.6,0.8,1$, in the temperature range of 200K to 800K. The calculated data can be fitted very well to straight lines as shown in Fig 4 and the band gap $E_g$ at each concentration was calculated from the slope of the lines using the relation, $$\begin{aligned}
\rho(T) &=& \rho_{\infty} \exp(E_g/2k_BT). \end{aligned}$$ As mentioned earlier the k-point mesh had to be enhanced to $150\times150\times1$ for pure Graphene ($x=1$) to capture the Dirac-point correctly. Also, for the pure [*h*]{}-BN we had to calculate $\rho(T)$ at higher temperatures to obtain the measurable slope as shown in Fig. 4. In Table 2, the band gap $E_g$ of C$_x$(BN)$_{1-x}$ calculated from the transport theory and those calculated directly using DFT are compared. We find an overall good agreement. It should be mentioned that the numerical value of the relaxation time $\tau$ does not affect the the band gap estimation from the slope of Fig 4, since the constant $\rho_{\infty}$ in Eq (7) will only shift the origin of the lines in Fig 4 and not affect their slopes. Any discrepancy of the calculated $E_g$ should thus come from inadequate k-point mesh. To our knowledge, this is apparently the first calculation of $\rho(T)$ for the semiconducting nanomaterial C$_x$(BN)$_{1-x}$ from Boltzmann transport theory.
(d) Charge density and the PDOS {#d-charge-density-and-the-pdos .unnumbered}
-------------------------------
Finally, in Fig. 5 we show the PDOS and the valence charge density on all in-equivalent atoms across the armchair (Figs. 4a and 4b) and the zigzag (Figs 4c and 4d) interfaces of C$_x$(BN)$_{1-x}$ at $x=0.6$. The calculated PDOS give a idea about the contributions coming from each in-equivalent C, B and N atoms towards the total DOS shown in Fig. 2. The calculated valence charge density (Figs 4b and 4d) indicates that covalent $sp$-bonding nature is preserved in C$_x$(BN)$_{1-x}$.
![\[fig:wide\] (a) : Calculated PDOS on the in-equivalent B, C and N atoms in the unit-cell. C1, C2, C3, C4 denote four C-atoms on the upper hexagon, terminated by B and N shown in (b). The PDOS referring to $2s$, $2p_{\rm total}, 2p_z, 2p_x$ and $2p_y$ orbitals are shown in blue, red, green, orange and violet, respectively. (b) : Calculated valence charge density shown across the armchair interface between Graphene and [*h*]{}-BN domains. The contours are in the units of $e/{\rm Bohr}^3$. (c) : Calculated PDOS on the in-equivalent B, C and N atoms in the unit-cell. C1 ... C6 denote six C-atoms on the chain, terminated by N and B atoms on two opposite zigzag interfaces shown in (d). (d) : Calculated valence charge density shown across the zigzag interface between Graphene and [*h*]{}-BN domains. (a) and (b) refer to C$_{0.6}$(BN)$_{0.4}$ armchair interface, whereas (c) and (d) refer to the zigzag interface. ](RD-SM-Fig5.pdf)
The band structure and the DOS of C$_x$(BN)$_{1-x}$ are somewhat different for the zigzag interface than armchair interface. The bands immediately above and below the energy gap are more flat, as evidenced by a strong peaks in the DOS. It should be noted that unlike in the armchair interface, in zigzag interface the C atoms are terminated by either all B-atoms or by all N-atoms (Fig. 1). This leads to different type of excess charge at the interfacial C-atoms. We have calculated this excess charge from the difference of the L[ö]{}wdin charges between the similar atoms in C$_x$(BN)$_{1-x}$ and that of undoped Graphene and [*h*]{}-BN [@charge].
We found, a C-atom terminated by a B (N) atom at the zigzag interface would have more negative (positive) charge than that in undoped Graphene; whereas on the zigzag interface on the other side of the same domain the excess charge on the interfacial C atom would be reversed. This leads to strong peaks in the DOS above or below $E_F$, which alternates as one goes onto atoms lying deeper in the domain. This effect is illustrated in Fig. 4c where we show the calculated PDOS on C-atoms going from one end of the zigzag interface to the other end. Comparing the excess charges on the interfacial C atoms, for both armchair and zigzag interfaces, we found higher is this excess charge, larger is the band gap $E_g$.
Present calculations may be extended to include higher order corrections to the exchange-correlation energy using HSE [@hse] or GW [@gw] methods to check the validity of our results. However, the GGA exchange-correlation kernel used in present calculations yields the groundstate physical properties of Graphene and [*h*]{}-BN, in good agreement with experimental results.
In conclusion, we have presented a detail first-principles calculation of the band structure, DOS, the band gap and the formation energy of C$_x$(BN)$_{1-x}$ at different concentrations. From the formation energy, we have also investigated the phase stability of the material using a regular solution model. Although we have used only the single-site probabilities for the entropy, which can be improved further by incorporating the pair or cluster probabilities, we have given an estimate of the transition temperature for the order-disorder transition in C$_x$(BN)$_{1-x}$, apparently for the first time. We have calculated the resistivity of C$_x$(BN)$_{1-x}$ using Boltzmann transport theory and have estimated the band gap of this semiconducting nanomaterial at different concentrations which agrees with earlier experimental observations. Our calculated DOS and PDOS should motivate further angle resolved photoemission spectroscopic (ARPES) measurements on this technologically important nanomaterial.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The calculations were performed at the High Performance Cluster parallel computer of S.N. Bose National Centre. RD would like to thank Prof T. Saha-Dasgupta for useful discussions.
[10]{} url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefixhref \#1\#2[\#2]{} \#1[\#1]{}
K. S. Novoselov, A. K. Geim, S. V. Morozov, D. Jiang, Y. Zhang, S. V. Dubonos, I. V. Grigorieva, A. A. Firsov, Science 306 (2004) 666.
A. K. Geim, K. S. Novoselov, Nature Mater 6 (2007) 183.
M. Morscher, M. Corso, T. Greber, J. Osterwalder, Surf. Sci. 600 (2006) 3280.
A. Goriachko, Y. He, M. Knapp, H. Over, M. Corso, T. Brugger, S. Berner, J. Osterwalder, T. Greber, Langmuir 23 (2007) 2928.
A. Geim, Science 324 (2009) 1530.
L. S. Panchakarla, K. S. Subrahmanyam, S. K. Saha, A. Govindaraj, H. R. Krishnamurthy, U. V. Waghmare, C. N. R. Rao, Adv. Mater 21 (2009) 4726.
L. Ci, L. Song, C. Jin, D. Jariwala, D. Wu, Y. Li, A. Srivastava, Z. F. Wang, K. Storr, L. Balicas, F. Liu, P. M. Ajayan, Nature Mater 9 (2010) 430.
C. R. Dean, A.F.Young, I.Meric, C.Lee, L.Wang, S.Sorgenfrei, K.Watanabe, T.Taniguchi, P. Kim, K.L.Shepard, J. Hone, Nature Nanotech. 5 (2010) 722.
M. Levendorf, C. Kim, L. Brown, P. Huang, R. Havener, D. Muller, J. Park, Nature 488 (2012) 627.
B. Muchharla, A. Pathak, Z. Liu, L. Song, T. Jayasekera, S. Kar, R. Vajtai, L. Balicas, P. Ajayan, S. Talapatra, N. Ali, Nano Lett. 13 (2013) 3476.
E. Kan, X. Wu, Z. Li, X. Zeng, J. Yang, J. Hou, J Chem Phys 129 (2008) 084712.
Y. Ding, Y. Wang, J. Ni, Applied Physics Letters 95 (2009) 123105.
S. Dutta, A. K. Manna, S. K. Pati, Physical Review Letters 102 (2009) 096601.
J. M. Pruneda, Physical Review B 81 (2010) 161409(R).
S. Bhowmick, A. K. Singh, B. I. Yakobson, The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 115 (2011) 9889.
Y. Liu, S. Bhowmick, B. I. Yakobson, Nano Letter 11 (2011) 3113.
S. Mukherjee, T. P. Kaloni, J Nanoparticle Res. 14 (2012) 1059.
Z. Liu, L. Ma, G. Shi, W. Zhou, Y. Gong, S. Lei, X. Yang, J. Zhang, J. Yu, K.P.Hackenberg, A. Babakhani, J. Idrobo, R. Vajtai, J. Lou, P. Ajayan, Nature Nanotech 8 (2013) 119.
Y. Gao, Y. Zhang, P. Chen, Y. Li, M. Liu, T. Gao, D. Ma, Y. Chen, Z. Cheng, X. Qiu, W. Duan, Z. Liu, Nano Letters 13 (2013) 3439.
G. H. Han, J. A. Rodrıguez-Manzo, C.-W. Lee, N. J. Kybert, M. B. Lerner, Z. J. Qi, E. N. Dattoli, A. M. Rappe, M. Drndic, A. T. C. Johnson, ACS Nano 7 (2013) 10129.
L. Liu, J. Park, D. A. Siegel, K. F. McCarty, K. W. Clark, W. Deng, L. Basile, J. C. Idrobo, A.-P. Li, G. Gu, Science 343 (2014) 163.
Z. Yu, M. L. Hu, C. X. Zhang, C. Y. He, L. Z. Sun, J. Zhong, J of Physical Chemistry C 115 (2011) 10836.
Q. Peng, S. De, Physica E 44 (2012) 1662.
M. Kan, J. Zhou, Q. Wang, Q. Sun, P. Jena, Phys. Rev. B 84 (2011) 205412.
M. Bernardi, M. Palummo, J. Grossman, Phys. Rev. Lett 108 (2012) 226805.
N. Kumar, K. Moses, K. Pramoda, S. N. Shirodkar, A. K. Mishra, U. V. Waghmare, A. Sundaresana, C. N. R. Rao, J. Mater. Chem. A 81 (2013) 109.
N. W. Ashcroft, N. Mermin, Solid State Physics, Holt, Reinhart and Winston, New York, 1976.
G. Madsen, D. Singh, Computer Physics Communications 175 (2006) 67.
P. Giannozzi, et al., J. Phys. Condens. Matter 21 (2009) 395502.
D. Vanderbilt, Phys. Rev. B 41 (1990) 7892.
J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, M. Ernzerhof, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77 (1996) 3865.
H. J. Monkhorst, J. D. Pack, Phys. Rev. B 13 (1976) 5188.
D. Sanchez-Portal, E. Artacho, J. M. Soler, Sol. St. Commun 95 (1995) 685.
A. Kokalj, Comp. Mater. Sci. 28 (2003) 155.
P. Allen, W. Pickett, H. Krakauer, Phys. Rev. B 37 (1988) 7482.
W. Schulz, P. Allen, N. Trivedi, Phys. Rev. B 45 (1992) 10886.
T. P. Kaloni, S. Mukherjee, Modern Physics Letters B 25 (2011) 1855.
The excess charge, calculated on the inequivalent atoms in C$_x$(BN)$_{1-x}$, the spin polarization on each atom in carbon nanoribbon and the free energy showing the binodal to spinodal transition for armchair and zigzag interfaces are given in the Supplementary informations.
J. E. Bernard, A. Zunger, Phys. Rev. B 36 (1987) 319.
W. R. L. Lambrecht, B. Segall, Phys. Rev. B 47 (1993) 9289.
J. Neugebauer, C. G. [Van de Walle]{}, Phys. Rev. B 51 (1995) 10568.
B. T. Liou, S. H. Yen, Y. K. Kuo, Applied Physics A 81 (2005) 651.
J. Heyd, G. E. Scuseria, M. Ernzerhof, J Chem Phys 118 (2003) 8207.
L. Hedin, Phys Rev 139 (1965) A796.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this work we establish a theory of Calculus based on the new concept of *displacement*. We develop all the concepts and results necessary to go from the definition to differential equations, starting with topology and measure and moving on to differentiation and integration. We find interesting notions on the way, such as the integral with respect to a path of measures or the displacement derivative. We relate both of these two concepts by a Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. Finally, we develop the necessary framework in order to study displacement equations by relating them to Stieltjes differential equations.'
author:
- |
Ignacio Márquez Albés[^1]\
e-mail: [email protected]\
F. Adrián F. Tojo\
e-mail: [email protected]\
*Instituto de Matemáticas, Facultade de Matemáticas,*\
*Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Spain.*\
title: 'Displacements[^2]'
---
*2010 MSC:* 28A, 34A, 54E
*Keywords and phrases:* Displacement; Ordinary differential equation; Fundamental Theorem of Calculus; Stieltjes differentiation.
Introduction
============
Derivatives are, in the classical sense of Newton [@Newton], infinitesimal rates of change of one (dependent) variable with respect to another (independent) variable. Formally, the derivative of $f$ with respect to $x$ is $$f'(x):=\lim_{\Delta x\to 0}\frac{\Delta f}{\Delta x}.$$ The symbol $\Delta$ represents what we call the *variation*, that is, the change of magnitude underwent by a given variable[^3]. This variation is, in the classical setting, defined in the most simple possible way as $\Delta x={\widetilde}x-x$, where $x$ is the point at which we want to compute the derivative (the point of departure) and ${\widetilde}x$ another point which we assume close enough to $x$. From this, it follows naturally that the variation of the dependent variable has to be expressed as $\Delta f=f({\widetilde}x)-f(x)$. This way, when ${\widetilde}x$ tends to $x$, that is, when $\Delta x$ tends to zero, we have $$f'(x):=\lim_{{\widetilde}x\to x}\frac{f({\widetilde}x)-f(x)}{{\widetilde}x-x}.$$ Of course, this naïve way of defining the variation is by no means the unique way of giving meaning to such expression. The intuitive idea of variation is naturally linked to the mathematical concept of distance. After all, in order to measure how much a quantity has varied it is enough to see *how far apart* the new point ${\widetilde}x$ is from the first $x$ that is, we have to measure, in some sense, the distance between them. This manner of extending the notion of variation –and thus of derivative– has been accomplished in different ways. The most crude of these if what is called the *absolute derivative*.
Let $(X,d_X)$ and $(Y,d_Y)$ be two metric spaces and consider $f:X\to Y$ and $x\in X$. We say $f$ is *absolutely differentiable at $x$* if and only if the following limit –called absolute derivative of $f$ at $x$– exists: $$f^{|\prime|}(x):=\lim_{{\widetilde}x\to x}\frac{d_Y(f(x),f({\widetilde}x))}{d_X(x,{\widetilde}x)}.$$
In the case of differentiable functions $f:{{\mathbb R}}\to{{\mathbb R}}$ we have that, as expected, $f^{|\prime|}=|f'|$ [@ChIn Proposition 3.1]. Hence, this result conveys the true meaning of the absolute derivative –it is the absolute value of the derivative– and it extends the notion of derivative to the broader setting of metric spaces. Even so, this definition may seem somewhat unfulfilling as a generalization. For instance, in the case of the real line, it does not preserve the spirit of the intuitive notion of *‘infinitesimal rates of change’*: changes of rate have, of necessity, to be allowed to be *negative*.
A more subtle extension of differentiability to the realm of metric spaces can be achieved through *mutational analysis* where the affine structure of differentials is changed by a family of functions, called *mutations*, that mimic the properties and behavior of derivatives. We refer the reader to [@Lorenz] for more information on the subject.
The considerations above bring us to another possible extension of the notion of derivative: that of the *Stieltjes derivative*, also known as *$g$–derivative*.
Let $g:{{\mathbb R}}\to{{\mathbb R}}$ be a monotone nondecreasing function which is continuous from the left. The *Stieltjes derivative with respect to $g$* –or *$g$–derivative*– of a function $f:{{\mathbb R}}\to{{\mathbb R}}$ at a point $x\in{{\mathbb R}}$ is defined as follows, provided that the corresponding limits exist: $$\begin{aligned}
f'_g(x) & =\lim_{{\widetilde}x\to x}\frac{f({\widetilde}x)-f(x)}{g({\widetilde}x)-g(x)} \text{ if } g \text{ is continuous at } x \text{, or}\\
f'_g(x) & =\lim_{{\widetilde}x\to x^+}\frac{f({\widetilde}x)-f(x)}{g({\widetilde}x)-g(x)} \text{ if } g \text{ is discontinuous at } x.
\end{aligned}$$
Clearly, we have defined $\Delta x$ through a rescaling of the abscissae axis by $g$. Observe that, although $d(x, {\widetilde}x)=|g({\widetilde}x)-g(x)|$ is a pseudometric [@FP2016], $\Delta x=g({\widetilde}x)-g(x)$ is allowed to change sign.
This generalization can be taken one step further. The definition of $\Delta x$ does not have to depend on a rescaling, but its absolute value definitely has to suggest, in a broad sense, the notion, if not of distance, of being *far apart* or *close* as well as the *direction* –change of sign. That is why we introduce the notion of *displacement* (Definition \[deltadef\]). This definition takes to full generality the ideas and results in [@PoRo; @FP2016].
This work is structured as follows. In Section \[displacements\] we define the basic concept the rest of the paper revolves around: the notion of *displacement space*. Specifically, in Subsection \[definition\] we will develop the definition and basic properties of displacements, linking them to previously known concepts and illustrating their diversity with several examples. On the other hand, in Subsection \[topology\] we endow the displacement space with a natural topology and prove various useful properties. In Subsection \[product\] we define the product of displacements and prove the associativity of this structure. Finally, on Subsection \[vector\] we add the structure of an ordered vector space to displacement spaces, together with some compatibility conditions, thus defining *displacement vector spaces*.
Section \[measure\] deals with the construction of a measure associated to displacement spaces. We restrict ourselves to the real line, where we first define a content and construct its associated measure in a fashion analogous to that of any metric measure (as it is the case with the Lebesgue measure). Then, we construct a theory of integration for displacement spaces. Here we define the concept of *integral with respect to a path of measures* which will be the key to defining an integral associated to a displacement.
Section \[derivatives\] is devoted to the definition and properties of a displacement derivative which will be later be proven to be compatible with the displacement measure in that we can provide a Fundamental Theorem of Calculus relating both of them (Theorems \[FTC\] and \[FTC2\]).
In Section \[equations\] we deal with displacement differential equations. There we establish an equivalence relation between displacements that allows to transform a differential problem with a displacement into another one in the same equivalence class. As a consequence, we are able to reduce displacement equations to problems with Stieltjes derivatives.
The last section is devoted to the conclusions of this work and the open problems lying ahead.
Displacement spaces {#displacements}
===================
In this section, we focus on the definition of displacement spaces. This new framework is then illustrated with some examples which show, for example, that every set equipped with a metric map is a displacement space. We also study a topological structure that displacement spaces can be endowed with. Further notions such as the displacement product or displacement over ordered vector spaces are presented.
Definitions and properties {#definition}
--------------------------
Let us make explicit the basic definition of this paper.
\[deltadef\] Let $X\ne\emptyset$ be a set. A *displacement* is a function $\Delta:X^2\to{{\mathbb R}}$ such that the following properties hold:
- $\Delta(x,x)=0,\ x\in X$.
- For all $x,y\in X$, $${\stackrel[{z\rightharpoonup y}]{}{\underline\lim}}|\Delta(x,z)|=|\Delta(x,y)|,$$ where $${\stackrel[{z\rightharpoonup y}]{}{\underline\lim}}|\Delta(x,z)|:=\sup \left\{\liminf_{n\to\infty}|\Delta(x,z_n)|: (z_n)_{n\in{{\mathbb N}}}\subset X,\ \Delta(y,z_n)\xrightarrow{n\to\infty}0\right\}.$$
All limits occurring in this work will be considered with the usual topology of ${{\mathbb R}}$. A pair $(X,\Delta)$ is called a *displacement space*.
Why (H1) and (H2)? These two hypotheses are of prominent topological flavor. (H1) will guarantee that open balls are nonempty in the to-be-defined non-necessarily-metric topology related to $\Delta$. On the other hand, (H2) will be sufficient (and indeed necessary) to show that open balls are, indeed, open (Lemma \[lemob\]) and that the $\Delta$–topology is second countable (Lemma \[count\]). We will later discuss (Remark \[bigrem\]) whether or not we can forestall (H2) when we restrict ourselves to displacement calculus.
Note that, for (H2) to be satisfied, it is enough to show that ${\stackrel[{z\rightharpoonup y}]{}{\underline\lim}}|\Delta(x,z)|\le|\Delta(x,y)|$ for all $x,y\in X$, as the reverse inequality always holds.
The following lemma gives a useful sufficient condition for (H2) to be satisfied.
\[ti\] Let $X$ be a set and $\Delta:X^2\to{{\mathbb R}}$. Assume that the following property holds:
1. There exists a strictly increasing left–continuous map $\varphi:[0,+\infty)\rightarrow[0,+\infty)$, continuous at $0$, satisfying $\varphi(0)=0$ and such that, for $\psi(x,y):=\varphi(|\Delta(x,y)|)$, $$\label{ppc}
\psi(x,z)\leq \psi(x,y)+\psi(y,z);\quad x,y,z\in X.$$
Then $\Delta$ satisfies [(H2)]{}.
Fix $x,y\in X$ and let $(z_n)_{n\in {{\mathbb N}}}\subset X$ such that $\lim_{n\to\infty}|\Delta(y,z_n)|= 0$. Then, condition yields $\psi(x,z_n)-\psi(y,z_n)\le \psi(x,y).$ Hence, $$\psi(x,y)\ge \liminf_{n\to\infty}(\psi(x,z_n)-\psi(y,z_n))\ge \liminf_{n\to\infty}\psi(x,z_n)-\limsup_{n\to\infty}\psi(y,z_n).$$ Since $\varphi(0)=0$, $\varphi$ is continuous at $0$ and $\lim_{n\to\infty}|\Delta(y,z_n)|= 0$, $\limsup_{n\to\infty}\psi(y,z_n)=0$, so $$\label{varin}
\psi(x,y)\ge \liminf_{n\to\infty}\psi(x,z_n).$$ Let us show that $$\label{varin2}
\liminf_{n\to\infty}{\varphi}(|\Delta(x,z_n)|)\ge{\varphi}{\left(}\liminf_{n\to\infty}|\Delta(x,z_n)|{\right)}.$$ Indeed, by definition of $\liminf$, we have that for any ${\varepsilon}\in{{\mathbb R}}^+$ there exists $n_0\in{{\mathbb N}}$ such that if $n\ge n_0$ then $|\Delta(x,z_n)|\ge\liminf_{n\to\infty}|\Delta(x,z_n)|-{\varepsilon}.$ Since ${\varphi}$ is strictly increasing, for each ${\varepsilon}\in{{\mathbb R}}^+$ there exists $n_0\in{{\mathbb N}}$ such that for $n\ge n_0$ we have $${\varphi}{\left(}|\Delta(x,z_n)|{\right)}\ge{\varphi}{\left(}\liminf_{n\to\infty}|\Delta(x,z_n)|-{\varepsilon}{\right)}.$$ Thus, for any ${\varepsilon}>0$ we have that $$\liminf_{n\to\infty}{\varphi}{\left(}|\Delta(x,z_n)|{\right)}\ge{\varphi}{\left(}\liminf_{n\to\infty}|\Delta(x,z_n)|-{\varepsilon}{\right)},$$ which, using the left–continuity of ${\varphi}$, leads to . Hence, it follows from and that $${\varphi}(|\Delta(x,y)|)=\psi(x,y)\ge \liminf_{n\to\infty}\psi(x,z_n)=\liminf_{n\to\infty}{\varphi}(|\Delta(x,z_n)|)\ge{\varphi}{\left(}\liminf_{n\to\infty}|\Delta(x,z_n)|{\right)},$$ which, together with the fact that ${\varphi}$ is strictly increasing, yields that $$|\Delta(x,y)|\ge\liminf_{n\to\infty}|\Delta(x,z_n)|.$$ Since this holds for any $(z_n)_{n\in {{\mathbb N}}}$ in $X$ such that $\lim_{n\to\infty}|\Delta(y,z_n)|= 0$, we have the desired result.
Lemma \[ti\] illustrates that condition (H2) is a way of avoiding the triangle inequality –or more general versions of it– which is common to metrics and analogous objects. We can find similar conditions in the literature. For instance, in [@Roldan Definition 3.1], they use, while defining an *RS–generalized metric space* $(X,\Delta)$, the condition
1. There exists $C>0$ such that if $x,y\in X$ and $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\Delta(x_n,x)=\lim_{n\to\infty}\Delta(x,x_n)=\lim_{n,m\to+\infty}\Delta(x_n,x_m)=0,$$ then $$\Delta(x,y)\le C\limsup\Delta(x_n,y).$$
More complicated conditions can be found in [@Lorenz (H3) Section 3.1, (H3’) Section 4.1].
Last, we remark that the same statement as (H2’), but dropping the left-continuity, is actually sufficient to prove the results in this work.
In the next examples we use the sufficient condition provided by Lemma \[ti\].
\[exa1\] Consider the sphere ${{\mathbb S}}^1$ and define the following map:
[[S]{}]{}\^1[[S]{}]{}\^1 & [\[]{}0,2)\
(x,y) & {\[0+) : xe\^[i]{}=y}.
$\Delta(x,y)$ is a displacement that measures the minimum counter-clockwise angle necessary to move from $x$ to $y$. It is clear that (H1) holds. For (H2’), take ${\varphi}(r)=r$. Then, for $x,y,z\in{{\mathbb S}}^1$, if $\Delta(x,y)+\Delta(y,z)\ge 2\pi$, then (H2’) clearly holds. Otherwise, $\Delta(x,z)=\Delta(x,y)+\Delta(y,z)$, so (H2’) holds.
Let $(X,E)$ be a complete weighted directed graph, that is, $X=\{x_1,\dots,x_n\}$ is a finite set of $n\in{{\mathbb N}}$ vertices and $E\in{{\mathcal M}}_n({{\mathbb R}})$ is a matrix with zeros in the diagonal and positive numbers everywhere else. The element $e_{j,k}$ of the matrix $E$ denotes the weight of the directed edge from vertex $x_j$ to vertex $x_k$. This kind of graph can represent, for instance, the time it takes to get from one point in a city to another by car, as Figure \[fig:mapsantiago\] illustrates.
![Graph indicating the time in minutes it takes to go from one place to another in Santiago de Compostela by car (using the least time consuming path) according to *Google Maps* –good traffic conditions assumed. The points are placed in their actual relative geometric positions, being **1**: School of Mathematics (USC), **2**: Cathedral, **3**: Train station, **4**: Bus station. Most of the streets in Santiago are one way, which accounts for the differences in time depending on the direction of the displacement.[]{data-label="fig:mapsantiago"}](mapsantiago){width=".8\linewidth"}
Now, consider the set $\{x_1,\dots,x_4\}$ and the matrix $E$ as given in Figure \[fig:mapsantiago\], that is, $$E\equiv(e_{j,k})_{j,k=1}^4:=
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 9 & 4 & 10 \\
10 & 0 & 14 & 8 \\
7 & 9 & 0 & 5 \\
11 & 6 & 7 & 0 \\
\end{pmatrix},$$ and the map $\Delta(x_j,x_k):=e_{j,k}$. It can be checked that $\Delta$ is subadditive –which is to be expected since, if we could get faster from a point to another through a third one *Google Maps* would have chosen that option. Hence, (H2’) holds for ${\varphi}(r)=r$, and so $\Delta$ is a displacement.
In 1931, Zermelo solved the following navigation problem [@Zer]. Let $F=(u,v)\in{{\mathcal C}}({{\mathbb R}}^2,{{\mathbb R}}^2)$ be a vector field, for instance, the velocity field of the wind on top of a body of water, or the velocity field of the water itself. Assume an object that moves with constant celerity $V$ on that body of water wants to go from a point $A$ (which we can assume at the origin) to a point $B$. Which is the least time consuming path to take?
We are going to assume that $V>W:=\max_{x\in{{\mathbb R}}^2}\sqrt{u(x)^2+v(x)^2}$, that is, the object can navigate against wind. Zermelo proved, using variational methods, that the solution of the problem satisfies the following system of partial differential equations:
$$\begin{aligned}
x' &= V\cos \theta + u, \\
y' &= V\sin\theta + v, \\
\theta' &
= \sin^2\theta \frac{\partial v}{\partial x}
+ \sin\theta \cos\theta \left(\frac{\partial u}{\partial x} - \frac{\partial v}{\partial y}
\right) - \cos^2\theta\frac{\partial u}{\partial y}, \end{aligned}$$
being the last equation known as *Zermelo’s equation*. Observe that, if $u,v\in{{\mathcal C}}^2({{\mathbb R}}^2)$, there exists a unique solution to the system. Through the change of variables $({\widetilde}x,{\widetilde}y)=B-(x,y)$, instead of going from the origin to the point $B$ we go from $B$ to the origin, and the equations will provide a different time. This illustrates the fact that, when measuring how far apart something is in terms of time, symmetry is not generally satisfied. For instance, if we measure the distance between two points of a river by the time it takes to get from one point to another it is not the same to go upstream than downstream.
Let $A,B\in{{\mathbb R}}^2$. If $\Delta(A,B)$ is the smallest time necessary to arrive from $A$ to $B$ in Zermelo’s navigation problem, $\Delta\ge 0$ is a displacement on ${{\mathbb R}}^2$, for $\Delta$ is subadditive and (H1)–(H2’) are clearly satisfied.
In the symmetric setting –that is, $\Delta(x,y)=\Delta(y,x)$– this problem is a paradigmatic example of *Finslerian length space*. The theory regarding these spaces has been thoroughly developed but, as stated in [@Burago], although *“one could modify the definitions to allow non symmetric length structures and metrics”*, this case has not been studied yet. What we present in this paper might be an starting point for a theory of *non symmetric length spaces*.
\[Stdisp\] The map $\Delta:{{\mathbb R}}\times {{\mathbb R}}\rightarrow {{\mathbb R}}$ defined as $\Delta(x,y)=g(y)-g(x)$ for a nondecreasing and left-continuous function $g$ (cf.[@PoRo]) is a displacement as it satisfies (H2’) for ${\varphi}=\operatorname{Id}$. In what follows, we will referred to this displacements as *Stieltjes displacements*. Furthermore, the following lemma shows how to identify when a displacement is a Stieltjes displacement.
Let $(X,\Delta)$ be a displacement space. Then there exists $g:X\to{{\mathbb R}}$ such that $\Delta(x,y)=g(y)-g(x)$ for every $x,y\in X$ if and only if, for every $x,y,z\in X$,
1. $\Delta(x,y)=-\Delta(y,x)$,
2. $\Delta(x,z)=\Delta(x,y)+\Delta(y,z)$.
Necessity is straightforward. In order to prove sufficiency, take $x_0\in X$ and define $g(x)=\Delta(x_0,x)$ for $x\in X$. Then, $$\Delta(x,y)=\Delta(x,x_0)+\Delta(x_0,y)=-\Delta(x_0,x)+g(y)=g(y)-g(x).$$
Displacement topologies {#topology}
-----------------------
It is a well–known result that a set equipped with a metric map generates a topology through the definition of open balls. The same thing happens with displacement spaces. However, fewer nice properties can be obtained from just the definition.
Given a displacement space $(X,\Delta)$, $x\in X$ and $r\in{{\mathbb R}}^+$, we define the *$\Delta$–ball* or simply *ball*) *of center $x$ and radius $r$* as $$B_\Delta(x,r):=\{y\in X\ :\ |\Delta(x,y)|<r\}.$$ Also, we define the *$\Delta$–topology* in the following way: $$\tau_\Delta:=\left\{U\subset X\ :\ {\forall}x\in U\ \exists r\in{{\mathbb R}}^+,\ B_\Delta(x,r)\subset U\right\}.$$
Clearly, $\tau_\Delta$ is a topology. We denote by ${{\mathcal E}}_\Delta$ the set of $\Delta$–balls in $X$ and by $\tau_u$ the usual euclidean topology of ${{\mathbb R}}^n$ for any $n\in{{\mathbb N}}$.
\[lemob\] Let $\Delta:X \times X\to{{\mathbb R}}$. Then the following are equivalent:
1. $\Delta$ satisfies .
2. $B_\Delta(x,r)\in\tau_\Delta$ for all $x\in X$ and $r\in{{\mathbb R}}^+$.
3. $|\Delta_x|\equiv|\Delta(x,\cdot)|:(X,\tau_{\Delta})\to ({{\mathbb R}},\tau_u)$ is upper-semicontinuous.
1${\Rightarrow}$2. Assume first that $(X,\Delta)$ satisfies (H2). Let $x\in X$ and $r\in{{\mathbb R}}^+$ be fixed. If $B_\Delta(x,r)=\emptyset$ then $B_\Delta(x,r)\in\tau_\Delta$ trivially. Assume that $B_\Delta(x,r)\not=\emptyset$. Let us show that, for every $y\in B_\Delta(x,r)$, there exists ${\varepsilon}\in{{\mathbb R}}^+$ such that $B_\Delta(y,{\varepsilon})\subset B_\Delta(x,r)$. Assume this is not the case. Then, there exists $y\in B_\Delta(x,r)$ and $(z_n)_{{n\in{{\mathbb N}}}}\subset X$ such that, for all $n\in{{\mathbb N}}$, $$|\Delta(y,z_n)|<1/n,\quad |\Delta(x,z_n)|\ge r.$$ Hence, we have a sequence $(z_n)_{n\in{{\mathbb N}}}$ such that $\lim_{n\to\infty}|\Delta(y,z_n)|=0$ and, by (H2), $$\liminf_{n\to\infty}|\Delta(x,z_n)|\ge r>|\Delta(x,y)|={\stackrel[{z\rightharpoonup y}]{}{\underline\lim}}|\Delta(x,z)|,$$ which contradicts the definition of supremum.
2${\Rightarrow}$1. Now, if $B_\Delta(x,r)\in \tau_\Delta$ for all $x\in X$ and $r\in{{\mathbb R}}^+$, fix $x,y\in X$ and let $r:=|\Delta(x,y)|$, ${\varepsilon}\in{{\mathbb R}}^+$. Clearly, $y\in B_\Delta(x,r+{\varepsilon})$, so there exists ${\delta}_{\varepsilon}\in{{\mathbb R}}^+$ such that $B_\Delta(y,{\delta}_{\varepsilon})\subset B_\Delta(x,r+{\varepsilon})$. Hence, if $(z_n)_{{n\in{{\mathbb N}}}}\subset X$ is such that $|\Delta(y,z_n)|\to 0$ as $n\to\infty$, there exists $N\in {{\mathbb N}}$ such that $|\Delta(y,z_n)|<{\delta}_{\varepsilon}$ for every $n\ge N$, so $|\Delta(x,z_n)|<r+{\varepsilon}$ for every $n\ge N$. Hence $\liminf_{n\to\infty}|\Delta(x,z_n)|\le r+{\varepsilon}$. Since ${\varepsilon}$ was arbitrarily fixed, we get that $\liminf_{n\to\infty}|\Delta(x,z_n)|\le r$, which ends the result.
2$\Leftrightarrow$3. Just observe that $|\Delta_x|^{-1}((-\infty,r))=B_{\Delta}(x,r)$.
\[h1r\] Note that hypothesis (H1) is not necessary for the previous result or the definition of the topology itself. In fact, it has only been used so far to show that open balls are nonempty. Allowing the open balls to be the empty set changes nothing as it always belongs to the topology, making the result true in any case. However, hypothesis (H1) will be key in the definition of the displacement derivative in Section \[derivatives\].
\[lempd\] Let $\Delta:X \times X\to{{\mathbb R}}$. If [(H1)]{} and [(H2)]{} hold then:
1. Every element of ${{\mathcal E}}_\Delta$ is nonempty.
2. Every element of $\tau_\Delta$ is union of elements in ${{\mathcal E}}_\Delta$.
3. ${{\mathcal E}}_\Delta$ is a basis of $\tau_\Delta$.
1\. Since $\Delta(x,x)=0$, $x\in B(x,r)$ for any $r\in{{\mathbb R}}^+$.
2\. Fix $U\in\tau_\Delta$. By definition of $\tau_\Delta$, we know that for every $x\in U$ there exists $r_x\in{{\mathbb R}}^+$ such that $B(x,r_x)\subset U$. Since $x\in B(x,r_x)$, we have that $X=\bigcup_{x\in X}B(x,r_x)$.
3\. By (H2) we have that ${{\mathcal E}}_\Delta\subset\tau_\Delta$. If $x\in U\cap V$ for $U,V\in {{\mathcal E}}_\Delta$, since $U$ and $V$ are open, so is $U\cap V$ and hence, using 1, there exists $W\in{{\mathcal E}}_\Delta$ such that $x\in W\subset U\cap W$.
The conditions obtained in Lemma \[lempd\] do not suffice to obtain both (H1) and (H2). Consider the space $X=\{0,1\}$ together with de function $\Delta$ given by $\Delta(0,1)=\Delta(1,1)=0$, $\Delta(1,0)=\Delta(0,0)=1$. In this case ${{\mathcal E}}_\Delta=\tau_\Delta$ and the topology coincides with that of the Sierpiński space. Observe that $\Delta$ is not a displacement, although it satisfies the theses 1-3 of Lemma \[lempd\].
It is also worth to observe that de map ${\widetilde}\Delta(0,1)={\widetilde}\Delta(1,1)={\widetilde}\Delta(0,0)=0$, ${\widetilde}\Delta(1,0)=1$ is a displacement and $\tau_{{\widetilde}\Delta}=\tau_\Delta$. This means that, if we want to find sufficient conditions in order for a $\Delta$ to be a displacement, those conditions cannot be purely topological. Furthermore, since the Sierpiński space is not regular it is not uniformizable, and thus not every displacement space is uniformizable.
\[cont\] Given displacement spaces $(X,\Delta_1)$ and $(Y,\Delta_2)$, a function $f:X\to Y$ is said to be *$\Delta_1^2$–continuous* if $f:(X,\tau_{\Delta_1})\to(Y,\tau_{\Delta_2})$ is continuous.
We say that a map $f:X\to{{\mathbb R}}^n$ is $\Delta_1$–continuous if $f:(X,\Delta_1)\to({{\mathbb R}}^n,\tau_u)$ is continuous.
As usual, continuity can be characterized using open balls, as it is shown in the following result.
\[lcont\] Let $(X,\Delta_1)$ and $(Y,\Delta_2)$ be displacement spaces. A map $f:X\to Y$ is $\Delta_1^2$–continuous if and only if $$\label{epsdel}
\forall x\in X,\ \forall \varepsilon\in{{\mathbb R}}^+\ \exists \delta\in{{\mathbb R}}^+\text{ such that } f(y)\in B_{\Delta_2}(f(x),\varepsilon){{\enskip}{\forall}}y\in B_{\Delta_1}(x,\delta).$$
First, assume that $f$ is $\Delta_1^2$–continuous and fix $x\in\mathbb R$ and $\varepsilon\in{{\mathbb R}}^+$. Since $U=B_{\Delta_2}(f(x),\varepsilon)\in\tau_{\Delta_2}$, we have that $f^{-1}(U)\in\tau_{\Delta_1}$. Moreover, $x\in f^{-1}(U)$ and so, there exists $\delta\in{{\mathbb R}}^+$ such that $B_{\Delta_1}(x,\delta)\subset f^{-1}(U)$. Hence, $f(B_{\Delta_1}(x,\delta))\subset f(f^{-1}(U))\subset U$, that is, there exists $\delta\in{{\mathbb R}}^+$ such that $$|\Delta_1(x,y)|<\delta\implies |\Delta_2(f(x),f(y))|<\varepsilon.$$ Conversely, let $U\in\tau_{\Delta_2}$, $y\in f^{-1}(U)$ and $x=f(y)$. Since $U\in\tau_{\Delta_2}$, there exists ${\varepsilon}_x\in{{\mathbb R}}^+$ such that $B_{\Delta_2}(x,{\varepsilon}_x)\subset U$. Now, condition guarantees the existence of $\delta_y\in{{\mathbb R}}^+$ such that $$f(z)\in B_{\Delta_2}(x,\varepsilon_x),{{\enskip}{\forall}}z\in B_{\Delta_1}(y,\delta_y).$$ Note that $B_{\Delta_1}(y,\delta_y)\subset f^{-1}(U)$ as for any $z\in B_{\Delta_1}(y,\delta_y)$ we have that $f(z)\in U$. Since $y\in f^{-1}(U)$ was arbitrary, $f^{-1}(U)$ is open and so $f$ is $\Delta_1^2$–continuous.
Product displacement {#product}
--------------------
Consider a finite family of displacement spaces. We want to endow the Cartesian product of such spaces with a displacement structure while maintaining one of the most characteristic features of displacements spaces: the sign.
\[prod\] Let $(X_k,\Delta_k)$, $k=1,2$, be two displacement spaces. Then we define the *product displacement of $\Delta_1$ and $\Delta_2$* as
X\_1X\_2 & [[R]{}]{}\
$(x_1,x_2),(y_1,y_2)$ & (\_1(x\_1,y\_1),\_2(x\_2,y\_2)[)]{}{|\_1(x\_1,y\_1)|,|\_2(x\_2,y\_2)|}
where $\sigma:{{\mathbb R}}^2\to\{-1,0,1\}$ is defined as follows. Let $$R:=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 1 \\
-1 & 1\\
\end{array}
\right)\in \operatorname{SO}(2)$$ be the orthogonal matrix that takes the diagonal vector $d:=(1,1)/\sqrt{2}$ to $e_1:=(1,0)$ and let $e_2:=(0,1)$. Then, for every $v\in{{\mathbb R}}^2$, $$\sigma(v):=\begin{dcases} \operatorname{sign}(e_1^TRv), & e_1^TRv\ne0,\\ \operatorname{sign}(e_2^TRv), & e_1^TRv=0,\ e_2^TRv\ne0, \\ 0 , & v=0.
\end{dcases}$$
The following lemma shows that Definition \[prod\] defines a displacement space for the Cartesian product.
Let $(X_k,\Delta_k)$, $k=1,2$, be two displacement spaces. Then the product displacement $\Delta=\Delta_1\times\Delta_2$ is a displacement.
It is clear that $\Delta((x_1,x_2),(x_1,x_2))=0$ for all $(x_1,x_2)\in X_1\times X_2$. Now, in order to check (H2), let $(x_1,x_2), (y_1,y_2)\in X_1\times X_2$ be fixed and $(z_{1,n},z_{2,n})$ be a sequence in $X_1\times X_2$ such that $$|\Delta((y_1,y_2),(z_{1,n},z_{2,n}))|= |\sigma(\Delta_1(y_1,z_{1,n}),\Delta_2(y_2,z_{2,n}))\max\{|\Delta_1(y_1,z_{1,n})|,|\Delta_2(y_2,z_{2,n})|\}|\xrightarrow{n\to\infty}0.$$ Then either $$\lim_{n \to \infty}\sigma(\Delta_1(y_1,z_{1,n}),\Delta_2(y_2,z_{2,n}))=0\quad\mbox{or}\quad \lim_{n \to \infty}\max\{|\Delta_1(y_1,z_{1,n})|,|\Delta_2(y_2,z_{2,n})|\}=0.$$ In either case, it follows that $\lim_{n \to \infty}|\Delta_i(y_i,z_{i,n})|=0$, $i=1,2$, from which we obtain, by (H2), $$\liminf_{n\to\infty}|\Delta_i(x_i,z_{i,n})|\le {\stackrel[{z_i\rightharpoonup y_i}]{}{\underline\lim}}|\Delta_i(x_i,z_{i})|=|\Delta_i(x_i,y_i)|,\quad i=1,2.$$ Fix ${\varepsilon}\in{{\mathbb R}}^+$. Let $N\in{{\mathbb N}}$ be such that, for every $n\ge N$, $$|\Delta_i(x_i,z_{i,n})|-{\varepsilon}\le|\Delta_i(x_i,y_i)|,\quad i=1,2.$$ As a consequence, for every $n\ge N$, $$\max\{|\Delta_1(x_1,z_{1,n})|,|\Delta_2(x_2,z_{2,n})|\}-{\varepsilon}\le\max\{|\Delta_1(x_1,y_1)|,|\Delta_2(x_2,y_2)|\},$$ and so $$\liminf_{n\to\infty}\max\{|\Delta_1(x_1,z_{1,n})|,|\Delta_2(x_2,z_{2,n})|\}\le\max\{|\Delta_1(x_1,y_1)|,|\Delta_2(x_2,y_2)|\}.$$ Now, it is enough to show that $$\liminf_{n\to\infty}|\sigma(\Delta_1(x_1,z_{1,n}),\Delta_2(x_2,z_{2,n}))|\le |\sigma(\Delta_1(x_1,y_1),\Delta_2(x_2,y_2))|$$ to conclude that (H2) holds. If $|\sigma(\Delta_1(x_1,y_1),\Delta_2(x_2,y_2))|=1$, then the inequality holds trivially, so we can assume that $|\sigma(\Delta_1(x_1,y_1),\Delta_2(x_2,y_2))|=0$, that is, $\Delta_i(x_i,y_i)=0$, $i=1,2$. By contradiction, suppose that $$\liminf_{n\to\infty}|\sigma(\Delta_1(x_1,z_{1,n}),\Delta_2(x_2,z_{2,n}))|>0.$$ In that case, $\liminf_{n\to\infty}|\sigma(\Delta_1(x_1,z_{1,n}),\Delta_2(x_2,z_{2,n}))|=1$ which implies that $$\lim_{n\to\infty}|\sigma(\Delta_1(x_1,z_{1,n}),\Delta_2(x_2,z_{2,n}))|=1.$$ By definition of $\sigma$, we have that $|\Delta_1(x_1,z_{1,n})|>0$ and/or $|\Delta_2(x_2,z_{2,n})|>0$ for $n\in{{\mathbb N}}$ big enough. Suppose $|\Delta_1(x_1,z_{1,n})|>0$ . Then $\liminf_{n\to\infty}|\Delta_1(x_1,z_{1,n})|>0$ and so $$0=|\Delta_1(x_1,y_1)|\ge \liminf_{n\to\infty}|\Delta_1(x_1,z_{1,n})|>0,$$ which is a contradiction. The reasoning is analogous in the case that $|\Delta_2(x_2,z_{2,n})|>0$.
The next natural question is to wonder about the relationship between the topology of the product displacement space and the product topology. The following result makes it explicit.
If $\Delta:X_1\times X_2\to{{\mathbb R}}$ is the product displacement of $\Delta_1$ and $\Delta_2$ for any $x=(x_1,x_2)\in X_1\times X_2$ and $r\in{{\mathbb R}}^+,$ $$B_\Delta(x,r)=B_{\Delta_1}(x_1,r)\times B_{\Delta_2}(x_2,r).$$
Let $y\in B_\Delta(x,r).$ Then $r>|\Delta(x,y)|=\left|\max_{k=1,2}\Delta_k(x_k,y_k)\right|$ so, $|\Delta_k(x_k,y_k)|<r$ for $k=1,2$, i.e., $y\in \prod_{k=1}^2 B_{\Delta_k}(x_k,r)$. Conversely, if $y\in\prod_{k=1}^2 B_{\Delta_k}(x_k,r),$ then $|\Delta_k(x_k,y_k)|<r$ for $k=1,2$ so $|\Delta(x,y)|=\left|\max_{k=1,2}\Delta_k(x_k,y_k) \right|<r.$ Hence $y\in B_\Delta(x,r).$
So far we have endowed the product of two displacement spaces with a displacement space structure. However the product of more than two displacement spaces might not be associative, and therefore, different product displacements may arise for the same Cartesian product. The following result shows that this cannot happen.
\[lemasd\] Let $(X_k,\Delta_k)$, $k=1,2,3$, be displacement spaces. Then $$(\Delta_1\times \Delta_2)\times \Delta_3=\Delta_1\times (\Delta_2\times \Delta_3).$$
Let $x_k,y_k\in X_k$, ${\alpha}_k=\Delta_k(x_k,y_k)$, $k=1,2,3$; $z_1=(x_1,x_2,x_3)$, $z_2=(y_1,y_2,y_3)$. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
& [(\Delta_1\times \Delta_2)\times \Delta_3](z_1,z_2)=\sigma{\left(}\sigma\left({\alpha}_1,{\alpha}_2{\right)}\max_{k=1,2}|{\alpha}_k|,{\alpha}_3{\right)}\max\left\{\left|\sigma({\alpha}_1,{\alpha}_2)\max_{k=1,2}|{\alpha}_k|\right|,|{\alpha}_3|\right\} \\ & = \sigma{\left(}\sigma\left({\alpha}_1,{\alpha}_2{\right)}\max_{k=1,2}|{\alpha}_k|,{\alpha}_3{\right)}\max_{k=1,2,3}|{\alpha}_k|.\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, $$\begin{aligned}
& [\Delta_1\times (\Delta_2\times \Delta_3)](z_1,z_2)=\sigma{\left(}{\alpha}_1,\sigma\left({\alpha}_2,{\alpha}_3{\right)}\max_{k=2,3}|{\alpha}_k|{\right)}\max\left\{|{\alpha}_1|,\left|\sigma\left({\alpha}_2,{\alpha}_3{\right)}\max_{k=2,3}|{\alpha}_k|\right|\right\} \\ & = \sigma{\left(}{\alpha}_1,\sigma\left({\alpha}_2,{\alpha}_3{\right)}\max_{k=2,3}|{\alpha}_k|{\right)}\max_{k=1,2,3}|{\alpha}_k|,\end{aligned}$$ so it is enough to check that $$\label{asoceq}\sigma{\left(}\sigma\left({\alpha}_1,{\alpha}_2{\right)}\max_{k=1,2}|{\alpha}_k|,{\alpha}_3{\right)}=\sigma{\left(}{\alpha}_1,\sigma\left({\alpha}_2,{\alpha}_3{\right)}\max_{k=2,3}|{\alpha}_k|{\right)},\quad ({\alpha}_1,{\alpha}_2,{\alpha}_3)\in{{\mathbb R}}^3\setminus\{0\}.$$
We have to study several different cases. We first study the cases when ${\alpha}_1+{\alpha}_2, {\alpha}_2+{\alpha}_3\ne 0.$
Assume ${\alpha}_1+{\alpha}_2>0$ and ${\alpha}_2+{\alpha}_3>0$. Then $$\sigma\left({\alpha}_1,{\alpha}_2{\right)}\max\limits_{k=1,2}|{\alpha}_k|+{\alpha}_3=\max\limits_{k=1,2}|{\alpha}_k|+{\alpha}_3\ge {\alpha}_2+{\alpha}_3>0,$$ and thus, the left hand side in is $1$. On the other hand, $${\alpha}_1+\sigma\left({\alpha}_2,{\alpha}_3{\right)}\max_{k=2,3}|{\alpha}_k|={\alpha}_1+\max_{k=2,3}|{\alpha}_k|\ge{\alpha}_1+{\alpha}_2>0,$$ so the right hand side in is $1$ as well.
Assume ${\alpha}_1+{\alpha}_2<0$ and ${\alpha}_2+{\alpha}_3<0$. Then $$\sigma\left({\alpha}_1,{\alpha}_2{\right)}\max\limits_{k=1,2}|{\alpha}_k|+{\alpha}_3=-\max\limits_{k=1,2}|{\alpha}_k|+{\alpha}_3\le {\alpha}_2+{\alpha}_3<0,$$ and thus, the left hand side in is $-1$. On the other hand, $${\alpha}_1+\sigma\left({\alpha}_2,{\alpha}_3{\right)}\max_{k=2,3}|{\alpha}_k|={\alpha}_1-\max_{k=2,3}|{\alpha}_k|\le{\alpha}_1+{\alpha}_2<0,$$ so the right hand side in is $-1$ as well.
Assume ${\alpha}_1+{\alpha}_2>0$ and ${\alpha}_2+{\alpha}_3<0$. Then ${\alpha}_3<-{\alpha}_2<{\alpha}_1$, $-{\alpha}_3>{\alpha}_2$ and ${\alpha}_2>-{\alpha}_1$, so $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma\left({\alpha}_1,{\alpha}_2{\right)}\max\limits_{k=1,2}|{\alpha}_k|+{\alpha}_3 = & \max\limits_{k=1,2}{\alpha}_k+{\alpha}_3=\begin{cases}{\alpha}_1+{\alpha}_3, & {\alpha}_2\in[{\alpha}_3,{\alpha}_1],\\ {\alpha}_1+{\alpha}_3, & {\alpha}_2<{\alpha}_3,\\ {\alpha}_2+{\alpha}_3, & {\alpha}_2>{\alpha}_1,\end{cases} \\
{\alpha}_1+\sigma\left({\alpha}_2,{\alpha}_3{\right)}\max_{k=2,3}|{\alpha}_k|= & {\alpha}_1-\max_{k=2,3}(-{\alpha}_k)={\alpha}_1+\min_{k=2,3}{\alpha}_k=\begin{cases}{\alpha}_1+{\alpha}_3, & {\alpha}_2\in[{\alpha}_3,{\alpha}_1],\\ {\alpha}_1+{\alpha}_2, & {\alpha}_2<{\alpha}_3,\\ {\alpha}_1+{\alpha}_3, & {\alpha}_2>{\alpha}_1.\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ In the case ${\alpha}_2\in[{\alpha}_3,{\alpha}_1]$, clearly holds. If ${\alpha}_2<{\alpha}_3$, then $0<{\alpha}_1+{\alpha}_2<{\alpha}_1+{\alpha}_3$, so holds. If ${\alpha}_2>{\alpha}_1$, then $0>{\alpha}_2+{\alpha}_3>{\alpha}_1+{\alpha}_3$ and holds.
Assume ${\alpha}_1+{\alpha}_2<0$ and ${\alpha}_2+{\alpha}_3>0$. Then ${\alpha}_1<-{\alpha}_2<{\alpha}_3$, ${\alpha}_2<-{\alpha}_1$ and ${\alpha}_2>-{\alpha}_3$, so $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma\left({\alpha}_1,{\alpha}_2{\right)}\max\limits_{k=1,2}|{\alpha}_k|+{\alpha}_3= & -\max\limits_{k=1,2}(-{\alpha}_k)+{\alpha}_3=\min\limits_{k=1,2}{\alpha}_k+{\alpha}_3=\begin{cases}{\alpha}_1+{\alpha}_3, & {\alpha}_2\in[{\alpha}_1,{\alpha}_3],\\ {\alpha}_2+{\alpha}_3, & {\alpha}_2<{\alpha}_1,\\ {\alpha}_1+{\alpha}_3, & {\alpha}_2>{\alpha}_3,\end{cases} \\
{\alpha}_1+\sigma\left({\alpha}_2,{\alpha}_3{\right)}\max_{k=2,3}|{\alpha}_k|= & {\alpha}_1+\max_{k=2,3}{\alpha}_k=\begin{cases}{\alpha}_1+{\alpha}_3, & {\alpha}_2\in[{\alpha}_1,{\alpha}_3],\\ {\alpha}_1+{\alpha}_3, & {\alpha}_2<{\alpha}_1,\\ {\alpha}_1+{\alpha}_2, & {\alpha}_2>{\alpha}_3.\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ In the case ${\alpha}_2\in[{\alpha}_1,{\alpha}_3]$, clearly holds. If ${\alpha}_2<{\alpha}_1$, then $0<{\alpha}_2+{\alpha}_3<{\alpha}_1+{\alpha}_3$, so holds. If ${\alpha}_2>{\alpha}_1$, then $0>{\alpha}_1+{\alpha}_2>{\alpha}_1+{\alpha}_3$ and holds.
Finally, we study the cases when either ${\alpha}_1+{\alpha}_2=0$ or ${\alpha}_2+{\alpha}_3=0$.
Assume ${\alpha}_2=-{\alpha}_1$. If ${\alpha}_1=0={\alpha}_2$, then $$\sigma{\left(}\sigma\left({\alpha}_1,{\alpha}_2{\right)}\max_{k=1,2}|{\alpha}_k|,{\alpha}_3{\right)}=\sigma(0,{\alpha}_3)=\sigma{\left(}{\alpha}_1,\sigma\left({\alpha}_2,{\alpha}_3{\right)}\max_{k=2,3}|{\alpha}_k|{\right)}.$$ Otherwise, ${\alpha}_2=-{\alpha}_1\ne0$, and so $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq12}\sigma\left({\alpha}_1,{\alpha}_2{\right)}\max\limits_{k=1,2}|{\alpha}_k|+{\alpha}_3= & {\alpha}_2+{\alpha}_3, \\\label{eq21}
{\alpha}_1+\sigma\left({\alpha}_2,{\alpha}_3{\right)}\max_{k=2,3}|{\alpha}_k|= & -{\alpha}_2+\sigma\left({\alpha}_2,{\alpha}_3{\right)}\max_{k=2,3}|{\alpha}_k|.\end{aligned}$$ Now,
$\diamond$ if ${\alpha}_3+{\alpha}_2>0$, then $-{\alpha}_2+\sigma\left({\alpha}_2,{\alpha}_3{\right)}\max\limits_{k=2,3}|{\alpha}_k|=-{\alpha}_2+\max\limits_{k=2,3}{\alpha}_k\ge 0$. If ${\alpha}_3>{\alpha}_2$ then holds. Otherwise, expression is $0$ and so $$\sigma{\left(}{\alpha}_1,\sigma\left({\alpha}_2,{\alpha}_3{\right)}\max_{k=2,3}|{\alpha}_k|{\right)}=\operatorname{sign}{\left(}{\alpha}_2+\sigma\left({\alpha}_2,{\alpha}_3{\right)}\max_{k=2,3}|{\alpha}_k|{\right)}=\operatorname{sign}{\alpha}_2,$$ and so holds.
$\diamond$ if ${\alpha}_3+{\alpha}_2<0$, then $-{\alpha}_2-\max\limits_{k=2,3}|{\alpha}_k|=-{\alpha}_2+\min\limits_{k=2,3}{\alpha}_k\le 0$. If ${\alpha}_3<{\alpha}_2$ then holds. Otherwise, expression is $0$ and so $$\sigma{\left(}{\alpha}_1,\sigma\left({\alpha}_2,{\alpha}_3{\right)}\max_{k=2,3}|{\alpha}_k|{\right)}=\operatorname{sign}{\left(}{\alpha}_2+\sigma\left({\alpha}_2,{\alpha}_3{\right)}\max_{k=2,3}|{\alpha}_k|{\right)}=\operatorname{sign}{\alpha}_2,$$ and so holds.
$\diamond$ If ${\alpha}_3+{\alpha}_2=0$, then expression is $0$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma{\left(}\sigma\left({\alpha}_1,{\alpha}_2{\right)}\max_{k=1,2}|{\alpha}_k|,{\alpha}_3{\right)}= & \operatorname{sign}{\left(}-\sigma\left({\alpha}_1,{\alpha}_2{\right)}\max_{k=1,2}|{\alpha}_k|+{\alpha}_3{\right)}=\operatorname{sign}{\left(}-\operatorname{sign}({\alpha}_2)|{\alpha}_2|-{\alpha}_2{\right)}\\ = & -\operatorname{sign}{\alpha}_2 .\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, $$\sigma{\left(}{\alpha}_1,\sigma\left({\alpha}_2,{\alpha}_3{\right)}\max_{k=2,3}|{\alpha}_k|{\right)}=\operatorname{sign}({\alpha}_1-{\alpha}_2)=-\operatorname{sign}{\alpha}_2 .$$ Therefore, holds.
Assume ${\alpha}_2=-{\alpha}_3$. If ${\alpha}_2=0={\alpha}_3$, then $$\sigma{\left(}\sigma\left({\alpha}_1,{\alpha}_2{\right)}\max_{k=1,2}|{\alpha}_k|,{\alpha}_3{\right)}=\sigma({\alpha}_1,0)=\sigma{\left(}{\alpha}_1,\sigma\left({\alpha}_2,{\alpha}_3{\right)}\max_{k=2,3}|{\alpha}_k|{\right)}.$$ Otherwise, ${\alpha}_2=-{\alpha}_3\ne0$, and so $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq12b}\sigma\left({\alpha}_1,{\alpha}_2{\right)}\max\limits_{k=1,2}|{\alpha}_k|+{\alpha}_3= & \sigma\left({\alpha}_1,{\alpha}_2{\right)}\max\limits_{k=1,2}|{\alpha}_k|-{\alpha}_2, \\\notag
{\alpha}_1+\sigma\left({\alpha}_2,{\alpha}_3{\right)}\max_{k=2,3}|{\alpha}_k|= & {\alpha}_1+{\alpha}_2.\end{aligned}$$ Now,
$\diamond$ if ${\alpha}_1+{\alpha}_2>0$, then $\sigma\left({\alpha}_1,{\alpha}_2{\right)}\max\limits_{k=1,2}|{\alpha}_k|-{\alpha}_2=\max\limits_{k=1,2}{\alpha}_k-{\alpha}_2\ge0$. If ${\alpha}_1>{\alpha}_2$ then holds. Otherwise, expression is $0$ and so $$\sigma{\left(}\sigma\left({\alpha}_1,{\alpha}_2{\right)}\max_{k=1,2}|{\alpha}_k|,{\alpha}_3{\right)}= \operatorname{sign}{\left(}-\sigma\left({\alpha}_1,{\alpha}_2{\right)}\max_{k=1,2}|{\alpha}_k|+{\alpha}_3{\right)}= -\operatorname{sign}{\alpha}_2 ,$$ and so holds.
$\diamond$ if ${\alpha}_1+{\alpha}_2<0$, then $\sigma\left({\alpha}_1,{\alpha}_2{\right)}\max\limits_{k=1,2}|{\alpha}_k|-{\alpha}_2=\min\limits_{k=2,3}{\alpha}_k-{\alpha}_2\le 0$. If ${\alpha}_3<{\alpha}_2$ then holds. Otherwise, expression is $0$ and so $$\sigma{\left(}\sigma\left({\alpha}_1,{\alpha}_2{\right)}\max_{k=1,2}|{\alpha}_k|,{\alpha}_3{\right)}= \operatorname{sign}{\left(}-\sigma\left({\alpha}_1,{\alpha}_2{\right)}\max_{k=1,2}|{\alpha}_k|+{\alpha}_3{\right)}= -\operatorname{sign}{\alpha}_2 ,$$ and so holds.
Therefore, holds and this concludes the proof.
Let $(X_k,\Delta_k)$, $k=1,\dots,n$, be a family of displacement spaces. We define the *product displacement of $\Delta_1,\dots,\Delta_n$* as $$\prod_{k=1}^nX_k=((X_1\times X_2)\times\cdots)\times X_{n-1})\times X_n.$$
Observe that, thanks to Lemma \[lemasd\], we can omit the parentheses in the previous definition.
Displacement vector spaces {#vector}
--------------------------
First we recall same definitions related to partially ordered sets.
An *ordered vector space* $(V,\preceq)$ is a real vector space $V$ and a partial order ${\preceq}$ in $V$ such that, for $x,y,z,\in V$ and ${\lambda}\in{{\mathbb R}}^+$,
- $x{\preceq}y{\Rightarrow}x+z{\preceq}x+z$,
- $x{\preceq}y{\Rightarrow}{\lambda}x{\preceq}{\lambda}y$.
Consider an ordered vector space $(V,\preceq)$. We write $x\prec y$ if $x\preceq y$ and $x\ne y$ and we define the intervals in $V$ in the usual way: $$(a,b):=\{x\in V\ :\ a\prec x\prec b\},\quad [a,b]:=\{x\in V\ :\ a\preceq x\preceq b\},$$ for $a,b\in V$. The same kind of definition applies to the intervals $[a,b)$ and $(a,b]$. Let $\mathcal C_\preceq$ be the set of all non degenerate intervals in $V$ and the empty set.
The topology generated by the open intervals $(a,b)$ is called the *order topology* [@lynn Sec. 39], which we denote by $\tau_\preceq$.
In ${{\mathbb R}}^n$, the order topology coincides with the usual Euclidean topology.
A *displacement vector space* is a triple $(V,\preceq,\Delta)$ where $(V,\preceq)$ is an ordered vector space and $(V,\Delta)$ a displacement space compatible with the partial order of $V$ in the following sense,
1. $\Delta(x,y)\le\Delta(x,z)$ for every $x,y,z\in V$ such that $y\preceq z$.
Once again, the issue about whether the product of displacement vector spaces is a displacement vector space arises naturally. The next result provides an answer to that question.
The product of displacement vector spaces is a displacement vector space with the product displacement and the product order.
Let $(V_k,\preceq_k,\Delta_k)$, $k=1,2$, be two displacement vector spaces. We define the partial order $$(x_1,x_2)\preceq(y_1,y_2):\iff x_k\preceq_ky_k,\ k=1,2;$$ for every $x_k,y_k\in V_k$; $k=1,2$. Now, for every $(x_1,x_2)$, $(y_1,y_2)$, $(z_1,z_2)\in V$ such that $(y_1,y_2)\preceq(z_1,z_2)$, $(y_1,y_2)\ne(z_1,z_2)$, let ${\alpha}_k:=\Delta_k(x_k,y_k)$, ${\beta}_k:=\Delta_k(x_k,z_k)$, $k=1,2$ and $p:={\left(}{\alpha}_1,{\alpha}_2{\right)}$, $q:={\left(}{\beta}_1,{\beta}_2{\right)}$.
Since $(y_1,y_2)\preceq(z_1,z_2)$, using (H3), we have that ${\alpha}_k \le{\beta}_k$ and thus ${\alpha}_1+{\alpha}_2\le{\beta}_1+{\beta}_2$, that is, $e_1^TRp\le e_1^TRq$. It is for this reason that, if ${\alpha}_1+{\alpha}_2\ne0$ or ${\beta}_1+{\beta}_2\ne0$, we have that $\sigma(p)\le\sigma(q)$. If ${\alpha}_1+{\alpha}_2={\beta}_1+{\beta}_2=0$, we have that ${\alpha}_2=-{\alpha}_1$ and ${\beta}_2=-{\beta}_1$ and thus $\sigma(p)=\operatorname{sign}({\alpha}_2)\le\operatorname{sign}({\beta}_2)=\sigma(q)$, so $\sigma(p)\le\sigma(q)$ holds in any case.
If $\sigma(p)\le0\le\sigma(q)$, clearly $$\label{iddelta}\Delta((x_k),(y_k))=\sigma(p)\max\limits_{k=1,2}|{\alpha}_k |\le\sigma(q)\max\limits_{k=1,2}|{\beta}_k |=\Delta((x_k),(z_k)).$$
If $0\le\sigma(p)\le\sigma(q)$, since $\sigma(p)\ge0$, we have that $e_1^TR^Tp={\alpha}_1+{\alpha}_2\ge0$, case in which ${\alpha}_1\ge-{\alpha}_2$ and ${\alpha}_2\ge-{\alpha}_1$ and, therefore, $\max\limits_{k=1,2}{\alpha}_k=\max\limits_{k=1,2}|{\alpha}_k|$ and is satisfied.
If $\sigma(p)\le\sigma(q)\le 0$, for to hold, it is enough to see that $$\label{revmax}\max\limits_{k=1,2}|{\alpha}_k |\ge\max\limits_{k=1,2}|{\beta}_k |.$$ Now, $\sigma(q)\le0$ implies that ${\beta}_1+{\beta}_2\le0$, so ${\alpha}_1+{\alpha}_2\le0$. In this case ${\beta}_1\le-{\beta}_2$, ${\beta}_2\le-{\beta}_1$ and, therefore $\max\limits_{k=1,2}|{\beta}_k |=\max\limits_{k=1,2}(-{\beta}_k)$. The same holds for the ${\alpha}_k$, so $\max\limits_{k=1,2}|{\alpha}_k |=\max\limits_{k=1,2}(-{\alpha}_k)$. Since $-{\alpha}_k\ge-{\beta}_k$, we have that is satisfied.
In what follows we will write $\Delta_x(y):=\Delta(x,y)$.
\[count\] Consider a displacement vector space $({{\mathbb R}},\le,\Delta)$ where $\le$ is the usual order of ${{\mathbb R}}$. Then $(\mathbb R,\tau_\Delta)$ is a second-countable topological space. As a consequence, if $(V,\preceq,\Delta)$ is the product of $({{\mathbb R}},\le,\Delta_k)$, $k=1,\dots,n$, then it is a second-countable topological space.
First of all, given $x\in\mathbb R$ and $r\in\mathbb R^+$, we can express $B_\Delta(x,r)$ as follows: $$B_\Delta(x,r)=\{y\in\mathbb R: |\Delta(x,y)|<r\}=\{y\in\mathbb R: -r<\Delta_x(y)<r\}=\Delta_x^{-1}((-r,r)).$$ Moreover, since $\Delta_x$ is non-decreasing, due to the bounded completeness of $({{\mathbb R}},\le)$, $B_\Delta(x,r)$ is an interval (not necessarily open) with extremal points $$a=\inf\{t\in\mathbb R: -r<\Delta_x(t)\},\quad b=\sup\{t\in\mathbb R: \Delta_x(t)<r\}.$$
Let $U\in\tau_\Delta$. Then $U=\bigcup_{x\in U} B_\Delta(x,r_x)$ by definition of open set, and so, since each $B_\Delta(x,r_x)$ is a interval, we can write $$U=\bigcup_{i\in\mathcal I}(a_i,b_i)\cup\bigcup_{j\in\mathcal J}[a_j,b_j)\cup\bigcup_{k\in\mathcal K}(a_k,b_k]\cup\bigcup_{l\in\mathcal L}[a_l,b_l],$$ for some sets of indices $\mathcal I,\mathcal J,\mathcal K,\mathcal L$, where each of those intervals is an open ball of $\tau_\Delta$.
The set $A=\bigcup_{i\in\mathcal I}(a_i,b_i)$ is an open set in $({{\mathbb R}},\tau_u)$ and therefore second countable, which implies that $A$ is Lindelöf [@hart p. 182] and, hence, there exists a countable subcover of $A$, i.e., $A=\bigcup_{n\in\mathbb N}(a_{i_n},b_{i_n})$ for some set of indices $\{i_n\}_{n\in{{\mathbb N}}}$. Similarly, the set $B=\bigcup_{j\in\mathcal J}[a_j,b_j)$ is an open set in the Sorgenfrey line, which is hereditarily Lindelöf [@hart p. 79], and so $B=\bigcup_{n\in\mathbb N}[a_{j_n},b_{j_n})$ for some set of indices $\{j_n\}_{n\in{{\mathbb N}}}$. Analogously, the set $C=\bigcup_{k\in\mathcal K}(a_k,b_k]$ can be expressed as $\bigcup_{n\in\mathbb N}(a_{k_n},b_{k_n}]$. Finally, the set $D=\bigcup_{l\in\mathcal L}[a_l,b_l]$ can be decomposed as $D=\bigcup_{l\in\mathcal L}[a_l,b_l)\cup\bigcup_{l\in\mathcal L}(a_l,b_l]$, and once again, arguing as for the sets $B$ and $C$, we obtain that $$D=\bigcup_{l_n\in{{\mathbb N}}}[a_{l_n},b_{l_n})\cup\bigcup_{l_n'\in{{\mathbb N}}}(a_{l_n'},b_{l_n'}],$$ for some sets of indices $\{l_n\}_{n\in{{\mathbb N}}}$, $\{l_n'\}_{n\in{{\mathbb N}}}$. However, by the definition of $D$ we have that $a_l,b_l\in D$ for all $l\in\mathcal L$, so $$D=\bigcup_{l_n\in{{\mathbb N}}}[a_{l_n},b_{l_n}]\cup\bigcup_{l_n'\in{{\mathbb N}}}[a_{l_n'},b_{l_n'}],$$ which is clearly countable. Therefore, $U$ is the countable union of open balls, i.e., $\tau_\Delta$ is a second-countable space.
\[bigrem\] This last proof relies heavily on the fact that the real number system, with its usual order, is bounded complete, that is, that every bounded (in the order sense) set has an infimum and a supremum. Observe also that the interaction between the topologies $\tau_u$ and $\tau_\Delta$ plays a mayor role in the proof. Finally, hypothesis (H2) is necessary in this result through Lemma \[lemob\], which implies that open $\Delta$–balls are, indeed, open.
Related to this last point, the authors would like to comment on the fact that hypothesis (H2) will not be necessary in the particular setting of the theory that follows. However, it provides –as illustrated before with Lemmas \[lemob\] and \[count\]– some information about the relation between $\tau_\Delta$ and the displacement calculus we are yet to develop. In particular, Lemma \[count\] shows that, for the real line, every $\tau_u$–Borel $\sigma$–algebra is, in particular, a $\tau_\Delta$–Borel $\sigma$–algebra so the integration theory that will follow, when considering (H2), will be valid for the open sets of $\tau_\Delta$. Nevertheless, while studying specific problems –like differential equations– we will deal, in general, with intervals or other elements of the $\tau_u$–Borel $\sigma$–algebra without worrying about the specifics of the $\tau_\Delta$ topology, which, as said before, makes (H2) unneeded.
Displacement measure theory on the real line {#measure}
============================================
In this section we aim to define a measure based on a displacement structure of the real line. In order to do so, we first define a measure based on a point $z\in {{\mathbb R}}$ and, from there, we construct a measure that does not depend on any point.
The $\Delta_z$–content
----------------------
Consider a displacement vector space $({{\mathbb R}},\leq,\Delta)$ and $z\in {{\mathbb R}}$. We define the *$\Delta_z$–content* $C_z:\mathcal C_\le\to{{\mathbb R}}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
C_z(\emptyset):=0,\quad C_z((a,b)) & :=\Delta_z(b^-)-\Delta_z(a^+),\quad C_z([a,b)):=\Delta_z(b^-)-\Delta_z(a^-),\\
C_z((a,b]) &: =\Delta_z(b^+)-\Delta_z(a^+),\quad C_z([a,b]):=\Delta_z(b^+)-\Delta_z(a^-).\end{aligned}$$ The map $\mu^*_z:\mathcal P(V)\to{{\mathbb R}}$ given by $$\mu_z^*(A):=\inf\left\{\sum_{n=1}^\infty C_z(I_n): A\subset \bigcup_{i=1}^\infty I_n, I_n\in\mathcal C_\le \right\}$$ is an outer measure –see [@Munroe Theorem 11.3].
Note that hypothesis (H3) ensures that $C_z(I)\ge 0$ for all $I\in\mathcal C_\le,$ and therefore $\mu_z^*(A)\ge 0$ for all $A\in\mathcal P(V).$
\[lemR\] Consider $({{\mathbb R}},\le,\Delta)$. For all $I\in\mathcal C_\le,$ $\mu_z^*(I)=C_z(I)$.
First of all, note that, given $I\in\mathcal{C}_\le\backslash\{\emptyset\}$ and $c\in \mathring{I}$ (in $\tau_\le$) one can express $I$ as the disjoint union of two intervals, $I_1, I_2,$ each of which has $c$ one of its extremal points. In that case, it is clear that $C_z(I)=C_z(I_1)+C_z(I_2)$.
Now, by definition, it is clear that $\mu^*_z(I)\leq C_z(I).$ Let us show that $\mu^*_z(I)\geq C_z(I).$ First, consider a cover of $I$, $\{I_n\}_{{n\in{{\mathbb N}}}}\subset \mathcal C_\le$, such that $I=\bigcup_{n=1}^\infty I_n$ and that $I_i\cap I_j=\emptyset$ if $i\not=j.$ In that case, $C_z(I)=\sum_{n=1}^\infty C_z(I_n).$ Now, for any cover of $I$, $\{I_n\}_{{n\in{{\mathbb N}}}}\subset \mathcal C_\le$, we can obtain a new cover $\{\widehat I_n\}_{{n\in{{\mathbb N}}}}$ satisfying the previous assumption (by taking the intersection of every set in the cover with $I$ and/or taking the difference between two consecutive sets of the cover). Moreover, it is easy to check that, in that case, $$\sum_{{n\in{{\mathbb N}}}}C_z(I_n)\geq \sum_{{n\in{{\mathbb N}}}}C_z(\widehat I_n).$$ Therefore, $C_z(I)\leq \sum_{{n\in{{\mathbb N}}}}C_z(I_n)$ for any cover $\{I_n\}_{{n\in{{\mathbb N}}}}\subset\mathcal C_\le.$ Hence, $\mu^*_z(I)\geq C_z(I).$
We say that $A\subset {{\mathbb R}}$ is *$\mu_z^*$-measurable* if $$\mu_z^*(E)=\mu_z^*(E\cap A)+\mu_z^*(E\setminus A)\quad\mbox{for all }E\subset{{\mathbb R}}.$$ We note by $\mathcal{M}_z$ the set of measurable sets.
Note that, as usual, the restriction of $\mu_z^*$ to $\mathcal{M}_z$ is a positive measure. We shall denote this restriction as $\mu_z:\mathcal M_z\to{{\mathbb R}}.$
Consider $({{\mathbb R}},\le,\Delta)$. For all $z\in {{\mathbb R}}$, $\mu_z$ is a $\tau_u$-Borel measure, i.e., $\mathcal M_z$ contains all the elements of $\tau_u.$
To see this we rewrite sufficient condition M-IV in [@Munroe Chapter II, Section 13] as
- For every $A,B\subset {{\mathbb R}}$ such that $d_u(A,B)>0$ we have $\mu_z^*(A\cup B)=\mu_z^*(A)+\mu_z^*(B)$.
where $d_u$ denotes the usual Euclidean metric map of ${{\mathbb R}}.$ One can easily check that, under this condition [@Munroe Corollary 13.2.1], $\mu_z$ is a $\tau_u$-Borel measure. Hence, we need to show that (C) holds.
Let $A,B\subset{{\mathbb R}}$ such that $d_u(A,B)>0.$ It is clear that if $\mu_z(A)=+\infty$ or $\mu_z(B)=+\infty$, (C) holds trivially. Therefore, assume that $\mu_z(A)$, $\mu_z(B)<+\infty.$ In that case, the inequality $\mu_z(A\cup B)\leq\mu_z(A)+\mu_z(B)$ follows from the properties of $\mu_z$. In order to see the reverse inequality, let $\{I_k\}_{k\in{{\mathbb N}}}\subset\mathcal C_\le$ be a cover of $A\cup B$. For each $k\in {{\mathbb N}},$ there exists $n_k\in{{\mathbb N}}$ such that ${\delta}(I_k)/n_k<d_u(A,B)$, where ${\delta}(I_k)$ is the diameter of $I_k$. Hence, we can divide each $I_k,$ $k\in{{\mathbb N}},$ into $n_k$ subintervals of length less or equal than ${\delta}(I_k)/n_k.$ As a result, we obtain a new cover of $A\cup B,$ say $\{{\widetilde}I_m\}_{m\in{{\mathbb N}}}$, satisfying $$\sum_{m\in{{\mathbb N}}} C_z({\widetilde}I_m)\leq \sum_{k\in{{\mathbb N}}} C_z(I_k).$$ Note that, for each $m\in{{\mathbb N}},$ either ${\widetilde}I_m\cap A\not=\emptyset$ or ${\widetilde}I_m\cap B\not=\emptyset,$ since the definition of ${\widetilde}I_m$ yields that ${\delta}({\widetilde}I_m)<d_u(A,B).$ Therefore, there exist $\{{\widetilde}I_\alpha\}_{\alpha\in{{\mathbb N}}},\{{\widetilde}I_\beta\}_{\beta\in{{\mathbb N}}}\subset\{{\widetilde}I_m\}_{m\in{{\mathbb N}}}$ such that they cover $A$ and $B$, respectively. Hence, $$\sum_{\alpha\in{{\mathbb N}}} C_z({\widetilde}I_\alpha)+\sum_{\beta\in{{\mathbb N}}}C_z({\widetilde}I_\beta)\leq\sum_{m\in{{\mathbb N}}} C_z({\widetilde}I_m)\leq \sum_{k\in{{\mathbb N}}} C_z(I_k).$$ The desired inequality now follows.
Observe that, as a consequence of Lemmas \[lemob\] and \[count\], $\mu_z$ is $\tau_{\Delta}$–Borel since every open ball of $\tau_{\Delta}$ can be written as an interval. Moreover, $\mu_z$ is a regular $\tau_u$–Borel measure according to [@rudin Theorem 2.18].
The $\Delta$–measure over ${{\mathbb R}}$
-----------------------------------------
We will now consider the particular case of a non–degenerate interval $[a,b]\subset{{\mathbb R}}$ and, using the measures $\mu_z$, defined for every $z\in [a,b]$, we will construct a measure $\mu$ which does not depend on a specific point $z$. In order to achieve that, we will consider $([a,b],\le,\Delta)$ satisfying hypotheses (H1)–(H3), and two extra conditions
1. There exists ${\gamma}:[a,b]^2\to[1,+\infty)$ such that
1. For all $x,y,z,\overline z\in [a,b]$, we have $$|\Delta(z,x)-\Delta(z,y)|\le \gamma(z,\overline z) |\Delta(\overline z,x)-\Delta(\overline z,y)|.$$
2. For all $z\in [a,b]$, $$\lim_{\overline z\to z}\gamma(z,\overline z)=\lim_{\overline z\to z}\gamma(\overline z,z)=1.$$
3. For all $z\in [a,b]$, the maps $\gamma(z,\cdot),\gamma(\cdot,z):[a,b]\to[1,+\infty)$ are bounded.
2. For every $x\in [a,b],$ $\Delta_x(\cdot)$ is left–continuous (with the usual topology of ${{\mathbb R}}$) at $x$.
Note that under hypothesis (H3), it is enough to check that there exists ${\gamma}:[a,b]^2\to[1,+\infty)$ such that, for all $x,y\in [a,b]$, $x<y$, we have $$\Delta(z,y)-\Delta(z,x)\le \gamma(z,\overline z) (\Delta(\overline z,y)-\Delta(\overline z,x)),$$ to confirm that (H4) holds.
Although hypothesis (H5) might seem harmless, when combined with (H4), we obtain left–continuity everywhere.
\[plc\] Consider $([a,b],\le, \Delta)$ satisfying hypotheses and . Then, for each $x\in[a,b]$, the map $\Delta_x:[a,b]\to{{\mathbb R}}$ is left–continuous everywhere (with the usual topology of ${{\mathbb R}}$).
Let ${\varepsilon}>0$, $x,y\in[a,b]$ and $\gamma$ be the map on (H4). Let us show that $\Delta_x$ is left–continuous at $y$. Since, by (H5), $\Delta_y$ is left–continuous at $y$, there exists $\delta>0$ such that $$0<y-s<\delta\implies |\Delta_y(y)-\Delta_y(s)|<\frac{{\varepsilon}}{\gamma(x,y)}.$$ Then, for $0<y-s<\delta$, hypothesis (H4) implies that $$|\Delta_x(y)-\Delta_x(s)|\le \gamma(x,y)|\Delta_y(y)-\Delta_y(s)|<\varepsilon,$$ that is, $\Delta_x$ is left–continuous at $y.$
From the previous result we derive that each measure $\mu_z:\mathcal M_z\to {{\mathbb R}}$, $z\in [a,b]$, is a Lebesgue–Stieltjes measure as $\Delta_z$ is non–decreasing and left–continuous everywhere.
Let us denote by ${{\mathcal B}}$ the Borel $\sigma$–algebra (for $\tau_u$) and by $\mathcal{M}:=\bigcap_{z\in[a,b]} \mathcal M_z$. Note that $\mathcal M\not=\emptyset$ as $\mathcal B\subset\mathcal M_z$ for all $z\in[a,b]$. Moreover, $\mathcal M$ is a $\sigma$–algebra as it is an arbitrary intersection of $\sigma$–algebras. Hence, we can consider the restriction of $\mu_z$, $z\in[a,b]$, to $\mathcal M$. We will still denote it by $\mu_z$. A set $A\in{{\mathcal M}}$ is said to be *$\Delta$–measurable*.
Recall that a function $f:([a,b],{{\mathcal M}})\to({{\mathbb R}},{{\mathcal B}})$ is measurable if and only if $f^{-1}(U)\in \mathcal M$ for all $U\in{{\mathcal B}}$. We will say in that case that $f$ is *$\Delta$–measurable*. This notation will be consistent with the $\Delta$–measure that we will introduce later. Observe that $f$ is $\Delta$–measurable if and only $f:([a,b],{{\mathcal M}}_z)\to({{\mathbb R}},{{\mathcal B}})$ is measurable for all $z\in[a,b]$.
Hypothesis (H4) allows us to understand the relationship between the different possible measures on ${{\mathcal M}}$ depending on $z\in [a,b]$. In particular, given $z,\overline z\in [a,b]$, it is clear that $C_z(I)\leq\gamma(z,\overline z) C_{\overline z}(I)$ and, as a consequence, $$\mu_z(A)\leq \gamma(z,\overline z)\mu_{\overline z}(A),\quad\mbox{for all }A\in \mathcal M.$$ Thus, we have that $\mu_{\overline z}\ll \mu_z\ll\mu_{\overline z}$ for all $z,\overline{z}\in X$. Hence, if a property holds $\mu_z$–everywhere, it holds $\mu_{x}$–everywhere for all $x\in[a,b]$. Again, in order to simplify the notation, we will say that such property holds *$\Delta$–everywhere*. Analogously, this expression will be consistent with the $\Delta$–measure presented later in this paper.
Then, given $z,\overline z\in[a,b]$ we can apply the Radon–Nikodým Theorem [@Ben] to these measures, so there exist two $\Delta$–measurable functions $h_{{\overline}z,z}, h_{z,{\overline}z}:[a,b]\rightarrow[0,\infty)$ such that $$\mu_{\overline z}(A)=\int_A h_{{\overline}z,z}\operatorname{d}\mu_{ z},\quad \mu_z(A)=\int_A h_{z,{\overline}z}\operatorname{d}\mu_{\overline z},\quad \mbox{for all }A\in \mathcal M.$$ From these expressions it is clear that $h_{z,z}=1$ and $h_{\widetilde z,z}(t)=h_{\widetilde z,{\overline}z}(t)h_{{\overline}z, z}(t)$ for $\Delta$–almost all (or simply $\Delta$–a.a.) $t\in[a,b]$ and $z,{\overline}z,\widetilde z\in[a,b]$. Hence, it follows that $h_{z,{\overline}z}(t)=1/h_{{\overline}z,z}(t)$ for $\Delta$–a.a. $t\in[a,b]$. Also note that for $z,{\overline}z\in[a,b]$, $h_{z,{\overline}z}\ne0$ $\Delta$–everywhere. Moreover, for $z,{\overline}z\in [a,b]$, we have that $$\label{hbound}
\frac{1}{\gamma({\overline}z,z)}\le h_{z,{\overline}z}(t)\le\gamma(z,{\overline}z),\quad \Delta\mbox{--a.a. }t\in[a,b].$$ Indeed, assume that $h_{z,{\overline}z}(t)\le\gamma(z,{\overline}z),$ $\Delta\mbox{--a.a. }t\in[a,b]$ does not hold. Then, there would be $A\in\mathcal M$ such that $\mu_{{\overline}z}(A)>0$ and $$h_{z,{\overline}z}(t)>\gamma(z,{\overline}z),\quad \mbox{for all }t\in A.$$ Hence, we would have that $$\mu_z(A)=\int_A h_{z,{\overline}z}(s)\operatorname{d}\mu_{{\overline}z}(s)> \int_A \gamma(z,{\overline}z)\operatorname{d}\mu_z(s)=\gamma(z,{\overline}z)\mu_{{\overline}z},$$ which is a contradiction. Analogously, one can prove the other inequality. Combining with (H4, ii), we have that $$1=\lim_{z\to {\overline}z}\frac{1}{\gamma({\overline}z,z)}\le \lim_{z\to {\overline}z}h_{z,{\overline}z}(t)\le\lim_{z\to {\overline}z}\gamma(z,{\overline}z)=1,\quad \Delta\mbox{--a.a. }t\in[a,b],$$ and so $$\label{hlim}
\lim_{z\to {\overline}z}h_{z,{\overline}z}(t)=1,\quad \Delta\mbox{--a.a. }t\in[a,b].$$
\[hmbound\] Given $\overline z\in[a,b]$, it follows from and hypothesis (H4, iii) that there exist $m_{{\overline}z},M_{{\overline}z}\in {{\mathbb R}}^+$ such that $$m_{{\overline}z}\le h_{s,\overline z}(s)\le M_{{\overline}z},\quad \mbox{for all }s\in[a,b].$$
We will now focus on the definition of the $\Delta$–measure which is based on the integrals defined by the measures $\mu_z$, $z\in[a,b]$. We first will show that a bigger family of maps is well–defined.
Let ${\alpha}:([a,b],{{\mathcal B}})\to([a,b],{{\mathcal B}})$ be a measurable map and $z\in[a,b]$. Then the map $\mu_{\alpha}:\mathcal M\to [0,+\infty]$ given by $$\mu_{\alpha}(A)=\int_A h_{{\alpha}(t),z}(t)\operatorname{d}\mu_z(t),\quad A\in\mathcal M,$$ is well–defined, that is, $h(\cdot,{\alpha}(\cdot)):=h_{{\alpha}(\cdot),z}(\cdot)$ is $\Delta$–measurable.
In order to show that $h(\cdot,{\alpha}(\cdot))$ is $\mu_z$–measurable, let us define the map $h_z:[a,b]\times[a,b]\to[0,+\infty)$ given by $h_z(t,x)=h_{x,z}(t)$. We will first show that $h_z$ is a $\Delta_z$–Carathéodory in the sense of [@FP2016 Definition 7.1] adapted to our notation, that is:
1. for every $x\in[a,b]$, $h_z(\cdot,x)$ is $\Delta$–measurable;
2. for $\Delta$–a.a. $t\in[a,b]$, $h_z(t,\cdot)$ is continuous on $[a,b]$;
3. for every $r>0$, there exists $f_r\in \mathcal L^1_{\Delta_z}([a,b))$ such that $$|h_z(t,x)|\le f_r(t)\quad \mbox{for $\Delta$--a.a. }t\in[a,b),\mbox{ and for all }x\in X, |x|\le r.$$
Note that condition (i) is trivial as, by definition, $h_z(\cdot,x)=h_{x,z}(\cdot)$ is $\Delta$–measurable. As for condition (ii), let $x\in[a,b]$. It follows directly from that $$\lim_{{\overline}z\to x}h_{{\overline}z,z}(t)=\lim_{{\overline}z\to x}h_{{\overline}z,x}(t)h_{x,z}(t)=h_{x,z}(t),\quad \mbox{for }\Delta\mbox{--a.a. }t\in[a,b],$$ that is, $h_z(t,\cdot)$ is continuous on $[a,b]$ for $\Delta$–a.a. $t\in[a,b].$ Finally, (H4, iii) guarantees the existence of $M>0$ such that $|\gamma(x,z)|<M$ for all $x\in [a,b]$. Hence, it follows from that $$|h_z(t,x)|\le M,\quad \mbox{for $\Delta$--a.a. }t\in[a,b],\mbox{ for all }x\in X,\ |x|\leq r.$$ Hence, (iii) holds, i.e., the map $h_z$ is $\Delta_z$–Carathéodory. Now, as it is shown in [@FP2016 Lemma 7.2], the composition of a $\Delta_z$–Carathéodory function with a Borel measurable function is $\Delta$–measurable, and so the result follows.
\[dmeasure\] Let ${\alpha}:([a,b],{{\mathcal B}})\to([a,b],{{\mathcal B}})$ be a measurable map and $z\in[a,b]$. Consider the map $\mu_{\alpha}:\mathcal M\to [0,+\infty)$ given by $$\mu_{\alpha}(A)=\int_A h_{{\alpha}(t),z}(t)\operatorname{d}\mu_z(t),\quad A\in\mathcal M.$$ The map $\mu_{{\alpha}}$ is a measure, [@rudin Theorem 1.29], and it will received the name of *$\Delta_{{\alpha}}$–measure*. In particular, when ${\alpha}$ is the identity map, it will be called the *$\Delta$–measure*, and it will be denoted by $\mu\equiv \mu_{\operatorname{Id}}$.
The following result shows that $\mu_{{\alpha}}$ does not depend on a specific point of $[a,b]$, as we intended.
Let ${\alpha}:([a,b],{{\mathcal B}})\to([a,b],{{\mathcal B}})$ be a measurable map. Then the map $\mu_{\alpha}:\mathcal M\to [0,+\infty]$ in Definition \[dmeasure\] is independent of the choice of $z\in[a,b]$.
Let $z,{\overline}z\in[a,b]$, $z\not={\overline}z$. Then, we have that $h_{{\alpha}(s),{\overline}z}(s)=h_{{\alpha}(s),z}(s)h_{z,{\overline}z}(s)$ for $\Delta$–a.a. $s\in[a,b]$ and so $$\int_A h_{{\alpha}(s),z}(s)\operatorname{d}\mu_z(s)=\int_A h_{{\alpha}(s),z}(s)h_{z,{\overline}z}(s)\operatorname{d}\mu_{{\overline}z}(s)=\int_Ah_{{\alpha}(s),{\overline}z}(s) \operatorname{d}\mu_{{\overline}z}(s).$$
Observe that the notation we have used so far is consistent with the definition of the $\Delta$–measure $\mu$. Indeed, for example, $f$ is *$\Delta$–measurable* if and only if it is *$\mu$–measurable*; as $\mu$ and $\mu_z$, $z\in[a,b]$ are both defined, after due restriction of $\mu_z$ to ${{\mathcal M}}$, over the same $\sigma$–algebra. Also, by definition, we have that $\mu\ll \mu_z$. The converse is also true thanks to (H4, iii). Indeed, for $z\in[a,b]$, there exists $K>0$ such that $|\gamma(z,x)|<K$ for all $x\in[a,b]$. Hence, implies that $$\mu(A)=\int_A h_{{\alpha}(s),z}(s)\operatorname{d}\mu_z(s)\ge \int_A\frac{1}{\gamma(z,{\alpha}(s))}\operatorname{d}\mu_z(s)\ge\int_A\frac{1}{K}\operatorname{d}\mu_z(s)=\frac{\mu_z(A)}{K}\ge 0.$$ Thus, if $\mu(A)=0$ then $\mu_z(A)=0$, i.e., $\mu_z\ll\mu$ for all $z\in[a,b]$. Therefore, a property holds *$\Delta$–everywhere* if and only if it holds *$\mu$–everywhere*.
As a final comment, note that $\mu:\mathcal M\to[0,+\infty]$ is a Borel measure that assigns finite measure to bounded sets. As it can be seen in [@athreya Chapter 1, Section 3, Subsection 2], this means that it can be thought of as a Lebesgue–Stieltjes measure, $\mu_g$, given by $$\label{gmeas}
\mu_g([c,d))=g(d)-g(c),\quad c,d\in[a,b],\ c<d,$$ for the nondecreasing and left–continuous function $g:[a,b]\to{{\mathbb R}}$ defined as $$\label{gfunc}
g(a)=0,\quad g(t)=\mu([a,t)).$$
Let $X\subset[a,b]$, $X\subset \mathcal M$. We define the *integral of a $\mu_{\alpha}$–measurable function $f$ over $X$ with respect to the path of $\Delta$–measures ${\alpha}$* as $$\int_X f\operatorname{d}\mu_{\alpha}:=\int_X f(t)h_{{\alpha}(t),z}(t)\operatorname{d}\mu_z(t),$$ provided the integral exists. This definition does not depend on the $z$ chosen. As usual, we define the set of *$\mu_{\alpha}$–integrable functions* on $X$ as $$\mathcal L^1_{\mu_{\alpha}}(X):=\left\{f:X\to{{\mathbb R}}: f\mbox{ is }\mu_{\alpha}\mbox{--measurable},\ \int_X |f|\operatorname{d}\mu_{\alpha}<+\infty \right\}.$$
Now, if we consider the restrictions of $\mu_z$, $z\in[a,b]$, to $\mathcal M$, we can define the set of *$\Delta$–integrable functions over $X\in\mathcal M$* as $$\mathcal L_\Delta^1(X):=\left\{f:X\to{{\mathbb R}}: f\mbox{ is }\Delta\mbox{--measurable},\, \int_X |f|\operatorname{d}\mu_z<+\infty,\mbox{ for all } z\in[a,b]\right\}.$$ We now study the relationship between $\mathcal L_\Delta^1(X)$ and $\mathcal L_\mu^1(X)$. First of all, recall that, in this framework, $\mu$ and $\mu_z$ are defined over the same $\sigma$–algebra $\mathcal M$, so the concepts of $\mu$–measurable and $\Delta$–measurable are equivalent. Let $f\in\mathcal L_\Delta^1(X)$ and $z\in[a,b]$. Hypothesis (H4, iii) implies that there exist $M>0$ such that $|\gamma(x,z)|<M$ for all $x\in[a,b]$. Thus, using we have $$\int_{X}|f|\operatorname{d}\mu=\int|f(s)h_{s,z}(s)|\operatorname{d}\mu_z(s)\le\int|f(s)\gamma(s,z)|\operatorname{d}\mu_z(s)\le
M\int|f(s)|\operatorname{d}\mu_z(s)<+\infty,$$ that is, $f\in\mathcal L_\mu^1(X)$. Conversely, let $f\in\mathcal L_\mu^1(X)$ and $z\in[a,b]$. Again, hypothesis (H4, iii) implies that there exists $K>0$ such that $|\gamma(z,x)|<K$ for all $x\in[a,b]$. Hence $$\int_{X}|f|\operatorname{d}\mu=\int|f(s)h_{s,z}(s)|\operatorname{d}\mu_z(s)\ge\int\left|\frac{f(s)}{\gamma(z,s)}\right|\operatorname{d}\mu_z(s)\ge
\frac{1}{K}\int|f(s)|\operatorname{d}\mu_z(s),$$ so $\int_X|f|\operatorname{d}\mu_z<+\infty$. Since $z\in[a,b]$ was arbitrary, we have that $f\in L_\Delta^1(X)$. That is, $\mathcal L_\mu^1(X)=\mathcal L_\Delta^1(X)$.
Finally, we study the behavior of $\mu$ over some interesting sets related to the map $\Delta$. These sets will be fundamental in the definition of the $\Delta$–derivative. Let us define the sets $C_\Delta$ and $D_\Delta$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cdelta}
C_\Delta:= &\{x\in [a,b]:\Delta(x,\cdot)=0\mbox{ in }(x-{\varepsilon},x+{\varepsilon})\mbox{ for some }{\varepsilon}\in{{\mathbb R}}^+\},\\\label{ddelta}
D_\Delta:= &\{x\in[a,b]: \Delta(x,x^+)\not=0\}.\notag\end{aligned}$$
Note that $C_\Delta$ is, by definition, an open set in the usual topology of $[a,b]$. Therefore, it can be rewritten uniquely as the disjoint countable union of open intervals, say $C_\Delta=\bigcup_{n\in{{\mathbb N}}} (a_n,b_n)$. We define $N_\Delta$ as $$\label{ndelta}
N_\Delta:=\{a_n,b_n:n\in{{\mathbb N}}\}\setminus D_\Delta.$$
\[cdrel\] Let $g$ be as in and let $C_g$ and $D_g$ be as in , that is, $$\begin{aligned}
C_g:= & \{x\in[a,b]: g\mbox{ is constant on }(x-{\varepsilon},x+{\varepsilon})\mbox{ for some }{\varepsilon}\in{{\mathbb R}}^+\},\\ D_g:= & \{x\in[a,b]:g(x^+)-g(x)>0\}.\end{aligned}$$ Then $C_\Delta=C_g$ and $D_\Delta=D_g$ for the Stieltjes displacement given by $g$.
For the equality $D_\Delta=D_g$, it is enough to note that for any $t\in[a,b]$ we have that $$g(t^+)-g(t)=\lim_{s\to t^+}\int_{[t,s)}h_{r,t}(r)\operatorname{d}\mu_t(r)=\int_{\{t\}}h_{r,t}(r)\operatorname{d}\mu_t(r)=h_{t,t}(t)(\Delta_t(t^+)-\Delta_t(t))=\Delta_t(t^+).$$
Now, in order to see that $C_\Delta=C_g$, let $t\in C_\Delta$. Then $\Delta_t(\cdot)=0$ on $(t-{\varepsilon},t+{\varepsilon})$ for some ${\varepsilon}\in{{\mathbb R}}^+$. Let $r,s\in(t-{\varepsilon},t+{\varepsilon})$, $r<s$. Then, by Remark \[hmbound\], we have that $$0\le g(s)-g(r)=\mu([r,s))=\int_{[r,s)}h_{x,t}(x)\operatorname{d}\mu_t(x)\le M_t\mu_t([r,s))=0,$$ since $[r,s)\subset (t-{\varepsilon},t+{\varepsilon})$. Thus $g$ is constant on $(t-{\varepsilon},t+{\varepsilon})$. Conversely, if $t\in C_g$, then $g$ is constant on $(t-{\varepsilon},t+{\varepsilon})$ for some ${\varepsilon}\in{{\mathbb R}}^+$. Let $r,s\in(t-{\varepsilon},t+{\varepsilon})$, $r<s$. Then, Remark \[hmbound\] implies that $$0\le m_t(\Delta_t(s)-\Delta_t(r))=m_t\mu_t([r,s))\le \int_{[r,s)}h_{x,t}(x)\operatorname{d}\mu_t(x)=g(s)-g(r)=0.$$ That is, $\Delta_t$ is constant on $(t-{\varepsilon},t+{\varepsilon})$, and since $\Delta_t(t)=0$, it follows that $t\in D_\Delta$.
The first consequence of Proposition \[cdrel\] is that $D_\Delta$ is at most countable since it is the set of discontinuities of a monotone function. Further properties can be obtain from Propositions 2.5 and 2.6 in [@PoRo].
\[corcdrel\] Let $C_\Delta$ and $N_\Delta$ be as in and , respectively. Then $\mu(C_\Delta)=\mu(N_\Delta)=0$.
\[nullm\] As a consequence of Corollary \[corcdrel\], a property holds $\mu$–a.e. in $E$ if it holds on $E\setminus O_\Delta$ with $$O_\Delta:=C_\Delta\cup N_\Delta.$$ Moreover, note that, if $x\not\in O_\Delta$, then $\Delta_z(y)\not=\Delta_z(x)$, for all $y,z\in[a,b]$, $x\not= y$.
Displacement derivatives {#derivatives}
========================
We now introduce the concept of displacement derivative of a function defined over a compact interval endowed with a displacement structure in the real line equipped with the usual topology. We chose this setting because some nice properties, such as the linearity of the derivative, are quite helpful in order to study the relationship between the displacement derivative and its integral.
\[deriv\] Let $([a,b],\le,\Delta)$ satisfy . The *derivative with respect to the displacement $\Delta$* (or *$\Delta$–derivative*) of a function $f:[a,b]\to {{\mathbb R}}$ at a point $x\in [a,b]\setminus O_{\Delta}$ is defined as follows, provided that the corresponding limits exist: $$\begin{aligned}
f^{\Delta}(x) =\begin{dcases}\lim_{y \to x}\frac{f(y)-f(x)}{\Delta(x,y)}, & x\not\in D_{\Delta},\\\lim_{y \to x^+}\frac{f(y)-f(x)}{\Delta(x,y)}, & x\in D_{\Delta}.\end{dcases}\end{aligned}$$
Observe that this definition does not require $\Delta$ to be symmetric. Furthermore, this definition is a more general setting than $g$–derivatives (and therefore time–scales, as pointed out in [@PoRo]).
Finally, one might think that the natural choice for the definition of the derivative would be by taking the limit in the $\tau_\Delta$ topology. However, if $x\not\in D_\Delta$, $x$ is a continuity point of $\Delta_x$, and it is easy to see that such limit can be translated into a limit in the usual topology, which is far more convenient for the theory that follows. It is at this point that the importance of (H1) arises as commented in Remark \[h1r\]. Without this hypothesis we would not be able to assure that the balls of center $x$ and any radii are nonempty, so considering the $\tau_\Delta$ limit might not be well–defined.
Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
-------------------------------
In this section we will make explicit the relationship between the $\Delta$–derivative of $f$ and its integral with respect to the $\Delta$–measure. In particular, our first goal now is to show that, for $f\in\mathcal L_{\mu}^1([a,b])$ and $F(x)=\int_{[a,x)} f(s)\operatorname{d}\mu$, the equality $F^{\Delta}(x)=f(x)$ holds for $\mu$–a.a. $x\in[a,b]$.
In order to do so, we will need to guarantee the differentiability of monotone functions. For that matter, we will use the following two results that are direct consequences of Lemmas 4.2 and 4.3 in [@PoRo] adapted to our framework.
\[lem1\] Let $([a,b],\le,\Delta)$ satisfy , ${\alpha}>0$, $z\in[a,b]$, $f:[a,b]\to{{\mathbb R}}$, $P=\{x_0,x_1,\dots, x_n\}$ be a partition of $[a,b]$ and $S$ be a nonempty subset of $\{1,2,\dots,n\}$. If $f(a)\le f(b)$ and $$\frac{f(x_k)-f(x_{k-1})}{\Delta_z(x_k)-\Delta_z(x_{k-1})}<-{\alpha}\quad\mbox{for each }k\in S,$$ then $$\sum_{k=1}^n |f(x_k)-f(x_{k-1})|>|f(b)-f(a)|+{\alpha}L$$ where $L=\sum_{k\in S}(\Delta_z(x_k)-\Delta_z(x_{k-1}))$. The same result is true if $f(a)\ge f(b)$ and $$\frac{f(x_k)-f(x_{k-1})}{\Delta_z(x_k)-\Delta_z(x_{k-1})}>{\alpha}\quad\mbox{for each }k\in S.$$
\[lem2\] Let $([a,b],\le,\Delta)$ satisfy and $H\subset (a,b)$ be such that for a given $z\in[a,b]$, there is ${\varepsilon}_z\in{{\mathbb R}}^+$ such that $\mu_z^*(H)={\varepsilon}_z$. Then
1. If $\mathcal I$ is any collection of open subintervals of $[a,b]$ that covers $H$, then there exists a finite disjoint collection $\{ I_1,I_2,\dots,I_N\}$ of $\mathcal I$ such that $$\sum_{k=1}^N\mu_z(I_k)>\frac{{\varepsilon}_z}{3}.$$
2. If $P$ is a finite subset of $[a,b]\setminus D_\Delta$ and $\mathcal I$ is any collection of open subintervals of $[a,b]$ that covers $H\setminus P$, then there exists a finite disjoint collection $\{ I_1,I_2,\dots,I_N\}$ of $\mathcal I$ such that $$\sum_{k=1}^N\mu_z(I_k)>\frac{{\varepsilon}_z}{4}.$$
We can now prove the $\Delta$–differentiability of monotone functions.
\[mondif\] Let $([a,b],\le,\Delta)$ satisfy and let $f:[a,b]\to{{\mathbb R}}$ be a nondecreasing function. Then there exists $N\subset [a,b]$ such that $\mu(N)=0$ and $$f^\Delta(x)\mbox{ exists for all }x\in[a,b)\setminus N.$$
First of all, note that, since $f$ is nondecreasing, f is regulated so if $x\in [a,b)\cap D_\Delta$, $f^\Delta(x)$ exists as $$f^\Delta(x)=\frac{f(x^+)-f(x)}{\Delta(x,x^+)}.$$ Moreover, since either $a\in D_\Delta$ or $\mu(\{a\})=0$, it is enough to show that $f^\Delta(x)$ exists for all $x\in (a,b)\setminus(D_\Delta\cup O_\Delta)$ according to Remark \[nullm\].
Let $x\in(a,b)\setminus(D_\Delta\cup O_\Delta)$. Since $\Delta_x(y)\not= \Delta_x(x)$ for any $y\not=x$, we can define the Dini upper and lower $\Delta$–derivatives as $$\overline{f^\Delta}(x):=\limsup_{y\to x}\frac{f(y)-f(x)}{\Delta(x,y)},\quad \underline{f^\Delta}(x):=\liminf_{y\to x}\frac{f(y)-f(x)}{\Delta(x,y)}.$$ Furthermore, since $f$ is monotone, it has a countable number of discontinuity points, so $$\mu(\{x\in(a,b)\setminus(D_\Delta\cup O_\Delta): f \mbox{ is discontinuous at }x\})=0.$$ Thus, it is enough to show that the sets $$\begin{aligned}
F:= &\{x\in(a,b)\setminus(D_\Delta\cup O_\Delta): f \mbox{ continuous at }x,\ \overline{f^\Delta}(x)>\underline{f^\Delta}(x) \},\\
E: = & \{x\in(a,b)\setminus(D_\Delta\cup O_\Delta):\overline{f^\Delta}(x)=+\infty\}, \end{aligned}$$ both have $\Delta$–measure zero (and therefore $\mu$–measure zero).
We first show that $F$ is a null $\Delta$–measure set. Fix $z\in(a,b)\setminus(D_\Delta\cup O_\Delta)$ and define the Dini upper and lower $\Delta_z$–derivatives as $$\overline{f^\Delta_z}(x):=\limsup_{y\to x}\frac{f(y)-f(x)}{\Delta_z(y)-\Delta_z(x)},\quad \underline{f^\Delta_z}(x):=\liminf_{y\to x}\frac{f(y)-f(x)}{\Delta_z(y)-\Delta_z(x)}.$$ Note that (H4) implies that $$\begin{aligned}
\overline{f^\Delta}(x)&=\limsup_{y\to x}\frac{f(y)-f(x)}{\Delta_x(y)-\Delta_x(x)}=\limsup_{y\to x}\frac{f(y)-f(x)}{\Delta_x(y)-\Delta_x(x)}\frac{\Delta_z(y)-\Delta_z(x)}{\Delta_z(y)-\Delta_z(x)}\nonumber\\
&=\overline{f^\Delta_z}(x)\limsup_{y\to x}\frac{\Delta_x(y)-\Delta_x(x)}{\Delta_z(y)-\Delta_z(x)}\leq \overline{f^\Delta_z}(x)\gamma(z,x), \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ and, analogously, $\underline{f^\Delta}(x)\ge(\gamma(x,z))^{-1}\underline{f^\Delta_z}(x)$. Hence, $F$ is a subset of $$F_z:=\{(a,b)\setminus(D_\Delta\cup O_\Delta):f \mbox{ continuous at }x,\ \overline{f^\Delta_z}(x)\gamma(z,x)\gamma(x,z)>\underline{f^\Delta_z}(x)\}.$$ Now, since $\gamma:[a,b]^2\to[1,+\infty)$, it is clear that $F_z\subset \bigcup_{n\in{{\mathbb N}}} F_n$ with $$F_n:=\{(a,b)\setminus(D_\Delta\cup O_\Delta):f \mbox{ continuous at }x,\ \overline{f^\Delta_z}(x) n>\underline{f^\Delta_z}(x)\},$$ so it is suffices to show that $\mu_z(F_n)=0$ for all $n\in{{\mathbb N}}$. By contradiction, assume that there exists $n_0\in {{\mathbb N}}$ such that $\mu_z(F_{n_0})>0$. In that case, we rewrite $F_{n_0}$ as the countable union of sets $F_{n_0,r,s}$ with $r,s\in{{\mathbb Q}}$, $r>s>0$, and $$F_{n_0,r,s}:=\left\{x\in F_{n_0}:\overline{f^\Delta_z}(x) n_0>r>s>\underline{f^\Delta_z}(x) \right\}.$$ Thus there exist $r_0,s_0\in{{\mathbb Q}}$, $r_0>s_0>0$, and ${\varepsilon}\in{{\mathbb R}}^+$ such that $\mu_z(F_{n_0,r_0,s_0})={\varepsilon}$. Now let ${\alpha}=\frac{r_0-s_0}{2n_0}$, ${\beta}=\frac{r_0+s_0}{2n_0}$ and $h(x)=f(x)-\beta \Delta_z(x)$. Then $F_{n_0,r_0,s_0}=H$ with $$H:=\left\{x\in F_{n_0}:\overline{h^\Delta_z}(x)>{\alpha},\ \underline{h^\Delta_z}(x)<-{\alpha}\right\}.$$
Note that $h$ is of bounded variation as it is the difference of two nondecreasing functions. Therefore, the set $$V(h):=\left\{\sum_P |h(x_k)-h(x_{k-1})|: P\mbox{ is a partition of }[a,b],\ P\cap D_\Delta\subset \{a,b\}\right\}$$ is bounded from above. Let $T:=\sup V(h)$. Since ${\alpha},{\varepsilon}\in{{\mathbb R}}^+$, there exists a partition $P=\{x_0,x_1,\dots,n-1\}$ of $[a,b]$ such that $x_k\not\in D_\Delta$ for any $k\in\{1,2,\dots,n-1\}$ and $$\sum_{k=1}^n |h(x_k)-h(x_{k-1})|> T-\frac{{\alpha}{\varepsilon}}{4}.$$ Let $x\in H\setminus P$. Then $x\in (x_{k-1},x_k)$ for some $k\in\{1,2,\dots,n\}$. Since $\overline{h^\Delta_z}(x)>{\alpha}$, $\underline{h^\Delta_z}(x)<-{\alpha}$ and both $\Delta_z$ and $h$ are continuous at $x$, we can choose $a_x$, $b_x\in (x_{k-1},x_k)\setminus D_\Delta$ such that $a_x<x<b_x$ and $$\frac{h(b_x)-h(a_x)}{\Delta_z(b_x)-\Delta_z(a_x)}<-{\alpha}\quad\mbox{or}\quad >{\alpha},$$ depending on whether $h(x_{k-1})\geq h(x_k)$ or $h(x_{k-1})< h(x_k)$. Note that $\mu_z(a_x,b_x)=\Delta_z(b_x)-\Delta_z(a_x).$ By doing this, we obtain a collection of open subintervals of $(a,b)$, $\mathcal I=\{(a_x,b_x): x\in H\setminus\{x_1,x_2,\dots,x_{n-1}\}\}$, that covers $H\setminus\{x_1,x_2,\dots,x_{n-1}\}$ and $\{x_1,x_2,\dots,x_{n-1}\}\cap D_\Delta=\emptyset$. Then Proposition \[lem2\] ensures the existence of a finite disjoint subcollection $\{I_1,I_2,\dots,I_N\}$ of $\mathcal I$ such that $$\sum_{k=1}^N \mu_z(I_k)>\frac{{\varepsilon}}{4}.$$ Now let $Q=\{y_0,y_1,\dots, y_q\}$ be the partition of $[a,b]$ determined by the points of $P$ and the endpoints of the intervals $I_1,I_2,\dots,I_N$. For each $[x_{k-1},x_k]$ containing at least one of the intervals in $\{I_1,I_2,\dots,I_N\}$, Proposition \[lem1\] yields that $$\sum_{[y_{i-1},y_i]\subset [x_{k-1},x_k]}|h(y_i)-h(y_{i-1})|>|h(x_k)-h(x_{k-1})|+{\alpha}L_k,$$ where the summation is taken over the closed intervals determined by $Q$ contained in $[x_{k-1},x_k]$ and $L_k$ is the sum of the $\Delta_z$–measures of those intervals $I_1,I_2,\dots,I_N$ contained in $[x_{k-1},x_k]$. By taking the previous inequality and summing over $k$, we obtain $$\sum_{k=1}^q|h(y_k)-h(y_{k-1})|>\sum_{k=1}^n|h(y_k)-h(y_{k-1})|+{\alpha}\sum_{k=1}^N \mu_z(I_k)>T,$$ which contradicts the definition of $T$.
Hence, all that is left to do is to show that the set $E$ has $\Delta$–measure zero. If we fix $z\in[a,b]$, then for all $x\in(a,b)\setminus(D_\Delta\cup O_\Delta)$ we have the inequality $\overline{f^\Delta}(x)\le\overline{f^\Delta_z}(x)\gamma(z,x)$ and so $E\subset E_z$ with $$E_z:=\{x\in(a,b)\setminus(D_\Delta\cup O_\Delta): \overline{f^\Delta_z}(x)=+\infty\}.$$ Thus, it is enough to show that $\mu_z(E_z)=0$. Suppose this is not the case. Then there is ${\varepsilon}\in {{\mathbb R}}^+$ such that $\mu_z(E_z)={\varepsilon}.$ Let $M\in {{\mathbb R}}^+$ be such that $M>3(f(b)-f(a))/{\varepsilon}$. If $x\in E_z$ then $\overline{f^\Delta_z}(x)>M$ and there exist $a_x,b_x\in(a,b)\setminus D_\Delta$ such that $a_x<x<b_x$ and $$\frac{f(b_x)-f(a_x)}{\Delta_z(b_x)-\Delta_z(a_x)}>M.$$ Thus, $\{(a_x,b_x):x\in E_z\}$ covers $E_z$. Proposition \[lem2\] guarantees the existence of a finite disjoint subcollection $\{I_1,I_2,\dots,I_N\}$ such that $$\sum_{k=1}^N \mu_z(I_k)>\frac{{\varepsilon}}{3}.$$ Let $I_k=(a_k,b_k)$ for each $k$. Then $\mu_z(I_k)=\Delta_z(b_k)-\Delta_z(a_k)$ as each $I_k\subset (a,b)\setminus(D_\Delta\cup O_\Delta)$. Now, since $f$ is nondecreasing we have $$f(b)-f(a)\ge \sum_{k=1}^N (f(b_k)-f(a_k))>M \sum_{k=1}^N(\Delta_z(b_k)-\Delta_z(a_k))>f(b)-f(a),$$ which is a contradiction.
Finally, a key result for the proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus is Fubini’s Theorem on almost everywhere differentiation of series for $\Delta$–derivatives. We now state such result but we omit its proof as it is essentially the one provided in [@Stro] but using Proposition \[mondif\] instead of the classical Lebesgue Differentiation Theorem.
\[fub\] Let $([a,b],\le,\Delta)$ satisfy and let $(f_n)_{n\in{{\mathbb N}}}$ be a sequence of real–valued nondecreasing functions on $[a,b]$. If the series $$f(x)=\sum_{n=1}^\infty f_n(x)\quad\mbox{converges for all } x\in [a,b],$$ then $$f^\Delta(x)=\sum_{n=1}^\infty f_n^\Delta(x)\quad\mbox{for } \mu\mbox{--a.a. } x\in [a,b].$$
We now have all the necessary tools to state and prove the first part of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus for $\Delta$–derivatives.
\[FTC\] Let $f\in\mathcal L_{\mu}^1([a,b))$ and $F(x)=$ $\int_{[a,x)} f(s)\operatorname{d}\mu$. Then $F^{\Delta}(x)=f(x)$ for $\mu$–a.a. $x\in[a,b]$.
Without loss of generality we can assume that $f\ge 0$, as the general case can be reduced to the difference of two such functions. Since $f\ge 0$, the function $F$ is nondecreasing and therefore $\Delta$–differentiable. We consider several cases separately:
[*Case 1:*]{} If $f=\chi_{({\alpha},{\beta})}$, where $({\alpha},{\beta}) \subset (a,b)$, ${\alpha}, {\beta}\not \in D_\Delta$, then it is obvious that $F^\Delta(x)=0=\chi_{({\alpha},{\beta})}(x)$ for $x\not\in({\alpha},{\beta}).$ Now, if $x\in({\alpha},{\beta})$ let $H:[a,b]\to{{\mathbb R}}$ be defined as $$H(t)=\int_{[a,t)}h_{s,x}(s)\operatorname{d}\mu_x(s),$$ where the integral is to be understood as a Lebesgue–Stieltjes integral. Note that $H$ is well–defined. Then $$\begin{aligned}
F^\Delta(x)&=\lim_{y \to x^+}\frac{F(y)-F(x)}{\Delta(x,y)}=\lim_{y \to x^+}\frac{\int_{[a,y)}f\operatorname{d}\mu-\int_{[a,x)}f\operatorname{d}\mu}{\Delta(x,y)}\\
&=\lim_{y \to x^+}\frac{\int_{[a,y)}h_{s,x}(s)f(s)\operatorname{d}\mu_x(s)-\int_{[a,x)}h_{s,x}(s)f(s)\operatorname{d}\mu_x(s)}{\Delta(x,y)}\\
&=\lim_{y \to x^+}\frac{\int_{[x,y)}h_{s,x}(s)f(s)\operatorname{d}\mu_x(s)}{\Delta(x,y)}=\lim_{y \to x^+}\frac{H(y)-H(x)}{\Delta_x(y)-\Delta_x(x)}\\
&= H'_{\Delta_x}(x)=h_{x,x}(x)=1=\chi_{({\alpha},{\beta})}(x)
\end{aligned}$$ were the equality $H'_{\Delta_x}(x)=h_{x,x}(x)$ follows from the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus for the Stieltjes derivative (see [@PoRo Theorem 2.4]).
[*Case 2:*]{} Let $M_0(\Delta)$ be the set of all step functions whose discontinuities are not in $D_\Delta$. If $f \in M_0(\Delta)$ we deduce that $F^\Delta=f$ $\mu$–a.e. from Case 1.
[*Case 3:*]{} There exists a nondecreasing sequence $(f_n)_{n=1}^{\infty}$ in $M_0(\Delta)$ such that $\lim_{n\to \infty}{f_n(x)}=f(x)$ for $\mu$–a.a. $x \in [a,b)$. We define $$F_n(x)=\int_{[a,x)}f_n \operatorname{d}\mu,$$ and then it follows from the Lebesgue’s Monotone Convergence Theorem for measures that $$F(x)=\lim_{n \to \infty}F_n(x)=F_1(x)+\sum_{k=2}^{\infty}(F_k(x)-F_{k-1}(x))$$ for all $x \in [a,b]$. Since each summand is a nondecreasing step function of $x$, we can apply Case 2 and Proposition \[fub\] to deduce that for $\mu$–a.a. $x \in [a,b)$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
F^\Delta(x) &=F_1^\Delta(x)+\sum_{k=2}^{\infty}(F_k^\Delta(x)-F_{k-1}^\Delta(x)) \\
&= f_1(x)+\sum_{k=2}^{\infty}(f_k(x)-f_{k-1}(x))=\lim_{n \to \infty}f_n(x)=f(x).
\end{aligned}$$
[*General Case.*]{} For any $f \in {\cal L}^1_\Delta([a,b))$ we have $f=f_1-f_2$, where each of the $f_i$’s is the limit of a nondecreasing sequence of step functions in the conditions of Case 3.
\[abscont\] Let $x\in{{\mathbb R}}$ and $F:[a,b]\to{{\mathbb R}}$. We shall say that $F$ is $\Delta_x$–absolutely continuous if for every $\varepsilon>0$, there exists $\delta>0$ such that for every open pairwise disjoint family of subintervals $\{(a_n,b_n)\}_{n=1}^m$ verifying $$\sum_{n=1}^m (\Delta_x(b_n)-\Delta_x(a_n))<\delta$$ implies that $$\sum_{n=1}^m |F(b_n)-F(a_n)|<\varepsilon.$$ A map $F:[a,b]\to{{\mathbb R}}^n$ is $\Delta_x$–absolutely continuous if each of its components is a $\Delta_x$–absolutely continuous function.
Note that as a consequence of (H4), if $F$ is $\Delta_x$–absolutely continuous, it is $\Delta_y$–absolutely continuous for all $y\in{{\mathbb R}}$. Hence, we will just say that $F$ is $\Delta$–absolutely continuous.
In the following results, we present some of the properties that $\Delta$–absolutely continuous functions share.
\[abscomp\] Let $f:[a,b]\to[c,d]$ be a $\Delta$–absolutely continuous function and let $f_2:[c,d]\to{{\mathbb R}}$ satisfy a Lipschitz condition on $[c,d]$. The the composition $f_2\circ f_1$ is $\Delta$–absolutely continuous on $[a,b]$.
Let $L>0$ be a Lipschitz constant for $f_2$ on $[c,d]$. Fix $x\in[a,b]$. For each ${\varepsilon}>0$ take ${\delta}>0$ in Definition \[abscont\] with ${\varepsilon}$ replaced by ${\varepsilon}/L$. Now, for an open pairwise disjoint family of subintervals $\{(a_n,b_n)\}_{n=1}^m$ such that $$\sum_{n=1}^m (\Delta_x(b_n)-\Delta_x(a_n))<\delta$$ we have that $$\sum_{n=1}^m |f_2(f_1(b_n))-f_2(f_1(a_n))|\le L \sum_{n=1}^m |f_1(b_n)-f_1(a_n)|<\varepsilon,$$ that is, $f_2\circ f_1$ is $\Delta_x$–absolutely continuous.
Let $F:[a,b]\to{{\mathbb R}}$ be a $\Delta$–absolutely continuous function. Then $F$ is of bounded variation.
To prove this result we will use the following remark: if for any $[\alpha,\beta]\subset(a,b)$ there exists $c>0$ such that the total variation of $F$ on $[\alpha,\beta]$ is bounded from above by $c$, then $F$ has bounded variation on $[a,b]$. Indeed, assume that for any $[\alpha,\beta]\subset(a,b)$ there exists $c>0$ such that the total variation of $F$ on $[\alpha,\beta]$ is bounded from above by $c$. Then for each $x\in(a,b)$, $$|F(x)|\le \left|F(x)-F{\left(}\frac{a+b}{2}{\right)}\right|+\left|F{\left(}\frac{a+b}{2}{\right)}\right|\le c+\left|F{\left(}\frac{a+b}{2}{\right)}\right|.$$ Hence, $|F|$ is bounded on $[a,b]$. Let $K>0$ be one of its bounds. For any partition $\{x_0,x_1,\dots,x_n\}$ of $[a,b]$, we have that $$\sum_{k=1}^n |F(x_k)-F(x_{k-1})|=|F(x_1)-F(a)|+\sum_{k=2}^{n-1}|F(x_k)-F(x_{k-1})|+|F(b)-F(x_{n-1})|\le 4K+c,$$ and so, our claim holds.
Now, to prove that $F$ has bounded variation on $[a,b]$, fix $x\in[a,b]$ and take ${\varepsilon}=1$ in the definition of $\Delta_x$–absolute continuity. Then, there exists $\delta>0$ such that for any family $\{(a_n,b_n)\}_{n=1}^m$ of pairwise disjoint open subintervals of $[a,b]$, $$\sum_{n=1}^m (\Delta_x(b_n)-\Delta_x(a_n))<\delta\implies \sum_{n=1}^m |F(b_n)-F(a_n)|<1.$$ Consider a partition $\{y_0,y_1,\dots,y_n\}$ of $[\Delta_x(a),\Delta_x(b)]$ such that $0<y_k-y_{k-1}<\delta$, $k=1,2,\dots, n$. Define $I_k=\Delta_x^{-1}([y_{k-1},y_k))$, $k=1,2,\dots, n$. Since $\Delta_x$ is nondecreasing, the sets $I_k$ are empty or they are intervals not necessarily open nor close. Anyway, $[a,b]=\cup I_k$, and so it is enough to show that $F$ has bounded variation on the closure of each $I_k$. We assume the nontrivial case, that is, $\overline I_k=[a_k,b_k]$, $a_k<b_k$. If $[\alpha,\beta]\subset (a_k,b_k)$ and $\{t_0,t_1,\dots,t_m\}$ is a partition of $[\alpha,\beta]$, then $$\sum_{i=1}^m {\left(}\Delta_x(t_i)-\Delta_x(t_{i-1}){\right)}=\Delta_x(\beta)-\Delta_x(\alpha)\leq y_k-y_{k-1}<\delta\implies \sum_{i=1}^m |F(x_i)-F(x_{i-1})|<1.$$ Now, our previous claim implies that $F$ has bounded variation on each $\overline I_k$, and therefore $F$ has bounded variation on $[a,b]$.
Let $F:[a,b]\to{{\mathbb R}}$ be a $\Delta$–absolutely continuous function. Then $F$ is left–continuous everywhere. Moreover, $F$ is continuous where $\Delta$ is continuous.
Fix $x\in[a,b]$ and ${\varepsilon}>0$ and let $\delta>0$ be given by the definition of $\Delta_x$–absolute continuity of $F$. Since $\Delta_x(\cdot)$ is left–continuous at $x$, there exists $\delta'>0$ such that if $0<x-t<\delta'$ then, $$\Delta_x(x)-\Delta_x(t)<\delta\implies |F(x)-F(t)|<{\varepsilon}.$$ The proof in the case $\Delta_x$ is right–continuous at $x\in[a,b)$ is analogous, and we omit it.
As a consequence of these two previous propositions, given $F$, a $\Delta$–absolutely continuous function, there exist two nondecreasing and left–continuous functions, $F_1,F_2$, such that $F=F_1-F_2$. We denote by $\mu_i:\mathcal B([a,b])\to{{\mathbb R}}$ the Lebesgue–Stieltjes measure defined by $F_i$, $i=1,2$. Recall that Lebesgue–Stieltjes measure are positive measures that are also outer regular, that is, for every $E\in\mathcal B([a,b])$, we have $$\mu_i(E)=\inf\{\mu_i(V): E\subset V, V\mbox{ open}\}.$$ A natural definition for a signed measure for the function $F$ is given by $$\mu_F(E)=\mu_1(E)-\mu_2(E),\quad E\in\mathcal B([a,b]).$$
\[fabs\] Let $F:[a,b]\to{{\mathbb R}}$ be a $\Delta$–absolutely continuous function. Then for every $x\in[a,b]$ we have $\mu_F\ll\mu.$
Let $x\in[a,b]$, ${\varepsilon}>0$ and $\delta>0$ given by the definition of $\Delta_x$–absolute continuity with ${\varepsilon}$ replace by ${\varepsilon}/2$. Fix an open set $V\subset (a,b)$ such that $\mu_x(V)<\delta.$ Without loss of generality, we can assume that $V=\bigcup_{n\in{{\mathbb N}}}(a_n,b_n)$ for a pairwise disjoint family of open intervals. For each $n\in{{\mathbb N}}$, take $a_n'\in(a_n,b_n)$. Then, for each $m\in{{\mathbb N}}$ we have $$\sum_{n=1}^m(\Delta_x(b_n)-\Delta_x(a_n'))=\mu_{x}\left(\bigcup_{n=1}^m [a_n',b_n) \right)\le \mu_x(V)<\delta,$$ and so $\sum_{n=1}^m |F(b_n)-F(a_n')|<{\varepsilon}/2.$ By letting $a_n'$ tend to $a_n$, we obtain $$\sum_{n=1}^m |F(b_n)-F(a_n^+)|\le {\varepsilon}/2,\quad \mbox{for each fixed }m\in{{\mathbb N}}.$$ Thus, if $\mu(V)<\delta$ we have that $$|\mu_F(V)|=\left|\sum_{n=1}^\infty \mu_F(a_n,b_n) \right|\le \sum_{n=1}^\infty |F(b_n)-F(a_n^+)|<{\varepsilon}.$$
Let $E\in\mathcal B([a,b])$ be such that $\mu_x(E)=0.$ By outer regularity, there exist open sets $V_n\subset [a,b]$, $n\in {{\mathbb N}}$ such that $E\subset V_n$, $n\in{{\mathbb N}}$ and $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\mu_x(V_n)=\mu_x(E),\quad \lim_{n\to\infty}\mu_i(V_n)=\mu_i(E),\quad i=1,2.$$ Now, by the first part of the proof, we know that ${\lim\limits}_{n\to\infty}\mu_F(V_n)=\mu_F(E)=0$ since ${\lim\limits}_{n\to\infty}\mu_x(V_n)=\mu_x(E)=0,$ so $$\mu_F(E)=\mu_1(E)-\mu_2(E)=\lim_{n\to\infty}\mu_F(V_n)=0.$$ Hence, $\mu_F\ll\mu_x$, and since $\mu_x\ll \mu,$ the result follows.
\[intabs\] Let $f\in\mathcal L^1_{\mu}([a,b])$ and consider $F:[a,b]\to\mathbb R$ given by $$F(x)=\int_{[a,x)}f \operatorname{d}\mu.$$ Then $F$ is $\Delta$–absolutely continuous.
It is enough to consider the case $f\ge 0$, as the general case can be expressed as a difference of two functions of this type.
Fix $\varepsilon>0$ and $x\in{{\mathbb R}}$. Hypothesis (H4, iii) implies that there exists $K>0$ such that $|\gamma(t,x)|<K$ for all $t\in[a,b]$. Since $f\in\mathcal L_{\mu}^1([a,b])=\mathcal L_{\Delta}^1([a,b]),$ there exists $\delta>0$ such that if $E\in\mathcal M$, $\mu_x(E)<\delta$, then $\int_E f\operatorname{d}\mu_x<\varepsilon/K.$ Now, noting that holds $\Delta$–almost everywhere, it holds $\mu$–almost everywhere and so $$\int_E f(s)\operatorname{d}\mu_x(s)=\int_Ef(s)h_{x,{\alpha}(s)}(s)\operatorname{d}\mu(s)\ge\int_E \frac{f(s)}{\gamma({\alpha}(s),x)}\operatorname{d}\mu(s)>\frac{1}{K}\int_Ef(s)\operatorname{d}\mu(s).$$ Thus, if $E\in\mathcal M$, $\mu_x(E)<\delta$, then $\int_E f\operatorname{d}\mu<\varepsilon.$ Consider $\{(a_n,b_n)\}_{n=1}^m$ intervals in the conditions of the definition of $\Delta_x $–absolute continuity. Take $E=\cup [a_n,b_n).$ Then $$\mu_x(E)=\sum_{n=1}^m \mu_x([a_n,b_n))=\sum_{n=1}^m (\Delta_x (b_n^-)-\Delta_x (a_n^-))=\sum_{n=1}^m (\Delta_x (b_n)-\Delta_x (a_n))<\delta,$$ implies that $$\sum_{n=1}^m |F(b_n)-F(a_n)|=\sum_{n=1}^m (F(b_n)-F(a_n))=\sum_{n=1}^m \int_{[a_n,b_n)}f\operatorname{d}\mu=\int_Ef \operatorname{d}\mu<\varepsilon.$$
\[FTC2\] A function $F:[a,b]\to{{\mathbb R}}$ is $\Delta$–absolutely continuous on $[a,b]$ if and only if the following conditions are fulfilled:
1. there exists $F^{\Delta}$ for $\mu$–a.a. $x\in[a,b]$;
2. $F^{\Delta}\in \mathcal L^1_{\mu}([a,b))$;
3. for each $x\in[a,b]$, $$F(x)=F(a)+\int_{[a,x)}F^{\Delta}\operatorname{d}\mu
.$$
Lemma \[intabs\] ensures that the three conditions are sufficient for $F$ to be $\Delta$–absolutely continuous. For the converse, consider $\mu_F$ to be the Lebesgue–Stieltjes measure defined by $F$ and let $z\in[a,b]$ be fixed. Lemma \[fabs\] and the Radon–Nykodym Theorem guarantee that there exists a measurable function $l:([a,b),{{\mathcal B}})\to({{\mathbb R}},{{\mathcal B}})$ such that $$\mu_F(E)=\int_{E}l\operatorname{d}\mu,\quad \mbox{for any Borel set }E\subset[a,b).$$ In particular, $$F(x)-F(a)=\mu_F([a,x))=\int_{[a,x)}l(s)\operatorname{d}\mu(s).$$ Theorem \[FTC\] ensures that $F^{\Delta}(s)=l(s)$ for $\mu$–a.a. $s\in[a,b)$, and so the result follows.
Looking back at the definition of the Lebesgue–Stieltjes measure $\mu_g$ in combined with Theorem \[FTC2\] we have that $F$ is $\Delta$–absolutely continuous if and only if the following conditions hold:
1. there exists $F^{\Delta}$ for $g$–a.a. $x\in[a,b]$;
2. $F^{\Delta}\in \mathcal L^1_{g}([a,b))$;
3. for each $x\in[a,b]$, $$\label{ftcdg}
F(x)=F(a)+\int_{[a,x)}F^{\Delta}\operatorname{d}g.$$
Now, condition (ii) and [@PoRo Proposition 5.2] ensure that $F$ is $g$–absolutely continuous. Thus, the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus for the Lebesgue–Stieltjes integral [@PoRo Theorem 5.4] implies that
1. there exists $F'_g$ for $g$–a.a. $x\in[a,b]$;
2. $F'_g\in \mathcal L^1_{g}([a,b))$;
3. for each $x\in[a,b]$, $$\label{ftcdg2}
F(x)=F(a)+\int_{[a,x)}F'_g\operatorname{d}g.$$
It follows now from and that $F^\Delta=F'_g$ $g$–almost everywhere in $[a,b]$, or equivalently, $\mu$–almost everywhere in $[a,b]$. As a consequence, $F$ is $\Delta$–absolutely continuous if and only if $F$ is $g$–absolutely continuous.
$\Delta$–differential equations {#equations}
===============================
In this section, we again assume $([a,b],\le,\Delta)$, $[a,b]\subset{{\mathbb R}}$, with $\Delta$ satisfying hypotheses (H1)–(H5). We want to establish existence, and when possible uniqueness, results for the $\Delta$–differential equation $$\label{ivp}
x^\Delta(t)=f(t,x(t)),\quad \mbox{for }\Delta\mbox{--a.a. }t\in[a,b),\quad x(a)=x_0,$$ with $f:[a,b]\times{{\mathbb R}}^n\to{{\mathbb R}}^n$ and $x_0\in{{\mathbb R}}^n$.
A *solution* of is a $\Delta$–absolutely continuous function $x:[a,b]\to{{\mathbb R}}^n$ such that $x(a)=x_0$ and $$x^\Delta(t)=f(t,x(t)),\quad \mbox{for }\Delta\mbox{--a.a. }t\in[a,b].$$
Let $g$ be defined as in . Then, solutions to problem are $g$–absolutely continuous functions, and so the initial value problem can be rewritten as $$\label{ivpg}
x'_g(t)=f(t,x(t)),\quad \mbox{for }g\mbox{--a.a. }t\in[a,b),\quad x(a)=x_0.$$ This problem has been studied in [@FP2016], where we can find some Picard and Cauchy–Peano type of existence results, which can be easily adapted to the context of $\Delta$–differential equations. Also, in [@PoMa], other results using lower and upper solutions have been obtained, which can be translated into this context as well.
One interesting definition that appears in both papers is the concept of $g$–Carathéodory function. This condition is necessary for most of the existence results there presented. It is easy to see that the translation of such definition to this context is the following.
Let $X$ be a nonempty subset of ${{\mathbb R}}^n$. We say that $f:[a,b]\times X\to{{\mathbb R}}^n$ is *$\mu$–Carathéodory* if it satisfies the following conditions:
1. For every $x\in X$, $f(\cdot,x)$ is $\mu$–measurable.
2. For $\mu$–a.a. $t\in[a,b]$, $f(t,\cdot)$ is continuous on $X$.
3. For every $r>0$, there exists $h_r\in\mathcal L^1_\mu([a,b))$ such that $$\|f(t,x)\|\le h_r(t)\quad\mbox{for }\mu\mbox{--a.a. }t\in[a,b),\mbox{ for all }x\in X,\ \|x\|\le r.$$
Note that we now have equivalence between the initial value $\Delta$–differential equations associated to the displacements $\Delta$ and $\Delta_g$ where $\Delta_g$ is the Stieltjes displacement in Example \[Stdisp\] for $g$ as in . Following this idea, we want to explore sufficient conditions for initial value problems with two different displacements to be equivalent. In order to do so, we introduce the following equivalence relation in the set of displacements which satisfies conditions (H1)–(H5).
In what follows, we shall assume that all the measures involved are defined over the Borel $\sigma$–algebra $\mathcal B$.
Let $\Delta,\widetilde{\Delta}:[a,b]^2\to{{\mathbb R}}$ be two displacements satisfying (H1)–(H5). We say that $\Delta$ and $\widetilde \Delta$ are *equivalent* if and only if $$\mu_\Delta\ll\mu_{\widetilde\Delta}\ll\mu_\Delta.$$
\[remg\] Note that this, indeed, defines a equivalence relation in the set of displacements over $[a,b]$ verifying (H1)–(H5). Moreover, by the definition of $g$ in , it is clear that in each of the different equivalence classes there exists a Stieltjes displacement, that is, a displacement as in Example \[Stdisp\].
We first present a series of results that can be useful in order to verify whether two displacements are equivalent or not.
\[relabs\] Let $\Delta, \widetilde\Delta:[a,b]^2\to{{\mathbb R}}$ satisfy . If $\Delta$ is equivalent to $\widetilde\Delta$, then $$C_\Delta=C_{\widetilde\Delta},\quad D_\Delta=D_{\widetilde\Delta}.$$
Let $g$ and ${\widetilde}g$ be the functions associated to the equivalence class of $\Delta$ and $\widetilde\Delta$ in Remark \[remg\]. In that case, we have that $\mu_g\ll\mu_{\widetilde g}\ll\mu_g$. Then it is enough to show that $C_g=C_{{\widetilde}g}$ and $D_g=D_{{\widetilde}g}$. Let $t\in C_g$. Then there is some ${\varepsilon}\in{{\mathbb R}}^+$ such that $g$ is constant on $(t-{\varepsilon},t+{\varepsilon})$. Now, since $\mu_g([t-{\varepsilon}/2,t+{\varepsilon}/2))=g(t+{\varepsilon}/2)-g(t-{\varepsilon}/2)=0$ we have that $$0=\mu_{{\widetilde}g}([t-{\varepsilon}/2,t+{\varepsilon}/2))={\widetilde}g(t+{\varepsilon}/2)-{\widetilde}g(t-{\varepsilon}/2),$$ i.e., ${\widetilde}g$ is constant on $(t-{\varepsilon}/2,t+{\varepsilon}/2)$ so $t\in C_{{\widetilde}g}$. The proof that $C_{{\widetilde}g}\subset C_g$ is analogous and we omit it. Similarly, if $t\in D_g$, then $0<g(t^+)-g(t)=\mu_g(\{t\})$ and since $\mu_g\ll\mu_{\widetilde g}\ll\mu_g$, it follows that $\mu_{{\widetilde}g}(\{t\})={\widetilde}g(t^+)-{\widetilde}g(t)>0$. Hence $D_g\subset D_{{\widetilde}g}$. Again, the reverse content is analogous and we omit it.
Let $\Delta,\widetilde\Delta:[a,b]^2\to{{\mathbb R}}$ satisfy . Let $g$ and ${\widetilde}g$ be the functions defined in for $\Delta$ and $\widetilde\Delta$, respectively. Then the following conditions are equivalent:
1. $g\in\mathcal{AC}_{{\widetilde}g}([a,b])$ and ${\widetilde}g\in\mathcal{AC}_{g}([a,b])$;
2. $\Delta$ and $\widetilde\Delta$ are equivalent.
Let us denote by $\Delta_g$ and $\Delta_{{\widetilde}g}$ the Stieltjes displacements defined by $g$ and ${\widetilde}g$. Assume that $g\in\mathcal{AC}_{{\widetilde}g}([a,b])$ and ${\widetilde}g\in\mathcal{AC}_{g}([a,b])$. Then $g\in\mathcal{AC}_{\Delta_{{\widetilde}g}}([a,b])$ and ${\widetilde}g\in\mathcal{AC}_{\Delta_g}([a,b])$, and so it follows from Lemma \[fabs\] that $\mu_g\ll\mu_{{\widetilde}g}\ll\mu_g$. Therefore, we have that $\mu_\Delta\ll\mu_{\widetilde\Delta}\ll\mu_\Delta$.
Conversely, assume that $\mu_\Delta\ll\mu_{\widetilde\Delta}\ll\mu_\Delta$. We will show that $\mu_{\Delta}\ll\mu_{\widetilde\Delta}$ implies that $g\in\mathcal{AC}_{{\widetilde}g}([a,b])$; the other case is analogous.
Let ${\varepsilon}\in{{\mathbb R}}^+$ be fixed. Since $\mu_\Delta\ll\mu_{\widetilde\Delta}\ll\mu_\Delta$, [@Nielsen Proposition 15.5] ensures that there exists ${\delta}\in{{\mathbb R}}^+$ such that $$\mu_\Delta(A)<{\varepsilon},\quad \mbox{for all }A\in\mathcal B\mbox{ such that }\mu_{\widetilde\Delta}(A)<{\delta}.$$ Let $\{(a_n,b_n)\}_{n=1}^m$ be an open pairwise disjoint family of subintervals such that $${\delta}>\sum_{n=1}^m ({\widetilde}g(b_n)-{\widetilde}g(a_n))=\sum_{n=1}^m \mu_{{\widetilde}g}([a_n,b_n))=\sum_{n=1}^m \mu_{\widetilde\Delta}([a_n,b_n)).$$ Since $\{(a_n,b_n)\}_{n=1}^m$ are pairwise disjoint, it follows that $\{[a_n,b_n)\}_{n=1}^m$ are pairwise disjoint as well, so $\sum_{n=1}^m \mu_{\widetilde\Delta}([a_n,b_n))=\mu_{\widetilde\Delta}(\bigcup_{n=1}^m [a_n,b_n))$. Thus, $${\varepsilon}>\mu_{\Delta}\left(\bigcup_{n=1}^m [a_n,b_n)\right)=\sum_{n=1}^m \mu_{\Delta}([a_n,b_n))=\sum_{n=1}^m \mu_{g}([a_n,b_n))=\sum_{n=1}^m (g(b_n)-g(a_n)),$$ i.e., $g$ is ${\widetilde}g$–absolutely continuous on $[a,b]$.
Sufficient conditions for a function to be absolutely continuous (with respect to the identity) can be found in [@Stro p. 331 on; exercises 2, 6, 15 g) and 17] which can be conveniently adapted to the case of $\mathcal{AC}_{g}([a,b])$.
\[relder\] Let $\widetilde\Delta:[a,b]^2\to{{\mathbb R}}$ satisfy and let $f:[a,b]\to {{\mathbb R}}$. Given any $\Delta\in[\widetilde\Delta]$, the following conditions are equivalent:
1. $f$ is $\Delta$–differentiable $\mu_\Delta$–almost everywhere;
2. $f$ is $\widetilde\Delta$–differentiable $\mu_{\widetilde\Delta}$–almost everywhere.
Furthermore, there exists $h:[a,b]\to[0,+\infty)$ such that $$f^{\widetilde \Delta}(x)=f^{\Delta}(x)h(x),\quad \mu_{\widetilde\Delta}\mbox{--a.a. }x\in[a,b].$$
Let $\Delta\in[\widetilde\Delta]$ and let $g$ and $\widetilde g$ be the functions defined as in for $\Delta$ and $\widetilde \Delta$, respectively. Define $h:[a,b]\to{{\mathbb R}}$ as $$h(x)=\begin{cases}
\displaystyle\lim_{y\to x}\frac{\Delta(x,y)}{\widetilde\Delta(x,y)},&x\not\in D_{\widetilde \Delta},\\
\displaystyle\lim_{y\to x^+}\frac{\Delta(x,y)}{\widetilde\Delta(x,y)},&x\in D_{\widetilde \Delta}.
\end{cases}$$ Let us show that $h$ is well–defined $\mu_{\widetilde \Delta}$–almost everywhere. We know that $g$ is $g$–absolutely continuous. Therefore, $$1=g'_g(t)=g^\Delta(t),\quad \mu_\Delta\mbox{--a.a. }t\in[a,b].$$ Analogously, $1=\widetilde g^{\widetilde\Delta}$. Moreover, since $g$ is monotone, its $\widetilde g$–derivative exists $\mu_{\widetilde\Delta}$–everywhere. Hence, for $x\not \in D_\Delta$ such that $g'_{\widetilde g}(x)$ exists, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{y\to x}\frac{\Delta(x,y)}{\widetilde\Delta(x,y)}&=\lim_{y\to x}\frac{\Delta(x,y)}{\widetilde\Delta(x,y)}\frac{g^\Delta(x)}{\widetilde g^{\widetilde \Delta}(x)}=\lim_{y\to x}\frac{\Delta(x,y)}{\widetilde\Delta(x,y)}\frac{g(y)-g(x)}{\Delta(x,y)}\frac{\widetilde g(y)-\widetilde g(x)}{\widetilde\Delta(x,y)}\nonumber\\
&=\lim_{y\to x}\frac{g(y)-g(x)}{\widetilde g(y)-\widetilde g(x)}=g'_{\widetilde g}(x),\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ that is, $h$ is well–defined. The case where $x\in D_\Delta$ is analogous. Thus $h$ is well–defined $\mu_{\widetilde\Delta}$–everywhere.
Once again, it is enough to show only one implication thanks to the symmetry of the equivalence relation. Suppose that $f$ is $\Delta$–differentiable $\mu_\Delta$–almost everywhere. Let $E$ denote the set where $f$ is differentiable and $h$ is well defined. Note that $\mu_\Delta(E)=\mu_\Delta([a,b])$. Then, if $x\in E\setminus D_\Delta$, we have $$\lim_{y\to x}\frac{f(y)-f(x)}{\widetilde\Delta(x,y)}=\lim_{y\to x}\frac{f(y)-f(x)}{\widetilde\Delta(x,y)}\frac{\Delta(x,y)}{\Delta(x,y)}=\lim_{y\to x}\frac{f(y)-f(x)}{\Delta(x,y)}\lim_{y\to x}\frac{\Delta(x,y)}{\widetilde\Delta(x,y)}=f^\Delta(x) h(x).$$ Hence, $f^{\widetilde \Delta}(x)$ exists and $f^{\widetilde\Delta}(x)=f^\Delta(x)h(x)$. The case where $x\in E\cap D_\Delta$ is analogous but considering the right hand side limits and we omit it.
It is easy to check that the function $h$ is the statement in Theorem \[relder\] is in fact de Radon–Nykodym derivative of $\mu_\Delta$ with respect to $\mu_{\widetilde \Delta}$. Indeed, by Theorem \[relabs\] we know that $\mu_\Delta\ll\mu_{\widetilde\Delta}$, so the Radon–Nykodym Theorem ensures the existence of a measurable function $k:[a,b]\to[0,+\infty)$ such that $$\mu_{\Delta}(A)=\int_A k(s)\operatorname{d}\mu_{\widetilde \Delta}(s),\quad A\in\mathcal B.$$ Note that since $\mu_\Delta$ is finite over compact sets, we have that $k\in\mathcal L^1_{\mu_{\widetilde\Delta}}([a,b))$: $$\int_{[a,b)}|k(s)|\operatorname{d}\mu_{\widetilde\Delta}(s)=\int_{[a,b)}k(s)\operatorname{d}\mu_{\widetilde\Delta}(s)=\mu_\Delta([a,b))<+\infty.$$ Define $K(t)=\int_{[a,t)}k(s)\operatorname{d}\mu_{\widetilde\Delta}(s)$, $t\in[a,b]$. Then Theorem \[FTC\] yields that $K^{\widetilde \Delta}(t)=k(t)$ for $\mu_{\widetilde\Delta}$–a.a. $t\in[a,b].$ Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
k(t)&=K^{\widetilde\Delta}(t)=\lim_{s\to t^+}\frac{K(s)-K(t)}{\widetilde\Delta(t,s)}=\lim_{s\to t^+}\frac{\mu_\Delta([a,s))-\mu_\Delta([a,t))}{\widetilde\Delta(t,s)}=\lim_{s\to t^+}\frac{g(t)-g(s))}{\widetilde\Delta(t,s)}\nonumber\\
&=\lim_{s\to t^+}\frac{g(t)-g(s)}{\Delta(t,s)}\frac{\Delta(t,s)}{\widetilde\Delta(t,s)}=1\cdot\lim_{s\to t^+}\frac{\Delta(t,s)}{\widetilde\Delta(t,s)}=h(t).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
The following result follows directly from Theorem \[relder\], and shows the relationship between the initial value problems for the different displacements in a given equivalence class.
\[relder2\] Let $\widetilde\Delta:[a,b]^2\to{{\mathbb R}}$ satisfy and let $\Delta\in[\widetilde\Delta]$. Consider the following two initial value problems: $$\label{ivpdeltt}
x^{\Delta}(t)=f(t,x(t)),\quad\mu_{\Delta}\mbox{--a.a. }t\in[a,b],\quad x(a)=x_0,$$ and $$\label{ivpdelt}
x^{\widetilde \Delta}(t)=f(t,x(t))\cdot h(t),\quad\mu_{\widetilde\Delta}\mbox{--a.a. }t\in[a,b],\quad x(a)=x_0,$$ where $h$ is the Radon–Nykodym derivative of $\mu_\Delta$ with respect to $\mu_{\widetilde \Delta}$. Then, problems and are equivalent.
Note that here we are considering the measures $\mu_\Delta$ and $\mu_{\widetilde\Delta}$ restricted to the intersection of their respective $\sigma$–algebras. Bearing that in mind, and denoting by $f_h(t,x)=f(t,x)h(t)$, it is easy to check that $f$ in problem is $\mu_\Delta$–Carathéodory if and only if $f_h$ in problem is $\mu_{\widetilde\Delta}$–Carathéodory. Indeed conditions (i) in each case are equivalent since $h$ is the Radon–Nykodym derivative of $\mu_\Delta$ with respect to $\mu_{\widetilde \Delta}$ and therefore measurable. Condition (ii) remains the same in both cases. Finally, for condition (iii), remember that, for any measurable $\psi:[a,b]\to{{\mathbb R}}$, we have $$\int_{[a,b)}|\psi(s)|\operatorname{d}\mu_\Delta(s)=\int_{[a,b)}|\psi(s)|h(s)\operatorname{d}\mu_{\widetilde\Delta}(s),$$ so $\psi\in\mathcal L^1_{\mu_{\Delta}}([a,b))$ if and only if $\psi\cdot h\in\mathcal L^1_{\mu_{\widetilde\Delta}}([a,b))$.
As problems and are equivalent, and so are the Carathéodory conditions for the maps defining them, the results in [@FP2016; @PoMa] that are applicable to one of the problems are applicable to the other one.
Conclusions
===========
In the work behind we have established a theory of Calculus based on the concept of displacement. We have studied the associated topology and measure and proved some general results regarding their interaction. We have also defined new concepts such as the integral with respect to a path of measures or the displacement derivative, studied their properties and proved a Fundamental Theorem of Calculus that relates them. Finally, we have set up a framework in order to study displacement equations. We have proved they can be transformed into Stieltjes differential equations and so the results in [@FP2016; @PoMa] can be applied.
We have also left some open problems in our way. First of all, conditions (H1) and (H2) may be weakened further, of substituted by a different set of axioms in order to achieve the same results. It will also be interesting to analyze how these relate to other concepts that generalize the notion of metric space, such as those derived from the conditions in [@Lorenz; @Roldan].
To explore how to weaken conditions (H3)–(H5) would be an even more important task. Although very general in nature, they bound displacements to Stieltjes derivatives in a stringent way, such as is shown in Proposition \[plc\]. In the same way, it would be interesting to generalize the theory of displacement derivatives to the case where a general displacement is also consider in the numerator. We believe that the natural way to define the derivative in that case is as presented in the following definition.
\[deriv2\] Let $([a,b],\le,\Delta_1)$ satisfy and $({{\mathbb R}},\le,\Delta_2)$ satisfy . The *derivative with respect to the pair of displacements $(\Delta_1,\Delta_2)$* (or *$\Delta_1^2$–derivative*) of a function $f:[a,b]\to {{\mathbb R}}$ at a point $x\in [a,b]\setminus O_{\Delta_1}$ is defined as follows, provided that the corresponding limits exist: $$\begin{aligned}
f^{\Delta_1^2}(x) =\begin{dcases}\lim_{y \to x}\frac{\Delta_2(f(x),f(y))}{\Delta_1(x,y)}, & x\not\in D_{\Delta_1},\\
\lim_{y \to x^+}\frac{\Delta_2(f(x),f(y))}{\Delta_1(x,y)}, & x\in D_{\Delta_1}.\end{dcases}
\end{aligned}$$
Again, this definition would establish a more general setting than Stieltjes derivatives, but would also include absolute derivatives and some very well known operators, such as the ${\varphi}$–Laplacian [@Cabada2014b]. If we consider two functions $f,{\varphi}:{{\mathbb R}}\to{{\mathbb R}}$, the ${\varphi}$–Laplacian of $y$ is given by $$({\varphi}\circ f')'=(f')^{\Delta_u^2}=(f^{\Delta_u^u})^{\Delta_u^2},$$ where $\Delta_2(x,y)={\varphi}(y)-{\varphi}( x)$ for $x,y\in{{\mathbb R}}$. Note, however, that since displacements need not to be linear in any sense, this definition could make it more difficult to prove a Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
We have also hinted at the possibility of developing a theory non symmetric length spaces, based on the concept of displacement, that generalizes the results in [@Burago]. Furthermore, fixed point theorems in both displacement spaces and vector displacement spaces should be studied, focusing, in the last case, on the compatibility of the displacement with the underlying order topology (cf. [@Nieto; @Roldan]). Similarly, one could wonder whether it is possible to define a content that could be of interest in the context of measures in ordered spaces as has been done before in [@rievcan; @rievcan2; @li2016]. We believe that the following definition could be a starting point.
Consider a displacement vector space $(V,\preceq,\Delta)$ such that any $A\subset V$ can be covered by a countable subfamily of $\mathcal C_\preceq$ and $z\in V$. We define the *cone content* $C_z:\mathcal C_\preceq\to{{\mathbb R}}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
C_z(\emptyset):=0,\quad C_z((a,b)) & :=\Delta_z(b{{\tiny\stackinset{c}{}{c}{5pt}{-}{\shortuparrow}}})-\Delta_z(a{{\tiny\stackinset{c}{}{c}{5pt}{+}{\shortdownarrow}}}),\quad C_z([a,b)):=\Delta_z(b{{\tiny\stackinset{c}{}{c}{5pt}{-}{\shortuparrow}}})-\Delta_z(a{{\tiny\stackinset{c}{}{c}{5pt}{-}{\shortdownarrow}}}),\\
C_z((a,b]) &: =\Delta_z(b{{\tiny\stackinset{c}{}{c}{5pt}{+}{\shortuparrow}}})-\Delta_z(a{{\tiny\stackinset{c}{}{c}{5pt}{+}{\shortdownarrow}}}),\quad C_z([a,b]):=\Delta_z(b{{\tiny\stackinset{c}{}{c}{5pt}{+}{\shortuparrow}}})-\Delta_z(a{{\tiny\stackinset{c}{}{c}{5pt}{-}{\shortdownarrow}}}),\end{aligned}$$ where $$f(x{{\tiny\stackinset{c}{}{c}{5pt}{+}{\shortuparrow}}})=\limsup_{y\to x^+}f(y),\quad f(x{{\tiny\stackinset{c}{}{c}{5pt}{+}{\shortdownarrow}}})=\liminf_{y\to x^+}f(y),\quad f(x{{\tiny\stackinset{c}{}{c}{5pt}{-}{\shortuparrow}}})=\limsup_{y\to x^-}f(y),\quad f(x{{\tiny\stackinset{c}{}{c}{5pt}{-}{\shortdownarrow}}})=\liminf_{y\to x^-}f(y),$$ and the limits are taken in the order topology. Now a measure can be defined in the same way outlined in this article.
Last, the properties of the integral with respect to a path of measures have to be thoroughly studied, as this concept lays many possibilities ahead.
[10]{} \[1\][[\#1]{}]{} urlstyle \[1\][DOI \#1]{}
Athreya, K.B., Lahiri, S.N.: Measure Theory and Probability Theory. Springer Science & Business Media (2006)
Benedetto, J.J., Czaja, W.: Integration and modern analysis. Birkhäuser Boston, Inc., Boston, MA (2009)
Burago, D., Burago, Y., Ivanov, S.: A course in metric geometry, vol. 33. American Mathematical Society Providence, RI (2001)
Cabada, A., Tojo, F.A.F.: *Periodic solutions for some phi-Laplacian and reflection equations*. Boundary Value Problems **2016**(1), 1–16 (2016)
Charatonik, W.J., Insall, M.: *Absolute differentiation in metric spaces*. Houston J. Math. **38**(4) (2012)
Frigon, M., [L[ó]{}pez Pouso]{}, R.: *Theory and applications of first-order systems of Stieltjes differential equations*. Advances in Nonlinear Analysis (2016)
Hart, K.P., Nagata, J.i., Vaughan, J.E.: Encyclopedia of general topology. Elsevier (2004)
Rold[á]{}n L[ó]{}pez de Hierro, A.F., Shahzadc, N.: *Fixed point theorems by combining Jleli and Samet’s, and Branciari’s inequalities*. J. Nonlinear Sci. Appl **9**, 3822–3849 (2016)
Li, J.: *Existence of continuous solutions of nonlinear Hammerstein integral equations proved by fixed point theorems on posets*. J. Nonlinear Convex Anal. (2016)
, R., Alb[é]{}s, I.M.: *General existence principles for Stieltjes differential equations with applications to mathematical biology*. J. Differential Equations (2018)
, R., Rodríguez, A.: *A new unification of continuous, discrete, and impulsive calculus through Stieltjes derivatives*. Real Anal. Exchange **40**(2), 1–35 (2015)
Lorenz, T.: Mutational analysis: a joint framework for Cauchy problems in and beyond vector spaces. Springer (2010)
Lynn, A., Seebach Jr, J.A.: Counterexamples in Topology. Springer-Verlag, New York (1978)
Munroe, M.E.: Introduction to measure and integration. Addison-Wesley Cambridge, Mass. (1953)
Newton, I.: A Treatise of the Method of Fluxions and Infinite Series. T. Woodman and J. Millan (1736)
Nielsen, O.A.: An introduction to integration and measure theory, vol. 17. Wiley-Interscience (1997)
Nieto, J.J., [L[ó]{}pez Pouso]{}, R., Rodr[í]{}guez-L[ó]{}pez, R.: *Fixed point theorems in ordered abstract spaces*. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. pp. 2505–2517 (2007)
Rie[č]{}an, B., Neubrunn, T.: *Measures on ordered spaces*. In: Integral, Measure, and Ordering, pp. 34–58. Springer (1997)
Rie[č]{}an, B., Vr[á]{}belov[á]{}, M.: *The Kurzweil construction of an integral in ordered spaces*. Czechoslovak Math. J. **48**(3), 565–574 (1998)
Rudin, W.: Real and complex analysis. McGraw-Hill (1987)
Stromberg, K.: Introduction to Classical Real Analysis. Wadsworth International Group (1981)
Zermelo, E.: *[Ü]{}ber das Navigationsproblem bei ruhender oder ver[ä]{}nderlicher Windverteilung*. Zeitschrift f[ü]{}r Angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik **11**(2), 114–124 (1931)
[^1]: Partially supported by Xunta de Galicia, grant ED481A-2017/095.
[^2]: The authors were partially supported by Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad, Spain, and FEDER, project MTM2013-43014-P, and by the Agencia Estatal de Investigación (AEI) of Spain under grant MTM2016-75140-P, co-financed by the European Community fund FEDER.
[^3]: In the *calculus of variations* the study variable is a function $f$ and the variation of $f$ is noted by $\delta f$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Recent proposals have suggested that a previously unknown decay mode of the neutron into a dark matter particle could solve the long lasting measurement problem of the neutron decay width. We show that, if the dark particle in neutron decay is the major component of the dark matter in the universe, this proposal is in disagreement with modern astro-physical data concerning neutron star masses.'
address:
- 'CSSM and ARC Centre of Excellence for Particle Physics at the Terascale, Department of Physics, University of Adelaide SA 5005 Australia'
- 'IRFU-CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, F91191 Gif sur Yvette, France'
- 'CSSM and ARC Centre of Excellence for Particle Physics at the Terascale, Department of Physics, University of Adelaide SA 5005 Australia'
author:
- 'T.F.Motta'
- 'P.A.M.Guichon'
- 'A. W. Thomas$^*$'
bibliography:
- 'biblio.bib'
title: Neutron to Dark Matter Decay in Neutron Stars
---
Introduction
============
In a recent publication by Fornal *et al.* [@Fornal] a proposal was made to solve the persistent discrepancy between two methods of measuring the neutron life-time. Trapped neutrons in a bottle appear to have a shorter life-time than neutrons in a beam where the decay proton is detected. There is a discrepancy of around 8 seconds (3.5$\sigma$) between the two experimental set-ups. In Ref.[@Fornal] it was suggested that the reason for this difference could lie in a formerly unknown decay channel of the neutron to a dark fermion. This proposal came as an alternative to the previous hypothesis that the experimental disagreement could be caused by the neutron oscillating into it’s mirror counterpart [@Mirror]. Both arguments rely on the proposed existence of a decay channel to a fermion almost degenerate with the neutron.
This proposal attracted the attention of several collaborations and a number of publications followed the original release. In Ref.[@Tang] the authors argue through experimental evidence that in a decay of the form $n \rightarrow \text{DM} + \lambda$, i.e. a dark matter particle plus another decay product $\lambda$, that extra particle could not be a photon ($\lambda \not= \gamma$). Another publication[@Antineutrino] pointed out that this hypothesised decay could also explain a different experimental inconsistency, the “reactor antineutrino anomaly", that is, the $3\sigma$ discrepancy between theory and measurement of the antineutrino flux from a reactor. Finally Czarnecki *et al.* [@Czarnecki] although they did not rule out this explanation, pointed out strong constraints related to the value of the neutron axial charge.
In this publication we argue that allowing the neutron to decay to an almost degenerate dark fermion would mean that inside a neutron star, where the neutrons occupying a Fermi sea can sustain, through degeneracy, very large pressures, a large portion of these neutrons would decay to this dark fermion. This implies a severe decrease in pressure, which means that the maximum mass of neutron stars before gravitational collapse would be drastically lower than the masses of the stars measured so far. This was argued in Refs. [@Motta:2018rxp; @Baym; @Reddy] and will be developed in further detail in this publication.
Framework
=========
Simulating the internal structure of neutron stars ultimately amounts to solving the so-called Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkof[@TOV] (TOV) equations for several different values of central energy density. The TOV equations give an internal profile for the pressure of the star through ($c=G=\hbar=1$) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{tov}
\frac{dP(r)}{dr}=-\frac{1}{r^2}\left ( \epsilon(r) + P(r) \right )\left ( M(r)+4\pi r^3 P(r) \right )\left ( 1-\frac{2M(r)}{r} \right )^{-1}\end{aligned}$$ and the mass is given by the continuity equation $$\frac{dM(r)}{dr}=4\pi r^2\epsilon(r).
\label{massagain}$$ This set of equations take, as an input, the equation of state (EOS) of the matter of which the star is made. We will adopt, as a model for the core of neutron stars, the infinite nuclear matter EOS from the quark-meson coupling model[@QMC] recently reviewed in Ref.[@QMC_Review]. This model is well established and has been shown to provide an adequate description of high density nuclear matter in several previous calculations[@QMC1; @QMC2].
We compare that equation of state with a modified version of it where the neutron decays to a dark fermion. Since a difference in mass of the order of a few MeV makes absolutely no difference to the mass of a neutron star, we will take this dark fermion to be fully degenerate with the neutron. Ultimately we will show that adding a vector self interaction among the dark fermions can indeed bring the mass up to more acceptable values, as was also shown in Ref. [@Vector]. However, in order for that to happen, the coupling of this vector intermediate particle with the dark fermion has to be simply huge and we will argue that recent publications [@Barbecue; @DAmico] rule out that explanation if the dark particle in neutron decay is the major component of the dark matter in the universe.
Dark Matter
-----------
The proposal by Fornal *et al.* [@Fornal] is based on the decay of the neutron into a dark matter fermion which is almost degenerate with the neutron itself, plus another lighter component to conserve energy.
Their first of three proposals mentioned in the publication is $n \rightarrow \chi + \gamma$, where $\chi$ is (and hereafter refers to) the dark matter fermion. However, as argued above, this model was experimentally excluded by Tang *et al.* [@Tang]. The only viable mode seems to be $$\begin{aligned}
n\rightarrow \chi + \phi\end{aligned}$$ where $\phi$ is a much lighter dark boson. This requires that the energy of the dark particles be in the ranges $$\begin{aligned}
&937.900\text{MeV}<m_\chi<938.543\text{MeV}\\
&937.900\text{MeV}<m_\chi+m_\phi<939.565\text{MeV}.\end{aligned}$$
We argue that
In neutron stars, the presence of this light dark boson $\phi$ is completely irrelevant for it would escape the system very quickly.
All of the proposed models indicate that, in neutron stars, the only change this hypothesis implies is a change in chemical composition from the equilibrium reaction $n \leftrightarrow \chi$, here imposed by the chemical equilibrium equation for the chemical potentials $\mu_n=\mu_\chi$.
QMC
---
The chosen model of nuclear matter interaction is the QMC model[@QMC]. Based on a quark description of the baryons as quark bags interacting directly with mesons (scalar-isoscalar $\sigma$, vector-isoscalar $\omega$, vector-isovector $\rho$) we derive the energy density of the system in Hartree-Fock (HF) approximation.
The Hartree, or mean field, contribution amounts to $$\begin{aligned}
&\epsilon_\text{Hartree}=\frac{m_\sigma^2\sigma^2}{2} + \frac{m_\omega^2\omega^2}{2}+ \frac{m_b^2b^2}{2}& \nonumber\\
&+\frac{1}{\pi^2}\int_{0}^{k_F^n}{k^2}{\sqrt{k^2+M_N^*(\sigma)^2}dk} +
\frac{1}{\pi^2}\int_{0}^{k_F^p}{k^2}{\sqrt{k^2+M_N^*(\sigma)^2}dk} \nonumber\\
&+\frac{1}{\pi^2}\int_{0}^{k_F^e}{k^2}{\sqrt{k^2+m_e^2}dk} +
\frac{1}{\pi^2}\int_{0}^{k_F^\mu}{k^2}{\sqrt{k^2+m_\mu^2}dk}
+\frac{1}{\pi^2}\int_{0}^{k_F^\chi}{k^2}{\sqrt{k^2+m_\chi^2}dk}\end{aligned}$$ where the effective mass of the nucleon is $M_N^*(\sigma)=m_n-g_\sigma\sigma+\frac{d}{2}(g_\sigma\sigma)^2$. The $d$ is what is refered to as scalar polarizability and it is a prominent feature of the QMC model. In our convention $\sigma$, $\omega$, and $b$ refer to the mean field values of the mesons (where $b$ is the mean field value of $\rho$). For each particle the fermi momenta and chemical potentials as functions of the number densities are calculated as $$\begin{aligned}
&k_\varphi^{3}={{3\pi^2n_\varphi}},\quad \varphi=\{p,n,e,\mu,\chi \} \\
&\mu_n= \frac{\partial \epsilon}{\partial n_n}, \quad \mu_p= \frac{\partial \epsilon}{\partial n_p}, \quad \mu_l= \sqrt{k_f(n_l)^2+m_l^2}\end{aligned}$$ And finally the Fock terms $$\begin{aligned}
&\epsilon_\text{Fock}=-G_\omega\frac{1}{(2\pi)^6} \left[
\int_0^{k_F^p}d^3k_1 \int_0^{k_F^p}d^3k_2 \frac{m_\omega^2}{(\vec k_1 - \vec k_2)^2 + m_\omega^2}
+
\int_0^{k_F^n}d^3k_1 \int_0^{k_F^n}d^3k_2 \frac{m_\omega^2}{(\vec k_1 - \vec k_2)^2 + m_\omega^2}\right] \nonumber\\
&-\frac{G_\rho}{4}\frac{1}{(2\pi)^6} \left[
(1)\times\int_0^{k_F^n}d^3k_1 \int_0^{k_F^n}d^3k_2 \frac{m_\rho^2}{(\vec k_1 - \vec k_2)^2 + m_\rho^2} +(1)\times\int_0^{k_F^p}d^3k_1 \int_0^{k_F^p}d^3k_2 \frac{m_\rho^2}{(\vec k_1 - \vec k_2)^2 + m_\rho^2}\right. \nonumber\\
&\left.
+ (2)\times\int_0^{k_F^n}d^3k_1 \int_0^{k_F^p}d^3k_2 \frac{m_\rho^2}{(\vec k_1 - \vec k_2)^2 + m_\rho^2}+ (2)\times\int_0^{k_F^p}d^3k_1 \int_0^{k_F^n}d^3k_2 \frac{m_\rho^2}{(\vec k_1 - \vec k_2)^2 + m_\rho^2} \right]&\nonumber\\
& +\frac{1}{(2\pi)^6}
\int_0^{k_F^p}d^3k_1 \int_0^{k_F^p}d^3k_2 \frac{1}{(\vec k_1 - \vec k_2)^2 + \tilde m_\sigma^2}\times\frac{M_N^*(\sigma)(-g_\sigma C(\sigma))}{\sqrt{M_N^*(\sigma)^2+k_1^2}}
\times\frac{M_N^*(\sigma)(-g_\sigma C(\sigma))}{\sqrt{M_N^*(\sigma)^2+k_2^2}}\nonumber\\
&+\frac{1}{(2\pi)^6}
\int_0^{k_F^n}d^3k_1 \int_0^{k_F^n}d^3k_2 \frac{1}{(\vec k_1 - \vec k_2)^2 + \tilde m_\sigma^2}\times\frac{M_N^*(\sigma)(-g_\sigma C(\sigma))}{\sqrt{M_N^*(\sigma)^2+k_1^2}}
\times\frac{M_N^*(\sigma)(-g_\sigma C(\sigma))}{\sqrt{M_N^*(\sigma)^2+k_2^2}}\nonumber\end{aligned}$$where $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde m_\sigma^2 =m_\sigma^2 + \frac{1}{\pi^2}\sum_{p,n}\int_0^{k_f^n}k^2dk \frac{\partial^2}{\partial \sigma^2} \sqrt{M_N^*(\sigma)^2+k^2}.\end{aligned}$$
The density dependent meson mean field equations in the QMC model are $$\begin{aligned}
&\sigma(n_n,n_p) =- \frac{1}{m_\sigma^2\pi^2}\left( \frac{\partial M_N^*}{\partial\bar\sigma}\right)\left[\sum_{p,n}
\int_{0}^{k_F}k^2dk\frac{M_N^*(\sigma)}{\sqrt{k^2+M_N^*(\sigma)^2}}
\right], \\
&\omega(n_n,n_p)=\frac{g_\omega}{m_\omega^2}\left(n_n+n_p\right), \\
&b(n_n,n_p)=\frac{g_\rho}{m_\rho^2}\left(\frac{n_p}{2} -\frac{n_n}{2}\right).\end{aligned}$$ and finally the pressure is calculated as $P=\sum_f\mu_fn_f-\epsilon$.
In Table \[tab:constants\] we report the constants used to perform the calculations. They are chosen to fit the saturation density at $0.16\text{fm}^{-3}$, the binding energy of symmetric matter at saturation $-15.8\text{MeV}$ and symmetry energy $30\text{MeV}$.
\[tab:constants\]
Neutron Stars
=============
Using the model presented above we calculate the equilibrium densities through the equations $$\begin{aligned}
\text{Neutron $\beta$ decay}\quad&\mu_n=\mu_p+\mu_e\\
\text{Muon $\beta$ decay}\quad&\mu_\mu=\mu_e \\
\text{Charge neutrality}\quad&n_p = n_e+n_\mu \\
\text{Dark matter decay}\quad&\mu_n = \mu_\chi.\end{aligned}$$
Solving these equations we get species fractions that vastly favours the dark matter particle (Fig. \[fig:fraction\]).
![Relative species fraction with dark matter present.[]{data-label="fig:fraction"}](fraction){width="4in"}
That, in turn, leads to a drastic decrease in pressure in the equation of state (Fig.\[fig:eos\]) and as a consequence the Mass versus Radius diagram has a maximum significantly lower than the case without dark matter (Fig.\[fig:massaraio\]).
![Equation of state with dark matter present.[]{data-label="fig:eos"}](eos){width="4in"}
The maximum mass in the diagram with dark matter is of around $0.7$M$_\odot$. The reason for that is that although the central energy density of a star with dark matter is much larger than the star without it, it does not have enough pressure to support itself and therefore the energy density goes down very quickly (Fig.\[fig:edens\])
![Energy density profile as a function of the internal radius of the star. Profile is presented for the maximum mass point of the diagram with dark matter present, an equally heavy star without dark matter and the maximum mass star without dark matter.[]{data-label="fig:edens"}](edens_radius){width="2.5in"}
However, it is unreasonable to assume that even the upper most point in the mass radius diagram of the EOS with dark matter present could ever be reached. Since the star with dark matter has to come from a real star we take the maximum mass star without dark matter and check to which point in the diagram the decay star would occur, that is, which point in the dark matter diagram has a total baryon number plus total dark matter number equal the total baryon number of a star without dark matter. That leads to a maximum mass of $0.58$M$_\odot$ (Fig.\[fig:massaraio\])
![Maximum possible star as an end product of dark matter decay.[]{data-label="fig:massaraio"}](058_1){width="4in"}
Repulsive Vector Interaction
============================
If the dark matter particle were self interacting through a repulsive interaction it is possible that it could build up pressure to sustain larger masses. This approach was used in Ref.[@Vector] and we here perform the same procedure within the framework of QMC. To compare with the neutron-$\omega$ physical system we vary the coupling/mass as multiples of the $n\omega$ vertex couplings, as indicated in the figures. We name this vector intermediate $V$.
The species fraction changes as the $\chi V$ interaction becomes stronger and therefore restores the EOS to it’s previous stiffer version. The greater the strength of the interaction, the less dark matter will be present in the star (Fig.\[fig:vectorfraction\]). That allows the system to support much higher masses.
![Species fraction considering different strengths of vector self-repulsion.[]{data-label="fig:vectorfraction"}](fraction2){width="4in"}
The maximum mass gets to the 2 solar masses value, as all neutron star models must per recent experimental determinations[@Antoniadis; @Demorest], only when the $g_V/m_V$ for the dark matter is 10 times greater than $g_\omega/m_\omega$ (Fig.\[fig:vectorinteraction\]).
![Adding vector self-interactions between the dark fermions through the exchange of a vector boson.[]{data-label="fig:vectorinteraction"}](vectorinteraction){width="4in"}
However, one must consider that Ref. [@DAmico] severely limits the cross-section of such a dark matter particle through astrophysical data recently measured [@Barbecue]. These values of couplings (that is $g_V/m_V$) are way to high to even enter consideration.
Conclusion
==========
We have shown that the addition of this dark matter particle to the composition of neutron stars leads to a giant decrease in maximum mass. The mass versus radius diagram points to $0.7$M$_\odot$ as the mass upper limit for stars with dark matter, however further investigations suggest that, if a star with dark matter is a decay product of a normal neutron star the real maximum mass has to be around $0.58$M$_\odot$. Since most neutron stars measured have masses around $1.5$M$_\odot$ this points to a clear inconsistency of the hypothesis with data. Moreover, a repulsive self-interaction indeed can push the mass limit to an acceptable point only when the ratio coupling/mass of the $\chi V$ interaction is 10 times larger than the $n\omega$ vertex. If this dark matter particle were to correspond with astrophysical dark matter this result would be in clear contradiction to recent astrophysical measurements, as pointed out in Ref. [@DAmico]. Even if it were unconnected with astrophysical dark matter, it would be truly remarkable to have a new kind of matter with self interactions an order of magnitude larger than the familiar strong force.
We therefore state that this decay is simply in contradiction with the data of neutron star masses if the dark particle in neutron decay is a significant component of the dark matter in the universe.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
This work was supported by the University of Adelaide and by the Australian Research Council through the ARC Centre of Excellence for Particle Physics at the Terascale (CE110001104) and Discovery Project DP150103164.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We give an introduction to the heavy-quark effective theory and the $1/m_Q$ expansion, which provide the modern framework for a systematic, model-independent description of the properties and decays of hadrons containing a heavy quark. We discuss the applications of these concepts to spectroscopy and to the weak decays of $B$ mesons.'
address: 'Theory Division, CERN, CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland'
author:
- MATTHIAS NEUBERT
title: 'HEAVY-QUARK EFFECTIVE THEORY'
---
epsf
CERN-TH/96-281\
hep-ph/9610266
**Heavy-Quark Effective Theory**
Matthias Neubert\
[*Theory Division, CERN, CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland*]{}
Lectures presented at the\
34th International School of Subnuclear Physics\
[*Effectives Theories and Fundamental Interactions*]{}\
Erice, Italy, 3-12 July 1996
CERN-TH/96-281\
October 1996
Introduction
============
The weak decays of hadrons containing a heavy quark are employed for tests of the Standard Model and measurements of its parameters. They offer the most direct way to determine the weak mixing angles, to test the unitarity of the Cabibbo–Kobayashi–Maskawa (CKM) matrix, and to explore the physics of CP violation. At the same time, hadronic weak decays also serve as a probe of that part of strong-interaction phenomenology which is least understood: the confinement of quarks and gluons inside hadrons.
The structure of weak interactions in the Standard Model is rather simple. Flavour-changing decays are mediated by the coupling of the charged current to the $W$-boson field. At low energies, the charged-current interaction gives rise to local four-fermion couplings, whose strength is governed by the Fermi constant $$G_F = {g^2\over 4\sqrt{2} M_W^2} = 1.16639(2)~\mbox{GeV}^{-2} \,.$$ According to the structure of the these interactions, the weak decays of hadrons can be divided into three classes: leptonic decays, in which the quarks of the decaying hadron annihilate each other and only leptons appear in the final state; semileptonic decays, in which both leptons and hadrons appear in the final state; and non-leptonic decays, in which the final state consists of hadrons only. Representative examples of these three types of decays are shown in Fig. \[fig:classes\].
The simple quark-line graphs shown in this figure are a gross oversimplification, however. In the real world, quarks are confined inside hadrons, bound by the exchange of soft gluons. The simplicity of the weak interactions is overshadowed by the complexity of the strong interactions. A complicated interplay between the weak and strong forces characterizes the phenomenology of hadronic weak decays. As an example, a more realistic picture of a non-leptonic decay is shown in Fig. \[fig:nonlep\]. Clearly, the complexity of strong-interaction effects increases with the number of quarks appearing in the final state. Bound-state effects in leptonic decays can be lumped into a single parameter (a “decay constant”), while those in semileptonic decays are described by invariant form factors, depending on the momentum transfer $q^2$ between the hadrons. Approximate symmetries of the strong interactions help to constrain the properties of these form factors. For non-leptonic decays, on the other hand, we are still far from having a quantitative understanding of strong-interaction effects even in the simplest decay modes.
=8.5cm
Over the last decade, a lot of information on heavy-quark decays has been collected in experiments at $e^+ e^-$ and hadron colliders. This has led to a rather detailed knowledge of the flavour sector of the Standard Model and many of the parameters associated with it. There have been several great discoveries in this field, such as $B^0$–$\bar B^0$ mixing [@BBbar1; @BBbar2], charmless $B$ decays [@btou1]$^-$[@Bpirho], and rare decays induced by penguin operators [@BKstar; @btos]. The experimental progress in heavy-flavour physics has been accompanied by a significant progress in theory, which was related to the discovery of heavy-quark symmetry and the development of the heavy-quark effective theory (HQET). The excitement about these developments is caused by the fact that they allow (some) model-independent predictions in an area in which “progress” in theory often meant nothing more than the construction of a new model, which could be used to estimate some strong-interaction hadronic matrix elements. In these notes, we explain the physical picture behind heavy-quark symmetry and discuss the construction, as well as simple applications, of the heavy-quark expansion. Because of lack of time, we will have to focus on some particularly important aspects, emphasizing the main ideas and concepts of the HQET. A more complete discussion of the applications of this formalism to heavy-flavour phenomenology can be found in some recent review articles [@review; @Shrev]. The reader is also encouraged to consult the earlier review papers [@GeRev]$^-$[@Grorev] on the subject.
Hadronic bound states of a heavy quark with light constituents (quarks, antiquarks and gluons) are characterized by a large separation of mass scales: the heavy-quark mass $m_Q$ is much larger than the mass scale $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$ associated with the light degrees of freedom. Equivalently, the Compton wave length of the heavy quark ($\lambda_Q\sim 1/m_Q$) is much smaller than the size of the hadron containing the heavy quark ($R_{\rm had}\sim
1/\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$). Our goal will be to separate the physics associated with these two scales, in such a way that all dependence on the heavy-quark mass becomes explicit. The framework in which to perform this separation is the operator product expansion (OPE) [@Wils; @Zimm]. The HQET provides us with a convenient technical tool to construct the OPE. Before we start to explore in detail the details of this effective theory, however, we should mention two important reasons why it is desirable to separate short- and long-distance physics in the first place:
- A technical reason is that after the separation of short- and long-distance phenomena we can actually calculate a big portion of the relevant physics (i.e. all short-distance effects) using perturbation theory and renormalization-group techniques. In particular, in this way we will be able to control all logarithmic dependence on the heavy-quark mass.
- An important physical reason is that, after the short-distance physics has been separated, it may happen that the long-distance physics simplifies due to the realization of approximate symmetries, which imply non-trivial relations between observables.
The second point is particularly exciting, since it allows us to make statements beyond the range of applicability of perturbation theory. Notice that here we are not talking about symmetries of the full QCD Lagrangian, such as its local gauge symmetry, but approximate symmetries realized in a particular kinematic situation. In particular, we will find that an approximate spin–flavour symmetry is realized in systems in which a single heavy quark interacts with light degrees of freedom by the exchange of soft gluons.
At this point it is instructive to recall a more familiar example of how approximate symmetries relate the long-distance physics of several observables. The strong interactions of pions are severely constrained by the approximate chiral symmetry of QCD. In a certain kinematic regime, where the momenta of the pions are much less than 1 GeV (the scale of chiral-symmetry breaking), the long-distance physics of scattering amplitudes is encoded in a few “reduced matrix elements”, such as the pion decay constant. An effective low-energy theory called chiral perturbation theory provides a systematic expansion of scattering amplitudes in powers of the pion momenta, and thus helps to derive the relations between different scattering amplitudes imposed by chiral symmetry [@Leut]. We will find that a similar situation holds for the case of heavy quarks. Heavy-quark symmetry implies that, in the limit where $m_Q\gg\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$, the long-distance physics of several observables is encoded in few hadronic parameters, which can be defined in terms of operator matrix elements in the HQET.
Heavy-Quark Symmetry {#sec:2}
====================
The Physical Picture
--------------------
There are several reasons why the strong interactions of systems containing heavy quarks are easier to understand than those of systems containing only light quarks. The first is asymptotic freedom, the fact that the effective coupling constant of QCD becomes weak in processes with large momentum transfer, corresponding to interactions at short-distance scales [@Gros; @Poli]. At large distances, on the other hand, the coupling becomes strong, leading to non-perturbative phenomena such as the confinement of quarks and gluons on a length scale $R_{\rm had}\sim 1/\Lambda_{\rm QCD}\sim
1$ fm, which determines the size of hadrons [@Maria]. Roughly speaking, $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}\sim 0.2$ GeV is the energy scale that separates the regions of large and small coupling constant. When the mass of a quark $Q$ is much larger than this scale, it is called a heavy quark. The quarks of the Standard Model fall naturally into two classes: up, down and strange are light quarks, whereas charm, bottom and top are heavy quarks.[^1] For heavy quarks, the effective coupling constant $\alpha_s(m_Q)$ is small, implying that on length scales comparable to the Compton wavelength $\lambda_Q\sim 1/m_Q$ the strong interactions are perturbative and similar to the electromagnetic interactions. In fact, the quarkonium systems $(\bar QQ)$, whose size is of order $\lambda_Q/\alpha_s(m_Q)\ll R_{\rm had}$, are very much hydrogen-like.
Systems composed of a heavy quark and light constituents are more complicated, however. The size of such systems is determined by $R_{\rm had}$, and the typical momenta exchanged between the heavy and light constituents are of order $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$. The heavy quark is surrounded by a most complicated, strongly interacting cloud of light quarks, antiquarks, and gluons. In this case it is the fact that $\lambda_Q\ll R_{\rm had}$, i.e. that the Compton wavelength of the heavy quark is much smaller than the size of the hadron, which leads to simplifications. To resolve the quantum numbers of the heavy quark would require a hard probe; the soft gluons exchanged between the heavy quark and the light constituents can only resolve distances much larger than $\lambda_Q$. Therefore, the light degrees of freedom are blind to the flavour (mass) and spin orientation of the heavy quark. They experience only its colour field, which extends over large distances because of confinement. In the rest frame of the heavy quark, it is in fact only the electric colour field that is important; relativistic effects such as colour magnetism vanish as $m_Q\to\infty$. Since the heavy-quark spin participates in interactions only through such relativistic effects, it decouples. That the heavy-quark mass becomes irrelevant can be seen as follows: As $m_Q\to\infty$, the heavy quark and the hadron that contains it have the same velocity. In the rest frame of the hadron, the heavy quark is at rest, too. The wave function of the light constituents follows from a solution of the field equations of QCD subject to the boundary condition of a static triplet source of colour at the location of the heavy quark. This boundary condition is independent of $m_Q$, and so is the solution for the configuration of the light constituents.
It follows that, in the limit $m_Q\to\infty$, hadronic systems which differ only in the flavour or spin quantum numbers of the heavy quark have the same configuration of their light degrees of freedom [@Shu1]$^-$[@Isgu]. Although this observation still does not allow us to calculate what this configuration is, it provides relations between the properties of such particles as the heavy mesons $B$, $D$, $B^*$ and $D^*$, or the heavy baryons $\Lambda_b$ and $\Lambda_c$ (to the extent that corrections to the infinite quark-mass limit are small in these systems). These relations result from some approximate symmetries of the effective strong interactions of heavy quarks at low energies. The configuration of light degrees of freedom in a hadron containing a single heavy quark with velocity $v$ does not change if this quark is replaced by another heavy quark with different flavour or spin, but with the same velocity. Both heavy quarks lead to the same static colour field. For $N_h$ heavy-quark flavours, there is thus an SU$(2
N_h)$ spin–flavour symmetry group, under which the effective strong interactions are invariant. These symmetries are in close correspondence to familiar properties of atoms: The flavour symmetry is analogous to the fact that different isotopes have the same chemistry, since to a good approximation the wave function of the electrons is independent of the mass of the nucleus. The electrons only see the total nuclear charge. The spin symmetry is analogous to the fact that the hyperfine levels in atoms are nearly degenerate. The nuclear spin decouples in the limit $m_e/m_N\to 0$.
Heavy-quark symmetry is an approximate symmetry, and corrections arise since the quark masses are not infinite. In many respects, it is complementary to chiral symmetry, which arises in the opposite limit of small quark masses. However, whereas chiral symmetry is a symmetry of the QCD Lagrangian in the limit of vanishing quark masses, heavy-quark symmetry is not a symmetry of the Lagrangian (not even an approximate one), but rather a symmetry of an effective theory, which is a good approximation of QCD in a certain kinematic region. It is realized only in systems in which a heavy quark interacts predominantly by the exchange of soft gluons. In such systems the heavy quark is almost on shell; its momentum fluctuates around the mass shell by an amount of order $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$. The corresponding fluctuations in the velocity of the heavy quark vanish as $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}/m_Q\to 0$. The velocity becomes a conserved quantity and is no longer a dynamical degree of freedom [@Geor]. Nevertheless, results derived on the basis of heavy-quark symmetry are model-independent consequences of QCD in a well-defined limit. The symmetry-breaking corrections can, at least in principle, be studied in a systematic way. A convenient framework for analyzing these corrections is provided by the heavy-quark effective theory. Before presenting a detailed discussion of the formalism, we shall first point out some of the important implications of heavy-quark symmetry for the spectroscopy and weak decays of heavy hadrons.
Spectroscopic Implications
--------------------------
The spin–flavour symmetry leads to many interesting relations between the properties of hadrons containing a heavy quark. The most direct consequences concern the spectroscopy of such states [@IsWi]. In the limit $m_Q\to\infty$, the spin of the heavy quark and the total angular momentum $j$ of the light degrees of freedom inside a hadron are separately conserved by the strong interactions. Because of heavy-quark symmetry, the dynamics is independent of the spin and mass of the heavy quark. Hadronic states can thus be classified by the quantum numbers (flavour, spin, parity, etc.) of the light degrees of freedom [@AFal]. The spin symmetry predicts that, for fixed $j\neq 0$, there is a doublet of degenerate states with total spin $J=j\pm\frac{1}{2}$. The flavour symmetry relates the properties of states with different heavy-quark flavour.
In general, the mass of a hadron $H_Q$ containing a heavy quark $Q$ obeys an expansion of the form $$\label{massexp}
m_H = m_Q + \bar\Lambda + {\Delta m^2\over 2 m_Q}
+ O(1/m_Q^2) \,.$$ The parameter $\bar\Lambda$ represents contributions arising from all terms in the Lagrangian that are independent of the heavy-quark mass [@FNL], whereas the quantity $\Delta m^2$ originates from the terms of order $1/m_Q$ in the effective Lagrangian of the HQET. For the moment, the detailed structure of these terms is of no relevance; it will be discussed at length in the next section. For the ground-state pseudoscalar and vector mesons, one can parametrize the contributions from the $1/m_Q$ corrections in terms of two quantities, $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$, in such a way that [@FaNe] $$\label{FNrela}
\Delta m^2 = -\lambda_1 + 2 \Big[ J(J+1) - \textstyle{3\over 2}
\Big]\,\lambda_2 \,.$$ Here $J$ is the total spin of the meson. The first term, $-\lambda_1/2 m_Q$, arises from the kinetic energy of the heavy quark inside the meson; the second term describes the interaction of the heavy-quark spin with the gluon field. The hadronic parameters $\bar\Lambda$, $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$ are independent of $m_Q$. They characterize the properties of the light constituents.
Consider, as a first example, the SU(3) mass splittings for heavy mesons. The heavy-quark expansion predicts that $$\begin{aligned}
m_{B_S} - m_{B_d} &=& \bar\Lambda_s - \bar\Lambda_d
+ O(1/m_b) \,, \nonumber\\
m_{D_S} - m_{D_d} &=& \bar\Lambda_s - \bar\Lambda_d
+ O(1/m_c) \,,\end{aligned}$$ where we have indicated that the value of the parameter $\bar\Lambda$ depends on the flavour of the light quark. Thus, to the extent that the charm and bottom quarks can both be considered sufficiently heavy, the mass splittings should be similar in the two systems. This prediction is confirmed experimentally, since [@Joe] $$\begin{aligned}
m_{B_S} - m_{B_d} &=& (90\pm 3)~\mbox{MeV} \,, \nonumber\\
m_{D_S} - m_{D_d} &=& (99\pm 1)~\mbox{MeV} \,.\end{aligned}$$
As a second example, consider the spin splittings between the ground-state pseudoscalar ($J=0$) and vector ($J=1$) mesons, which are the members of the spin-doublet with $j=\frac{1}{2}$. The theory predicts that $$\begin{aligned}
m_{B^*}^2 - m_B^2 &=& 4\lambda_2 + O(1/m_b) \,, \nonumber\\
m_{D^*}^2 - m_D^2 &=& 4\lambda_2 + O(1/m_c) \,.\end{aligned}$$ The data are compatible with this: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{VPexp}
m_{B^*}^2 - m_B^2 &\simeq& 0.49~{\rm GeV}^2 \,, \nonumber\\
m_{D^*}^2 - m_D^2 &\simeq& 0.55~{\rm GeV}^2 \,.\end{aligned}$$ Assuming that the $B$ system is close to the heavy-quark limit, we obtain the value $$\lambda_2\simeq 0.12~\mbox{GeV}^2$$ for one of the hadronic parameters in (\[FNrela\]). This quantity plays an important role in the phenomenology of inclusive decays of heavy hadrons [@review].
A third example is provided by the mass splittings between the ground-state mesons and baryons containing a heavy quark. The HQET predicts that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{barmes}
m_{\Lambda_b} - m_B &=& \bar\Lambda_{\rm baryon}
- \bar\Lambda_{\rm meson} + O(1/m_b) \,, \nonumber\\
m_{\Lambda_c} - m_D &=& \bar\Lambda_{\rm baryon}
- \bar\Lambda_{\rm meson} + O(1/m_c) \,.\end{aligned}$$ This is again consistent with the experimental results $$\begin{aligned}
m_{\Lambda_b} - m_B &=& (346\pm 6)~\mbox{MeV} \,, \nonumber\\
m_{\Lambda_c} - m_D &=& (416\pm 1)~\mbox{MeV} \,,\end{aligned}$$ although in this case the data indicate sizeable symmetry-breaking corrections. For the mass of the $\Lambda_b$ baryon, we have used the value $$\label{Lbmass}
m_{\Lambda_b} = (5625\pm 6)~\mbox{MeV} \,,$$ which is obtained by averaging the result [@Joe] $m_{\Lambda_b}=
(5639\pm 15)$ MeV with the value $m_{\Lambda_b}=(5623\pm 5\pm 4)$ MeV reported by the CDF Collaboration [@CDFmass]. The dominant correction to the relations (\[barmes\]) comes from the contribution of the chromo-magnetic interaction to the masses of the heavy mesons,[^2] which adds a term $3\lambda_2/2 m_Q$ on the right-hand side. Including this term, we obtain the refined prediction that the values of the following two quantities should be close to each other: $$\begin{aligned}
m_{\Lambda_b} - m_B - {3\lambda_2\over 2 m_B}
&=& (312\pm 6)~\mbox{MeV} \,, \nonumber\\
m_{\Lambda_c} - m_D - {3\lambda_2\over 2 m_D}
&=& (320\pm 1)~\mbox{MeV}\end{aligned}$$ This is clearly satisfied by the data.
The mass formula (\[massexp\]) can also be used to derive information on the heavy-quark (pole) masses from the observed hadron masses. Introducing the “spin-averaged” meson masses $\overline{m}_B=\frac{1}{4}\,(m_B+3 m_{B^*})\simeq 5.31$ GeV and $\overline{m}_D=\frac{1}{4}\,(m_D+3 m_{D^*})\simeq 1.97$ GeV, we find that $$\label{mbmc}
m_b-m_c = (\overline{m}_B-\overline{m}_D)\,\bigg\{
1 - {\lambda_1\over 2\overline{m}_B\overline{m}_D}
+ O(1/m_Q^3) \bigg\} \,,$$ where $O(1/m_Q^3)$ is used as a generic notation representing terms suppressed by three powers of the $b$- or $c$-quark masses. Using theoretical estimates for the parameter $\lambda_1$, which lie in the range [@lam1]$^-$[@virial] $$\label{lam1}
\lambda_1 = -(0.3\pm 0.2)~\mbox{GeV}^2 \,,$$ this relation leads to $$\label{mbmcval}
m_b - m_c = (3.39\pm 0.03\pm 0.03)~\mbox{GeV} \,,$$ where the first error reflects the uncertainty in the value of $\lambda_1$, and the second one takes into account unknown higher-order corrections.
Exclusive Semileptonic Decays {#sec:3}
-----------------------------
Semileptonic decays of $B$ mesons have received a lot of attention in recent years. The decay channel $\bar B\to D^*\ell\,\bar\nu$ has the largest branching fraction of all $B$-meson decay modes. From a theoretical point of view, semileptonic decays are simple enough to allow for a reliable, quantitative description. The analysis of these decays provides much information about the strong forces that bind the quarks and gluons into hadrons. Heavy-quark symmetry implies relations between the weak decay form factors of heavy mesons, which are of particular interest. These relations have been derived by Isgur and Wise [@Isgu], generalizing ideas developed by Nussinov and Wetzel [@Nuss], and by Voloshin and Shifman [@Vol1; @Vol2].
Consider the elastic scattering of a $B$ meson, $\bar B(v)\to\bar
B(v')$, induced by a vector current coupled to the $b$ quark. Before the action of the current, the light degrees of freedom inside the $B$ meson orbit around the heavy quark, which acts as a static source of colour. On average, the $b$ quark and the $B$ meson have the same velocity $v$. The action of the current is to replace instantaneously (at $t=t_0$) the colour source by one moving at a velocity $v'$, as indicated in Fig. \[fig:3.3\]. If $v=v'$, nothing happens; the light degrees of freedom do not realize that there was a current acting on the heavy quark. If the velocities are different, however, the light constituents suddenly find themselves interacting with a moving colour source. Soft gluons have to be exchanged to rearrange them so as to form a $B$ meson moving at velocity $v'$. This rearrangement leads to a form-factor suppression, which reflects the fact that as the velocities become more and more different, the probability for an elastic transition decreases. The important observation is that, in the limit $m_b\to\infty$, the form factor can only depend on the Lorentz boost $\gamma = v\cdot v'$ that connects the rest frames of the initial- and final-state mesons. Thus, in this limit a dimensionless probability function $\xi(v\cdot v')$ describes the transition. It is called the Isgur–Wise function [@Isgu]. In the HQET, which provides the appropriate framework for taking the limit $m_b\to\infty$, the hadronic matrix element describing the scattering process can thus be written as $$\label{elast}
{1\over m_B}\,\langle\bar B(v')|\,\bar b_{v'}\gamma^\mu b_v\,
|\bar B(v)\rangle = \xi(v\cdot v')\,(v+v')^\mu \,.$$ Here, $b_v$ and $b_{v'}$ are the velocity-dependent heavy-quark fields of the HQET, whose precise definition will be discussed in Sec. \[sec:HQET\]. It is important that the function $\xi(v\cdot
v')$ does not depend on $m_b$. The factor $1/m_B$ on the left-hand side compensates for a trivial dependence on the heavy-meson mass caused by the relativistic normalization of meson states, which is conventionally taken to be $$\label{nonrelnorm}
\langle\bar B(p')|\bar B(p)\rangle = 2 m_B v^0\,(2\pi)^3\,
\delta^3(\vec p-\vec p\,') \,.$$ Note that there is no term proportional to $(v-v')^\mu$ in (\[elast\]). This can be seen by contracting the matrix element with $(v-v')_\mu$, which must give zero since $\rlap/v b_v = b_v$ and $\bar b_{v'}\rlap/v' = \bar b_{v'}$.
It is more conventional to write the above matrix element in terms of an elastic form factor $F_{\rm el}(q^2)$ depending on the momentum transfer $q^2=(p-p')^2$: $$\langle\bar B(v')|\,\bar b\,\gamma^\mu b\,|\bar B(v)\rangle
= F_{\rm el}(q^2)\,(p+p')^\mu \,,$$ where $p^(\phantom{}'\phantom{}^)=m_B v^(\phantom{}'\phantom{}^)$. Comparing this with (\[elast\]), we find that $$F_{\rm el}(q^2) = \xi(v\cdot v') \,, \qquad
q^2 = -2 m_B^2 (v\cdot v'-1) \,.$$ Because of current conservation, the elastic form factor is normalized to unity at $q^2=0$. This condition implies the normalization of the Isgur–Wise function at the kinematic point $v\cdot v'=1$, i.e. for $v=v'$: $$\label{Jcons2}
\xi(1) = 1 \,.$$ It is in accordance with the intuitive argument that the probability for an elastic transition is unity if there is no velocity change. Since for $v=v'$ the daughter meson is at rest in the rest frame of the parent meson, the point $v\cdot v'=1$ is referred to as the zero-recoil limit.
We can now use the flavour symmetry to replace the $b$ quark in the final-state meson by a $c$ quark, thereby turning the $B$ meson into a $D$ meson. Then the scattering process turns into a weak decay process. In the infinite mass limit, the replacement $b_{v'}\to
c_{v'}$ is a symmetry transformation, under which the effective Lagrangian is invariant. Hence, the matrix element $${1\over\sqrt{m_B m_D}}\,\langle D(v')|\,\bar c_{v'}\gamma^\mu
b_v\,|\bar B(v)\rangle = \xi(v\cdot v')\,(v+v')^\mu$$ is still determined by the same function $\xi(v\cdot v')$. This is interesting, since in general the matrix element of a flavour-changing current between two pseudoscalar mesons is described by two form factors: $$\langle D(v')|\,\bar c\,\gamma^\mu b\,|\bar B(v)\rangle
= f_+(q^2)\,(p+p')^\mu - f_-(q^2)\,(p-p')^\mu \,.$$ Comparing the above two equations, we find that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{inelast}
f_\pm(q^2) &=& {m_B\pm m_D\over 2\sqrt{m_B m_D}}\,\xi(v\cdot v')
\,, \nonumber\\
q^2 &=& m_B^2 + m_D^2 - 2 m_B m_D\,v\cdot v' \,.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, the heavy-quark flavour symmetry relates two a priori independent form factors to one and the same function. Moreover, the normalization of the Isgur–Wise function at $v\cdot v'=1$ now implies a non-trivial normalization of the form factors $f_\pm(q^2)$ at the point of maximum momentum transfer, $q_{\rm max}^2=
(m_B-m_D)^2$: $$f_\pm(q_{\rm max}^2) = {m_B\pm m_D\over 2\sqrt{m_B m_D}} \,.$$
The heavy-quark spin symmetry leads to additional relations among weak decay form factors. It can be used to relate matrix elements involving vector mesons to those involving pseudoscalar mesons. A vector meson with longitudinal polarization is related to a pseudoscalar meson by a rotation of the heavy-quark spin. Hence, the spin-symmetry transformation $c_{v'}^\Uparrow\to c_{v'}^\Downarrow$ relates $\bar B\to D$ with $\bar B\to D^*$ transitions. The result of this transformation is [@Isgu]: $$\begin{aligned}
{1\over\sqrt{m_B m_{D^*}}}\,
\langle D^*(v',\varepsilon)|\,\bar c_{v'}\gamma^\mu b_v\,
|\bar B(v)\rangle &=& i\epsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\,
\varepsilon_\nu^*\,v'_\alpha v_\beta\,\,\xi(v\cdot v') \,,
\nonumber\\
{1\over\sqrt{m_B m_{D^*}}}\,
\langle D^*(v',\varepsilon)|\,\bar c_{v'}\gamma^\mu\gamma_5\,
b_v\,|\bar B(v)\rangle &=& \Big[ \varepsilon^{*\mu}\,(v\cdot v'+1)
- v'^\mu\,\varepsilon^*\!\cdot v \Big]\,\xi(v\cdot v') \,,
\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ where $\varepsilon$ denotes the polarization vector of the $D^*$ meson. Once again, the matrix elements are completely described in terms of the Isgur–Wise function. Now this is even more remarkable, since in general four form factors, $V(q^2)$ for the vector current, and $A_i(q^2)$, $i=0,1,2$, for the axial vector current, are required to parametrize these matrix elements. In the heavy-quark limit, they obey the relations [@Neu1] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{PVff}
{m_B\pm m_{D^*}\over 2\sqrt{m_B m_{D^*}}}\,\xi(v\cdot v')
&=& V(q^2) = A_0(q^2) = A_1(q^2) \nonumber\\
&=& \bigg[ 1 - {q^2\over(m_B+m_D)^2} \bigg]^{-1}\,A_1(q^2) \,,
\nonumber\\
\phantom{ \Bigg[ }
q^2 &=& m_B^2 + m_{D^*}^2 - 2 m_B m_{D^*}\,v\cdot v' \,.\end{aligned}$$
Equations (\[inelast\]) and (\[PVff\]) summarize the relations imposed by heavy-quark symmetry on the weak decay form factors describing the semileptonic decay processes $\bar B\to
D\,\ell\,\bar\nu$ and $\bar B\to D^*\ell\,\bar\nu$. These relations are model-independent consequences of QCD in the limit where $m_b,
m_c\gg\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$. They play a crucial role in the determination of the CKM matrix element $|V_{cb}|$. In terms of the recoil variable $w=v\cdot v'$, the differential semileptonic decay rates in the heavy-quark limit become [@Vcb]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{rates}
{{\rm d}\Gamma(\bar B\to D\,\ell\,\bar\nu)\over{\rm d}w}
&=& {G_F^2\over 48\pi^3}\,|V_{cb}|^2\,(m_B+m_D)^2\,m_D^3\,
(w^2-1)^{3/2}\,\xi^2(w) \,, \nonumber\\
\phantom{ \Bigg[ }
{{\rm d}\Gamma(\bar B\to D^*\ell\,\bar\nu)\over{\rm d}w}
&=& {G_F^2\over 48\pi^3}\,|V_{cb}|^2\,(m_B-m_{D^*})^2\,
m_{D^*}^3\,\sqrt{w^2-1}\,(w+1)^2 \nonumber\\
&&\times \Bigg[ 1 + {4w\over w+1}\,
{m_B^2 - 2 w\,m_B m_{D^*} + m_{D^*}^2\over(m_B-m_{D^*})^2}
\Bigg]\,\xi^2(w) \,.\end{aligned}$$ These expressions receive symmetry-breaking corrections, since the masses of the heavy quarks are not infinitely heavy. Perturbative corrections of order $\alpha_s^n(m_Q)$ can be calculated order by order in perturbation theory. A more difficult task is to control the non-perturbative power corrections of order $(\Lambda_{\rm
QCD}/m_Q)^n$. The HQET provides a systematic framework for analysing these corrections. For the case of weak-decay form factors, the analysis of the $1/m_Q$ corrections was performed by Luke [@Luke]. Later, Falk and the present author have also analysed the structure of $1/m_Q^2$ corrections for both meson and baryon weak decay form factors [@FaNe]. We shall not discuss these rather technical issues in detail, but only mention the most important result of Luke’s analysis. It concerns the zero-recoil limit, where an analogue of the Ademollo–Gatto theorem [@AGTh] can be proved. This is Luke’s theorem [@Luke], which states that the matrix elements describing the leading $1/m_Q$ corrections to weak decay amplitudes vanish at zero recoil. This theorem is valid to all orders in perturbation theory [@FaNe; @Neu7; @ChGr]. Most importantly, it protects the $\bar B\to D^*\ell\,\bar\nu$ decay rate from receiving first-order $1/m_Q$ corrections at zero recoil [@Vcb]. (A similar statement is not true for the decay $\bar B\to D\,\ell\,\bar\nu$, however. The reason is simple but somewhat subtle. Luke’s theorem protects only those form factors not multiplied by kinematic factors that vanish for $v=v'$. By angular momentum conservation, the two pseudoscalar mesons in the decay $\bar
B\to D\,\ell\,\bar\nu$ must be in a relative $p$ wave, and hence the amplitude is proportional to the velocity $|\vec v_D|$ of the $D$ meson in the $B$-meson rest frame. This leads to a factor $(w^2-1)$ in the decay rate. In such a situation, form factors that are kinematically suppressed can contribute [@Neu1].)
Model-Independent Determination of $|V_{cb}|$
---------------------------------------------
We will now discuss the most important application of the HQET in the context of semileptonic decays of $B$ mesons. A model-independent determination of the CKM matrix element $|V_{cb}|$ based on heavy-quark symmetry can be obtained by measuring the recoil spectrum of $D^*$ mesons produced in $\bar B\to D^*\ell\,\bar\nu$ decays [@Vcb]. In the heavy-quark limit, the differential decay rate for this process has been given in (\[rates\]). In order to allow for corrections to that limit, we write $$\begin{aligned}
{{\rm d}\Gamma(\bar B\to D^*\ell\,\bar\nu)\over{\rm d}w}
&=& {G_F^2\over 48\pi^3}\,(m_B-m_{D^*})^2\,m_{D^*}^3
\sqrt{w^2-1}\,(w+1)^2 \nonumber\\
&&\mbox{}\times \Bigg[ 1 + {4w\over w+1}\,
{m_B^2-2w\,m_B m_{D^*} + m_{D^*}^2\over(m_B - m_{D^*})^2}
\Bigg]\,|V_{cb}|^2\,{\cal{F}}^2(w) \,, \nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ where the hadronic form factor ${\cal F}(w)$ coincides with the Isgur–Wise function up to symmetry-breaking corrections of order $\alpha_s(m_Q)$ and $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}/m_Q$. The idea is to measure the product $|V_{cb}|\,{\cal F}(w)$ as a function of $w$, and to extract $|V_{cb}|$ from an extrapolation of the data to the zero-recoil point $w=1$, where the $B$ and the $D^*$ mesons have a common rest frame. At this kinematic point, heavy-quark symmetry helps to calculate the normalization ${\cal F}(1)$ with small and controlled theoretical errors. Since the range of $w$ values accessible in this decay is rather small ($1<w<1.5$), the extrapolation can be done using an expansion around $w=1$: $$\label{Fexp}
{\cal F}(w) = {\cal F}(1)\,\Big[ 1 - \widehat\varrho^2\,(w-1)
+ \dots \Big] \,.$$ The slope $\widehat\varrho^2$ is treated as a fit parameter.
Measurements of the recoil spectrum have been performed first by the ARGUS [@ARGVcb] and CLEO [@CLEOVcb] Collaborations in experiments operating at the $\Upsilon(4s)$ resonance, and more recently by the ALEPH [@ALEVcb] and DELPHI [@DELVcb] Collaborations at LEP. As an example, Fig. \[fig:CLVcb\] shows the data reported by the CLEO Collaboration. The results obtained by the various experimental groups from a linear fit to their data are summarized in Table \[tab:Vcb\]. The weighted average of these results is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{VcbFraw}
|V_{cb}|\,{\cal F}(1) &=& (34.6\pm 1.7)\times 10^{-3} \,,
\nonumber\\
\widehat\varrho^2 &=& 0.82\pm 0.09 \,.\end{aligned}$$ The effect of a positive curvature of the form factor has been investigated by Stone [@Stone], who finds that the value of $|V_{cb}|\,{\cal F}(1)$ may change by up to $+4\%$. We thus increase the above value by $(2\pm 2)\%$ and quote the final result as $$\label{VcbF}
|V_{cb}|\,{\cal F}(1) = (35.3\pm 1.8)\times 10^{-3} \,.$$ In future analyses, the extrapolation to zero recoil should be performed including higher-order terms in the expansion (\[Fexp\]). It can be shown in a model-independent way that the shape of the form factor is highly constrained by analyticity and unitarity requirements [@Boyd2; @Capr]. In particular, the curvature at $w=1$ is strongly correlated with the slope of the form factor. For the value of $\widehat\varrho^2$ given in (\[VcbFraw\]), one obtains a small positive curvature [@Capr], in agreement with the assumption made in Ref. 47.
[|l|c|c|]{}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
& $|V_{cb}|\,{\cal F}(1)~(10^{-3})$ & $\widehat\varrho^2$\
ARGUS & $38.8\pm 4.3\pm 2.5$ & $1.17\pm 0.22\pm 0.06$\
CLEO & $35.1\pm 1.9\pm 2.0$ & $0.84\pm 0.12\pm 0.08$\
ALEPH & $31.4\pm 2.3\pm 2.5$ & $0.39\pm 0.21\pm 0.12$\
DELPHI & $35.0\pm 1.9\pm 2.3$ & $0.81\pm 0.16\pm 0.10$\
Heavy-quark symmetry implies that the general structure of the symmetry-breaking corrections to the form factor at zero recoil is [@Vcb] $${\cal F}(1) = \eta_A\,\bigg( 1 + 0 \times
{\Lambda_{\rm QCD}\over m_Q}
+ \mbox{const} \times {\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^2\over m_Q^2}
+ \dots \bigg)
\equiv \eta_A\,(1+\delta_{1/m^2}) \,,$$ where $\eta_A$ is a short-distance correction arising from the (finite) renormalization of the flavour-changing axial current at zero recoil, and $\delta_{1/m^2}$ parametrizes second-order (and higher) power corrections. The absence of first-order power corrections at zero recoil is a consequence of Luke’s theorem [@Luke]. The one-loop expression for $\eta_A$ has been known for a long time [@Pasc; @Vol2; @QCD1]: $$\label{etaA1}
\eta_A = 1 + {\alpha_s(M)\over\pi}\,\bigg(
{m_b+m_c\over m_b-m_c}\,\ln{m_b\over m_c} - {8\over 3} \bigg)
\simeq 0.96 \,.$$ The scale $M$ in the running coupling constant can be fixed by adopting the prescription of Brodsky, Lepage and Mackenzie (BLM) [@BLM], according to which it is identified with the average virtuality of the gluon in the one-loop diagrams that contribute to $\eta_A$. If $\alpha_s(M)$ is defined in the modified minimal subtraction ($\overline{\mbox{\sc ms}}$) scheme, the result is [@etaVA] $M\simeq 0.51\sqrt{m_c m_b}$. Several estimates of higher-order corrections to $\eta_A$ have been discussed. The next-to-leading order resummation of logarithms of the type $[\alpha_s\ln( m_b/m_c)]^n$ leads to [@FaGr; @QCD2] $\eta_A\simeq
0.985$. On the other hand, the resummation of “renormalon-chain” contributions of the form $\beta_0^{n-1}\alpha_s^n$, where $\beta_0$ is the first coefficient of the QCD $\beta$-function, gives [@flow] $\eta_A\simeq 0.945$. Using these partial resummations to estimate the uncertainty results in $\eta_A =
0.965\pm 0.020$. Recently, Czarnecki has improved this estimate by calculating $\eta_A$ at two-loop order [@Czar]. His result, $$\eta_A = 0.960\pm 0.007 \,,$$ is in excellent agreement with the BLM-improved one-loop estimate (\[etaA1\]). Here the error is taken to be the size of the two-loop correction.
The analysis of the power corrections $\delta_{1/m^2}$ is more difficult, since it cannot rely on perturbation theory. Three approaches have been discussed: in the “exclusive approach”, all $1/m_Q^2$ operators in the HQET are classified and their matrix elements estimated, leading to [@FaNe; @TMann] $\delta_{1/m^2}=-(3\pm 2)\%$; the “inclusive approach” has been used to derive the bound $\delta_{1/m^2}<-3\%$, and to estimate that [@Shif]$^,$[^3] $\delta_{1/m^2}=-(7\pm 3)\%$; the “hybrid approach” combines the virtues of the former two to obtain a more restrictive lower bound on $\delta_{1/m^2}$. This leads to [@Vcbnew] $$\delta_{1/m^2} = - 0.055\pm 0.025 \,.$$
Combining the above results, adding the theoretical errors linearly to be conservative, gives $$\label{F1}
{\cal F}(1) = 0.91\pm 0.03$$ for the normalization of the hadronic form factor at zero recoil. Thus, the corrections to the heavy-quark limit amount to a moderate decrease of the form factor of about 10%. This can be used to extract from the experimental result (\[VcbF\]) the model-independent value $$\label{Vcbexc}
|V_{cb}| = (38.8\pm 2.0_{\rm exp}\pm 1.2_{\rm th})
\times 10^{-3} \,.$$
Heavy-Quark Effective Theory {#sec:HQET}
============================
The Effective Lagrangian {#sec:Leff}
------------------------
The effects of a very heavy particle often become irrelevant at low energies. It is then useful to construct a low-energy effective theory, in which this heavy particle no longer appears. Eventually, this effective theory will be easier to deal with than the full theory. A familiar example is Fermi’s theory of the weak interactions. For the description of weak decays of hadrons, the weak interactions can be approximated by point-like four-fermion couplings, governed by a dimensionful coupling constant $G_F$. Only at energies much larger than the masses of hadrons can the effects of the intermediate vector bosons, $W$ and $Z$, be resolved.
The process of removing the degrees of freedom of a heavy particle involves the following steps [@SVZ1]$^-$[@Polc]: one first identifies the heavy-particle fields and “integrates them out” in the generating functional of the Green functions of the theory. This is possible since at low energies the heavy particle does not appear as an external state. However, although the action of the full theory is usually a local one, what results after this first step is a non-local effective action. The non-locality is related to the fact that in the full theory the heavy particle with mass $M$ can appear in virtual processes and propagate over a short but finite distance $\Delta x\sim 1/M$. Thus, a second step is required to obtain a local effective Lagrangian: the non-local effective action is rewritten as an infinite series of local terms in an Operator Product Expansion (OPE) [@Wils; @Zimm]. Roughly speaking, this corresponds to an expansion in powers of $1/M$. It is in this step that the short- and long-distance physics is disentangled. The long-distance physics corresponds to interactions at low energies and is the same in the full and the effective theory. But short-distance effects arising from quantum corrections involving large virtual momenta (of order $M$) are not reproduced in the effective theory, once the heavy particle has been integrated out. In a third step, they have to be added in a perturbative way using renormalization-group techniques. These short-distance effects lead to a renormalization of the coefficients of the local operators in the effective Lagrangian. An example is the effective Lagrangian for non-leptonic weak decays, in which radiative corrections from hard gluons with virtual momenta in the range between $m_W$ and some renormalization scale $\mu\sim
1$ GeV give rise to Wilson coefficients, which renormalize the local four-fermion interactions [@AltM]$^-$[@Gilm].
The heavy-quark effective theory (HQET) is constructed to provide a simplified description of processes where a heavy quark interacts with light degrees of freedom predominantly by the exchange of soft gluons [@EiFe]$^-$[@Mann]. Clearly, $m_Q$ is the high-energy scale in this case, and $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$ is the scale of the hadronic physics we are interested in. The situation is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:magic\]. At short distances, i.e. for energy scales larger than the heavy-quark mass, the physics is perturbative and described by ordinary QCD. For mass scales much below the heavy-quark mass, the physics is complicated and non-perturbative because of confinement. Our goal is to obtain a simplified description in this region using an effective field theory. To separate short- and long-distance effects, we introduce a separation scale $\mu$ such that $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}\ll\mu\ll m_Q$. The HQET will be constructed in such a way that it is identical to QCD in the long-distance region, i.e. for scales below $\mu$. In the short-distance region, the effective theory is incomplete, however, since some high-momentum modes have been integrated out from the full theory. The fact that the physics must be independent of the arbitrary scale $\mu$ allows us to derive renormalization-group equations, which we shall employ to deal with the short-distance effects in an efficient way.
Compared with most effective theories, in which the degrees of freedom of a heavy particle are removed completely from the low-energy theory, the HQET is special in that its purpose is to describe the properties and decays of hadrons which do contain a heavy quark. Hence, it is not possible to remove the heavy quark completely from the effective theory. What is possible is to integrate out the “small components” in the full heavy-quark spinor, which describe the fluctuations around the mass shell.
The starting point in the construction of the low-energy effective theory is the observation that a very heavy quark bound inside a hadron moves more or less with the hadron’s velocity $v$, and is almost on shell. Its momentum can be written as $$\label{kresdef}
p_Q^\mu = m_Q v^\mu + k^\mu \,,$$ where the components of the so-called residual momentum $k$ are much smaller than $m_Q$. Note that $v$ is a four-velocity, so that $v^2=1$. Interactions of the heavy quark with light degrees of freedom change the residual momentum by an amount of order $\Delta
k\sim\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$, but the corresponding changes in the heavy-quark velocity vanish as $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}/m_Q\to 0$. In this situation, it is appropriate to introduce large- and small-component fields, $h_v$ and $H_v$, by $$\label{hvHvdef}
h_v(x) = e^{i m_Q v\cdot x}\,P_+\,Q(x) \,, \qquad
H_v(x) = e^{i m_Q v\cdot x}\,P_-\,Q(x) \,,$$ where $P_+$ and $P_-$ are projection operators defined as $$P_\pm = {1\pm\rlap/v\over 2} \,.$$ It follows that $$\label{redef}
Q(x) = e^{-i m_Q v\cdot x}\,[ h_v(x) + H_v(x) ] \,.$$ Because of the projection operators, the new fields satisfy $\rlap/v\,h_v=h_v$ and $\rlap/v\,H_v=-H_v$. In the rest frame, i.e.for $v^\mu=(1,0,0,0)$, $h_v$ corresponds to the upper two components of $Q$, while $H_v$ corresponds to the lower ones. Whereas $h_v$ annihilates a heavy quark with velocity $v$, $H_v$ creates a heavy antiquark with velocity $v$.
In terms of the new fields, the QCD Lagrangian for a heavy quark takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Lhchi}
{\cal L}_Q &=& \bar Q\,(i\,\rlap{\,/}D - m_Q)\,Q \nonumber\\
&=& \bar h_v\,i v\!\cdot\!D\,h_v
- \bar H_v\,(i v\!\cdot\!D + 2 m_Q)\,H_v \nonumber\\
&&\mbox{}+ \bar h_v\,i\,\rlap{\,/}D_\perp H_v
+ \bar H_v\,i\,\rlap{\,/}D_\perp h_v \,,\end{aligned}$$ where $D_\perp^\mu = D^\mu - v^\mu\,v\cdot D$ is orthogonal to the heavy-quark velocity: $v\cdot D_\perp=0$. In the rest frame, $D_\perp^\mu=(0,\vec D\,)$ contains the spatial components of the covariant derivative. From (\[Lhchi\]), it is apparent that $h_v$ describes massless degrees of freedom, whereas $H_v$ corresponds to fluctuations with twice the heavy-quark mass. These are the heavy degrees of freedom that will be eliminated in the construction of the effective theory. The fields are mixed by the presence of the third and fourth terms, which describe pair creation or annihilation of heavy quarks and antiquarks. As shown in the first diagram in Fig. \[fig:3.1\], in a virtual process a heavy quark propagating forward in time can turn into an antiquark propagating backward in time, and then turn back into a quark. The energy of the intermediate quantum state $h h\bar H$ is larger than the energy of the initial heavy quark by at least $2 m_Q$. Because of this large energy gap, the virtual quantum fluctuation can only propagate over a short distance $\Delta x\sim 1/m_Q$. On hadronic scales set by $R_{\rm
had}=1/\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$, the process essentially looks like a local interaction of the form $$\bar h_v\,i\,\rlap{\,/}D_\perp\,{1\over 2 m_Q}\,
i\,\rlap{\,/}D_\perp h_v \,,$$ where we have simply replaced the propagator for $H_v$ by $1/2 m_Q$. A more correct treatment is to integrate out the small-component field $H_v$, thereby deriving a non-local effective action for the large-component field $h_v$, which can then be expanded in terms of local operators. Before doing this, let us mention a second type of virtual corrections involving pair creation, namely heavy-quark loops. An example is shown in the second diagram in Fig. \[fig:3.1\]. Heavy-quark loops cannot be described in terms of the effective fields $h_v$ and $H_v$, since the quark velocities inside a loop are not conserved and are in no way related to hadron velocities. However, such short-distance processes are proportional to the small coupling constant $\alpha_s(m_Q)$ and can be calculated in perturbation theory. They lead to corrections that are added onto the low-energy effective theory in the renormalization procedure to be discussed later.
On a classical level, the heavy degrees of freedom represented by $H_v$ can be eliminated using the equation of motion. Taking the variation of the Lagrangian with respect to the field $\bar H_v$, we obtain $$(i v\!\cdot\!D + 2 m_Q)\,H_v = i\,\rlap{\,/}D_\perp h_v \,.$$ This equation can formally be solved to give $$\label{Hfield}
H_v = {1\over 2 m_Q + i v\!\cdot\!D}\,
i\,\rlap{\,/}D_\perp h_v \,,$$ showing that the small-component field $H_v$ is indeed of order $1/m_Q$. We can now insert this solution into (\[Lhchi\]) to obtain the “non-local effective Lagrangian” $$\label{Lnonloc}
{\cal L}_{\rm eff} = \bar h_v\,i v\!\cdot\!D\,h_v
+ \bar h_v\,i\,\rlap{\,/}D_\perp\,{1\over 2 m_Q+i v\!\cdot\!D}\,
i\,\rlap{\,/}D_\perp h_v \,.$$ Clearly, the second term corresponds to the first class of virtual processes shown in Fig. \[fig:3.1\].
It is possible to derive this Lagrangian in a more elegant way by manipulating the generating functional for QCD Green’s functions containing heavy-quark fields [@Mann]. To this end, one starts from the field redefinition (\[redef\]) and couples the large-component fields $h_v$ to external sources $\rho_v$. Green’s functions with an arbitrary number of $h_v$ fields can be constructed by taking derivatives with respect to $\rho_v$. No sources are needed for the heavy degrees of freedom represented by $H_v$. The functional integral over these fields is Gaussian and can be performed explicitly, leading to the effective action $$\label{SeffMRR}
S_{\rm eff} = \int\!{\rm d}^4 x\,{\cal L}_{\rm eff}
- i \ln\Delta \,,$$ with ${\cal L}_{\rm eff}$ as given in (\[Lnonloc\]). The appearance of the logarithm of the determinant $$\Delta = \exp\bigg( {1\over 2}\,{\rm Tr}\,
\ln\big[ 2 m_Q + i v\!\cdot\!D - i\eta \big] \bigg)$$ is a quantum effect not present in the classical derivation presented above. However, in this case the determinant can be regulated in a gauge-invariant way, and by choosing the axial gauge $v\cdot A=0$ one shows that $\ln\Delta$ is just an irrelevant constant [@Mann; @Soto].
Because of the phase factor in (\[redef\]), the $x$ dependence of the effective heavy-quark field $h_v$ is weak. In momentum space, derivatives acting on $h_v$ correspond to powers of the residual momentum $k$, which by construction is much smaller than $m_Q$. Hence, the non-local effective Lagrangian (\[Lnonloc\]) allows for a derivative expansion in powers of $iD/m_Q$: $${\cal L}_{\rm eff} = \bar h_v\,i v\!\cdot\!D\,h_v
+ {1\over 2 m_Q}\,\sum_{n=0}^\infty\,
\bar h_v\,i\,\rlap{\,/}D_\perp\,\bigg( -{i v\cdot D\over 2 m_Q}
\bigg)^n\,i\,\rlap{\,/}D_\perp h_v \,.$$ Taking into account that $h_v$ contains a $P_+$ projection operator, and using the identity $$\label{pplusid}
P_+\,i\,\rlap{\,/}D_\perp\,i\,\rlap{\,/}D_\perp P_+
= P_+\,\bigg[ (i D_\perp)^2 + {g_s\over 2}\,
\sigma_{\mu\nu }\,G^{\mu\nu } \bigg]\,P_+ \,,$$ where $[i D^\mu,i D^\nu]=i g_s G^{\mu\nu}$ is the gluon field-strength tensor, one finds that [@EiH2; @FGL] $$\label{Lsubl}
{\cal L}_{\rm eff} = \bar h_v\,i v\!\cdot\!D\,h_v
+ {1\over 2 m_Q}\,\bar h_v\,(i D_\perp)^2\,h_v
+ {g_s\over 4 m_Q}\,\bar h_v\,\sigma_{\mu\nu}\,
G^{\mu\nu}\,h_v + O(1/m_Q^2) \,.$$ In the limit $m_Q\to\infty$, only the first terms remains: $$\label{Leff}
{\cal L}_\infty = \bar h_v\,i v\!\cdot\!D\,h_v \,.$$ This is the effective Lagrangian of the HQET. It gives rise to the Feynman rules depicted in Fig. \[fig:3.2\].
Let us take a moment to study the symmetries of this Lagrangian [@Geor]. Since there appear no Dirac matrices, interactions of the heavy quark with gluons leave its spin unchanged. Associated with this is an SU(2) symmetry group, under which ${\cal L}_\infty$ is invariant. The action of this symmetry on the heavy-quark fields becomes most transparent in the rest frame, where the generators $S^i$ of SU(2) can be chosen as $$\label{Si}
S^i = {1\over 2} \left( \begin{array}{cc}
\sigma^i ~&~ 0 \\
0 ~&~ \sigma^i \end{array} \right) \,,
\qquad [S^i,S^j] = i \epsilon^{ijk} S^k \,.$$ Here $\sigma^i$ are the Pauli matrices. An infinitesimal SU(2) transformation $h_v\to (1 + i\vec\epsilon \cdot\vec S\,)\,h_v$ leaves the Lagrangian invariant: $$\label{SU2tr}
\delta{\cal L}_\infty = \bar h_v\,
[i v\!\cdot\! D,i \vec\epsilon\cdot\vec S\,]\,h_v = 0 \,.$$ Another symmetry of the HQET arises since the mass of the heavy quark does not appear in the effective Lagrangian. For $N_h$ heavy quarks moving at the same velocity, eq. (\[Leff\]) can be extended by writing $$\label{Leff2}
{\cal L}_\infty
= \sum_{i=1}^{N_h}\,\bar h_v^i\,i v\!\cdot\! D\,h_v^i \,.$$ This is invariant under rotations in flavour space. When combined with the spin symmetry, the symmetry group is promoted to SU$(2N_h)$. This is the heavy-quark spin–flavour symmetry [@Isgu; @Geor]. Its physical content is that, in the limit $m_Q\to\infty$, the strong interactions of a heavy quark become independent of its mass and spin.
Consider now the operators appearing at order $1/m_Q$ in the effective Lagrangian (\[Lsubl\]). They are easiest to identify in the rest frame. The first operator, $$\label{Okin}
{\cal O}_{\rm kin} = {1\over 2 m_Q}\,\bar h_v\,(i D_\perp)^2\,
h_v \to - {1\over 2 m_Q}\,\bar h_v\,(i \vec D\,)^2\,h_v \,,$$ is the gauge-covariant extension of the kinetic energy arising from the off-shell residual motion of the heavy quark. The second operator is the non-abelian analogue of the Pauli interaction, which describes the chromo-magnetic coupling of the heavy-quark spin to the gluon field: $$\label{Omag}
{\cal O}_{\rm mag} = {g_s\over 4 m_Q}\,\bar h_v\,
\sigma_{\mu\nu}\,G^{\mu\nu}\,h_v \to
- {g_s\over m_Q}\,\bar h_v\,\vec S\!\cdot\!\vec B_c\,h_v \,.$$ Here $\vec S$ is the spin operator defined in (\[Si\]), and $B_c^i
= -\frac{1}{2}\epsilon^{ijk} G^{jk}$ are the components of the chromo-magnetic field. The chromo-magnetic interaction is a relativistic effect, which scales like $1/m_Q$. This is the origin of the heavy-quark spin symmetry.
Wave-Function Renormalization of the Heavy-Quark Field in the HQET
------------------------------------------------------------------
Besides being an effective theory for the strong interactions of heavy quarks with light degrees of freedom, the HQET is a consistent, renormalizable (order by order in $1/m_Q$) quantum field theory in its own right. In particular, it provides a framework for calculating radiative corrections. We shall discuss as an illustration the wave-function renormalization of the heavy-quark field $h_v$.
In quantum field theory, the parameters and fields of the Lagrangian have no direct physical significance. They have to be renormalized before they can be related to observable quantities. In an intermediate step the theory has to be regularized. The most convenient regularization scheme in QCD is dimensional regularization [@tHo2]$^-$[@Boll], in which the dimension of space-time is analytically continued to $D=4-2\epsilon$, with $\epsilon$ being infinitesimal. Loop integrals that are logarithmically divergent in four dimensions become finite for $\epsilon>0$. From the fact that the action $S=\int{\rm d}^Dx\, {\cal
L}(x)$ is dimensionless, one can derive the mass dimensions of the fields and parameters of the theory. For instance, one finds that the “bare” coupling constant $\alpha_s^{\rm bare}$ is no longer dimensionless if $D\ne 4$: ${\rm dim}[\,\alpha_s^{\rm bare}\,] =
2\epsilon$. In a renormalizable theory, it is possible to rewrite the Lagrangian in terms of renormalized quantities in such a way that Green’s functions of the renormalized fields remain finite as $\epsilon\to 0$. For QCD, one introduces renormalized quantities by $Q^{\rm bare} = Z_Q^{1/2}\,Q^{\rm ren}$, $A^{\rm bare} = Z_A^{1/2}
A^{\rm ren}$, $\alpha_s^{\rm bare}=\mu^{2\epsilon}Z_\alpha\,
\alpha_s^{\rm ren}$, etc., where $\mu$ is an arbitrary mass scale introduced to render the renormalized coupling constant dimensionless. Similarly, in the HQET one defines the renormalized heavy-quark field by $h_v^{\rm bare}=Z_h^{1/2}\,h_v^{\rm ren}$. From now on, the superscript “ren” will be omitted.
=3.5cm
In the minimal subtraction ([ms]{}) scheme, $Z_h$ can be computed from the $1/\epsilon$ pole in the heavy-quark self-energy using $$1 - Z_h^{-1} = {1\over\epsilon}\mbox{pole of }\,
{\partial\Sigma(v\cdot k)\over\partial v\cdot k} \,.$$ As long as $v\cdot k<0$, the self-energy is infrared finite and real. The result is gauge-dependent, however. Evaluating the diagram shown in Fig. \[fig:3.4\] in the Feynman gauge, we obtain at one-loop order $$\begin{aligned}
\Sigma(v\cdot k) &=& - i g_s^2\,t_a t_a \int
{\mbox{d}^D t\over(2\pi)^D}\,{1\over (t^2+i\eta)
\big[ v\cdot(t+k)+i\eta \big]} \nonumber\\
&=& - 2i C_F g_s^2 \int\limits_0^\infty\!\mbox{d}\lambda
\int{\mbox{d}^D t\over(2\pi)^D}\,{1\over\big[ t^2 +
2\lambda\,v\cdot(t+k) + i\eta \big]^2} \nonumber\\
&=& {C_F\alpha_s\over 2\pi}\,\Gamma(\epsilon)
\int\limits_0^\infty\!\mbox{d}\lambda\,\bigg(
{\lambda^2 + \lambda\omega\over 4\pi\mu^2} \bigg)^{-\epsilon} \,,\end{aligned}$$ where $C_F=4/3$ is a colour factor, $\lambda$ is a dimensionful Feynman parameter, and $\omega=-2 v\cdot k>0$ acts as an infrared cutoff. A straightforward calculation leads to $$\begin{aligned}
{\partial\Sigma(v\cdot k)\over\partial v\cdot k}
&=& {C_F\alpha_s\over\pi}\,\Gamma(1+\epsilon)\,
\bigg( {\omega^2\over 4\pi\mu^2} \bigg)^{-\epsilon}
\int\limits_0^1\!\mbox{d}z\,z^{-1+2\epsilon}\,
(1-z)^{-\epsilon} \nonumber\\
&=& {C_F\alpha_s\over\pi}\,\Gamma(2\epsilon)\,\Gamma(1-\epsilon)\,
\bigg( {\omega^2\over 4\pi\mu^2} \bigg)^{-\epsilon} \,,\end{aligned}$$ where we have substituted $\lambda=\omega\,(1-z)/z$. From an expansion around $\epsilon=0$, we obtain $$\label{ZfacMS}
Z_h = 1 + {C_F\alpha_s\over 2\pi\epsilon} \,.$$ This result was first derived by Politzer and Wise [@PoWi]. In the meantime, the calculation was also done at the two-loop order [@JiMu]$^-$[@Gime].
The Residual Mass Term and the Definition of the Heavy-Quark Mass
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The choice of the expansion parameter in the HQET, i.e. the definition of the heavy-quark mass $m_Q$, deserves some comments. In the derivation presented earlier in this section, we chose $m_Q$ to be the “mass in the Lagrangian”, and using this parameter in the phase redefinition in (\[redef\]) we obtained the effective Lagrangian (\[Leff\]), in which the heavy-quark mass no longer appears. However, this treatment has its subtleties. The symmetries of the HQET allow a “residual mass term” $\delta m$ for the heavy quark, provided that $\delta m$ is of order $\Lambda_{\rm
QCD}$ and is the same for all heavy-quark flavours. Even if we arrange that such a term is not present at the tree level, it will in general be induced by quantum corrections. (This is unavoidable if the theory is regulated with a dimensionful cutoff.) Therefore, instead of (\[Leff\]) we should write the effective Lagrangian in the more general form [@FNL]: $$\begin{aligned}
h_v(x) &=& e^{i m_Q v\cdot x}\,P_+\,Q(x) \nonumber\\
\Rightarrow \qquad
{\cal L}_\infty &=& \bar h_v\,iv\!\cdot\!D\,h_v
- \delta m\,\bar h_v h_v \,.\end{aligned}$$ If we redefine the expansion parameter according to $m_Q\to
m_Q+\Delta m$, the residual mass changes in the opposite way: $\delta
m\to\delta m-\Delta m$. This implies that there is a unique choice of the expansion parameter such that $\delta m=0$. Requiring $\delta
m=0$, as it is usually done implicitly in the HQET, defines a heavy-quark mass, which in perturbation theory coincides with the pole mass [@Tarr]. This, in turn, defines for each heavy hadron a parameter $\bar\Lambda$ (sometimes called the “binding energy”) through $$\bar\Lambda = (m_H - m_Q)\Big|_{m_Q\to\infty} \,.$$ If one prefers to work with another choice of the expansion parameter, the values of non-perturbative parameters such as $\bar\Lambda$ change, but at the same time one has to include the residual mass term in the HQET Lagrangian. It can be shown that the various parameters that depend on the definition of $m_Q$ enter the predictions for all physical observables in such a way that the results are independent of which particular choice one adopts [@FNL].
There is one more subtlety hidden in the above discussion. The quantities $m_Q$, $\bar\Lambda$ and $\delta m$ are non-perturbative parameters of the HQET, which have a similar status as the vacuum condensates in QCD phenomenology [@SVZ]. These parameters cannot be defined unambiguously in perturbation theory. The reason lies in the divergent behaviour of perturbative expansions in large orders, which is associated with the existence of singularities along the real axis in the Borel plane, the so-called renormalons [@tHof]$^-$[@Muel]. For instance, the perturbation series which relates the pole mass $m_Q$ of a heavy quark to its bare mass, $$m_Q = m_Q^{\rm bare}\,\Big\{ 1 + c_1\,\alpha_s(m_Q)
+ c_2\,\alpha_s^2(m_Q) + \dots + c_n\,\alpha_s^n(m_Q)
+ \dots \Big\} \,,$$ contains numerical coefficients $c_n$ that grow as $n!$ for large $n$, rendering the series divergent and not Borel summable [@BBren; @Bigiren]. The best one can achieve is to truncate the perturbation series at the minimal term, but this leads to an unavoidable arbitrariness of order $\Delta m_Q\sim\Lambda_{\rm
QCD}$ (the size of the minimal term). This observation, which at first sight seems a serious problem for QCD phenomenology, should actually not come as a surprise. We know that because of confinement quarks do not appear as physical states in nature. Hence, there is no way to define their on-shell properties such as a pole mass. In view of this, it is actually remarkable that QCD perturbation theory “knows” about its incompleteness and indicates, through the appearance of renormalon singularities, the presence of non-perturbative effects. We must first specify a scheme how to truncate the QCD perturbation series before non-perturbative statements such as $\delta m=0$ become meaningful, and hence before non-perturbative parameters such as $m_Q$ and $\bar\Lambda$ become well-defined quantities. The actual values of these parameters will depend on this scheme.
We stress that the “renormalon ambiguities” are not a conceptual problem for the heavy-quark expansion. In fact, it can be shown quite generally that these ambiguities cancel in all predictions for physical observables [@Chris]. The way the cancellations occur is intricate, however. The generic structure of the heavy-quark expansion for an observable is of the form: $$\mbox{observable} \sim C[\alpha_s(m_Q)]\,\bigg( 1
+ {\Lambda\over m_Q} + \dots \bigg) \,.$$ Here $C[\alpha_s(m_Q)]$ represents a perturbative coefficient function, and $\Lambda$ is a dimensionful non-perturbative parameter. The truncation of the perturbation series defining the coefficient function leads to an arbitrariness of order $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}/m_Q$, which precisely cancels against a corresponding arbitrariness of order $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$ in the definition of the non-perturbative parameter $\Lambda$.
The renormalon problem poses itself when one imagines to apply perturbation theory in very high orders. In practise, the perturbative coefficients are known to finite order in $\alpha_s$ (at best to two-loop accuracy), and to be consistent one should use them in connection with the pole mass (and $\bar\Lambda$ etc.) defined to the same order.
Matching and Running
====================
In section \[sec:2\], we have discussed the first two steps in the construction of the HQET. Integrating out the small components in the heavy-quark fields, a non-local effective action was derived, which was then expanded in a series of local operators. The effective Lagrangian derived that way correctly reproduces the long-distance physics of the full theory. It does not contain the short-distance physics correctly, however. The reason is obvious: A heavy quark participates in strong interactions through its coupling to gluons. These gluons can be soft or hard, i.e. their virtual momenta can be small, of the order of the confinement scale, or large, of the order of the heavy-quark mass. But hard gluons can resolve the spin and flavour quantum numbers of a heavy quark. Their effects lead to a renormalization of the coefficients of the operators in the HQET.
Consider, as an example, matrix elements of the vector current $V=\bar q\,\gamma^\mu Q$. In QCD this current is (partially) conserved and needs no renormalization [@Prep]. Its matrix elements are free of ultraviolet divergences. Still, these matrix elements have a logarithmic dependence on $m_Q$ from the exchange of hard gluons with virtual momenta of the order of the heavy-quark mass. If one goes over to the effective theory by taking the limit $m_Q\to\infty$, these logarithms diverge. Consequently, the vector current in the effective theory does require a renormalization [@PoWi]. Its matrix elements depend on an arbitrary renormalization scale $\mu$, which separates the regions of short- and long-distance physics. If $\mu$ is chosen such that $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}\ll\mu\ll m_Q$, the effective coupling constant in the region between $\mu$ and $m_Q$ is small, and perturbation theory can be used to compute the short-distance corrections. These corrections have to be added to the matrix elements of the effective theory, which contain the long-distance physics below the scale $\mu$. Schematically, then, the relation between matrix elements in the full and in the effective theory is $$\label{OPEex}
\langle V(m_Q)\rangle_{\rm QCD}
= C_0(m_Q,\mu)\,\langle V_0(\mu)\rangle_{\rm HQET}
+ {C_1(m_Q,\mu)\over m_Q}\,\langle V_1(\mu)\rangle_{\rm HQET}
+ \dots \,,$$ where we have indicated that matrix elements in the full theory depend on $m_Q$, whereas matrix elements in the effective theory are mass-independent, but do depend on the renormalization scale. The Wilson coefficients $C_i(m_Q,\mu)$ are defined by this relation. Order by order in perturbation theory, they can be computed from a comparison of the matrix elements in the two theories. Since the effective theory is constructed to reproduce correctly the low-energy behaviour of the full theory, this “matching” procedure is independent of any long-distance physics, such as infrared singularities, non-perturbative effects, the nature of the external states used in the matrix elements, etc.
The calculation of the coefficient functions in perturbation theory uses the powerful methods of the renormalization group. It is in principle straightforward, yet in practice rather tedious. A comprehensive discussion of most of the existing calculations of short-distance corrections in the HQET can be found in Ref. 8. Here, we shall discuss as an illustration the renormalization of the $1/m_Q$-suppressed operators in the effective Lagrangian (\[Lsubl\]). At the tree level, there appear two operators at order $1/m_Q$, which have been given in (\[Okin\]) and (\[Omag\]). Beyond the tree level, the coefficients of these operators may be modified, and other operators not present at the classical level may be induced. In general, we thus expect $${\cal L}_{1/m} = C_{\rm kin}(\mu)\,{\cal O}_{\rm kin}(\mu)
+ C_{\rm mag}(\mu)\,{\cal O}_{\rm mag}(\mu)
+ \mbox{new operators} \,,
\label{L5}$$ where $\mu$ is the renormalization scale. But how do we calculate the Wilson coefficient functions, and what are the possible new operators? To extend the classical construction of Sec. \[sec:Leff\] to include quantum corrections would be cumbersome. Fortunately, there is a systematic procedure which allows us to derive the result in the presence of quantum effects in a rather simple and straightforward way. It consists of three steps: construction of the operator basis, calculation of the “matching conditions” at $\mu=m_Q$, and renormalization-group improvement (“running”). Below, we shall first explain these steps in general and then illustrate them with the particular example of ${\cal
L}_{1/m}$.
Construction of the Operator Basis
----------------------------------
Similar to the fields and coupling constants, in a quantum field theory any composite operator built from quark and gluon fields may require a renormalization beyond that of its component fields. Such operators can be divided into three classes: gauge-invariant operators that do not vanish by the equations of motion (class-I), gauge-invariant operators that vanish by the equations of motion (class-II), and operators which are not gauge-invariant (class-III). In general, operators with the same dimension and quantum numbers mix under renormalization. However, things simplify if one works with the background field technique [@DeWi]$^-$[@Abbo], which is an elegant method for quantizing gauge theories, preserving explicit gauge invariance. This offers the advantage that a class-I operator cannot mix with class-III operators, so that only gauge-invariant operators need to be considered [@Klug]. Furthermore, class-II operators are irrelevant since their matrix elements vanish by the equations of motion. It it thus sufficient to consider class-I operators only.
Thus, we must find a complete set of class-I operators of the right dimension, carrying the quantum numbers allowed by the symmetries of the problem. In the case at hand, we are dealing with operators appearing at order $1/m_Q$ in a strong-interaction Lagrangian, and we thus have to find dimension-five operators containing two heavy-quark fields of the same velocity. Moreover, these operators must transform as scalars under the Lorentz group. The most general form of such operators is $$\bar h_v\,\Gamma_{\mu\nu}\,iD^\mu iD^\nu\,h_v \,; \qquad
\Gamma_{\mu\nu} \in \Big\{ g_{\mu\nu}, v_\mu v_\nu,
\gamma_\mu v_\nu, \gamma_\nu v_\mu,
\textstyle\frac 12\,[\gamma_\mu,\gamma_\nu] \Big\} \,.$$ Note that the velocity is not a dynamical quantity in the HQET and thus can be used to construct the basis operators. Using that $\bar
h_v\gamma_\mu\,h_v = \bar h_v\,v_\mu\,h_v$, we find that there are only three possible operators: $$\bar h_v\,(iD)^2 h_v \,, \qquad
\bar h_v\,(iv\!\cdot\!D)^2 h_v \,, \qquad
\textstyle\frac 12\,\bar h_v\,\sigma_{\mu\nu} g_s G^{\mu\nu} h_v
\,.$$ Since the equation of motion of the HQET is $iv\!\cdot\!D\,h_v=0$, it follows that there are two class-I and one class-II operators, which we choose in the form: $$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{class-I:} \quad
&&\bar h_v\,(iD_\perp)^2 h_v \,, \qquad
\textstyle\frac 12\,\bar h_v\,\sigma_{\mu\nu} g_s G^{\mu\nu} h_v
\,, \nonumber\\
\mbox{class-II:} \quad
&&\bar h_v\,(iv\!\cdot\!D)^2 h_v \,.\end{aligned}$$ Besides a class-II operator, which has vanishing matrix elements between physical states, the kinetic and chromo-magnetic operators already present at the tree level are thus the only operators which can appear in ${\cal L}_{1/m}$, even in the presence of quantum corrections. Once we have found a complete basis of class-I operators, our next goal is to calculate their coefficient functions in perturbation theory.
Matching Conditions at $\mu=m_Q$
--------------------------------
The Wilson coefficient functions $C_{\rm kin}(\mu)$ and $C_{\rm
mag}(\mu)$ in (\[L5\]) can be obtained from the comparison (“matching”) of Green’s functions in QCD with those in the effective theory. It is crucial that, by construction, the Wilson coefficients receive only short-distance contributions (see Fig. \[fig:magic\]) and are thus insensitive to the properties of the external states. This ensures that once the coefficients have been determined by requiring that some particular Green’s function(s) be the same in the two theories, all other Green’s functions will be the same. Moreover, since the Wilson coefficients are infrared insensitive they are calculable in perturbation theory, and we can perform their calculation using quark and gluon states rather than physical hadron states.
In the example at hand, the coefficients $C_{\rm kin}(\mu)$ and $C_{\rm mag}(\mu)$ can be obtained from a calculation of the Green’s function of two heavy quarks and a background gluon field, to one-loop order in the full and in the effective theory. The relevant vertex diagrams in QCD are shown in Fig. \[fig:glue\]. They have to be supplemented by the wave-function renormalization of the external quark lines. The background field is not renormalized. The momentum assignments are such that $p$ is the outgoing momentum of the background field, and $k$ and $(k-p)$ are the residual momenta of the heavy quarks. To order $1/m_Q$, it is sufficient to keep terms linear in $k$ or $p$. The quarks can be taken on shell, in which case $v\cdot k=v\cdot p=0$. A subtlety which has to be taken into account is that the QCD spinor $u_Q(P_Q,s)$ is related to the spinor $u_h(v,s)$ of the effective theory by $$u_Q(P_Q,s) = \bigg( 1 + {\rlap/k\over 2 m_Q} + \ldots \bigg)\,
u_h(v,s) \,,$$ where $P_Q = m_Q v + k$. In the matching calculation one has to use the same spinors in both theories. We thus define a vertex function $\Gamma^\mu$ by writing the amplitude as $i\mu^\epsilon g_s
A_{\mu,a}(p)\,\bar u_h \Gamma^\mu t_a u_h$, so that at the tree level in QCD $$\begin{aligned}
\label{GQCD0}
\Gamma_{{\rm QCD},0}^\mu &=& \bigg( 1
+ {\rlap/k - \,\rlap/\!p\over 2 m_Q} \bigg)\,\gamma^\mu\,
\bigg( 1 + {\rlap/k\over 2 m_Q} \bigg) + \ldots \nonumber\\
&=& v^\mu + {(2 k-p)^\mu\over 2 m_Q}
+ {\big[ \gamma^\mu,\,\rlap/\!p \big]\over 4 m_Q} + \ldots \,.\end{aligned}$$ Here the ellipses represent terms of higher order in $k$ or $p$, and we have used that between the heavy-quark spinors $\gamma^\mu$ can be replaced by $v^\mu$.
The contributions to the vertex function arising at the one-loop level are also shown in Fig. \[fig:glue\]. They contain both abelian and non-abelian vertices. Since the matching calculation is insensitive to any long-distance properties such as the nature of the infrared regulator, it is legitimate to work with any infrared regularization scheme that is convenient. Following Eichten and Hill [@EiH2; @MN94], we choose to regulate both ultraviolet and infrared divergences using dimensional regularization. Moreover, we expand the resulting expressions for the Feynman amplitudes to linear order in the external momenta and then set the external momenta to zero inside the loop integrals. Then the only mass scale remaining is the heavy-quark mass. In the $\overline{\mbox{\sc ms}}$ scheme, the result for the one-loop contribution to the QCD vertex function is [@EiH2] $$\Gamma_{{\rm QCD},1}^\mu
= {\big[ \gamma^\mu,\,\rlap/\!p \big]\over 4 m_Q}\,
{\alpha_s\over 2\pi}\,\bigg( - C_A \ln{m_Q\over\mu} + C_A + C_F
\bigg) \,,$$ where $C_F=\frac 12(N_c^2-1)/N_c=4/3$ and $C_A=N_c=3$ are the eigenvalues of the quadratic Casimir operator in the fundamental and the adjoint representations.
Now comes a clue: if dimensional regularization is used to regulate both ultraviolet and infrared singularities, all loop integrals in the HQET are no-scale integrals (after a power of the external momenta has been factored out) and vanish! So only the tree-level matrix elements of the HQET operators in the effective Lagrangian multiplied by their Wilson coefficient functions remain. This is why dimensional regularization is superb for matching calculations. The result is $$\label{GHQET}
\Gamma_{\rm HQET}^\mu = v^\mu
+ C_{\rm kin}(\mu)\,{(2 k-p)^\mu\over 2 m_Q}
+ C_{\rm mag}(\mu)\,{\big[ \gamma^\mu,\,\rlap/\!p \big]
\over 4 m_Q} + \dots \,.$$ Requiring that the vertex functions be the same in the full and in the effective theory, we find (in the $\overline{\mbox{\sc ms}}$ scheme) $$C_{\rm kin}(\mu) = 1 \,, \qquad
C_{\rm mag}(\mu) = 1 + {\alpha_s\over 2\pi}\,
\bigg( - C_A \ln{m_Q\over\mu} + C_A + C_F \bigg) \,.
\label{CConel}$$ The fact that the kinetic operator is not renormalized is not an accident, but follows from an invariance of the HQET under small redefinitions of the velocity used in the construction of the effective Lagrangian. Clearly, the predictions of the HQET should not depend on whether $v$ is taken to be the velocity of the hadron containing the heavy quark, the velocity of the heavy quark itself, or some other velocity differing from the hadron velocity by an amount of order $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}/m_Q$. This so-called reparametrization invariance implies that $C_{\rm kin}(\mu)=1$ must hold to all orders in perturbation theory [@luma; @cino].
In the next paragraph, we will see that the scale dependence predicted by the one-loop result quoted above cannot be trusted if $\mu\ll m_Q$; however, what can be obtained from the matching calculation are the values of the coefficient functions at the matching scale $\mu=m_Q$ as well as their logarithmic derivatives. For the coefficient of the chromo-magnetic operator, we find: $$\begin{aligned}
C_{\rm mag}(m_Q) &=& 1 + (C_A + C_F)\,{\alpha_s(m_Q)\over 2\pi}
\,, \nonumber\\
{\mbox{d}\ln C_{\rm mag}(\mu)\over\mbox{d}\ln\mu}
&=& C_A\,{\alpha_s\over 2\pi} \,.
\label{Cmmat}\end{aligned}$$
Renormalization-Group Evolution
-------------------------------
The one-loop calculation presented above allows us to derive expressions for the Wilson coefficient functions provided that $m_Q/\mu=O(1)$. In practical applications of effective field theories, one is however often interested in the case where there is a large ratio of mass scales. After all, an effective theory is constructed to separate the physics on two very different energy scales. In such a situation, the coefficient functions contain large logarithms of the type $[\alpha_s\ln(m_Q/\mu)]^n$, which must be summed to all orders in perturbation theory. This is achieved by using the powerful machinery of the renormalization group.
For a set $\{{\cal O}_i\}$ of $n$ class-I operators that mix under renormalization, one defines an $n\times n$ matrix of renormalization factors $Z_{ij}$ by ${\cal O}_i^{\rm bare} = Z_{ij}\,{\cal
O}_j(\mu)$, such that the matrix elements of the renormalized operators ${\cal O}_j(\mu)$ remain finite as $\epsilon\to 0$. In contrast to the bare operators, the renormalized ones depend on the subtraction scale via the $\mu$ dependence of $Z_{ij}$: $$\mu {{\rm d}\over{\rm d}\mu}\,{\cal O}_i(\mu)
= \bigg(\mu {{\rm d}\over{\rm d}\mu} Z_{ij}^{-1}\bigg)\,
{\cal O}_j^{\rm bare} = - \gamma_{ik}\,{\cal O}_k(\mu) \,,$$ where $$\gamma_{ik} = - \bigg(\mu {{\rm d}\over{\rm d}\mu}
Z_{ij}^{-1}\bigg)\,Z_{jk}
= Z_{ij}^{-1}\,\mu {{\rm d}\over{\rm d}\mu}\,Z_{jk}
\label{anom}$$ are called the anomalous dimensions. That under a change of the renormalization scale the operators mix among themselves follows from the fact that the basis of operators is complete. It is convenient to introduce a compact matrix notation, in which $\vec{\cal O}(\mu)$ is the vector of renormalized operators, $\hat Z$ is the matrix of renormalization factors, and $\hat\gamma$ denotes the anomalous dimension matrix. Then the scale dependence of the renormalized operators is controlled by the renormalization-group equation (RGE) $$\label{RGEops}
\bigg( \mu {{\rm d}\over{\rm d}\mu} + \hat\gamma \bigg)\,
\vec{\cal O}(\mu) = 0 \,.$$ In the $\mbox{\sc ms}$ scheme, the matrix $\hat Z$ obeys an expansion of the form $$\hat Z = 1 + \sum_{k=1}^\infty {1\over\epsilon^k}\,
\hat Z_k(\alpha_s) \,,$$ and by requiring that the anomalous dimensions in (\[anom\]) be finite as $\epsilon\to 0$ one finds that $\hat\gamma$ can be computed in terms of the coefficient of the $1/\epsilon$ pole [@DGro]: $$\label{gamZ1}
\hat\gamma = - 2\alpha_s\,
{\partial\hat Z_1(\alpha_s)\over\partial\alpha_s} \,.$$ The same relation holds in the $\overline{\mbox{\sc ms}}$ scheme.
From (\[RGEops\]) and the fact that the product $C_i(\mu)\,{\cal
O}_i(\mu)$ must be $\mu$ independent, we derive the RGE satisfied by the coefficient functions. It reads $$\label{RGE}
\bigg(\mu {{\rm d}\over{\rm d}\mu} - \hat\gamma^T \bigg)\,
\vec C(\mu) = 0 \,,$$ where we have collected the coefficients into a vector $\vec C(\mu)$. In general, the Wilson coefficients can depend on $\mu$ both explicitly or implicitly through the running coupling. We thus have $$\mu {{\rm d}\over{\rm d}\mu} = \mu {\partial\over\partial\mu}
+ \beta(\alpha_s)\,{\partial\over\partial \alpha_s(\mu)} \,,$$ where the $\beta$ function $$\beta\big(\alpha_s) = \mu\,
{\partial\alpha_s(\mu)\over\partial\mu}
= -2\alpha_s\,\bigg[\, \beta_0\,{\alpha_s\over 4\pi}
+ \beta_1\,\bigg( {\alpha_s\over 4\pi} \bigg)^2 + \ldots \bigg]
\label{betaf}$$ describes the scale dependence of the renormalized coupling constant. The one- and two-loop coefficients are scheme independent and are given by [@Gros; @Poli; @Bela] $$\begin{aligned}
\beta_0 &=& {11\over 3}\,C_A - {4\over 3}\,T_F\,n_f \,,
\nonumber\\
\beta_1 &=& {34\over 3}\,C_A^2 - \left( {20\over 3}\,C_A + 4 C_F
\right) T_F\,n_f \,,\end{aligned}$$ where $n_f$ is the number of light quark flavours, and $T_F=1/2$ is the normalization of the SU(3) generators in the fundamental representation: $\mbox{tr}(t_a t_b)=T_F\,\delta_{ab}$. It is now straightforward to obtain a formal solution of the RGE. It reads $$\label{RGEsol}
\vec C(\mu) = \hat U(\mu,m_Q)\,\vec C(m_Q) \,,$$ with the evolution matrix [@Bura]$^-$[@BJLW] $$\label{Uevol}
\hat U(\mu,m_Q) = T_\alpha\,\exp\!
\int\limits_{\displaystyle\alpha_s(m_Q)}
^{\displaystyle\alpha_s(\mu)}\!
{\rm d}\alpha\,{\hat\gamma^T(\alpha)\over\beta(\alpha)} \,.$$ Here “$T_\alpha$” means an ordering in the coupling constant such that the couplings increase from right to left (for $\mu<m_Q$). This is necessary since, in general, the anomalous dimension matrices at different values of $\alpha_s$ do not commute. Eq. (\[Uevol\]) can be solved perturbatively by expanding the $\beta$ function (\[betaf\]) and the anomalous dimension matrix in powers of the renormalized coupling constant: $$\hat\gamma(\alpha_s) = \hat\gamma_0\,{\alpha_s\over 4\pi}
+ \hat\gamma_1\,\bigg( {\alpha_s\over 4\pi} \bigg)^2
+ \dots \,.$$ Here we shall only discuss the important case of a single coefficient function, or equivalently, when there is no operator mixing. Then the matrix $\hat\gamma$ reduces to a number, and the evolution is described by a function $U(\mu,m_Q)$, for which the perturbative solution of (\[Uevol\]) at next-to-leading order yields $$\label{UNLO}
U_{\rm NLO}(\mu,m_Q) = \left( {\alpha_s(m_Q)\over\alpha_s(\mu)}
\right)^a \left\{ 1 + {\alpha_s(m_Q)-\alpha_s(\mu)\over 4\pi}\,S
+ \dots \right\} \,,$$ with $$\label{aSNLO}
a = {\gamma_0\over 2\beta_0} \,, \qquad
S = {\gamma_1\over 2\beta_0}
- {\gamma_0\beta_1\over 2\beta_0^2} \,.$$
The theoretical framework discussed here is called “renormalization-group (RG) improved perturbation theory”. In the expression for the evolution function $U(\mu,m_Q)$, there are no large logarithms of the form $\alpha_s\ln(m_Q/\mu)$ left. They are all contained in the ratio of the running couplings evaluated at the scales $m_Q$ and $\mu$. Thus, RG-improved perturbation theory provides the optimal method to bridge wide energy intervals. (As a side remark, we note that the same technique is used to control the evolution of gauge couplings and running mass parameters from low energies up to very high energy scales characteristic of grand unified theories.) The terms shown explicitly in (\[UNLO\]) correspond to the so-called next-to-leading order (NLO) in RG-improved perturbation theory. In this approximation, the leading and subleading logarithms $[\alpha_s\ln(m_Q/\mu)]^n$ and $\alpha_s
[\alpha_s\ln(m_Q/\mu)]^n$ are summed correctly to all orders in perturbation theory. To achieve this, it is necessary to calculate the two-loop coefficient $\gamma_1$ of the anomalous dimension. When $\gamma_1$ is not known, it is only possible to evaluate the evolution function in the so-called leading logarithmic order (LO), in which $$U_{\rm LO}(\mu,m_Q) = \left(
{\alpha_s(m_Q)\over\alpha_s(\mu)} \right)^a \,.$$ This still sums the leading logarithms to all orders, but does not contain the non-logarithmic terms of order $\alpha_s$.
To complete the calculation of the RG-improved coefficient function, the evolution function $U(\mu,m_Q)$ must be combined with the initial condition for the Wilson coefficient at the high energy scale $\mu=m_Q$, as shown in (\[RGEsol\]). If the operator under consideration is present at the tree level, the matching condition can be written in the form $$C(m_Q) = 1 + c_1\,\frac{\alpha_s(m_Q)}{4\pi} + \dots \,,$$ where $c_1$ is obtained from a one-loop calculation. To obtain a consistent (i.e. renormalization-scheme independent) result at next-to-leading order, we have to combine the one-loop matching condition with the expression for $U(\mu,m_Q)$ given in (\[UNLO\]). This requires the calculation of the two-loop anomalous dimension. The result is $$\label{Csolu}
C_{\rm NLO}(\mu) = \left( {\alpha_s(m_Q)\over\alpha_s(\mu)}
\right)^a \left\{ 1 + {\alpha_s(m_Q)\over 4\pi}\,(S+c_1)
- {\alpha_s(\mu)\over 4\pi}\,S \right\} \,.$$ In this expression, the terms involving the coupling constant $\alpha_s(m_Q)$ are renormalization-scheme independent [@Bura; @Flor]. The exponent $a$ involves only the one-loop coefficients $\gamma_0$ and $\beta_0$ and is scheme independent by itself. For the coefficient $(S+c_1)$ of the next-to-leading term things are more complicated, however. The one-loop matching coefficient $c_1$, the two-loop anomalous dimension $\gamma_1$, and the QCD scale parameter $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$ in the expression for the running coupling constant are all scheme dependent, but they conspire to give $\alpha_s(m_Q)$ a scheme-independent coefficient. On the other hand, the coefficient $S$ of $\alpha_s(\mu)$ does depend on the renormalization procedure. This is not a surprise; only when the $\mu$-dependent terms in the Wilson coefficient are combined with the $\mu$-dependent matrix elements of the renormalized operator one can expect to obtain a scheme-independent result. For this reason, it is sometimes useful to factorize the solution (\[Csolu\]) in the form $C(\mu)\equiv
\widehat{C}(m_Q)\,K(\mu)$, where $\widehat{C}(m_Q)$ is RG-invariant and contains all dependence on the large mass scale $m_Q$. The scheme-dependent function $K(\mu)$ can be used to define a RG-invariant renormalized operator: $\widehat{\cal O}\equiv
K(\mu)\,{\cal O}(\mu)$. At next-to-leading order, we obtain: $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{C}(m_Q) &=& \left[ \alpha_s(m_Q) \right]^a\,
\left\{ 1 + {\alpha_s(m_Q)\over 4\pi}\,(S+c_1) \right\} \,,
\nonumber\\
\widehat{\cal O} &=& \left[ \alpha_s(\mu) \right]^{-a}\,
\left\{ 1 - {\alpha_s(\mu)\over 4\pi}\,S \right\}\,{\cal O}(\mu)
\,.\end{aligned}$$
Let us finally apply this formalism to the operators appearing at order $1/m_Q$ in the effective Lagrangian of the HQET. The fact that reparametrization invariance ensures that the kinetic operator is not renormalized implies that the $2\times 2$ anomalous dimension matrix for the operators ${\cal O}_{\rm kin}$ and ${\cal O}_{\rm mag}$ is diagonal and of the form $$\hat\gamma = \left( \begin{array}{cc}
0 & 0 \\ 0 & \gamma^{\rm mag} \end{array} \right) \,.$$ The one-loop coefficient of the anomalous dimension of the chromo-magnetic operator, together with the one-loop matching coefficient, can be obtained from (\[Cmmat\]): $$\gamma_0^{\rm mag} = 2 C_A \,,\qquad
c_1^{\rm mag} = 2(C_A + C_F) \,.$$ The result for $\gamma_0^{\rm mag}$ can also be obtained in a simpler way by computing only the $1/\epsilon$ poles in the matrix elements of the bare operators [@FGL]. Unfortunately, the two-loop coefficient $\gamma_1^{\rm mag}$ is not yet known.[^4] This means that the coefficient $S_{\rm mag}$ in the next-to-leading order solution (\[Csolu\]) is still unknown.
Renormalization of Heavy-Quark Currents
---------------------------------------
As a final example, we discuss the renormalization of local current operators involving two heavy-quark fields. This case is of particular importance for phenomenology, as the weak current for $b\to c\,\ell\,\bar\nu$ transitions is of this form. In the HQET, the relevant current operators contain two heavy-quark fields at different velocity and are thus of the form $\bar h_{v'}\Gamma\,h_v$ (it does not matter whether the two fields have the same flavour), where $\Gamma$ is some Dirac matrix, whose structure is irrelevant to our discussion. We have discussed in Sec. \[sec:3\] that the matrix elements of such operators between meson states are proportional to the universal Isgur–Wise form factor $\xi(v\cdot v')$. We shall now derive, in leading logarithmic order, the Wilson coefficient function that relates the QCD current operators with their HQET counterparts renormalized at the scale $\mu\ll m_Q$.
To this end, we need to calculate, using dimensional regularization, the $1/\epsilon$ pole in the matrix element of the bare current operator between quark states. The relevant vertex diagram is shown in Fig. \[fig:hh\]. Since in the effective theory the coupling of a heavy quark to a gluon does not involve a $\gamma$ matrix, it is easy to see that to all orders in perturbation theory the operator $\bar
h_{v'}\Gamma\,h_v$ is renormalized multiplicatively and irrespective of its Dirac structure. The extraction of the one-loop ultraviolet divergence can be done in a few lines. In the Feynman gauge,[^5] the value of the vertex diagram is (omitting the quark spinors): $$\begin{aligned}
&& - 4i g_s^2 t_a t_a\,v\cdot v'\,\Gamma \int
{\mbox{d}^D t\over(2\pi)^D}\,{1\over (t^2+i\eta)
(v\cdot t+i\eta) (v'\cdot t+i\eta)} \nonumber\\
&=& - 4i g_s^2 C_F\,v\cdot v'\,\Gamma
\int\limits_0^\infty\!\mbox{d}\lambda
\int\limits_0^\infty\!\mbox{d}\rho
\int{\mbox{d}^D t\over(2\pi)^D}\,{1\over\big[ t^2 +
2(\rho v+\lambda v')\cdot t + i\eta \big]^3} \nonumber\\
&=& - {C_F\alpha_s\over\pi}\,\Gamma(1+\epsilon)\,
v\cdot v'\,\Gamma\,(4\pi\mu^2)^\epsilon
\int\limits_0^\infty\!\mbox{d}\lambda
\int\limits_0^\infty\!\mbox{d}\rho\,
{1\over \left(\rho^2 + \lambda^2
+ 2 v\cdot v'\,\rho\lambda \right)^{1+\epsilon}} \,.
\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ Defining a new variable $z=\rho/\lambda$, and introducing an arbitrary infrared cutoff $\delta$, we can rewrite the double integral in the form: $$\int\limits_0^\infty\!\mbox{d}\lambda\,
{\lambda\over \left(\lambda^2 + \delta^2 \right)^{1+\epsilon}}
\int\limits_0^\infty\!\mbox{d}z\,
{1\over \left(1 + z^2 + 2 w z \right)^{1+\epsilon}}
= {\delta^{-2\epsilon}\over 2\epsilon}\,r(w)
+ \mbox{finite~terms,}$$ where $w=v\cdot v'$, and $$r(w) = \int\limits_0^\infty\!\mbox{d}z\,{1\over 1 + z^2 + 2 w z}
= {1\over\sqrt{w^2-1}}\,\ln\left(w + \sqrt{w^2-1}\right) \,.$$ Hence, the $1/\epsilon$ pole of the vertex diagram is given by $$- {C_F\alpha_s\over 2\pi\epsilon}\,\Gamma\,w\,r(w) \,.$$ To obtain the renormalization constant $Z_{hh}$ of the bare current operator, we have to add a contribution $$Z_h\,\Gamma = \left( 1 + {C_F\alpha_s\over 2\pi\epsilon}
\right) \Gamma$$ from the wave-function renormalization of the heavy-quark fields, where $Z_h$ has been given in (\[ZfacMS\]). The result is $$Z_{hh} = 1 - {C_F\alpha_s\over 2\pi\epsilon}
\left[ w\,r(w)-1 \right] + \mbox{finite~terms.}$$ By means of the relation (\[gamZ1\]), we derive from this the one-loop coefficient of the anomalous dimension of heavy-quark currents in the HQET. This is the famous velocity-dependent anomalous dimension obtained by Falk et al. [@Falk]: $$\label{gam0hh}
\gamma_0^{\rm hh}(w) = 4 C_F \left[ w\,r(w)-1 \right] \,,$$ In the zero-recoil limit, i.e. for $w=1$, the heavy-quark currents are the symmetry currents of the spin–flavour symmetry, and as such they are not renormalized, since the associated charges are conserved. This implies that $$\gamma^{\rm hh}(1) = 0$$ to all orders in perturbation theory. This constraint is satisfied by the one-loop result in (\[gam0hh\]), since $r(1)=1$.
Since in the effective theory the velocity of a heavy quark is conserved by the strong interactions, the heavy quark can be described by a Wilson line [@EiFe]. An external current can instantaneously change the velocity, resulting in a kink of that line. It is well-known that such cusps lead to singular behaviour. The renormalization of cusp singularities of Wilson lines was investigated in detail by Korchemsky and Radyushkin [@KoRa] already in 1987, prior to the development of the HQET. In particular, they calculated the one- and two-loop coefficients of the so-called cusp anomalous dimension $\gamma^{\rm cusp}(\varphi)$ as a function of the hyperbolic cusp angle $\varphi$. But this anomalous dimension is precisely that of heavy-quark currents [@Korc], with the identification $\cosh\varphi=w$. Later, the result for $\gamma_1^{\rm
hh}(w)$, which we will not present here, has been confirmed in the context of the HQET [@Kili].
=6.5cm
In leading logarithmic order, the expansion of heavy-quark currents in the HQET takes the form $$\bar Q\,\Gamma\,Q \to C_{\rm hh}(w,\mu)\,\bar h_{v'}\Gamma\,h_v
+ O(1/m_Q) \,,$$ where $$C_{\rm hh}(w,\mu) = \left( {\alpha_s(m_Q)\over\alpha_s(\mu)}
\right)^{a_{\rm hh}(w)} \,,\qquad
a_{\rm hh}(w) = {2 C_F\over\beta_0}\,\left[ w\,r(w) - 1
\right] \,.
\label{Chh}$$ The velocity dependence of the Wilson coefficient is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:Chh\]. Physical decay or scattering amplitudes are proportional to the product $$C_{\rm hh}(w,\mu)\,\xi(w,\mu) \,,$$ where $\xi(w,\mu)$ is the renormalized Isgur–Wise function, which satisfies $\xi(1,\mu)=1$. The fact that $a_{\rm hh}(1)=0$ implies that RG effects respect the normalization of form factors at zero recoil.
We like to finish this discussion with a curious remark, which illustrates the power of RG methods. For values $w=O(1)$, the leading-order expression for the coefficient $C_{\rm hh}(w,\mu)$ in (\[Chh\]) contains all large logarithms of the type $[\alpha_s\ln(m_Q/\mu)]^n$. For very large values of $w$, however, we have $w\,r(w)\to\ln(2w)-1$, so that in the RG improvement of $C_{\rm
hh}(w,\mu)$ we have resummed terms of the form $[\alpha_s\ln
w\ln(m_Q/\mu)]^n$. These are the well-known Sudakov double logarithms, which arise from the emission of gluon bremsstrahlungs during the scattering of the heavy quarks. This effect leads to a fractional power-like damping of the transition form factors at large recoil, which adds to the “soft” suppression contained in the Isgur–Wise form factor itself [@Groz]. Explicitly, we obtain $$C_{\rm hh}(w,\mu) \to \left( \frac{e}{2 w} \right)^\eta \,,\qquad
\eta = \frac{2 C_F}{\beta_0}
\ln\frac{\alpha_s(\mu)}{\alpha_s(m_Q)} \,.$$
Concluding Remarks
==================
We have presented an introduction to heavy-quark symmetry, the heavy-quark effective theory and the $1/m_Q$ expansion, which provide the modern theoretical tools to perform quantitative calculations in heavy-flavour physics. Our hope was to convince the reader that heavy-flavour physics is a rich and diverse area of research, which is at present characterized by a fruitful interplay between theory and experiments. This has led to many significant discoveries and developments on both sides. Heavy-quark physics has the potential to determine many important parameters of the electroweak theory and to test the Standard Model at low energies. At the same time, it provides an ideal laboratory to study the nature of non-perturbative phenomena in QCD, still one of the least understood properties of the Standard Model.
Let us finish with a somewhat philosophical remark: At this school, we have heard a lot about exciting new developments related to dualities, which relate apparently very different theories to each other. So are electric, weak-coupling phenomena in one theory dual to magnetic, strong-coupling phenomena in another theory. Some people argue quite convincingly that duality seems to be everywhere in nature, and consequently there are no really difficult questions in physics; very difficult problems become trivial when approached from a different, dual point of view. There are, however, “moderately difficult” problems in physics, which are “self-dual”. It is the author’s opinion that real-world (i.e. non-supersymmetric) QCD at hadronic energies belongs to this category. Having said this, we conclude that heavy-quark effective theory provides a powerful tool to tackle the “moderately difficult” problems of heavy-flavour physics.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
It is my pleasure to thank the organizers and the staff of the International School of Subnuclear Physics for the invitation to present these lectures and for making my stay in Erice such an enjoyable one.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[999]{}
C. Albajar et al. (UA1 Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B [**186**]{}, 247 (1987).
H. Albrecht et al. (ARGUS Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B [**192**]{}, 245 (1987).
H. Albrecht et al. (ARGUS Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B [**234**]{}, 409 (1990); [**255**]{}, 297 (1991).
R. Fulton et al. (CLEO Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett., 16 (1990);\
J. Bartelt et al. (CLEO Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett., 4111 (1993).
J.P. Alexander et al. (CLEO Collaboration), preprint CLNS-96-1419 (1996).
R. Ammar et al. (CLEO Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. [**71**]{}, 674 (1993).
M.S. Alam et al. (CLEO Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett., 2885 (1995).
M. Neubert, Phys. Rep. [**245**]{}, 259 (1994); Int. J. Mod.Phys. A [**11**]{}, 4173 (1996).
M. Shifman, preprint TPI-MINN-95-31-T (1995) \[hep-ph/9510377\], to appear in: QCD and Beyond, Proceedings of the Theoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics (TASI 95), Boulder, Colorado, June 1995.
H. Georgi, in: Perspectives in the Standard Model, Proceedings of the Theoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics (TASI-91), Boulder, Colorado, 1991, edited by R.K. Ellis, C.T. Hill, and J.D. Lykken (World Scientific, Singapore, 1992), p. 589.
N. Isgur and M.B. Wise, in: Heavy Flavours, edited by A.J. Buras and M. Lindner (World Scientific, Singapore, 1992), p. 234.
B. Grinstein, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sc. [**42**]{}, 101 (1992).
T. Mannel, Chinese J. Phys. [**31**]{}, 1 (1993).
A.G. Grozin, preprint Budker INP 92-97 (1992), unpublished.
K. Wilson, Phys. Rev. [**179**]{}, 1499 (1969); D [**3**]{}, 1818 (1971).
W. Zimmermann, Ann. Phys. [**77**]{}, 536 and 570 (1973).
For a pedagocical introduction, see the lectures by H. Leutwyler in this volume.
D.J. Gross and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**30**]{}, 1343 (1973).
H.D. Politzer, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**30**]{}, 1346 (1973).
The increase of the running coupling constant at low energies, as predicted by QCD, has been observed by analysing the hadronic-mass distribution in decays of the $\tau$ lepton, see: M. Girone and M. Neubert, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**76**]{}, 3061 (1996).
E.V. Shuryak, Phys. Lett. B [**93**]{}, 134 (1980); Nucl. Phys. B [**198**]{}, 83 (1982).
J.E. Paschalis and G.J. Gounaris, Nucl. Phys. B [**222**]{}, 473 (1983);\
F.E. Close, G.J. Gounaris, and J.E. Paschalis, Phys. Lett. B [**149**]{}, 209 (1984).
S. Nussinov and W. Wetzel, Phys. Rev. D [**36**]{}, 130 (1987).
M.B. Voloshin and M.A. Shifman, Yad. Fiz. [**45**]{}, 463 (1987) \[Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. [**45**]{}, 292 (1987)\].
M.B. Voloshin and M.A. Shifman, Yad. Fiz. [**47**]{}, 801 (1988) \[Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. [**47**]{}, 511 (1988)\].
N. Isgur and M.B. Wise, Phys. Lett. B [**232**]{}, 113 (1989); [**237**]{}, 527 (1990).
H. Georgi, Phys. Lett. B [**240**]{}, 447 (1990).
N. Isgur and M.B. Wise, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**66**]{}, 1130 (1991).
A.F. Falk, Nucl. Phys. B [**378**]{}, 79 (1992).
A.F. Falk, M. Neubert, and M.E. Luke, Nucl. Phys. B [**388**]{}, 363 (1992).
A.F. Falk and M. Neubert, Phys. Rev. D [**47**]{}, 2965 and 2982 (1993).
I.J. Kroll, in: Proceedings of the 17th International Symposium on Lepton–Photon Interactions (LP95), Beijing, P.R. China, August 1995, edited by Z. Zhi-Peng and C. He-Sheng (World Scientific, Singapore, 1996), p. 204.
F. Ukegawa (for the CDF Collaboration), preprint FERMILAB-Conf-96/155-E (1996), to appear in: Proceedings of the XIth Topical Workshop on $p\bar p$ Collider Physics, Padova, Italy, May 1996.
P. Ball and V.M. Braun, Phys. Rev. D [**49**]{}, 2472 (1994).
V. Eletsky and E. Shuryak, Phys. Lett. B [**276**]{}, 191 (1992).
M. Neubert, Phys. Lett. B [**322**]{}, 419 (1994); preprint CERN-TH/96-208 (1996) \[hep-ph/9608211\], to appear in Phys. Lett. B.
M. Neubert and V. Rieckert, Nucl. Phys. B [**382**]{}, 97 (1992).
M. Neubert, Phys. Lett. B [**264**]{}, 455 (1991).
M.E. Luke, Phys. Lett. B [**252**]{}, 447 (1990).
M. Ademollo and R. Gatto, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**13**]{}, 264 (1964).
M. Neubert, Nucl. Phys. B [**416**]{}, 786 (1994).
P. Cho and B. Grinstein, Phys. Lett. B [**285**]{}, 153 (1992).
H. Albrecht et al. (ARGUS Collaboration), Z. Phys. C [**57**]{}, 533 (1993).
B. Barish et al. (CLEO Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D [**51**]{}, 1041 (1995).
D. Buskulic et al. (ALEPH Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B [**359**]{}, 236 (1995).
P. Abreu et al. (DELPHI Collaboration), preprint CERN-PPE/96-11 (1996).
S. Stone, in: Proceedings of the 8th Annual Meeting of the Division of Particles and Fields of the APS, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 1994, edited by S. Seidel (World Scientific, Singapore, 1995), p. 871.
C.G. Boyd, B. Grinstein and R.F. Lebed, Nucl. Phys. B [**461**]{}, 493 (1996);\
C.G. Boyd and R.F. Lebed, preprint UCSD/PTH 95-23 (1995) \[hep-ph/9512363\].
I. Caprini and M. Neubert, Phys. Lett. B [**380**]{}, 376 (1996).
M. Neubert, Nucl. Phys. B [**371**]{}, 149 (1992).
S.J. Brodsky, G.P. Lepage, and P.B. Mackenzie, Phys. Rev. D [**28**]{}, 228 (1983);\
G.P. Lepage and P.B. Mackenzie, Phys. Rev. D [**48**]{}, 2250 (1993).
M. Neubert, Phys. Lett. B [**341**]{}, 367 (1995).
A.F. Falk and B. Grinstein, Phys. Lett. B [**247**]{}, 406 (1990).
M. Neubert, Phys. Rev. D [**46**]{}, 2212 (1992).
M. Neubert, Phys. Rev. D [**51**]{}, 5924 (1995).
A. Czarnecki, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**76**]{}, 4124 (1996).
T. Mannel, Phys. Rev. D [**50**]{}, 428 (1994).
M. Shifman, N.G. Uraltsev, and A. Vainshtein, Phys. Rev. D [**51**]{}, 2217 (1995).
A. Kapustin, Z. Ligeti, M.B. Wise, and B. Grinstein, Phys. Lett. B [**375**]{}, 327 (1996).
M. Neubert, Phys. Lett. B [**338**]{}, 84 (1994).
M.A. Shifman, A.I. Vainshtein, and V.I. Zakharov, Nucl. Phys. B [**120**]{}, 316 (1977).
E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B [**122**]{}, 109 (1977).
J. Polchinski, Nucl. Phys. B [**231**]{}, 269 (1984).
G. Altarelli and L. Maiani, Phys. Lett. B [**52**]{}, 351 (1974).
M.K. Gaillard and B.W. Lee, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**33**]{}, 108 (1974).
F.J. Gilman and M.B. Wise, Phys. Rev. D [**27**]{}, 1128 (1983).
E. Eichten and F. Feinberg, Phys. Rev. D [**23**]{}, 2724 (1981).
W.E. Caswell and G.P. Lepage, Phys. Lett. B [**167**]{}, 437 (1986).
E. Eichten, in: Field Theory on the Lattice, edited by A. Billoire et al., Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) [**4**]{}, 170 (1988).
G.P. Lepage and B.A. Thacker, in: Field Theory on the Lattice, edited by A. Billoire et al., Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) [**4**]{}, 199 (1988).
H.D. Politzer and M.B. Wise, Phys. Lett. B [**206**]{}, 681 (1988); [**208**]{}, 504 (1988).
E. Eichten and B. Hill, Phys. Lett. B [**234**]{}, 511 (1990).
B. Grinstein, Nucl. Phys. B [**339**]{}, 253 (1990).
A.F. Falk, H. Georgi, B. Grinstein, and M.B. Wise, Nucl. Phys. B [**343**]{}, 1 (1990).
E. Eichten and B. Hill, Phys. Lett. B [**243**]{}, 427 (1990).
A.F. Falk, B. Grinstein, and M.E. Luke, Nucl. Phys. B [**357**]{}, 185 (1991).
T. Mannel, W. Roberts, and Z. Ryzak, Nucl. Phys. B [**368**]{}, 204 (1992).
J. Soto and R. Tzani, Phys. Lett. B [**297**]{}, 358 (1992).
G. ’t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B [**61**]{}, 455 (1973).
G. ’t Hooft and M. Veltman, Nucl. Phys. B [**44**]{}, 189 (1972).
C.G. Bollini and J.J. Giambiagi, Phys. Lett. B [**40**]{}, 566 (1972); Nuovo Cim. B [**12**]{}, 20 (1972).
X. Ji and M.J. Musolf, Phys. Lett. B [**257**]{}, 409 (1991).
D.J. Broadhurst, N. Gray, and K. Schilcher, Z. Phys. C [**52**]{}, 111 (1991).
D.J. Broadhurst and A.G. Grozin, Phys. Lett. B [**267**]{}, 105 (1991).
V. Giménez, Nucl. Phys. B [**375**]{}, 582 (1992).
R. Tarrach, Nucl. Phys. B [**183**]{}, 384 (1981).
M.A. Shifman, A.I. Vainshtein, and V.I. Zakharov, Nucl. Phys. B [**147**]{}, 385 and 448 (1979).
G. ’t Hooft, in: [*The Whys of Subnuclear Physics*]{}, Proceedings of the 15th International School on Subnuclear Physics, Erice, Sicily, 1977, edited by A. Zichichi (Plenum Press, New York, 1979), p. 943.
B. Lautrup, Phys. Lett. B [**69**]{}, 109 (1977).
G. Parisi, Phys. Lett. B [**76**]{}, 65 (1978); Nucl. Phys. B [**150**]{}, 163 (1979).
F. David, Nucl. Phys. B [**234**]{}, 237 (1984); [*ibid*]{} [**263**]{}, 637 (1986).
A.H. Mueller, Nucl. Phys. B [**250**]{}, 327 (1985).
V.I. Zakharov, Nucl. Phys. B [**385**]{}, 452 (1992); M. Beneke and V.I. Zakharov, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**69**]{}, 2472 (1992).
M. Beneke, Phys. Lett. B [**307**]{}, 154 (1993); Nucl. Phys. B [**405**]{}, 424 (1993).
D. Broadhurst, Z. Phys. C [**58**]{}, 339 (1993).
A.H. Mueller, in: [*QCD – 20 Years Later*]{}, edited by P.M. Zerwas and H.A. Kastrup (World Scientific, Singapore, 1993), p. 162; Phys. Lett. B [**308**]{}, 355 (1993).
M. Beneke and V.M. Braun, Nucl. Phys. B [**426**]{}, 301 (1994).
I.I. Bigi, M.A. Shifman, N.G. Uraltsev, and A.I. Vainshtein, Phys.Rev. D [**50**]{}, 2234 (1994).
M. Neubert and C.T. Sachrajda, Nucl. Phys. B [**438**]{}, 235 (1995).
G. Preparata and W.I. Weisberger, Phys. Rev. [**175**]{}, 1965 (1968).
B.S. DeWitt, Phys. Rev. [**162**]{}, 1195 (1967).
G. ’t Hooft, in: Functional and Probabilistic Methods in Quantum Field Theory, Proceedings of the 12th Winter School of Theoretical Physics, Karpacz, Poland, Acta Univ. Wratisl. [**38**]{}, Vol. 1 (1975).
D. Boulware, Phys. Rev. D [**23**]{}, 389 (1981).
L.F. Abbott, Nucl. Phys. B [**185**]{}, 189 (1981); Acta Phys. Pol.B [**13**]{}, 33 (1982).
H. Kluberg-Stern and J.B. Zuber, Phys. Rev. D [**12**]{}, 3159 (1975).
M. Neubert, Phys. Rev. D [**49**]{}, 1542 (1994).
M. Luke and A.V. Manohar, Phys. Lett. B [**286**]{}, 348 (1992).
Y.-Q. Chen, Phys. Lett. B [**317**]{}, 421 (1993).
D.J. Gross, in: Methods in Field Theory, edited by C.R. Balian and J. Zinn-Justin (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1976), p. 141.
A.A. Belavin and A.A. Migdal, JETP Lett. [**19**]{}, 181 (1974) \[ZhETF Pis. Red. [**19**]{}, 317 (1974)\].
W.A. Bardeen, A.J. Buras, D.W. Duke, and T. Muta, Phys. Rev. D [**18**]{}, 3998 (1978); A.J. Buras, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**52**]{}, 199 (1980).
E.G. Floratos, D.A. Ross, and C.T. Sachrajda, Nucl. Phys. B [**129**]{}, 66 (1977) \[E: [**139**]{}, 545 (1978)\].
A.J. Buras, M. Jamin, M.E. Lautenbacher, and P.H. Weisz, Nucl.Phys. B [**370**]{}, 69 (1992).
G.P. Korchemsky and A.V. Radyushkin, Nucl. Phys. B [**283**]{}, 342 (1987); Phys. Lett. B [**279**]{}, 359 (1992); G.P. Korchemsky, Mod.Phys. Lett. A [**4**]{}, 1257 (1989).
G.P. Korchemsky and A.V. Radyushkin, Phys. Lett. B [**279**]{}, 359 (1992).
W. Kilian, P. Manakos, and T. Mannel, Phys. Rev. D [**48**]{}, 1321 (1993).
A.G. Grozin and M. Neubert, preprint CERN-TH/96-144 (1996) \[hep-ph/9607366\].
[^1]: Ironically, the top quark is of no relevance to our discussion here, since it is too heavy to form hadronic bound states before it decays.
[^2]: Because of the spin symmetry, there is no such contribution to the masses of the $\Lambda_Q$ baryons.
[^3]: This bound has been criticised in Ref. 59.
[^4]: This is one of the few cases of interest where an anomalous dimension in the HQET is not yet known to two-loop order. If you feel strong enough, you are invited to try the calculation of $\gamma_1^{\rm mag}$!
[^5]: The final result for the anomalous dimension is gauge independent.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'An important challenge in reinforcement learning is to solve multimodal problems, where agents have to act in qualitatively different ways depending on the circumstances. Because multimodal problems are often too difficult to solve directly, it is often helpful to define a curriculum, which is an ordered set of sub-tasks that can serve as the stepping stones for solving the overall problem. Unfortunately, choosing an effective ordering for these subtasks is difficult, and a poor ordering can reduce the performance of the learning process. Here, we provide a thorough introduction and investigation of the Combinatorial Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithm (CMOEA), which allows all combinations of subtasks to be explored simultaneously. We compare CMOEA against three algorithms that can similarly optimize on multiple subtasks simultaneously: NSGA-II, NSGA-III and $\epsilon$-Lexicase Selection. The algorithms are tested on a simulated multimodal robot locomotion problem with six subtasks as well as a simulated robot maze navigation problem with a hundred subtasks. On these problems, CMOEA either outperforms or is competitive with the controls. As a separate contribution, we show that adding a linear combination over all objectives can improve the ability of the control algorithms to solve these multimodal problems. Lastly, we show that CMOEA can leverage auxiliary objectives more effectively than the controls on the multimodal locomotion task. In general, our experiments suggest that CMOEA is a promising algorithm for solving multimodal problems.'
author:
- 'Joost Huizinga and Jeff Clune[^1]'
bibliography:
- 'references\_abbreviations\_short.bib'
- 'references.bib'
title: '[Evolving Multimodal Robot Behavior via Many Stepping Stones with the Combinatorial Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithm]{}'
---
Many-objective optimization, Evolutionary multiobjective optimization, Multimodal problems
Introduction
============
A pervasive challenge in reinforcement learning is to have agents autonomously learn many qualitatively different behaviors, generally referred to as *multimodal behavior* [@li2014evolving; @schrum2014evolving]. Problems that require such multimodal behavior, which we will refer to as *multimodal problems* (also known as *modal problems* [@spector2012assessment]), are ubiquitous in real-world applications. A self-driving car will have to respond differently depending on whether it is on a highway, in a city, in a rural area, or in a traffic jam. A robot on a search-and-rescue operation will have to behave differently depending on whether it is searching for a victim or bringing a survivor to safety. Even a simple trash-collecting robot will have to behave differently depending on whether it is searching for trash, picking it up, or looking for a place to recharge.
Because multimodal problems require an agent to learn multiple different behaviors, they can be difficult to solve directly. A key insight for solving multimodal problems comes from how natural animals, including humans, learn complex tasks. Rather than learning all aspects of the combined task at once, we learn simpler, related tasks first. Later, the skills learned in these earlier tasks can be combined and adjusted in order to learn the more complex task at hand. These related tasks thus form the *stepping stones* towards solving the complete task. Methods that incrementally increase the difficulty of tasks have been successfully applied in animal training [@skinner1958reinforcement; @peterson2004day], gradient-descent based machine learning [@elman1993learning; @bengio2009curriculum], and evolutionary algorithms [@gomez1997incremental; @lewis1992genetic; @lewis1993genetic; @harvey1994seeing; @larsen2005evolving; @lessin2013open; @mouret2008incremental]. Unfortunately, defining a proper set of subtasks and an effective ordering is a non-trivial problem, and choosing poor subtasks or presenting them in the wrong order can severely reduce the effectiveness of the learning process [@bongard2008behavior; @auerbach2009robot].
![image]({"figures/concept_figure_v4_rasterized"}.pdf){width="70.00000%"}
Population-based *Evolutionary Algorithms* (EAs) may provide a unique opportunity to combat the problem of choosing and ordering subtasks, because the population as a whole can try many different ways of learning the subtasks and evolutionary selection can preserve the methods that work. For example, imagine training a robot that has to be able to both run and jump, but in order to learn both tasks, it is imperative that it learns how to jump first before it learns how to run. In an evolutionary algorithm, one lineage of robots may start out being better at running, while another lineage may initially be better at jumping. If learning to jump first is an essential stepping stone towards learning to both run and jump, the lineage that started by being good at running will never learn both tasks, but the lineage that started by being good at jumping will, thus solving the problem. However, without proper tuning, most evolutionary algorithms are prone to converge towards the task that is easiest to learn at first, as learning this task will result in the most rapid increase in fitness. For example, if learning to run is much easier than learning to jump, the lineage specialized in running may outcompete the lineage of those specialized in jumping before they have the chance to adapt (Fig. \[fig:concept\] left). As these jumping individuals were an important stepping stone for learning how to both run and jump, this stepping stone is now lost from the population, and because the population is now dominated by runners, it is unlikely that the jumping-only behavior will ever be visited again.
It is important to note that we usually have no way of knowing in advance what the important stepping stones are [@woolley2011deleterious; @nguyen2015innovation; @wang2019poet]. As such, one of the best ways of preserving stepping stones may be to maintain as many forms of different behavior in the population as possible. Here we introduce the Combinatorial Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithm (CMOEA) [@huizinga2016aligning], a multiobjective evolutionary algorithm specifically designed to preserve the stepping stones of multimodal problems. CMOEA was briefly described before in @huizinga2016aligning, but here we provide a more thorough description of the algorithm, an extension that allows the algorithm to be applied to at least 100 objectives, and a more detailed experimental investigation that includes three different controls and one additional problem domain. CMOEA divides the population into separate bins, one for each combination of subtasks, and ensures that there is only competition within bins, rather than between bins. This way, individuals that excel at any combination of subtasks are preserved as potential stepping stones for solving the overall problem (Fig. \[fig:concept\], right).
We compare CMOEA against three multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: the widely applied NSGA-II algorithm [@deb2002nsga], the more recent NSGA-III algorithm [@deb2013evolutionary], and the $\epsilon$-Lexicase Selection algorithm, which was also specifically designed to solve multimodal problems [@la2016epsilon] and can handle problems with at least 100 subtasks [@moore2017lexicase]. We compare the algorithms on both a simulated multimodal robot locomotion problem with 6 subtasks and on a simulated robot maze-navigation problem with 100 subtasks, and show that CMOEA either outperforms or is competitive with the control treatments. Note that, while both presented problems involve a robotic agent, CMOEA is not restricted to robotics problems. Tasks that require multimodal behavior can also be found in other domains, such as video games [@schrum2014evolving; @li2014evolving] and function approximation [@spector2012assessment], and CMOEA should be similarly applicable in those domains. In fact, the maze navigation problem presented in this paper is very similar to navigation problems presented in video-game and grid-world domains [@justesen2018illuminating; @sutton1990integrated], providing some evidence that CMOEA is applicable in those domains as well. As a separate contribution, we show that adding a linear combination over all objectives as an additional objective to the control algorithms (which are popular in their own right) can improve their ability to solve multimodal problems. Lastly, we demonstrate that CMOEA is able to effectively incorporate auxiliary objectives that increase the evolvability of individuals by selecting for genotypic and phenotypic modularity. With these auxiliary objectives, CMOEA substantially outperforms all controls on the simulated multimodal robot locomotion task, while the controls do not benefit as much or even perform worse when these auxiliary objectives are added. These results indicate that CMOEA is a promising, state-of-the-art algorithm for solving multimodal problems.
Background {#sec:background}
==========
Because multimodal problems are ubiquitous in many practical applications, a wide range of strategies have been developed for solving them. Many methods are based on the idea of *incremental evolution*, where complex problems are solved incrementally, one step at a time [@gomez1997incremental].
One incremental method is *staged evolution*, where the evolutionary process is divided into separate stages, each with its own objective function [@lewis1993genetic; @harvey1994seeing]. The process starts in the first, easiest stage, and the population is moved to the next, more difficult stage when the first stage is considered “solved” according to stage-specific success criteria. Staged evolution requires each stage, the order in which the stages are presented, and the success criteria to be defined manually, but the design of the controller being evolved can be fully determined by evolution. Staged evolution can be made more smooth if the environment has parameters that allow for fine-grained adjustments, such as the speed of the prey in a predator-prey simulation [@gomez1997incremental]. Such fine-grained staging has also been referred to as *environmental complexification* [@mouret2008incremental]. Closely related to staged evolution is *fitness shaping*, where the fitness function is either dynamically or statically shaped to provide a smooth gradient towards a final goal [@nolfi1995evolving2; @schrum2010evolving]. Fitness shaping provides the benefits of staging without the need to define the stages explicitly, but it does increase the complexity of the fitness function, which needs to be carefully designed by hand.
Another successful incremental-evolution method is *behavioral decomposition* [@mouret2008incremental], where a separate controller is optimized for each task and higher level controllers can build upon lower level controllers [@larsen2005evolving; @lessin2013open], similar to hierarchical reinforcement learning [@barto2003recent]. Variants of behavioral decomposition techniques frame the process as a cooperative multiagent system, where each agent optimizes the controller for a particular subtask, such that a group of these agents can combine their controllers and solve the task as a whole [@pieter2004evolutionary; @agogino2008efficient]. One downside of these behavioral decomposition methods is that it becomes the experimenters responsibility to decide which tasks should get their own controller, which controllers build upon which other controllers, and in what order controllers should be trained, all of which are difficult decisions that can severely impact the effectiveness of the method. In addition, because the controllers are optimized separately, there is no opportunity for the optimization process to reuse information between controllers or find atomic controllers that work well together, meaning computational time may be wasted due to having to reinvent the same partial solutions in several different controllers.
A completely different way of approaching multimodal problems is to focus on *behavioral diversity* [@mouret2009overcoming]. Behavioral diversity based approaches attempt to promote intermediate stepping stones by rewarding individuals for being different from the rest of the population. As a result, a population will naturally diverge towards many different behaviors, each of which may be a stepping stone towards the actually desired behavior. One canonical example of an algorithm based on behavioral diversity is Novelty Search, where individuals are selected purely based on how different their behaviors are compared to an archive of individuals from previous generations [@lehman2011abandoning]. Novelty Search has been shown to be effective in maze navigation and biped locomotion problems [@lehman2011abandoning], though it is unclear whether these problems required multimodal behavior. By selecting for behavioral diversity and performance, @Mouret2012 were able to evolve robots that would exhibit a form of multimodal behavior where a robot would alternate between searching for a ball and depositing it in a predefined goal location. The main drawback of behavioral diversity based approaches is that the space of possible behaviors can be massive, meaning that it may contain many “uninteresting” behaviors that neither resemble a potential solution nor represent a stepping stone towards any other relevant behavior. One method for avoiding the problem of having too many “uninteresting” solutions is by having a fixed number of behavioral niches [@cully2015robots; @nguyen2015innovation]. By discretizing the behavior space, @cully2015robots were able to evolve many different modes of behavior for a hexapod robot, which formed the basis of an intelligent trial-and-error algorithm that enabled the robot to quickly respond to damage. Similarly, @nguyen2015innovation were able to evolve a wide range of different looking images by having separate niches for images assigned to different categories by a pre-trained neural network, an algorithm called the *Innovation Engine*. CMOEA also builds on the idea of having different niches for different types of solutions, but instead of defining its niches based on different behaviors or different classes, it defines its niches based on different combinations of subtasks.
The strategy of solving multimodal problems considered in this paper revolves around framing it as a multiobjective problem, where each training task is its own objective [@mouret2008incremental; @schrum2010evolving; @spector2012assessment]. We will refer to this strategy as *multiobjective incremental evolution* and, as with staged evolution, it requires the problem to be decomposed into a set of subtasks, each with its own fitness function. However, in contrast to staged evolution, the subtasks do not have to be explicitly ordered and there is no need to explicitly define success criteria for each stage.
There are many ways to obtain an appropriate set of subtasks. For example, it is possible to use prior knowledge in order to define a separate training task for every mode of behavior that might be relevant for solving the overall problem, such as having separate subtasks for moving and jumping. Alternatively, it is also possible to generate different environments and have each environment be its own training task. Provided that the environments are diverse enough (e.g. some environments include objects that need to be jumped over while other environments feature flat ground that needs to be traversed quickly) they can similarly encourage different modes of behavior. Subtasks could even involve different problem domains, such as image classification for one task and robot locomotion for another task. The main idea is that, as long as a task is unique and somewhat related to the overall problem, it can be added as an objective to promote multimodal behavior.
That said, while it is relatively straightforward to split a multimodal problem into different subtasks, there is no guarantee that classic multiobjective algorithms will perform well on this set. The main reason is that the set of subtasks will often be much larger than the number of objectives generally solved by multiobjective algorithms; rather than a multiobjective problem, which generally refers to problems with three or fewer objectives [@khare2003performance; @deb2005finding; @ishibuchi2008evolutionary; @wagner2007pareto; @fleming2005many], it becomes a *many-objective problem*, a term coined for problems that require optimization of many more objectives [@deb2005finding; @ishibuchi2008evolutionary; @wagner2007pareto; @fleming2005many]. For example, the maze navigation problem presented in this paper required at least 100 subtasks in order to promote general maze solving behavior (preliminary experiments with 10 subtasks generalized poorly and even with 100 training mazes generalization is not perfect, SI Sec. \[sec:number\_training\_mazes\]). Many popular multiobjective algorithms have trouble with such a large number of objectives because they are based on the principle of *Pareto dominance* [@khare2003performance; @deb2005finding; @ishibuchi2008evolutionary; @wagner2007pareto; @fleming2005many]. According to the definition of Pareto-dominance, an individual $A$ dominates an individual $B$ only if $A$ is not worse on any objective than $B$ and $A$ is better than $B$ on at least one objective [@deb2001multi]. With the help of this Pareto-dominance relation, these algorithms attempt to approximate the true *Pareto front*, the set of solutions which are non-dominated with respect to all other possible solutions. However, as the number of objectives grows, the number of individuals in a population that are likely to be non-dominated increases exponentially. When nearly all individuals in a population are non-dominated, a Pareto-dominance based algorithm may lose its ability to apply adequate selection pressure. There exist many different methods to increase the maximum number of objectives that these Pareto-based algorithms can handle [@deb2012handling; @laumanns2002combining; @deb2005finding], and these methods have been shown to be effective up to $10$ objectives if no assumptions about the problem are made [@deb2012handling], and up to $30$ objectives if the majority of those objectives are redundant [@deb2005finding]. However, because of the exponential relationship between the number of objectives and the dimensionality of the Pareto front, it is unlikely that purely Pareto-based methods will be able to scale much further.
There also exist many multiobjective evolutionary algorithms that do not rely on Pareto dominance [@deb2001multi; @bentley1998finding; @spector2012assessment; @drechsler2001multi]. Such techniques may be especially relevant for multimodal problems because multimodal problems do not necessarily require an approximation of the true Pareto front. Instead, multimodal problems simply require adequate performance on all objectives, which generally means searching for only a small area or point on the true Pareto front. In theory, searching for a point on a Pareto front can be achieved by simply optimizing a weighted sum of all objectives [@deb2001multi]. The main problem with such a weighted sum approach is that, even when the desired tradeoff for the optimal solution is known, the trajectory for finding this optimal solution may not be a straight line, but may instead require the algorithm to find a number of solutions with different tradeoffs first [@deb2001multi]. This issue will almost certainly be present in the context of multimodal problems because different modes of behavior can vary greatly in difficulty, meaning that “straight line” optimization (i.e. attempting to learn all modes simultaneously) is likely to fail. As such, multimodal problems may be best tackled by algorithms that do not strictly rely on Pareto dominance, but that still explore many different tradeoffs during optimization.
Treatments
==========
CMOEA
-----
The goal of CMOEA is to provide a large number of potential evolutionary stepping stones, thus increasing the probability that some of these stepping stones are on the path to solving the task as a whole. To do so, we define a *bin* for every combination of subtasks of our problem. For example, if we have the two subtasks of moving forward and moving backward, there will be one bin for moving forward, one bin for moving backward, and one bin for the combination of moving forward and backward. The algorithm starts by generating and evaluating a predetermined number of random individuals and adding a copy of each generated individual to every bin. Next, survivor selection is performed within each bin such that, afterward, each bin contains a number of individuals equal to some predetermined bin size. For each bin, selection happens only with respect to the subtasks associated with that bin. After this initialization procedure, the algorithm will perform the following steps at each generation: (1) select a number of parents randomly from across all bins, (2) generate one child for each selected parent by copying and mutating that parent (no crossover is performed in the version presented in this paper), (3) add a copy of each child to every bin, and (4) perform survivor selection within each bin (Fig. \[fig:cmoea\]).
For survivor selection to work on a bin with multiple subtasks, we need some way of comparing individuals who may have different performance values on each of these tasks. While there exist many selection procedures specifically designed to work with multiple objectives [@fonseca1993genetic; @horn1994niched; @srinivas1994muiltiobjective; @deb2001multi], these multiobjective selection procedures tend to have difficulty with many objectives (see Sec. \[sec:background\]), which is exactly the problem CMOEA was designed to solve. As such, within bins, CMOEA combines performance values on different tasks into a single fitness value by taking their arithmetic mean or by multiplying them. Multiplication can be more effective than taking the arithmetic mean because it requires individuals to obtain at least some non-zero performance on every relevant subtask within a bin, rather than being able to specialize in a subset of those subtasks while neglecting the others. Note that the same properties can be obtained by taking the geometric mean, but multiplication is computationally more efficient to calculate and both methods result in the same relative ordering. Multiplication does require clipping or shifting values in a way that avoids negatives, as negative values could completely alter the meaning of the combined performance metric. That said, it is generally considered good practice to normalize performance values regardless of whether values are combined by taking the arithmetic mean or through multiplication, as overly large or overly negative values can negatively impact the effectiveness of both aggregation methods.
While CMOEA does not prescribe any particular selection procedure for the survivor selection step within each bin, we implement the multiobjective *behavioral diversity* method by @mouret2009overcoming. In this method, the multiobjective evolutionary algorithm NSGA-II [@deb2002nsga] selects for both performance and behavioral diversity, which allows it to avoid local optima and fitness plateaus [@mouret2009overcoming]. We apply it as a within-bin selection procedure because it ensures that each bin maintains individuals that solve the same subtasks in different ways. In addition, this method outperformed a method based on novelty search with local competition [@lehman2011evolving], which is another algorithm that optimizes for both performance and diversity (SI \[sec:bin\_selection\]). For any particular bin, the performance objective is the main objective associated with that bin (e.g. move forward, move backward, move forward $\times$ move backward, etc.). The behavioral diversity of an individual is calculated by first measuring some relevant feature of the behavior of an individual, called the *behavior descriptor*, and then calculating the mean distance to the behavior descriptors of all other individuals in the same bin. As such, the larger this distance, the more unique the behavior of the individual is with respect to the other individuals in that bin. Behavioral diversity metrics differ per domain, and details can be found in sections \[sec:robot\] and \[sec:maze\].
Maintaining a bin for every single combination subtasks may not be feasible on problems with many subtasks. For example, in the simulated robot maze navigation problem we define $100$ subtasks (see section \[sec:maze\_setup\] for details), which would result in $2^{100} - 1 = \num{1.27e 30}$ different bins. While it may seem that such exponential scaling would prevent CMOEA from being applied to larger problems, it is important to note that what we really require from CMOEA is that it provides a sufficiently large number of different stepping stones. As long as there is a sufficiently large number of directions in which improvements can be discovered, evolution is unlikely to get stuck in local optima, and can thus continue to make progress. As such, if the number of bins is large, only a subset of bins may be necessary to provide the required stepping stones. One method for constructing such a subset, demonstrated in our maze navigation experiment (section \[sec:maze\_setup\]), starts by including the bin for each individual subtask as well as the bin for the combination of all subtasks, and then adds random bins to the subset until a desired number of bins is reached. The code for CMOEA, as well as for all experiments and control treatments, is available at: [www.evolvingai.org/cmoea](www.evolvingai.org/cmoea).
To assess the performance of CMOEA relative to other algorithms, we compare CMOEA against three successful multiobjective algorithms, namely NSGA-II [@deb2002nsga], NSGA-III [@deb2013evolutionary] and $\epsilon$-Lexicase Selection [@la2016epsilon]. To verify the usefulness of having many CMOEA bins, we also compare CMOEA against a variant that only has a single bin with all of the subtasks. A description of each of these treatments is provided below.
![**Overview of CMOEA.** At every generation, CMOEA first selects a number of parents ($1$ in this example) randomly from across all bins. It then creates offspring by copying and mutating those parents and one copy of each offspring is added to every bin. Afterward, a local survivor-selection method determines which individuals remain in each bin. In this example, survivor selection is performed by the non-dominated sorting algorithm from NSGA-II, with performance on the tasks associated with the relevant bin as one objective and behavioral diversity within the bin as the other objective.[]{data-label="fig:cmoea"}]({"figures/cmoea_overview_v5"}.pdf){width="49.00000%"}
Single Bin CMOEA {#sec:controls}
----------------
To verify that having many CMOEA bins actually provides a practical benefit, we run a control that features only a single CMOEA bin, called the Single Bin treatment. The Single Bin treatment is the same as CMOEA, except that it only has one bin, namely the bin that is associated with all subtasks. To ensure a fair comparison, this bin is resized such that the number of individuals within this bin is equal to the total number of individuals maintained by CMOEA across all bins (the Single Bin treatment with a population size equal to the number of new individuals created at each generation (), which is a common default in EAs, performed worse, see SI Fig. \[fig:popsize\_comp\]). In addition, the Single Bin treatment also implements the Pareto-based tournament selection procedure for parent selection from NSGA-II, which is expected to increase the performance of the Single Bin treatment, and thus ensures a comparison against the best possible implementation of this treatment [@deb2002nsga].
NSGA-II
-------
NSGA-II [@deb2002nsga] is a Pareto-based multiobjective evolutionary algorithm that, because of its popularity [@deb2002nsga; @huizinga2016aligning; @schrum2010evolving; @khare2003performance; @mouret2009overcoming; @Mouret2012; @deb2005finding; @ishibuchi2008evolutionary; @wagner2007pareto; @deb2012handling; @laumanns2002combining; @clune2013originModularity; @mengistu2016evolutionary; @ellefsen2015neural], functions as a recognizable benchmark. Briefly (see @deb2002nsga for details), NSGA-II works by sorting a mixed population of parents and children into ranked fronts where each individual is non-dominated with respect to all individuals in the same and lower ranked fronts. During selection, NSGA-II iteratively adds individuals, starting from the highest ranked front and moving towards the lowest ranked front, until a sufficient number of individuals have been selected to populate the next generation. The last front in this process generally can not be added to the next generation in its entirety, meaning that a tie-breaker is necessary. The tie-breaker in NSGA-II is a crowding score that prefers individuals whose neighbors on each objective are far apart from each other [@deb2002nsga].
NSGA-III
--------
NSGA-III differs from NSGA-II only in the tie-breaker that determines which individuals are selected from the last front that is copied to the next generation. While this is a small change algorithmically, the tie-breaking behavior can greatly affect performance on many-objective problems because, on these problems, the majority of the population may actually be on the same front, meaning the tie-breaker can be the most important selective pressure applied by the algorithm. The tie-breaking behavior of NSGA-III is described in detail in @deb2013evolutionary, so here we describe it only briefly. In order to deal with differently scaled objectives, NSGA-III first normalizes all objective scores. It then defines a number of reference lines in this normalized space that are evenly distributed over different trade offs between objectives (e.g. with two objectives and three lines, the trade offs will be $[0, 1]$, $[.5, .5]$, and $[1, 0]$). It subsequently assigns each individual to the reference line that is closest to it. From there, NSGA-III first selects from the individuals that are closest to each line, never selecting the same individual twice. If that step did not provide sufficient individuals, it randomly selects an individual from a line that has thus far provided the fewest individuals for the next generation, ignoring lines that have no individuals associated with them (i.e. NSGA-III will alternate selecting one individual from each line).
We have implemented NSGA-III as described in @deb2013evolutionary, with the exception that we normalize by the highest value found along each dimension of the objective space, rather than by the intercepts found based on the extreme points of the population. The reason for this change is that, in preliminary experiments, the extreme points often did not span the entire space, thus making it impossible to calculate the intercepts. In addition, always performing normalization by the highest value outperformed an alternative where we only normalize by highest value when the intercepts could not be calculated (SI \[sec:nsga\_iii\_normalization\]). Following the standard implementation, the number of reference lines was chosen to be as close as possible to the population size [@deb2013evolutionary].
NSGA-III provides the possibility to add additional reference lines corresponding to trade offs of interest. In all experiments we added a reference line for the combination of all objectives, as this is the trade off of interest.
$\epsilon$-Lexicase Selection {#sec:e_lexicase_selection}
-----------------------------
$\epsilon$-Lexicase Selection is a state-of-the-art algorithm for solving multimodal problems and it thus presents another good benchmark to compare against [@la2016epsilon]. The $\epsilon$-Lexicase Selection algorithm is an extension of the Lexicase Selection algorithm [@spector2012assessment], where each individual is selected by first choosing a random order for the objectives, and then selecting the individual that is the best according to the lexicographical ordering that results from the randomly ordered objectives (e.g. if the random order of objectives is {Forward, Backward}, first all individuals that have the maximum performance on the Forward task will be selected and then the performance on the Backward task will serve as a tiebreaker). Because the order of objectives is randomized for every individual being selected, Lexicase Selection will select specialists on each of the objectives first, with ties being broken by performance on other objectives.
While Lexicase Selection works well when subtask performance is measured in a discrete way (e.g. when performance is passing or failing a particular test case), it tends to break down when the subtask performance is measured in a continuous space, such as when performing regression. The reason for such failure is that the probability of having ties becomes close to zero in a continuous space, meaning Lexicase Selection will regress to selecting the individual that is best at the first objective in the random order, while ignoring all other objectives. As a result, Lexicase Selection on continuous subtasks effectively selects one specialist for each subtask, but it will not produce solutions with some performance on all subtasks.
The $\epsilon$-Lexicase Selection algorithm resolves this issue by defining an $\epsilon$ margin such that a solution is considered tied on a particular objective if it scores within $\epsilon$ of a particular threshold on that objective. In [@cava2018probabilistic] three versions of $\epsilon$-Lexicase Selection are presented: *static $\epsilon$-Lexicase Selection*, *semi-dynamic $\epsilon$-Lexicase Selection*, and *dynamic $\epsilon$-Lexicase Selection*. In static $\epsilon$-Lexicase Selection, $\epsilon$ is either chosen in advance or calculated based on the Median Absolute Deviation (MAD) on the objective among the entire population and the threshold on each objective is either based on a preset maximum or equal to the highest score on that objective among the entire population. In semi-dynamic $\epsilon$-Lexicase Selection, $\epsilon$ is still static, but the threshold is now the highest score among the individuals that are still considered for selection (e.g. if three individuals were considered tied on the first objective, the threshold for the second objective will come from these three individuals, rather than from the entire population). Lastly, dynamic $\epsilon$-Lexicase Selection calculates both the threshold and $\epsilon$ based on the individuals still considered for selection, rather than across the entire population. To chose a version to compare against (including regular Lexicase Selection), we performed extensive preliminary experiments for each problem, and we chose the version and parameters that worked best in those preliminary experiments (SI \[sec:lexicase\_variants\]). For the multimodal locomotion problem the best performing variant was semi-dynamic $\epsilon$-Lexicase Selection with a fixed $\epsilon=0.05$. For the simulated robot maze navigation problem most variants performed equally well, and we chose dynamic $\epsilon$-Lexicase Selection for comparison.
In previous work, $\epsilon$-Lexicase Selection was implemented as part of an evolutionary algorithm where evolution happens by selecting a number of parents equal to the population size, and then having the children of these parents replace the old population [@la2016epsilon; @cava2018probabilistic]. To ensure a fair comparison with CMOEA, which maintains a population size that can be much larger than the number of offspring created at each generation, we have similarly decoupled the size of the population and the number of offspring per generation for $\epsilon$-Lexicase Selection. In our implementation, a predetermined number of parents are selected to produce an equal number of offspring, and then survivors are selected from among the combined population of parents and offspring until the number of remaining individuals equals the intended population size. We apply $\epsilon$-Lexicase Selection to both parent selection and survivor selection.
Combined-Target Objective
-------------------------
In order to perform well on a multimodal problem, in addition to preserving important stepping stones, an evolutionary algorithm will also need to preserve solutions that make progress on the multimodal problem as a whole. In the problems presented in this paper, progress on the multimodal problem as a whole is defined as a linear combination over all objectives. After decomposing the multimodal problem into sub-problems, due to practical limits on population size, there is no guarantee that a multiobjective evolutionary algorithm will preserve individuals that make progress on such a linear combination. However, many of them will preserve the best individual on each objective, as they are guaranteed to be on the Pareto-front and they tend to be preferred by measures intended to preserve a diverse Pareto-front (e.g. crowding score [@deb2002nsga] or reference lines [@deb2013evolutionary]). As such, if a linear combination on all objectives would be added as an additional objective, which we will call the *Combined-Target* (CT) objective, individuals that have increased performance on the multimodal problem as a whole may have a much higher chance of being preserved, which can thus increase the performance of many multiobjective evolutionary algorithms when solving multimodal problems. In this paper, we test the CT objective with each of our controls, and we show that it improves their performance in almost all cases. We did not test the CT objective with CMOEA because CMOEA already has a bin specifically dedicated towards optimizing this objective.
Experiments
===========
Settings and plots
------------------
For all experiments, the number of individuals created at every generation was . Because the population size of CMOEA can not be set directly, as it is partially determined by the number of subtasks, it has to be tuned by setting the bin size. We set the bin size such that each bin would be large enough to allow for some diversity within each bin while keeping the total population size computationally tractable. For a fair comparison, the population size for all other treatments was subsequently set to be equal to the total population size maintained by CMOEA (we tested some of the controls with a population size equal to the number of individuals created at every generation, which is a common default in EAs, but those treatments performed worse, see SI Sec. \[sec:pop\_size\]). All experiments involved the evolution of a network with NEAT mutation operators [@stanley2002evolving], extended with deletion operators as described in previous work [@huizinga2016aligning] (i.e. we implemented delete node and delete connection mutations in addition to the mutation operators already available in NEAT), and the treatments did not implement crossover. Experiment-specific settings are described in the relevant sub-sections.
All line plots show the median over 30 runs with different random seeds. Unless stated otherwise, shaded areas indicate the $95\%$ bootstrapped confidence interval of the median obtained by resampling times and lines are smoothed by a median filter with a window size of $21$. The performance of a run at a particular generation is defined as the highest performance among the individuals at that generation. Symbols in the bar below each plot indicate that the difference between the indicated distributions is statistically significant (according to the Mann-Whitney-U test with $\alpha=0.05$). Because these significance indicators result in a large number of statistical tests, we have applied a Bonferroni correction based on the number of treatments being compared. We did not apply a Bonferonni correction based on the actual number of tests, because we believe that the large number of tests performed between the same treatments actually helps in identifying spurious positives (see SI \[sec:plot\_significance\_indicators\] for details). Unless otherwise specified, all statistical comparisons are performed with the Mann-Whitney-U test.
Simulated multimodal robot locomotion domain {#sec:robot}
--------------------------------------------
### Multimodal locomotion domain experimental setup
We have tested the performance of CMOEA on two different problems. The first is a simulated robotics problem known as the six-tasks problem [@huizinga2016aligning], where a simulated hexapod robot has to learn to perform six different tasks (move forward, move backward, turn left, turn right, jump, and crouch) depending on its inputs (Fig. \[fig:robot\_task\]). Neural network controllers (Fig. \[fig:layout\]) are evaluated by performing a separate trial for each task, with the information about which task to perform being presented to the inputs. How performance and behavioral diversity are measured on this task follow @huizinga2016aligning and are described in SI Sec. \[sec:robot\_exp\_details\]. The robot was simulated with the Bullet[^2] simulator.
(a)
\
Side
\
\
Top
(b)
\
Forward
\
Backward
\
Turn-left
\
\
Turn-right
\
Jump
\
Crouch
(a)
(b)
Because this problem features six subtasks, CMOEA maintains $2^6-1=63$ bins (one for each combination of subtasks except the permutation with zero subtasks). For this problem, the size of each bin was set to be $100$, meaning that all controls had a population size of . Following previous work [@huizinga2016aligning], the controller was a Continuous-Time Recurrent Neural Network (CTRNN) [@beer1992evolving] encoded by a Compositional Pattern-Producing Network (CPPN) [@stanley2009hypercube], which was extended with a Multi-Spatial Substrate (MSS) [@Pugh2013] and a Link Expression Output [@verbancsics2011constraining]. For details about the aforementioned algorithms and extensions, we refer the reader to the cited papers. Parameters for the CTRNN and the evolutionary algorithm were the same as in @huizinga2016aligning and are listed in the SI for convenience (SI Sec. \[sec:robot\_exp\_details\]).
![**The CT variant of each treatment performs significantly better than that same treatment without the CT objective.** Note that performance values appear to be extremely low because it is the product of six numbers between 0 and 1, but an individual with a fitness greater than 0.001 generally demonstrates some basic competency on all six tasks, while and individual with a fitness smaller than 0.0003 does not (videos are available at: www.evolvingai.org/cmoea). []{data-label="fig:naive"}]({"figures/guided_vs_unguided"}.pdf){width="48.00000%"}
### Multimodal locomotion domain results
The first thing to note is that CT NSGA-II significantly and substantially outperformed regular NSGA-II (Fig. \[fig:naive\]). Similar, though smaller, effects can be observed for NSGA-III and $\epsilon$-Lexicase Selection (Fig. \[fig:naive\]). While this figure only shows results for semi-dynamic $\epsilon$-Lexicase Selection with $\epsilon=0.05$, the positive effect of the CT objective was observed in all versions that we tested (SI Fig. \[fig:elexicase\_combined\_target\]). These results demonstrate that the CT objective is an effective method for alleviating the effects that the high-dimensional Pareto-front has on NSGA-II on this particular problem, and that it can aid other multiobjective evolutionary algorithms as well. This enhancement for multiobjective evolutionary algorithms is an independent contribution of this paper.
Second, $\epsilon$-Lexicase Selection and NSGA-III, with or without the CT objective, perform far worse than CT NSGA-II. It is unclear why these algorithms perform worse on this multimodal locomotion task. For NSGA-III it may be the case that, as it is better than NSGA-II at maintaining a well distributed Pareto front [@deb2013evolutionary], solutions that perform well on the multimodal problem as a whole are not found as quickly as with NSGA-II. This suggests that evolving multimodal behavior by splitting the desired behavior into subtasks is not a regular multiobjective problem and that a high performance on classic multiobjective benchmarks does not necessarily indicate a high performance on multimodal problems. $\epsilon$-Lexicase Selection may suffer from a similar issue and also has a second problem where the automatic calculation of $\epsilon$ does not work as well on this multimodal locomotion problem as there are many tasks on which performance is originally 0, meaning the Median Average Deviation becomes 0 as well. As a result, the version of $\epsilon$-Lexicase Selection that performed best on this domain was a semi-dynamic version with a fixed $\epsilon$ (SI \[sec:lexicase\_variants\]), but such a fixed $\epsilon$ may not be as effective as an automatically adjusted $\epsilon$ because the optimal $\epsilon$ may change over generations. Other methods for calculating $\epsilon$ may work better, but we believe that those experiments are outside the scope of this paper.
Because the CT versions of all of NSGA-II, NSGA-III and $\epsilon$-Lexicase Selection performed better than their regular counterparts, we consider only the CT versions for the remainder of the multimodal locomotion task results.
![**CMOEA performs significantly better than the control treatments in early generations.** After roughly generations, the difference between CMOEA and CT NSGA-II is no longer significant, though the difference between CMOEA and the other treatments remains significant. []{data-label="fig:main_robots"}]({"figures/main_treatments_robots"}.pdf){width="48.00000%"}
When we compare the controls with CMOEA, we see that CMOEA performs significantly better than any of the controls for the first generations (Fig. \[fig:main\_robots\]). After those generations, the significant difference between CMOEA and CT NSGA-II disappears, though the difference between CMOEA and the other treatments remains significant. CT NSGA-II also performs significantly better than the other treatments besides CMOEA. The fact that the Single Bin treatment performs substantially and significantly worse than both CMOEA and CT NSGA-II is indicative of the importance of having multiple different objectives. While the Single Bin treatment dedicates all of its resources to the combination of the six objectives, such a strategy did not lead to the best performance on this problem, presumably because it fails to find all the necessary stepping stones required to learn these behaviors. Instead, both CMOEA and CT NSGA-II dedicate a substantial amount of resources towards optimizing subsets of these objectives and these subsets then form the stepping stones towards better overall performance.
Given that both CMOEA and CT NSGA-II were still gaining performance after generations and that it was unclear which algorithm would perform better in the long run, we extended the experiments with these treatments up to generations (Fig. \[fig:extended\]). While the difference is relatively small, CT NSGA-II starts outperforming CMOEA after about generations, though the difference is not significant after the (potentially overly conservative) Bonferroni correction. This result suggests that, similar to CMOEA, CT NSGA-II is capable of maintaining the evolutionary stepping stones required for performing well on this task. In addition, given that CT NSGA-II maintains only seven different objectives (the six main objectives and the CT objective), it is likely that CT NSGA-II is capable of dedicating more resources to individuals that perform well on the CT objective than CMOEA, thus explaining why CT NSGA-II eventually outperforms CMOEA. If this is true, the performance of CMOEA can possibly be improved by increasing the relative population size of the bin responsible for the combination of all subtasks. That said, even without such optimization, CMOEA remains competitive with CT NSGA-II for the majority of the generations.
![**While CT NSGA-II outperforms CMOEA in extended runs, CMOEA performed significantly and substantially better than CT NSGA-II when auxiliary objectives were added.** The auxiliary objectives significantly improve the performance of CT $\epsilon$-Lexicase Selection, have no observable effect on the performance of CT NSGA-III, and significantly reduce the performance CT NSGA-II. A magnification of CT $\epsilon$-Lexicase Selection and NSGA-III with and without modularity is provided in the SI to visualize the difference (SI Fig. \[fig:lexicase\_blowup\]).[]{data-label="fig:extended"}]({"figures/cmoea_guided_nsga_with_without_mod"}.pdf){width="48.00000%"}
Previous work has shown that it may be helpful to have auxiliary objectives [@jaderberg2016reinforcement; @mirowski2016learning] that influence the structure of the evolved neural networks, such as by promoting modularity or hierarchy [@clune2013originModularity; @mengistu2016evolutionary; @ellefsen2015neural]. In particular, the paper that briefly introduced CMOEA [@huizinga2016aligning] demonstrated that selecting for genotypic and phenotypic modularity increases the performance of CMOEA on the six-tasks robot locomotion problem. In this paper, the modularity of the genotype (i.e. the CPPN network) and the phenotype (i.e. the neural controller itself) was measured through a computationally efficient approximation [@Newman2006] of the modularity-Q score for directed networks [@Leicht2008], and these two modularity scores were subsequently added as additional objectives to be maximized within each CMOEA bin. Modularity may be beneficial on this problem because, once the phenotypic network has developed modules, those modules can be involved in different types of behavior (e.g. there may be a separate module for moving and a separate module for turning), allowing those behaviors to be optimized separately. However, because the network is indirectly encoded [@stanley2007compositional], a modular phenotype alone may not be sufficient to allow those modules to be separately optimized, as a local change in the genotype may cause a global change in the phenotype. Supporting this hypothesis, previous work demonstrated that performance only increases with simultaneous selection for both genotypic and phenotypic modularity, and not with selection for either genotypic or phenotypic modularity alone [@huizinga2016aligning].
Note that these two auxiliary modularity objectives are different from the subtask objectives in that they are completely unrelated to the problem that needs to be solved, meaning that individuals can gain performance on these objectives without making any progress towards the overall goal. Instead, these objectives promote genotypic and phenotypic structures that increase the evolvability of individuals, thus possibly increasing the potential of these individuals in later generations. As was shown in [@huizinga2016aligning], being able to effectively make use of these auxiliary objectives can greatly improve the effectiveness of an algorithm. As such, we examined whether our controls could similarly benefit from the objectives of maximizing the Q-score of the genotype network and the phenotype network, which we will refer to as our auxiliary objectives.
For CMOEA, these two auxiliary objectives were added to the NSGA-II selection procedure within every bin, thus ensuring that every individual maintained by CMOEA would be subject to selection for genotypic and phenotypic modularity [@huizinga2016aligning]. While adding these additional objectives causes the number of objectives within each bin to increase to four, which could have been too many for the NSGA-II-based selection procedure, we hypothesize that the Pareto front within each bin does not collapse because the objectives are not fully competing (i.e. increasing the modularity of the network or its genome does not necessarily lead to a reduction in performance or diversity). We refer the reader to [@huizinga2016aligning] for a more in-depth discussion of this result.
Our controls do not have a selection procedure that is equivalent to CMOEA’s within-bin selection procedure. As such, the two most straightforward ways of adding the modularity objectives to the controls is to either include the modularity metric as a weighted sum with the primary objectives or add the modularity objectives alongside the primary objectives. However, because the modularity metrics have a different scale with respect to the primary performance objectives (e.g. the modularity metrics tend to be greater than 0.2 while the combined performance objective does not become greater than 0.01), a naive weighted sum is unlikely to work without extensive tuning of the weighting. As such, we believe that adding genotypic and phenotypic modularity as separate objectives to the controls is the method that is likely to perform best, and which thus represents the most fair comparison.
CT NSGA-II performed significantly worse when the modularity objectives were added (Fig. \[fig:extended\]). A likely cause for this effect is that, because these auxiliary objectives are completely separate from the main objectives, the algorithm maintains individuals that are champions at having a modular genotype or a modular phenotype, but not in combination with actually performing well on any of the main objectives. CT $\epsilon$-Lexicase Selection performs slightly (but significantly) better when modularity is added, suggesting that the algorithm is better at finding tradeoffs between modularity and performance than CT NSGA-II. The modularity objectives have no observable effect on the performance of CT NSGA-III. It is unclear why this is the case, but it is possible that, with 9 objectives, there are too few reference lines that actually describe relevant tradeoffs between modularity and performance. CMOEA ensures a proper tradeoff between modularity and performance by having the auxiliary objectives be present in every bin, thus forcing all individuals to invest in being modular, regardless of which subtasks they solve. Because it may be harder to increase performance at low performance values than at higher performance values, care should be taken when comparing the relative impact of the modularity objectives. That said, the benefit of the modularity objectives on the performance of CMOEA is substantially larger than that of the controls, suggesting that CMOEA may be more effective when it comes to utilizing auxiliary objectives.
Note that, instead of adding the selection pressure for genotypic and phenotypic modularity to every CMOEA bin, it is possible to allocate additional bins for individuals that combine genotypic and phenotypic modularity with performance (e.g. having one bin for jumping alone and another bin for jumping $\times$ genotypic and phenotypic modularity). The main downside of such an approach is that it requires the tradeoff between modularity and performance to be explicitly defined. However, because such an approach would increase the number of potential stepping-stones that are preserved, it is possible that doing so would improve the performance of CMOEA even when the modularity and performance objectives are not properly balanced. Examining the effect of adding additional bins that select for a linear combination of modularity and performance remains a topic for future research.
Simulated robot maze navigation domain {#sec:maze}
---------------------------------------
### Maze domain experimental setup {#sec:maze_setup}
The second problem is a simulated robot maze navigation task, where a wheeled robot is put into a randomly generated maze and has to navigate to a goal location. In contrast to the six-tasks problem discussed before, we do not define the different modalities of the problem explicitly. Instead, we have the modalities arise naturally from the problem instances.
The mazes were generated according to the maze generation algorithm from [@meyerson2016learning] (originally introduced in [@reynolds2010maze]), where a grid-based space is repeatedly divided by a wall with a single gap. The mazes for our experiments were generated by dividing a 20 by 20 grid 5 times with the goal placed in the center of a cell randomly selected from the grid. The grid was subsequently converted into a continuous space where each cell in the grid represented an area of 20 by 20 units. The robot had a circular collision body with a radius of 4 units, giving it plenty of space to move within a cell, and always started at the center of the maze facing north. Walls were 2 units wide and the gaps within each wall were 20 units wide. This maze-generation algorithm resulted in mazes with a house-like quality, where the space was divided into separate rooms connected by doorways and the goal positioned somewhere within one of those rooms (Fig. \[fig:maze\_task\]a). The robot was simulated with the Fastsim simulator [@Mouret2012; @fastsim].
The robot had two different types of sensors: range-finder sensors, which detect the distance to the closest wall in a certain direction, and goal sensors, which indicate whether the goal lies within a specific quadrant relative to the robot (Fig. \[fig:maze\_task\]b). In contrast to previous work [@meyerson2016learning; @lehman2011abandoning], our goal sensors did not work through walls. As a result, the problem had two different modes: in the first mode the robot has to traverse different rooms in order to find the room containing the goal, and in the second mode the robot has to move towards a goal that is located in the same room. These two behaviors are different modes because they require the robot to operate in different ways. The most straight-forward method for traversing all rooms is probably a wall-following strategy, as it implicitly implements the classic maze solving strategy of always choosing the left-most or right-most path. However, moving towards the goal requires the robot to leave the wall and exhibit homing behavior instead, as the goal may not be located next to a wall.
(a)
(b)
In this problem, rather than selecting for each mode of behavior explicitly, we simply generate a large number of mazes that may, by chance, emphasize different modes of behavior. For example, in some random mazes, the robot will start in the same room as the goal, meaning that all it has to do is move straight towards the goal without any wall-following behavior. In other mazes, the robot may be in a different room from the goal, but the goal may be located right next to a wall. In those mazes, wall-following behavior alone can guide the robot to the goal, without any homing behavior being required. Lastly, some mazes will put the robot and the goal in different rooms, and put the goal somewhere in the center of a room, thus requiring both wall-following and homing behavior to be navigated successfully.
This experimental setup is especially relevant because it reflects a practical way of applying CMOEA. While it may be hard to define in advance exactly all the different behavioral modes that are important to solve a particular problem, it is usually much easier to define different instances of the same problem. As with our mazes, different instances of the same problem may emphasize different modalities and, as a result, these different instances may provide effective scaffolding for learning to solve the problem as a whole.
In this experiment, the problem as a whole is not to solve a particular maze, or even any specific set of mazes, but rather to solve these house-like mazes in general. As such, any solution evolved to solve a particular set of mazes has to be tested on a set of unseen mazes to assess its generality. To do this, for every run, we generated a training set of 100 mazes to calculate the fitness of individuals during evolution and we generated a test set of mazes to assess the generality of individuals. The generality of solutions was evaluated every 100 generations for plotting purposes, but this information was not available to the algorithms.
Given that there are $100$ mazes in our training set, there are $100$ different subtasks. As such, it is not feasible to maintain a bin for every combination of subtasks. Instead, we define a maximum number of bins ( with bin size $10$, meaning each bin contains $10$ individuals, in this experiment) to which we assign different sets of subtasks. First, we assign the combination of all subtasks to one of our bins, as this combination represents the problem we are trying to solve. Second, we assign every individual training task to a bin, as those provide the most obvious starting points for our algorithm. Lastly, the remaining bins, which we will call *dynamic bins*, are assigned random combinations of subtasks. To create a random set of subtasks, we included each training task with a probability of $50\%$, meaning most bins were associated with about half of the total number of subtasks. We choose this method for its simplicity, even though a different approach could have offered a smoother gradient from bins that govern only a few subtasks to bins that govern many subtasks. Examining the effectiveness of smoothed bin selection methods is a topic for future work.
To make sure the algorithm does not get stuck because it was initialized with poor sets of subtasks, we randomly reassign the subtasks associated with one of the dynamic bins every generation. While this does mean that many of the individuals previously assigned to that bin will now be replaced (as the selection criteria may be completely different), some research has suggested that such extinction events may actually help an evolutionary process in various ways [@lehman2015enhancing; @krink2001self; @kashtan2009extinctions]. We did not attempt to find the optimal rate at which to reassign the subtasks of the dynamic bins, but we found that the arbitrary choice of one bin per generation performed well in this particular domain.
Performance of an individual on a maze was defined as its distance to the goal divided by the maximum possible distance to the goal for that maze (i.e. the distance from the goal to the furthest corner of the maze). A fitness of one was awarded as soon as the body of the robot was on top of the goal, at which point the maze was considered solved. Performance on a combination of mazes was calculated as the mean performance over those mazes. We did not calculate the multiplicative performance on this problem because individuals did not over-specialize on easy mazes, probably because no additional fitness could be gained after a maze was solved. Every simulation lasted for time-steps or until the maze was solved. The wheels of the robot had a maximum speed of 3 units per time-step and the speed of each wheel was determined by scaling the output of the relevant output neuron to the $[-3, 3]$ range.
The robot controllers were directly-encoded recurrent neural networks with 10 inputs (6 for the rangefinders and 4 for the goal sensors), 2 outputs (one for each wheel), and sigmoid activation functions. Neural network and EA settings followed @stanton2016curiosity and are listed in SI Sec. \[sec:maze\_exp\_details\].
### Maze domain results {#sec:maze_results}
By the end of generations, all treatments evolved a well-known, general maze-solving solution, which is to pick any wall and follow it in one direction until the goal is reached (see video on [www.evolvingai.org/cmoea](www.evolvingai.org/cmoea)). Here, the solution is also multimodal, as individuals switch from wall-following behavior to goal-homing behavior when they see the goal.
In preliminary experiments, the CT objective helped for both $\epsilon$-Lexicase Selection and NSGA-II, but slightly hurt the performance of NSGA-III in this domain (SI \[sec:nsga\_iii\_combined\_target\]). As such, we include only CT $\epsilon$-Lexicase Selection, CT NSGA-II, and regular NSGA-III in the experiments presented here.
With respect to performance on the training set, CMOEA and CT $\epsilon$-Lexicase Selection performed significantly better than any of the other controls during the first 100 generations, and they both quickly converged near the optimal performance of 1, with CT $\epsilon$-Lexicase Selection converging slightly faster than CMOEA (Fig. \[fig:100\_mazes\]a). The Single Bin treatment converged slightly slower than CMOEA and CT $\epsilon$-Lexicase Selection, but it reached a similar near-perfect performance after about 200 generations, indicating that the additional bins were helpful during early generations, but not required for solving this problem. After 600 generations, the Single Bin treatment actually performs significantly better than CMOEA, not in terms of its median performance, but in terms of the number of runs that obtain perfect performance (Fig. \[fig:100\_mazes\]a inset). This difference is also apparent in terms of the number of mazes solved after generations (Fig. \[fig:mazes\_solved\]a), as all but three Single Bin runs solved all training mazes perfectly, while the success rate of CMOEA was not as high. Both NSGA-III and Combined Target NSGA-II were slower in finding near-optimal solutions, demonstrating the debilitating effect of 100 objectives on these Pareto-dominance based methods. That said, after generations NSGA-III solves all training mazes in all but four of its runs, whereas Combined Target NSGA-II solves significantly fewer (Fig. \[fig:mazes\_solved\]a).
[[“figures/100\_maze\_training”]{}.pdf]{}(-1,81)[(a)]{}
[[“figures/100\_maze\_test”]{}.pdf]{}(-1,81)[(b)]{}
For the most part, observations that held for performance on the training set also held for performance on the test set, both in terms of performance (Fig. \[fig:100\_mazes\]b) and in terms of mazes solved (Fig. \[fig:mazes\_solved\]b). That is, CMOEA and CT $\epsilon$-Lexicase Selection converged faster than the other treatments, but the other treatments caught up eventually (Fig. \[fig:100\_mazes\]b). After generations, solutions found by NSGA-III have the highest performance on the test set (Fig. \[fig:100\_mazes\]b) and solve significantly more mazes than the other treatments (Fig. \[fig:mazes\_solved\]b).
In general, solutions found by NSGA-III generalized best relative to their performance on the training set; NSGA-III is not significantly different from CMOEA, Single Bin, and Combined Target $\epsilon$-Lexicase Selection on the training set, but it outperforms those treatments on the test set (Figs. \[fig:100\_mazes\]b and \[fig:mazes\_solved\]b). It is unclear why this is the case, but it is possible that NSGA-III maintains a larger diversity of solutions than the other treatments because it attempts to maintain a well distributed 100-dimensional Pareto front. Maintaining such a larger diversity may have increased the survival of individuals that generalize well, thus resulting in slower convergence but better generalization.
[[“figures/boxplot\_training\_mazes\_solved”]{}.pdf]{}(-1,61)[(a)]{}
[[“figures/boxplot\_test\_mazes\_solved”]{}.pdf]{}(-1,61)[(b)]{}
Overall, CT $\epsilon$-Lexicase Selection is the treatment that converges fastest on this problem, while NSGA-III has the best test-set performance after generations. However, both CT $\epsilon$-Lexicase Selection and NSGA-III perform substantially worse than CMOEA on the multimodal locomotion problem. Conversely, while CT NSGA-II performed better than CMOEA on the multimodal locomotion problem, it does not perform as well on the maze navigation problem. As such, while CMOEA is not the best performing algorithm on either problem, it is competitive with the best algorithms on both problems, thus making it the most generally effective algorithm on these two problems.
Lastly, note that the Single Bin treatment performs well on this problem, as it converged faster than NSGA-III and generalized better than CT $\epsilon$-Lexicase Selection, suggesting that the maze navigation problem does not actually require an algorithm specialized in solving multimodal problems. That said, the maze navigation problem still highlighted different convergence and generalization properties of the tested algorithms and was useful for demonstrating how CMOEA can potentially scale to at least $100$ subtasks.
We hypothesize that CMOEA converges slower than CT $\epsilon$-Lexicase Selection because, on this maze navigation problem, it is relatively easy to find near perfect solutions on the training set. Once the population gets close to the global optimum of the search problem, CMOEA will spend a lot of computational resources in areas of the search space that are no longer relevant to the problem being solved, whereas CT $\epsilon$-Lexicase Selection maintains a pressure on the entire population to solve the remaining mazes. However, we argue that this is only a minor disadvantage for most practical problems, as it is unlikely that an evolutionary algorithm will actually get near the true global optimum for a real-world problem. In those problems, diversity and different stepping stones are likely to remain relevant for the entirety of an evolutionary run. However, even if this is not the case, one can switch from CMOEA with many bins to CMOEA with a single bin when there is a belief that additional bins are no longer beneficial. For example, one could switch after a predetermined number of generations or when performance gains slow down. Alternatively, one could estimate the contribution of each bin separately by measuring the number of generations since a child from this bin managed to survive in a different bin, and slowly remove the number of bins over time. Either way, these strategies would allow CMOEA to maintain selection pressure, even when close to the global optimum. Analyzing the effectiveness of such a version of CMOEA is a fruitful topic for future research.
Conclusion
==========
Many real-world problems require multimodal behavior, from self-driving cars, which need to act differently depending on where they are, to medical robots, which require a wide range of different behaviors to perform different operations. Unfortunately, complex multimodal behavior may be difficult to learn directly and classic evolutionary optimization algorithms tend to rely on manual staging or shaping in order to learn such tasks. Such manual staging or shaping of a task requires extensive domain knowledge because finding the correct stepping stones and the order in which they should be traversed is a difficult problem, making it hard to estimate whether any particular staging or shaping strategy is truly optimal for the problem at hand. In this paper, we have introduced the Combinatorial Multi-Objective Evolutionary Algorithm (CMOEA), an algorithm specifically designed to solve complex multimodal problems automatically, without having to explicitly define the order in which the problem should be learned.
We have shown that CMOEA is effective at solving two different tasks: (1) a simulated multimodal robot locomotion task and (2) a simulated robot maze navigation task. We have also introduced the Combined-Target (CT) objective, which improves the performance of NSGA-II, NSGA-III and $\epsilon$-Lexicase Selection when evolving multimodal behavior. On the multimodal locomotion task, CMOEA outperforms CT NSGA-III, CT $\epsilon$-Lexicase Selection, and a variant of CMOEA with only a single bin, and it is competitive with CT NSGA-II. On the maze domain, CMOEA converges faster than NSGA-III, CT NSGA-II, and Single Bin CMOEA, though it does not generalize as well, and it is competitive with CT $\epsilon$-Lexicase Selection. Thus, at least on these two problems, it is more generally effective than any other single algorithm. Lastly, we have shown that CMOEA is more effective at incorporating auxiliary objectives that increase the evolvability of individuals, and these auxiliary objectives enable CMOEA to substantially outperform all controls on the multimodal locomotion task.
Acknowledgments
===============
We thank Christopher Stanton, Roby Velez, Nick Cheney, and Arash Norouzzadeh for their comments and suggestions. This work was funded by NSF CAREER award 1453549.
Experimental details
====================
Plot significance indicators {#sec:plot_significance_indicators}
----------------------------
Most line plots presented in this paper and its SI show “significance indicators” below each plot, which indicate whether there exists a statistically significant difference (Mann-Whitney-U test with $\alpha=0.05$) between two treatments. Together with the $95\%$ bootstrapped confidence intervals, they are intended to provide the reader with an indication of where apparent differences between two treatments may represent an actual difference in the underlying distributions. Depending on the number of generations, about two dozen tests are performed for each comparison between two treatments.
Under the assumption that these tests are independent, performing this many statistical tests greatly increases the probability of observing false positives. However, such false positives can be easily detected, because they will generally be isolated points without neighbors. We do not hide such false positives from the reader, but we only consider a difference to be statistically significant if, under the assumption that each test is independent, there exists a consecutive series of significance indicators such that the probability that all of them are false positives is smaller than our chosen $\alpha$ of $0.05$ (which is two consecutive positives for up to 20 tests and three consecutive positives for up to 410 tests). However, it is important to note that the statistical tests are not independent; if there exists a significant difference between two treatments at time $t$, it is likely there will be a significant difference at time $t+1$, and if there was no significant difference between two treatments at time $t$ then it is likely that there will not be a significant difference at time $t+1$. In the strongest case, where two consecutive tests will always give the same result, multiple consecutive positives do not indicate a reduced probability of there being a false positive, but the additional tests also do not increase the probability of a false positive (e.g. either non of the tests are false positives, or all of them are). For our experiments the behavior will be somewhere in the middle, but in either case, given the precaution of looking for a sufficient number of consecutive positives, these additional tests should not increase the probability of false positives to be higher than the chosen $\alpha$.
In addition to performing many consecutive tests, we also compare many different treatments. In the main paper, to reduce the probability of false positives as a result of comparing many different treatments, we apply a per-figure Bonferroni correction based on the number of treatments being compared. We did not apply a similar correction to the SI, as these graphs are intended to explain our decision making progress, rather than be results on their own. As such, in the SI, the significance indicators should only be considered as a visual aid, rather than as a proper indicator of significance.
Simulated multimodal robot locomotion experiment {#sec:robot_exp_details}
------------------------------------------------
Below is a description of the settings for the multimodal locomotion experiment. All settings are from [@huizinga2016aligning].
### Performance evaluation
Performance for the different robotics tasks is calculated in six separate trials, one for each task. During each trial, the neural network input associated with the task being evaluated is set to 1, and the other inputs are set to 0. At the start of each trial, the robot is moved to its starting position of $[0, 1, 0]$. Performance values on the forward ($p_{f}$), backward ($p_{b}$), and crouch ($p_{c}$) tasks are calculated as:
$$p_{f} = \frac{x_T}{12.5}$$
$$p_{b} = \frac{-x_T}{12.5}$$
$$p_{c} = \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^T(1 - ||\vec{c}_t - [0, 0, 0]||)$$
Where $\vec{c}_t = [x_t, y_t, z_t]$ is the center of mass of the robot at time-step $t$, and $T$ is the total number of time-steps in an evaluation. $12.5$ is a normalizing constant that was estimated based on the maximum performance reached on this objective in preliminary, single-objective experiments. Performance values on the turning tasks, turn-left ($p_{l}$) and turn-right ($p_{r}$), are calculated as:
$$p_{l} = \frac{25}{T-1}\sum_{t=2}^T(\angle_l(\vec{x}_t, \vec{x}_{t-1}) u_t) + min(1 - \frac{1}{T} \sum_{t=1}^T||\vec{c}_t - \vec{c}_0||, 0)$$
$$p_{r} = \frac{25}{T-1}\sum_{t=2}^T(-\angle_l(\vec{x}_t, \vec{x}_{t-1}) u_t) + min(1 - \frac{1}{T} \sum_{t=1}^T||\vec{c}_t - \vec{c}_0||, 0)$$
Where $\vec{x}_{t}$ is a vector pointing in the forward direction of the robot at time $t$, $\angle_l(\vec{x_1}, \vec{x_2})$ is the left angle between $\vec{x_1}$ and $\vec{x_2}$, and $u_t$ is $1$ when the robot is upright (the angle between the robot’s up vector and the $y$ axis is less than $\frac{\pi}{3}$) and $0$ otherwise. In short, turning fitness is defined as the degrees turned while being upright, with a penalty for moving more than one unit away from the start. $25$ is a normalizing constant that was estimated based on the maximum performance reached on this objective in preliminary, single-objective experiments. Lastly, jump performance ($p_{j}$) is defined as:
$$p_{j} = \left\{
\begin{array}{lr}
y_{max} & : y_{max} \cdot u_{T} \leq 0.5\\
y_{max} + 1 - ||\vec{c}_T - \vec{c}_0||& : y_{max} \cdot u_{T} > 0.5
\end{array}
\right.$$
Where $y_{max}$ is defined as $max_{t=1}^{T/2}(1 - ||\vec{c}_t - [0, 2, 0]||)$. During the first half of the evaluation, this equation rewards the robot for jumping towards a $[0, 2, 0]$ target coordinate. During the second half of the evaluation, provided that the robot was able to jump at least half-way towards the target coordinate and that it is upright at the end of the trial, it can obtain additional fitness by returning to the starting position. This second half was added to encourage a proper landing. For bins with multiple subtasks, performance values are multiplied to obtain the fitness of individuals. The number of time steps was $400$ for the forward and backward tasks and $200$ for the other subtasks.
### Behavioral diversity
To calculate the behavior descriptor for each individual, we first recorded 6 training-task vectors by setting the input for one of the subtasks to 1, and then binarizing the values of the 18 actuators over 5 time-steps by setting all values $>0$ to 1 and other values to $0$, which resulted in 6 binary vectors of 90 elements each. We then created a seventh *majority vector* by taking the element-wise sum of the 6 training-task vectors, and binarizing the result such that values $>3$ were set to 1 and others were set to $0$. Lastly, we XORed the majority vector with every training-task vector and concatenated the 6 resulting vectors to create the behavior descriptor. Distances between behavior descriptors were calculated with the hamming distance.
### Parameters
Parameter Value
---------------------------------- ----------------------
Population size
CMOEA bin size $100$
CMOEA number of bins $63$
Add connection prob. $9\%$
Delete connection prob. $8\%$
Add node prob. $5\%$
Delete node prob. $4\%$
Change activation function prob. $10\%$
Change weight prob. $10\%$
Polynomial mutation $\eta$ $10$
Minimum weight CPPN $-3$
Maximum weight CPPN $3$
Minimum weight and bias CTRNN $-2$
Maximum weight and bias CTRNN $2$
Minimum time-constant CTRNN $1$
Maximum time-constant CTRNN $6$
Activation function CTRNN $\sigma(x)=tanh(5x)$
: Parameters of the multimodal robotics task.[]{data-label="tab:robotics_parameters"}
The network for the robotics task was represented by the HyperNEAT encoding, meaning that a CPPN genotype detemined the weights of the neural network controller [@stanley2009hypercube]. The CPPN was evolved with the following NEAT mutation operators: add connection, delete connection, add node, delete node, change weight, and change activation function (probabilities are listed in table \[tab:robotics\_parameters\]). The change weight and change activation function mutations were per connection and per node, respectively. Weights were mutated with the polynomial mutation operator [@deb2001page124multi]. The possible activation functions for the CPPN were: sine, sigmoid, Gaussian and linear, where the linear function was scaled and clipped. See table \[tab:activation\_functions\] for the definitions of each activation function. Nodes did not have an explicit bias, but a bias input was provided to the CPPN. After mutation, all weights were clipped so they would not fall outside the minimum and maximum values (see table \[tab:robotics\_parameters\]). Initial CPPNs were fully connected without hidden neurons and with their weights and activation functions uniformly drawn from their allowable range. The CPPN had separate outputs for the weights, the biases, and the time-constants of the CTRNN, and those outputs were scaled to fit the minimum and maximum values of the respective CTRNN parameter (see table \[tab:robotics\_parameters\]). For the CTRNN, the activation function of the hidden neurons was scaled to $[0, 1]$ to ensure inhibited neurons would not propagate signals.
Simulated robot maze navigation experiment {#sec:maze_exp_details}
------------------------------------------
Below are the settings for the maze navigation experiment. Evolutionary algorithm and neural network settings are from [@stanton2016curiosity].
### Performance evaluation
As mentioned in the main paper (Sec. \[sec:maze\_setup\]), performance of an individual on a maze was defined as its distance to the goal divided by the maximum possible distance to the goal for that maze, with a performance of 1 awarded if the robot would hit the goal itself. The equation is:
$$p = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
1 - (dist / maxDist) & : dist \geq radius\\
1 & : otherwise
\end{array}
\right.$$
Here, $dist$ is the distance between the robot and the goal at the end of the simulation, $maxDist$ is the distance between the goal and the furthest corner, and $radius$ is the radius of the circular robot. A maze would be considered solved as soon as $dist < radius$, and the simulation would end immediately when this condition was met.
### Behavioral diversity
The behavior descriptor for a single maze was defined as the $(x, y)$ coordinate of the individual at the end of the simulation. The behavior descriptor of an individual over all mazes was a one dimensional vector composed of the final $(x, y)$ coordinates over all mazes. Distance between behavioral descriptors was defined as the Manhattan distance between those vectors.
### Parameters
Parameter Value
------------------------------- -------------------------------------
Population size
CMOEA bin size $10$
CMOEA number of bins
Add connection probability $15\%$
Delete connection probability $5\%$
Rewire connection probability $15\%$
Add node probability $5\%$
Delete node probability $5\%$
Change bias probability $10\%$
Change weight probability $10\%$
Polynomial mutation $\eta$ $15$
Minimum weight $-1$
Maximum weight $1$
Activation function $\sigma(x) = \frac{1}{e^{-5x} + 1}$
: Parameters of the maze navigation task.[]{data-label="tab:maze_parameters"}
In the maze experiment, the controller was a directly encoded recurrent neural network. The controller was evolved with to the following NEAT mutation operators: add connection, remove connection, rewire connection, add node, remove node, change weight, and change bias (probabilities are listed in table \[tab:maze\_parameters\]). The change weight and change bias mutations were per connection and per node, respectively. Weights and biases were mutated with the polynomial mutation operator [@deb2001page124multi]. After mutation, weights and biases were clipped to lie within their allowable range. To determine whether a rewire connection mutation would be applied, the operator would iterate over all connections, apply the rewire mutation with the indicated probability (Tab. \[tab:maze\_parameters\]), and stop iterating as soon as the mutation was applied once. The ordering of the connections in this process was arbitrary. When applied, it would change either the source ($50\%$) or the target (the other $50\%$) of the connection, and randomly draw a new source or target from the available candidates. Multiple connections with the same source and target would not be allowed. Initial networks were created with between 10 and 30 hidden neurons and between 50 and 250 connections and their weights and biases were uniformly drawn from the allowable range.
Additional analysis
===================
Main paper figure 7 magnification {#sec:lexicase_blowup}
---------------------------------
Because the performance of Combined-Target $\epsilon$-Lexicase Selection and NSGA-III is low relative to the other treatments, the effect that selection for modularity has on these treatments is difficult to see in the original figure (main paper Fig. \[fig:extended\]). Here we provide a magnification of that figure (Fig. \[fig:lexicase\_blowup\]). The figure shows that, while the extra objectives of maximizing genotypic and phenotypic modularity have little effect on NSGA-III, Combined-Target $\epsilon$-Lexicase Selection performs significantly better after roughly generations.
[![**Combined-Target $\epsilon$-Lexicase Selection performs significantly better with selection for genotypic and phenotypic modularity, while modularity does not seem to have an observable effect on the performance of NSGA-III.** This figure is a magnification of figure \[fig:extended\] from the main paper.[]{data-label="fig:lexicase_blowup"}]({"figures/cmoea_guided_nsga_with_without_mod_blowup".pdf} "fig:"){width="48.00000%"}]{}
Preliminary experiments
=======================
Number of training mazes {#sec:number_training_mazes}
------------------------
In order to evolve general maze solving behavior, it is necessary to have a sufficiently large training set that allows individuals to learn the general behaviors necessary to solve mazes. In initial experiments, we tested CMOEA (without bin-sampling and with a bin size of 10), the Single Bin control, and Combined-Target NSGA-II with a training set of only 10 mazes (Fig. \[fig:10\_mazes\]). All treatments reach perfect performance on the 10 training mazes before 250 generations, but the highest test-set performance is around 0.9, demonstrating that the treatments do not perfectly generalize to other mazes. Interestingly, CMOEA is the first treatment to solve all 10 training mazes, yet it is has the lowest performance on the test set, while Combined-Target NSGA-II is the last treatment to solve all 10 training mazes, but it obtains the highest performance on the test set. This result suggests that, while attempting to maintain a Pareto-front over all objectives slows down progress on the combination of all objectives, such an approaches also preserves more general strategies than the bin-wise approach implemented in CMOEA. We argue that this issue can be resolved by providing CMOEA with a larger number of training mazes, as is presented in the main paper (Sec. \[sec:maze\_results\]), as this makes it harder to overfit to the training set.
[“figures/10\_maze\_training”]{}(-1,63)[(a)]{}
[“figures/10\_maze\_test”]{}(-1,63)[(b)]{}
Because there exist simple strategies that should generalize well to all mazes (e.g. general wall following behavior combined with homing behavior), we would expect that an evolutionary algorithm should be able to find such a strategy given a sufficiently large number of training mazes. That said, even when we increased the number of training mazes to 100, individuals that perfectly solved all 100 mazes still did not generalize to all unseen mazes from the test set, regardless of which algorithm produced those individuals (Fig. \[fig:perfect\_train\_on\_test\]). Visualizing these individuals on the test mazes that they were unable to solve revealed that most failures happened because of rare sensor values, such as being in the corner of an unusually large room or seeing the goal through the doorway of an adjacent room. These rare sensor values caused inefficient behavior that resulted in the robot not being able to reach the goal in time. A video that includes some of these failed test cases is available at: [www.evolvingai.org/cmoea](www.evolvingai.org/cmoea). It is likely that an even larger number of training mazes could help these individuals learn how to deal with these corner cases, but doing so is a topic for future work.
[![**Even with a training set of 100 mazes, individuals do not perfectly generalize to mazes.** Plot shows the number of test mazes solved by the individuals from each treatment that were capable of solving all mazes. Below each box is the number of individuals from the relevant treatment that were able to perfectly solve all 100 training mazes.[]{data-label="fig:perfect_train_on_test"}]({"figures/boxplot_train_perfect_test_mazes_solved".pdf} "fig:"){width="48.00000%"}]{}
CMOEA bin selection {#sec:bin_selection}
-------------------
In early experiments, we examined two survivor selection methods for within CMOEA bins. To ensure that CMOEA bins would not be populated by near-identical copies of the same individual, both selection methods included mechanisms that would be able to preserve within-bin diversity by maintaining individuals that would solve the same combination of tasks in different ways. The selection methods were: (1) NSGA-II’s non-dominated sorting with behavioral diversity as a secondary objective [@deb2002nsga], explained in detail in the main paper, and (2) a selection method inspired by Novelty Search with Local Competition [@lehman2011evolving]. In this second variant, whenever an individual had to be removed in order to reduce the number of individuals in a bin back to the predefined bin size, the algorithm would find the two individuals in the bin that were closest to each other in terms of their behavior (calculated with the same distance metric used when calculating behavioral diversity), and out of those two it would remove the individual with the lowest fitness. As such, this method would promote a diverse set of individuals with fitness values that were high with respect to their behavioral neighborhood.
(a)
(b)
In these experiments, NSGA-II’s non-dominated sorting algorithm performed significantly better than the selection method based on Novelty Search with Local Competition (Fig. \[fig:nsga\_vs\_local\_comp\]a). One possible reason for this result is that the Novelty-Search-with-Local-Competition based method would lead to a higher diversity at the cost of a lower average performance inside each bin. Given that CMOEA already has its bins as a method of maintaining diversity, within bin performance may be more important than within bin diversity for the purpose of solving multimodal problems.
It is important to note that, for these experiments, the network layout was different from the layout used in the main paper (Fig. \[fig:nsga\_vs\_local\_comp\]b). Specifically, input and output neurons were positioned in a radially symmetric pattern corresponding to the physical location of the sensors and actuators of the robot. Other preliminary experiments suggested that the grid based layout presented in the main paper performed better in general, so we did not perform any further experiments with the radial layout. However, as we have no reason to suspect that network layout would interact with the within-bin survivor-selection method, we did not repeat the bin-selection experiments with the grid-based layout.
![image]({"figures/nsga_popsize"}.pdf){width="48.00000%"} ![image]({"figures/guided_nsga_gen15000"}.pdf){width="48.00000%"} ![image]({"figures/guided_nsga_pop_div"}.pdf){width="48.00000%"} ![image]({"figures/single_bin_pop"}.pdf){width="48.00000%"}
![image]({"figures/guided_nsga_pop6300_diversity"}.pdf){width="49.00000%"} ![image]({"figures/guided_nsga_mod_gen15000"}.pdf){width="49.00000%"} ![image]({"figures/guided_nsga_pop1000_diversity"}.pdf){width="49.00000%"} ![image]({"figures/nsga_div"}.pdf){width="49.00000%"}
NSGA-II Population size {#sec:pop_size}
-----------------------
In many evolutionary algorithms, including NSGA-II, the population size defines not just the number of individuals maintained by the algorithm at any point in time, but also the number of new individuals produced at every generation. This is not a practical choice for CMOEA, however, because the size of the population is a function of the bin size and the number of objectives to be optimized, which is often too large to be a feasible choice for the number of new individuals to create at every generation. As such, we have similarly decoupled the population size from the number of individuals created at each generation in our control treatments, and allowed our control treatments to have a population size that is larger than the number of offspring created at each generation. In preliminary experiments, we verified that choosing a larger population size did not have unintended negative effects on our NSGA-II based control treatments. We did not repeat these experiments for NSGA-III or any of the Lexicase Selection variants to reduce the overall computational cost of our experiments, but we have no reason to believe that these algorithms would respond dramatically differently from NSGA-II.
Increasing the population size in NSGA-II has two potential effects. First, it increases the number of Pareto-optimal individuals that are maintained, thus providing a better estimate of the Pareto-front at every generation. Based on this observation, a larger population size could increase the effectiveness of NSGA-II, as a better estimate of the Pareto-front implies a more diverse set of individuals that can serve as the stepping stones towards optimal solutions. However, a larger population size also means that sub-optimal individuals have a higher chance of surviving in the population, thus diluting the pool of parents that supply offspring for the next generation. Including more sub-optimal parents in the population can slow down the evolutionary process, and thus hurt the performance of NSGA-II.
Given the large number of objectives presented in our research, we hypothesized that it would require a large population size before non Pareto-optimal individuals would start dominating the population, and thus that increasing the population size should increase NSGA-II’s performance on our problems. This hypothesis was confirmed by our preliminary experiments, which show that most control treatments with a population size of outperform the same control treatment with a population size of on the six-tasks robotics problem (Fig. \[fig:popsize\_comp\]). The one exception is when Combined-Target NSGA-II is combined with behavioral diversity, as Combined-Target NSGA-II Behav. Div. with a population size of outperforms Combined-Target NSGA-II Behav. Div. with a population size of . The reason for this effect is unclear but, because behavioral diversity tends to reduce the effectiveness of Combined-Target NSGA-II (Sec. \[sec:behav\_div\]), we decided not to include behavioral diversity in our NSGA-II controls, meaning that this effect was not important for the results presented in this paper. In light of these results, the population size for all control treatments presented in the main paper was set to be equal to the population size of CMOEA.
NSGA-II Behavioral diversity {#sec:behav_div}
----------------------------
Previous work has demonstrated that adding behavioral diversity as an additional objective to NSGA-II can greatly increase its performance on problems with one or two objectives [@mouret2011novelty]. However, it was unclear whether these benefits would also be present on problems with six or more objectives. While a behavioral diversity objective could aid the evolutionary process on a many-objective problem by increasing the diversity of the population, and thus increasing the number of potential stepping stones, it is also possible that adding yet another dimension to the already high-dimensional space of a many-objective problem would only hurt the performance of the algorithm. To examine whether behavioral diversity would increase the performance of NSGA-II on a many-objective problem, we ran preliminary experiments with behavioral diversity added to different variants of NSGA-II on the six-tasks robotics problem.
The results show that adding behavioral diversity significantly hurts the performance of Combined-Target NSGA-II with a population size of , both with and without modularity objectives (Fig. \[fig:nsga\_div\]). Furthermore, behavioral diversity has no observable effect on regular NSGA-II or Combined-Target NSGA-II with a population size of . These results suggest that behavioral diversity does not increase the performance of NSGA-II when applied to many-objective optimization problems. As such, the NSGA-II based controls presented in the main paper are implemented without behavioral diversity.
![image]({"figures/lexicase_combined_target_vs_normal"}.pdf){height="5cm"} ![image]({"figures/dynamic_elexicase_combined_target_vs_normal"}.pdf){height="5cm"} ![image]({"figures/semi_dynamic_elexicase_combined_target_vs_normal"}.pdf){height="5cm"} ![image]({"figures/static_elexicase_combined_target_vs_normal"}.pdf){height="5cm"}
![image]({"figures/semi-dynamic_elexicase_fixed_e"}.pdf){height="5cm"} ![image]({"figures/static_elexicase_fixed_e_out"}.pdf){height="5cm"} ![image]({"figures/static_vs_dynamic_vs_fixed_elexicase"}.pdf){height="5cm"}
![image]({"figures/elexicase_100_maze_training"}.pdf){width="45.00000%"} ![image]({"figures/elexicase_100_maze_test"}.pdf){width="45.00000%"} ![image]({"figures/ct_elexicase_100_maze_training"}.pdf){width="45.00000%"} ![image]({"figures/ct_elexicase_100_maze_test"}.pdf){width="45.00000%"}
Lexicase Selection variants performance {#sec:lexicase_variants}
---------------------------------------
Because there exist many different versions of the Lexicase Selection algorithm (i.e. all variants of $\epsilon$-Lexicase Selection, main paper Sec. \[sec:e\_lexicase\_selection\]), and because it was not obvious which variant would perform best on the problems presented in the main paper, we performed preliminary experiments to decide which Lexicase Selection variant we would compare against. Because these experiments are computationally expensive, and because there were many different parameters to test, we ran only five replicates for each treatment. While this is insufficient to obtain statistical certainty about which variant performs best on each problem, they present us with a rough estimate of the performance of the different variants, and it prevents us from choosing a variant that performs pathologically poorly on any of our test problems. After determining the most promising variant, we would then run a full-scale experiment with 30 replicates, the results of which are reported in the main paper.
Because it is a computationally expensive problem, we limited the preliminary experiments on the simulated robot locomotion task to generations. Because the performance of $\epsilon$-Lexicase Selection seemed pathologically poor in our initial experiments, we started by examining the effect of the Combined-Target objective on the different Lexicase Selection variants. The results show that, without the Combined-Target objective, no variant is able to obtain a score greater than 0 within generations (Fig. \[fig:elexicase\_combined\_target\]). However, with the Combined-Target objective, performance values increase properly. As such, we added the Combined-Target objective to all Lexicase Selection variants in subsequent experiments.
The reason why non of the Lexicase Selection variants is able to obtain a score greater than 0 without the Combined-Target objective is likely a combination of factors. First, regular Lexicase Selection is strongly biased towards selecting only individuals that perform best on one of the objectives, because ties between different individuals are unlikely in the space of real numbers. Second, while the different variants of $\epsilon$-Lexicase Selection should have been able to avoid this issue with a proper $\epsilon$, when $\epsilon$ is determined automatically it is set based on the Median Absolute Deviation (MAD) metric, which becomes 0 when the majority of values is 0, which is the case for many of the objectives in the multimodal locomotion task. With a MAD metric of 0, $\epsilon$-Lexicase Selection reverts back to behaving like regular Lexicase Selection, and thus performs poorly. We did not try static $\epsilon$ variants without the Combined-Target objective, but we hypothesize that they would work slightly better than any of the automatic methods. A different measure of deviation could potentially have worked better, but we believe that such experiments are outside the scope of this paper.
When we compare different variants of Lexicase Selection with the Combined-Target objective against each other, we see that a static $\epsilon$ of 0.05 outperforms all variants which automatically determine $\epsilon$ (Fig. \[fig:elexicase\_fixed\_e\_sweep\]). Once again, this is likely because the MAD metric becomes 0 when the majority of individuals score 0 on a particular objective. Interestingly, the second best performing variant is regular Lexicase Selection. The main difference between regular Lexicase Selection and the Lexicase variants it outperforms is that regular Lexicase Selection will have an $\epsilon$ of 0 on all objectives, while the variants it outperforms all attempt to determine $\epsilon$ automatically based on the MAD score, meaning their $\epsilon$ will only be 0 on objectives on which the majority of the population receives a score of 0, i.e. on the hard objectives. As a result, these variants that determine $\epsilon$ automatically are more likely to preserve diverse individuals that obtain some performance on the easy objectives, but they will be elitist on the hard objectives. This skewed selection pressure towards easy objectives is likely why these variants of Lexicase Selection appear to perform worse than regular Lexicase Selection.
On the simulated robot maze-navigation task, all Lexicase Selection variants seem to perform well, including regular Lexicase Selection (Fig. \[fig:elexicase\_maze\]). This is likely because of the way the maze navigation task is presented (i.e. each maze is its own test case), which closely resembles the problems that Lexicase Selection was originally designed to solve. That said, in combination with the Combined-Target objective, the $\epsilon$-Lexicase Selection variants seem to outperform regular Lexicase Selection in terms of how fast they converge to near optimal performance. This is likely because, $\epsilon$-Lexicase Selection is able to maintain a greater diversity of individuals during the first few generations, when most mazes are only partially solved, and thus when most objective scores are still real-valued numbers different from 1. Given that there is little indication that any one of the Combined-Target $\epsilon$-Lexicase Selection variants performs better than the others, we arbitrarily chose dynamic Combined-Target $\epsilon$-Lexicase Selection as the variant to compare against, though any of the other variants would probably have resulted in similar conclusions. Because the variants in which $\epsilon$ is automatically determined performed so well, we did not do a sweep over fixed values for $\epsilon$.
![image]({"figures/nsga-iii_100_maze_training"}.pdf){width="49.00000%"} ![image]({"figures/nsga-iii_100_maze_test"}.pdf){width="49.00000%"}
NSGA-III Combined-Target objective {#sec:nsga_iii_combined_target}
----------------------------------
On both the simulated multimodal robot locomotion domain and on the simulated robot maze navigation domain we tested whether NSGA-III would benefit from the Combined-Target objective in the same way as NSGA-II. The results on the multimodal locomotion domain are presented in the main paper (main paper Fig. \[fig:naive\]), and suggest that NSGA-III can benefit from the Combined-Target objective, but not as much as NSGA-II. On the maze domain, the difference is similarly small, and while it seems that the Combined-Target objective may slightly hurt the performance of NSGA-III, the sample size of five different seeds is not large enough to make any firm conclusions (Fig. \[fig:nsga\_combined\_target\]). That said, based on these results, we compare CMOEA against NSGA-III without the Combined-Target objective on the maze domain.
NSGA-III Normalization {#sec:nsga_iii_normalization}
----------------------
The paper that introduces NSGA-III proposes an automatic method for normalizing all objectives based on what they refer to as *extreme points* [@deb2013evolutionary]. Before determining the extreme points they ensure that the smallest value on each objective is 0 by finding the smallest value on each objective and then subtracting it for all individuals. From there, the extreme point for a particular axis $a$ is defined as the point $x$ that minimizes the following equation:
$$ASF( \vec{x}, \vec{w}^a) = \underset{i=1}{\operatorname{max}} (x_i/w^a_i)$$
Where $\vec{w^a}$ is a unit vector pointing in the direction of axis $a$ with all values of 0 replaced with the small number of $10^{-6}$ (after which it is no longer a unit vector). These points are then supposed to define a hyper-plane that intersects all axis such that the intercepts of this hyper-plane with each axis can be used to normalize all objectives. The problem with this method is that, especially when the number of objectives is large, it is not unlikely that the extreme points for different axis is actually the same point. For example, given the points $[2, 2, 0]$, $[1, 0, 1]$, and $[0, 2, 2]$, the point $[1, 0, 1]$ is the extreme point for all three axis, and the corresponding hyper-plane is undefined. The NSGA-III paper [@deb2013evolutionary], does not suggest a solution for this problem.
![**On the multimodal locomotion problem, our backup of normalizing by dividing by the maximum on each objective (after subtracting the minimum), outperforms the intercept-based method described in [@deb2013evolutionary] with this backup.** The poor performance of the intercept method is likely because the intercepts are frequently, but not always, undefined, meaning the algorithm will constantly change its normalization procedure, thus leading to unpredictable and probably disruptive selection pressures. We performed 30 separate runs for each treatment.[]{data-label="fig:nsga_iii_intercepts"}]({"figures/nsga-III_robinter_gen5000"}.pdf){width="49.00000%"}
We resolved this problem by defining a backup normalization procedure which subtracts the smallest value on each objective among all individuals in the population from that objective for all individuals, and then divides by the largest value after subtraction (i.e. standard, per objective normalization, based on the minimum and maximum values found in the population), which we use whenever the intercepts are undefined. This raises the question whether the intercept-based normalization with the backup actually provides any benefits relative to always applying the backup normalization procedure. Our preliminary experiments demonstrate that always normalizing by dividing by the maximum value substantially outperforms the intercept-based method with backup on the multimodal locomotion task (Fig. \[fig:nsga\_iii\_intercepts\]). This is likely because the intercept-based method with backup constantly changes its normalization procedure, as the hyper-plane will switch between being defined and being undefined, thus constantly changing the selection pressures in a disruptive way. Based on these results, the backup normalization procedure was used as the default normalization procedure in the main paper.
[^1]: J. Huizinga and J. Clune are with the Evolving Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY, 82071 USA and Uber AI Labs, San Francisco, CA, 94104 USA e-mail: [email protected].
[^2]: <https://pybullet.org>
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'If the dark matter in the Universe is made of weakly self-interacting particles, they may self-annihilate and emit $\gamma$-rays. We use high resolution numerical simulations to estimate directly the annihilation flux from the central regions of the Milky Way and from dark matter substructures in its halo. Although such estimates remain uncertain because of their strong dependence on the structure of the densest regions, our numerical experiments suggest that less direct calculations have overestimated the emission both from the centre and from halo substructure. We estimate a maximal enhancement of at most a factor of a few with respect to a smooth spherical halo of standard Navarro-Frenk-White (NFW) structure. We discuss detection strategies for the next generation of $\gamma$-ray detectors and find that the annihilation flux may be detectable, regardless of uncertainties about the densest regions, for the annihilation cross-sections predicted by currently popular elementary particle models for the dark matter.'
author:
- |
Felix Stoehr$^1$, Simon D. M. White$^1$, Volker Springel$^1$, Giuseppe Tormen$^2$ and Naoki Yoshida$^3$\
$^1$Max-Planck-Institut für Astrophysik, Karl-Schwarzschild-Str. 1, 85748 Garching bei München, Germany\
$^2$Dipartimento di Astronomia, Universita di Padova, vicolo dell’Osservatorio 5, 35122 Padova, Italy\
$^3$National Astronomical Observatory Japan, Mitaka, Tokyo 181-8588, Japan\
Email: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
date: 'Accepted 2003 July 29. Received 2003 July 7'
title: Dark matter annihilation in the halo of the Milky Way
---
methods: $N$-body simulations – Galaxy: halo – dark matter.
Introduction
============
The nature of the dark matter (DM) in the Universe is one of the most prominent unsolved questions in cosmology. Among the best motivated candidates for DM is a weakly interacting massive particle (WIMP) in the mass range $10$ to $10^4$ GeV $c^{-2}$. In minimal supersymmetric extensions of the standard model of particle physics, a stable, neutral particle with these properties (usually called a neutralino) arises naturally as the lightest supersymmetric particle.
In recent years, a growing effort has been dedicated to detecting WIMPs directly through the energy deposited by elastic WIMP-nucleon scattering in massive, cryogenically cooled bolometers. A different detection strategy is possible if WIMPS are Majorana particles. In this case, pair-annihilations can occur, producing high-energy neutrinos, positrons, antiprotons and $\gamma$-rays. The resulting $\gamma$-ray fluxes might be detectable with current- or next-generation telescopes. So far neither technique has detected a DM particle.
Both ground-based air-shower-Čerenkov telescopes (ACT) and space-borne telescopes might be able to detect annihilation $\gamma$-rays. Such observations can be used to constrain WIMP parameters – in particular, the self-annihilation cross-section and the particle mass. Predictions of the expected flux require not only these parameters but also a detailed knowledge of the structure of regions of high DM density, i.e. of DM haloes. This is because the annihilation flux (in photons cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$) may be written as: $$\label{equation:flux}
F = \frac{N_{\gamma}\left<\sigma
v\right>}{2 \, \, m_{DM}^2} \int_V \frac{\rho_{DM}^2({\bf x})}
{4\pi \, d^2({\bf x})} \, d^3x\, ,$$ where $N_{\gamma}$ is the number of photons produced per annihilation, $\left<\sigma v\right>$ is the averaged product of cross-section and relative velocity, $\rho_{DM}$ is the DM density, $V$ is the halo volume, $m_{DM}$ is the mass of the DM particle and $d$ the distance from each point in the halo to the observer. The density squared weighting of the integrand in this equation results in most of the flux in dark DM haloes being produced by the small fraction of their mass in the densest regions.
Two specific regions have been suggested as dominating the annihilation signal from haloes. A large contribution could come from the innermost part of the halo. For a distant spherically symmetric system equation (1) becomes $$F = \frac {N_{\gamma}\left<\sigma v\right>}{2 \, d^2 m_{DM}^2}
\int_0^{r_{200}}\rho_{DM}^2(r) r^2 dr\, ,$$ so if the inner density profile is $\propto r^{-1.5}$ or steeper, the emitted flux diverges at the centre. A lower cut-off must then be specified on physical grounds, for example at the point where the annihilation timescale for the DM becomes equal to the lifetime of the halo. This divergent case might, perhaps, be relevant, since at least some high resolution numerical simulations have suggested that the inner cusps of DM haloes could be this steep [@Moore_et_al_99; @Calcaneo_Moore_00]. Both the data we present below and the study of @Power_et_al_03 suggest, however, that cold dark matter (CDM) haloes are substantially less concentrated than this.
A second contribution can come from small-scale structure in the DM distribution in the halo. It is now well established that 5 to 10 per cent of the halo mass in (CDM) haloes is contained in gravitationally self-bound substructures [@Moore_et_al_99; @Klypin_et_al_99]. If the central regions of these subhaloes were dense enough, they could produce a substantial fraction of the total annihilation radiation from the halo [@Calcaneo_Moore_00].
In recent years, advances in integrator software, multi-mass initial condition techniques and computer speed have made it possible to simulate the DM halo of the Milky Way with sufficient resolution to see the dense regions which dominate the annihilation signal. In the present paper we use a series of high resolution N-body DM simulations to predict the annihilation flux from a CDM halo similar in mass to the halo of the Milky Way.
In the next section we briefly describe the N-body simulations we have carried out. In Section 3 we measure circular velocity profiles for our haloes and discuss their implications for the strength of the annihilation flux from the inner Galaxy. In Section 4 we then analyse the flux enhancements due to bound substructures and to other density irregularities. In Section 5, we use the annihilation cross-sections currently considered plausible to evaluate whether halo $\gamma$-ray production is likely to be detectable with the next generation of telescopes. Finally, Section 6 summarises our results and compares them to those of other workers.
$N$-body simulations {#section:nbodysimulations}
====================
![The distribution of DM in our highest-resolution simulation GA3n. The region displayed is a cube of side 270 kpc, i.e. 1 times $r_{200}$. Each particle is weighted by its local density so that the picture represents an image in annihilation radiation. The main image has a logarithmic intensity scale, whereas the small image reproduces the centre on a linear intensity scale. \[figure:dmdistribution\]](annihilation.figure1.eps){width="84mm"}
![Circular velocity curves for the simulations GA0n, GA1n, GA2n and GA3n. The vertical line indicates the location of the virial radius $r_{200}$. The best-fitting NFW profile with concentration $c_{NFW}=10$ is plotted in long dashes. A fit of the form proposed by SWTS with $a$=0.17 is shown in dots. At small radii the slope for GA3n is considerably below that corresponding to a density profile with $\rho \propto r^{-1.5}$.[]{data-label="figure:rotationcurves"}](annihilation.figure2.eps){width="84mm"}
In this paper we use simulations of the ‘Milky Way’ halo studied previously by @Stoehr_et_al_02 ([-@Stoehr_et_al_02]; hereafter SWTS). We work with a flat $\Lambda$-dominated CDM universe, with matter density $\Omega_{\rm m}=0.3$, cosmological constant $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$, expansion rate $H_{0}=70
$ km s$^{-1}$Mpc$^{-1}$, index of the initial fluctuation power spectrum $n=1$, and present-day fluctuation amplitude $\sigma_8=0.9$. We begin with an intermediate resolution dark matter simulation of a ‘typical’ region of the Universe ($N\sim 6\times
10^7$, particle mass $\sim 10^8M_\odot$) for which the techniques of @Springel_et_al_01 ([-@Springel_et_al_01]; hereafter SWTK) have been used to follow the formation of the galaxy population. We identify a relatively isolated ‘Milky Way-like’ galaxy which had its last major merger at $z>1.5$. Then we resimulate its halo at a series of higher resolutions, again using techniques from @Tormen_Bouchet_White_97 and SWTK and the $N$-body code [gadget]{}[^1] [@Springel_Yoshida_White_01]. We have rerun the simulations of SWTS with higher force accuracy and have added an additional simulation with even higher mass resolution. In the simulations GA0n, GA1n, GA2n and GA3n the resimulated halo has 14 097, 128 276, 1204 411 and 10 089 396 particles, respectively within $r_{200}$, the radius within which the enclosed mean density is 200 times the critical value.
The simulated haloes were scaled-down in velocity, mass and radius (but with unchanged density and time-scales) so that their circular velocity peaks at 220 km s$^{-1}$. With this scaling, dark matter particle masses are $1.8 \times 10^8, 1.9 \times 10^7$, $2.0 \times 10^6 $ and $2.5 \times 10^5$ M$_{\odot}$ and Plummer equivalent softening lengths are 1.8, 1.0, 0.48 and 0.24 kpc in GA0n, GA1n, GA2n and GA3n, respectively. In all four $r_{200}\approx 270$ kpc. Note that since the stars of the Milky Way contribute significantly to its measured rotation velocity, our chosen scaling probably produces too large a mass for the Milky Way’s halo and thus also for substructures within it. We use [subfind]{} (SWTK) to identify self-bound substructure. A more detailed description of the simulation set-up can be found in SWTS. Fig. \[figure:dmdistribution\] shows the projected, density-weighted DM distribution in a logarithmic representation which corresponds to an image of its annihilation radiation. Many substructures are visible. A representation of the halo centre with a linear intensity scale (but on the same angular scale) is shown in the inset.
Smooth halo structure {#section:smoothhalo}
=====================
The most crucial parameter determining the annihilation rate in a smooth halo is the point at which the slope of its density profile passes through the critical value $-1.5$. Most of the annihilation radiation will come from this region. It is difficult to distinguish slopes in logarithmic plots of density against radius, so in Fig. \[figure:rotationcurves\] we show circular velocity profiles $$V_c(r) = \left[\frac{G \ M(<r)}{r}\right]^{1/2}= \left[\frac{G}{r} \int_{V(r)}
\rho_{DM}({\bf x})\, dV \right]^{1/2} ,$$ where $V(r)$ is the region within distance $r$ of halo centre. We plot these curves down to a distance from the centre equal to the softening length, and we overplot the best-fitting Navarro-Frenk-White (NFW) profile [@Navarro_Frenk_White_97] in dashes. We also indicate the critical value for the slope, $\rho(r)
\propto r^{-1.5}$, and the value for an isothermal profile $\rho(r) \propto
r^{-2}$. We find the NFW profile $$\rho(r) = \, \frac{3H^2_0} {8\pi G} \,\, \frac{\delta_c}{c_{NFW}x \left(1+ c_{NFW} x \right)^2}$$ with $x=r/r_{200}$ and $c=10$ to be a reasonably good fit to our data outside the inner core region. A better fit is a parabolic function of the form proposed by SWTS with a width parameter of $a$= 0.17 (the dotted curve in the figure). This profile has a substantially shallower density profile at small radii than the NFW profile. The measured circular velocity profiles of GA2n and GA3n agree very well, but a comparison with GA1n and GA0n suggests that this apparent convergence is in part a fluke. The curves for the two lower-resolution simulations converge to within 5 per cent of the high-resolution answer beyond about 5 times their respective softening lengths. Assuming this to be true for GA2n and GA3n also, the inner slope of the density profile of our simulated halo is established to be well below $ -1.5$. With this criterion, convergence for GA3n is achieved just outside 1 kpc or at about 0.4 per cent of $r_{200}$. This agrees with the expectation from the convergence study of @Power_et_al_03 who performed a large number of simulations of several haloes using two different N-body codes as well as a wide variety of code parameters (timestep, softening, particle number, etc.).
![Subhalo mass functions for the GA3n (Milky Way) and S4 (cluster) simulations. Subhaloes identified by [subfind]{} and with ten or more particles are included in these distributions. \[figure:massfunctions\]](annihilation.figure3.eps){width="84mm"}
The concentration parameter for our NFW fit to our halo is $c_{NFW}=10$. Thus, $\delta_c=4.48 \times 10^4$ and the above value of $r_{200}$ implies a scale radius $r_s=27$ kpc, and a density at the Sun’s position ($r_0$=8.0 kpc) of $\rho_0=$ $1.2 \times 10^7$ M$_\odot/$kpc$^3=$ 0.46 GeV $c^{-2}$ cm$^{-3}$.
For our NFW fit, half of the annihilation radiation is predicted to come from within $0.26~r_s$ which is 7 kpc. Thus the resolution in GA3n appears easily sufficient to measure the bulk of the emission, even though still better resolution would clearly be desirable. Unfortunately, the numerical situation will not improve dramatically in the next few years unless revolutionary new techniques are discovered. As discussed at length by @Power_et_al_03, an increase in halo particle number by (say) two orders of magnitude would provide an increase in length resolution at halo centre by at best a factor of 10.
Many authors have tried to determine the inner slope of dark halo density profiles through physically based analytic arguments [@Peebles_80; @Hernquist_90; @Syer_White_98; @Nusser_Sheth_99; @Subramanian_et_al_00; @Dekel_et_al_02] but despite some interesting ideas a convincing final answer is still missing. For the purposes of this paper the critical issue is whether the slope of the density profile interior to the points for which it has so far been estimated accurately from simulations (i.e. at radii below 1 kpc) remains significantly shallower than $-1.5$. If it does, then the integral over the smooth halo density distribution is convergent and can be estimated reasonably accurately from high resolution simulations, for example from GA3n which is currently the best resolved simulation of a galaxy halo ever carried out.
@Bergstrom_et_al_98 show that if a smooth NFW halo, similar to that of Fig. \[figure:rotationcurves\], is a good description of the Milky halo of the Way, then for some minimal super-symmetric extensions of the Standard Model (MSSM) the $\gamma$-ray flux may just be detectable with next generation telescopes. The flux could, however, be significantly enhanced if the density distribution within the halo is sufficiently clumpy [@Bergstrom_et_al_99; @Calcaneo_Moore_00; @Taylor_Silk_03]. We now estimate whether the clumpiness of our simulated haloes is enough to produce a large enhancement.
Halo substructure {#section:substructure}
=================
In GA0n, GA1n, GA2n and GA3n the total mass in gravitationally bound substructures, identified with [subfind]{}, is $1.7$, $3.0$, $5.1$ and $4.1$ per cent, respectively; the fluctuations are due to the exclusion or inclusion of one or two massive satellites within the radius $r_{200}$ that we consider to define the halo boundary. These percentages are very similar to those found in the cluster simulations of SWTK. In Fig. \[figure:massfunctions\] we show the abundance of substructures as a function of mass fraction for our highest resolution simulation GA3n, as well as for S4, the highest-resolution simulation of SWTK.
{width="84mm"} {width="84mm"}
These two mass functions are remarkably similar and are very close to a power-law $dn/dm \propto m^{-1.78}$ as shown by the solid line in the figure. They are consistent with the findings of other authors [@Moore_et_al_99; @Klypin_et_al_99; @Metcalf_Madau_01; @Font_et_al_01; @Helmi_et_al_02], although the range of published values (1.75 to 1.9) suggests that the close agreement between these two particular haloes is likely to be a fluke. Some variation is undoubtedly due to the fact that different authors use different algorithms to define substructure, but these effects have not yet been studied in detail. Note that such slopes are also found at low mass for the mass function of isolated haloes in a $\Lambda$CDM Universe, suggesting that the fraction of mass lost depends only weakly on the initial mass of an accreted DM halo. These slopes are shallow enough to ensure that most of the mass in substructures is contained in the few most massive objects. Thus we do not expect the total mass in substructure to increase significantly as resolution is extended below our current limit.
As suggested by @Bergstrom_et_al_99 and @Calcaneo_Moore_00, if these subhaloes are sufficiently concentrated, they can make a substantial contribution to the total annihilation flux from the halo. Just as for the main halo, the critical question regards the structure in their inner regions – in particular, whether they contain more or less mass at the highest densities than does the core of the main halo. Recently @Hayashi_et_al_03 carried out high-resolution simulations of the tidal stripping of satellites to assess how their internal structure is affected by the removal of the outer material. Their results show clearly that the stripping process reduces the density of an accreted object at [*all*]{} radii, not just in its outer regions. Thus tidal effects progressively lower the annihilation luminosity of an accreted system. If its $\gamma$-ray flux was convergent in the inner regions while it was an independent system, then it converges even more rapidly once it has become a partially stripped ‘satellite’. Both the individual satellite simulations of @Hayashi_et_al_03 and the results plotted in SWTS, suggest that the inner structure of halo substructures corresponds to density profiles [*shallower*]{} than NFW.
We study this point in more detail in the left-hand panel of Fig. \[figure:subhalocurves\] which shows the circular velocity profiles for a set of representative subhaloes in GA3n. This can be compared with Fig. 2 of SWTS which gives a similar plot for the 9 times lower resolution simulation GA2 except that we here take only gravitationally bound particles into account. Clearly, the parabolic fitting formula suggested by SWTS provides an excellent characterisation of circular velocity curves in this higher resolution case also. As before, the circular velocity curves for the subhaloes have substantially narrower peaks than the curve for the main halo. Indeed, the values of the width parameter $a$ for GA3n subhaloes are very similar to those for GA2 subhaloes. The shape convergence for subhalo density profiles is demonstrated in the right-hand panel of Fig. \[figure:subhalocurves\]. We identify corresponding subhaloes (i.e. subhaloes which formed from the infall of the same progenitor object onto the main halo) in GA2n and GA3n. Then we plot a $(a, r_{max})$ point for each of the two simulations and join the symbols by a line. The agreement of the values found is quite good and there is no systematic trend in either parameter as the mass resolution is increased by an order of magnitude. The results of @Hayashi_et_al_03 confirm that subhalo centres are significantly [*less*]{} cuspy either than the objects from which they formed or than isolated haloes of similar mass. Their subhalo circular velocity curves are very well fit by our parabolic formula and require similar values of $a$. This agreement for two different simulation techniques and over a resolution range of an order of magnitude suggests that the reduced concentration of simulated satellites is unlikely to be an effect of numerical relaxation, but more likely reflects the influence of tidal shocking on the inner regions of satellite subhaloes.
We now proceed to estimate the annihilation luminosity of our simulations directly in order to evaluate how much of the flux is contributed by the various different parts of the system. To do this we evaluate the ‘astrophysical’ part of equation (\[equation:flux\]) in the form $$J = \int_V \rho_{DM}^2 \, dV = \sum_{i=1}^{N_{200}} \rho_i \, m_i\, ,
\label{equation:astrophysicalpart}$$ where $\rho_i$ is an estimate of the DM density at the position of the $i$th particle, $m_i$ is its mass, and $N_{200}$ is the total number of particles within $r_{200}$. With this representation of the flux it is easy to evaluate the contribution from any sub-element of the halo simply by restricting the sum to the relevant particles. We will consider how these $J$s should be converted into $\gamma$-ray detectability limits for various WIMP parameters in Section 5.
The quality of our estimate of $J$ will obviously depend strongly on the quality of our estimates of DM density. For a given simulation we would like these estimates to have the maximum possible resolution. We have elected to determine the $\rho_i$ by Voronoi-tessellation. This procedure uniquely divides three dimensional space into convex polyhedral cells, one centred on each particle. A cell is defined to contain all points closer to its particle than to any other. The density estimate for each particle is then its mass divided by the volume of its cell. We have used the publicly available package [qhull]{}[^2] to make these estimates. One major advantage of this scheme in comparison, say, to density estimation with an SPH kernel is that it is parameter-free and has very high resolution; the density estimate for each particle is determined by the position of its few nearest neighbours. Another is that it is unbiased and that the sum $\sum_i^{N_{200}} m_i/\rho_i$ recovers the full volume.
![The sum $J$, which is proportional to the expected annihilation luminosity, is plotted as a function of subhalo mass for all subhaloes with more than 50 particles in GA0n (circles), GA1n (crosses), GA2n (dots) and GA3n (triangles). The value of $J$ for the main halo as a whole is indicated by the larger triangle. Subhaloes with the same $J/M$ as the GA3n main halo would lie on the solid line. The dashed line corresponds to a 4 times larger value of $J/M$. Vertical lines indicate subhalo masses corresponding to 200 particles in each of the four simulations. Above these limits subhaloes in all four simulations have similar values of $J/M$ with no obvious trend with subhalo mass. \[figure:subhaloluminosity\]](annihilation.figure6.eps){width="84mm" height="84mm"}
A direct numerical evaluation of $J$ using equation \[equation:astrophysicalpart\] will differ from the value obtained by carrying out the appropriate integral over the circular velocity curves of Fig. \[figure:rotationcurves\]. This is because any deviation from strict spherical symmetry results in the sum of $\rho_i m_i$ over a spherical shell being larger than the product of its total mass and its mean density. Thus flux ‘enhancements’ will result from bound subhaloes, from unbound streams, from the overall flattening of the halo and from noise in the density estimates due to discreteness effects. The last contribution is easily estimated. In any region where the mean particle separation is small compared to the length-scale for density variations, our Voronoi scheme will give 22 per cent more flux than would be obtained using the average density. For an ellipsoidal NFW halo with axial ratios 1:1.2:1.8, similar to what we measure in the inner regions of our simulated haloes, the enhancement due to the flattening is about 15 per cent. The enhancement due to bound structures is estimated explicitly below.
If subhaloes were simply scaled down copies of the main halo with $r\propto M^{1/3}$, then their fractional contribution to the annihilation luminosity would be the same as their fractional contribution to the mass, i.e. roughly 5 per cent. However, the algorithm [subfind]{} bounds substructures at the point where their density equals the local density of material within the main halo. As a result, the internal structure of a subhalo cannot be similar to the main halo as a whole, but might be similar to that part of it which lies interior to the position of the subhalo (scaled down in size by the cube root of the ratio of the substructure’s mass to the total halo mass within a sphere passing through it). If such self-similarity were actually to hold then the annihilation luminosity per unit mass (i.e. the quantity $J/M$) would be the same for the subhalo as for the main halo interior to its position. In fact, however, the study of @Hayashi_et_al_03 shows that the density of a satellite at radii approaching its tidal limit is reduced by a substantially greater factor than that in the regions near the peak of its circular velocity curve. This effect increases the luminosity per unit mass of a substructure relative to the main halo interior to its position. Higher values might also be expected because subhaloes had lower mass progenitors at high redshift than did the main halo, and so began life with higher concentration (see @Navarro_Frenk_White_97 and @Bullock_et_al_01 for estimates). On the other hand, we have argued above that tidal effects also reduce the concentration of the inner core of subhaloes, thus reducing their annihilation luminosities. The $J/M$ values for substructures reflect the combination of all these effects.
Fig. \[figure:subhaloluminosity\] shows the sums $J$ – which are proportional to annihilation luminosity – as a function of subhalo mass for all four of our simulations and for subhaloes containing at least 50 particles. A point is also plotted for the main halo as a whole. If subhaloes were similar to the main halo, they would lie along the solid line of constant $J/M$. Clearly, $J/M$ is larger for the subhaloes. Vertical lines in the plot indicate subhalo masses corresponding to 200 particles for each of the four simulations. Above these limits the values of $J$ for subhaloes in GA0n, GA1n and GA2n appear to converge approximately to those found in GA3n. This suggests that the GA3n results may also be reliable for subhaloes with more than 200 particles. Such GA3n subhaloes have $J/M$ values typically 4 times larger than the main halo as a whole and twice as large as the part of the main halo interior to their position. The other effects discussed above presumably account for the remaining factor. Note that there is no indication that $J/M$ depends on subhalo mass for subhaloes with more than 200 particles. This implies that the total luminosity from subhaloes, like the total subhalo mass, is dominated by the largest objects.
The left-hand panel of Fig. \[figure:luminosity\] shows the contributions of different components to the total estimated annihilation luminosity of our simulated haloes. The smooth halo component is shown by a dashed line. This was calculated from the circular velocity curves of Fig. \[figure:rotationcurves\] and was corrected up by 15 per cent to account for the fact that the main halo is ellipsoidal rather than spherical, and by 22 per cent to account for discreteness noise in our Voronoi density estimates. The total luminosity from bound subhaloes is indicated by a dotted line. The remainder of the total halo luminosity is then assumed to come from unbound substructure and is indicated by a dot-dashed line. All values are given in units of the corresponding smooth halo luminosities. The values of the latter, relative to GA3n, are indicated by boxes in the figure. The close agreement of the circular velocity curves for GA3n and GA2n results in identical predictions for the smooth halo luminosity. The values predicted for GA1n and GA0n are only smaller by 20 and 35 per cent respectively, suggesting that convergence is approximately achieved in the inner regions even for relatively low mass resolution. The reason is simply that the simulations predict the half-light radii of haloes to be relatively large (8.6 kpc in GA3n) in comparison with the nominal resolution.
{width="84mm"} {width="84mm"}
In GA3n, the total luminosity is a factor of 1.7 – the ‘clumpiness factor’ – times the value for a smooth spherical halo with the same circular velocity curve. Of this 70 per cent increase, 25 per cent is due to bound substructures with 10 or more particles, 22 per cent to Poisson discreteness noise, 15 per cent to the flattening of equidensity surfaces in the inner halo and 8 per cent to unbound fluctuations. Although the fraction of the annihilation luminosity contributed by substructure is very similar in GA2n and GA3n, it is clear that this does not indicate absolute convergence. The total mass in substructures in GA2n is 1.2 times larger than in GA3n (a consequence of the chance inclusion of a couple of substructures in GA2n which lie just outside $r_{200}$ in GA3n). On the other hand, the luminosity per unit mass of substructures is a factor of 1.11 larger in GA3n than in GA2n. In addition, the luminosity of the inner 10 per cent of $r_{200}$ (which dominates the luminosity of the smooth halo) is 5 per cent larger in GA3n than in GA2n.
In order to get an idea of an upper limit of the additional luminosity which might be found at higher resolution it is instructive to extrapolate the variation between GA1n and GA2n down to a mass resolution of one solar mass. (Note that GA3n lies well [*below*]{} this extrapolation.) Even at such high resolution, the total luminosity is predicted to be only about 3.0 times that of the smooth halo in GA3n.
@Lake_90 and @Bergstrom_et_al_99 suggested that if a dark matter substructure happens to be close to the observer, it might be more easily detected than the Galactic Centre itself. This possibility was judged plausible by @Tasitsiomi_Olinto_02 ([-@Tasitsiomi_Olinto_02]; hereafter TO) who assumed subhaloes to be distributed through the Galactic halo like the DM itself and tried various models for their internal structure. For the internal structure predicted by our simulations, however, it is very unlikely that any substructure will outshine the Galactic Centre. The most massive and most luminous substructures are rare and tend to avoid the inner Galaxy. They presumably correspond to the known satellites of the Milky Way (see SWTS), the nearest of which is Sagittarius, 24 kpc from the Sun. The greater abundance predicted for less massive substructures is insufficient to compensate for their lower predicted luminosities – the chance that the received flux is dominated by an unexpectedly nearby low-mass substructure is predicted to be very low.
These issues are clarified in the right-hand panel of Fig. \[figure:luminosity\], where we plot cumulative radial distributions for total mass and total annihilation luminosity [*exclusive of substructure*]{}, as well as for the number, mass and annihilation luminosity of subhaloes. While the diffuse luminosity is much more strongly concentrated towards the Galactic Centre than the mass, all properties of the substructure are more [*weakly*]{} concentrated. In addition, since $J/M$ is independent of subhalo mass, which in turn is almost independent of distance from the Galactic Centre, the distributions of substructure number, mass and luminosity are all rather similar. The latter two are much noisier than the first because most of the mass and most of the luminosity come from the few most massive subhaloes. At 8 kpc, the Sun’s galactocentric radius lies in the region where most of the diffuse annihilation radiation originates, but well inside any of the resolved subhaloes in GA3n (the first is at $R=17.2$ kpc) and even further inside any of the more massive subhaloes (the first is at $R=70$ kpc).
Whereas Fig. \[figure:luminosity\] was constructed directly from GA3n, based on our Voronoi estimate of $J/M$ for each particle, we obtain almost identical results if we instead use our SWTS model fits to main halo and subhalo circular velocity curves and assume that $J/M$ is 4 times the value for the main halo for all subhaloes which are too small for circular velocity curves to be estimated. Again, this suggests that GA3n has high enough resolution to get reliable results for the problem at hand.
Detectability {#section:detectability}
=============
{width="84mm"} {width="84mm"}
For our highest resolution simulation GA3n we can make artificial sky maps of the annihilation radiation by choosing appropriate positions for the Sun within the model. Fig. \[figure:lineofsight\] shows the result of this exercise based on six possible solar positions. Even though we average the predicted surface brightness around circles of fixed Galactocentric angle, there is significant variation among the resulting profiles. This is primarily a consequence of the prolate structure of the inner regions, clearly visible in Fig. 1. The profiles flatten out within about 10$^\circ$, quite possibly as a consequence of poor numerical resolution. Prima facie this seems plausible since the angular scale corresponding to our softening length (the vertical lines in the plots) is only 4 or 5 times smaller than the radius where the profiles bend. Some indication of the strength of this effect is given by the two curves. These indicate predictions based on SWTS (solid) and NFW (dashed) fits to the circular velocity profile of GA3n, corrected up by a clumpiness factor of 1.7. Both inward extrapolations predict substantially more flux within a few degrees than the direct numerical estimates.
It is important to note, however, that the area potentially available for a measurement at distance $\theta$ from the Galactic Centre increases as $\theta$ (for $\theta \ll \pi/2$). As a result, the counts available to detect a signal vary as $\theta^2$ times the profiles shown in the left panel of Fig. \[figure:lineofsight\] while, for a uniform background, the noise against which the signal must be detected grows only as $\theta$. Thus the potential signal-to-noise for a detection, shown in the right-hand panel, is given by $\theta$ times the profile. This function is quite flat out to 20$^\circ$, both for the directly measured profiles and for our two alternative fitting formulae. This has two consequences: (i) since for many observations the background is higher in the direction of the Galactic Centre, it may be advantageous to observe at large $\theta$ if one has a detector with sufficient field of view; and (ii) the estimates of detectability which we give below for detectors with a wide field of view are not greatly affected by the resolution of our simulation.
Using these results, we can check if the inner regions of the Milky Way or a substructure halo close to the Sun might be detectable with next generation $\gamma$-ray telescopes. We use the excellent package [darksusy]{}[^3] to compute the cross-sections $\left<\sigma v\right>$ and neutralino masses $m_{\chi}$ for a Monte Carlo sampling of the MSSM parameter space. The results are shown in Fig. \[figure:detectability\]. From roughly two million models randomly picked out of the parameter space, 19 421 did not violate current accelerator bounds. Of these, 825 result in relic densities of cosmological interest, i.e. $0.17<\Omega_{DM}<0.43$, the 95 per cent confidence interval quoted by @Spergel_et_al_03. For sampling the MSSM parameter space we followed the choices of TO. For given telescope and observation parameters – i.e. the effective area $A_{eff}$, the integration time $t$, the angular resolution $\sigma_{\theta}$, the radius of the field of view $\theta_{max}$, the effective background count rate and the significance required for detection $M_s$ – the smallest detectable cross-section $\left<\sigma v\right>$ can be computed as a function of the neutralino mass $m_{\chi}$ [@Bergstrom_et_al_98; @Baltz_et_al_00 TO]. In computing the expected signal, the volume of integration in equation (1) has to be taken as the volume of the halo contained within the chosen detection cell which will be the resolution element of the telescope for highly concentrated sources but may be much larger for diffuse sources such as the emission predicted in Fig. \[figure:lineofsight\]. We concentrate on estimating the $\gamma$-ray continuum signal which is easier to detect than the line signal [@Baltz_et_al_00 TO].
Averaged over a gaussian beam of width $\sigma_{\theta}$=0.1$^{\circ}$, the resolution element for the telescopes listed in Table \[table:telescopes\], the line-of-sight integral of the square of the mass density (equation \[equation:averagedlineofsight\]) in the direction of the Galactic Centre takes values 5.2 $\times 10^{25}$ and 1.8 $\times 10^{24}$ GeV$^2$ $c^{-4}$ cm$^{-5}$ for inward extrapolations of our NFW and SWTS fits to the main halo circular velocity curve. The large difference reflects the fact that this estimate is sensitive to density values far inside the region resolved by our simulations. Fig. \[figure:rotationcurves\] suggests that the lower value obtained from the SWTS extrapolation is more likely correct. To estimate the maximum plausible brightness for a subhalo, we examined the six artificial skies used to make Fig. \[figure:lineofsight\] and identified the brightest subhalo in each after convolution with a 0.1$^{\circ}$ beam. The beam-averaged line-of-sight integral of density squared for the (apparently) brightest substructure in these six realisations is $4.9\times 10^{23}$ GeV$^2$ $c^{-4}$ cm$^{-5}$.
To estimate detectability, we have to specify the appropriate background levels. We account for the electron-induced background in ACT observations, and for the extragalactic background emission in space-based observations. We neglect any hadronic background. All observations at low latitudes and in the general direction of the Galactic Centre are in addition affected by the diffuse Galactic $\gamma$-ray emission. Although this contribution can be neglected for ACT observations, it is the dominant background in these directions for space experiments like GLAST. In combination with the results of Fig. \[figure:lineofsight\], this implies that the best signal-to-noise is expected for an observation of a broad broken annulus which [*excludes*]{} the Galactic Center and the Galactic Plane. If we assume that the diffuse galactic component drops to the level of the extra-galactic background beyond 30$^\circ$ from the centre and 10$^\circ$ from the plane, a signal-to-noise ratio can be achieved which is about 12 times better than that for a 0.1$^\circ$ beam in the direction of the Galactic Centre (for an assumed NFW profile). This result is spectacular: the density profile of the DM halo in these regions is well established from the simulations and the prediction becomes [*independent*]{} of numerical uncertainties in the innermost structure of CDM haloes.
These results are shown in Fig. \[figure:detectability\]. The solid curve gives our estimated lower limit on the cross-section for a 3-$\sigma$ detection of the Galactic Centre in a 0.1$^\circ$ beam for a 250-h observation with the planned ACT VERITAS. This particular calculation extrapolates to small radii using the NFW model of Fig. \[figure:lineofsight\] and the signal-to-noise is then maximised for the smallest resolved detection cell. The short-dashed curve is the corresponding limit for inward extrapolation using the SWTS model. In this case the signal-to-noise is maximised using a detection cell of radius 1.75$^\circ$, corresponding to the full field of view of VERITAS. The corresponding lower limit for detection of the brightest substructure in our six artificial skies, again for a 1.75$^\circ$ beam, is shown by the long dashed curve. We assume the inner density structure of this object to be correctly described by our SWTS model fit. A 250-h observation may just be enough detect the Galactic Centre, at least for a few of the plausible MSSM models. Detection of substructure appears out of reach unless our simulations have grossly underestimated the central concentration of subhaloes.
Fig. \[figure:detectability\] also shows cross-section limits for a 1-yr exposure with the satellite telescope GLAST. The straight long-dashed line is the limit for detecting the brightest satellite, assuming this to be outside the region with strong diffuse Galactic emission and using a detection cell of radius 5$^\circ$ corresponding to the the peak signal-to-noise angle. The straight solid line gives the limit for detecting annihilation radiation in an annulus between 25$^\circ$ and 35$^\circ$ from the Galactic Centre but excluding the region within 10$^\circ$ of the Galactic Plane. We assume that the total diffuse Galactic emission in this region is zero. The results here are quite encouraging. The inner Galaxy should be detectable for most allowable MSSM parameters, while the brightest substructure is also detectable for many of them (for TO’s implicitly adopted prior on the MSSM parameter space).
![MSSM models of cosmological interest (dots) and 3-$\sigma$ detection limits for VERITAS and GLAST. For VERITAS the limits are shown for a pointing at the centre of the Milky Way, assuming an NFW profile (solid) and an SWTS profile (short dashes). The lower solid line gives estimated limits for GLAST for a larger area observation of the inner Galaxy which avoids regions of high contamination by diffuse Galactic emission. Limits for a pointing at the brightest high latitude subhalo are shown for both telescopes using long dashes. The brightest subhalo was chosen from the 6 artificial skies used in making Fig. \[figure:lineofsight\]. \[figure:detectability\]](annihilation.figure11.eps){width="84mm"}
Whereas the field of view of GLAST covers almost a fifth of the full sky, the smaller field of view of VERITAS allows observation of only one object at a time. In addition, ACTs can only operate about 6 h per night. For these reasons we consider exposure times of 1 yr for GLAST and 250 h for VERITAS to be large but feasible.
--------- ----------- ------------------ ------------------- ---------------- --
$A_{eff}$ $E_{th}$ $\sigma_{\theta}$ $\theta_{max}$
\[m$^2$\] \[GeV $c^{-2}$\] \[$^\circ$\] \[$^\circ$\]
VERITAS 10$^4$ 50 0.1 1.75
GLAST 0.8 0.02 0.1 53
--------- ----------- ------------------ ------------------- ---------------- --
: Simplified telescope specifications \[table:telescopes\]
Discussion {#section:Discussion}
==========
We have directly estimated the $\gamma$-ray emissivity of the halo of the Milky Way using high resolution simulations of its formation in a standard $\Lambda$CDM universe. A series of resimulations of the same DM halo at different mass resolution allows us to check explicitly for numerical convergence in our results. We find that the resolution limit of our largest simulation is almost an order of magnitude smaller than the half-light radius for the annihilation radiation, and that our estimates of the total flux are almost converged. We argue that the annihilation radiation from substructure within the Galactic halo is dominated by the most massive subhaloes, is concentrated in the outer halo, and is less in total than the radiation from the smooth inner halo. For the most massive subhaloes our convergence study indicates sufficient resolution in our best simulations to get robust estimates of their internal structure. An important result is that subhalo cores are less concentrated both than that of the main halo and than those of their progenitor haloes. This confirms earlier results by SWTS and Hayashi et al (2003) and apparently reflects the influence of tidal shocking on subhalo structure.
We find that 15 per cent of the total flux in our highest-resolution simulation is coming from gravitationally bound subhaloes and that no more than about 5 per cent can be assigned to other small-scale density fluctuations. Some of our results do rely strongly on the density behaviour we infer from our simulations for the innermost regions both of the main halo and of the subhaloes. This subject is still controversial, although the most detailed convergence study to date agrees quite well with our results for the centre of the main halo [@Power_et_al_03]. As already noted, our subhalo structure agrees well with that found by Hayashi et al (2003). The disagreement between our results and other theoretical work on annihilation luminosities (Calcaneo-Rodan & Moore 2000, Tasitsiomi & Olinto 2002, Taylor & Silk 2003) can be traced to the fact that the density profiles adopted in these papers are incompatible with those we measure in our simulations, particularly for subhaloes. It may be relevant that observational data on dwarf galaxies also speak in favour of dark matter density profiles with low concentrations or cores [@DeBlok_et_al_01] although again the situation is controversial here.
To estimate the fluxes expected for deep integrations with upcoming experiments, it is necessary to extrapolate density profiles down to scales at least an order of magnitude below those where they can be reliably estimated in our simulations. Clearly, this introduces substantial uncertainty. Our results suggest that the central regions of the Galaxy will be intrinsically more luminous than the brightest substructure by a factor of at least 10, and apparently more luminous by a factor approaching one thousand. The angular scale associated with the central emission will be several tens of degrees while that associated with the substructure will be a few degrees. This suggests that it may be worthwhile to investigate detection strategies which are sensitive to large-scale diffuse emission. Notice that since our results imply that the most apparently luminous subhaloes will also be among the most massive, it is likely that the brightest substructure source will be identified with one of the known satellites of the Milky Way. The closest of these is the Sagittarius dwarf at a distance of 24 kpc, but it may well be outshone by the LMC at a distance of 45 kpc. Both are sufficiently far that they will be much fainter (and smaller in angular size) than the main halo source which is centred only 8 kpc away.
Following TO, and using [darksusy]{}, we checked for detectability of the inner Milky Way with VERITAS and GLAST, examples of ground- and space-based next-generation telescopes, respectively. If we extrapolate our simulated density profiles inwards using an NFW fit, VERITAS can probe into the parameter ranges in which a minimal supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model could provide a Dark Matter candidate with the observed cosmic density. Unfortunately, extrapolating inwards using our SWTS fit, which appears to provide a better description of our simulations, results in lower predicted fluxes, undetectable for VERITAS.
By searching for extended emission outside the central region where diffuse Galactic $\gamma$-ray emission is dominant GLAST can probe a large region of possible MSSM models. This result is based on the DM distribution in regions where the simulations have reliably converged, and so should be robust. It is [*independent*]{} of the exact structure of the DM in the innermost regions.
Our simulations suggest that the flux from the inner Galaxy will outshine the brightest substructure by a large factor. Nevertheless, for certain MSSM models some of the most massive substructure haloes might be detectable with GLAST. Clearly the most massive and nearest [*known*]{} satellite galaxies are the primary targets for observation.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We thank Eric Nuss, Karsten Jedamzik, Argyro Tasitsiomi, Pasquale Blasi, Paolo Gondolo and Torsten En[ß]{}lin for many enlightening discussions.
[29]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}
E. A., [Briot]{} C., [Salati]{} C., [Taillet]{} R., [Silk]{} J., 2000, Physical Review, 61
L., [Edsj[" o]{}]{} J., [Gondolo]{} P., [Ullio]{} P., 1999, Physical Review, 59
L., [Ullio]{} P., [Buckley]{} J. H., 1998, Astroparticle Physics, 9, 137
J. S., [Kolatt]{} T. S., [Sigad]{} Y., et al., 2001, [MNRAS]{}, 321, 559
C., [Moore]{} B., 2000, Physical Review, 62
W. J. G., [McGaugh]{} S. S., [Rubin]{} V. C., 2001, [AJ]{}, 122, 2396
A., [Arad]{} I., [Devor]{} J., [Birnboim]{} Y., 2002, in [ astro-ph/0205448]{}
A. S., [Navarro]{} J. F., [Stadel]{} J., [Quinn]{} T., 2001, [ApJL]{}, 563, L1
E., [Navarro]{} J. F., [Taylor]{} J. E., [Stadel]{} J., [Quinn]{} T., 2003, [ApJ]{}, 584, 541
A., [White]{} S. D., [Springel]{} V., 2002, [Physical Review]{}, 66, 63502
L., 1990, [ApJ]{}, 356, 359
A., [Kravtsov]{} A. V., [Valenzuela]{} O., [Prada]{} F., 1999, [ApJ]{}, 52, 82
G., 1990, [Nature]{}, 346, 39+
R. B., [Madau]{} P., 2001, [ApJ]{}, 563, 9
B., [Ghigna]{} S., [Governato]{} F., et al., 1999, [ApJL]{}, 524, L19
J. F., [Frenk]{} C. S., [White]{} S. D. M., 1997, [ApJ]{}, 490, 493+
A., [Sheth]{} R. K., 1999, [MNRAS]{}, 303, 685
P. J. E., 1980, The Large-Scale Structure of the Universe, Princeton
C., [Navarro]{} J. F., [Jenkins]{} A., et al., 2003, [MNRAS]{}, 338, 14
D. N., [Verde]{} L., [Peiris]{} H. V., et al., 2003, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, 2209–+
Springel V., White S. D. M., Tormen G., Kauffmann G., 2001, MNRAS, 328, 726
Springel V., Yoshida N., White S. D. M., 2001, New Astronomy, 6, 79
F., [White]{} S. D. M., [Tormen]{} G., [Springel]{} V., 2002, [MNRAS]{}, 335, L84
K., [Cen]{} R., [Ostriker]{} J. P., 2000, [ApJ]{}, 538, 528
D., [White]{} S. D. M., 1998, [MNRAS]{}, 293, 337+
A., [Olinto]{} A. V., 2002, [Physical Review]{}, 66, 83006
J. E., [Silk]{} J., 2003, [MNRAS]{}, 339, 505
G., [Bouchet]{} F. R., [White]{} S. D. M., 1997, [MNRAS]{}, 286, 865
P., [Bergstr[" o]{}m]{} L., [Edsj[" o]{}]{} J., [Lacey]{} C., 2002, [Physical Review]{}, 66, 123502
Detectability Computation
=========================
We summarise briefly how the detectability lines of Fig. \[figure:detectability\] were computed following @Bergstrom_et_al_98, @Baltz_et_al_00, @Ullio_et_al_02 and TO. The solid angle corresponding to the angular resolution $\sigma_{\theta}$ of the telescope may be written as: $$\Delta\Omega = 2 \pi \left[ 1- \cos(\sigma_{\theta})\right],$$ while the number of continuum photons arriving on the telescope is $$N_{annihilation} = A_{eff} \ t \frac{\ N_{cont}}{2} \ \frac{\ \left<\sigma v\right>}{\ m_{\chi}^2} \ \frac{\Delta\Omega}{4\pi} G_{los,\Delta\Omega}.$$ Here, $G_{los,\Delta\Omega}$ stands for the line-of-sight integral of the DM distribution averaged over the solid angle $\Delta\Omega$: $$G_{los,\Delta\Omega} = \frac{1}{\Delta\Omega} \ \int_{\Delta\Omega} {\mbox d}\Omega \ \ \int_{los} \rho_{DM}^2(l) \ {\mbox d}l .
\label{equation:averagedlineofsight}$$ Values for $G_{los,\Delta\Omega}$ are given in Section \[section:detectability\]. TO give an approximate formula to compute the number continuum photons from one annihilation: $$N_{cont}(E_{\gamma}>E_{th}) = \frac{5}{6} x^{3/2} - \frac{10}{3} x + 5 x^{1/2} + \frac{5}{6} x^{-1/2} - \frac{10}{3}$$ Here $x =E_{th}/m_{\chi}$ is the quotient of the energy threshold of the telescope and the neutralino mass. Finally, the significance of a detection $M_s$ is given by the number of detected photons from DM annihilations over the square root of the background: $$M_s \leq \frac{N_{annihilation}}{\sqrt{N_{background}}}.$$ This allows us to compute the minimal detectable cross-section $\left<\sigma v\right>_{min}$ as a function of the mass of the neutralino $m_{\chi}$ via: $$\left<\sigma v\right>_{min} = \frac{2 \ M_s \ m_{\chi}^2 \ \sqrt{N_{background}}}{N_{cont} \ A_{eff} \ t \ \frac{\Delta\Omega}{4\pi} \ G_{los,\Delta\Omega}}$$ The detectability scales with $M_s$, $t^{-1/2}$ and $A_{eff}^{-1/2}$. The background counts (hadronic, electron-induced, diffuse-galactic (for the centre of the galaxy) and extra-galactic) are taken from @Bergstrom_et_al_98 and @Baltz_et_al_00: $$\frac{{\mbox d}N_{h}}{{\mbox d}t \ {\mbox d}A\ {\mbox d}\Omega} = 6.1 \times 10^{-3} \left(\frac{E_{th}}{1\ {{\mbox {GeV/c}}^2}} \right)^{-1.7} {\mbox {cm}}^{-2} \ {\mbox s}^{-1}\ {\mbox sr}^{-1}$$ $$\frac{{\mbox d}N_{e}}{{\mbox d}t \ {\mbox d}A\ {\mbox d}\Omega} = 3.0 \times 10^{-2} \left(\frac{E_{th}}{1 \ {{\mbox {GeV/c}}^2}} \right)^{-2.3} {\mbox {cm}}^{-2} \ {\mbox s}^{-1}\ {\mbox sr}^{-1}$$ $$\frac{{\mbox d}N_{d}}{{\mbox d}t \ {\mbox d}A \ {\mbox d}\Omega} =5.1 \times 10^{-5} \left(\frac{E_{th}}{1 \ {{\mbox {GeV/c}}^2}} \right)^{-1.7} {\mbox {cm}}^{-2} \ {\mbox s}^{-1}\ {\mbox sr}^{-1}$$ $$\frac{{\mbox d}N_{eg}}{{\mbox d}t \ {\mbox d}A \ {\mbox d}\Omega} = 1.2 \times 10^{-6} \left(\frac{E_{th}}{1 \ {{\mbox {GeV/c}}^2}} \right)^{-1.1}{\mbox {cm}}^{-2} \ {\mbox s}^{-1}\ {\mbox sr}^{-1}$$
[^1]: www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/gadget/
[^2]: www.geom.umn.edu/software/qhull/
[^3]: www.physto.se/$\sim$edjso/darksusy/
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Compute the coarsest simulation preorder included in an initial preorder is used to reduce the resources needed to analyze a given transition system. This technique is applied on many models like Kripke structures, labeled graphs, labeled transition systems or even word and tree automata. Let $(Q,\rightarrow)$ be a given transition system and $\mathscr{R}_{\mathrm{init}}$ be an initial preorder over $Q$. Until now, algorithms to compute $\mathscr{R}_{\mathrm{sim}}$, the coarsest simulation included in $\mathscr{R}_{\mathrm{init}}$, are either memory efficient or time efficient but not both. In this paper we propose the foundation for a series of efficient simulation algorithms with the introduction of the notion of maximal transitions and the notion of stability of a preorder with respect to a coarser one. As an illustration we solve an open problem by providing the first algorithm with the best published time complexity, $O(|P_{\mathrm{sim}}|.|{\rightarrow}|)$, and a bit space complexity in $O(|P_{\mathrm{sim}}|^2.\log(|P_{\mathrm{sim}}|) +|Q|.\log(|Q|))$, with $P_{\mathrm{sim}}$ the partition induced by $\mathscr{R}_{\mathrm{sim}}$.'
author:
- Gérard Cécé
title: Foundation for a Series of Efficient Simulation Algorithms
---
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
The simulation relation has been introduced by Milner [@Milner71] as a behavioural relation between process. This relation can also be used to speed up the test of inclusion of languages [@ACHMV10] or as a sufficient condition when this test of inclusion is undecidable in general [@CG11]. Another very helpful use of a simulation relation is to exhibit an equivalence relation over the states of a system. This allows to reduce the state space of the given system to be analyzed while preserving an important part of its properties, expressed in temporal logics for examples [@GL94]. Note that the simulation equivalence yields a better reduction of the state space than the better known bisimulation equivalence.
State of the Art {#sec:state-art}
----------------
The paper that has most influenced the literature is that of Henzinger, Henzinger and Kopke [@HHK95]. Their algorithm, designed over Kripke structures, and here named HHK, to compute $\mathscr{R}_{\mathrm{sim}}$, the coarsest simulation, runs in $O(|Q|.|{\rightarrow}|)$-time, with $\rightarrow$ the transition relation over the state space $Q$, and uses $O(|Q|^2.\log(|Q|))$ bits.
But it happens that $\mathscr{R}_{\mathrm{sim}}$ is a preorder. And as such, it can be more efficiently represented by a partition-relation pair $(P,R)$ with $P$ a partition, of the state space $Q$, whose blocks are classes of the simulation equivalence relation and with $R\subseteq P\times P$ a preorder over the blocks of $P$. Bustan and Grumberg [@BG03] used this to propose an algorithm, here named BG, with an optimal bit-space complexity in $O(|P_{\mathrm{sim}}|^2 +
|Q|.\log(|P_{\mathrm{sim}}|))$ with $|P_{\mathrm{sim}}|$ (in general significantly smaller than $|Q|$) the number of blocks of the partition $P_{\mathrm{sim}}$ associated with $\mathscr{R}_{\mathrm{sim}}$. Unfortunately, BG suffers from a very bad time complexity. Then, Gentilini, Piazza and Policriti [@GPP03] proposed an algorithm, here named GPP, with a better time complexity, in $O(|P_{\mathrm{sim}}|^2.|{\rightarrow}|)$, and a claimed bit space complexity like the one of BG. This algorithm had a mistake and was corrected in [@GP08]. It is very surprising that none of the authors citing [@GPP03], including these of [@GP08; @RT07; @RT10; @CRT11] and [@GPP15], realized that the announced bit space complexity was also not correct. Indeed, as shown in [@Cec13a] and [@Ran14] the real bit space complexity of GPP is $O(|P_{\mathrm{sim}}|^2.\log(|P_{\mathrm{sim}}|)+|Q|.\log(|Q|))$. In a similar way, [@RT10] and [@CRT11] did a minor mistake by considering that a bit space in $O(|Q|.\log(|P_{\mathrm{sim}}|))$ was sufficient to represent the partition in their algorithms while a space in $O(|Q|.\log(|Q|))$ is needed.
Ranzato and Tapparo [@RT07; @RT10] made a major breakthrough with their algorithm, here named RT, which runs in $O(|P_{\mathrm{sim}}|.|{\rightarrow}|)$-time but uses $O(|P_{\mathrm{sim}}|.|Q|.\log(|Q|))$ bits, which is more than GPP. The difficulty of the proofs and the abstract interpretation framework put aside, RT is a reformulation of HHK but with a partition-relation pair instead of a mere relation between states. Over unlabelled transition systems, this is the best algorithm regarding the time complexity.
*Since [@RT07] a question has emerged: is there an algorithm with the time complexity of RT while preserving the space complexity of GPP ?*
Crafa, Ranzato and Tapparo [@CRT11], modified RT to enhance its space complexity. They proposed an algorithm with a time complexity in $O(|P_{\mathrm{sim}}|.|\rightarrow|+|P_{\mathrm{sim}}|^2.|\rightarrow_{P_{\mathrm{sp}},P_{\mathrm{sim}}}|)$ and a bit space complexity in $O(|P_{\mathrm{sp}}|.|P_{\mathrm{sim}}|.\log(|P_{\mathrm{sp}}|)+ |Q|.\log(|Q|))$ with $|P_{\mathrm{sp}}|$ between $|P_{\mathrm{sim}}|$ and $|P_{\mathrm{bis}}|$, the number of bisimulation classes, and $\rightarrow_{P_{\mathrm{sp}},P_{\mathrm{sim}}}$ a smaller abstraction of $\rightarrow$. Unfortunately (although this algorithm provided new insights), for 22 examples, out of the 24 they provided, there is no difference between $|P_{\mathrm{bis}}|$, $|P_{\mathrm{sp}}|$ and $|P_{\mathrm{sim}}|$. For the two remaining examples the difference is marginal. With a little provocation, we can then consider that $|P_{\mathrm{sp}}|\approx|P_{\mathrm{bis}}|$ and compute the bisimulation equivalence (what should be done every time as it produces a considerable speedup) then compute the simulation equivalence with GPP on the obtained system is a better solution than the algorithm in [@CRT11] even if an efficient computation of the bisimulation equivalence requires, see [@PT87], a bit space in $O(|\rightarrow|.\log(|Q|))$.
Ranzato [@Ran14] almost achieved the challenge by announcing an algorithm with the space complexity of GPP but with the time complexity of RT multiplied by a $\log(|Q|)$ factor. He concluded that the suppression of this $\log(|Q|)$ factor seemed to him quite hard to achieve. Gentilini, Piazza and Policriti [@GPP15] outperformed the challenge by providing an algorithm with the space complexity of BG and the time complexity of RT, but only in the special case of acyclic transition systems.
Our Contributions {#sec:our-contributions}
-----------------
In this paper, we respond positively to the question and propose the first simulation algorithm with the time complexity of RT and the space complexity of GPP.
Our main sources of inspiration are [@PT87] for its implicit notion of stability against a coarser partition, that we generalize in the present paper for preorders, and for the counters it uses, [@HHK95] for the extension of these counters for simulation algorithms, [@BG03] for its use of little brothers to which we prefer the use of what we define as maximal transitions, [@Ran14] for its implicit use of maximal transitions to split blocks and for keeping as preorders the intermediate relations of its algorithm and [@Cec13a] for its equivalent definition of a simulation in terms of compositions of relations.
Note that almost all simulation algorithms are defined for Kripke structures. However, in each of them, after an initial step which consists in the construction of an initial preorder $\mathscr{R}_{\mathrm{init}}$, the algorithm is equivalent to calculating the coarsest simulation inside $\mathscr{R}_{\mathrm{init}}$ over a classical transition system. We therefore directly start from a transition system $(Q,\rightarrow)$ and an initial preorder $\mathscr{R}_{\mathrm{init}}$ inside which we compute the coarsest simulation.
Preliminaries {#sec:preliminaries}
=============
Let $Q$ be a set of elements, or *states*. The number of elements of $Q$ is denoted $|Q|$. A *relation* over $Q$ is a subset of $Q\times Q$. Let $\mathscr{R}$ be a relation over $Q$. For all $q,q'\in Q$ we may write $q\,\mathscr{R}\,q'$, or $q \mathbin{\tikz[baseline] \draw[dashed,->] (0pt,.5ex)
-- node[font=\footnotesize,fill=white,inner sep=2pt] {$\mathscr{R}$}
(6ex,.5ex);} q'$ in the figures, when $(q,q')\in\mathscr{R}$. We define $\mathscr{R}(q)\triangleq\{q'\in Q{\,\big|\,}q\,\mathscr{R}\,q'\}$ for $q\in Q$, and $\mathscr{R}(X)\triangleq\cup_{q\in X}\mathscr{R}(q)$ for $X\subseteq Q$. We write $X\mathrel\mathscr{R}Y$, or $X \mathbin{\tikz[baseline] \draw[dashed,->]
(0pt,.7ex) -- node[font=\footnotesize,fill=white,inner sep=2pt]
{$\mathscr{R}$} (6ex,.7ex);} Y$ in the figures, when $X\times
Y\cap\,\mathscr{R}\neq\emptyset$. For $q\in Q$ and $X\subseteq Q$, we also write $X\mathrel\mathscr{R} q$ (resp. $q\mathrel\mathscr{R} X$) for $X\mathrel\mathscr{R} \{q\}$ (resp. $\{q\}\mathrel\mathscr{R} X$). A relation $\mathscr{R}$ is said *coarser* than another relation $\mathscr{R}'$ when $\mathscr{R}'\subseteq\mathscr{R}$. The *inverse* of $\mathscr{R}$ is ${\mathscr{R}}^{-1}\triangleq\{(y,x)\in Q\times Q{\,\big|\,}(x,y)\in
\mathscr{R}\}$. The relation $\mathscr{R}$ is said *symmetric* if ${\mathscr{R}}^{-1}\subseteq \mathscr{R}$ and *antisymmetric* if $q\,\mathscr{R}\,q'$ and $q'\,\mathscr{R}\,q$ implies $q=q'$. Let $\mathscr{S}$ be a second relation over $Q$, the *composition* of $\mathscr{R}$ by $\mathscr{S}$ is $\mathscr{S}\mathrel{\circ}\mathscr{R}\triangleq\{(x,y)\in
Q\times Q{\,\big|\,}y\in\mathscr{S}(\mathscr{R}(x))\}$. The relation $\mathscr{R}$ is said *reflexive* if for all $q\in Q$ we have $q\,\mathscr{R}\,q$, and *transitive* if $\mathscr{R}\mathrel{\circ}\mathscr{R}\subseteq\mathscr{R}$. A *preorder* is a reflexive and transitive relation. A *partition* $P$ of $Q$ is a set of non empty subsets of $Q$, called *blocks*, that are pairwise disjoint and whose union gives $Q$. A *partition-relation pair* is a pair $(P,R)$ with $P$ a partition and $R$ a relation over $P$. To a partition-relation pair $(P,R)$ we associate a relation $\mathscr{R}_{(P,R)}\triangleq \bigcup_{(C,D)\in
R}C\times D$. Let $\mathscr{R}$ be a preorder on $Q$ and $q\in Q$, we define $[q]_\mathscr{R} \triangleq \{q'\in Q {\,\big|\,}q \,\mathscr{R}\, q' \wedge q'
\,\mathscr{R}\, q\}$ and $P_{\mathscr{R}} \triangleq \{[q]_\mathscr{R}\subseteq
Q{\,\big|\,}q\in Q\}$. It is easy to show that $P_{\mathscr{R}}$ is a partition of $Q$. Therefore, given any preorder $\mathscr{R}$ and a state $q\in Q$, we also call *block*, the *block of* $q$, the set $[q]_\mathscr{R}$. A symmetric preorder $\mathscr{P}$ is totally represented by the partition $P_{\mathscr{P}}$ since $\mathscr{P}=\cup_{E\in P_\mathscr{P}} E\times
E$. Let us recall that a symmetric preorder is traditionally named an *equivalence relation*. Conversely, given a partition $P$, there is an associated equivalence relation $\mathscr{P}_P\triangleq \cup_{E\in P}E\times E$. In the general case, a preorder $\mathscr{R}$ is efficiently represented by the partition-relation pair $(P_{\mathscr{R}}, R_{\mathscr{R}})$ with $R_{\mathscr{R}}\triangleq\{([q]_\mathscr{R},[q']_\mathscr{R})\in
P_{\mathscr{R}}\times P_{\mathscr{R}}{\,\big|\,}q\,\mathscr{R}\,q'\}$ a reflexive, transitive and antisymmetric relation over $P_{\mathscr{R}}$. Furthermore, for a preorder $\mathscr{R}$, we note $[\cdot]_{\mathscr{R}}$ the relation over $Q$ which associates to a state the elements of its block. Said otherwise: $[\cdot]_{\mathscr{R}}\triangleq\cup_{q\in
Q}\{q\}\times[q]_{\mathscr{R}}$. Finally, for a set $X$ of sets we note $\cup
X$ for $\cup_{E\in X}E$.
\[prop:RexistForAll\] Let $X$ and $Y$ be two blocks of a preorder $\mathscr{R}$. Then $$(X'\subseteq X\wedge Y'\subseteq Y\wedge X'\mathrel\mathscr{R}Y')\Rightarrow
X\times Y\subseteq \mathscr{R}.$$ Said otherwise, when two subsets of two blocks of $\mathscr{R}$ are related by $\mathscr{R}$ then all the elements of the first block are related by $\mathscr{R}$ with all the elements of the second block.
Thanks to the transitivity of $\mathscr{R}$.
A *finite transition systems (TS)* is a pair $(Q,\rightarrow)$ with $Q$ a finite set of states, and $\rightarrow$ a relation over $Q$ called the *transition relation*. A relation $\mathscr{S}$ is a *simulation* over $(Q,\rightarrow)$ if: $$\label{eq:simulation}
\mathscr{S}\mathrel\circ\rightarrow^{-1}\,\subseteq\,
\rightarrow^{-1}\mathrel\circ \mathscr{S}$$ For a simulation $\mathscr{S}$, when we have $q\mathrel\mathscr{S}q'$, we say that $q$ is *simulated* by $q'$ (or $q'$ *simulates* $q$).
A relation $\mathscr{B}$ is a *bisimulation* if $\mathscr{B}$ and $\mathscr{B}^{-1}$ are both simulations. The interesting bisimulations, such as the coarsest one included in a preorder, are equivalence relations. It is easy to show that an equivalence relation $\mathscr{B}$ is a bisimulation iff : $$\mathscr{B}\mathrel\circ\rightarrow^{-1}\,\subseteq\,
\rightarrow^{-1}\mathrel\circ \mathscr{B}$$
The classical definition is to say that a relation $\mathscr{S}$ is a simulation if: $q_1\mathrel\mathscr{S} q_2\wedge q_1\rightarrow q'_1
\Rightarrow \exists q'_2\;.\;q_2\rightarrow q'_2\wedge
{q'_1\mathrel\mathscr{S} q'_2} $. However, we prefer the formula , which is equivalent, because it is more global and to design efficient simulation algorithms we must abstract from individual states.
In the remainder of the paper, all relations are over the same finite set $Q$ and the underlying transition system is $(Q,\rightarrow)$.
Key Ideas {#sec:ideas}
=========
Let us start from **equation .** If a relation $\mathscr{R}$ is not a simulation, we have $\mathscr{R}\mathrel\circ{\rightarrow^{-1}}\nsubseteq\rightarrow^{-1}\mathrel{\circ}\mathscr{R}$. This implies the existence of a relation $Remove$ such that: $\mathscr{R}\mathrel\circ\,\rightarrow^{-1}\subseteq{(\rightarrow^{-1}\mathrel{\circ}\mathscr{R)}\cup
Remove}$. It can be shown that most of the simulation algorithms cited in the introduction, like HHK, GPP and RT, are based on this last equation. In this paper, like in [@Cec13a], we make the following different choice. When $\mathscr{R}$ is not a simulation, we reduce the problem of finding the coarsest simulation inside $\mathscr{R}$ to the case where there is a relation $\mathit{NotRel}$ such that: $\mathscr{R}\mathrel\circ\rightarrow^{-1}\,\subseteq\,\rightarrow^{-1}\mathrel\circ(\mathscr{R}\cup
\mathit{NotRel})$. Let us note $\mathscr{U}\triangleq \mathscr{R}\cup \mathit{NotRel}$. We will say that $\mathscr{R}$ is **$\mathscr{U}$-stable** since we have:
$$\label{eq:keyIdeaStable}
\mathscr{R}\mathrel\circ\rightarrow^{-1}\,\subseteq\,
\rightarrow^{-1}\mathrel\circ \mathscr{U}$$
Our definition of stability is new. However, it is implicit in the bisimulation algorithm of [@PT87 p. 979] where, with the notations from [@PT87], a partition $Q$ is said stable with every block of a coarser partition $X$. Within our formalism we can say the same thing with the formula $
\mathscr{P}_{Q}\mathrel\circ\rightarrow^{-1}\,\subseteq\,
\rightarrow^{-1}\mathrel\circ \mathscr{P}_{X}$.
![ $\mathscr{R}$ is $\mathscr{U}$-stable and $\mathscr{V}$, obtained after a split of blocks of $\mathscr{R}$ and a refinement of $\mathscr{R}$, is $\mathscr{R}$-stable.[]{data-label="fig:intuiSim"}](Ustable.pdf)
Consider the transition $c\rightarrow b$ in [Figure ]{}\[fig:intuiSim\]. The preorder $\mathscr{R}$ is assumed to be $\mathscr{U}$-stable and we want to find the coarsest simulation included in $\mathscr{R}$. Since $\mathscr{R}$ is a preorder, the set $\mathscr{R}(c)$ is a union of blocks of $\mathscr{R}$. A state $d$ in $\mathscr{R}(c)$ which doesn’t have an outgoing transition to $\mathscr{R}(b)$ belongs to $\rightarrow^{-1}\mathrel\circ\mathscr{U}(b)$, thanks to , but cannot simulate $c$. Thus, we can safely remove it from $\mathscr{R}(c)$. But to do this effectively, we want to manage blocks of states and not the individual states. Hence, we first do a **split step** by splitting the blocks of $\mathscr{R}$ such that a resulting block, included in both $\mathscr{R}(c)$ and $\rightarrow^{-1}\mathrel\circ\mathscr{U}(b)$, is either completely included in $\rightarrow^{-1}\mathrel\circ\mathscr{R}(b)$, which means that its elements still have a chance to simulate $c$, or totally outside of it, which means that its elements cannot simulate $c$. Let us call $\mathscr{P}$ the equivalence relation associated to the resulting partition. We will say that $\mathscr{P}$ is **$\mathscr{R}$-block-stable**. Then, to test whether a block, $E$ of $\mathscr{P}$, which has an outgoing transition in $\rightarrow^{-1}\mathrel\circ(\mathscr{U}\setminus\mathscr{R})(b)$, is included in $\rightarrow^{-1}\mathrel\circ\mathscr{R}(b)$, it is sufficient to do the test **for only one** of its elements, arbitrarily choosen, we call the **representative** of $E$: $E.\Rep$. To do this test in constant time we manage a counter which, at first, **count the number of transitions from $E.\Rep$ to $\mathscr{U}(b)=\mathscr{U}([b]_{\mathscr{P}})$**. By scanning the transitions whose destination belongs to $(\mathscr{U}\setminus\mathscr{R})(b)$ this counter is updated to count the transitions from $E.\Rep$ to $\mathscr{R}(b)=\mathscr{R}([b]_{\mathscr{P}})$. Therefore we get the equivalences: there is no transition from $E$ to $\mathscr{R}(b)$ iff there is no transition from $E.\Rep$ to $\mathscr{R}(b)$ iff this counter is null. Remark that the total bit size of all the counters is in $O(|P_{\mathrm{sim}}|^2.\log(|Q|))$ since there is at most $|P_{\mathrm{sim}}|$ blocks like $E$, $|P_{\mathrm{sim}}|$ blocks like $[b]_{\mathscr{P}}$ and $|Q|$ transitions from a state like $E.\Rep$. The difference is not so significative in practice but we will reduce this size to $O(|P_{\mathrm{sim}}|^2.\log(|P_{\mathrm{sim}}|))$, at a cost of $O(|P_{\mathrm{sim}}|.|\rightarrow|)$ elementary steps, which is hopefully within our time budget. Removing from $\mathscr{R}(c)$ the blocks of $\rightarrow^{-1}\mathrel\circ(\mathscr{U}\setminus\mathscr{R})(b)$, like $[d]_{\mathscr{P}}$, which do not have an outgoing transition to $\mathscr{R}(b)$ is called the **refine step**. After this refine step, $\mathscr{R}(c)$ has been reduced to $\mathscr{V}(c)$. Doing these split and refine steps for all transitions $c\rightarrow b$ results in the relation $\mathscr{V}$ that we will prove to be a $\mathscr{R}$-stable preorder.
In summary, from an initial preorder we will build a strictly decreasing series of preorders $(\mathscr{R}_i)_{i\geq 0}$ such that $\mathscr{R}_{i+1}$ is $\mathscr{R}_i$-stable and contains, by construction, all simulations included in $\mathscr{R}_i$. Since all the relations are finite, this series has a limit, reached in a finite number of steps. Let us call $\mathscr{R}_{\mathrm{sim}}$ this limit. We have: $\mathscr{R}_{\mathrm{sim}}$ is $\mathscr{R}_{\mathrm{sim}}$-stable. Therefore, with and , $\mathscr{R}_{\mathrm{sim}}$ is a simulation and by construction contains all simulations included in the initial preorder: this is the coarsest one.
The counters which are used in the previous paragraphs play a similar role as the counters used in [@PT87]. Without them, the time complexity of the algorithm of the present paper would have been multiplied by a $|P_{\mathrm{sim}}|$ factor and would have been this of GPP: $O(|P_{\mathrm{sim}}|^2.|{\rightarrow}|)$.
Underlying Theory {#sec:underlyingTh}
=================
In this section we give the necessary theory to define what should be the ideal split step and we justify the correctness of our refine step which allows to treat blocks as if they were single states. We begin by introducing the notion of maximal transition. This is the equivalent concept for transitions from that of little brothers, introduced in [@BG03], for states. The main difference is that little brothers have been defined relatively to the final coarsest simulation in a Kripke structure. Here we define maximal transitions relatively to a current preorder $\mathscr{R}$.
\[def:maxTrans\] Let $\mathscr{R}$ be a preorder. The transition $q\rightarrow q'$ is said *maximal for* $\mathscr{R}$, or *$\mathscr{R}$-maximal*, which is noted $q\rightarrow_{\mathscr{R}}q'$, when: $$\forall q''\in Q \;.\;
(q\rightarrow q'' \wedge q'\mathrel\mathscr{R}q'')\Rightarrow
q''\in[q']_{\mathscr{R}}$$ The set of $\mathscr{R}$-maximal transitions and the induced relation are both noted $\rightarrow_{\mathscr{R}}$.
![Illustration of the left property of Lemma \[lem:transInMaxoR\].[]{data-label="fig:transInMaxoR"}](lem_transInMaxoR.pdf)
\[lem:transInMaxoR\] For a preorder $\mathscr{R}$, the two following properties are verified: $$\rightarrow^{-1}\,\subseteq\,
\rightarrow_{\mathscr{R}}^{-1}\mathrel{\circ}\mathscr{R} \text{ and }
\rightarrow^{-1}\mathrel{\circ}\mathscr{R} \,=\, \rightarrow^{-1}_{\mathscr{R}}\mathrel{\circ}\mathscr{R}$$
Let $(q,q')\in\rightarrow$ and $X=\{q''\in Q{\,\big|\,}q\rightarrow q''\wedge
q'\mathscr{R}q''\}$. Since $\mathscr{R}$ is reflexive, this set is not empty because it contains $q'$. Let $Y$ be the set of blocks of $\mathscr{R}$ which contain an element from $X$. Since this set is finite (there is a finite number of blocks) there is at least a block $G$ maximal in $Y$. Said otherwise, there is no $G'\in Y$, different from $G$, such that $G
\,\mathscr{R}\, G'$. Let $q''\in G$ such that $q\rightarrow q''$. From what precedes, the transition $(q,q'')$ is maximal and $q'\mathscr{R}q''$. Hence: $(q',q)\in\rightarrow_{\mathscr{R}}^{-1}\mathrel{\circ}\mathscr{R}$. So we have: $$\label{eq:transInMaxoR}
\rightarrow^{-1} \,\subseteq\, \rightarrow^{-1}_{\mathscr{R}}\mathrel{\circ}\mathscr{R}$$
Now, from we get $
\rightarrow^{-1}\mathrel{\circ}\mathscr{R} \subseteq
\rightarrow^{-1}_{\mathscr{R}}\mathrel{\circ}\mathscr{R}\mathrel{\circ}\mathscr{R}$ and thus $
\rightarrow^{-1}\mathrel{\circ}\mathscr{R} \subseteq
\rightarrow^{-1}_{\mathscr{R}}\mathrel{\circ}\mathscr{R}$ since $\mathscr{R}$ is a preorder. The relation $\rightarrow_{\mathscr{R}}$ is a subset of $\rightarrow$. Therefore we also have $\rightarrow^{-1}_{\mathscr{R}}\mathrel{\circ}\mathscr{R}\subseteq
\rightarrow^{-1}\mathrel{\circ}\mathscr{R}$ which concludes the proof.
In the last section, we introduced the notions of stability and of block-stability. Let us define them formaly.
\[def:Stability\]
Let $\mathscr{R}$ a preorder.
- $\mathscr{R}$ is said $\mathscr{U}$-*stable*, with $\mathscr{U}$ a coarser preorder than $\mathscr{R}$, if: $$\label{def:relStability}
\mathscr{R}\mathrel\circ\rightarrow^{-1}\,\subseteq\,
\rightarrow^{-1}\mathrel\circ \mathscr{U}$$
- An equivalence relation $\mathscr{P}$ included in $\mathscr{R}$, is said *$\mathscr{R}$-block-stable* if: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:sameBlock}
{\hfill} \forall b,d,d'\in Q\,.\, d\,\mathscr{P}\,d'\Rightarrow {} (d\in \rightarrow^{-1}\mathrel{\circ}\mathscr{R}(b) \Leftrightarrow
d'\in \rightarrow^{-1}\mathrel{\circ}\mathscr{R}(b)) {\hfill}
\end{gathered}$$
Say that $\mathscr{P}$ is included in $\mathscr{R}$ means that each block of $\mathscr{P}$ is included in a block of $\mathscr{R}$.
As seen in the following lemma we have a nice equivalence: an equivalence relation $\mathscr{P}$ is $\mathscr{R}$-block-stable iff it is $\mathscr{R}$-stable.
\[lem:partStability\] Let $\mathscr{P}$ be an equivalence relation included in a preorder $\mathscr{R}$. Then is equivalent with: $$\label{eq:partStability}
\mathscr{P}\mathrel\circ\rightarrow^{-1}\,\subseteq\,
\rightarrow^{-1}\mathrel\circ \mathscr{R}$$
![Illustration of \[lem:transInMaxoR\].[]{data-label="fig:partStability"}](partStability.pdf)
To show the equivalence of and we use an intermediate property: $$\label{eq:intermediateSameBlock}
\mathscr{P}\mathrel\circ\rightarrow^{-1}\mathrel\circ\mathscr{R}\,\subseteq\,
\rightarrow^{-1}\mathrel\circ \mathscr{R}$$ With the help of [Figure ]{} \[fig:partStability\] it is straightforward to see the equivalence of and . It remains therefore to show the equivalence of and .
- $\Rightarrow$ . From we get $\mathscr{P}\mathrel\circ\rightarrow^{-1}\mathrel\circ \mathscr{R}\,\subseteq\,
\rightarrow^{-1}\mathrel\circ \mathscr{R}\mathrel\circ \mathscr{R}$ and thus since, as a preorder $\mathscr{R}$ is transitive.
- $\Rightarrow$ . Let $\mathscr{I}=\{(q,q){\,\big|\,}q\in Q\}$ be the identity relation. We have $\mathscr{P}\mathrel\circ\rightarrow^{-1}=
\mathscr{P}\mathrel\circ\rightarrow^{-1}\mathrel\circ\mathscr{I}$ and thus $
\mathscr{P}\mathrel\circ\rightarrow^{-1}\mathrel\circ\mathscr{I}\,\subseteq\,
\mathscr{P}\mathrel\circ\rightarrow^{-1}\mathrel\circ \mathscr{R}$ since $\mathscr{R}$ is a preorder and as such contains $\mathscr{I}$. With we thus get .
With and the reader should now be convinced by the interest of to define a simulation.
Following the keys ideas given in Section \[sec:ideas\] there is an interest, for the time complexity, of having a coarse $\mathscr{R}$-block-stable equivalence relation $\mathscr{P}$. Hopefully there is a coarsest one.
Given a preorder $\mathscr{R}$, there is a coarsest $\mathscr{R}$-stable equivalence relation.
With Lemma \[lem:partStability\] and by an easy induction based on the two following properties:
- the identity relation, $\mathscr{I}=\{(q,q){\,\big|\,}q\in Q\}$, is a $\mathscr{R}$-stable equivalence relation.
- the reflexive and transitive closure $(\mathscr{P}_1\cup\mathscr{P}_2)^*$ of the union of two $\mathscr{R}$-stable equivalence relations, $\mathscr{P}_1$ and $\mathscr{P}_2$, is also a $\mathscr{R}$-stable equivalence relation, coarser than them.
We are now ready to introduce the main result of this section. It is a formalization, and a justification, of the refine step given in Section \[sec:ideas\]. In the following theorem, the link with the decreasing sequence of relations $(\mathscr{R}_i)_{i\geq 0}$ mentioned at the end of Section \[sec:ideas\] is: if $\mathscr{R}_i$ is the current value of $\mathscr{R}$ then $\mathscr{R}_{i-1}$ is $\mathscr{U}$ and $\mathscr{R}_{i+1}$ will be $\mathscr{V}$. The reader can also ease its comprehension of the theorem by considering [Figure ]{} \[fig:intuiSim\].
\[th:refinement\] Let $\mathscr{U}$ be a preorder, $\mathscr{R}$ be a $\mathscr{U}$-stable preorder and $\mathscr{P}$ be the coarsest $\mathscr{R}$-stable equivalence relation. Let $\mathit{NotRel}=\mathscr{U}\mathrel\setminus\mathscr{R}$ and $\mathscr{V}=\mathscr{R}\mathrel\setminus \mathit{NotRel}'$ with $$\mathit{NotRel}' =
\bigcup_{\substack{b,c,d\,\in\, Q,\; c\,\rightarrow\, b,\;
c\,\mathscr{R}\, d,\\
d\,\in\, \rightarrow^{-1}\circ\, \mathit{NotRel}(b),\;\\
d\,\not\in\, \rightarrow^{-1}\,\circ\,\mathscr{R}(b)}}
[c]_{\mathscr{P}}{\times} [d]_{\mathscr{P}}$$ Then:
1. \[th:refinement:item:1\] $\mathit{NotRel}' = X$ with $$X =
\bigcup_{\substack{b,c,d\,\in\, Q,\; c\,\rightarrow_{\mbox{\tiny $\mathscr{R}$}}\, b,\;
c\,\mathscr{R}\, d,\\
d\,\in\, {\rightarrow}_{ \mbox{\tiny $\mathscr{R}$}}^{-1}\circ\, \mathit{NotRel}(b),\;\\
d\,\not\in\, \rightarrow_{\mbox{\tiny $\mathscr{R}$}}^{-1}\,\circ\,\mathscr{R}(b)}}
\{(c,d)\}$$
2. Any simulation $\mathscr{S}$ included in $\mathscr{R}$ is also included in $\mathscr{V}$.
3. \[th:refinement:item:3\] $\mathscr{V}\mathrel\circ\rightarrow^{-1}\,\subseteq\,
\rightarrow^{-1}\mathrel\circ \mathscr{R}$
4. $\mathscr{V}$ is a preorder.
5. \[th:refinement:item:5\] $\mathscr{V}$ is $\mathscr{R}$-stable.
6. \[th:refinement:item:6\] Blocks of $\mathscr{V}$ are blocks of $\mathscr{P}$ (i.e. $P_{\mathscr{V}}
= P_{\mathscr{P}}$).
<!-- -->
1. Since $(c,d)$ belongs to $[c]_{\mathscr{P}}{\times} [d]_{\mathscr{P}}$, $\rightarrow_{\mathscr{R}} \;\subseteq \; \rightarrow$ and $\rightarrow^{-1}\mathrel{\circ}\mathscr{R} \,=\,
\rightarrow^{-1}_{\mathscr{R}}\mathrel{\circ}\mathscr{R}$, from Lemma \[lem:transInMaxoR\], we get $X\subseteq \mathit{NotRel}'$. For the converse, let $(c',d')\in \mathit{NotRel}'$. By definition, there are $b,c,d\in Q$ such that $c\rightarrow b$, $c\,\mathscr{R}\, d$, $d\in \rightarrow^{-1}\circ\,
\mathit{NotRel}(b)$, $d\not\in\rightarrow^{-1}\mathrel\circ\mathscr{R}(b)$, $c'{\in}[c]_{\mathscr{P}}$ and $d'{\in} [d]_{\mathscr{P}}$. From $d\not\in\rightarrow^{-1}\mathrel\circ\mathscr{R}(b)$ and Lemma \[lem:transInMaxoR\] we have $d\not\in\rightarrow_{\mathscr{R}}^{-1}\mathrel\circ\mathscr{R}(b)$. From $c\rightarrow b$, Lemma \[lem:transInMaxoR\], Lemma \[lem:partStability\], and the hypothesis that $\mathscr{P}$ is $\mathscr{R}$-stable, we have $c'\rightarrow_{\mathscr{R}}^{-1}\mathrel\circ\mathscr{R}(b)$. Therefore, there is a state $b'$ such that $c'\rightarrow_{\mathscr{R}}b'$ and $b\,\mathscr{R}\, b'$. Les us suppose $d'\in\rightarrow_{\mathscr{R}}^{-1}\mathrel\circ\mathscr{R}(b')$. Since $b\,\mathscr{R}\, b'$, we would have had $d\in\rightarrow_{\mathscr{R}}^{-1}\mathrel\circ\mathscr{R}(b)$. Thus $d'\not\in\rightarrow_{\mathscr{R}}^{-1}\mathrel\circ\mathscr{R}(b')$. We have $c'\,\mathscr{P}\, c$, $c\,\mathscr{R}\, d$, $d\,\mathscr{P}\, d'$, and thus $c'\,\mathscr{R}\, d'$ since $\mathscr{R}$ is a preorder and $\mathscr{P}\subseteq\mathscr{R}$. With $c'\rightarrow_{\mathscr{R}}b'$ and the hypothesis that $\mathscr{R}$ is $\mathscr{U}$-stable, we get $d'\in
\rightarrow^{-1}\mathrel\circ\mathscr{U}(b')$ and thus, with Lemma \[lem:transInMaxoR\], $d'\in
\rightarrow_{\mathscr{R}}^{-1}\mathrel\circ\mathscr{R}\mathrel\circ\mathscr{U}(b')$ and thus $d'\in \rightarrow_{\mathscr{R}}^{-1}\mathrel\circ\mathscr{U}(b')$ since $\mathscr{U}$ is a preorder and $\mathscr{R}\subseteq\mathscr{U}$. As seen above, $d'\not\in\rightarrow_{\mathscr{R}}^{-1}\mathrel\circ\mathscr{R}(b')$. So we have $d'\in\rightarrow_{\mathscr{R}}^{-1}\mathrel\circ(\mathscr{U}\setminus\mathscr{R})(b')$. In summary: $c'\rightarrow_{\mathscr{R}}b'$, $c'\,\mathscr{R}\, d'$, $d'\in\rightarrow_{\mathscr{R}}^{-1}\mathrel\circ \mathit{NotRel}(b')$ and $d'\not\in\rightarrow_{\mathscr{R}}^{-1}\mathrel\circ\mathscr{R}(b')$. All of this implies that $(c',d')\in X$. So we have $\mathit{NotRel}'\subseteq X$ and thus $\mathit{NotRel}'=X$.
2. By contradiction. Let $(c,d)\in \mathscr{S}$ such that $(c,d)\not\in
\mathscr{V}$. This means that $(c,d)\in \mathit{NotRel}'$. From \[th:refinement:item:1\]) and the hypothesis $\mathscr{S}\subseteq\mathscr{R}$ there is $b\in Q$ such that $c\rightarrow_{\mathscr{R}} b$, $d\not\in\rightarrow_{\mathscr{R}}^{-1}\mathrel\circ\mathscr{R}(b)$ and thus $d\not\in\rightarrow^{-1}\mathrel\circ\mathscr{R}(b)$, from Lemma \[lem:transInMaxoR\]. From $c\rightarrow_{\mathscr{R}} b$, thus $c\rightarrow b$, and the assumption that $\mathscr{S}$ is a simulation there is $d'\in Q$ with $d\rightarrow d'$ and $b\mathrel\mathscr{S}d'$ thus $b\mathrel\mathscr{R}d'$. This contradicts $d\not\in\rightarrow^{-1}\mathrel\circ\mathscr{R}(b)$. Therefore $\mathscr{S}\subseteq \mathscr{V}$.
3. If this is not the case, there are $b,c,d\in Q$ such that $c\mathrel\mathscr{V}d$, $c\rightarrow b$ and $d\not\in\rightarrow^{-1}\mathrel\circ\mathscr{R}(b)$. Since $\mathscr{V}\subseteq\mathscr{R}$ and $\mathscr{R}$ is a $\mathscr{U}$-stable relation there is $d'\in Q$ such that $d\rightarrow d'$ and $b\mathrel\mathscr{U}d'$. The case $b\mathrel\mathscr{R}d'$ would contradict $d\not\in\rightarrow^{-1}\mathrel\circ\mathscr{R}(b)$. Therefore $d\in\rightarrow^{-1}\mathrel\circ \mathit{NotRel}(b)$ and all the conditions are met for $(c,d)$ belonging in $\mathit{NotRel}'$ which contradicts $c\mathrel\mathscr{V}d$.
4. Let us show that $\mathscr{V}$ is both reflexive and transitive. If it is not reflexive, since $\mathscr{R}$ is reflexive, from \[th:refinement:item:1\]) there is $(c,d)$ in $X$ and a state $b$ such that $c\rightarrow_{\mathscr{R}} b$ and $d\not\in\rightarrow_{\mathscr{R}}^{-1}\mathrel\circ\mathscr{R}(b)$ and $c=d$. But this is impossible since $\mathscr{R}$ is reflexive. Hence, $\mathscr{V}$ is reflexive. We also prove by contradiction that $\mathscr{V}$ is transitive. If it is not the case, there are $c,e,d\in Q$ such that $c\mathrel\mathscr{V}e$, $e\mathrel\mathscr{V}d$ but $\mathrel\neg
c\mathrel\mathscr{V}d$. Since $\mathscr{V}\subseteq\mathscr{R}$ and $\mathscr{R}$ is transitive then $c\mathrel\mathscr{R}d$. With $\mathrel\neg
c\mathrel\mathscr{V}d$ and \[th:refinement:item:1\]), there is $b$ such that $c\rightarrow_{\mathscr{R}} b$ and $d\not\in\rightarrow_{\mathscr{R}}^{-1}\mathrel\circ\mathscr{R}(b)$. But from \[th:refinement:item:3\]), there is $b'\in Q$ such that $b\mathrel\mathscr{R}b'$ and $e\rightarrow b'$. With $e\mathrel\mathscr{V}d$ and the same reason, there is $b''$ such that $b'\mathrel\mathscr{R}b''$ and $d\rightarrow b''$. By transitivity of $\mathscr{R}$ we get $b\mathrel\mathscr{R}b''$ and thus $d\in\rightarrow^{-1}\mathrel\circ\mathscr{R}(b)$. With Lemma \[lem:transInMaxoR\] this contradicts $d\not\in\rightarrow_{\mathscr{R}}^{-1}\mathrel\circ\mathscr{R}(b)$. Hence, $\mathscr{V}$ is transitive.
5. This is a direct consequence of the two preceding items and the fact that by construction $\mathscr{V}\subseteq\mathscr{R}$.
6. By hypothesis, $\mathscr{P}\subseteq\mathscr{R}$. This means that blocks of $\mathscr{R}$ are made of blocks of $\mathscr{P}$. By definition, $\mathscr{V}$ is obtained by deleting from $\mathscr{R}$ relations between blocks of $\mathscr{P}$. This implies that blocks of $\mathscr{V}$ are made of blocks of $\mathscr{P}$. To proove that a block of $\mathscr{V}$ is made of a single block of $\mathscr{P}$, let us assume, by contradiction, that there are two different blocks, $B_1$ and $B_2$, of $\mathscr{P}$ in a block of $\mathscr{V}$. We show that $\mathscr{P}$ is not the coarsest $\mathscr{R}$-block-stable equivalence relation. Let $\mathscr{P}'=\mathscr{P}\cup B_1\times B_2\cup B_2\times B_1$. Then $\mathscr{P}'$ is an equivalence relation strictly coarser than $\mathscr{P}'$. Furthermore, since $B_1$ and $B_2$ are blocks of $\mathscr{V}$, we get $\mathscr{P}'\subseteq \mathscr{V}$. With \[th:refinement:item:3\]) we get that $\mathscr{P}'$ is $\mathscr{R}$-stable and thus $\mathscr{R}$-block-stable with Lemma \[lem:partStability\]. This contradicts the hypothesis that $\mathscr{P}$ was the coarsest one. Therefore, blocks of $\mathscr{V}$ are blocks of $\mathscr{P}$.
\[th:refinement:item:1\]) means that blocks of $\mathscr{P}$ are sufficiently small to do the refinement step efficiently, as if they were states. \[th:refinement:item:6\]) means that these blocks cannot be bigger. \[th:refinement:item:5\]) means that we are ready for next split and refinement steps.
In what precedes, we have assumed that for the preorder $\mathscr{R}$, inside which we want to compute the coarsest simulation, there is another preorder $\mathscr{U}$ such that condition holds. The fifth item of Theorem \[th:refinement\] says that if this true at a given iteration (made of a split step and a refinement step) of the algorithm then this is true at the next iteration. For the end of this section we show that we can safely modify the initial preorder such that this is also initially true. This is indeed a simple consequence of the fact that a state with an outgoing transition cannot be simulated by a state with no outgoing transition.
\[def:InitRefine\] Let $\mathscr{R}_{\mathrm{init}}$ be a preorder. We define $\operatorname{InitRefine}(\mathscr{R}_{\mathrm{init}})$ such that: $$\begin{gathered}
{\hfill} \operatorname{InitRefine}(\mathscr{R}_{\mathrm{init}})\triangleq
\mathscr{R}_{\mathrm{init}}\cap
\{(c,d)\in Q\times Q{\,\big|\,}{} \exists c'\in Q\,.\,c\rightarrow c' \;\Rightarrow\;
\exists d'\in Q\,.\,d\rightarrow d' \} {\hfill}
\end{gathered}$$
\[prop:InitRefine\] Let $\mathscr{R} =
\operatorname{InitRefine}(\mathscr{R}_{\mathrm{init}})$ with $\mathscr{R}_{\mathrm{init}}$ a preorder. Then:
1. $\mathscr{R}$ is $(Q\times Q)$-stable,
2. a simulation $\mathscr{S}$ included in $\mathscr{R}_{\mathrm{init}}$ is also included in $\mathscr{R}$.
<!-- -->
1. $Q\times Q$ is trivially a preorder. It remains to show that $\mathscr{R}$ is also a preorder and that is true with $\mathscr{U}=Q\times Q$.
Since $\mathscr{R}_{\mathrm{init}}$ is a preorder and thus reflexive, $\mathscr{R}$ is also trivially reflexive. Now, by contradiction, let us suppose that $\mathscr{R}$ is not transitive. There are three states $c,e,d\in Q$ such that: $c\,\mathscr{R}\,e\wedge e\,\mathscr{R}\,d \wedge \neg\;
c\,\mathscr{R}\,d$. From the fact that $\mathscr{R}\subseteq\mathscr{R}_{\mathrm{init}}$ and $\mathscr{R}_{\mathrm{init}}$ is a preorder, we get $c\,\mathscr{R}_{\mathrm{init}}\,d$. With $\neg\; c\,\mathscr{R}\,d$ and the definition of $\mathscr{R}$ this means that $c$ has a successor while $d$ has not. But the hypothesis that $c$ has a successor and $c\,\mathscr{R}\,e$ implies that $e$ has a successor. With $e\,\mathscr{R}\,d$ we also get that $d$ has also a successor, which contradicts what is written above. Hence, $\mathscr{R}$ is transitive and thus a preorder.
The formula $\mathscr{R}\mathrel{\circ}\rightarrow^{-1}\subseteq
\rightarrow^{-1}\circ (Q\times Q)$ just means that the two hypotheses, $c\,\mathscr{R}\,d$ and $c$ has a successor, imply that $d$ has also a successor. This is exactly the meaning of the second part of the intersection in the definition of $\mathscr{R}$.
2. By contradiction, if this is not true there is $(c,d)$ a pair of states which belongs to $\mathscr{S}$ and $\mathscr{R}_{\mathrm{init}}$ but does not belong to $\mathscr{R}$. By definition of $\mathscr{R}$ this means that $c$ has a successor while $d$ has not. But the hypotheses $c\,\mathscr{S}\,d$, $c$ has a successor and $\mathscr{S}$ is a simulation imply that $d$ has also a successor which contradicts what is written above. Hence, $\mathscr{S}$ is also included in $\mathscr{R}$.
The total relation $Q\times Q$ will thus play the role of the initial $\mathscr{U}$ in the algorithm.
In [@PT87 p. 979] there is also a similar preprocessing of the initial partition where states with no output transition are put aside.
The Algorithm {#sec:algo}
=============
The approach of the previous section can be applied to several algorithms, with different balances between time complexity and space complexity. It can also be extended to labelled transition systems. In this section the emphasis is on the, theoretically, most efficient in memory of the fastest simulation algorithms of the moment.
Counters and Splitter Transitions {#sec:splitter-transitions}
---------------------------------
Let us remember that a partition $P$ and its associated equivalence relation $\mathscr{P}_P$ (or a equivalence relation $\mathscr{P}$ and its associated partition $P_{\mathscr{P}}$) denote essentially the same thing. The difference is that for a partition we focus on the set of blocks whereas for an equivalence relation we focus on the relation which relates the elements of a same block. For a first reading, the reader may consider that a partition is an equivalence relation, and vice versa.
From a preorder $\mathscr{R}$ that satisfies we will need to split its blocks in order to find its coarsest $\mathscr{R}$-block-stable equivalence relation. Then, Theorem \[th:refinement\] will be used for a refine step. For all this, we first need the traditional function.
\[def:split\] Given a partition $P$ and a set of states $Marked$, the function $\Split(P,Marked)$ returns a partition similar to $P$, but with the difference that each block $E$ of $P$ such that $E\cap Marked \neq\emptyset$ and $E\not\subseteq Marked$ is replaced by two blocks: $E_1=E\cap Marked$ and $E_2=E\mathrel\setminus E_1$.
To efficiently perform the split and refine steps we need a set of counters which associates to each representative state of a block, of an equivalence relation, the number of blocks, of that same equivalence relation, it reaches in $\mathscr{R}(B)$, for $B$ a block of $\mathscr{R}$.
Let $\mathscr{P}$ be an equivalence relation included in a preorder $\mathscr{R}$. We assume that for each block $E$ of $\mathscr{P}$, a representative state $E.\Rep$ has been chosen. Let $E$ be a block of $\mathscr{P}$, $B$ be a block of $\mathscr{R}$ and $B'\subseteq B$. We define: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:RelCount}
{\hfill} \RelCount_{(\mathscr{P},\mathscr{R})}(E,B')\triangleq {}
|\{E'\in P_{\mathscr{P}}{\,\big|\,}E.\Rep\rightarrow E'\wedge
B'\mathrel\mathscr{R} E'\}| {\hfill}
\end{gathered}$$
\[prop:RelCount\] Let $\mathscr{P}$ be an equivalence relation included in a preorder $\mathscr{R}$, $E$ be a block of $\mathscr{P}$, $B$ be a block of $\mathscr{R}$ and $B'$ be a non empty subset of $B$. Then: $$\begin{split}
\RelCount_{(\mathscr{P},\mathscr{R})}(E,B)=
\RelCount_{(\mathscr{P},\mathscr{R})}(E,B')
\end{split}$$
Thanks to the transitivity of $\mathscr{R}$.
Following Section \[sec:ideas\], the purpose of these counters is to check in constant time whether a block $E$ of an equivalence relation $\mathscr{P}$ is included in $\rightarrow^{-1}\mathrel{\circ}\mathscr{R}(b)$ for a given state $b$. But this is correct only if $\mathscr{P}$ is already $\mathscr{R}$-block-stable. If this is not the case, its underlying partition should be split accordingly. We thus introduce the first condition which necessitates a split of the current equivalence relation $\mathscr{P}$ to approach the coarsest $\mathscr{R}$-block-stable equivalence relation. For this, we take advantage of the existence of $\RelCount_{(\mathscr{P},\mathscr{R})}$.
Let $\mathscr{P}$ be an equivalence relation included in a preorder $\mathscr{R}$, $E$ be a block of $\mathscr{P}$ and $B$ be a block of $\mathscr{R}$ such that $E\rightarrow B$ and $\RelCount_{(\mathscr{P},\mathscr{R})}(E,B)=0$. The transition $E\rightarrow
B$ is called a $(\mathscr{P},\mathscr{R})$-*splitter transition of type 1*.
The intuition is as follows. With a block $E$ of $\mathscr{P}$ and a block $B$ of $\mathscr{R}$, if $\mathscr{P}$ was $\mathscr{R}$-block-stable, with $E\rightarrow B$ and Lemma \[lem:partStability\] we would have had $E\,\subseteq\,\rightarrow^{-1}\mathrel\circ\mathscr{R}(B)$. But $\RelCount_{(\mathscr{P},\mathscr{R})}(E,B)=0$ denies this. So we have to split $P_\mathscr{P}$.
\[lem:split1\] Let $E\rightarrow B$ be a $(\mathscr{P},\mathscr{R})$-splitter transition of type 1. Let $P'=\Split(P_{\mathscr{P}},\rightarrow^{-1}\mathrel\circ\mathscr{R}(B))$. Then $\mathscr{P}_{P'}$ is strictly included in $\mathscr{P}$ and contains all $\mathscr{R}$-block-stable equivalence relations included in $\mathscr{P}$.
To prove the strict inclusion, let us show that $E$ is split. From $E\rightarrow B$ there is $e\in E$ such that $e\rightarrow B$ and thus $e\in
\rightarrow^{-1}\mathrel\circ\mathscr{R}(B)$ since $\mathscr{R}$ is reflexive. Furthermore, by definition, $\RelCount_{(\mathscr{P},\mathscr{R})}(E,B)=0$ means that $E.\Rep\not\in\rightarrow^{-1}\mathrel\circ\mathscr{R}(B)$. This implies that $e$ and $E.\Rep$ do not belong to the same block of $P'$. Thus, at least $E$ has been split. Now, let $\mathscr{P}''$ be a $\mathscr{R}$-block-stable equivalence relation included in $\mathscr{P}$. If $\mathscr{P}''$ is not included in $\mathscr{P}'$ there are two states, $h_1$ and $h_2$, from a block $H$ of $\mathscr{P}''$ such that $h_1\in
\rightarrow^{-1}\mathrel\circ\mathscr{R}(B)$ and $h_2\not\in
\rightarrow^{-1}\mathrel\circ\mathscr{R}(B)$. But, by definition, if $\mathscr{P}''$ is $\mathscr{R}$-block-stable, $h_1\in
\rightarrow^{-1}\mathrel\circ\mathscr{R}(B)$ implies $h_2\in
\rightarrow^{-1}\mathrel\circ\mathscr{R}(B)$ which leads to a contradiction. Therefore $\mathscr{P}''$ is included in $\mathscr{P}'$.
Saying that $\mathscr{P}_{P'}$ is strictly included in $\mathscr{P}$ means that at least one block of $\mathscr{P}$, here $E$, has been split to obtain $P'$.
\[lem:afterSplit1\] Let $\mathscr{P}$ be an equivalence relation included in a preorder $\mathscr{R}$ such that there is no $(\mathscr{P},\mathscr{R})$-splitter transition of type 1. Let $E$ be a block of $\mathscr{P}$ and $B$ be a block of $\mathscr{R}$ such that $E\rightarrow B$. Then, $E.\Rep\in\rightarrow_{\mathscr{R}}^{-1}\mathrel\circ\mathscr{R}(B)$.
Let $E\rightarrow B$ be a transition with $E$ and $B$ satisfying the hypotheses of the lemma. Since there is no $(\mathscr{P},\mathscr{R})$-splitter transition of type 1, $\RelCount_{(\mathscr{P},\mathscr{R})}(E,B)\neq 0$. Therefore, $E.\Rep\in
\rightarrow^{-1}\mathrel\circ\mathscr{R}(B)$ and thus $E.\Rep\in
\rightarrow_{\mathscr{R}}^{-1}\mathrel\circ\mathscr{R}(B)$ by Lemma \[lem:transInMaxoR\].
Now, for $E$ to be really a representative, we need the following implication: $E.\Rep\rightarrow B \Rightarrow E\,\subseteq\,
\rightarrow^{-1}\mathrel\circ\mathscr{R}(B)$. But to check this property effectively, taking advantage of the counters, we need a stronger property equivalent with the one, , defining block-stability.
\[lem:strongerBlockStability\] Let $\mathscr{P}$ be an equivalence relation included in a preorder $\mathscr{R}$. Then is equivalent with: $$\label{eq:strongerBlockStability}
\mathscr{P}\mathrel\circ\rightarrow_{\mathscr{R}}^{-1}\,\subseteq\,
\rightarrow^{-1}\mathrel\circ [\cdot]_{\mathscr{R}}$$
With Lemma \[lem:partStability\] it suffices to show the equivalence between and :
- $\Rightarrow$ . Let $(c',d)\in
\mathscr{P}\mathrel\circ\rightarrow_{\mathscr{R}}^{-1}$. There is a state $c$ such that $(c,d)\in\mathscr{P}$ and $c\rightarrow_{\mathscr{R}}c'$. With there is a state $d'$ such that $c'\,\mathscr{R}\,d'$ and $d\rightarrow d'$. With $(d,c)\in\mathscr{P}$, since $\mathscr{P}$ is symmetric, and again there is a state $c''$ such that $d'\,\mathscr{R}\,c''$ and $c\rightarrow c''$. But $c\rightarrow c'$ being a $\mathscr{R}$-maximal transition implies that $c''\in[c']_{\mathscr{R}}$. So we have $c''\,\mathscr{R}\,c'$, $c'\,\mathscr{R}\,d'$, $d'\,\mathscr{R}\,c''$ and thus $d'\in[c']_{\mathscr{R}}$. This means that $d\in \rightarrow^{-1}\mathrel\circ [\cdot]_{\mathscr{R}}(c')$ and thus $(c',d)\in \rightarrow^{-1}\mathrel\circ [\cdot]_{\mathscr{R}}$. Therefore $
\mathscr{P}\mathrel\circ\rightarrow_{\mathscr{R}}^{-1}\,\subseteq\,
\rightarrow^{-1}\mathrel\circ [\cdot]_{\mathscr{R}}$.
- $\Rightarrow$ . With Lemma \[lem:transInMaxoR\] we have $\mathscr{P}\mathrel\circ\rightarrow^{-1}\,\subseteq\,\mathscr{P}\mathrel\circ\rightarrow_{\mathscr{R}}^{-1}\mathrel\circ\mathscr{R}$. With we have $\mathscr{P}\mathrel\circ\rightarrow_{\mathscr{R}}^{-1}\mathrel\circ\mathscr{R}\,\subseteq\,
\rightarrow^{-1}\mathrel\circ
[\cdot]_{\mathscr{R}}\mathrel\circ\mathscr{R}$. But $\mathscr{R}$ being a preorder we have $[\cdot]_{\mathscr{R}}\mathrel\circ\mathscr{R}\,\subseteq\,\mathscr{R}$. With all of this: $\mathscr{P}\mathrel\circ\rightarrow_{\mathscr{R}}^{-1}\,\subseteq\,
\rightarrow^{-1}\mathrel\circ \mathscr{R}$.
\[def:split2\] Let $\mathscr{P}$ be an equivalence relation included in a preorder $\mathscr{R}$. Let $E$ be a block of $\mathscr{P}$ and $B$ be a block of $\mathscr{R}$ such that $E.\Rep\rightarrow B$, $\RelCount_{(\mathscr{P},\mathscr{R})}(E,B)= |\{[b]_{\mathscr{P}}\subseteq
B{\,\big|\,}E.\Rep\rightarrow b\}|$ and $E\nsubseteq\rightarrow^{-1}(B)$. The transition $E\rightarrow B$ is called a $(\mathscr{P},\mathscr{R})$-*splitter transition of type 2*.
The conditions in Definition \[def:split2\] are inspired from those used in [@Ran14] for its split step.
The intuition is as follows. If $E.\Rep\rightarrow B$ and the condition on the counter is true (all transitions from $E.\Rep$ that reach states greater, relatively to $\mathscr{R}$, than $B$ actually have their destination states in $B$), this means that the transition $E.\Rep\rightarrow B$ is maximal. With Lemma \[lem:strongerBlockStability\], if $\mathscr{P}$ is $\mathscr{R}$-block-stable this should imply $E\subseteq\rightarrow^{-1}(B)$. Since this is not the case, $\mathscr{P}$ must be split.
\[lem:split2\] Let $\mathscr{P}$ be an equivalence relation included in a preorder $\mathscr{R}$ such that there is no $(\mathscr{P},\mathscr{R})$-splitter transition of type 1 and let $E\rightarrow B$ be a splitter transition of type 2. Let $P'=\Split(P_{\mathscr{P}},E\cap\rightarrow^{-1}(B))$. Then $\mathscr{P}_{P'}$ is strictly included in $\mathscr{P}$ and contains all $\mathscr{R}$-block-stable equivalence relations included in $\mathscr{P}$.
![Proof of second statement of Lemma \[lem:split2\].[]{data-label="fig:proofSplit2"}](proofSplit2.pdf)
To prove the strict inclusion, let us show that $E$ is split. From $E\rightarrow B$ being a $(\mathscr{P},\mathscr{R})$-splitter transition of type 2 we have $|\{[b]_{\mathscr{P}}\subseteq B{\,\big|\,}E.\Rep\rightarrow
b\}|\neq 0$ and $E\nsubseteq\rightarrow^{-1}(B)$. The first property implies that $ E.\Rep\in {\rightarrow^{-1}(B)}$ and the second one implies the existence of a state $e\in E$ which does not belong to $\rightarrow^{-1}(B)$. Therefore $E$ has been split. The second statement is proved by contradiction. Let $\mathscr{P}''$ be a $\mathscr{R}$-block-stable equivalence relation included in $\mathscr{P}$. Consider [Figure ]{}\[fig:proofSplit2\]. If $\mathscr{P}''$ is not included in $\mathscr{P}'$ there are two states, $h_1$ and $h_2$, from a block $H$ of $\mathscr{P}''$ such that $h_1\in \rightarrow^{-1}(B)$ and $h_2\not\in \rightarrow^{-1}(B)$. With Lemma \[lem:transInMaxoR\] there is a block $G_1$ of $\mathscr{R}$ such that: $B\mathrel\mathscr{R}G_1$ and $h_1\rightarrow_{\mathscr{R}}G_1$. Since $\mathscr{P}''$ is $\mathscr{R}$-block-stable this implies $h_2\rightarrow G_1$. With Lemma \[lem:afterSplit1\] there is a block $G_2$ of $\mathscr{R}$ such that $E.\Rep\rightarrow_{\mathscr{R}} G_2$ and $G_1\mathrel\mathscr{R} G_2$. But the condition $\RelCount_{(\mathscr{P},\mathscr{R})}(E,B)=
|\{[b]_{\mathscr{P}}\subseteq B{\,\big|\,}E.\Rep\rightarrow b\}|$ implies that the transition from $E.\Rep$ to $B$ is maximal which implies that $G_2=B=G_1$. So we have $h_2\in \rightarrow^{-1}(B)$ which contradicts an above assumption. Therefore $\mathscr{P}''$ is included in $\mathscr{P}'$.
\[th:split1\_2\] Let $\mathscr{P}$ be an equivalence relation included in a preorder $\mathscr{R}$ such that there is no $(\mathscr{P},\mathscr{R})$-splitter transition of type 1 or $(\mathscr{P},\mathscr{R})$-splitter transition of type 2. Then $\mathscr{P}$ is $\mathscr{R}$-block-stable.
![Proof of Theorem \[th:split1\_2\].[]{data-label="fig:proofThSplit12partStable"}](proofThSplit12partStable.pdf)
Consider [Figure ]{}\[fig:proofThSplit12partStable\]. Let us consider a transition $E\rightarrow_{\mathscr{R}} B$ with $E$ a block of $\mathscr{P}$ and $B$ a block of $\mathscr{R}$. By definition there is a state $e\in E$ such that $e\rightarrow_{\mathscr{R}} B$ and by Lemma \[lem:afterSplit1\] there is a block $G$ such that $B\mathrel\mathscr{R} G$ and $E.\Rep\rightarrow_{\mathscr{R}} G$. From ${E.\Rep\rightarrow_{\mathscr{R}}
G}$ it is easy to show that $\RelCount_{(\mathscr{P},\mathscr{R})}(E,G)\neq
0$ and $\RelCount_{(\mathscr{P},\mathscr{R})}(E,G)=
|\{[g]_{\mathscr{P}}\subseteq G{\,\big|\,}E.\Rep\rightarrow g\}|$ since the transition $E.\Rep\rightarrow G$ is maximal. But since there is neither $(\mathscr{P},\mathscr{R})$-splitter transition of type 1 nor $(\mathscr{P},\mathscr{R})$-splitter transition of type 2 then $E\subseteq\rightarrow^{-1}(G)$ and thus $e\rightarrow G$. With $e\rightarrow_{\mathscr{R}} B$ and $B\mathrel\mathscr{R} G$ we necessarily get $B=G$ and thus $E\subseteq\rightarrow^{-1}(B)$. So we have $E\rightarrow_{\mathscr{R}} B$ implies $E\subseteq\rightarrow^{-1}(B)$. This is equivalent of saying that is true. With Lemma \[lem:strongerBlockStability\] this implies that $\mathscr{P}$ is $\mathscr{R}$-block-stable.
Therefore, in the algorithm, before a refine step on $\mathscr{R}$ using Theorem \[th:refinement\], we will start from the partition $P_{\mathscr{R}}$ and split it in conformity with Lemma \[lem:split1\] and Lemma \[lem:split2\]. By doing so, we will obtain the coarsest $\mathscr{R}$-block-stable equivalence relation.
The next proposition shows where to search splitter transitions: those who ends in blocks $B$ of $\mathscr{R}$ such that $\mathit{NotRel}(B)$ is not empty.
\[prop:notRel\] Let $\mathscr{U}$ be a preorder, $\mathscr{R}$ be a $\mathscr{U}$-stable preorder, $\mathscr{P}$ be an equivalence relation included in $\mathscr{R}$ and let $\mathit{NotRel}=\mathscr{U}\mathrel\setminus\mathscr{R}$. Then
1. If $E\rightarrow B$ is a $(\mathscr{P},\mathscr{R})$-splitter transition of type 1 then $\mathit{NotRel}(B)\neq \emptyset$.
2. Under the absence of $(\mathscr{P},\mathscr{R})$-splitter transition of type 1, if $E\rightarrow B$ is a $(\mathscr{P},\mathscr{R})$-splitter transition of type 2 then $\mathit{NotRel}(B)\neq \emptyset$.
![Proof of second item of Proposition \[prop:notRel\].[]{data-label="fig:notRel"}](notRel.pdf)
1. Let $E\rightarrow B$ be a $(\mathscr{P},\mathscr{R})$-splitter transition of type 1. By definition there is $e\in E$ such that $e\rightarrow B$. Since $E$ is a block of $\mathscr{P}$ we have $e\mathrel\mathscr{P} E.\Rep$ and thus $e\mathrel\mathscr{R} E.\Rep$. With the hypothesis that $\mathscr{R}$ is $\mathscr{U}$-stable we get $E.\Rep\in\rightarrow^{-1}\mathrel\circ\mathscr{U}(B)$. But the hypothesis that $E\rightarrow B$ is a $(\mathscr{P},\mathscr{R})$-splitter transition of type 1 implies $E.\Rep\not\in\rightarrow^{-1}\mathrel\circ\mathscr{R}(B)$. From these two last constraints on $E.\Rep$ we get $E.\Rep\in\rightarrow^{-1}\mathrel\circ(\mathscr{U}\mathrel\setminus\mathscr{R})(B)$ and thus $\mathit{NotRel}(B)\neq \emptyset$.
2. Consider [Figure ]{}\[fig:notRel\]. Let $E\rightarrow B$ be a $(\mathscr{P},\mathscr{R})$-splitter transition of type 2. By definition we get $E.\Rep\rightarrow_{\mathscr{R}}B$ and $E_2=E\mathrel\setminus(\rightarrow^{-1}(B))$ is not empty. Let $e\in E_2$, with a similar argument than the first item, we get $e\in\rightarrow^{-1}\mathrel\circ\mathscr{U}(B)$. By contradiction, let us assume $e\in\rightarrow^{-1}\mathrel\circ\mathscr{R}(B)$. There is $G_1$ a block of $\mathscr{R}$ such that $B\mathrel\mathscr{R} G_1$ and $e\rightarrow G_1$. From Lemma \[lem:afterSplit1\] there is $G_2$ a block of $\mathscr{R}$ such that $E.\Rep\rightarrow G_2$ and $G_1\mathrel\mathscr{R} G_2$, and thus $B\mathrel\mathscr{R} G_2$. Since the transition from $E.\Rep$ to $B$ is maximal this implies that $B=G_1=G_2$ which contradicts $e\not\in\rightarrow^{-1}(B)$. Therefore $e\not\in\rightarrow^{-1}\mathrel\circ\mathscr{R}(B)$. With $e\in\rightarrow^{-1}\mathrel\circ\mathscr{U}(B)$ we get $e\in\rightarrow^{-1}\mathrel\circ(\mathscr{U}\mathrel\setminus\mathscr{R})(B)$ and thus $\mathit{NotRel}(B)\neq \emptyset$.
We have now everything to propose an efficient algorithm.
Data Structures and Space Complexity {#sec:data-structures}
------------------------------------
Since the final partition $P_{\mathrm{sim}}$ is obtained after several splits of the initial partition $P_{\mathrm{init}}$ we have $|P|\leq
|P_{\mathrm{sim}}|$ with $P$ the current partition at a given step of the algorithm.
The current relation $\mathscr{R}$ is represented in the algorithm by a partition-relation pair $(P,Rel)$. The data structure used to represent a partition is traditionally a (possibly) doubly linked list of blocks, themselves represented by a doubly linked list of states. But in practice, each node of a list contains a reference, to the next node of the list. The size (typically 64 bits nowadays) of these references is static and does not depend on the size of the list. We therefore prefer the use of arrays because we can control the size of the slots and manipulate arrays is faster than manipulate lists. The idea, see [@VL08] and [@Cec13a] for more details, is to identify a state with its index in $Q$ and to distribute these indexes in an array, let us name it $T$, such that states belonging to the same block are in consecutive slots in $T$. A block could thus be represented by the indexes of its first and last elements in $T$, the two indexes defining a contiguous subarray. If a block is split, the two subblocks form two contiguous subarrays of that subarray. By playing with these arrays (other arrays are needed, like the one giving the position in $T$ of a state) we obtain a representation of a partition which allows splitting (some elements of a block are removed from their original block and form a new block) and scanning of a block in linear time.
However, as seen in the previous sections, we need two generations of blocks at the same time: the first one corresponds to blocks of $\mathscr{R}$ and the second one corresponds to blocks of the next generation, $\mathscr{V}$, of this preorder. Hence, we need an intermediate between blocks and their corresponding states: *nodes*. A node corresponds to a block or to an ancestor of a block in the family tree of the different generations of blocks issued from the split steps of the algorithm. To simplify the writing, we associate in the present paper, a node to the set of its corresponding states. As an example, consider a block $B$ which consists of the following three states $\{q_1,q_2,q_3\}$. In reality, we will associate $B$ to a node $N=\{q_1,q_2,q_3\}$. In this way, if $B$ is split in $B_1$ and $B_2$, corresponding respectively to $\{q_1,q_2\}$ and $\{q_3\}$, we create two new nodes $N_1=\{q_1,q_2\}$ and $N_2=\{q_3\}$ and we associate $B_1$ to $N_1$ and $B_2$ to $N_2$. By doing so, $N$ remains bounds to the set $\{q_1,q_2,q_3\}$. To represent a node we just need to keep in memory the index of its first element and the index of its last element in the array $T$ (see the previous paragraph). When a block which corresponds to a node is split, the corresponding states change their places in $T$ but keep in the same subarray. Let us note that when a block is split, it is necessarily in two parts. Therefore, the number of nodes is at most twice the number of blocks and the bit space needed to represent the partition and the nodes is in $O(|Q|.\log(|Q|))$ since there is less blocks than states.
To be more precise about the relations between states, blocks and nodes: at any time of the algorithm, the index of a state $q$ is associated to the index of its block $q.\Block$, the index of a block $E$ is associated to the index of its node $E.\Node$ and the index of a node is associated to the states it contains (via two indexes of the array $T$). A node which is not linked by a block is an ancestor of, at least two, blocks. By the data structure chosen to represent the partition it is easy to see that given a node $N$ we can scan in linear time the states it contains (this corresponds to the scan of a contiguous subarray) and the blocks it contains (by a similar process). The function $\ChooseBlock(N)$ which arbitrarily choose one block whose set of elements is included in those of $N$ is executed in constant time (we choose $e.\Block$, with $e$ the first element of $N$). Similarly, the function $\ChooseState{E}$ which returns a state of a block $E$, used to defined $E.\Rep$ a representative of $E$, is also executed in constant time (we choose the first element in $E.\Node$).
The relation $Rel$ is distributed on the blocks. To each block $C$ we associate an array of booleans, $C.\Rel$, such that $(C,D)\in Rel$, what we note $D\in C.\Rel$, iff the boolean at the index of the block $D$ in $C.\Rel$ is true. These arrays are resizable arrays whose capacities are doubled as needed. Therefore the classical operations on these arrays, like get and set, take constant amortized time. We use this type of array wherever necessary. The bit size needed to represent $Rel$ is therefore in $O(|P_{\mathrm{sim}}|^2)$.
The relation $\mathscr{U}$ that appears in the previous sections is not directly represented. We use instead the equality $\mathscr{U} = \mathscr{R}\cup \mathit{NotRel}$ and represent $\mathit{NotRel}$. Since $\mathscr{U}$ is a coarser preorder than $\mathscr{R}$, for a given node $B$ which represents a block of $\mathscr{R}$, the set $\mathit{NotRel}(B)$ is represented in the algorithm by $B.\NotRel$ a set of nodes (encoded by a resizable array of the indexes of the corresponding nodes) which represent blocks of $\mathscr{R}$. As explained earlier, we have to use nodes instead of blocks because nodes never change whereas blocks can be split afterwards. The bit space representation of $\mathit{NotRel}$ is thus in $O(|P_{\mathrm{sim}}|^2.\log(|P_{\mathrm{sim}}|))$. Remember, the number of nodes is linear in the maximal number of blocks: $|P_{\mathrm{sim}}|$.
In Section \[sec:splitter-transitions\] we introduced a counter, $\RelCount_{(\mathscr{P},\mathscr{R})}(E,B)$, for each pair made of a block $E$ of the current equivalence relation $\mathscr{P}$ represented in the algorithm by the current partition $P$, and a block $B$ of the current relation $\mathscr{R}$ represented in the algorithm by $(P,Rel)$. As seen in Proposition \[prop:RelCount\], for any subblock $B'\in P_{\mathscr{P}}$ of $B$ we have $\RelCount_{(\mathscr{P},\mathscr{R})}(E,B) =
\RelCount_{(\mathscr{P},\mathscr{R})}(E,B')$. Therefore, we can limit these counters to any pair of blocks of the current partition $P$ in the algorithm. Such a counter counts a number of blocks. This means that the total bit size of these counters is in $O(|P_{\mathrm{sim}}|^2.\log(|P_{\mathrm{sim}}|))$. In practice, we associate to each block $B'$ a resizable array, $B'.\RelCountAlgo$, of $|P|$ elements such that $B'.\RelCountAlgo(E)=\RelCount_{(\mathscr{P},\mathscr{R})}(E,B')$.
At several places in the algorithm we use a data structure to manage a set of indexed elements. This is the case for $Touched$, $Touched'$, $Marked$, $RefinerNodes$, $RefinerNodes'$, $PreB'$, $Remove$, $PreE$ and $PreE'$. Such a set is implemented by a resizable boolean array, to know in constant time whether a given element belongs to the set, and another resizable array to store the indexes of the elements which belongs to the set. This last array serves to scan in linear time the elements of the set or to emptied the set in linear time of the number of the elements in the set. So the operations, add an element in the set and test whether an element belongs to the set are done in constant time or amortized constant time. Also, scanning the elements of the set and emptying the set are executed in linear time of the size of the set. We use a finite number of these sets for states, blocks or nodes. The overall bit space used for them is therefore in $O(|Q|.\log(|Q|))$. The other variables used in the algorithm, some booleans and a counter, $E.\Count$, associated to each block $E$ in Function \[func:Split2\] are manipulated by constant time operations and need a bit space in $O(|Q|.\log(|Q|))$ since $|P|$ and the number of nodes are both in $O(|Q|)$. From all of this, we derive the following theorem.
The overall bit space used by the presented simulation algorithm is in [\
]{} $O(|P_{\mathrm{sim}}|^2.\log(|P_{\mathrm{sim}}|) + |Q|.\log(|Q|))$.
We assume one can iterate through the transition relation $\rightarrow$ in linear time of its size. From each state $q$ we also assume one can iterate through the set $\rightarrow^{-1}(q)$ in linear time of its size. It is a tradition in most articles dealing with simulation to not count the space used to represent the transition relation since it is considered as an input data. If it was to be counted it would cost $O(|\rightarrow|.\log(|Q|))$ bits.
Procedures and Time Complexity
------------------------------
In this section we analyze the different functions of the algorithm and give their overall time complexities. The reader should remember that, in the algorithm, a block is just an index and the set of states corresponding to a block $E\in P$ is $E.\Node$.
### Function \[func:Sim\] {#sec:Sim}
$RefinerNodes:=\emptyset$
$P:=$`[func:Init](Q,\rightarrow,P_{\mathrm{init}},R_{\mathrm{init}}, RefinerNodes)` $P_{\mathrm{sim}} := P$ ; $R_{\mathrm{sim}}:= \{(C,D)\in P\times P{\,\big|\,}D\in C.\Rel\}$
This is the main function of the algorithm. It takes as input a transition system $(Q,\rightarrow)$ and an initial preorder, $\mathscr{R}_{\mathrm{init}}$, represented by the partition-relation pair $(P_{\mathrm{init}},R_{\mathrm{init}})$. Let us define the two following relations:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:defRRel}
\mathscr{R}&\triangleq\bigcup_{\{(E,E')\in P^2{\,\big|\,}E'\in E.\Rel\}}E.\Node\times E'.\Node\\
\label{eq:defNotRelAlgo}
\mathit{NotRel}&\triangleq\bigcup_{B\;\in\; RefinerNodes} B\times (\cup B.\NotRel)\end{aligned}$$
Let $\mathscr{R}_0=Q\times Q$ and $\mathscr{R}_i$ (resp. $\mathit{NotRel}_i$) be the value of $\mathscr{R}$ (resp. $\mathit{NotRel}$) at the $i^{\text{th}}$ iteration of the while loop at line \[Sim:3\] of Function \[func:Sim\]. We will show (in the analysis of Function \[func:Init\] for the base case and procedures \[func:SimUpdateData\] and \[func:Refine\] for the inductive step) that, at this line \[Sim:3\], we maintain the five following properties at the $i^{\text{th}}$ iteration of the while loop: $$\label{eq:RelNotRelStability}
\mathscr{R}_{i}\text{ is } \mathscr{R}_{i-1}\text{-stable}$$ $$\label{eq:SimIncludedRecc}
\text{A simulation included in }\mathscr{R}_{i-1}\text{ is included in }\mathscr{R}_{i}$$
$$\label{eq:RiDecomposition}
\mathit{NotRel}_{i}=\mathscr{R}_{i-1}\mathrel\setminus\mathscr{R}_{i} \text{ and thus }
\mathscr{R}_{i-1} = \mathscr{R}_{i} \cup \mathit{NotRel}_{i}$$
$$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:RefinerNodes}
\hfill\text{$RefinerNodes$ is the set of nodes $B$ corresponding to}\hfill \\
\hfill \text{blocks of $\mathscr{R}_i$ such that $B.\NotRel\neq\emptyset$}\hfill\end{gathered}$$
$$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:SplitUpdateData}
\hfill \forall E,B'\in P\;.\; B'.\RelCountAlgo{E} =
|\{E'\in P{\,\big|\,}E.\Rep\rightarrow {} E'.\Node \wedge
B'.\Node\times E'.\Node \subseteq \mathrel{\mathscr{R}_{i-1}} \}|\hfill\end{gathered}$$
From , and thus $\mathscr{R}_{i}\subseteq\mathscr{R}_{i-1}$, , and the condition of the while loop we get that $(\mathscr{R}_i)_{i\geq 0}$ is a strictly decreasing sequence of relations. Since the underlying set of states is finite, this sequence reaches a limit in a finite number of iterations. Furthermore, if this limit is reached at the $k^{\text{th}}$ iteration, then, from and the condition of the while loop, we have $\mathit{NotRel}_{k+1}=\emptyset$ and from and we obtain that $\mathscr{R}_{k}=\mathscr{R}_{k+1}$ and $\mathscr{R}_{k+1}$ is $\mathscr{R}_{k}$-stable. Which means that $\mathscr{R}_{k}$ is a simulation. From and the fact, to be shown in the analysis of function Init, that all simulation included in $\mathscr{R}_{\mathrm{init}}$ is also included in $\mathscr{R}_{1}$, we deduce that $\mathscr{R}_{k}$ contains all simulation included in $\mathscr{R}_{\mathrm{init}}$. Therefore, Function \[func:Sim\] returns a partition-relation pair that corresponds to $\mathscr{R}_{\mathrm{sim}}$, the coarsest simulation included in $\mathscr{R}_{\mathrm{init}}$. The fact that $(\mathscr{R}_i)_{i\geq 0}$ is a strictly decreasing sequence of relations and imply the following lemma that will be used as a key argument to analyze the time complexity of the algorithm.
\[lem:InOnlyOne\] Two states, and thus two blocks or two nodes, are related by $\mathit{NotRel}$ in at most one iteration of the while loop in function \[func:Sim\].
### Procedure \[func:SimUpdateData\] {#sec:SimUpdateData}
$PreE' := \emptyset$
Assuming is true, the role of this procedure is to render the following formula true after line \[Sim:4\] of Function \[func:Sim\] during the $i^{\text{th}}$ iteration of the while loop. In this way, the counters are made consistent with : $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:SplitUpdateData_i}
{\hfill} \forall E,B'\in P\;.\; B'.\RelCountAlgo{E} =
|\{E'\in P{\,\big|\,}E.\Rep\rightarrow {} E'.\Node\wedge
B'.\Node\times E'.\Node\subseteq\mathrel{\mathscr{R}_i} \}| {\hfill}\end{gathered}$$
From , , and we just have, for each node $B$ in $RefinerNodes$, to scan the blocks in $\cup B.\NotRel$ in order to identify their predecessor blocks. The corresponding counters are then decreased. The lines which are the most executed are those in the loop starting at line \[SimUpdateData:5\]. They are executed once for each pair of $(e\rightarrow e',B)$ with $e'\in \cup B.\NotRel$. But from Lemma \[lem:InOnlyOne\] such a pair can be considered only once during the life time of the algorithm and thus the overall time complexity of this procedure is in $O(|P_{\mathrm{sim}}|.|\rightarrow|)$.
### Procedure \[func:Split\] {#sec:Split}
$Touched := \emptyset$
$Touched := \emptyset$
This procedure corresponds to Definition \[def:split\]. The differences are that Procedure \[func:Split\] transforms the current partition (it is not a function) and each time a block is split, Procedure \[func:SplitUpdateData\] is called to update the data structures (mainly and ). Apart from the call of \[func:SplitUpdateData\], which we discuss right after, it is known that, with a correct implementation found in most articles from the bibliography of the present paper, a call of \[func:Split\] is done in $O(|Marked|)$-time. Therefore, we only give a high level presentation of the procedure.
### Procedure \[func:SplitUpdateData\] {#sec:func:SplitUpdateData}
$D.\Count := 0$ $D.\Rel := \Copy{C.\Rel}$
$D.\Rep := C.\Rep$ $D.\RelCountAlgo := \Copy{C.\RelCountAlgo}$
$Touched := \emptyset$ ; $Touched' := \emptyset$
$Touched := \emptyset$ ; $Touched' :=
\emptyset$
$X.\Rep := \ChooseState{X}$
[ ]{} $Touched := \emptyset$ $C.\Node.\NotRel:=\emptyset$ ; $C.\Node.\NotRel':=\emptyset$ $D.\Node.\NotRel:=\emptyset$ ; $D.\Node.\NotRel':=\emptyset$
The purpose of this procedure is to maintain the data structures coherent after a split of a block $C$ in two subblocks, the new $C$ and a new $D$. Since this procedure only modifies the $\Rel$’s and $\NotRel$’s, we will only look at and .
The ’s are updated at lines \[SplitUpdateData:2\] and \[SplitUpdateData:3\]. Let $\mathscr{R}'$ be the value of $\mathscr{R}$ before the split, let $\mathscr{R}''$ be its value after the split and let $N$ be the node associated with the block $C$ before it was split. Before the split, we have $N=C.\Node$ and after the split we have $N=C.\Node\cup D.\Node$. With line \[SplitUpdateData:2\], we have, for each block $E\in P$, the equivalence $
N\times E.\Node \subseteq \mathscr{R}'\Leftrightarrow (C.\Node\cup
D.\Node)\times E.\Node\subseteq \mathscr{R}''$ and with line \[SplitUpdateData:3\] we have the equivalence $E.\Node\times N\subseteq
\mathscr{R}'\Leftrightarrow E.\Node\times (C.\Node\cup D.\Node)\subseteq
\mathscr{R}''$. And thus $\mathscr{R}$ has not changed since the other products $E.\Node\times E'.\Node$ in its definition have not changed. For one call of \[func:SplitUpdateData\] these two lines are executed in $O(|P|)$-time. Since \[func:SplitUpdateData\] is called only when a block is split and since there is, at the end, at most $|P_{\mathrm{sim}}|$ blocks. The overall time complexity of these two lines is in $O(|P_{\mathrm{sim}}|^2)$.
The ’s are updated in the other lines of the procedure. In , the split can involve three blocks: $B'$, $E$ or $E'$. Let us remember that $\mathscr{R}$ is not changed during this procedure.
Line \[SplitUpdateData:5\] treats the case where the split block is a $B'$. Since $\mathscr{R}$ is a preorder, after lines \[SplitUpdateData:2\] and \[SplitUpdateData:3\], we have $C\in D.\Rel$ and $D\in C.\Rel$. It is therefore normal that for any $E\in P$ we have $D.\RelCountAlgo{E} = C.\RelCountAlgo{E}$ since $\mathscr{R}$ is a preorder. The overall time complexity of line \[SplitUpdateData:5\] is thus in $O(|P_{\mathrm{sim}}|^2)$.
If in the split block is $E$, the test at line \[SplitUpdateData:6\] determines the block $X$ among the new $C$ and $D$ that did not inherit $E.\Rep$ (which is $C.\Rep$ at this line since $C$ keeps the identity of the parent block, the old $C$ and thus $E$). This means that we will have to initialise $B'.\RelCountAlgo{X}$ for all $B'\in P$. This is done after at lines \[SplitUpdateData:21\] to \[SplitUpdateData:27\]. For now, if $D$ has inherited $E.\Rep$ we do $B'.\RelCountAlgo{D} :=
B'.\RelCountAlgo{E}$ for all $B'\in P$. Remember, at this stage, we have $B'.\RelCountAlgo{E} =
B'.\RelCountAlgo{C}$.
Lines \[SplitUpdateData:12\] to \[SplitUpdateData:20\] treat the case where the split block is $E'$. We thus have $E'.\Node=C.\Node\cup D.\Node$. There is three alternatives for a given block $E$: either $E.\Node\rightarrow C.\Node$, or $E.\Node\rightarrow D.\Node$, or both. For the two first alternatives $B'.\RelCountAlgo{E}$ does not change. But for the third one, we have to increment this count by one. Apart for lines \[SplitUpdateData:17\] to \[SplitUpdateData:19\] the overall time complexity of these lines is in $O(|P_{\mathrm{sim}}|.|\rightarrow|)$. Remember, \[func:SplitUpdateData\] is called only when a block is split and this occurs at most $|P_{\mathrm{sim}}|$ times. To correctly analyze the time complexity of lines \[SplitUpdateData:17\] to \[SplitUpdateData:19\], for a state $e$ let us first define $\rightarrow(e)_P\triangleq\{E'\in P{\,\big|\,}e\rightarrow
E'\}$. This set $\rightarrow(e)_P$ is a partition of $\rightarrow(e)$, the set of the successors of $e$. Then, each time a state $e$ is involved at line \[SplitUpdateData:16\] this means that a block $E'$ in $\rightarrow(e)_P$ has been split in $C$ and in $D$. For a given state $e$ there can be at most $|\rightarrow(e)|$ splits of $\rightarrow(e)_P$. Hence, the sum of the sizes of $Touched'$ for all executions of \[func:SplitUpdateData\] is in $O(|\rightarrow|)$. Furthermore, for one execution of this procedure, the time complexity of lines \[SplitUpdateData:18\]–\[SplitUpdateData:19\] is in $O(|P_{\mathrm{sim}}|)$. Therefore, the overall time complexity of lines \[SplitUpdateData:17\] to \[SplitUpdateData:19\] is in $O(|P_{\mathrm{sim}}|.|\rightarrow|)$.
Lines \[SplitUpdateData:21\] to \[SplitUpdateData:28\] treat the case where the split block is $E$. The block $E$ has been split in $C$ and $D$. One of them contains $E.rep$. It is therefore not necessary to recompute the counters associated with it (although these counters have been possibly updated at lines \[SplitUpdateData:12\] to \[SplitUpdateData:20\]). The variable $X$ represents the block, $C$ or $D$, which has not inherited $E.\Rep$. Therefore, we have to initialize the counters associated with it. Note that lines \[SplitUpdateData:21\] to \[SplitUpdateData:28\] are executed at most once for each block. Therefore, apart from the nested loops at lines \[SplitUpdateData:25\]–\[SplitUpdateData:27\], the overall time complexity of them is in $O(|P_{\mathrm{sim}}|.|\rightarrow|)$. For the nested loops, we have to observe that the size of $Touched$ is less than the number of outgoing transitions from $X.\Rep$ and those transitions are considered only once during the execution of the algorithm. Therefore the overall time complexity of the nested loops is also in $O(|P_{\mathrm{sim}}|.|\rightarrow|)$.
All of this implies that the overall time complexity of Procedure \[func:SplitUpdateData\] is in $O(|P_{\mathrm{sim}}|.|\rightarrow|)$.
### Function \[func:Init\] {#sec:Init}
$P := \Copy(P_{\mathrm{init}})$
$Marked := \emptyset$ ; $Touched := \emptyset$
`[func:Split](P,Marked)`
$Marked := \emptyset$ ; $Touched := \emptyset$
$PreE' := \emptyset$
This function initializes the data structures and transforms the initial preorder such that we start from a preorder stable with the total relation $\mathscr{R}_0=Q\times Q$. The first lines require no special comment except that the $\Rel$ array for each block $E$ is initialized according to . The time complexity of these lines \[Init:1\]–\[Init:5\] is in $O(|P_{\mathrm{sim}}|^2)$.
Lines \[Init:6\]–\[Init:13\] transform the initial preorder according to Proposition \[prop:InitRefine\]. Note that the call of Function \[func:Split\] at line \[Init:8\] has the side effect to transform the counters before their initialization. This is not a problem since this does not change the overall time complexity and the real initialization of the counters is done after, at lines \[Init:19\]–\[Init:26\]. Just after line \[Init:13\], with Proposition \[prop:InitRefine\], the invariants is true for $i=1$ and each simulation included in the preorder represented by the partition-relation pair $(P_{\mathrm{init}},R_{\mathrm{init}})$ is included in $\mathscr{R}_1$. Apart from the inner call of Procedure \[func:SplitUpdateData\], whose we know the overall time complexity, $O(|P_{\mathrm{sim}}|.|\rightarrow|)$, the time complexity of these lines is in $O(|\rightarrow| + |P_{\mathrm{sim}}|^2)$.
The loop starting at line \[Init:14\] initializes the ’s according to such that is also true for $i=1$. The set $RefinerNodes$ is also initialized according to for $i=1$. The time complexity of this loop is in $O(|P_{\mathrm{sim}}|^2)$.
Lines \[Init:19\]–\[Init:26\] initialize the counters such that for all $E,B'\in P$ we have: $$B'.\RelCountAlgo{E} = |\{E'\in P{\,\big|\,}E.\Rep\rightarrow
E'.\Node\}|$$ The invariant is thus true for $i=1$ since $B'.\Node\times E'.\Node \subseteq \mathscr{R}_0$ is always true, with $\mathscr{R}_0=Q\times Q$. The time complexity of the loop at line \[Init:19\] is in $O(|P_{\mathrm{sim}}|^2)$. The time complexity of the loop at line \[Init:22\] is in $O(|P_{\mathrm{sim}}|.|\rightarrow|)$. An iteration of the loop at line \[Init:24\] corresponds to a meta-transition $E.\Node \rightarrow E'.\Node$ and a block $B'\in P$. Its time complexity is therefore in $O(|P_{\mathrm{sim}}|.|\rightarrow|)$.
### Procedure \[func:Split1\] {#sec:Split1}
$Marked := \emptyset$ ; atLeastOneSplit :=
The purpose of this procedure is to apply Lemma \[lem:split1\] to split the current partition $P$ until there is no $(\mathscr{P},\mathscr{R})$-splitter transition of type 1, with $\mathscr{P}=\mathscr{P}_P$ and $\mathscr{R}$ defined by . This is done such that the coarsest $\mathscr{R}$-block-stable equivalence relation included in $\mathscr{P}_P$ before the execution of \[func:Split1\] is still included in $\mathscr{P}_P$ after its execution. Proposition \[prop:notRel\] guarantees that all splitter transitions of type 1 have been treated since we assume . Note that at line \[Split1:3\], $B$ is a node, a set of states, which corresponds to a block of the relation $\mathscr{R}$. As explained in section \[sec:data-structures\], the counters are defined between two blocks of the current partition $P$. We thus need to choose one of this block included in $B$ to represent $B$ since we have Proposition \[prop:RelCount\].
A transition $e\rightarrow e'$ with $e'\in B$ at line \[Split1:4\] is considered only if there is a block in $\cup B.\NotRel$. From Lemma \[lem:InOnlyOne\] this can happen only $|P_{\mathrm{sim}}|$ times. Therefore, the overall time complexity of the loop at line \[Split1:4\] is in $O(|P_{\mathrm{sim}}|.|\rightarrow|)$. From Lemma \[lem:split1\], lines \[Split1:8\]–\[Split1:11\] are executed only when at least one block is split. Therefore, their overall time complexity is in $O(|P_{\mathrm{sim}}|.|\rightarrow|)$.
### Procedure \[func:Split2\] {#sec:Split2}
$PreB' := \emptyset$ ; $Touched := \emptyset$ ; $Touched' := \emptyset$ ; $Marked := \emptyset$
This procedure is applied after \[func:Split1\]. We can therefore assume that there is no more $(\mathscr{P},\mathscr{R})$-splitter transition of type 1, with $\mathscr{P}$ and $\mathscr{R}$ defined in the analysis of Split1. The aim of this procedure is to implement Lemma \[lem:split2\]. It works as follows. For a given node $B$ which corresponds to a block of $\mathscr{R}$ such that $B.\NotRel\neq\emptyset$ we scan the blocks $B'$ of $P$ which are included in $B$. For each of those $B'$ we scan, loop at line \[Split2:4\], the incoming transitions from representatives states of blocks $E$. For each of these blocks we increment $E.\Count$, loop at line \[Split2:8\]. Therefore, at the end of the loop at line \[Split2:3\], for each block $E\in P$ such that $E\rightarrow
B$, we have $E.\Count = |\{[b]_{\mathscr{P}}\subseteq B{\,\big|\,}E.\Rep\rightarrow b\}|$. This allows us to identify, loop at line \[Split2:13\], the blocks that may be split according to Lemma \[lem:split2\]. The split is done thanks to lines\[Split2:17\]–\[Split2:19\]. For reasons similar to those for Procedure \[func:Split1\], we have: the overall time complexity of Procedure \[func:Split2\] is in $O(|P_{\mathrm{sim}}|.{|\rightarrow|})$.
### Procedure \[func:Refine\] {#sec:Refine}
$Remove := \emptyset$ ; $RefinerNodes':=\emptyset$
$RefinerNodes:=\emptyset$ $\Swap(RefinerNodes, RefinerNodes')$
Procedures \[func:Split1\] and \[func:Split2\] possibly change the current partition $P$, but not $\mathscr{R}$, and preserve , , , , and . Thanks to Lemma \[lem:split1\] and Lemma \[lem:split2\] all $\mathscr{R}$-block-stable equivalence relation presents in $\mathscr{P}_P$ before the execution of \[func:Split1\] and \[func:Split2\] are still presents after. Furthermore, with Theorem \[th:split1\_2\], we know that $\mathscr{P}_P$, after the execution of \[func:Split2\], is $\mathscr{R}$-block-stable. From all of this, before the execution of \[func:Refine\], $\mathscr{P}_P$ is the coarsest $\mathscr{R}$-block-stable equivalence relation. The conditions are thus met to apply Theorem \[th:refinement\] to do a refine step of the algorithm. Note that, thanks to and Proposition \[prop:RelCount\], we have the equivalence: $d\not\in \rightarrow^{-1}\mathrel\circ\mathscr{R}(B)
\Leftrightarrow B'.\RelCountAlgo{D} = 0$ at line \[Refine:6\]. At the end of the while loop at line \[Refine:2\], the relation $\mathscr{R}$ has been refined by $\mathit{NotRel}'$. In lines \[Refine:15\]–\[Refine:18\] $\mathit{NotRel}$ is set to $\mathit{NotRel}'$ and $RefinerNodes$ is set to $RefinerNodes'$ to prepare the next iteration of the while loop in Procedure \[func:Sim\]. By construction, see the loop starting at line \[Refine:10\], and are set for the next iteration of the while loop in \[func:Sim\]. In a similar way, the ’s are not modified by \[func:Refine\], is thus still true and will be true for the next iteration of the while loop in \[func:Sim\]. Thanks to Theorem \[th:refinement\], and are also preserved.
From Lemma \[lem:InOnlyOne\], a node $B$ and a transition $d\rightarrow d'$ with $d'\in \cup B.\NotRel$ are considered at most once during the execution of the algorithm. Therefore, the overall time complexity of the loop at line \[Refine:4\] is in $O(|P_{\mathrm{sim}}|.|\rightarrow|)$. Let us now consider a block $D$ in $Remove$ and a transition $c\rightarrow b$ with $b\in B$. By contradiction, let us suppose this pair $(D,c\rightarrow b)$ can happen twice, at iteration $i$ and at iteration $j$ of the while loop of Function \[func:Sim\], with $i<j$. From and line \[Refine:4\] we have for $k=i$ and $k=j$: $ D\rightarrow \mathscr{R}_{k-1}(b)$ and $D\not\rightarrow \mathscr{R}_{k}(b)$. But this is not possible since $(\mathscr{R}_i)_{i\geq 0}$ is a strictly decreasing sequence of relations. This means that the overall time complexity of the loop at line \[Refine:8\] is also in $O(|P_{\mathrm{sim}}|.|\rightarrow|)$. The other lines have a lower overall time complexity. From all of this, the overall time complexity of this procedure is in $O(|P_{\mathrm{sim}}|.|\rightarrow|)$.
### Time Complexity of the Algorithm
From the analysis of the functions and procedures of the algorithm, we derive the following theorem.
The time complexity of the presented simulation algorithm is in $O(|P_{\mathrm{sim}}|.|\rightarrow|)$.
Improvements and Future Work {#sec:future}
============================
With the new notions of maximal transition, stable preorder, block-stable equivalence relation and representative state, we have introduced new foundations that we will use to design some efficient simulation algorithms. This formalism has been illustrated with the presentation of the most efficient in memory of the fastest simulation algorithms of the moment.
It is possible to increase in practice the time efficiency of procedures \[func:SplitUpdateData\], \[func:Split1\] and \[func:Split2\] if we allow the use of both $\rightarrow$ and $\rightarrow^{-1}$ (or if we calculate one from the other, which requires an additional bit space in $O({|\rightarrow|.}\log(|Q|))$ to store the result). Procedures \[func:SplitUpdateData\] and \[func:SimUpdateData\] can be further improved in practice, but this changes $O(|P_{\mathrm{sim}}|^2.\log(|P_{\mathrm{sim}}|))$ to $O(|P_{\mathrm{sim}}|^2.\log(|Q|))$, which is not really noticeable in practice, in the bit space complexity, if we count states instead of blocks in , and .
Simulation algorithms are generally extended for labeled transition systems (LTS) by embedding them in normal transition systems. This is what is proposed in [@RT10; @GPP03] and [@GPP15] for example. By doing this, the size of the alphabet is introduced in both time and space complexities. Even in [@ABHKV08a], where a more specific algorithm is proposed for LTS, the size of the alphabet still matter. In [@Cec13a] we proposed three extensions of [@RT10] for LTS with significant reduction of the incidence of the size of the alphabet. We will therefore propose the same extensions but from the foundations given in the present paper. Note that the bit space complexity of the algorithm presented here is in fact in $\Theta(|P_{\mathrm{sim}}|^2.\log(|P_{\mathrm{sim}}|) + |Q|.\log(|Q|))$. It is therefore interesting to propose other algorithms with better compromises between time and space complexities. We will therefore compare in practice different propositions.
Then, we will have all the prerequisites to address a more challenging problem that we open here: the existence of a simulation algorithm with a time complexity in $O(|\rightarrow|.\log(|Q|) +
|P_{\mathrm{sim}}|.|{\rightarrow_{\mathrm{sim}}}|)$, with $\rightarrow_{\mathrm{sim}}$ the relation over $P_{\mathrm{sim}}$ induced by $\rightarrow$, and a bit space complexity in $O(|P_{\mathrm{sim}}|^2.\log(|P_{\mathrm{sim}}|)
+{|\rightarrow|.}\log(|Q|))$. What is surprising is that the biggest challenge is not the part in $O(|P_{\mathrm{sim}}|.|{\rightarrow_{\mathrm{sim}}}|)$ but the part in $O(|\rightarrow|.\log(|Q|))$ in the time complexity. Such an algorithm will lead to an even greater improvement from the algorithm of the present paper than that of the passage from HHK to RT since there are, in general, many more transitions than states in a transition system.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
I thank the anonymous reviewers[ of the paper to LICS’17]{}. Their questions and suggestions have helped to improve the presentation of the paper. I am also grateful to Philippe Canalda for his helpful advice.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Empirical studies indicate the presence of multi-scales in the volatility of underlying assets: a fast-scale on the order of days and a slow-scale on the order of months. In our previous works, we have studied the portfolio optimization problem in a Markovian setting under each single scale, the slow one in \[Fouque and Hu, SIAM J. Control Optim., 55 (2017), 1990-2023\], and the fast one in \[Hu, Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE CDC, 5771-5776, 2018\]. This paper is dedicated to the analysis when the two scales coexist in a Markovian setting. We study the terminal wealth utility maximization problem when the volatility is driven by both fast- and slow-scale factors. We first propose a zeroth-order strategy, and rigorously establish the first order approximation of the associated problem value. This is done by analyzing the corresponding linear partial differential equation (PDE) via regular and singular perturbation techniques, as in the single-scale cases. Then, we show the asymptotic optimality of our proposed strategy by comparing its performance to admissible strategies of a specific form. Interestingly, we highlight that a pure PDE approach does not work in the multi-scale case and, instead, we use the so-called epsilon-martingale decomposition. This completes the analysis of portfolio optimization in both fast mean-reverting and slowly-varying Markovian stochastic environments.'
author:
- 'Jean-Pierre Fouque[^1]'
- 'Ruimeng Hu[^2]'
bibliography:
- 'Reference.bib'
title: Multiscale Asymptotic Analysis for Portfolio Optimization under Stochastic Environment
---
**Keywords:** Optimal portfolio, multiscale stochastic volatility, asymptotic optimality, epsilon-martingale decomposition, regular and singular perturbations
Introduction {#sec_intro}
============
A classical problem in mathematical finance is the utility maximization of consumption and/or terminal wealth for an investor. This was first studied by Mossin [@Mo:68] and Samuelson [@Sa:69] in the discrete-time framework, and by Merton [@Me:69; @Me:71] in the continuous-time case. In Merton’s seminal work, the underlying assets follow the Black-Scholes (BS) model, that is, the return and volatility are constants, and the utility is of certain type, for instance, the Constant Relative Risk Aversion utility function. Explicit solutions are provided on how to invest and/or consume. Later, this problem has been studied extensively in various settings and levels of generality, for example, to allow transaction costs [@MaCo:76; @GuMu:13], drawdown constraints [@GrZh:93; @CvKa:95; @ElTo:08], to consider price impact [@CuCv:98], and to extend the BS model to stochastic volatility [@Za:99; @ChVi:05; @FoSiZa:13; @LoSi:16].
This paper generalizes Merton’s work in two directions. Firstly, observing time-varying risk aversion in individual asset allocation [@BrNa:08], we consider *general utility functions*. Secondly, in the direct of asset modeling, we use a multiscale stochastic volatility model, in line with the existence a fast-time scale in stock price volatility on the order of days as well as a slow-scale on the order of months in the financial markets [@FoPaSiSo:11]. In this context, asymptotic analysis has been developed over decades to option pricing problems, where singular and regular perturbation methods are applied to derive efficient approximations; here, we present new results for the nonlinear Merton problem with general utility functions on ${\mathbb{R}}^+$.
Following the modeling in [@FoPaSiSo:11], the Markovian dynamics of the asset price and stochastic factors read: $$\begin{aligned}
&{\,\mathrm{d}}S_t = \mu(Y_t,Z_t)S_t {\,\mathrm{d}}t + \sigma(Y_t,Z_t)S_t{\,\mathrm{d}}W_t,\\
&{\,\mathrm{d}}Y_t = \frac{1}{{\epsilon}}b(Y_t){\,\mathrm{d}}t + \frac{1}{\sqrt{{\epsilon}}}a(Y_t){\,\mathrm{d}}W_t^Y,\\
&{\,\mathrm{d}}Z_t = \delta c(Z_t){\,\mathrm{d}}t + \sqrt\delta g(Z_t){\,\mathrm{d}}W_t^Z,
\end{aligned}$$ where the asset return $\mu$ and volatility $\sigma$ are functions of the two factors: the fast-scale factor $Y_t$ and the slow-scale one $Z_t$. The two parameters $({\epsilon},\delta) \ll 1$ are small to capture the two scales, $(W_t, W^Y_t, W_t^Z)$ are correlated Brownian motions. Detailed discussion about this modeling is presented in Section \[sec\_PDE\_multi\].
Fixing a time horizon $T$, we are interested in the terminal utility maximization problem: $$\label{def_object}
\sup_\pi {\mathbb{E}}[U(X_T^\pi)],$$ where the general utility $U(\cdot)$ satisfies Assumption \[assump\_U\], and $X_t^\pi$ is the investor’s wealth at time $t$, consisting of two parts: the money invested in the risky asset $S_t$, denoted by $\pi$, and the remaining part $X_t^\pi - \pi$ put into the money market earning the risk-free interest rate. Restricting $\pi$ to self-financing strategies (no exogenous deposit or withdrawal of money after time 0), and assume $r = 0$ for simplicity, $X_t^\pi$ follows: $$\label{def_Xt}
{\,\mathrm{d}}X_t^\pi = \pi_t\mu(Y_t,Z_t){\,\mathrm{d}}t + \pi_t\sigma(Y_t,Z_t) {\,\mathrm{d}}W_t.$$
Focusing on the feedback strategies, that is, let $\pi_t = \pi(t, X_t^\pi, Y_t, Z_t)$, this problem can be tackled using the method of dynamic programming. The main idea is to embed our original problem into a much larger class of problems with different starting time $t$, initial wealth $x$ and initial levels of both factors $(y,z)$, and then to connect all these problems together with a PDE known as the Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman (HJB) equation. For that purpose, we define the value function as $$\label{def_Vf}
{V^{{\epsilon},\delta}}(t,x,y,z) = \sup_{\pi \in {\mathcal{A}}^{{\epsilon}, \delta}} {\mathbb{E}}\left[U(X_T^\pi)\vert X_t^\pi = x, Y_t = y, Z_t = z\right],$$ with ${\mathcal{A}}^{{\epsilon}, \delta}$ collecting all feedback admissible controls: $$\label{def_MCA}
{\mathcal{A}}^{{\epsilon}, \delta} = \{\pi: \pi_t \equiv \pi(t, X_t^\pi, Y_t, Z_t), X_s^\pi \geq 0, \;\forall s \geq t, \text{ given } (X_t^\pi, Y_t, Z_t) = (x, y, z)\}.$$ The superscripts ${\epsilon}, \delta$ emphasize the dependence on the two small parameters introduced through $Y_t$ and $Z_t$.
In general, depending on assumptions, ${V^{{\epsilon},\delta}}$ is characterized as a classical or viscosity solution to the HJB equation , for which closed-form solutions are rarely available. In [@FoSiZa:13], assuming the existence of classical solutions, a formal first order expansion is derived via singular and regular perturbation techniques: $$\label{eq_Vfexpansion}
{V^{{\epsilon},\delta}}= {v^{(0)}}+ \sqrt{{\epsilon}}{v^{(1,0)}}+ \sqrt{\delta}{v^{(0,1)}}+ {\epsilon}{v^{(2,0)}}+ \delta {v^{(0,2)}}+ \sqrt{{\epsilon}\delta}{v^{(1,1)}}+ \cdots.$$ Formulations of ${v^{(0)}}$, ${v^{(1,0)}}$ and ${v^{(0,1)}}$ will be presented in Section \[p2\_sec\_multiheuristic\]. Note that the above expansion is not rigorous even in the canonical power utility case, as the distortion transformation [@Za:99] which linearizes the problem is not available with more than one stochastic volatility factor. Nevertheless, they conjecture [@FoSiZa:13 Section 4.2] that a zeroth order strategy, defined based on the leading order term ${v^{(0)}}$ in : $${{\pi^{(0)}}}= -\frac{\lambda(y,z)}{\sigma(y,z)}\frac{{v^{(0)}}_x(t,x,z)}{{v^{(0)}}_{xx}(t,x,z)},$$ can reproduce ${V^{{\epsilon},\delta}}$ up to the first order correction, that is, the value function associated to ${{\pi^{(0)}}}$ takes the form ${v^{(0)}}+ \sqrt{{\epsilon}}{v^{(1,0)}}+ \sqrt{\delta}{v^{(0,1)}}+ o(\sqrt{{\epsilon}} + \sqrt{\delta})$.
[**Main results.**]{} The goal of this paper is twofold: Firstly, we rigorize the above assertion of ${{\pi^{(0)}}}$. To this end, we analyze the linear PDE satisfied by the problem value associated to ${{\pi^{(0)}}}$: $${V^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},{\epsilon},\delta}}:= {\mathbb{E}}\left\{U(X_T^{{\pi^{(0)}}})\Big\vert X_t^{{\pi^{(0)}}}= x, Y_t = y, Z_t = z\right\},$$ where $X_t^{{\pi^{(0)}}}$ is given in with $\pi = {{\pi^{(0)}}}$. A rigorous first order approximation is obtained for ${V^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},{\epsilon},\delta}}$, which coincides with ${v^{(0)}}+ \sqrt{{\epsilon}}{v^{(1,0)}}+ \sqrt{\delta}{v^{(0,1)}}$. This leads to our first result.
\[p2\_Thm\_full\] Let ${v^{(0)}}$, ${v^{(1,0)}}$ and ${v^{(0,1)}}$ be the coefficient functions from the heuristic expansion of ${V^{{\epsilon},\delta}}$ in , identified in Section \[p2\_sec\_multiheuristic\]. Under Assumptions \[assump\_U\] and \[p2\_assump\_valuefuncadd\] the residual function $E(t,x,y,z)$ defined by $$E(t,x,y,z) := {V^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},{\epsilon},\delta}}(t,x,y,z) - {v^{(0)}}(t,x,z) - \sqrt{{\epsilon}}{v^{(1,0)}}(t,x,z) -\sqrt{\delta}{v^{(0,1)}}(t,x,z),$$ is of order ${\epsilon}+ \delta$, for all $(t,x,y,z) \in [0,T]\times {\mathbb{R}}^+\times {\mathbb{R}}\times {\mathbb{R}}$. That is, ${\left|E(t,x,y,z)\right|} \leq C({\epsilon}+ \delta)$, where $C$ may depend on $(t,x,y,z)$ but not on $({\epsilon}, \delta)$.
The proof will be given in Section \[p2\_sec\_multipz\].
Secondly, and more importantly, we show that ${{\pi^{(0)}}}$ outperforms any admissible strategy of a certain form. To be precise, we compare its performance to the one of $$\label{def_pitilde}
\widetilde\pi^{{\epsilon}, \delta}= {\widetilde\pi^0}+ {\epsilon}^\alpha {\widetilde \pi^{(1,0)}}+ \delta^\beta{\widetilde{\pi}^{(0,1)}},$$ for some processes ${\widetilde\pi^0}_t, {\widetilde \pi^{(1,0)}}_t, {\widetilde{\pi}^{(0,1)}}_t$ (not necessarily in the feedback form) and some positive powers $\alpha, \beta$. To this end, for fix choices of ${\widetilde\pi^0}$, ${\widetilde \pi^{(1,0)}}$ and ${\widetilde{\pi}^{(0,1)}}$ of which the assumptions are postponed to Section \[p6\_sec\_optimality\] and Appendix \[p6\_appendix\_addasump\], we denote by ${\widetilde{V}^{{\epsilon},\delta}}$ the value process: $$\label{def_Vft}
{\widetilde{V}^{{\epsilon},\delta}}_t = {\mathbb{E}}\{U(X_T^\pi)\vert {\mathcal{F}}_t\}, \quad \pi = \widetilde \pi^{{\epsilon}, \delta} \text{ in } \eqref{def_pitilde},$$ with ${\mathcal{F}}_t = \sigma(W_s, W_s^Y, W_s^Z, s \leq t)$. The asymptotic optimality of ${{\pi^{(0)}}}$ is then obtained by comparing the approximation of ${V^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},{\epsilon},\delta}}$ to the one of ${\widetilde{V}^{{\epsilon},\delta}}$. We now summarize this result as follows.
\[p6\_thm\_main\] Under Assumptions \[assump\_U\], \[p2\_assump\_valuefuncadd\], \[p6\_assump\_piregularity\] and \[p6\_assump\_optimality\], for any fixed choice of ${\widetilde\pi^0}, {\widetilde \pi^{(1,0)}}, {\widetilde{\pi}^{(0,1)}}, \alpha, \beta$, the following limit exists in $L^1$ and satisfies $$\label{def_inq}
\ell := \lim_{({\epsilon}, \delta) \to 0}\frac{{\widetilde{V}^{{\epsilon},\delta}}_t - {V^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},{\epsilon},\delta}}(t,X_t, Y_t, Z_t)}{\sqrt{{\epsilon}} + \sqrt\delta} \leq 0, \text{ in } L^1.$$ That is, the strategy ${{\pi^{(0)}}}$ that generates ${V^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},{\epsilon},\delta}}$ performs asymptotically better up to order $\sqrt{\epsilon}+ \sqrt{\delta}$ than the strategy ${\widetilde \pi^{{\epsilon}, \delta}}$ given in .
The reason to consider such a form of $\widetilde \pi^{{\epsilon}, \delta}$ is the following. Under mild assumptions, the optimizer to problem , denoted by $\pi^\ast$, exists [@KrSc:03]. Although $\pi^\ast$ has clear dependence on $({\epsilon}, \delta)$, it is unknown whether it will converge as $({\epsilon}, \delta)$ go to zero. Supposing that $\pi^\ast$ admits a limit, say ${\widetilde\pi^0}$, then it is natural to consider $\widetilde \pi^{{\epsilon}, \delta}$ as a first order perturbation of the limiting ${\widetilde\pi^0}$. The parameters $(\alpha, \beta)$ allow for corrections of any positive powers of $({\epsilon}, \delta)$, giving more flexibility to this perturbation.
Several remarks regarding to our results: firstly, our model considers two volatility factors, one fast and one slow, simultaneously. This extends our previous work [@FoHu:16] and [@Hu:18], where the return $\mu$ and volatility $\sigma$ are driven by a single factor. In turn, it requires to combine together the regular and singular perturbation techniques, which are applied separately in aforementioned work. This involves nontrivial additional difficulties. Secondly, we work with general utility functions, as oppose to a certain type of utility (power, exponential, log, etc.) considered by the majority of literature. This generalization is important since not everyone’s utility is of CRRA type [@BrNa:08]. Thirdly, although we are not able to fully characterize ${V^{{\epsilon},\delta}}$ by justifying the expansion , we partially answer this question by analyzing a suboptimal strategy ${{\pi^{(0)}}}$ which has the rigorous first order approximation coincide with the heuristics of ${V^{{\epsilon},\delta}}$ and outperforms any admissible stratetgy of the form .
[**Organization of the paper.**]{} In Section \[sec\_PDE\_multi\], we restate the multi-scale model and the heuristic expansion results in [@FoSiZa:13 Section 4]. We then briefly review the classical Merton problem, which is closely related to the zeroth-order value ${v^{(0)}}$ in and to the derivations in later sections. We also list all needed assumptions and lemmas as a preparation of later proofs. The performance of ${{\pi^{(0)}}}$-portfolio is analyzed and its first order approximation is rigorously derived in Section \[p2\_sec\_multipz\]. Section \[p6\_sec\_optimality\] is dedicated to the asymptotic optimality of ${{\pi^{(0)}}}$, as phrased in Theorem \[p6\_thm\_main\], by comparing the performance of ${\widetilde \pi^{{\epsilon}, \delta}}={\widetilde\pi^0}+ {\epsilon}^\alpha{\widetilde \pi^{(1,0)}}+ \delta^\beta{\widetilde{\pi}^{(0,1)}}$ with ${{\pi^{(0)}}}$ up to the first order. We make conclusive remarks in Section \[sec\_conclusion\].
Preliminaries and assumptions {#sec_PDE_multi}
=============================
In this section, we first detail the multiscale stochastic volatility modeling, review the Merton PDE and risk-tolerance function, summarize the expansion results in [@FoSiZa:13 Section 4], and list model assumptions on the utility and state processes.
Recall the stochastic environments driven by a fast factor $Y_t$ and a slow factor $Z_t$, the underlying asset follows $$\begin{aligned}
\label{p2_eq_Stfull}
&{\,\mathrm{d}}S_t = \mu(Y_t,Z_t)S_t {\,\mathrm{d}}t + \sigma(Y_t,Z_t)S_t{\,\mathrm{d}}W_t,\\
&{\,\mathrm{d}}Y_t = \frac{1}{{\epsilon}}b(Y_t){\,\mathrm{d}}t + \frac{1}{\sqrt{{\epsilon}}}a(Y_t){\,\mathrm{d}}W_t^Y,\label{p2_eq_Ytfull}\\
&{\,\mathrm{d}}Z_t = \delta c(Z_t){\,\mathrm{d}}t + \sqrt\delta g(Z_t){\,\mathrm{d}}W_t^Z, \label{p2_eq_Ztfull}
\end{aligned}$$ where the standard Brownian motions $(W_t,W_t^Y,W_t^Z)$ are correlated by: $${\,\mathrm{d}}{\left\langleW,W^Y\right\rangle}_t = \rho_1 {\,\mathrm{d}}t, \quad {\,\mathrm{d}}{\left\langleW,W^Z\right\rangle}_t = \rho_2 {\,\mathrm{d}}t, \quad {\,\mathrm{d}}{\left\langleW^Y,W^Z\right\rangle}_t = \rho_{12} {\,\mathrm{d}}t,$$ with positive definite constraints: ${\left|\rho_1\right|} <1$, ${\left|\rho_2\right|} <1$, ${\left|\rho_{12}\right|} <1$ and $1+2\rho_1\rho_2\rho_{12}-\rho_1^2-\rho_2^2-\rho_{12}^2 > 0$. Assumptions on the coefficients $\mu(y,z)$, $\sigma(y,z)$, $b(y)$, $a(y)$, $c(z)$ and $g(z)$ of the model will be specified in Section \[sec\_modelassump\]. Both ${\epsilon}$ and $\delta$ are small positive parameters that characterize the fast mean-reversion of $Y_t$ and slow variation of $Z_t$, respectively. The time-changed process $Z_t \stackrel{{\mathcal{D}}}{=}Z_{\delta t}^{(1)}$ is continuous and possesses a $\delta$-free infinitesimal generator, denoted by ${\mathcal{M}}_2$: $$\label{p1_eq_Mgenerator}
{\mathcal{M}}_2 = {\frac{1}{2}}g^2(z)\partial_{z}^2 + c(z)\partial_z.$$ Similarly, the process $Y_t^{(1)} \stackrel{{\mathcal{D}}}{=} Y_{{\epsilon}t}$ has the ${\epsilon}$-free infinitesimal generator: $${\mathcal{L}}_0 = {\frac{1}{2}}a^2(y) \partial_y^2 + b(y) \partial_y.$$ To apply the singular perturbation, we assume that $Y^{(1)}$ is ergodic and equipped with a unique invariant distribution $\Phi$. We denote by ${\left\langle\cdot\right\rangle}$ the average with respect to $\Phi$: $${\left\langlef\right\rangle} = \int f{\,\mathrm{d}}\Phi.$$ For further discussion on the model –, including asymptotic results of option pricing as $({\epsilon}, \delta) \to 0$, we refer to [@FoPaSiSo:11].
Recall from Section \[sec\_intro\] the wealth process $X_t^\pi$ associated to the feedback trading strategy $\pi$: $${\,\mathrm{d}}X_t^\pi = \pi(t,X_t^\pi,Y_t,Z_t)\mu(Y_t,Z_t){\,\mathrm{d}}t + \pi(t,X_t^\pi, Y_t,Z_t)\sigma(Y_t,Z_t) {\,\mathrm{d}}W_t,$$ and the value function ${V^{{\epsilon},\delta}}(t,x,y,z)$: $${V^{{\epsilon},\delta}}(t,x,y,z) = \sup_{\pi \in {\mathcal{A}}^{{\epsilon}, \delta}} {\mathbb{E}}\left[U(X_T^\pi)\vert X_t^\pi = x, Y_t = y, Z_t = z\right],$$ Section \[p2\_sec\_multiheuristic\] reviews heuristic expansion results of ${V^{{\epsilon},\delta}}$ studied in [@FoSiZa:13 Section 4]. Before that, we shall detour a bit by reviewing the classical Merton problem, as it plays an important role in the asymptotic analysis as well as in the later proofs.
Merton PDE and risk-tolerance function
--------------------------------------
In Merton’s original work [@Me:69; @Me:71], both return $\mu$ and volatility $\sigma$ in are constants. In this case, the wealth process denote by $X_t^\pi$ (with some abuse of notation) becomes $${\,\mathrm{d}}X_t^\pi = \pi(t, X_t^\pi) \mu {\,\mathrm{d}}t + \pi(t, X_t^\pi) \sigma {\,\mathrm{d}}W_t.$$ Following the notations in [@FoSiZa:13], we denote by $M(t, x; \lambda)$ the corresponding Merton value function: $$\label{def_Merton}
M(t,x;\lambda) = \sup_{\pi} {\mathbb{E}}[U(X_T^\pi)\vert X_t^\pi = x],$$ where $\lambda$ is the Sharpe-ratio $\lambda = \mu / \sigma$. The reason to show the explicit dependence on $\lambda$ is that $M(t,x;\lambda)$ is characterized by the nonlinear equation $$\label{p1_eq_value}
M_t -\frac{1}{2}\lambda^2\frac{M_x^2}{M_{xx}} = 0, \quad M(T,x;\lambda) = U(x).$$ where $\lambda$ appears as a parameter. Later on, when identifying ${v^{(0)}}$ in , the notation $M$ will be used repeatedly with different $\lambda$.
The PDE is obtained by applying dynamic programming principle which gives $$M_t+\sup_{\pi}\left\{\frac{1}{2}\sigma^2\pi^2M_{xx}+\mu\pi M_x\right\}=0,$$ and then plugging in the candidate of optimal strategy $$\label{p1_eq_pistar}
\pi^\star(t,x;\lambda)=-\frac{\lambda}{\sigma}\frac{M_x(t,x;\lambda)}{M_{xx}(t,x;\lambda)}.$$ The [verification theorem]{} ensures that solving the HJB equation also acts as a sufficient condition for the problem . We next provide some results that are related to the later derivations. The proofs are omitted for the sake of brevity, and we refer readers to [@FoHu:16 Section 2.1] for details.
\[p1\_prop\_Merton\] Assume that the utility function $U(x)$ is $C^2(0,\infty)$, strictly increasing, strictly concave, such that $U(0+)$ is finite and satisfies the Inada and asymptotic elasticity conditions: $$U'(0+) = \infty, \quad U'(\infty) = 0, \quad \text{AE}[U] := \lim_{x\rightarrow \infty} x\frac{U'(x)}{U(x)} <1,$$ then, the Merton value function $M(t,x;\lambda)$ is strictly increasing, strictly concave in the wealth variable $x$, and decreasing in the time variable $t$. It is $C^{1,2}([0,T]\times {\mathbb{R}}^+)$ and is the unique solution to equation . It is $C^1$ with respect to $\lambda$, and the optimal portfolio $\pi^\ast$ is given by .
Next, we define the [risk-tolerance function]{} $R(t,x;\lambda)$ associated with the classical Merton value function: $$\label{p1_def_risktolerance}
R(t,x;\lambda) = -\frac{M_x(t,x;\lambda)}{ M_{xx}(t,x;\lambda)}.$$ It plays an important role in the analysis in later chapters. Note that $R(t,x;\lambda)$ is well-defined, continuous, strictly positive due to the regularity, strict concavity and monotonicity of $M (t,x;\lambda)$. Following the notation in [@FoSiZa:13], we define the differential operators in terms of $R(t,x;\lambda)$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{p1_def_dk}
D_k(\lambda) &= R(t,x;\lambda)^k \partial_x^k, \qquad k = 1,2, \cdots,\\
{\mathcal{L}_{t,x}}(\lambda) &= \partial_t + \frac{1}{2}\lambda^2D_2(\lambda) + \lambda^2D_1(\lambda).\label{p1_def_ltx}
\end{aligned}$$ Note that the coefficients of ${\mathcal{L}_{t,x}}(\lambda)$ depend on $R(t,x;\lambda)$, and consequently on $M(t,x;\lambda)$. Thus, the Merton PDE can be rewritten in a “linear” manner $$\begin{aligned}
\label{p1_eq_mertonlinear}
&{\mathcal{L}_{t,x}}(\lambda)M(t,x;\lambda) = 0,
\end{aligned}$$ and this PDE possesses a unique nonnegative solution.
\[p1\_prop\_ltxunique\] Let ${\mathcal{L}_{t,x}}(\lambda)$ be the operator defined in , and assume that the utility function $U(x)$ satisfies the conditions in Proposition \[p1\_prop\_Merton\], then $$\label{p1_def_ltxpde}
{\mathcal{L}_{t,x}}(\lambda)u(t,x;\lambda) = 0,\quad
u(T,x;\lambda) = U(x),$$ has a unique nonnegative solution. Consequently, this PDE with zero terminal condition possesses only trivial solution.
Multiscale asymptotic expansions {#p2_sec_multiheuristic}
--------------------------------
We now summarize some existing heuristics derived in [@FoSiZa:13 Section 4]. By dynamic programing, ${V^{{\epsilon},\delta}}$ solves the following HJB equation: $$\label{p2_eq_VfPDE}
\left(\partial_t + \frac{1}{{\epsilon}} {\mathcal{L}}_0 + \delta {\mathcal{M}}_2 + \sqrt{\frac{\delta}{{\epsilon}}}{\mathcal{M}}_3\right){V^{{\epsilon},\delta}}- \frac{\left(\lambda(y,z){V^{{\epsilon},\delta}}_x + \frac{\rho_1a(y)}{\sqrt{\epsilon}} {V^{{\epsilon},\delta}}_{xy} + \sqrt{\delta}\rho_2g(z){V^{{\epsilon},\delta}}_{xz}\right)^2}{2{V^{{\epsilon},\delta}}_{xx}} = 0,$$ with the candidate of the optimal strategy $$\pi^\star = -\frac{\lambda(y,z){V^{{\epsilon},\delta}}_x}{\sigma(y,z){V^{{\epsilon},\delta}}_{xx}} - \frac{\rho_1a(y){V^{{\epsilon},\delta}}_{xy}}{\sqrt{\epsilon}\sigma(y,z){V^{{\epsilon},\delta}}_{xx}}- \frac{\sqrt{\delta} \rho_2g(z){V^{{\epsilon},\delta}}_{xz}}{\sigma(y,z){V^{{\epsilon},\delta}}_{xx}},$$ where ${\mathcal{M}}_3$ is defined as: $${\mathcal{M}}_3 = \rho_{12}a(y)g(z)\partial_y\partial_z,$$ and $\lambda(y,z) = \mu(y,z) / \sigma(y,z)$ is the Sharpe ratio function.
In general, ${V^{{\epsilon},\delta}}$ is only identified as the viscosity solution of the above HJB equation [@Phbook:09 Section 4]. However, to apply asymptotic derivations, [@FoSiZa:13] assume that ${V^{{\epsilon},\delta}}$ is smooth in every variable, strictly increasing, strictly concave in the wealth argument $x$ for each $(y,z)$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ and $t \in [0,T)$, and is the unique classical solution to . We emphasize that results in this paper do not rely on the regularity of ${V^{{\epsilon},\delta}}$, as we will work with ${V^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},{\epsilon},\delta}}$ defined in , which will be classical solution of the linear PDE .
The multiscale expansion consists of constructing a power series of $\delta$ for ${V^{{\epsilon},\delta}}$: $${V^{{\epsilon},\delta}}= V^{{\epsilon},0} + \sqrt{\delta} V^{{\epsilon},1} + \cdots$$ and then a power series in ${\epsilon}$ for each term $V^{{\epsilon}, k}$: $$V^{{\epsilon},k} = v^{(0,k)} + \sqrt{{\epsilon}} v^{(1,k)} + {\epsilon}v^{(2,k)} + \cdots, \quad \forall k \in {\mathbb{N}}.$$ At each step, the coefficients $V^{{\epsilon}, k}$ or $v^{(j,k)}$ are identified by substituting the expansion into the corresponding equation and collecting terms of different orders. Because the whole analysis will be performed on ${V^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},{\epsilon},\delta}}$ again in Section \[p2\_sec\_multipz\], we decide to skip the derivation here and jump to the results. The combined expansion in slow and fast scale of ${V^{{\epsilon},\delta}}$ is of the following form: $$\label{p2_eq_Vfexpansion}
{V^{{\epsilon},\delta}}= {v^{(0)}}+ \sqrt{{\epsilon}}{v^{(1,0)}}+ \sqrt{\delta}{v^{(0,1)}}+ {\epsilon}{v^{(2,0)}}+ \delta {v^{(0,2)}}+ \sqrt{{\epsilon}\delta}{v^{(1,1)}}+ \cdots,$$ where the superscript of $v$ corresponds to the power in $\sqrt{\epsilon}$ and $\sqrt\delta$ and where $v^{(0,0)}$ is rewritten as $v^{(0)}$. Formulations about ${v^{(0)}}$, ${v^{(1,0)}}$ and ${v^{(0,1)}}$ are given as follows.
(i) The *leading order term* ${v^{(0)}}$ is defined as the solution to the Merton PDE associated with the “averaged” Sharpe ratio ${\overline\lambda}(z)=\sqrt{{\left\langle\lambda^2(\cdot,z)\right\rangle}}$, $$\label{p2_eq_vzf}
{v^{(0)}}_t - {\frac{1}{2}}{\overline\lambda}^2(z)\frac{\left({v^{(0)}}_x\right)^2}{{v^{(0)}}_{xx}} = 0, \quad {v^{(0)}}(T,x,z) = U(x).$$ Since it possesses a unique solution, we have $$\label{p2_eq_vzfvsmerton}
{v^{(0)}}(t,x,z) = M(t,x;{\overline\lambda}(z)).$$ Accordingly, the version of $D_k(\lambda)$ that will be used in the sequel is $D_k({\overline\lambda}) = R(t,x;{\overline\lambda}(z))^k \partial_x^k$ under the multiscale stochastic environment, and we shall use $D_k$ for brevity (omitting the argument ${\overline\lambda}$).
(ii) The *first order correction* in the fast variable ${v^{(1,0)}}$ is defined as the solution to the linear PDE: $$\label{p2_eq_vozf}
{v^{(1,0)}}_t + {\frac{1}{2}}{\overline\lambda}^2(z)\left(\frac{{v^{(0)}}_x}{{v^{(0)}}_{xx}}\right)^2{v^{(1,0)}}_{xx}-{\overline\lambda}^2(z)\frac{{v^{(0)}}_x}{{v^{(0)}}_{xx}}{v^{(1,0)}}_{x} = {\frac{1}{2}}\rho_1B(z)D_1^2{v^{(0)}}, \quad {v^{(1,0)}}(T,x,z) = 0,$$ which admits a unique solution. Then ${v^{(1,0)}}$ is explicitly given in terms of ${v^{(0)}}$ by $$\label{p2_def_vozf}
{v^{(1,0)}}(t,x,z) = -{\frac{1}{2}}(T-t)\rho_1B(z)D_1^2{v^{(0)}}(t,x,z),$$ where $$B(z) = {\left\langle\lambda(\cdot,z)a(\cdot)\partial_y\theta(\cdot,z)\right\rangle}, \quad {\mathcal{L}}_0\theta(y,z) = \lambda^2(y,z) - {\overline\lambda}^2(z).$$ Note that in the solution $\theta(y,z)$ to the above Poisson equation, the variable $z$ can be treated as a parameter.
(iii) The *first order correction* in the slow variable ${v^{(0,1)}}$ is defined as the solution to the linear PDE: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{p2_eq_vzof}
&{v^{(0,1)}}_t + {\frac{1}{2}}{\overline\lambda}^2(z)\left(\frac{{v^{(0)}}_x}{{v^{(0)}}_{xx}}\right)^2{v^{(0,1)}}_{xx}-{\overline\lambda}^2(z)\frac{{v^{(0)}}_x}{{v^{(0)}}_{xx}}{v^{(0,1)}}_x - \rho_2\widehat \lambda(z)g(z)\frac{{v^{(0)}}_x}{{v^{(0)}}_{xx}}{v^{(0)}}_{xz} =0, \\
&{v^{(0,1)}}(T,x,z) = 0,
\end{aligned}$$ which has a unique solution, and where $\widehat \lambda(z)$ is given by $$\widehat \lambda(z) = {\left\langle\lambda(\cdot,z)\right\rangle}.$$
(iv) By the“Vega-Gamma” relation, the $z$-derivative of the leading order term ${v^{(0)}}$ satisfies $$\label{p2_eq_vegagamma}
{v^{(0)}}_z(t,x,z) = (T-t){\overline\lambda}(z){\overline\lambda}'(z)D_1{v^{(0)}}(t,x,z),$$ and ${v^{(0,1)}}$ can be expressed in terms of ${v^{(0)}}$ by $$\begin{gathered}
\label{p2_eq_vzo}
{v^{(0,1)}}(t,x,z) = {\frac{1}{2}}(T-t)\rho_2\widehat{\lambda}(z)g(z)D_1{v^{(0)}}_z(t,x,z) \\ ={\frac{1}{2}}(T-t)^2\rho_2\widehat{\lambda}(z){\overline\lambda}(z){\overline\lambda}'(z)g(z)D_1^2{v^{(0)}}(t,x,z).
\end{gathered}$$
Note that the uniqueness in (i)–(iii) follows from Proposition \[p1\_prop\_Merton\] and \[p1\_prop\_ltxunique\].
Model assumptions and preliminary estimates {#sec_modelassump}
-------------------------------------------
There are two sets of assumptions needed for results presented in this paper: one about the state process, and one on the general utility. The first set is basically the combination of Assumption 2.12 in our previous work [@FoHu:16] considering solely the slow factor, and Assumption 2.4 in the fast case [@Hu:18], except that formulations based on $\lambda(z)$ (slow case) and ${\overline\lambda}$ (fast case) are all shifted to the multiscale case ${\overline\lambda}(z)$. The second set extends Assumption 2.5 in [@FoHu:16] by requiring more regularity of $U(x)$ and more boundedness constraints on the risk-tolerance $R(x) = -U'(x)/U''(x)$. For completeness, we next present them in details.
For fixed $(t,z)$, we observe that, ${v^{(0)}}(t,x,z) = M(t,x; {\overline\lambda}(z))$ is a concave function that has a linear upper bound. In fact, for $t=0$, there exists a function $\overline G(z)$, so that $${v^{(0)}}(0,x,z) \leq \overline G(z) + x, \;\forall (x,z) \in {\mathbb{R}}^+\times {\mathbb{R}}.$$ Let $X_t^{{\pi^{(0)}}}$ be the the wealth process following ${{\pi^{(0)}}}$, and define ${{\pi^{(0)}}}$ in terms of model parameters and the zeroth order term ${v^{(0)}}(t,x,z)$: $$\label{p2_eq_pzfull}
{{\pi^{(0)}}}= -\frac{\lambda(y,z)}{\sigma(y,z)}\frac{{v^{(0)}}_x(t,x,z)}{{v^{(0)}}_{xx}(t,x,z)}.$$
\[p2\_assump\_valuefuncadd\] We make the following assumptions on the state processes $(S_t,Y_t, Z_t, X_t^{{\pi^{(0)}}})$:
(i) \[p2\_assump\_valuefuncSZadd\] For any starting points $(s, y, z)$ and fixed $({\epsilon}, \delta)$, the system of SDEs –– has a unique strong solution $(S_t, Y_t, Z_t)$. The function $g(z)$ is in $C^2({\mathbb{R}})$, and $\lambda(y,z)$ is in $C^3({\mathbb{R}})$ in the $z$-variable. The coefficients $g(z)$, $c(z)$, $a(y)$ $\lambda(y, z)$ as well as their derivatives $g'(z)$, $g''(z)$, $\lambda_z(y,z)$, $\lambda_{zz}(y,z)$, and $\lambda_{zzz}(y, z)$ are at most polynomially growing.
(ii) The process $Y^{(1)}$ with infinitesimal generator ${\mathcal{L}}_0$ is ergodic with a unique invariant distribution $\Phi$, and admits moments of any order uniformly in $t \leq T$: $$\sup_{t \leq T} \left\{{\mathbb{E}}{\left|Y_t^{(1)}\right|}^k\right\} \leq C(T,k).$$ The solution $\phi(y,z)$ of the Poisson equation (in $y$) ${\mathcal{L}}_0\phi(y,z) = \ell(y,z)$ is assumed to be polynomial for polynomial (in $y$) function $\ell(y,z)$.
(iii) \[p2\_assump\_valuefuncZmomentadd\] The process $Z^{(1)}$ with infinitesimal generator ${\mathcal{M}}_2$ defined in admits moments of any order uniformly in $t \leq T$: $$\sup_{t \leq T}\left\{ {\mathbb{E}}{\left|Z_t^{(1)}\right|}^k\right\} \leq C(T,k).$$
(iv) \[p2\_assump\_valuefuncGadd\] The process $\overline G(Z_\cdot)$ is in $L^2([0,T]\times \Omega)$ uniformly in $\delta$, i.e., $$\label{p2_assump_Gzadd}
{\mathbb{E}}_{(0,z)}\left[\int_0^T \overline G^2(Z_s) {\,\mathrm{d}}s\right] \leq C_1(T,z),$$ where $C_1(T,z)$ is independent of $\delta$ and $Z_s$ follows with $Z_0 = z$.
(v) \[p2\_assump\_valuefuncXadd\] The wealth process $X_\cdot^{{\pi^{(0)}}}$ [stays nonnegative, namely, ${{\pi^{(0)}}}\in {\mathcal{A}}^{{\epsilon},\delta}(t,x,y, z)$ $\forall 0<{\epsilon},\delta\leq 1$]{}. [Moreover, it]{} is in $L^2([0,T]\times \Omega)$ uniformly in $({\epsilon}, \delta)$ , i.e., $$\label{p2_assump_Xsquareadd}
{\mathbb{E}}_{(0,x,y, z)}\left[\int_0^T \left(X_s^{{\pi^{(0)}}}\right)^2 {\,\mathrm{d}}s\right] \leq C_2(T,x,y, z),$$ where $C_2(T,x,y, z)$ is independent of $({\epsilon}, \delta)$.
\[p2\_lem\_unibddadd\] Under Assumption \[p2\_assump\_valuefuncadd\]-, the process ${v^{(0)}}(\cdot, X_\cdot^{{\pi^{(0)}}},Z_\cdot)$ is in $L^2([0,T]\times \Omega)$ uniformly in $({\epsilon},\delta)$, i.e. $\forall (t,x,y, z) \in [0,T]\times{\mathbb{R}}^+\times {\mathbb{R}}\times {\mathbb{R}}$, we have $${\mathbb{E}}_{(t,x,y, z)}\left[\int_t^T \left({v^{(0)}}(s,X_s^{{\pi^{(0)}}}, Z_s)\right)^2 {\,\mathrm{d}}s\right] \leq C_3(T,x,y,z),$$ where ${v^{(0)}}(t,x,z)$ is defined in Section \[p2\_sec\_multiheuristic\] and satisfies ${v^{(0)}}(t,x,z) = M(t,x;{\overline\lambda}(z))$.
The proof follows the argument in [@FoHu:16 Lemma 2.15].
\[assump\_U\] We make the following assumptions on $U(x)$:
(i) \[p1\_assump\_Uregularity\] U(x) is $C^9(0,\infty)$, strictly increasing, and strictly concave and satisfies the following conditions (Inada and asymptotic elasticity): $$\label{p1_eq_usualconditions}
U'(0+) = \infty, \quad U'(\infty) = 0, \quad \text{AE}[U] := \lim_{x\rightarrow \infty} x\frac{U'(x)}{U(x)} <1.$$
(ii) \[p1\_assump\_Ubddbelow\]U(0+) is finite. Without loss of generality, we assume U(0+) = 0.
(iii) \[p1\_assump\_Urisktolerance\] Assume the risk tolerance $R(x) := -U'(x) / U''(x)$ satisfies $R(0) = 0$, strictly increasing, $R'(x) < \infty$ on $[0,\infty)$, and there exists $K\in{\mathbb{R}}^+$, such that for $x \geq 0$, and $ 2\leq i \leq 7$, $$\label{p1_assump_Uiii}
{\left|\partial_x^{(i)}R^i(x)\right|} \leq K.$$
(iv) \[p1\_assump\_Ugrowth\] Define the inverse function of the marginal utility $U'(x)$ as $I: {\mathbb{R}}^+ \to {\mathbb{R}}^+$, $I(y) = U'^{(-1)}(y)$, and assume that, for some positive $\alpha$, $I(y)$ satisfies the polynomial growth condition: $$\label{p1_cond_I}
I(y) \leq \alpha + \kappa y^{-\alpha}.$$
Note that Assumption \[assump\_U\] is a sufficient condition, and excludes the case $U(x) = \frac{x^\gamma}{\gamma}$, for $\gamma < 0$, and $U(x) = \log(x)$. However, all theorem in this paper still hold under minor modifications to the proof. Further discussion about the above assumptions, regarding examples, restrictiveness and implication can be found in [@FoHu:16 Section 2.3].
We next give some estimate of the risk-tolerance function . Since in the multiscale regime, the zeroth order term ${v^{(0)}}(t,x,z)$ is identified as $M(t,x;{\overline\lambda}(z))$, see equation , the notation of the risk-tolerance function is changed accordingly to $R(t,x;{\overline\lambda}(z))$ with $$R(t,x;{\overline\lambda}(z)) := -\frac{{v^{(0)}}(t,x,z)}{{v^{(0)}}(t,x,z)} = -\frac{M_x(t,x;{\overline\lambda}(z))}{M_{xx}(t,x;{\overline\lambda}(z))}$$ to emphasis the dependence of ${\overline\lambda}(z)$.
\[p2\_prop\_risktoleranceadd\] Under Assumption \[assump\_U\] of the general utility, the risk-tolerance $R(t,x;{\overline\lambda}(z))$ function satisfies the following: $\exists K_j >0$ for $0 \leq j \leq 6$, such that $\forall (t,x,{\overline\lambda}(z)) \in [0,T) \times {\mathbb{R}}^+ \times {\mathbb{R}}$, $${\left|R^j(t,x;{\overline\lambda}(z))(\partial_x^{(j+1)}R(t,x;{\overline\lambda}(z)))\right|} \leq K_j.$$ Or equivalently, $\forall 1 \leq j \leq 7$, there exists $\widetilde K_j >0$, such that $\forall (t,x,z) \in [0,T) \times {\mathbb{R}}^+ \times {\mathbb{R}}$, $${\left|\partial_x^{(j)} R^j(t,x;{\overline\lambda}(z))\right|} \leq \widetilde K_j.$$ Moreover, the following quantities are uniformly bounded: $RR_{xxz}$, $R^2R_{xxxz}$, $R_{xzz}$, $RR_{xxzz}$ and $R^2R_{xxxzz}$.
The first part extends results of [@FoHu:16 Proposition 3.5], and the proof is essentially repeating the argument therein for the case $j = 5$ and 6 by using the comparison principle of heat equations. The proof of the second part consists of successively differentiating the “Vega-Gamma” relation in , and repeatedly using the concavity of ${v^{(0)}}$, the results in the first part, and Propositions 3,5, 3.6 and 3.7 in [@FoHu:16] with $\lambda$ or $\lambda(z)$ replaced by ${\overline\lambda}(z)$. For the sake of simplicity, we omit this lengthy, tedious but straightforward derivation.
${{\pi^{(0)}}}$-Portfolio performance under multiscale regime {#p2_sec_multipz}
=============================================================
Recalling the strategy ${{\pi^{(0)}}}$ defined in terms of model parameters and the zeroth order term ${v^{(0)}}(t,x,z)$ in : $${{\pi^{(0)}}}= -\frac{\lambda(y,z)}{\sigma(y,z)}\frac{{v^{(0)}}_x(t,x,z)}{{v^{(0)}}_{xx}(t,x,z)} := \frac{\lambda(y,z)}{\sigma(y,z)}R(t,x;{\overline\lambda}(z)),$$ and assuming ${{\pi^{(0)}}}$ is admissible, we shall give its performance in this section. More precisely, let $X^{{\pi^{(0)}}}$ be the wealth process following ${{\pi^{(0)}}}$ $${\,\mathrm{d}}X_t^{{\pi^{(0)}}}= \mu(Y_t,Z_t){{\pi^{(0)}}}(t,X_t^{{\pi^{(0)}}},Y_t,Z_t){\,\mathrm{d}}t + \sigma(Y_t,Z_t){{\pi^{(0)}}}(t,X_t^{{\pi^{(0)}}},Y_t,Z_t) {\,\mathrm{d}}W_t,$$ then we aim at finding the rigorous approximation of the associated value function: $$\label{p2_def_Vfl}
{V^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},{\epsilon},\delta}}:= {\mathbb{E}}\left\{U(X_T^{{\pi^{(0)}}})\Big\vert X_t^{{\pi^{(0)}}}= x, Y_t = y, Z_t = z\right\},$$ with the general utility $U$ satisfying Assumption \[assump\_U\]. The estimation result regarding ${V^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},{\epsilon},\delta}}$ has been summarized in Theorem \[p2\_Thm\_full\], and we present the proof in the next subsection.
Proof of Theorem \[p2\_Thm\_full\]
----------------------------------
The proof is split into two steps: firstly, we propose the expansion form of $V^{{{\pi^{(0)}}}, {\epsilon}, \delta}$: $$\label{eq_Vfl}
V^{{{\pi^{(0)}}}, {\epsilon}, \delta} = {v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},(0)}}+ \sqrt{{\epsilon}}{v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},(1,0)}}+ \sqrt{\delta}{v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},(0,1)}}+ \cdots,$$ and identifying ${v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},(0)}}$, ${v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},(1,0)}}$ and ${v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},(0,1)}}$ properly. To this end, we write down the PDE satisfied by $V^{{{\pi^{(0)}}}, {\epsilon}, \delta}$, perform regular perturbations in the slow parameter $\delta$, and then singular perturbations in the fast parameter ${\epsilon}$. Note that this technique has been used in the linear pricing problem with two factor models, for instance, see [@FoPaSiSo:11 Section 4]. Secondly, we justify the “$\cdots$” part in is of order ${\mathcal{O}}({\epsilon}+ \delta)$, to complete the proof.
**Step1: Heuristic derivations.** By the martingale property, we note that ${V^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},{\epsilon},\delta}}$ satisfies the following linear PDE $$\begin{aligned}
\label{p2_eq_Vfl}
\left({\mathcal{L}}_2 +\frac{1}{\sqrt{{\epsilon}}}{\mathcal{L}}_1 + \frac{1}{{\epsilon}}{\mathcal{L}}_0 + \delta {\mathcal{M}}_2 + \sqrt{\delta}{\mathcal{M}}_1 + \frac{\sqrt\delta}{\sqrt{{\epsilon}}}{\mathcal{M}}_3\right){V^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},{\epsilon},\delta}}&=0, \\
{V^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},{\epsilon},\delta}}(T,x,y,z) &= U(x),
\end{aligned}$$ where the operators ${\mathcal{L}}_i$ and ${\mathcal{M}}_i$ are defined by: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{L}}_0 &= b(y)\partial_y + {\frac{1}{2}}a^2(y)\partial^2_{y}, &{\mathcal{L}}_1 &= \rho_1a(y)\sigma(y,z){{\pi^{(0)}}}\partial_x\partial_y,&\\
{\mathcal{L}}_2 &= \partial_t + \mu(y,z){{\pi^{(0)}}}\partial_x + {\frac{1}{2}}\sigma^2(y,z)\left({{\pi^{(0)}}}\right)^2\partial^2_{x}, &{\mathcal{M}}_1 &= \rho_2\sigma(y,z)g(z){{\pi^{(0)}}}\partial_x\partial_z,&\\
{\mathcal{M}}_2 &= c(z)\partial_z + {\frac{1}{2}}g^2(z)\partial^2_z, &{\mathcal{M}}_3 &= \rho_{12}a(y)g(z)\partial_y\partial_z.&
\end{aligned}$$
The strategy is to expand the value function first in the slow parameter $\delta$: $$\label{p2_eq_Vflexpansion}
{V^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},{\epsilon},\delta}}= {V^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},{\epsilon},0}}+ \sqrt{\delta}{V^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},{\epsilon},1}}+ \cdots,$$ and identify the effective equations for ${V^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},{\epsilon},0}}$, ${V^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},{\epsilon},1}}$, and then to expand ${V^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},{\epsilon},0}}$ and ${V^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},{\epsilon},1}}$ in the fast parameter ${\epsilon}$ $$\begin{aligned}
&{V^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},{\epsilon},0}}= {v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},(0)}}+ \sqrt{{\epsilon}}{v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},(1,0)}}+ {\epsilon}{v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}}, (2,0)}}+ {\epsilon}^{3/2}{v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},(3,0)}}+ \cdots,\\
&{V^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},{\epsilon},1}}= {v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},(0,1)}}+ \sqrt{{\epsilon}}{v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}}, (1,1)}}+{\epsilon}{v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}}, (2,1)}}\cdots.
\end{aligned}$$ Again the superscript $(i,j)$ of $v^{{\pi^{(0)}}}$ indicates the power in $\sqrt{{\epsilon}}$ and $\sqrt{\delta}$ respectively, and $(0,0)$ is reduced to $(0)$ for being consistent with the notations in [@FoSiZa:13]. By letting $\delta = 0$, we deduce $$\left({\mathcal{L}}_2 + \frac{1}{\sqrt{{\epsilon}}}{\mathcal{L}}_1 + \frac{1}{{\epsilon}}{\mathcal{L}}_0 \right){V^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},{\epsilon},0}}= 0, \quad {V^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},{\epsilon},0}}(T,x,y,z) = U(x).$$ This is actually equation (17) in [@Hu:18] expect that $\lambda(y)$ is replaced by $\lambda(y,z)$ to take the slow factor $Z_t$ into consideration. However, $z$ can be viewed as a parameter in ${V^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},{\epsilon},0}}$, as there is no $z$-derivatives in the above PDE. Consequently, the derivation and reasoning in [@Hu:18 Section III.A] can be applied, and we deduce $$\begin{aligned}
\label{p2_eq_vzl}
&{v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},(0)}}= {v^{(0)}}= M(t,x,{\overline\lambda}(z)),\\ \label{p2_eq_vtzl}
& {v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}}, (2,0)}}= -{\frac{1}{2}}\theta(y,z)D_1{v^{(0)}}+ C_1(t,x,z)\\ \label{p2_eq_vozl}
&{v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},(1,0)}}= {v^{(1,0)}}= -{\frac{1}{2}}(T-t)\rho_1B(z)D_1^2{v^{(0)}},\\ \label{p2_eq_vthzl}
& {v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},(3,0)}}= \frac{1}{2}(T-t)\theta(y,z)\rho_1B(z)\left(\frac{1}{2}D_2 + D_1\right)D_1^2{v^{(0)}}+ \frac{1}{2} \rho_1\theta_1(y,z)D_1^2{v^{(0)}}+ C_2(t,x,z),
\end{aligned}$$ where $\theta_1(y)$ is the solution to the ODE: $${\mathcal{L}}_0\theta_1(y) = \lambda(y,z)a(y)\partial_y\theta(y,z) - {\left\langle\lambda(\cdot,z)a(\cdot)\partial_y\theta(\cdot,z)\right\rangle},$$ and $C_i(t,x,z)$ are some constant of integration in $y$, that may depend on $(t,x,z)$, for $i = 1, 2$.
Next, we go back to equation and derive the PDE for ${V^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},{\epsilon},1}}$ by collecting terms of order $\sqrt{\delta}$, $$\left({\mathcal{L}}_2 + \frac{1}{\sqrt{{\epsilon}}}{\mathcal{L}}_1 + \frac{1}{{\epsilon}}{\mathcal{L}}_0\right){V^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},{\epsilon},1}}+ \left({\mathcal{M}}_1 + \frac{1}{\sqrt{{\epsilon}}}{\mathcal{M}}_3\right){V^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},{\epsilon},0}}= 0, \quad {V^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},{\epsilon},1}}(T,x,y,z) = 0.$$ Observing that ${\mathcal{M}}_3$ takes derivatives in $y$, and in the expansion of ${V^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},{\epsilon},\delta}}$, the first two terms ${v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},(0)}}$ and ${v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},(1,0)}}$ are independent of $y$ (cf. and ), one has $$\frac{1}{\sqrt{{\epsilon}}}{\mathcal{M}}_3 {V^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},{\epsilon},\delta}}= \sqrt{{\epsilon}} {v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}}, (2,0)}}+ {\epsilon}{v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},(3,0)}}+ \cdots.$$ Now, by collecting ${\epsilon}^{-1}$ terms and $\frac{1}{\sqrt{{\epsilon}}}$ terms and noticing that there is no $y$-derivative in the equations, we could make the choices that ${v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},(0,1)}}= {v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},(0,1)}}(t,x,z)$ and ${v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}}, (1,1)}}= {v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}}, (1,1)}}(t,x,z)$, i.e. they are independent of $y$. Collecting terms of order one forms a Poisson equation for ${v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}}, (2,1)}}$, $$\label{p2_eq_vtolvzol}
{\mathcal{L}}_0{v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}}, (2,1)}}+ {\mathcal{L}}_2{v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},(0,1)}}+ {\mathcal{M}}_1{v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},(0)}}= 0, \quad {v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},(0,1)}}(T,x,z) = 0.$$ and yields the following solvability condition for ${v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},(0,1)}}$ $$\begin{aligned}
&{v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},(0,1)}}_t + {\frac{1}{2}}{\overline\lambda}^2(z)\left(\frac{{v^{(0)}}_x}{{v^{(0)}}_{xx}}\right)^2{v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},(0,1)}}_{xx} - {\overline\lambda}^2(z)\frac{{v^{(0)}}_x}{{v^{(0)}}_{xx}}{v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},(0,1)}}_x+\rho_2\widehat{\lambda}(z)g(z)R{v^{(0)}}_{xz} = 0,\\
&{v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},(0,1)}}(T,x,z) = 0.
\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the relation ${v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},(0)}}= {v^{(0)}}$ (cf. ) . This is exactly equation , by its uniqueness, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{p2_eq_vzol}
{v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},(0,1)}}= {v^{(0,1)}}&= {\frac{1}{2}}(T-t)\rho_2\widehat{\lambda}(z)g(z)D_1{v^{(0)}}_z(t,x,z) \\ &={\frac{1}{2}}(T-t)^2\rho_2\widehat{\lambda}(z){\overline\lambda}(z){\overline\lambda}'(z)g(z)D_1^2{v^{(0)}}(t,x,z).
\end{aligned}$$ Plugging it back to equation , and solving for ${v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}}, (2,1)}}$ gives $$\label{p2_eq_vtoltmp}
{v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}}, (2,1)}}= -\theta(y,z)\left({\frac{1}{2}}D_2 + D_1\right){v^{(0,1)}}- \theta_2(y,z)\rho_2g(z)D_1{v^{(0)}}_z + C_3(t,x,z),$$ where $\theta_2(y,z)$ is the solution to the ODE $${\mathcal{L}}_0 \theta_2(y,z) = \lambda(y,z) - \widehat \lambda(z),$$ and $C_3(t,x,z)$ is some ‘constant’ in $y$. To further express ${v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}}, (2,1)}}$ in terms of ${v^{(0)}}$ solely, we use the expression of ${v^{(0,1)}}$ and obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{p2_eq_vtol}
{v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}}, (2,1)}}&= -\theta(y,z){\frac{1}{2}}(T-t)^2\rho_2\widehat{\lambda}{\overline\lambda}{\overline\lambda}'g\left({\frac{1}{2}}D_2 + D_1\right)D_1^2{v^{(0)}}\\
&\quad - \theta_2(y,z)\rho_2g(z)(T-t){\overline\lambda}{\overline\lambda}'D_1^2{v^{(0)}}+ C_3(t,x,z).
\end{aligned}$$
Till now, desired terms are all identified including ${v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},(0)}}, {v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}}, (2,0)}}, {v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},(1,0)}}, {v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},(3,0)}}, {v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},(0,1)}}$ and ${v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}}, (2,1)}}$, and we will move on to the justification of the above derivation.
**Step2: Expansion justification.** To validate the above formal derivation, we at least need to show the residual function $E(t,x,y,z)$ is of order higher than $\sqrt{\epsilon}+ \sqrt\delta)$. To this end, we first analyze an auxiliary residual function $\widetilde E(t,x,y,z)$ defined by $$\widetilde E(t,x,y,z)= {V^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},{\epsilon},\delta}}- {v^{(0)}}- \sqrt{{\epsilon}}{v^{(1,0)}}- {\epsilon}{v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}}, (2,0)}}- {\epsilon}^{3/2}{v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},(3,0)}}- \sqrt{\delta}{v^{(0,1)}}- {\epsilon}\sqrt{\delta} {v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}}, (2,1)}},$$ with these functions given in , , , , and , respectively. We take $C_i(t,x,z) \equiv 0$, $i = 1, 2, 3$ in the relevant terms. Straight forward computation gives $$\begin{aligned}
&\left({\mathcal{L}}_2 +\frac{1}{\sqrt{{\epsilon}}}{\mathcal{L}}_1 + \frac{1}{{\epsilon}}{\mathcal{L}}_0 + \delta {\mathcal{M}}_2 + \sqrt{\delta}{\mathcal{M}}_1 + \frac{\sqrt\delta}{\sqrt{{\epsilon}}}{\mathcal{M}}_3\right)\widetilde E \\
&\qquad\quad + {\mathcal{L}}_2\left({\epsilon}{v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}}, (2,0)}}+ {\epsilon}^{3/2}{v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},(3,0)}}+ {\epsilon}\sqrt{\delta}{v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}}, (2,1)}}\right) + {\mathcal{L}}_1\left({\epsilon}{v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},(3,0)}}+ \sqrt{{\epsilon}\delta}{v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}}, (2,1)}}\right) \\
&\qquad\quad + \sqrt{\delta}{\mathcal{M}}_3\left(\sqrt{{\epsilon}}{v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}}, (2,0)}}+ {\epsilon}{v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},(3,0)}}+ \sqrt{{\epsilon}\delta}{v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}}, (2,1)}}\right)\\
&\qquad\quad + \delta{\mathcal{M}}_2\left({v^{(0)}}+ \sqrt{{\epsilon}}{v^{(1,0)}}+ {\epsilon}{v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}}, (2,0)}}+ {\epsilon}^{3/2}{v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},(3,0)}}+ \sqrt{\delta}{v^{(0,1)}}+ {\epsilon}\sqrt{\delta} {v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}}, (2,1)}}\right)\\
&\qquad\quad + \sqrt{\delta}{\mathcal{M}}_1\left(\sqrt{{\epsilon}}{v^{(1,0)}}+ {\epsilon}{v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}}, (2,0)}}+ {\epsilon}^{3/2}{v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},(3,0)}}+ \sqrt{\delta}{v^{(0,1)}}+ {\epsilon}\sqrt{\delta}{v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}}, (2,1)}}\right) = 0, \\
& \widetilde E(T,x,y,z) = -{\epsilon}{v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}}, (2,0)}}(T,x,y,z) - {\epsilon}^{3/2}{v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},(3,0)}}(T,x,y,z).
\end{aligned}$$
Noticing that ${\mathcal{L}}_2 +\frac{1}{\sqrt{{\epsilon}}}{\mathcal{L}}_1 + \frac{1}{{\epsilon}}{\mathcal{L}}_0 + \delta {\mathcal{M}}_2 + \sqrt{\delta}{\mathcal{M}}_1 + \frac{\sqrt\delta}{\sqrt{{\epsilon}}}{\mathcal{M}}_3$ is the infinitesimal generator of the processes $(X_t^{{\pi^{(0)}}}, Y_t, Z_t)$, and using the bound estimates which we will show next, we have the following Feynman–Kac formula: $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde E(t,x,y,z) &= {\epsilon}{\mathbb{E}}_{(t,x,y,z)}\left[\int_t^T {\mathcal{R}}^1 (s,X_s^{{\pi^{(0)}}}, Y_s,Z_s) {\,\mathrm{d}}s \right] + \delta {\mathbb{E}}_{(t,x,y,z)}\left[\int_t^T {\mathcal{R}}^2 (s,X_s^{{\pi^{(0)}}}, Y_s,Z_s) {\,\mathrm{d}}s \right] \nonumber\\
& \quad + \sqrt{ {\epsilon}\delta} {\mathbb{E}}_{(t,x,y,z)}\left[\int_t^T {\mathcal{R}}^3 (s,X_s^{{\pi^{(0)}}}, Y_s, Z_s) {\,\mathrm{d}}s \right] - {\epsilon}{\mathbb{E}}_{(t,x,y,z)}\left[{v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}}, (2,0)}}(T,X_T^{{\pi^{(0)}}}, Y_T,Z_T) \right] \nonumber\\
& \quad - {\epsilon}^{3/2}{\mathbb{E}}_{(t,x,y,z)}\left[{v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},(3,0)}}(T,X_T^{{\pi^{(0)}}},Y_T,Z_T)\right],\label{p2_eq_Eflprob}
\end{aligned}$$ and obtain the desired results for $\widetilde E \sim {\mathcal{O}}({\epsilon}+ \delta)$, where ${\mathcal{R}}^i$ are defined as: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{R}}^1& = {\mathcal{L}}_2\left({v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}}, (2,0)}}+ \sqrt{{\epsilon}}{v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},(3,0)}}+ \sqrt{\delta}{v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}}, (2,1)}}\right)+{\mathcal{L}}_1{v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},(3,0)}}+ \sqrt{\delta}{\mathcal{M}}_1{v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}}, (2,0)}}\\
{\mathcal{R}}^2& = {\mathcal{M}}_2\left({v^{(0)}}+ \sqrt{{\epsilon}}{v^{(1,0)}}+ {\epsilon}{v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}}, (2,0)}}+ {\epsilon}^{3/2}{v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},(3,0)}}+ \sqrt{\delta}{v^{(0,1)}}+ {\epsilon}\sqrt{\delta} {v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}}, (2,1)}}\right) + {\mathcal{M}}_1{v^{(0,1)}}\\
{\mathcal{R}}^3 &= {\mathcal{L}}_1{v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}}, (2,1)}}+ {\mathcal{M}}_3\left({v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}}, (2,0)}}+ \sqrt{{\epsilon}}{v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},(3,0)}}+ \sqrt{\delta}{v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}}, (2,1)}}\right) \\
& \quad + {\mathcal{M}}_1\left({v^{(1,0)}}+ {\epsilon}{v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},(3,0)}}+ \sqrt{{\epsilon}\delta}{v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}}, (2,1)}}\right).
\end{aligned}$$
We now present the bound estimates of the expectations in . Straightforward computation shows that each expectation term ${\mathbb{E}}_{(t,x,y,z)}\left[\int_t^T {\mathcal{R}}^i_s{\,\mathrm{d}}s \right]$ is a sum of integrals of the following form: $$\label{eq_polydvzform}
{\mathbb{E}}_{(t,x,y,z)}\left[\int_t^T h(Y_s,Z_s)\;{\mathcal{D}}{v^{(0)}}(s,X_s^{{\pi^{(0)}}},Z_s){\,\mathrm{d}}s \right],$$ where $h(y,z)$ is mostly polynomially growing, and ${\mathcal{D}}{v^{(0)}}$ takes derivatives of ${v^{(0)}}$. According to different operators, the derivatives are $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_derivativeLi}
&{\mathcal{L}}_i: D_1^2{v^{(0)}}, D_2D_1{v^{(0)}}, D_1^3{v^{(0)}}, D_2D_1^2{v^{(0)}},D_1^4{v^{(0)}},D_2D_1^3{v^{(0)}},D_1D_2D_1^2{v^{(0)}}, D_2^2D_1^2{v^{(0)}}\\
&{\mathcal{M}}_3: \partial_z D_1{v^{(0)}}, \partial_z D_1^2{v^{(0)}}, \partial_z D_1^3{v^{(0)}}, \partial_z D_2D_1^2{v^{(0)}}, \\
&{\mathcal{M}}_2: \partial_z{v^{(0)}}, \partial_z^2{v^{(0)}}, \partial_z^2D_1{v^{(0)}}, \partial_z^2D_1^2{v^{(0)}}, \partial_z^2D_1^3{v^{(0)}}, \partial_z^2D_2D_1^2{v^{(0)}}, \text{ plus all terms in } {\mathcal{M}}_3\\
&{\mathcal{M}}_1: D_1\partial_zD_1{v^{(0)}}, D_1\partial_zD_1^2{v^{(0)}}, D_1\partial_zD_1^3{v^{(0)}}, D_1\partial_zD_2D_1^2{v^{(0)}}.\label{eq_derivativeM1}
\end{aligned}$$ A repeated use of the concavity of ${v^{(0)}}$, Propositions 3.7 in [@FoHu:16] and Proposition \[p2\_prop\_risktoleranceadd\] guarantees that ${\mathcal{D}}{v^{(0)}}$ is bounded by a multiple in $z$ of ${v^{(0)}}$, namely, for any ${\mathcal{D}}{v^{(0)}}$ taking the above form, we have $$\label{eq_kvzform}
{\left|{\mathcal{D}}{v^{(0)}}(t,x,z)\right|} \leq k(z){v^{(0)}}(t,x,z), $$ for some non-negative and at most polynomially growing function $k(z)$.
For clarity, we consider the term ${\mathcal{L}}_2 {v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}}, (2,0)}}$ in ${\mathcal{R}}^1$ to illustrate the above procedure. By definition, one has $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{L}}_2 {v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},(2)}}&= \left(\partial_t + \lambda^2(y,z) R(t,x;{\overline\lambda}(z))\partial_x + {\frac{1}{2}}\lambda^2(y,z)R^2(t,x;{\overline\lambda}(z)) \partial_x^2\right)(-{\frac{1}{2}}\theta(y,z) D_1 {v^{(0)}})\\
& = -{\frac{1}{2}}\theta(y,z) \left((\lambda^2(y,z) - {\overline\lambda}^2(z))R(t,x;{\overline\lambda}(z))\partial_x + {\frac{1}{2}}(\lambda^2(y,z) - {\overline\lambda}^2(z))R^2(t,x;{\overline\lambda}(z))\partial_x^2\right)D_1{v^{(0)}}\\
& = -{\frac{1}{2}}\theta(y,z) (\lambda^2(y,z) - {\overline\lambda}^2(z))(D_1^2 {v^{(0)}}+ {\frac{1}{2}}D_2D_1{v^{(0)}}),
\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the relation ${\mathcal{L}_{t,x}}({\overline\lambda}(z))D_1 {v^{(0)}}= D_1{\mathcal{L}_{t,x}}({\overline\lambda}(z)){v^{(0)}}= 0$. Under Assumption \[p2\_assump\_valuefuncadd\], the function $\theta(y,z)(\lambda^2(y,z) - {\overline\lambda}^2(z))$ is at most polynomially growing, thus ${\mathcal{L}}_2{v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},(2)}}$ is of the form . The other terms in ${\mathcal{R}}^i$, for $i = 1, 2, 3$, follow by a similar reasoning, thus are omitted. To illustrate that all derivatives in – can be bounded as in , we consider $\partial_zD_1^2{v^{(0)}}$ as an example: $$\begin{aligned}
{\left|\partial_z D_1^2{v^{(0)}}\right|} = {\left|\partial_z R(R_x -1){v^{(0)}}\right|} \leq {\left|R_z(R_x-1){v^{(0)}}_x\right|} + {\left|R R_{xz}{v^{(0)}}_x\right|} + {\left|R(R_x-1){v^{(0)}}_{xz}\right|},
\end{aligned}$$ where we have omitted the arguments $(t,x; {\overline\lambda}(z))$ for $R$, and $(t,x, z)$ for ${v^{(0)}}$. Proposition \[p2\_prop\_risktoleranceadd\] gives ${\left|R_x\right|} \leq K_0$ and ${\left|R\right|} \leq K_0x$ since $R$ is strictly increasing [@FoHu:16 Proposition 3.4]. Following Proposition 3.7 in [@FoHu:16], the $z$-derivatives are bounded by mostly polynomial multiples of themselves, i.e. ${\left|R_z\right|} \leq \widetilde d_{01}(z) R$, ${\left|R_xz\right|} \leq \widetilde d_{11}$ and ${\left|{v^{(0)}}_{xz}\right|} \leq d_{11}(z){v^{(0)}}_x$ with positive mostly polynomially growing $\widetilde d_{01}$, $\widetilde d_{11}$ and $d_{11}$. Thus, the above inequality is bounded by $d(z)x{v^{(0)}}_x$, which is then bounded by $d(z){v^{(0)}}$ using the concavity of ${v^{(0)}}$.
Then, one can use the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality to separate the functions depending only on $(y,z)$ from ${v^{(0)}}(s, X_s^{{\pi^{(0)}}}, Z_s)$ in the integral, i.e., it is reduced to $$\left({\mathbb{E}}_{(t,y,z)} \int_t^T h^2(Y_s,Z_s)k^2(Z_s){\,\mathrm{d}}s \right)^{1/2}\left({\mathbb{E}}_{(t,x,y,z)}\int_t^T{v^{(0)}}(s,X_s^{{\pi^{(0)}}},Z_s)^2{\,\mathrm{d}}s \right)^{1/2}.$$ Assumptions on $(Y_t, Z_t)$ ensure that the first part is uniformly bounded in $({\epsilon}, \delta)$, while for the second part follows from Lemma \[p2\_lem\_unibddadd\]. Similarly, the last two terms in are bounded by repeating the above procedure using assumptions on the utility (cf. Assumption \[assump\_U\] equation ). So far, we have shown for any $(t,x,y,z) \in [0,T]\times {\mathbb{R}}^+\times {\mathbb{R}}\times {\mathbb{R}}$ $${\left|\widetilde E(t,x,y,z)\right|} \leq \widetilde C\left({\epsilon}+ \delta + \sqrt{{\epsilon}\delta}\right) \leq \widetilde C(\delta + {\epsilon}),$$ where $\widetilde C$ may varying from line to line and is free of $({\epsilon}, \delta)$. By the difference between $E$ and $\widetilde E$, one has $$\begin{gathered}
{\left|{V^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},{\epsilon},\delta}}- {v^{(0)}}- \sqrt{{\epsilon}}{v^{(1,0)}}- \sqrt{\delta}{v^{(0,1)}}\right|} \\ \leq {\left|\widetilde E\right|} + {\left|{\epsilon}{v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}}, (2,0)}}+ {\epsilon}^{3/2}{v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},(3,0)}}+ {\epsilon}\sqrt{\delta}{v^{{{\pi^{(0)}}}, (2,1)}}\right|} \leq C({\epsilon}+\delta),
\end{gathered}$$ where $C = C(t,x,y,z)$ and is independent of small parameters $({\epsilon}, \delta)$. Thus we obtain the desired result.
The Asymptotic Optimality of ${{\pi^{(0)}}}$ {#p6_sec_optimality}
============================================
This section focuses on the proof of Theorem \[p6\_thm\_main\], dedicated to the performance of ${{\pi^{(0)}}}$ by comparison with other admissible strategy of the form $${\widetilde \pi^{{\epsilon}, \delta}}= {\widetilde\pi^0}+ {\epsilon}^\alpha {\widetilde \pi^{(1,0)}}+ \delta^\beta{\widetilde{\pi}^{(0,1)}}.$$ Detailed assumptions on any fixed choices of ${\widetilde\pi^0}, {\widetilde \pi^{(1,0)}}$ and ${\widetilde{\pi}^{(0,1)}}$ are given in Assumptions \[p6\_assump\_piregularity\] and \[p6\_assump\_optimality\]. Recall the corresponding value process ${\widetilde{V}^{{\epsilon},\delta}}_t$ defined in : $$\label{p6_def_Vfpi}
{\widetilde{V}^{{\epsilon},\delta}}_t = {\mathbb{E}}\{U(X_T^\pi)\vert {\mathcal{F}}_t\},$$ with $\pi = {\widetilde \pi^{{\epsilon}, \delta}}$, and $X_t^\pi$ given by $$\label{p6_def_Xtpi}
{\,\mathrm{d}}X_t = {\widetilde \pi^{{\epsilon}, \delta}}_t\mu(Y_t, Z_t) {\,\mathrm{d}}t + {\widetilde \pi^{{\epsilon}, \delta}}_t \sigma(Y_t, Z_t) {\,\mathrm{d}}W_t.$$ We would like to compare asymptotically the performance of ${{\pi^{(0)}}}$ with the one of $ {\widetilde \pi^{{\epsilon}, \delta}}$ by looking at the approximations of ${V^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},{\epsilon},\delta}}$ and ${\widetilde{V}^{{\epsilon},\delta}}$. For ${V^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},{\epsilon},\delta}}$, the rigorous result has been derived in Theorem \[p2\_Thm\_full\]. Thus, it remains to find approximations associated to $ {\widetilde \pi^{{\epsilon}, \delta}}$ at a desired order. Note that is a process rather than a function of $(t,x,y,z)$ as we do not restrict ourself to work with Markovian strategies. This is also explicitly stated in the following.
\[p6\_assump\_piregularity\] For a fixed choice of $({\widetilde\pi^0}$, ${\widetilde \pi^{(1,0)}}$, ${\widetilde{\pi}^{(0,1)}}$, $\alpha$, $\beta)$, we require:
(i) The processes ${\widetilde\pi^0}_t$, ${\widetilde \pi^{(1,0)}}_t$ and ${\widetilde{\pi}^{(0,1)}}_t$ are adapted to the filtration ${\mathcal{F}}_t$ generated by the three Brownian motions $(W_t, W_t^Y, W_t^Z)$.
(ii) The strategy ${\widetilde \pi^{{\epsilon}, \delta}}= {\widetilde\pi^0}+ {\epsilon}^\alpha{\widetilde \pi^{(1,0)}}+ \delta^\beta {\widetilde{\pi}^{(0,1)}}$ is admissible.
(iii) The function $\mu(y,z)$ is at most polynomially growing.
(iv) The process ${v^{(0)}}(t,X_t^\pi, Z_t) = M(t,X_t^\pi;{\overline\lambda}(Z_t))$ is in $L^4([0,T]\times \Omega)$ uniformly in $({\epsilon}, \delta)$, i.e., $${\mathbb{E}}\left[\int_0^T \left({v^{(0)}}(s,X_s^\pi,Z_s)\right)^4 {\,\mathrm{d}}s\right] \leq C_2,$$ where $C_2$ is independent of $({\epsilon},\delta)$, $Z_t$ follows , and $X_t^\pi$ follows .
The above assumptions are mainly to ensure that ${\widetilde{V}^{{\epsilon},\delta}}$ is well-defined, and heuristic expansions can be obtained. Once this is done, additional technical integrability conditions on ${\widetilde \pi^{{\epsilon}, \delta}}$ are needed, to rigorize the derivation. In order not to cut the presentation flow, we shall list them in Appendix \[p6\_appendix\_addasump\].
The first attempt of finding the approximation of ${\widetilde{V}^{{\epsilon},\delta}}$ is to use the PDE approach, as in the case of ${V^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},{\epsilon},\delta}}$. In order to do so, we indeed need to restrict ${\widetilde \pi^{{\epsilon}, \delta}}$ to feedback strategies, that is, ${\widetilde\pi^0}_t$, ${\widetilde{\pi}^{(0,1)}}_t$ and ${\widetilde{\pi}^{(0,1)}}_t$ are functions of $(t, X_t^\pi, Y_t, Z_t)$. Consequently ${\widetilde{V}^{{\epsilon},\delta}}_t$ becomes a function of $(t,x,y,z)$, and can be characterized by a PDE. Let ${\mathcal{L}}$ be the infinitesimal generator of the state processes $(X_t^\pi, Y_t, Z_t)$ with $X_t^\pi$ defined in , by definition ${\widetilde{V}^{{\epsilon},\delta}}$ satisfies: $$\partial_t {\widetilde{V}^{{\epsilon},\delta}}+ {\mathcal{L}}{\widetilde{V}^{{\epsilon},\delta}}= 0, \quad {\widetilde{V}^{{\epsilon},\delta}}(T,x,y,z) = U(x).$$ According to the powers of ${\epsilon}$ and $\delta$, one can rewrite the generator ${\mathcal{L}}$ as: $$\begin{aligned}
0 = \partial_t + {\mathcal{L}}&= \frac{1}{{\epsilon}}{\mathcal{L}}_0+ \delta {\mathcal{M}}_2 + \frac{\sqrt{\delta}}{\sqrt{{\epsilon}}}{\mathcal{M}}_3 + \frac{1}{\sqrt{{\epsilon}}}\widetilde {\mathcal{L}}_1 + \widetilde {\mathcal{L}}_2 + {\epsilon}^\alpha\widetilde {\mathcal{L}}_3 + {\epsilon}^{2\alpha} \widetilde {\mathcal{L}}_4 + {\epsilon}^{\alpha-1/2} \widetilde {\mathcal{L}}_5 \nonumber \\
&\quad +\sqrt\delta\widetilde {\mathcal{M}}_1 + \delta^\beta\widetilde {\mathcal{M}}_4 + \delta^{2\beta}\widetilde {\mathcal{M}}_5 + {\epsilon}^\alpha\delta^\beta\widetilde {\mathcal{M}}_6 + \frac{\delta^\beta}{\sqrt{{\epsilon}}}\widetilde {\mathcal{M}}_7 + {\epsilon}^\alpha\sqrt\delta\widetilde {\mathcal{M}}_8 + \delta^{\beta + 1/2}\widetilde {\mathcal{M}}_9, \label{eq_Vft}
\end{aligned}$$ where the operators are defined as (arguments of ${\widetilde\pi^0}, {\widetilde \pi^{(1,0)}}, {\widetilde{\pi}^{(0,1)}}$ are systematically omitted for brevity): $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde {\mathcal{L}}_1 &= \rho_1a(y)\sigma(y,z){\widetilde\pi^0}\partial_x\partial_y, &\widetilde {\mathcal{L}}_2 &= \partial_t + \mu(y,z){\widetilde\pi^0}\partial_x +{\frac{1}{2}}\sigma^2(y,z)\left({\widetilde\pi^0}\right)^2\partial_x^2,&\\
\widetilde {\mathcal{L}}_3 &= \mu(y,z){\widetilde \pi^{(1,0)}}\partial_x + \sigma^2(y,z){\widetilde\pi^0}{\widetilde \pi^{(1,0)}}\partial_x^2, &\widetilde {\mathcal{L}}_4 &= {\frac{1}{2}}\sigma^2(y,z)\left({\widetilde \pi^{(1,0)}}\right)^2\partial_x^2,&\\
\widetilde {\mathcal{L}}_5 &= \rho_1a(y)\sigma(y,z){\widetilde \pi^{(1,0)}}\partial_x\partial_y, &\widetilde {\mathcal{M}}_1 &= \rho_2\sigma(y,z)g(z){\widetilde\pi^0}\partial_x\partial_z,&\\
\widetilde {\mathcal{M}}_4 &= \mu(y,z){\widetilde{\pi}^{(0,1)}}\partial_x + \sigma^2(y,z){\widetilde\pi^0}{\widetilde{\pi}^{(0,1)}}\partial_x^2, &\widetilde {\mathcal{M}}_5 &= {\frac{1}{2}}\sigma^2(y,z)\left({\widetilde{\pi}^{(0,1)}}\right)^2\partial_x^2,&\\
\widetilde {\mathcal{M}}_6 &= \sigma^2(y,z){\widetilde \pi^{(1,0)}}{\widetilde{\pi}^{(0,1)}}\partial_x^2, &\widetilde {\mathcal{M}}_7 &= \rho_1a(y)\sigma(y,z){\widetilde{\pi}^{(0,1)}}\partial_x\partial_y,&\\
\widetilde {\mathcal{M}}_8 &= \rho_2\sigma(y,z)g(z){\widetilde \pi^{(1,0)}}\partial_x\partial_z, &\widetilde {\mathcal{M}}_9 &= \rho_2\sigma(y,z)g(z){\widetilde{\pi}^{(0,1)}}\partial_x\partial_z.&
\end{aligned}$$ Observing that four scales ${\epsilon}^\alpha, \sqrt{{\epsilon}}, \delta^\beta, \sqrt{\delta}$ exist in , we propose the following ansatz $$\label{p6_eq_Vftansatz}
{\widetilde{V}^{{\epsilon},\delta}}= {\widetilde{v}^{(0)}}+ \sum_{i+j = 1}^{n+1} {\epsilon}^{i\alpha}\delta^{j\beta}\widetilde v^{(i\alpha,j\beta)} + \sqrt{{\epsilon}}{\widetilde v^{(1,0)}}+ \sqrt\delta{\widetilde v^{(0,1)}}+ \cdots,$$ where $n = \max(n_1,n_2)$ and $n_1$ (*resp.* $n_2$) is the largest integer satisfying $n_1\alpha < {\frac{1}{2}}$ (*resp.* $n_2\beta < {\frac{1}{2}}$). If one follows the derivation in our previous work [@FoHu:16 Section 4] where only the slow factor is considered, after having the ansatz, the next step is to identify the needed terms before $o (\sqrt{{\epsilon}} + \sqrt{\delta})$ in and justify the expansion. While doing this, keep in mind that we need to compare it to the approximation of ${V^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},{\epsilon},\delta}}$, which is ${v^{(0)}}+ \sqrt{{\epsilon}}{v^{(1,0)}}+ \sqrt{\delta}{v^{(0,1)}}+ {\mathcal{O}}({\epsilon}+ \delta)$. In some cases, the comparison is difficult. Even for the cases that the comparison can be done, this process is lengthy and tedious by matching terms of all different orders. For instance, when $\alpha = \frac{1}{8}$ and $\beta = \frac{3}{8}$, the terms clearly before $o(\sqrt{{\epsilon}} + \sqrt{\delta})$ in are $${\widetilde{v}^{(0)}}+ {\epsilon}^\alpha \widetilde v^{1\alpha,0\beta} + \delta^\beta \widetilde v^{0\alpha,1\beta} +
{\epsilon}^{2\alpha}\widetilde v^{2\alpha,0\beta} + {\epsilon}^\alpha\delta^\beta \widetilde v^{\alpha, \beta} + {\epsilon}^{3\alpha}\widetilde v^{3\alpha,0\beta} +\sqrt{{\epsilon}} {\widetilde v^{(1,0)}}+ \sqrt{\delta} {\widetilde v^{(0,1)}},$$ where $\widetilde v^{1\alpha,0\beta}$ and $\widetilde v^{0\alpha,1\beta}$ are identified zeros, and other terms can be characterized by effective equations. But it is impossible to compare every single terms above to ${v^{(0)}}+ \sqrt{{\epsilon}}{v^{(1,0)}}+ \sqrt{\delta}{v^{(0,1)}}$, the first order approximation of ${V^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},{\epsilon},\delta}}$. However, if one add the term $\delta^{2\beta} \widetilde v^{0\alpha, 2\beta}$ to the above expression (although itself is $o(\sqrt{{\epsilon}} + \sqrt{\delta})$), and regroup it with ${\epsilon}^{2\alpha}\widetilde v^{2\alpha,0\beta} + {\epsilon}^\alpha\delta^\beta \widetilde v^{\alpha, \beta}$, one will be able to claim the sum is negative and of order ${\mathcal{O}}({\epsilon}^{2\alpha} + \delta^{2\beta})$. Consequently, we can claim ${{\pi^{(0)}}}$ outperforms at the order ${\epsilon}^{2\alpha} + \delta^{2\beta}$, and there is no need to analyze further terms (e.g. ${\epsilon}^{3\alpha}\widetilde v^{3\alpha,0\beta} +\sqrt{{\epsilon}} {\widetilde v^{(1,0)}}+ \sqrt{\delta} {\widetilde v^{(0,1)}}$). As you can see, for just one case of $\alpha, \beta$, it is already quite tricky to do the comparison. As a result, in this section we shall present the optimality of ${{\pi^{(0)}}}$ by another approach: the epsilon-martingale decomposition method. One advantage of the epsilon-martingale decomposition method is the relaxation of the feedback form controls. As you have seen in the aforementioned assumptions on ${\widetilde \pi^{{\epsilon}, \delta}}$, we do not require ${\widetilde \pi^{{\epsilon}, \delta}}$ to be an explicit function of the states $(t, X_t, Y_t, Z_t)$, but rather a general adapted process, although we intend to compare it with ${{\pi^{(0)}}}$, which is of the Markovian type.
The Epsilon-Martingale Decomposition {#sec_EMD2_intro}
------------------------------------
The epsilon-martingale decomposition is an efficient tool to find approximations of martingales of interest in non-Markovian problems when small parameters are involved. Denote this martingale by $(V_t^\delta)_{t\in[0,T]}$ with respect to some filtration $({\mathcal{F}}_t)_{t \in [0,T]}$, where $\delta$ represents the group of small parameters, then the method consists of making an ansatz $Q_t^\delta$ for $V_t^\delta$ in the form of a martingale plus something small (nonzero non-martingale part) with the right terminal condition. Then this ansatz is indeed the approximation to $V_t^\delta$ with an error that is of the order of the non-martingale part. More precisely, suppose one intends to find the approximation of $V_t^\delta$ at order $\sqrt\delta$ then it requires to decompose $Q_t^\delta$ as: $$\label{p3_eq_epsmart}
Q_t^\delta = M_t^\delta + R_t^\delta, \quad \text{and} \quad Q_T^\delta = V_T^\delta,$$ where $M_t^\delta$ is a martingale and $R_t^\delta$ is of order $o(\sqrt\delta)$. Note that the term of order $\sqrt\delta$ will be absorbed in the martingale part $M_t^\delta$. Suppose we obtain such a decomposition , then, taking conditional expectation with respect to ${\mathcal{F}}_t$ on both sides of the equation $Q_T^\delta = M_T^\delta + R_T^\delta$ gives $$V_t^\delta = {\mathbb{E}}\left[Q_T^{\delta} \vert {\mathcal{F}}_t\right] =
M_t^\delta + {\mathbb{E}}\left[R_T^\delta \vert {\mathcal{F}}_t \right] = Q_t^{\delta} + {\mathbb{E}}\left[R_T^\delta \vert {\mathcal{F}}_t \right] - R_t^\delta.$$ Since $R_t^\delta$ is of order $o(\sqrt\delta)$, $Q_t^{\delta}$ is the approximation to $V_t^\delta$ up to $\sqrt\delta$. Therefore the above argument leads to the desired approximation result. In our case, the martingale considered is ${\widetilde{V}^{{\epsilon},\delta}}_t$ defined in , and the desired order of $R^{{\epsilon}, \delta}$ is $o(\sqrt{{\epsilon}} + \sqrt{\delta})$ or $o(1)$ depending on the relation between ${{\pi^{(0)}}}$ and ${\widetilde\pi^0}$. The derivation will be presented in the next section.
Asymptotics of ${\widetilde{V}^{{\epsilon},\delta}}$ and Proof of Theorem \[p6\_thm\_main\]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In what follows, we shall derive the approximation of ${\widetilde{V}^{{\epsilon},\delta}}$. To shorten the length of expressions, we systematically omit the arguments $(t,X_t^\pi, Z_t)$ of the functions ${v^{(0)}}$, ${v^{(1,0)}}$ and ${v^{(0,1)}}$ when no confused is introduced. Also, the claims on the true martingality and on the order of residual terms are guaranteed by Assumption \[p6\_appendix\_addasump\]. Since this is used through the derivation, we mentioned it at the beginning, and will not repeat this reasoning later on.
The order of approximation will depend on ${\widetilde\pi^0}$ being identical to ${{\pi^{(0)}}}$ or not. We first deal with the case ${\widetilde\pi^0}= {{\pi^{(0)}}}$. By the Itô’s formula applied to ${v^{(0)}}(t,X_t^\pi, Z_t)$, we deduce $$\begin{aligned}
{\,\mathrm{d}}{v^{(0)}}(t, X_t^\pi, Z_t) &= {\mathcal{L}_{t,x}}(\lambda(Y_t, Z_t)){v^{(0)}}{\,\mathrm{d}}t + \left({\epsilon}^\alpha {\widetilde \pi^{(1,0)}}_t + \delta^\beta {\widetilde{\pi}^{(0,1)}}_t\right) \mu(Y_t, Z_t) {v^{(0)}}_x {\,\mathrm{d}}t \\
& \quad + {\frac{1}{2}}\left({\epsilon}^\alpha {\widetilde \pi^{(1,0)}}_t + \delta^\beta {\widetilde{\pi}^{(0,1)}}_t\right)^2 \sigma^2(Y_t, Z_t) {v^{(0)}}_{xx} {\,\mathrm{d}}t \\
& \quad + \lambda(Y_t, Z_t) R(t,X_t;{\overline\lambda}(Z_t))\left({\epsilon}^\alpha {\widetilde \pi^{(1,0)}}_t + \delta^\beta {\widetilde{\pi}^{(0,1)}}_t\right) \sigma(Y_t, Z_t) {v^{(0)}}_{xx} {\,\mathrm{d}}t \\
& \quad + \delta {\mathcal{M}}_2 {v^{(0)}}{\,\mathrm{d}}t + \sqrt{\delta}\rho_2 g(Z_t)\pi_t \sigma(Y_t, Z_t) {v^{(0)}}_{xz} {\,\mathrm{d}}t \\
& \quad + {\,\mathrm{d}}\widetilde M_t^{(1)},
\end{aligned}$$ where $ \widetilde M_t^{(1)}$ is a martingale $${\,\mathrm{d}}\widetilde M_t^{(1)} = \pi_t \sigma(Y_t, Z_t){v^{(0)}}_x {\,\mathrm{d}}W_t + \sqrt{\delta} g(Z_t) {v^{(0)}}_z{\,\mathrm{d}}W_t^Z.$$ Using the relations ${\mathcal{L}_{t,x}}({\overline\lambda}(z))){v^{(0)}}= 0$, and the definitions of $R(t,x;\lambda)$ and $D_k$, one can simplify the above as $$\begin{aligned}
{\,\mathrm{d}}{v^{(0)}}(t, X_t^\pi, Z_t) &= {\frac{1}{2}}\left(\lambda^2(Y_t, Z_t) - {\overline\lambda}^2(Z_t)\right) D_1 {v^{(0)}}{\,\mathrm{d}}t + \sqrt{\delta}\rho_2g(Z_t)\lambda(Y_t, Z_t)D_1 {v^{(0)}}_{z} {\,\mathrm{d}}t \\
& \quad + {\,\mathrm{d}}\widetilde N_t + {\,\mathrm{d}}\widetilde R^{(1)}_t + {\,\mathrm{d}}\widetilde M_t^{(1)}, \label{p6_eq_dvz}
\end{aligned}$$ where $\widetilde N_t \sim {\mathcal{O}}({\epsilon}^{2\alpha} + \delta^{2\beta})$ is strictly decreasing and $\widetilde R^{(1)}$ is higher than order $\sqrt{{\epsilon}} + \sqrt{\delta}$ defined by $$\begin{aligned}
{\,\mathrm{d}}\widetilde N_t &= {\frac{1}{2}}\left({\epsilon}^\alpha {\widetilde \pi^{(1,0)}}_t + \delta^\beta {\widetilde{\pi}^{(0,1)}}_t\right)^2 \sigma^2(Y_t, Z_t) {v^{(0)}}_{xx} {\,\mathrm{d}}t,\\
{\,\mathrm{d}}\widetilde R_t^{(1)} &= \delta {\mathcal{M}}_2 {v^{(0)}}{\,\mathrm{d}}t + \sqrt\delta \rho_2 g(Z_t)\left({\epsilon}^\alpha{\widetilde \pi^{(1,0)}}_t + \delta^\beta{\widetilde{\pi}^{(0,1)}}_t\right) \sigma(Y_t, Z_t) {v^{(0)}}_{xz} {\,\mathrm{d}}t.
\end{aligned}$$
Now it remains to find the epsilon-martingale decomposition for the first two terms in . To this end, we first analyze the term $\left(\lambda^2(Y_t, Z_t) - {\overline\lambda}^2(Z_t)\right) {\,\mathrm{d}}t$, which will be repeated used in the following derivation. Recall the solution $\theta(y,z)$ of the Poisson equation defined in Section \[p2\_sec\_multiheuristic\]: ${\mathcal{L}}_0 \theta(y,z) = \lambda^2(y,z) - {\overline\lambda}^2(z)$. Applying the Itô’s formula to $\theta(Y_t, Z_t)$ and omit the arguments $(Y_t, Z_t)$ of $\theta$ for the sake of length, one deduces $$\begin{aligned}
{\,\mathrm{d}}\theta(Y_t, Z_t) &= \left[\frac{1}{{\epsilon}}{\mathcal{L}}_0\theta+ \delta {\mathcal{M}}_2 \theta + \sqrt{\frac{\delta}{{\epsilon}}}{\mathcal{M}}_3 \theta\right] {\,\mathrm{d}}t + \frac{1}{\sqrt{{\epsilon}}} a(Y_t) \partial_y\theta {\,\mathrm{d}}W_t^Y + \sqrt{\delta}g(Z_t)\partial_z\theta {\,\mathrm{d}}W_t^Z,
\end{aligned}$$ where we recall that ${\mathcal{L}}_0$ and ${\mathcal{M}}_2$ are infinitesimal generators of $Y^{(1)} \stackrel{{\mathcal{D}}}{=} Y_{t{\epsilon}}$ and $Z^{(1)} \stackrel{{\mathcal{D}}}{=} Z_{t/\delta}$ and ${\mathcal{M}}_3 = \rho_{12}a(y)g(z)\partial_{y}\partial_z$. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\lambda^2(Y_t, Z_t) - {\overline\lambda}^2(Z_t)\right){\,\mathrm{d}}t &= {\epsilon}{\,\mathrm{d}}\theta - \left[{\epsilon}\delta {\mathcal{M}}_2 \theta + \sqrt{{\epsilon}\delta}{\mathcal{M}}_3\theta\right] {\,\mathrm{d}}t - \sqrt{{\epsilon}}a(Y_t) \partial_y\theta {\,\mathrm{d}}W_t^Y\\
&\quad - {\epsilon}\sqrt{\delta}g(Z_t)\partial_z\theta {\,\mathrm{d}}W_t^Z.
\end{aligned}$$ Then the first term in is computed as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\label{p6_eq_dlambdad1vz}
{\frac{1}{2}}\left(\lambda^2(Y_t, Z_t) - {\overline\lambda}^2(Z_t)\right) D_1 {v^{(0)}}{\,\mathrm{d}}t = \frac{{\epsilon}}{2} D_1{v^{(0)}}{\,\mathrm{d}}\theta - {\frac{1}{2}}{\,\mathrm{d}}\widetilde R_t^{(2)} - {\frac{1}{2}}{\,\mathrm{d}}\widetilde M_t^{(2)},
\end{aligned}$$ where $\widetilde R_t^{(2)}$ is again of order $o(\sqrt{{\epsilon}} + \sqrt{\delta})$ and $\widetilde M_t^{(2)}$ is a true martingale defined by $$\begin{aligned}
{\,\mathrm{d}}\widetilde R_t^{(2)} & = \left[{\epsilon}\delta {\mathcal{M}}_2 \theta + \sqrt{{\epsilon}\delta}{\mathcal{M}}_3\theta\right] D_1 {v^{(0)}}{\,\mathrm{d}}t, \\
{\,\mathrm{d}}\widetilde M_t^{(2)}& = \sqrt{{\epsilon}}a(Y_t) \theta_y D_1{v^{(0)}}{\,\mathrm{d}}W_t^Y + {\epsilon}\sqrt{\delta}g(Z_t)\theta_z D_1 {v^{(0)}}{\,\mathrm{d}}W_t^Z.
\end{aligned}$$ For the term $D_1{v^{(0)}}{\,\mathrm{d}}\theta$, we use the product rule ${\,\mathrm{d}}\left(D_1 {v^{(0)}}\theta\right) = D_1{v^{(0)}}{\,\mathrm{d}}\theta + \theta {\,\mathrm{d}}D_1 {v^{(0)}}+ {\,\mathrm{d}}{\left\langleD_1{v^{(0)}}, \theta\right\rangle}_t$ and obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{p6_eq_d1vzdtheta}
\frac{{\epsilon}}{2} D_1{v^{(0)}}{\,\mathrm{d}}\theta = -\frac{\sqrt{{\epsilon}}}{2} \rho_1 B(Z_t) D_1^2 {v^{(0)}}{\,\mathrm{d}}t + {\frac{1}{2}}{\,\mathrm{d}}\widetilde R_t^{(3)} + {\frac{1}{2}}{\,\mathrm{d}}\widetilde M_t^{(3)},
\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
{\,\mathrm{d}}\widetilde R_t^{(3)} & = {\epsilon}{\,\mathrm{d}}\left(D_1{v^{(0)}}\theta\right) - \left(\sqrt{\epsilon}\rho_1\theta_y a(Y_t) + {\epsilon}\sqrt{\delta}\rho_2 \theta_z g(Z_t)\right)\left({\epsilon}^\alpha{\widetilde \pi^{(1,0)}}_t + \delta^\beta{\widetilde{\pi}^{(0,1)}}_t\right)\\
& \quad \times \sigma(Y_t, Z_t)\partial_xD_1{v^{(0)}}{\,\mathrm{d}}t -\left(\sqrt{{\epsilon}\delta}\rho_{12}\theta_y a(Y_t) + \delta \theta_z g(Z_t)\right)\partial_z D_1{v^{(0)}}g(Z_t) {\,\mathrm{d}}t \\
& \quad - {\epsilon}\theta \left[\partial_t + \pi_t\mu(Y_t,Z_t)\partial_x + {\frac{1}{2}}\pi_t^2\sigma^2(Y_t,Z_t)\partial_{x}^2 + \delta M_2 +\sqrt{\delta}\rho_2 g(Z_t)\pi_t\sigma(Y_t,Z_t)\partial_{xz}\right]D_1{v^{(0)}}{\,\mathrm{d}}t \\
& \quad - \sqrt{{\epsilon}}\rho_1 \left(a(Y_t)\lambda(Y_t,Z_t) \theta_y-B(Z_t)\right)D_1^2 {v^{(0)}}{\,\mathrm{d}}t, \\
{\,\mathrm{d}}\widetilde M_t^{(3)} & = {\epsilon}\pi_t \sigma(Y_t, Z_t) \partial_x D_1{v^{(0)}}{\,\mathrm{d}}W_t + {\epsilon}\sqrt{\delta}g(Z_t)\partial_z D_1{v^{(0)}}{\,\mathrm{d}}W_t^Z.
\end{aligned}$$ Now recall that the first order correction in the fast variable ${v^{(1,0)}}$ defined in satisfies ${\mathcal{L}_{t,x}}({\overline\lambda}(z)){v^{(1,0)}}= {\frac{1}{2}}\rho_1 B(z)D_1^2{v^{(0)}}$, therefore $$\begin{aligned}
\label{p6_eq_dvoz}
{\,\mathrm{d}}\sqrt{{\epsilon}}{v^{(1,0)}}(t, X_t^\pi, Z_t) = \frac{\sqrt{{\epsilon}}}{2} \rho_1 B(Z_t)D_1^2{v^{(0)}}{\,\mathrm{d}}t + {\,\mathrm{d}}\widetilde R_t^{(4)} + {\,\mathrm{d}}\widetilde M_t^{(4)},
\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
{\,\mathrm{d}}\widetilde R_t^{(4)} &= \sqrt{{\epsilon}}\left({\epsilon}^\alpha{\widetilde \pi^{(1,0)}}_t + \delta^\beta{\widetilde{\pi}^{(0,1)}}_t\right)\mu(Y_t, Z_t) {v^{(1,0)}}_x {\,\mathrm{d}}t + \frac{\sqrt{{\epsilon}}}{2} \left({\epsilon}^\alpha{\widetilde \pi^{(1,0)}}_t + \delta^\beta{\widetilde{\pi}^{(0,1)}}_t\right)^2\sigma^2(Y_t, Z_t) {v^{(1,0)}}_{xx}{\,\mathrm{d}}t \\
& \quad + \sqrt{{\epsilon}}\left({\epsilon}^\alpha{\widetilde \pi^{(1,0)}}_t + \delta^\beta{\widetilde{\pi}^{(0,1)}}_t\right)\lambda(Y_t, Z_t)R(t,X_t^\pi, {\overline\lambda}(Z_t))\sigma(Y_t, Z_t){v^{(1,0)}}_{xx}{\,\mathrm{d}}t \\
& \quad + \sqrt{{\epsilon}} \delta {\mathcal{M}}_2 {v^{(1,0)}}{\,\mathrm{d}}t + \sqrt{{\epsilon}\delta} \rho_2 g(Z_t)\pi_t \sigma(Y_t,Z_t){v^{(1,0)}}_{xz} {\,\mathrm{d}}t \\
& \quad + \frac{\sqrt{{\epsilon}}}{2}\left(\lambda^2(Y_t, Z_t) - {\overline\lambda}^2(Z_t)\right)(D_2 + 2D_1) {v^{(1,0)}}{\,\mathrm{d}}t,\\
{\,\mathrm{d}}\widetilde M_t^{(4)} &= \sqrt{{\epsilon}}\pi_t \sigma(Y_t, Z_t) {v^{(1,0)}}_x {\,\mathrm{d}}W_t + \sqrt{{\epsilon}\delta}g(Z_t){v^{(1,0)}}_z {\,\mathrm{d}}W_t^Z.
\end{aligned}$$
The second term in is taken care of by the first order correction in the slow variable ${v^{(0,1)}}$, which satisfies ${\mathcal{L}_{t,x}}({\overline\lambda}(z)){v^{(0,1)}}= -\rho_2 \widehat\lambda(z)g(z)D_1{v^{(0)}}_z$; see . Applying the Itô’s formula to ${v^{(0,1)}}(t, X_t^\pi, Z_t)$ yields $$\begin{aligned}
\label{p6_eq_dvzo}
{\,\mathrm{d}}\sqrt{\delta}{v^{(0,1)}}(t, X_t^\pi, Z_t) = \sqrt\delta\rho_2 g(Z_t)\lambda(Y_t, Z_t) D_1{v^{(0)}}_z {\,\mathrm{d}}t + {\,\mathrm{d}}\widetilde R_t^{(5)} + {\,\mathrm{d}}\widetilde M_t^{(5)},
\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
{\,\mathrm{d}}\widetilde R_t^{(5)} &= \sqrt{\delta}\left({\epsilon}^\alpha{\widetilde \pi^{(1,0)}}_t + \delta^\beta{\widetilde{\pi}^{(0,1)}}_t\right)\mu(Y_t, Z_t) {v^{(0,1)}}_x {\,\mathrm{d}}t + \frac{\sqrt{\delta}}{2} \left({\epsilon}^\alpha{\widetilde \pi^{(1,0)}}_t + \delta^\beta{\widetilde{\pi}^{(0,1)}}_t\right)^2\sigma^2(Y_t, Z_t) {v^{(0,1)}}_{xx}{\,\mathrm{d}}t \\
& \quad + \sqrt{\delta}\left({\epsilon}^\alpha{\widetilde \pi^{(1,0)}}_t + \delta^\beta{\widetilde{\pi}^{(0,1)}}_t\right)\lambda(Y_t, Z_t)R(t,X_t^\pi, {\overline\lambda}(Z_t))\sigma(Y_t, Z_t){v^{(0,1)}}_{xx}{\,\mathrm{d}}t \\
& \quad + \delta^{3/2} {\mathcal{M}}_2 {v^{(0,1)}}{\,\mathrm{d}}t + \delta \rho_2 g(Z_t)\pi_t \sigma(Y_t,Z_t){v^{(0,1)}}_{xz} {\,\mathrm{d}}t \\
& \quad + \frac{\sqrt{\delta}}{2}\left(\lambda^2(Y_t, Z_t) - {\overline\lambda}^2(Z_t)\right)(D_2 + 2D_1) {v^{(0,1)}}{\,\mathrm{d}}t\\
& \quad - \sqrt{\delta}\rho_2 g(Z_t)\left(\lambda(Y_t, Z_t) - \widehat \lambda(Z_t)\right)D_1{v^{(0)}}_z {\,\mathrm{d}}t,\\
{\,\mathrm{d}}\widetilde M_t^{(5)} &= \sqrt{\delta}\pi_t \sigma(Y_t, Z_t) {v^{(0,1)}}_x {\,\mathrm{d}}W_t + \delta g(Z_t){v^{(0,1)}}_z {\,\mathrm{d}}W_t^Z.
\end{aligned}$$ Now, define the function $Q(t,x,z)$ by $$Q(t,x,z) = {v^{(0)}}(t,x,z) + \sqrt{{\epsilon}}{v^{(1,0)}}(t,x,z) + \sqrt{\delta}{v^{(0,1)}}(t,x,z),$$ whose terminal condition is $Q(T,x,z) = {v^{(0)}}(T,x,z) = U(x)$. Combing equation , , , and , we deduce $${\,\mathrm{d}}Q(t,X_t^\pi, Z_t) = {\,\mathrm{d}}\widetilde R_t + {\,\mathrm{d}}\widetilde M_t + {\,\mathrm{d}}\widetilde N_t,$$ where $\widetilde R_t$ is of order $o(\sqrt{{\epsilon}} + \sqrt{\delta})$, and $\widetilde M_t$ is a true martingale given by $$\begin{aligned}
{\,\mathrm{d}}\widetilde R_t &= {\,\mathrm{d}}\widetilde R_t^{(1)} -{\frac{1}{2}}{\,\mathrm{d}}\widetilde R_t^{(2)} + {\frac{1}{2}}{\,\mathrm{d}}\widetilde R_t^{(3)} +{\,\mathrm{d}}\widetilde R_t^{(4)} +{\,\mathrm{d}}\widetilde R_t^{(5)},\\
{\,\mathrm{d}}\widetilde M_t& = {\,\mathrm{d}}\widetilde M_t^{(1)} -{\frac{1}{2}}{\,\mathrm{d}}\widetilde M_t^{(2)}+{\frac{1}{2}}{\,\mathrm{d}}\widetilde M_t^{(3)}+{\,\mathrm{d}}\widetilde M_t^{(4)}+{\,\mathrm{d}}\widetilde M_t^{(5)}.
\end{aligned}$$ The above claims on the order of $\widetilde R_t$ and on the true martingality of $\widetilde M_t$ are justified by integrability conditions required in Assumption \[p6\_assump\_optimality\], estimates of ${v^{(0)}}$ listed in [@FoHu:16 Proposition 3.7], and growth conditions of various functions. Finally we conclude $$\begin{aligned}
{\widetilde{V}^{{\epsilon},\delta}}_t&= {\mathbb{E}}[U(X_T^\pi)\vert {\mathcal{F}}_t] = {\mathbb{E}}[Q(T, X_T^\pi, Z_T) \vert {\mathcal{F}}_t] \\
&= Q(t, X_t, Z_t) + {\mathbb{E}}[\widetilde R_T - \widetilde R_t \vert {\mathcal{F}}_t] + {\mathbb{E}}[\widetilde N_T - \widetilde N_t \vert {\mathcal{F}}_t] \\
& < Q(t, X_t, Z_t) + o(\sqrt{{\epsilon}} + \sqrt{\delta}),\label{p6_eq_Vfteq}
\end{aligned}$$ where the last step is by the monotonicity of $\widetilde N_t$.
In the case that ${\widetilde\pi^0}\ne {{\pi^{(0)}}}$, similar derivation brings $$\begin{aligned}
{\,\mathrm{d}}{v^{(0)}}(t, X_t^\pi, Z_t) &= {\mathcal{L}_{t,x}}(\lambda(Y_t, Z_t)){v^{(0)}}{\,\mathrm{d}}t + {\frac{1}{2}}\left(\pi_t - {{\pi^{(0)}}}\right)^2 \sigma^2(Y_t, Z_t){v^{(0)}}_{xx} {\,\mathrm{d}}t + \delta {\mathcal{M}}_2 {v^{(0)}}{\,\mathrm{d}}t \\
& \quad + \sqrt{\delta}\rho_2g(Z_t)\pi_t \sigma(Y_t, Z_t) {v^{(0)}}_{xz} {\,\mathrm{d}}t + \pi_t\sigma(Y_t, Z_t) {v^{(0)}}_x {\,\mathrm{d}}W_t + \sqrt{\delta} g(Z_t){v^{(0)}}_z {\,\mathrm{d}}W_t^Z \\
& = {\,\mathrm{d}}\widehat R_t + {\,\mathrm{d}}\widehat N_t + {\,\mathrm{d}}\widehat M_t,
\end{aligned}$$ where $\widehat R_t$ is of order ${\mathcal{O}}(\sqrt{{\epsilon}} + \sqrt{\delta})$, $\widehat M_t$ is a true martingale and $\widehat N_t$ is strictly decreasing and of order one: $$\begin{aligned}
{\,\mathrm{d}}\widehat R_t &= {\frac{1}{2}}(\lambda^2(Y_t, Z_t) - {\overline\lambda}^2(Z_t)) D_1 {v^{(0)}}{\,\mathrm{d}}t +\delta {\mathcal{M}}_2 {v^{(0)}}{\,\mathrm{d}}t + \sqrt{\delta}\rho_2g(Z_t)\pi_t \sigma(Y_t, Z_t) {v^{(0)}}_{xz} {\,\mathrm{d}}t, \\
{\,\mathrm{d}}\widehat N_t & = {\frac{1}{2}}\left(\pi_t - {{\pi^{(0)}}}\right)^2 \sigma^2(Y_t, Z_t){v^{(0)}}_{xx} {\,\mathrm{d}}t, \\
{\,\mathrm{d}}\widehat M_t & = \pi_t\sigma(Y_t, Z_t) {v^{(0)}}_x {\,\mathrm{d}}W_t + \sqrt{\delta} g(Z_t){v^{(0)}}_z {\,\mathrm{d}}W_t^Z.
\end{aligned}$$ Therefore in this case, $$\begin{aligned}
{\widetilde{V}^{{\epsilon},\delta}}_t&= {\mathbb{E}}[U(X_T^\pi) \vert {\mathcal{F}}_t] = {\mathbb{E}}[{v^{(0)}}(T, X_T^\pi, Z_T) \vert {\mathcal{F}}_t] \\
&= {v^{(0)}}(t, X_t, Z_t) + {\mathbb{E}}[\widehat R_T - \widehat R_t \vert {\mathcal{F}}_t] + {\mathbb{E}}[\widehat N_T - \widehat N_t \vert {\mathcal{F}}_t] \\
& < {v^{(0)}}(t, X_t, Z_t) + {\mathcal{O}}(\sqrt{{\epsilon}} + \sqrt{\delta}). \label{p6_eq_Vftneq}
\end{aligned}$$
The inequality in Theorem \[p6\_thm\_main\] is a consequence of the two approximation results of ${V^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},{\epsilon},\delta}}$ and ${\widetilde{V}^{{\epsilon},\delta}}$. By comparing the approximation of ${V^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},{\epsilon},\delta}}$ given in Theorem \[p2\_Thm\_full\] with the definition of $Q(t,x,z)$, we deduce $${V^{{{\pi^{(0)}}},{\epsilon},\delta}}(t,x,y,z) = Q(t,x,z) + {\mathcal{O}}({\epsilon}+ \delta).$$ Now, compare it with the two inequalities and , and observing that $\frac{\widetilde N_T - \widetilde N_t }{\sqrt{{\epsilon}} + \sqrt{\delta}}$ and $\frac{\widehat N_T - \widehat N_t }{\sqrt{{\epsilon}} + \sqrt{\delta}}$ are negative no matter what values $\alpha$ and $\beta$ take, we have the desired result.
Conclusion {#sec_conclusion}
==========
In this paper, we study the portfolio optimization problem in multiscale stochastic environment when the investor’s utility is general. Motivated by recent empirical studies [@FoPaSiSo:11], the return and volatility of the underlying asset are modeled by functions of both fast and slow time scales. We first analyze the performance of a zeroth order strategy proposed in [@FoSiZa:13], and give a rigorous approximation of the value process associated to this strategy, up to the first order. Then we compare its performance to any admissible strategy of a specific form. The comparison is made up to a certain order, thus we call this result asymptotic optimality. The first part is done by applying the singular and regular perturbation techniques to a linear PDE; while the second part, we employ the epsilon-martingale decomposition method, which not only simplifies the derivation, but also extends the analysis to non-Markovian strategies. We comment that our results partially answer the question by giving a suboptimal strategy via analyzing the associated linear PDE, although a full optimality result will require to work with viscosity solutions of the HJB equation. It is also of the authors’ interest to extend the analysis to fractional multiscale environment, motivated by the recent studies [@roughvol].
Appendix {#appendix .unnumbered}
========
Additional Assumptions in Section \[p6\_sec\_optimality\] {#p6_appendix_addasump}
=========================================================
This set of assumptions is used to establish the approximation accuracy (*resp.* ) to ${\widetilde{V}^{{\epsilon},\delta}}$ defined in . To be specific, these assumptions will ensure that $\widetilde M_t$ (*resp.* $\widehat M_t$) is a true martingale and that $\widetilde R_t$ (*resp.* $\widehat R_t$) is of order $o(\sqrt{\epsilon}+ \sqrt{\delta})$ (*resp.* ${\mathcal{O}}(\sqrt{{\epsilon}} + \sqrt{\delta})$).
\[p6\_assump\_optimality\] Let ${\widetilde \pi^{{\epsilon}, \delta}}= {\widetilde\pi^0}+{\epsilon}^\alpha{\widetilde \pi^{(1,0)}}+ \delta^\beta{\widetilde{\pi}^{(0,1)}}$ be the trading strategy to compare with, and recall that $X^\pi$ is the wealth process generated by this strategy $\pi = {\widetilde \pi^{{\epsilon}, \delta}}$ as defined in . In order to condense the notation, we systematically omit the arguments $(s,X_s^\pi,Z_t)$ of ${v^{(0)}}$, ${v^{(1,0)}}$ and ${v^{(0,1)}}$ and the argument $(Y_t, Z_t)$ of $\mu$ and $\sigma$ in what follows. According to the different cases, we further require:
(i) \[p6\_assump\_optimality\_eq\] If ${\widetilde\pi^0}\equiv {{\pi^{(0)}}}$, the quantities below, for any $t \in [0,T]$, are uniformly bounded in $({\epsilon}, \delta)$:
${\mathbb{E}}\int_0^T \left(\sigma{\widetilde \pi^{(1,0)}}_s{v^{(0)}}_x\right)^2 {\,\mathrm{d}}s $, ${\mathbb{E}}\int_0^T \left(\sigma{\widetilde{\pi}^{(0,1)}}_s{v^{(0)}}_x\right)^2 {\,\mathrm{d}}s $, ${\mathbb{E}}\int_0^T \left(\sigma^2({\widetilde \pi^{(1,0)}}_s)^2{v^{(0)}}_{xx}\right)^2 {\,\mathrm{d}}s $,
${\mathbb{E}}\int_0^T \left(\sigma^2({\widetilde{\pi}^{(0,1)}}_s)^2{v^{(0)}}_{xx}\right)^2 {\,\mathrm{d}}s $, ${\mathbb{E}}{\left|\int_0^T \mu{\widetilde \pi^{(1,0)}}_s {v^{(1,0)}}_x {\,\mathrm{d}}s\right|}$, ${\mathbb{E}}{\left|\int_0^T \mu{\widetilde{\pi}^{(0,1)}}_s {v^{(1,0)}}_x {\,\mathrm{d}}s\right|}$,
${\mathbb{E}}{\left|\int_0^T \sigma^2\left({\widetilde \pi^{(1,0)}}_s\right)^2 {v^{(1,0)}}_{xx} {\,\mathrm{d}}s\right|}$, ${\mathbb{E}}{\left|\int_0^T \sigma^2\left({\widetilde{\pi}^{(0,1)}}_s\right)^2 {v^{(1,0)}}_{xx} {\,\mathrm{d}}s\right|}$,
${\mathbb{E}}{\left|\int_0^T \mu{\widetilde \pi^{(1,0)}}_s R(s, X_s^\pi; \overline{\lambda}(Z_s)) {v^{(1,0)}}_{xx} {\,\mathrm{d}}s\right|}$, ${\mathbb{E}}{\left|\int_0^T \mu{\widetilde{\pi}^{(0,1)}}_s R(s, X_s^\pi; \overline{\lambda}(Z_s)) {v^{(1,0)}}_{xx} {\,\mathrm{d}}s\right|}$,
${\mathbb{E}}\int_0^T \left(\sigma{\widetilde \pi^{(1,0)}}_s {v^{(1,0)}}_{x}\right)^2 {\,\mathrm{d}}s$, ${\mathbb{E}}\int_0^T \left(\sigma{\widetilde{\pi}^{(0,1)}}_s {v^{(1,0)}}_{x}\right)^2 {\,\mathrm{d}}s$, ${\mathbb{E}}{\left|\int_0^T \mu{\widetilde \pi^{(1,0)}}_s {v^{(0,1)}}_x {\,\mathrm{d}}s\right|}$,
${\mathbb{E}}{\left|\int_0^T \mu{\widetilde{\pi}^{(0,1)}}_s {v^{(0,1)}}_x {\,\mathrm{d}}s\right|}$, ${\mathbb{E}}{\left|\int_0^T \sigma^2\left({\widetilde \pi^{(1,0)}}_s\right)^2 {v^{(0,1)}}_{xx} {\,\mathrm{d}}s\right|}$, ${\mathbb{E}}{\left|\int_0^T \sigma^2\left({\widetilde{\pi}^{(0,1)}}_s\right)^2 {v^{(0,1)}}_{xx} {\,\mathrm{d}}s\right|}$,
${\mathbb{E}}{\left|\int_0^T \mu{\widetilde \pi^{(1,0)}}_s R(s, X_s^\pi; \overline{\lambda}(Z_s)) {v^{(0,1)}}_{xx} {\,\mathrm{d}}s\right|}$, ${\mathbb{E}}{\left|\int_0^T \mu{\widetilde{\pi}^{(0,1)}}_s R(s, X_s^\pi; \overline{\lambda}(Z_s)) {v^{(0,1)}}_{xx} {\,\mathrm{d}}s\right|}$,
${\mathbb{E}}\int_0^T \left(\sigma{\widetilde \pi^{(1,0)}}_s {v^{(0,1)}}_{x}\right)^2 {\,\mathrm{d}}s$, ${\mathbb{E}}\int_0^T \left(\sigma{\widetilde{\pi}^{(0,1)}}_s {v^{(0,1)}}_{x}\right)^2 {\,\mathrm{d}}s$,
(ii) \[p6\_assump\_optimality\_neq\] If ${\widetilde\pi^0}\not\equiv {{\pi^{(0)}}}$, we require ${\mathbb{E}}\int_0^T \left(\sigma\pi_s{v^{(0)}}_x\right)^2 {\,\mathrm{d}}s$ to be uniformly bounded in ${\epsilon}$ and $\delta$.
[^1]: Department of Statistics & Applied Probability, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-3110, [*[email protected]*]{}. Work supported by NSF grant DMS-1814091.
[^2]: Department of Statistics, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027-4690, [*[email protected]*]{}.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We have three contributions in this work: 1. We explore the utility of a stacked denoising autoencoder and a paragraph vector model to learn task-independent dense patient representations directly from clinical notes. To analyze if these representations are transferable across tasks, we evaluate them in multiple supervised setups to predict patient mortality, primary diagnostic and procedural category, and gender. We compare their performance with sparse representations obtained from a bag-of-words model. We observe that the learned generalized representations significantly outperform the sparse representations when we have few positive instances to learn from, and there is an absence of strong lexical features. 2. We compare the model performance of the feature set constructed from a bag of words to that obtained from medical concepts. In the latter case, concepts represent problems, treatments, and tests. We find that concept identification does not improve the classification performance. 3. We propose novel techniques to facilitate model interpretability. To understand and interpret the representations, we explore the best encoded features within the patient representations obtained from the autoencoder model. Further, we calculate feature sensitivity across two networks to identify the most significant input features for different classification tasks when we use these pretrained representations as the supervised input. We successfully extract the most influential features for the pipeline using this technique.'
address:
- 'Antwerp University Hospital, ICT department, Wilrijkstraat 10, Edegem, 2650 Belgium'
- 'Computational Linguistics and Psycholinguistics (CLiPS) research center, University of Antwerp, Prinsstraat 13, Antwerp, 2000 Belgium'
author:
- Madhumita Sushil
- Simon Šuster
- Kim Luyckx
- Walter Daelemans
bibliography:
- 'mybibfile.bib'
title: Patient representation learning and interpretable evaluation using clinical notes
---
Representation Learning ,Patient Representations ,Model Interpretability ,Natural Language Processing ,Unsupervised Learning
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Representation learning refers to learning features of data that can be used by machine learning algorithms for different tasks. Sparse representations, such as a bag of words from textual documents, treat every dimension independently. For example, in one-hot sparse representations, the terms ‘pain’ and ‘ache’ correspond to separate dimensions despite being synonyms of each other. Several techniques exist to model such dependence and reduce sparsity. The generalized or distributed representations learned using these techniques are referred to as low dimensional, or dense data representations. Unsupervised techniques for representation learning have become popular due to their ability to transfer the knowledge from large unlabeled corpora to the tasks with smaller labeled datasets, which can help circumvent the problem of overfitting [@goodfellow2016deep].
Representation learning techniques have been used extensively within and outside the clinical domain to learn the semantics of words, phrases, and documents [@DBLP:conf/acl/BaroniDK14; @DBLP:journals/corr/LiuCJY16]. We apply such techniques to create a patient semantic space by learning dense vector representations at the patient level. In a patient semantic space, “similar" patients should have similar vectors. Patient similarity metrics are widely used in several applications to assist clinical staff. Some examples are finding similar patients for rare diseases [@garcelon2017finding], identification of patient cohorts for disease subgroups [@li2015identification], providing personalized treatments [@zhang2014towards; @wang2015electronic], and predictive modeling tasks such as patient prognosis [@gottlieb2013method; @wang2012medical] and risk factor identification [@ng2015personalized]. The notion of patient similarity is defined differently for different use cases. When it is defined as an ontology-guided distance between specific structured properties of patients such as diseases and treatments, it represents patient relationships corresponding to those properties. For example, if patient similarity is calculated as a hierarchical distance between the primary diagnostic codes of patients in the UMLS^^ metathesaurus [@LindbergEtAl1993], the value represents a diagnostic similarity. When it is defined as an intersection between the sets of blood tests performed on patients, patient similarity maps to blood test similarity. If patient similarity value is 1 for the patients of the same gender and 0 otherwise, groups of similar patients are gender-specific patient cohorts. However, when we calculate similarity between distributed patient representations, the different properties that influence the similarity value are unknown. Within the learned patient representations, we aim to capture similarity on multiple dimensions, such as complaints, diagnoses, procedures performed, etc., which would encapsulate a holistic view of the patients.
In this work, we create unsupervised dense patient representations from clinical notes in the freely available MIMIC-III database [@johnson2016mimic]. We aim to learn patient representations that can later be used to identify sets of similar patients based on representation similarity. We focus on different techniques to learn patient representations using only textual data. We explore the usage of two neural representation learning architectures—a stacked denoising autoencoder [@vincent2010stacked], and a paragraph vector architecture [@le2014distributed]—for unsupervised learning. We then transfer the representations learned from the complete patient space to different supervised tasks, with an aim to generalize better on the tasks for which we have limited labeled data.
Dense representations can capture semantics, but at a loss of interpretability. Yet, it is critical to understand model behavior when statistical outputs influence clinical decisions [@caruana2015intelligible]. We take a step towards bridging this gap by proposing different techniques to interpret the information encoded in the patient vectors, and to extract the features that most influence the classification output when these representations are used as the input.
Related Work {#sec:relwork}
============
*Dense representations* of words [@mikolov2013efficient; @mikolov2013distributed; @pennington2014glove; @DBLP:journals/tacl/BojanowskiGJM17] and documents [@le2014distributed; @larochelle2012neural] have become popular because they are learned using unsupervised techniques, they capture the semantics in the content, and they generalize well across multiple tasks and domains. An *autoencoder* learns the data distribution and the corresponding dense representations in the process of first encoding data into an intermediate form and then decoding it. @miotto2016deep first proposed the use of a stacked denoising autoencoder to learn patient representations. They have shown promising results when patient vectors are first learned by a stacked denoising autoencoder from structured data combined with 300 topics from unstructured data, and are then used with Random Forests classifiers to identify future disease categories of patients. Following their work, @dubois2017learning have proposed two techniques to obtain patient representations from clinical notes. The first technique is unsupervised and performs an aggregation of concept embeddings into note and patient level representations, known as ‘embed-and-aggregate’. The second technique uses a recurrent neural network (RNN) with a bag-of-concepts representation of patient notes as time steps. The RNN is trained to predict disease categories of patients. The representations learned in this supervised setup are then transferred to other tasks. Apart from these works, @suresh2016use have performed a preliminary exploration of the use of sequence-to-sequence autoencoders to induce patient phenotypes using structured time-series data. They have compared different autoencoder architectures based on their reconstruction error when they are trained to encode patient phenotypes. An application of these phenotypes to different clinical prediction tasks has been reserved for future work. In the same vein as these previous works, we investigate the applicability of a stacked denoising autoencoder to learn patient representations *directly from unstructured data*, and analyze the tasks that these representations can be successfully applied to.
One of the evaluation tasks for us is *patient mortality prediction*. @johnsonreproducibility provide a good overview of the previous approaches for mortality prediction on the MIMIC datasets with an aim of replicating the experiments. Following the work by @ghassemi2014unfolding, @grnarova2016neural have shown significant improvements for mortality prediction tasks on using a two-level convolutional neural network (CNN) architecture, as compared to the use of topic models and doc2vec representations as inputs to linear support vector machines (SVMs). Besides these works, @jocombining have recently used long short term memory networks (LSTMs) and topic modeling for mortality prediction. They treat topics for patient notes as time steps for LSTMs. These topics are learned jointly using an encoder network. They have shown performance gains when the topics are jointly learned, compared to those pretrained using LDA [@blei2003latent].
Methods {#sec:methods}
=======
Learning Patient Representations
--------------------------------
In this section, we describe a stacked denoising autoencoder and a paragraph vector architecture doc2vec, in the context of learning task-independent dense patient representations in an unsupervised manner. The corresponding methodology for learning these dense representations is illustrated in Figure \[fig:patient\_rep\].
![An overview of the patient representation pipeline. The dashed lines indicate one of several operations, and are not performed in parallel. []{data-label="fig:patient_rep"}](patient_rep.png){width="0.5\linewidth"}
### Stacked denoising autoencoder {#sec:sdae}
Given the previous success of autoencoders for representation learning using structured data with or without topic models learned from unstructured data, we explore the use of a stacked denoising autoencoder (SDAE) [@vincent2010stacked] to learn task-independent patient representations from raw clinical text, forgoing the use of intermediate techniques like topic modeling. Although the premise of learning patient representations using an SDAE is not novel in itself, our contribution lies in analyzing if such a model is also successful when used only with clinical notes, and if the learned representations can be successfully applied for a range of tasks that are different from patient prognosis. This analysis gives us insight into successful and transferable patient representation architectures for unstructured data.
During the **pretraining** phase, every layer of an SDAE is sequentially trained as an independent denoising autoencoder. An autoencoder learns to first encode the input data $I$ into an intermediate representation $R$, and then decode $R$ into $I$. Denoising refers to the process of first adding noise to corrupt the input $I$ into $\widetilde{I}$, and then training an autoencoder to reconstruct $I$ using $\widetilde{I}$ as the input. We use the dropout noise [@srivastava2014dropout], where a random proportion of the input nodes are set to 0. In the process of denoising, the model also learns the data distribution. In an SDAE, the intermediate representations obtained from the autoencoder at layer $n-1$ are used as the uncorrupted input to the autoencoder at layer $n$, for all the layers in the SDAE. To pretrain patient representations using an SDAE, high-dimensional (sparse) patient data are used as the input to the autoencoder at the first layer of the SDAE. The intermediate representations obtained from the autoencoder at the final layer are treated as the low-dimensional (dense) representations $R(p)$ for a patient $p$. The number of layers is determined through a random search [@bergstra2012random] based on the results for primary diagnostic category prediction using a perceptron.
**Finetuning** can be performed in multiple ways [@goodfellow2016deep]. In one approach, all the encoder layers can be stacked on top of each other, and a logistic regression layer can be added on the top to finetune the entire pretrained network for an end task as a feedforward neural network. In such a setup, the input features in the finetuning phase are the same as the input features during the pretraining phase. In another approach, instead of the entire network, only the preliminary task-independent representations $R$ can be finetuned for an end task. In this approach, $R$ is used as the input to a separate classifier. In our experiments, we train separate classifiers for different tasks using $R$ as the input features.
We use the sigmoid activation function for the encoding layers, and the linear activation function to decode real values. During the pretraining phase, we train each layer of the SDAE to minimize the mean squared reconstruction error using the RMSProp optimizer [@tieleman2012lecture]. During the finetuning phase, we train the classifiers to minimize the categorical cross-entropy error using the same optimizer. We determine the number of layers, the dimensionality, and the dropout proportion also using a randomized hyperparameter search. These values are dependent on the feature sets and the finetuning process, and can be found in Table \[hyperparams-sdae\] in the Appendix.
### Paragraph vector {#sec:doc2vec}
**Doc2vec**, or ‘Paragraph Vector’ [@le2014distributed], learns dense fixed-length representations of variable length texts such as paragraphs and documents. It supports two algorithms—a distributed bag-of-words (DBOW) algorithm, and a distributed memory (DM) algorithm. For both the algorithms, word representations are shared among all the occurrences of a word across all the paragraphs, and paragraph vectors are shared among all the contexts that occur in a given paragraph. In the DBOW algorithm, word and paragraph vectors are jointly trained when the paragraph vectors are used to predict the context words for all the contexts in the paragraph. In the DM algorithm, these vectors are jointly trained by predicting the next word from a concatenation of the paragraph vectors and the vectors of the context words. During the inference phase of both the algorithms, word vectors are fixed, and paragraph vectors are trained until convergence.
We use the DBOW algorithm for 5 iterations, with a window size of 3, a minimum frequency threshold of 10, and 5 negative samples per positive sample to train 300-dimensional patient vectors. We determined these settings also using randomized hyperparameter search.
Feature extraction
------------------
When statistical models are deployed for clinical decision support, it is crucial to understand the features that influence the model output [@caruana2015intelligible]. A ranked list of the most influential features can assist such understanding, while facilitating error analysis; it can also enable exploratory analysis when unexpected features are ranked high. However, neural networks are notorious for being black boxes due to their complex architectures. Given the impact of automated decisions, there has been a recent surge of interest to make neural architectures interpretable. Different techniques include visualization of weights and embeddings [@visualization_techreport; @DBLP:conf/naacl/LiCHJ16], representation erasure and feature occlusion [@DBLP:journals/corr/LiMJ16a; @DBLP:journals/corr/SureshHJCSG17], input perturbation [@DBLP:conf/emnlp/Alvarez-MelisJ17], and visualization of attention weights in recurrent neural networks [@DBLP:journals/corr/BahdanauCB14; @DBLP:conf/nips/HermannKGEKSB15; @DBLP:conf/naacl/YangYDHSH16; @choi2016retain]. The technique of visualizing hidden weights and embeddings is a qualitative approach to interpretability. Furthermore, techniques like input feature erasure train a new model in absence of a given feature. When retrained, these models can learn to rely on a completely different set of features. Moreover, the attention mechanism is not applicable to feedforward neural networks. Within the scope of our work, we propose two techniques to bridge the existing gap in model interpretability when we train unsupervised dense representations, and when we use these representations to get classification decisions using feedforward neural networks. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to propose these techniques to make dense representations interpretable.
### Average feature reconstruction error: pretraining phase
We calculate the **squared reconstruction error** of all the input features in the first layer of the pretrained autoencoder, averaged across all the training instances. The value of the reconstruction error of the individual features gives us an estimate of the features that are encoded the best and the worst in the patient vectors learned through the SDAE. This knowledge facilitates an analysis of model behavior to make the vectors more interpretable.
### Input significance calculation using sensitivity analysis: classification phase
**Sensitivity analysis**, or gradient-based analysis, is often used to identify the most influential features of a trained model [@engelbrecht1998feature; @dimopoulos1995use; @gevrey2003review]. For a given model and a given instance, the sensitivity of an output node with respect to an input node refers to the observed variation in the output on varying the input. This is equivalent to the gradient of the output with respect to the input. The inputs that cause larger variations in the output are more significant for the model.
This analysis has so far been used to identify the most influential features for a single network, such as a single classifier. However, in our work, we are confronted with two neural networks. The first network learns the dense patient representations, and the second network uses these dense representations as the input for different classification tasks. We extend the work by @engelbrecht1998feature and propose a technique to compute the significance of the original (sparse) features on the final classification decisions. We use the chain rule across two networks to compute the sensitivity of the output node in the second network to the input of the first network. This allows us to identify the most influential features in the entire pipeline.
We demonstrate this technique for different classification tasks when the task-independent dense patient representations $R$ are first induced by the SDAE from the original input $z$, and $R$ is then used as the input to the classifiers. The significance of the $i$th input feature ($\phi_{z_i}$) is defined as the maximum significance of the input feature $i$ across all the $K$ output units ($o$) of the classifier with respect to the $N$ instances:
$$\begin{aligned}
\phi_{z_i} = \max_{k = 1...K}\{S_{o_k z_i}\}
&\text{,\;where\;}\end{aligned}$$
$$S_{o_k z_i} = \sqrt{\frac{\sum\limits_{j=1}^N [S_{o_k z_i}^{(j)}]^2 }{N}}.$$
$S_{o_k z_i}^{(j)}$ is the sensitivity of the $k$th output unit of the classifier w.r.t the $i$th input feature of the SDAE for an instance $j$:
$$S_{oz,ki}^{(j)} = \frac{\partial o_k^{(j)}}{\partial z_i^{(j)}} = \frac{\partial o_k^{(j)}}{\partial R_i^{(j)}} * \frac{\partial R_i^{(j)}}{\partial z_i^{(j)}} .$$
In (2), we thus calculate the mean squared sensitivity across different N instances and take the root. The sensitivity for a particular instance (3) is obtained by first taking the derivative of an output node value w.r.t. a value in a patient representation; then taking the derivative of the patient representation value w.r.t. the original input value; and then multiplying them. This technique allows us to identify the most significant features in a trained model for an arbitrary number of instances and output classes. It is also transferable to the doc2vec representations, but we reserve this for future research.
Dataset construction and preprocessing {#sec:dataset}
======================================
We retrieve a set of adult patients ($\geq$18 years age) with only one hospital admission, with at least one associated textual note (excluding discharge reports) from the MIMIC-III critical care database [@johnson2016mimic]. We restrict to the patients with a single admission to remove ambiguity when the labels are dependent on discharge time. We exclude discharge reports from analyses to remove the direct indication of in-hospital death of a patient, which is one of the tasks that we are interested in. We obtain a range of 1–879 notes per patient, with average of 29.51 notes. This corresponds to 13–789,906 tokens per patient, with an average of 13,064 tokens. We split the dataset into 80-10-10% as training, validation, and test subsets, to get a set of 24,650 patients for training, and 3,081 patients each for validation and testing. We represent patients with a concatenation of all the notes associated with them (excluding discharge reports). We tokenize the dataset using the Ucto tokenizer [@van2012ucto] and lowercase it.
To obtain patient representations using the SDAE and for the baseline experiments, we replace the numbers, and certain token-level time and measurement matches with placeholders. We remove the punctuations, and the terms with corpus frequency less than 5. We represent the out-of-vocabulary terms obtained after the preprocessing in the test set with a common token. We use two feature sets—a bag-of-words (BoW), and a bag-of-medical-concepts (BoCUI)—with their corresponding TF-IDF scores as feature values. We use the TF-IDF values to give high weights to frequent features for a patient relative to all the patients in the dataset. For the BoCUI, we use the CLAMP toolkit [@doi:110.1093/jamia/ocx132] to identify Concept Unique Identifiers (CUIs) in the UMLS^^ metathesaurus [@LindbergEtAl1993] corresponding to medical concept mentions of the types problems, treatments, and tests as defined in the i2b2 annotation guidelines [@uzuner20112010], along with their assertion labels. Here, problems also include findings and symptoms. CUIs appended with ‘present’ and ‘absent’ assertion labels are the vocabulary terms for this feature set. A bag-of-medical-concepts is a common featurization technique used in clinical NLP research [@miotto2016deep; @SCHEURWEGS2017]. We use a bag representation instead of a sequence model because the final document length for different patients is highly variable, going up to very large document sizes. We obtain a vocabulary size of 71,001 for the BoW feature set, and 83,310 for the BoCUI feature set.
To train the doc2vec models, we remove the numbers and the tokens matching certain time and measurement regex patterns. We have determined these settings based on the initial results on the validation set. We obtain a vocabulary size of 48,950 for this model. We have not trained a doc2vec model using only the medical concepts because if we represent a document as a sequence of CUIs only, we remove the indicators of language semantics from the context window, which the doc2vec model relies on during the learning process. If we keep additional terms along with the concept identifiers to train a doc2vec model, the available information is not comparable to a BoCUI feature set.
Evaluation
==========
Task description
----------------
We use the dense patient representations as input features to train feedforward neural network classifiers on multiple independent tasks. We evaluate the performance on a range of tasks to gain insight into the task independent nature of the representations, and the information encoded within the vectors. We disregard the instances that do not have a task label. We minimize the categorical cross-entropy error using the RMSProp optimizer, and determine the hyperparameters using randomized search, which can be found in Table \[hyperparams-ffnn\] in the Appendix.
1. **Patient mortality prediction:** Whether a patient dies within a given time frame. This prediction gives an estimate of the severity of a patient’s condition to decide the amount of attention required.
1. **In-hospital mortality (In\_hosp):** Patient death during the hospital stay—13.14% of the instances in the dataset.
2. **30 days mortality (30\_days):** Patient death within 30 days of discharge—3.85% of the instances in the dataset.
3. **1 year mortality (1\_year):** Patient death within 365 days of discharge—12.19% of the instances in the dataset. This includes the patients who died within 30 days of discharge.
2. **Primary diagnostic category prediction (Pri\_diag\_cat):** Correctly diagnosing patients is essential for deciding further course of action. We evaluate if the proposed technique can be used to predict the generic category of the most relevant diagnostic code for a patient, corresponding to the 20 categories in the first volume of the 9th revision of the International Classification of Diseases, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) database [@world2004international]. A distribution of these categories in the dataset is given in Figure \[fig:diag\_proc\_stats\].
![Primary diagnostic and procedural category distribution in the data.[]{data-label="fig:diag_proc_stats"}](pri_diag_cat.png "fig:"){width="\linewidth"} \[fig:diag\_cat\_stats\]
![Primary diagnostic and procedural category distribution in the data.[]{data-label="fig:diag_proc_stats"}](pri_proc_cat.png "fig:"){width="\linewidth"} \[fig:proc\_cat\_stats\]
3. **Primary procedural category prediction (Pri\_proc\_cat):** Predicting the generic category of the most relevant procedure performed on a patient, corresponding to the 18 categories present in the third volume of the ICD-9-CM database. A distribution of these categories in the dataset is given in Figure \[fig:diag\_proc\_stats\]. These procedural categories reflect different surgeries performed on patients. Prediction of the recommended procedure would assist the medical staff, while enabling optimal resource allocation for the same.
4. **Gender:** Gender of a patient—male (56.87% of the instances) or female (43.13% of the instances), as encoded in the dataset.
We evaluate the models using the area under the ROC curve (AUC-ROC) for patient death for the mortality tasks. The ROC curve gives us insight into the trade-off between the true positive rate and the false positive rate at different thresholds for different models. For the other tasks, we compute the weighted F-score to correct for class imbalance. We present the classification pipeline in Figure \[fig:eval\].
![Representation evaluation pipeline. The dashed lines indicate one of several operations, and are not performed in parallel. []{data-label="fig:eval"}](evaluation.png){width="0.95\linewidth"}
Results and Discussion {#sec:results}
----------------------
### Supervised Representation Evaluation
[max width=]{}
----- ------------ -------------- -------------- ------------- -------- -------- --------
**In\_hosp** **30\_days** **1\_year**
(1) BoW 0.9457 0.5949 0.7942 0.7016 0.7366 0.9847
(2) SDAE-BoW 0.9194 0.7965 0.7980 0.6500 0.6746 0.8775
(3) doc2vec 0.9195 0.7680 0.8134 0.6807 0.6583 0.9770
(4)
(5) BoCUI 0.9088 0.5065 0.6993 0.7104 0.7265 0.7504
(6) SDAE-BoCUI 0.9007 0.7832 0.8016 0.6647 0.6777 0.6245
----- ------------ -------------- -------------- ------------- -------- -------- --------
: Classification results on different tasks using the BoW features, the SDAE representations computed from the BoW (SDAE-BoW), the doc2vec representations, the concatenated SDAE-BoW and doc2vec representations (\[doc2vec, SDAE-BoW\]) with Cohen’s $\kappa$ score, the BoCUI features, and the SDAE vectors computed from the BoCUI (SDAE-BoCUI). AUC-ROC values are reported for the mortality tasks, and weighted F-score for the others.[]{data-label="tab:results"}
In Table \[tab:results\], we compare the classification performance when we use the dense patient representations obtained from the SDAE-BoW (the initial SDAE input is BoW), the SDAE-BoCUI (the initial SDAE input is BoCUI), and the doc2vec models as input features for different tasks, as opposed to using the BoW and the BoCUI sparse features. In Figure \[fig:roc\_curve\], we show the ROC curves for the mortality prediction tasks. Further, we analyze the agreement between the SDAE-BoW and the doc2vec model outputs by calculating Cohen’s $\kappa$ score [@cohen1960coefficient] between them on the validation set. We find that the agreement scores are not high, which may indicate that the models learn complimentary information. We then concatenate the two dense representations (model ensemble) to analyze model complementarity. We calculate the statistical significance between the 9 different feature sets for the 6 tasks using the two-tailed pairwise approximate randomization test [@noreen1989computer] with a significance level of 0.05 before the Bonferroni correction for 54 hypotheses[^1].
[0.7]{} ![Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) for patient mortality prediction tasks.[]{data-label="fig:roc_curve"}](auc_roc_in_hosp.png "fig:"){width="0.95\linewidth"} \[fig:roc\_in\_hosp\]
[0.7]{} ![Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) for patient mortality prediction tasks.[]{data-label="fig:roc_curve"}](auc_roc_30_days.png "fig:"){width="0.95\linewidth"} \[fig:roc\_30\_days\]
[0.7]{} ![Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) for patient mortality prediction tasks.[]{data-label="fig:roc_curve"}](auc_roc_1_year.png "fig:"){width="0.95\linewidth"} \[fig:roc\_1\_year\]
Our main finding is that all the dense representation techniques significantly outperform the BoW baseline for 30 days mortality prediction. However, although we see a large numerical improvement over the BoW baseline on using the dense representations for 1 year mortality prediction (where the set of instances with the label ‘death’ is a superset of those for 30 days mortality), the differences are not statistically significant. The SDAE-BoCUI model is significantly better than the BoCUI model for both 30 days and 1 year mortality prediction tasks. We believe that the poor performance of the sparse models for 30 days mortality prediction may be due to the low number of positive instances. The generalization afforded by the dense representation techniques assists feature identification in such cases. The sparse BoW inputs perform better than the SDAE-BoW representations for all the other tasks, and better than the doc2vec representations for in-hospital mortality and primary procedural category prediction. One probable reason is that the best predictors for the other tasks are the direct lexical mentions in the notes, which makes the BoW model a very strong baseline. Examples of such features obtained using the $\chi^2$ feature analysis are ‘autopsy’, ‘expired’, ‘funeral’, and ‘unresponsive’ for in-hospital mortality prediction, and ‘himself’, ‘herself’, ‘ovarian’, and ‘testicular’ for gender prediction. It is interesting to point out that the direct mentions of in-hospital death are present in the notes even though discharge reports have been excluded from analysis.
The agreement scores between the doc2vec and the SDAE-BoW models are not high for any task, which may indicate that the two models are complementary to each other. The results obtained from concatenation of the vectors learned by both models is not significantly different from the sparse representations for any task except 30 days mortality prediction, where the concatenation is better. This ensemble model significantly outperforms both individual models for primary procedural category prediction. For primary diagnostic category and gender prediction, the ensemble model is significantly better than the SDAE model, but not the doc2vec model. In these cases, there is no significant difference between the doc2vec and the BoW models. Hence, we observe that the concatenation helps in some cases and we recommend combining the two dense representations for unknown tasks. The doc2vec model uses a local context window in a log-linear classifier, whereas the SDAE model uses only the global context information and non-linear encoding layers. This may be one of the factors governing the differences between the two techniques.
Furthermore, we observe that the BoCUI sparse features perform significantly worse than the BoW sparse features for in-hospital mortality, 1 year mortality, and gender prediction. For the other tasks, there is no statistical difference between the performance of the BoW and the BoCUI features, although we see a large numerical drop of about 9% with the BoCUI model for 30 days mortality prediction. Moreover, the SDAE-BoW and SDAE-BoCUI representations are also not significantly different from each other for any of the tasks. These results suggest that there is no advantage of using a bag-of-concepts over a bag-of-words feature set, either as sparse inputs, or to learn dense representations. There are a few possible reasons behind the observed performance drop on using the BoCUI feature set. First, these features are restricted to the medical concepts of types ‘problem’, ‘treatment’, and ‘test’. These concepts are important features for diagnostic and procedural category identification. However, when we remove the terms that do not belong to these types, we also remove some useful features for other tasks, e.g., pronouns for gender prediction, and terms like ‘expired’ and ‘post-mortem’ for in-hospital mortality prediction, which in turn affects the classification performance. Next, when we identify medical concepts mentions with their corresponding CUIs and assertion labels, we also propagate the errors along in the pipeline, while adding to the sparsity of the terms. These factors additionally contribute to a difference in the classification performance.
Our work on mortality prediction is related to @grnarova2016neural. The closest comparison between our results is the evaluation of the doc2vec representations. They have reported the AUC-ROC scores of 0.930, 0.831, and 0.824 for in-hospital mortality, 30 days mortality, and 1 year mortality prediction respectively, and have shown an improvement over the LDA baseline for the latter two. These scores are higher than what we have obtained with doc2vec. However, this may be due to different data subsets,[^2] different classifiers (feedforward neural networks vs. linear SVMs), or different training schemes. They have further reported significant improvement on all the tasks when using a CNN architecture. This setup is supervised for the mortality tasks, and it is unclear whether supervision plays a role in the observed improvement. Similarly, @jocombining have shown significant improvements for mortality prediction tasks on using their supervised LSTM architecture that jointly learns topic models as opposed to using LDA with linear SVMs. Again, the results are not directly comparable. They have predicted in-hospital, 30 days post-discharge, and 1 year post-discharge mortality at the end of every 12 hour window during a patient stay. Instead, we predict these mortality values using all the notes (except discharge reports) until the end of the patient stay. They have not reported the AUC-ROC scores for patient mortality at the end of the patient stay.
Furthermore, @dubois2017learning have evaluated their embed-and-aggregate and RNN architectures for patient representation learning on multiple tasks. They have found that the RNN trained in a supervised manner for diagnostic code prediction outperforms the other architectures for predicting future diagnostic codes. However, when these representations are transferred to other tasks, this advantage is not visible. For mortality prediction (within the time period of the patient records) on large datasets, the bag-of-concepts and embed-and-aggregate methods performed equally well, and outperformed the RNN architectures. The RNN architecture performed poorly also for prediction of future patient admission, and had a comparable performance to embed-and-aggregate method for future ER visit prediction. One explanation for better RNN performance for future diagnostic code prediction is that the representations obtained from the RNN encode important information about patient diagnoses due to their supervised training on a similar task. This is not the case for the other tasks where there is no improvement.
### Feature analysis
In Table \[feat\_recon\_error\], we present a list of features based on their mean squared reconstruction error when we pretrain the patient representations using the SDAE-BoW model. We observe that infrequent terms such as spelling errors are reconstructed very well, as opposed to the frequent features in the dataset. To check for a correlation between the mean squared reconstruction error and the feature frequency, we calculate the Spearman’s and the Kendall-tau rank-order correlation coefficients [@kokoska2000crc] between the two parameters, reported in Table \[freq\_corr\]. These techniques check for a correlation between the parameters irrespective of a linear relationship and use different algorithms to generate the ranked lists in case of a tie. Using both techniques, we obtain very high positive correlation coefficients. We believe that this behavior may be either due to the high entropy of the frequent terms, or because the model memorizes the infrequent terms. @jocombining also obtain misspellings and rare words as the top features when they use recurrent neural networks for patient mortality prediction in the MIMIC-III dataset.
In Table \[feat\_imp\], we list the most significant features for the model output for one instance each in the test set, when the SDAE-BoW patient representations $R$ are used as the classification input. In italics are the vocabulary terms that are not present in the notes for the patient, but are treated as the most influential features. We find that the classifiers give high importance to sensible frequent features for most of the tasks, although the SDAE reconstructs low frequent terms such as spelling errors better during the pretraining phase. Several features for in-hospital mortality point towards the overall patient condition and treatments for the patient. Terms like ‘brbpr’ (bright red blood per rectum) for primary diagnostic category prediction, and the top features for gender prediction indicate the true class. The absence of several features is used as an important clue to identify the right class. For example, most of the top ranking features for 30 days and 1 year mortality prediction are not present in the patient notes. Similarly, the absence of the terms related to the female gender implies the male class. Additionally, the absence of numbers (‘numeric\_val’) in notes is the most useful feature for diagnostic and procedural category identification, which may have been used by the model to identify certain lab tests with numeric results that were not carried out.
Furthermore, many top features extracted for primary diagnostic category prediction are the terms corresponding to text segments like *“Sinus rhythm. Compared to the previous tracing of ..."*, which is a common pattern in the notes for the patient. When evaluated without the context, many of these terms do not make sense. However, although we input a bag-of-words representation to the SDAE, co-occurrence of the terms is reflected in the extracted features. We further observe that there is a minimal overlap between the sets of important features for different tasks. This shows that the learned representations $R$ are task-independent, and that the classifiers can identify task-specific important information when they are trained for a particular task.
----------------- -------------- ----------------- -------------
BoW SDAE-BoW BoW SDAE-BoW
(correct) (incorrect) (correct) (correct)
expired cad expired vasopressin
autopsy cabg autopsy pressors
cmo pre-op morgue focused
pre-bypass preop cmo dnr
morgue numeric\_val toradol dopamine
diseasecoronary no diseasecoronary acidosis
deline bypass deline levophed
prebypass sternotomy prebypass pressor
death lat pre-bypass cvvhd
decannulation ptx asystolic cvvh
----------------- -------------- ----------------- -------------
: Comparison of the best features for one instance of in-hospital patient death, where the BoW model makes the correct prediction and the SDAE-BoW model fails, and for one instance where both the models make the correct prediction.[]{data-label="error_analysis"}
To illustrate the applicability of the feature extraction technique to understand relative model behavior, we compare the set of the most important features for a) one instance where the bag-of-words model predicts in-hospital death correctly, whereas the SDAE dense representations fail to make that prediction, and b) one instance where both the models make correct predictions. These features are presented in Table \[error\_analysis\]. We find that the BoW model identifies the direct indicators of patient death such as ‘expired’, ‘autopsy’, ‘morgue’, and ‘death’ as the top features along with certain features related to the procedures performed on the patient. Instead, the generalized SDAE-BoW model uses the features related to the holistic patient condition as the more important features. Examples are ‘cad (Coronary Artery Disease)’, ‘cabg (Coronary Artery Bypass Graft surgery)’, ‘vasopressin’, ‘dopamine’, ‘dnr (do not resuscitate)’, and ‘cvvhd (Continuous Veno-Venous Hemofiltration Dialysis)’. This shows us that the models operate in very different feature spaces. The generalized models are good when we want a comprehensive view of the patient condition. However, the sparse BoW model may be better if we want to pick up the strong lexical features present for a task.
### Visualization of Unsupervised Representations
In Figure \[fig:tsne\], we present 2D visualizations of the unsupervised representations learned by the SDAE and the doc2vec architectures. It is important to note that the SDAE-BoW and the doc2vec representations were learned in an unsupervised manner, and were not finetuned to represent a particular property of the data. Hence, they encode information that represent patient notes in a holistic manner, and span many different properties. We use t-SNE[^3] [@maaten2008visualizing] to generate the visualizations, after first reducing the representations to 50 dimensions[^4] using Principal Component Analysis. In the figure, as an example, we color the representations according to the corresponding primary diagnostic category. For the purpose of clarity, we limit to the 5 most frequent diagnostic categories in the dataset. We observe that the patients with the same diagnostic category are frequently close together, forming clusters. This suggests that using the proposed techniques, “similar” patients result in similar representations.
![t-SNE visualization of SDAE-BoW and doc2vec representations.[]{data-label="fig:tsne"}](tsne_sdae_pri_diag_cat.png){width="\linewidth"}
![t-SNE visualization of SDAE-BoW and doc2vec representations.[]{data-label="fig:tsne"}](tsne_doc2vec_pri_diag_cat.png){width="\linewidth"}
Conclusions and Future Work
===========================
Our research provides insight into the suitability of learning patient representations only from clinical notes, for an arbitrary task, while understanding model performance. We have shown that the generalized dense patient representations significantly improve the classification performance for 30 days mortality prediction, a task where we are confronted with a very low proportion of positive instances. For the other tasks, this advantage is not visible. Moreover, we have shown that a combination of the stacked denoising autoencoder and the doc2vec representations improves over the individual models for some tasks, without any harm to the others tasks. We recommend combining these representations for unknown tasks. We have further shown that there is no advantage of using a bag-of-concepts feature set as opposed to a bag-of-words feature set as either sparse inputs or to learn dense representations. Expensive concept identification process is not required for these setups.
Furthermore, we have proposed novel techniques to interpret model performance to overcome the black-box nature of neural networks. During representation analysis, we have found that frequent terms are not encoded well during the pretraining phase of the stacked denoising autoencoder. However, when we use these pretrained vectors as the input, sensible frequent features are selected as the most significant features for the classification tasks. Some vocabulary items that are absent from patient notes are often deemed important, while at the same time, co-occurrence of the features present in the notes is also learned by the model. We have also shown that the unsupervised representations are task-independent and distinct features are extracted for different tasks when these representations are used as supervised inputs.
This work lays down the path for more applied research in the clinical domain. In future, we plan to compute patient similarity from the generalized patient representations to identify patient cohorts. We also plan to add structured information to analyze their comparative contribution to the learned representations for the different tasks. Furthermore, the techniques that we have proposed to understand the behavior of statistical models are transferable to different architectures and facilitate further research in this crucial direction.
Acknowledgements
================
This research was carried out within the Accumulate VLAIO SBO project, funded by the government agency Flanders Innovation & Entrepreneurship (VLAIO) \[grant number 150056\]. We thank Riccardo Miotto, Paulina Grnarova, and Florian Schmidt for sharing their model implementation details from related papers, and answering several questions about the same. Further, we thank Giovanni Cassani, St[é]{}phan Tulkens, and Ella Roelant for their help with statistical significance analyses. We would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their useful comments.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
Model Hyperparameters
=====================
Feature set Number of layers Hidden dimensions Dropout proportion
----------------- ------------------ ------------------- --------------------
Bag-of-words 1 800 0.05
Bag-of-concepts 1 300 0.4
: Hyperparameters for stacked denoising autoencoder to learn dense patient representations, obtained after a randomized search. The default learning rate of 0.001 is used.[]{data-label="hyperparams-sdae"}
[^1]: These hypotheses are the comparisons of the doc2vec, the SDAE-BoW, and the ensemble dense representations respectively with the BoW model, the ensemble with the doc2vec model, the ensemble with the SDAE-BoW model, the BoCUI with the BoW models, the SDAE-BoW model with the SDAE-BoCUI model, and the BoCUI model with the SDAE-BoCUI model for the 6 tasks.
[^2]: We were unable to reconstruct exact data subsets and obtain comparable results because we did not have access to their data processing scripts and the complete pipeline.
[^3]: We experimented with different values of perplexity and the number of iterations for the t-SNE. After converging at 5000 iterations, the resulting visualizations were similar across most perplexity values, albeit often rotated. We chose a perplexity of 50 for the SDAE-BoW representations, and 30 for the doc2vec representations.
[^4]: Nearly 70% of the variation was explained by these 50 dimensions.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Recent progress in cosmic ray physics covering the energy range from about $10^{14}$eV to $10^{19}$eV is reviewed. The most prominent features of the energy spectrum are the so called ‘knee’ at $E \simeq 3 \cdot 10^{15}$eV and the ‘ankle’ at few $10^{18}$eV. Generally, the origin of the knee is understood as marking the limiting energy of galactic accelerators and/or the onset of increasing outflow of particles from the galaxy while the ankle is considered to mark the transition from galactic to extragalactic cosmic rays. Alternative theories do exist and shall be sketched. A key observable to answer the still open questions about the cosmic ray origin and to discriminate between various models is given by measuring the chemical composition or – more directly – by measuring energy spectra of individual cosmic ray mass groups. The status of present analyses is critically discussed and new experimental endeavors carried out in order to improve both the statistics and the quality of data particularly at energies above the knee will be summarized.'
address: |
Department of Physics, Bergische Universität Wuppertal\
D-42119 Wuppertal, Germany
author:
- 'Karl-Heinz Kampert [^1]'
title: 'Cosmic Rays from the Knee to the Ankle – Status and Prospects'
---
INTRODUCTION
============
The cosmic ray (CR) energy spectrum extends from a few hundreds MeV to above $10^{20}$ eV. Over this wide range of energies the intensity drops by more than 30 orders of magnitude. Despite the enormous dynamic range covered, the spectrum appears rather structureless and can be well approximated by broken power-laws $dN/dE \propto E^{-\gamma}$. Up to energies of a few $10^{14}$ eV the flux of particles is sufficiently high to enable measurements of their elemental distributions by high flying balloon- or satellite-borne experiments. Such studies have provided important information about the origin and transport properties of CRs in the interstellar medium. Two prominent examples are ratios of secondary to primary elements, such as the B/C-ratio, which are used to extract the average amount of matter CR-particles have traversed from their sources to the solar system, and are relative abundances of radioactive isotopes, such as $^{10}$Be to stable $^{9}$Be or $^{26}$Al to stable $^{27}$Al, which carry information about the average ‘age’ of CRs. With many new complex experiments taking data or starting up in the near future and with a possibly new generation of long flying balloons, this remains a vital field of research.
{width="120mm"}
Above a few times $10^{15}$ eV the flux drops to only one particle per square metre per year. This excludes any type of ‘direct observation’ even in the near future, at least if high statistics is required. On the other hand, this energy is large enough so that secondary particle cascades produced in the atmosphere penetrate with a footprint large enough to be detected by an array of detectors on the ground. Such an extensive air shower (EAS) array typically has dimensions of a fraction of a square kilometre to more than 1000 square kilometres and can be operated for many years to detect fluxes down to 1 particle per square kilometre per century or less.
The most prominent features of the CR energy spectrum fall into the energy range covered by EAS experiments. The steepening of the slope from $\gamma \cong 2.7$ to $\gamma \cong 3.1$ at about $3\cdot 10^{15}$ eV is known as the ‘knee’. It was first deduced from observations of the shower size spectrum made by Kulikov and Khristianson [[[*et al.*]{}]{}]{} in 1956 [@kulikov56] but it still remains unclear as to what is the cause of this spectral steepening and even as to what are the sources of the high energy CRs at all. At an energy above $10^{18}$ eV the spectrum flattens again at what is called the ‘ankle’. Because of the large size and/or magnetic field required to accelerate and confine charged particles above $10^{18}$eV, the origin of CRs above the ankle is generally considered to be of extragalactic (EG) nature. Finally, the question whether the spectrum extends beyond the Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin threshold of $6\cdot
10^{19}$ eV [@GZK] is currently among the foremost questions in astro-particle physics as is reflected also by the number of presentations given at this conference.
The main purpose of this paper is to review the experimental data in the energy range below the GZK-threshold, i.e. from about $10^{14}$ to $10^{19}$eV. We shall discuss the energy spectrum, chemical composition, and anisotropies in their arrival directions and critically examine the astrophysical implications by taking into account the systematical uncertainties of the data.
THE KNEE REGION
===============
Mainly for reasons of the required power the dominant acceleration sites of CRs are generally believed to be shocks associated with supernova remnants (SNR). Naturally, this leads to a power law spectrum as is observed experimentally. Detailed examination suggests that this process is limited to $E_{0}/Z
\sim 10^{14}$eV [@Lagage-83; @Berezhko-00] for standard galactic SNRs. This value can be extended upward with a number of mechanisms, for example by introducing higher magnetic fields, larger sources, quasi-perpendicular shocks, reacceleration by multiple sources, etc. However, these assumptions and their effects are not free of debate and possibly, something more fundamental may be incorrect with the suggested supernova (SN) picture and its shock value $E_{0}$. In any case, if there is a typical maximum energy which depends linearly on $Z$ for reasons of magnetic confinement, then the spectrum of CR nuclei must become heavier with increasing energy as the hydrogen cuts off first and then increasingly heavier nuclei reach their acceleration (or confinement) limits.
A change in the CR propagation with decreasing galactic containment at higher energies has also been considered. This increasing leakage results in a steepening of the CR energy spectrum and again would lead to a similar scaling with the rigidity of particles, but would in addition predict anisotropies in the arrival directions of CRs with respect to the galactic plane.
Besides such kind of ‘conventional’ source and propagation models [@drury94b; @berezhko99] several other hypotheses have been discussed in the recent literature. These include the astrophysically motivated single source model of Erlykin and Wolfendale [@erlykin97a] trying to explain possible structures around the knee by a single recent and nearby SN, as well as several particle physics motivated scenarios trying to explain the knee due to different kinds of CR-interactions, e.g.by photodisintegration at the source [@candia-02] or by sudden changes in the character of high-energy hadronic interactions during the development of EAS [@nikolsky95].
Recently, the ‘Cannonball’ model of CRs has been suggested as a radically different theory of CR origin [@Dar-06]. It is inspired by mounting observational evidence that, in addition to the ejection of a non-relativistic spherical shell, the explosion of core-collapse SNae results in the emission of highly relativistic bipolar jets of plasmoids of ordinary matter, the ‘Cannonballs’ (CB). As the CB with a typical half of the Mercury mass propagates at relativistic speed through the interstellar medium, it encounters electrons, protons, and nuclei kicking them up to higher energies elastically by magnetic deflection. These newly born CRs are then subject to propagation effects, similarly as in ‘classical’ theories. It is argued that this very simple concept explains all observed properties of non-solar CRs at all observed energies. There are two important differences to the conventional models: a) because of the specific kinematics of particle acceleration, the maximum energy of CRs (and thereby the knee positions) scale with the mass $A$ of CRs rather than with their charge $Z$, b) since the CBs propagate rapidly from the inner SN and GRB realm of the Galaxy into its halo or beyond converting ISM particles to high energy CRs all along their trajectories, there is a much lower level of CR-anisotropy expected than in the traditional SN picture of CRs.
Indeed, the low level of CR anisotropy even at energies above the knee is a long standing problem [@Hillas-05]. Generally, the observed spectrum $\phi(E)$ and the source spectrum $Q(E)$ are considered to be connected by a relation of the form $\phi(E) =
Q(E) \times \tau_{\rm esc}(E)$. A simple power-law fit of the escape time to the available data gives $\tau_{\rm esc}(E)
\propto E^{-\delta}$ with $\delta \approx 0.6$. Extrapolating $\tau_{\rm esc}$ to $10^{15}$eV, for example, would lead to a value almost as small as the light travel time across the galactic disk, implying a much larger anisotropy than is observed.
From the discussion above it is obvious, that an answer to the question about the origin of the knee is of key importance to reveal information about the origin of galactic cosmic rays in general. Experimental access to such questions is provided by measurements of charged cosmic rays (the classical nucleonic component) and $\gamma$-rays by experiments above the atmosphere, and by the observation of air showers initiated by high-energy particles in the atmosphere.
A wealth of information on potential cosmic-ray sources is provided by recent measurements of TeV $\gamma$-rays employing imaging atmospheric Cherenkov telescopes, most notably from the H.E.S.S. experiment. Their observation of the morphologies and energy spectra of the shell type SNRs RX J1713.723946 [@Aharonian-04; @Aharonian-06] and RX J0852.0-4622 [@Aharonian-05a] are well in agreement with the idea of particle acceleration in the shock front. The spectra extend up to energies of 10 TeV and provide evidence for the existence of particles with energies beyond 100 TeV at the shock front that emerged from the supernova explosions. However, an unequivocally proof for acceleration of hadrons is still missing and questions arise also about the low number of established SNRs showing TeV $\gamma$-ray emission. For example, a recent Galactic plane survey of H.E.S.S. [@Aharonian-05b] reveals no SNRs brighter than these two in the region covered. This apparent deficit of TeV-bright SNRs may pose some problems in explaining the high energy budget of galactic CRs. Remember that about 10% of the mechanical energy released by the population of Galactic supernovae needs to be converted into CRs if [*all*]{} SNRs are sites of CR acceleration. Any reduction in the number of TeV-bright SNRs needs to be compensated for by a corresponding factor in the already large value of the CR acceleration efficiency.
To undoubtedly establish SNRs as the sites of CR acceleration and in order to constrain the conventional SN acceleration model from other proposed mechanisms, precise measurements of the primary CR energy spectrum and particularly of the mass composition as a function of energy are needed. Significant progress has been made here as well in recent years, but the situation is far from being clear.
Comparison of direct and indirect measurements
----------------------------------------------
Cosmic ray measurements on balloons and spacecraft have an important advantage over ground-based air shower experiments: They detect the [*primary*]{} CR particles and measure its charge [*directly*]{}. This is because spacecraft experiments perform the measurement above the atmosphere and balloon-borne experiments typically perform their measurements with residual atmospheres of only $\sim 5$-10g/cm$^{2}$. This is a relatively small value compared to the typical hadronic interaction length of $\lambda_{I} \sim 90$g/cm$^{2}$ so that corrections for interactions above the instruments are of minor importance, at least for light particles, such as protons and He nuclei. This advantage is paid for at the expense of lacking statistics at high energies. For example, the largest of the current generation of balloon-borne detectors, TRACER [@Mueller-05], reaches a sensitive volume of $2 \times 2
\times 1.2$m$^{3}$. It has been flown successfully for 14 days exposure from the Antarctic in 2003 and from Sweden in summer 2006. The first 14 days flight time resulted in an exposure of $\sim 75 \rm{\,m}^{2} \rm{~sr~days}$ and allowed to measure e.g.oxygen nuclei up to $\sim 320$TeV and iron nuclei up to $\sim
70$TeV.
=
The largest exposure of all direct experiments has been reached by the Japanese American Cooperative Emulsion Experiment JACEE [@Asakimori-98] and the RUssian-Nippon JOint Balloon collaboration RUNJOB [@Derbina-05]. JACEE flew a series of thin ($\sim 8.5$ radiation lengths) emulsion/X-ray film calorimeters on 15 flights during 1979-1994 and has reached an exposure of $\sim 664 \rm{\,m}^{2} \rm{~hrs}$ from 11 analysed flights. Taking the zenith angle acceptance out to $\tan \theta
\sim 72{\rm -}79^{\circ}$ into account, this relates to approx.$\sim 80 \rm{\,m}^{2} \rm{~sr~days}$. RUNJOB flew roughly a similar set of X-ray films and emulsion chambers on a series of 10 successful balloon flights during 1995-1999 with a total exposure of $575 \rm{\,m}^{2} \rm{~hrs}$. Both experiments were able to reconstruct proton spectra up to almost 1 PeV.
Figure\[fig:p-he-fe\] shows a collection of the proton, helium, and iron spectra obtained by various ballon- and satellite-borne experiments compared to data from ground based experiments. Obviously, data from direct experiments are sparse above 100 TeV and uncertainties become very large with increasing energies, particularly for primaries heavier than protons. Reasonably good agreement between RUNJOB and JACEE is observed in case of the proton spectrum, but the He-flux measured by RUNJOB is about a factor of two lower compared to other experiments. Comparing the slopes of the p and He spectra yields power law indices of $\sim$ 2.7-2.8 for both elements in the energy range 10-500 TeV/nucleon. The iron spectrum appears somewhat flatter, $\gamma_{\rm Fe} \simeq 2.6$, particularly when taking into account the extrapolation to the EAS data. Such a dependence of $\gamma$ could be explained by charge dependent effects in the acceleration or propagation process. For example, non-linear models of Fermi acceleration in supernovae remnants predict a more efficient acceleration for elements with a large $A/Z$ ratio. However, uncertainties may still be too large to allow for definite conclusions about differences in the acceleration and propagation mechanisms of different primaries. For illustration, the effect of an assumed (and possibly underestimated) uncertainty of $\pm 15$% in the energy scale is shown by the single error bar in each of the panels.
It is remarkable to see direct measurements and EAS data starting to overlap each other. Clearly, EAS data below about $10^{15}$eV are dominated by systematic uncertainties while direct measurements suffer from statistical ones. With these caveats kept in mind, the agreement is very good. The EAS data of KASCADE [@Antoni-05], also shown in figure \[fig:p-he-fe\], have been reconstructed based on two different hadronic interaction models employed in the EAS simulations. Except perhaps for iron, the uncertainties caused by the interaction model are of similar size or even smaller than systematic uncertainties between experiments like JACEE and RUNJOB. Also shown in figure \[fig:p-he-fe\] are proton and helium spectra derived from emulsion chambers and burst detectors operated within the Tibet II air-shower array [@Amenomori-06a]. The results are in rough agreement with the KASCADE data. For reasons of clarity, only the results based on simulations with the CORSIKA [@CORSIKA] / QGSJet-model [@QGSJET] are included for the Tibet data. Those obtained based on Sibyll [@SIBYLL] are similar within their error bars. There are some important peculiarities of the Tibet AS$\gamma$ analysis to be pointed out here. The data are compared to EAS simulations assuming in one case a heavy dominated (HD) and in another case a proton dominated (PD) composition. In the HD-model a rigidity dependent knee $E_{\rm
k}=Z \times 1.5 \cdot 10^{14}$eV is assumed and in the PD-model all mass components are assumed to break off at $E_{\rm k}= 1.5
\cdot 10^{14}$eV. These assumptions are surprising, since no experiment ever has observed at break in the spectrum at such low energies. Furthermore, the experimental data of Ref.[@Amenomori-06a] start only at energies above $E \simeq
4\cdot10^{14}$eV, i.e. significantly above the assumed knee position. Moreover, because of insufficient separation power between proton and helium primaries, the authors have deduced the proton spectrum first by using a neural network algorithm. Next, the proton + helium spectrum has been reconstructed and, finally, the helium spectrum has been obtained by subtracting the number of proton events obtained in the first task from the proton + helium dataset obtained in the second task. Clearly, there are huge correlated errors to be expected in the helium spectrum deduced that way. Also, it is not clear how the results depend on the ad-hoc assumptions made about the knee position. Because of the steeply reconstructed proton and helium spectrum, the authors then conclude, that the main component responsible for the change of the power index of the all-particle spectrum around $3 \cdot 10^{15}$eV is composed of heavy primaries. However, there is no proof to this statement as the experiment is almost blind to heavy particles (detection efficiency of iron $\approx
4$%) .
To conclude this topic, despite some controversy a reasonably good agreement between direct and EAS experiments has been achieved in recent years. At present, EAS experiments at their threshold energies are limited purely by systematic uncertainties, while direct measurements suffer mostly from lacking statistics but also from systematic uncertainties in determining the absolute energy scale. There is some hope that new EAS experiments located at very high altitude will be able to push the measurements down to lower energies and at the same time also reduce their systematic uncertainties. Direct experiments, on the other hand, may be able to increase their exposure at high energies. However, given the very steeply falling spectrum, it appears unlikely that balloon experiments will be able to extend the range of measurements beyond 1 PeV any time in the near future. Thus, the chance of detecting the knee with direct measurements of protons to iron on balloons is not likely to occur without significant increases in the payload and flight duration capabilities of high altitude balloons. Even with 50 times the present JACEE p-He exposure one would still be unable to make definitive measurements about a break in the energy spectrum beyond 200 - 300 TeV [@Cherry-05].
Air shower data at the knee
---------------------------
As can be seen from figure \[fig:all-particle\], a wealth of data at energies around the knee has been accumulated by a large number of experiments operated over many years. It is clearly noticeable that the data fall into two groups differing by their fluxes mostly: CASA-MIA, CASA-BLANCA, and DICE (all operated at Dugway, Utah) show distinctly lower fluxes than Tibet, HEGRA, EAS-TOP, and KASCADE and Tunka [@Budnev-05] (not shown in figure 1). This problem has already been addressed in [@Swordy-02] but is still not fully understood. It may be related to different observation techniques (charged particles combined either with muons or with Cherenkov light), differences in the details of EAS simulations, or to other reasons. On the other hand, it should be pointed out that the differences almost vanish, if one of the groups is shifted by about 15% in their absolute energy scale, i.e. by an amount well within the systematic uncertainties of the experiments. The knee energy is found in all experiments at approximately 3 PeV with the index changing from $\gamma_{1} = 2.7$ to $\gamma_{2} = 3.1$. Only Akeno data are different showing different spectral shapes and a very sharp knee at $\sim 5$PeV.
=
It has been realized that the all-particle spectrum is not very discriminative against astrophysical models of the knee and that a deconvolution into different primary particles is required. However, this is probably the most difficult task in EAS physics, both because of the level of dependence on hadronic interaction models used in EAS simulations and because of the significant (mass dependent) fluctuations of EAS observables. A large variety of methods is used to infer the primary energy and mass [@Kampert-01], most notably the ratio of electron to muon numbers. At energies higher than approx. $10^{17}$eV, also direct measurements of the shower maximum in the atmosphere become available by observations of fluorescence light with imaging telescopes, such as operated by HiRes and the Pierre Auger Collaboration (see proceedings to this conference).
Extensive analyses of both the energy spectrum and composition have been performed by EAS-TOP and KASCADE. EAS-TOP has analysed its data through simultaneous measurements of the electromagnetic and muonic shower components. These are obtained from the EAS array operated at Campo Imperatore on the mountain top 2005 m.a.s.l. (820 g/cm$^{2}$) above the underground Gran Sasso Laboratories in which the MACRO detector has been located under an average depth of 1200 m rock [@Aglietta-04]. The coincident observation of the soft charged particles in the surface array and the high energy EAS muons ($E_{\mu} >
1.3$TeV) in the underground detector permits – despite large fluctuations of the muon number – a reconstruction of the CR energy spectrum for “light” and “heavy” primaries. The result, depicted in figure \[fig:e-spec-eas-top\], shows that the energy spectrum of the light primaries is beginning to diminish at about 5 PeV, whilst the heavy component may be signaling its change in the spectrum at least a decade higher in energy.
The results corroborate those of KASCADE shown in figure \[fig:kascade-spectra\]. KASCADE is located at sea-level (110 m.a.s.l.) in Karlsruhe, Germany, and measures the electromagnetic, muonic, and hadronic EAS components using a very dense detector array and a hadronic calorimeter [@KASCADE-NIM]. The analysis of the data takes advantage of the effect that for given energy, primary Fe-nuclei result in more muons and fewer electrons at ground as compared to proton primaries. Specifically, in the energy range and at the atmospheric depth of KASCADE, a Fe-primary yields about 30% more muons and almost a factor of two fewer electrons as compared to a proton primary. The basic quantitative procedure of KASCADE for obtaining the energy and mass of the CRs is a technique of unfolding the observed two-dimensional electron vs truncated muon number spectrum into the energy spectra of primary mass groups [@Antoni-05]. The problem can be considered a system of coupled Fredholm integral equations of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\frac{dJ}{d\,\lg N_e \;\; d\,\lg N_\mu^{\rm tr}} =
\sum_A \int\limits_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \frac{d\,J_A}{d\,\lg E}
\quad \cdot} \\
& &
\cdot \quad p_A(\lg N_e\, , \,\lg N_\mu^{\rm tr}\, \mid \, \lg E)
\cdot d\, \lg E\end{aligned}$$
=
where the probability $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{p_A(\lg N_e , \lg N_\mu^{\rm tr}\, \mid \, \lg
E) =} \\
& & \int\limits_{-\infty}^{+\infty} k_A(\lg N_e^t , \lg
N_\mu^{\rm tr,t})
d\, \lg N_e^t\,\, d\,\lg N_\mu^{\rm tr,t}\end{aligned}$$ is another integral equation with the kernel function $k_A = r_A
\cdot \epsilon_A \cdot s_A$ factorizing into three parts. Here, $r_A$ describes the shower fluctuations, i.e. the 2-dim distribution of electron and truncated muon number for fixed primary energy and mass, $\epsilon_A$ describes the trigger efficiency of the experiment, and $s_A$ the reconstruction probabilities, i.e. the distribution of $N_e$ and $N_\mu^{\rm
tr}$ that is reconstructed for given [*true*]{} numbers $N_e^t$, $N_\mu^{\rm tr,t}$ of electron and truncated muon numbers. The probabilities $p_A$ are obtained from CORSIKA simulations using QGSJET-01 [@QGSJET] and Sibyll 2.1 [@SIBYLL] as high-energy and GHEISHA [@GHEISHA] as low-energy hadronic interaction models and a moderate thinning procedure. Smaller samples of fully simulated showers were generated for comparison. The simulated data are then fed into the detector Monte Carlo programme and the response is parameterized as a function of energy and mass. Because of the large shower fluctuations, unfolding of all 26 energy spectra ranging from protons to Fe-nuclei is clearly impossible. Therefore, 5 elements (p, He, C, Si, Fe) were chosen as representatives for the entire distribution. More mass groups do not improve the $\chi^2$-uncertainties of the unfolding but may result in mutual systematic biases of the reconstructed spectra.
The results of such an unfolding are presented in figure \[fig:kascade-spectra\]. Shown are the spectra of the p, He, and C mass-groups based on the response matrices $p_{A}$ obtained from the two interaction models. Clearly, there are common features but also differences in the energy distributions. In each of the distributions a distinct break in the spectrum is observed which is increasing towards higher energy with increasing primary mass. In both cases the He flux is higher than the proton flux. This finding may be surprising at first sight, but it is already suggested by extrapolating the He and proton spectra with their different slopes from lower energies towards the knee (see figure \[fig:p-he-fe\]). The spectrum of the Si group (see figure 14 and 15 in Ref.[@Antoni-05]) indicates a knee at even higher energies. The Fe spectrum (figure \[fig:p-he-fe\]) shows large differences when performing the unfolding either with the QGSJET or Sibyll model demonstrating that such analyses are limited at present mostly by uncertainties of the hadronic interaction models. Despite these differences in the individual spectra, the all-particle spectra of KASCADE (see figure \[fig:all-particle\]), obtained by summing up the energy spectra of all mass groups (p - Fe) coincide very nicely for the two interaction models. Thus, it can firmly be stated that the knee in the all particle spectrum is caused by light (p and He) primaries. Obviously, also the mean mass composition (e.g.expressed in terms on the mean logarithmic mass [@Kampert-02]) increases above the knee.
=
A more detailed investigation [@Antoni-05] shows that the QGSJET model performs reasonably well at high energies but exhibits some problems at PeV energies. Sibyll, on the other hand, describes the data rather well in the knee region but suffers from a muon deficit at higher energies. Therefore, it suggests a more prominent contribution of heavy primaries at high energies. It should be emphasized, that this muon deficit of Sibyll applies to $\mathcal{O}(1 {\rm GeV})$ muons only. Muons at energies of several 100 GeV, such as observed by underground experiments like AMANDA and IceCube, seem to be described rather well by Sibyll [@Montaruli]. Very recently, a new interaction model, called EPOS has been released [@Pierog-06]. Most importantly, it provides a better description of baryon-antibaryon production at high energies. A preliminary analysis shows that the muon number increases more rapidly with energy than in QGSJET or Sibyll with the muon density being about 40% higher at $10^{18}$ eV compared to QGSJET-01 calculations. It will be interesting to repeat the unfolding of the CR energy spectra employing this model to verify whether the present deficiencies of the interaction models will be resolved.
The unfolded KASCADE energy spectra can directly be compared to phenomenological calculations of astro- and particle physics related models or can be used to infer information about the CR sources. An example is shown in figure \[fig:Hillas-e-spec\] taken from Ref.[@Hillas-05]. It is concluded that the data provide support for the supernova picture of CR origin, i.e. the distinct knee near 3 PeV would be related to emission by the Ôfree expansionÕ phase of SNRs. However, a question arises about how to fill the gap from the iron knee at about $10^{17}$ eV to the ankle at $\sim 5 \cdot 10^{18}$ eV. These CRs may originate from SN type II explosions into dense stellar winds where the interaction generates much stronger magnetic fields. This may result in rigidities up to at least $10^{17}$ V (component ‘B’ in figure \[fig:Hillas-e-spec\]), especially from a few abnormally high speed/low mass ejections [@Hillas-05].
A very important question is whether the present data allow to distinguish a knee of constant rigidity ($E/Z$) from that of constant energy per nucleon ($E/A$), such as is predicted by particle physics interpretations of the knee or by the cannonball model. Unfortunately, $Z/A$ changes only from $0.5$ in case of He to $0.46$ for Fe nuclei. Hence, the question about the rigidity dependence needs to be answered basically by comparing the energy spectra of p and He primaries. Ironically, these are the two primaries which are most strongly affected by EAS fluctuations, so that their energy resolutions are deteriorated substantially. In fact, overlaying the p and He spectra of figure \[fig:kascade-spectra\] using $E/Z$ and $E/A$ abscissas does not give a clear answer; Sibyll exhibits a slight preference for charge scaling and QGSJET for mass scaling. It is hoped, that the situation will improve somewhat with better models becoming available. Improving on the data side seems more difficult because of two reasons: statistical errors are already much smaller than systematical ones and (presently not yet included) data from larger zenith angles are subject to even stronger EAS fluctuations.
=
THE SECOND KNEE AND ANKLE: TRANSITION FROM GALACTIC TO EXTRAGALACTIC COSMIC RAYS
================================================================================
Besides the prominent knee in the all-particle spectrum, additional structures are observed at about $10^{17}$ eV and $\sim 3 \cdot 10^{18}$ eV, known as the second knee and the ankle, respectively (see Figs. \[fig:all-particle\] and \[fig:Hillas-e-spec\]). The ankle has been reported convincingly by a number of experiments, but there is still no consensus about the existence of a second knee. This is because of both the weakness of the structure making it difficult to detect and because of only few experimental data, most of which are either at their upper or lower limit of detectable energies. A blow-up of the data between $10^{17}$ eV and $10^{19}$ eV is shown in figure \[fig:Fe-knee\]. It includes measurements by Akeno [@Nagano-92], Fly’s Eye (stereo) [@Bird-93], Haverah Park [@Lawrence-91], Yakutsk [@Glushkov-05], and HiRes II (mono) [@Thomson-06]. Akeno has provided the first hint of a change in the index of the power-law energy spectrum around $6 \cdot 10^{17}$ eV. The steepening of the spectrum was confirmed by Haverah Park and is indicated also in the Fly’s Eye and more recent HiRes data. A recent re-analysis of the Yakutsk 1974-2004 data agrees well with the Akeno data providing additional support for the existence of a second knee at about $(6 \pm 2) \cdot 10^{17}$ eV. The ankle at $\sim 3 \cdot 10^{18}$ eV was first observed by Haverah Park, Akeno, and Yakutsk and is traditionally explained in terms of the transition from galactic to EGCRs. The key point here is that one expects the galactic magnetic field to lose its efficiency at about this energy as the gyro-radius of a particle at charge $Z$ in a $\mu$-Gauss field, $r_{g} \simeq 1 {\rm ~kpc} Z^{-1} B_{\mu{\rm G}}^{-1}$, becomes comparable to the thickness of the galactic disk. It then becomes natural to think of hard EGCRs starting to penetrate into the galaxy and dominating the flux at higher energies (see figure \[fig:Hillas-e-spec\] for illustration).
Figure \[fig:Hillas-e-spec\] also provides an intuitive explanation for the second knee: it would primarily be caused by the break of the galactic Fe component. As Hillas pointed out [@Hillas-05], an extra component ‘B’ would be needed in order to make up the well-measured total CR flux at several $10^{17}$ eV for which he considered SNae Type II explosions into dense stellar winds (see chapter 2.2). Naïvely, the second knee in this picture is expected at $E_{\rm Fe} \simeq 26 \times
3\cdot10^{15} \simeq 8 \cdot 10^{16}$ eV or even lower if the knee is composed of p and He primaries as suggested by figure \[fig:kascade-spectra\]. This is almost a factor of 10 lower than reported by Akeno and others. A scaling of the knee position with $E/A$ would bring the Fe-knee up to approx. $2
\cdot 10^{17}$ eV, but still too low to fit the classical picture.
Ignoring this puzzle for a moment, also characteristic changes of the CR composition are expected in this traditional picture of the knees and ankle. Up to the knee, the composition would follow the standard source composition dominated by p and He primaries. Between the first and second knee the composition would change to become iron dominated, and above the ankle it would be dominated by extragalactic protons.
However, the ‘folklore’ about the second knee and ankle and its related transition from galactic to EGCRs is not free of dispute and has received much attention recently. Back in the 80s, Berezinsky and collaborators have pointed out an inevitable feature of the $10^{18}$-$10^{19}$ eV EGCR spectrum: if EGCRs consist of protons mostly, they would suffer - besides the GZK effect - from energy losses associated with the production of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in the CMB photon field [@Berezinsky-88]. This would result in a modulation of the all-particle energy spectrum to what is called a “pair-production dip” between $1
\cdot 10^{18}$ - $4 \cdot 10^{19}$ eV. In such a way, the turn over from the left- to the right hand side of the ‘dip’ would mimic the ankle. Moreover, since the Bethe-Heitler pair production works effectively only for protons [@Aloisio-06], the ankle can then be interpreted as a signature of a pure proton EGCR component and the galactic-extragalactic transition must occur at much lower energies than in the traditional picture, possibly around the second knee.
=
How can the two models be discriminated? The most critical observation is provided by a measurement of the chemical composition in the energy range around $10^{18}$ eV: In the dip model a strong dominance of protons, and in the ankle model a strong dominance of iron nuclei is expected. A recent confrontation of the two models to existing data has been performed by Allard [[*et al.*]{}]{} [@Allard-06]. The authors conclude that the all-particle energy spectrum is reproduced equally well by the two models. However, based on a comparison of the mean mass composition, analyzed in terms of the mean depth of the shower maximum, $X_{\rm max}$, they favour the traditional model. Figure \[fig:Xmax-comparison\] compares the $X_{\rm max}$ data of various experiments with the dip- and ankle-model of [@Allard-06]. Here, only CORSIKA / QGSJET-01 simulations are shown, because QGSJET-01 is the interaction model providing the most consistent description of experimental data in this energy region. Clearly, this direct comparison with QGSJET-01 does [*not*]{} seem to give preference to any of the two models. Also shown are predictions of the cannonball model for two choices of penetrability of EGCRs into the Galaxy [@Dar-06]. It should be noted, that in the latter case, $X_{\rm max}(E)$ is constructed by a simplified model described in Ref.[@Wigmans-03] instead of using full EAS simulations. Evidently, better data are required before definite conclusions can be drawn about the transition from Galactic to extra-galactic CRs.
ANISOTROPIES
============
Another key observation in cosmic ray astrophysics is the directional distribution of the particles. That distribution will depend on any galactic magnetic fields and hence will be energy (rigidity) dependent. However, with very limited exceptions, which are not individually statistically significant, there is no observed deviation from isotropy above the knee of the energy spectrum, and any anisotropies at lower energies are themselves very small [@Clay-97; @Antoni-04]. Probably, the most comprehensive data at energies from a few to several hundred TeV have been obtained by the Tibet AS$\gamma$ experiment. Besides revealing fine details of known anisotropies, the data support the picture of corotation of low energy CRs with the local Galactic magnetic environment and they may indicate an anisotropy around the Cygnus region [@Amenomori-06b]. However, a contamination of TeV $\gamma$’s in the data sample cannot be excluded at present.
A non-uniform distribution in of the arrival directions, suggestive of a source direction, in the energy range $10^{18.0}$ - $10^{18.4}$ eV has been reported by the AGASA [@Hayashida-99] and similarly by the SUGAR collaboration [@Bellido-01]. However, neither of those observations on their own is clearly statistically significant. Moreover, the Pierre Auger Collaboration has also started to analyse the galactic centre region. These results, obtained with much larger exposure than of AGASA and SUGAR, do not support that finding and instead provide an upper bound on a point-like flux of CRs from the Galactic Centre. Even in absence of CR point sources, such data may be regarded as the possible beginning of a new era in cosmic ray astrophysics in which we can begin directional cosmic ray astronomy. The possibility of having a source to observe may indeed open up new frontiers for the Pierre Auger Observatory [@Antoine; @Cuoco-06].
As already pointed out, the low level of CR anisotropy even at energies above the knee is considered the most serious challenge to the standard model of the origin of galactic CRs from diffuse shock acceleration [@Hillas-05]. Figure \[fig:Anisotropies\] shows a collection of data expressed in terms of the Rayleigh amplitudes $A$. The thin lines represent a CR diffusion model [@Candia-03] predicting anisotropies on a scale of $10^{-4}$ to $10^{-2}$ depending on particle energy and strength and structure of the galactic magnetic field. However, the model fails to describe the all-particle spectrum considerably. Assuming a simple rigidity model of $\tau_{\rm
esc}(E) \propto E^{-0.6}$, Hillas estimates anisotropies at a level of 5%, 16%, and 180% at $1.5 \cdot 10^{14}$ eV, $10^{15}$ eV, and $1.5 \cdot 10^{17}$ eV, respectively [@Hillas-05]. In case of a $E^{-1/3}$ scaling, the values would go down to 0.6%, 1.1%, and 3.7% which is still in contradiction to the experimental data of figure \[fig:Anisotropies\].
=
As already mentioned, the CB-model [@Dar-06] predicts much lower levels of anisotropies than models in which CRs diffuse away from the central realms of the Galaxy, where most SN explosions take place. A CB, on the contrary, is considered a continuous source of CRs along its trajectory from the galactic disk into the galactic halo. Along its trajectory, the source intensity depends on the local and previously traversed ISM density. Thus, the source of CRs is very diffuse and the directional anisotropy of CRs at the EarthÕs location is expected to be very small and to vary little with energy.
SUMMARY AND OUTLOOK
===================
Diffusive shock acceleration in SNRs is considered a viable mechanism for accelerating cosmic rays and it naturally leads to a power-law spectrum in rigidity. However, many fundamental questions related to the assumption of SNRs being the sources of galactic cosmic rays are still open. These questions include, amongst others, the absence of TeV $\gamma$-radiation from a large fraction of SNRs, the origin of the knee in the cosmic ray spectrum, the low level of global anisotropies in their arrival direction, the transition of galactic to extragalactic CRs and its related question about the existence of a second knee and about the origin of the ankle.
The deconvolution of the all-particle CR spectrum into energy spectra of individual mass-groups by current KASCADE data [@Antoni-05] has advanced the field quite a lot. Such kind of data contain much more information than the all-particle spectrum and the mean mass of CRs (expressed mostly by $\langle
X_{\rm max} \rangle$ and $\langle \ln A \rangle$) alone. However, there remain large uncertainties, which still allow alternative interpretations. Most prominently, a definite answer about an $E/Z$ (rigidity) or $E/A$ scaling of the knee position cannot be given at present. However, there is still some room for improving the data quality and, despite enormous progress already made, there are also better hadronic interaction models being developed which are hoped to eliminate the still existing shortcomings of the present models such as Sibyll 2.1 or QGSJET01 [@Pierog-06].
At energies above $10^{17}$ eV data become very sparse and we are far from understanding the transition from galactic to extragalactic CRs. Although the ankle in the CR spectrum at about $5 \cdot 10^{18}$ eV is often interpreted as the signature of the transition from a steeply falling galactic CR-spectrum to a slightly harder extragalactic spectrum, alternative explanations are possible. Sometimes the second knee at about $10^{17.5}$ eV is considered as indication for the transition to extragalactic CRs, but this explanation would require fine-tuning of the injection spectra of the different galactic and extragalactic sources. Two particular models were discussed in detail, the dip- [@Aloisio-06] and the ankle-model [@Hillas-05]. Current data on $\langle X_{\rm max} \rangle$ do not allow to exclude any of the two models. The transition from galactic to extragalactic CRs occurs in the energy region of the second knee and is distinctly seen only if iron and proton spectra are measured separately.
In conclusion, the fundamental question about the origin of high energy CRs below the GZK energy remains far from being answered. As a consequence, the interest in studying CRs from about $10^{17}$ to $10^{19}$ eV with high quality state of the art EAS detectors has grown worldwide and several new experiments are being prepared or planned for. These include KASCADE-Grande (already in operation) [@DiPierro-06] as well as low-energy extensions of Auger by High Elevation Auger Telescopes (HEAT) and an infill array with extra muon detectors, as well as the Telescope Array (TA) and its low-energy extension TALE [@Martens-06]. These detectors can reliably solve the problem of measuring the energy spectrum and mass composition in the transition region and complement the measurements performed at the highest energies by the Pierre Auger Observatory.
[**Acknowledgments** ]{} Its a pleasure to thank the organizers for their invitation to the CRIS 2006 workshop which was conducted in a very pleasant and fruitful atmosphere. The author is grateful to M. Risse for carefully reading the manuscript. The work of the group at University Wuppertal is supported in part by the Helmholtz VIHKOS Institute and by the German Ministry for Research and Education.
[99]{} G.V. Kulikov and G.B. Khristiansen, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 35 (1958) 635 K. Greisen, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**16**]{} (1966) 748, and G.T. Zatsepin and V.A. Kuz’min; Sov. Phys. JETP Lett. (Engl. Transl.), [**4**]{} (1966) 78 P.O. Lagage C.J. and Cesarsky, Astron. Astrophys. [**118**]{} (1983) 223 and [**125**]{}, 249 E.G. Berezhko, H.J. Völk, Astron. Astrophys. [**357**]{} (2000) 283 L. O’C. Drury, Contemp. Phys. [**35**]{} (1994) 231 E.G. Berezhko and L.T. Ksenofontov, J. Exp. Theor. Phys. [**89**]{}, (1999) 391 A.D. Erlykin and A.W. Wolfendale, J. Phys. [**G23**]{} (1997) 979 J. Candia, L.N. Epele, E. Roulet, Astropart. Phys. [**17**]{} (2002) 23 S.I. Nikolsky, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) [**39A**]{} (1995) 157 A. Dar and A. de Rújula, arXiv:astro-ph/0606199. See also A. de Rújula proceedings to this conference arXiv:hep-ph/0608092 M.A. Hillas, J. Phys. [**G31**]{} (2005) R95 F. Aharonian [[*et al.*]{}]{} (HESS Collaboration), Nature [**432**]{} (2004) 75. F. Aharonian [[*et al.*]{}]{} (HESS Collaboration), Astron. Astrophys. [**449**]{} (2006) 223 F. Aharonian [[*et al.*]{}]{} (HESS Collaboration), A&A [**437**]{} (2005) L7 F. Aharonian [[*et al.*]{}]{} (HESS Collaboration), Astrophys. J. [**636**]{} (2006) 777 D. Müller [[*et al.*]{}]{}, 29th International Cosmic Ray Conference Pune [**3**]{} (2005) 89 K. Asakimori et al., ApJ 502 (1998) 278. V.A. Derbina et al. ApJ 628 (2005) L41 J. Hörandel, arXiv:astro-ph/0508014 T. Antoni [[*et al.*]{}]{} (KASCADE-Collaboration), Astropart. Phys. [**24**]{} (2005) 1 M. Amenomori [[*et al.*]{}]{} (The Tibet AS$\gamma$ Collaboration), Phys.Lett. [**B632**]{} (2006) 58 D. Heck et al., Report **FZKA 6019**, Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe (1998) N.N. Kalmykov and S.S. Ostapchenko, Phys. Atom. Nucl. **56** (1993) 346 R. Engel [[*et al.*]{}]{}, Proc. $26^{th}$ Int. Cosmic Ray Conf., Salt Lake City (USA) **1** (1999) 415 M.L. Cherry, to be published, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.; arXiv:astro-ph/0512329 N.M. Budnev [[*et al.*]{}]{}, $26^{th}$ ICRC Pune (2005) p.101; arXiv:astro-ph/0511215 S.P. Swordy [[*et al.*]{}]{}, Astropart. Phys. [**18**]{} (2002) 129 K.-H. Kampert, J. Phys. G (Nucl. Part. Phys.) [**27**]{} (2001) 1663 M. Aglietta [[*et al.*]{}]{} (EAS-TOP and MACRO Collaborations), Astropart. Phys. [**20**]{} (2004) 641. T. Antoni [[*et al.*]{}]{} (KASCADE-Collaboration), Nucl. Instr. Meth. [**A513**]{} (2003) 490 H. Fesefeldt, Report **PITHA-85/02**, RWTH Achen (1985) K.-H. Kampert; Conference Proceedings Vol. 85, SIF, Bologna, 2003, ISBN 88-7438-011-9, p.485-493; arXiv:astro-ph/0212348 T. Montaruli, private communication (2006) T. Pierog, K. Werner, arXiv:astro-ph/0611311 M. Nagano [[*et al.*]{}]{}, J. Phys. [**G18**]{} (1992) 423 D.J. Bird [[*et al.*]{}]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**71**]{} (1993) 3401 M.A. Lawrence, R.J.0. Reid and A.A. Watson, J. Phys. [**17**]{} (1991) 733 A. V. Glushkov and M. I. Pravdin, JETP [**101**]{} (2005) 88 G. Thomson [[*et al.*]{}]{} (HiRes Collaboration), arXiv:astro-ph/0609403 V.S. Berezinsky, S.I. Grigor’eva, Astron. Astropys. [**199**]{} (1988) 1 R. Aloisio [[*et al.*]{}]{}, Astropart. Phys. (2006) in press; arXiv:astro-ph/0608219 D. Allard, E. Parizot, A.V. Olinto, Astropart. Phys. (2006) in press; arXiv:astro-ph/0512345 R.U. Abbasi [[*et al.*]{}]{} (HiRes Collaboration), ApJ [**622**]{} (2005) 910 T. Abu-Zayyad [[*et al.*]{}]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**84**]{} (2000) 4276 B.N. Afanasiev Proceedings of Tokyo Workshop on techniques for the Study of extremely high energy cosmic rays, 1993 R. Wigmans, Astropart. Phys. [**19**]{} (2003) 379 R.W. Clay, M.A. McDonough, A.G.K. Smith, 25th ICRC, Vol. 4 (1997) 185 T. Antoni [[*et al.*]{}]{} (KASCADE Collaboration), Astrophys. J. [**604**]{} (2004) 687 M. Amenomori [[*et al.*]{}]{}(The Tibet AS$\gamma$ Collaboration), Astrophys. J. [**604**]{} (2004) 687 N. Hayashida [[*et al.*]{}]{} (AKENO Collaboration), Astropart. Phys. [**10**]{} (1999) 303 J.A. Bellido [[*et al.*]{}]{}, Astropart. Phys. [**15**]{} (2001) 167 J. Abraham [[*et al.*]{}]{} (Pierre Auger Collaboration), Astropart. Phys. (in press); arXiv:astro-ph/0607382 A. Letessier-Selvon [[*et al.*]{}]{} (Pierre Auger Collaboration), talk given at this conference A. Cuoco, talk given at this conference; arXiv:astro-ph/0609577 J. Candia, S. Mollerach, E. Roulet, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. (JCAP) [**05**]{} (2003) 003 F. DiPierro [[*et al.*]{}]{} (KASCADE-Grande Collaboration), Proceedings to this conference K. Martens [[*et al.*]{}]{}, Proceedings to this conference
[^1]: email: [[email protected]]{}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We derive bilateral asymptotic as well as non-asymptotic estimates for the multivariate Laplace integrals.
Possible applications: Tauberian theorems for random vectors.
author:
- 'Maria Rosaria Formica ${}^{1}$, Eugeny Ostrovsky ${}^2$, Leonid Sirota ${}^2$'
title: '**Asymptotic and non-asymptotic estimates for multivariate Laplace integrals**'
---
${}^{1}$ Università degli Studi di Napoli Parthenope, via Generale Parisi 13,\
Palazzo Pacanowsky, 80132, Napoli, Italy.\
e-mail: [email protected]\
${}^2$ Bar-Ilan University, Department of Mathematic and Statistics, 59200\
Ramat Gan, Israel.\
e-mail: [email protected]\
e-mail: [email protected]\
[ Laplace or exponential integrals, Fenchel-Morau theorem, random variable and random vector (r.v.), exponential and ordinary tail of distribution, measure and measurable space, Lebesgue measure, regional and ordinary Young-Fenchel transform, saddle-point method, Cramer’s condition, moment generating functions (MGF), regular and slowly varying functions.]{}
[*2010 Mathematics Subject Classification*]{}: 44A10, 60B05, 26A12,
Definitions. Notations. Previous results. Statement of problem.
===============================================================
Let $R^d, \ d = 1,2,\ldots$ be the ordinary $d-$ dimensional numerical (Euclidean) space $$R^d = \{ x, \ x = \vec{x} = \{ x(1), x(2), \ldots, x(d) \} \ \},
\ \ x(j) \in R, \ \ j = 1,2,\ldots,d,$$ and let $(X, B, \mu)$ be a non-trivial measurable space equipped with sigma-finite Borelian measure $\mu$, where $X$ is a measurable subset of $R^d$ having strictly positive measure $\mu(X) \in (0,
\infty]$.
Introduce the following subset of the whole space $R^d$ $$R^d(Z) \stackrel{def}{=} \{ x = \vec{x} \ : \ \min_i x(i) \ge Z
\}, \ \ Z = {\rm const}\ge 1.$$
[*We will impose in the sequel the following condition on the set*]{} $X$.
[**Condition 1.1.**]{} $$\label{AZ}
\exists Z_0 = {{\rm const}} \ge 1 \ : \ \forall Z \ge Z_0 \ \Rightarrow \
X \cap R^d(Z) \ne \emptyset,$$
say for all the values $Z\ge 1$ sufficiently large.
Denote $$\lambda = \vec{\lambda} \in R^d, \ \ (x,\lambda) = x \cdot \lambda = \sum_{i=1}^d \lambda(i) x(i), \ \ |x| = \sqrt{(x,x)},$$ so that $ \ \dim(x) =\dim(\lambda) = d. \ $
Define also $$R^d_+ = \{ x, \ x = \vec{x} = \{ x(1), x(2), \ldots, x(d) \} \
\}, \ \ x(j) \ge 0, \ \ j = 1,2,\ldots,d;$$
$$\Lambda(\lambda) = \Lambda = \min_i \lambda(i), \ \ \lambda \in R^d_+;$$ correspondingly
$$\underline{x} = \Lambda(x) = \min_i x(i), \ \ x \in X.$$
Let also $ \ \zeta = \zeta(x), \ x \in X$, be a measurable numerical valued continuous function $ \ \zeta: X \to R. \ $
We assume, furthermore, that $ \ \mu(X) = \infty, \ $ as long as the opposite (probabilistic) case is trivial for us.
[**Definition 1.1.**]{} [The following integral]{}
$$\label{def source int}
I(\lambda) = I[\zeta](\lambda) := \int_X e^{ (\lambda, x) -
\zeta(x) } \ \mu(dx)$$
[is named Laplace or exponential integral.]{}
[**In this article we provide asymptotical as well as non-asymptotical upper and lower estimates of the Laplace integral $\ I[\zeta](\lambda) = I(\lambda)$, for all sufficiently large values of the real vector parameter $ \ \lambda =
\vec{\lambda} \in R^d_+, \ d = 1,2,3, \ldots $, say $\Lambda(\lambda) \ge 1$ and when $\Lambda \to \infty $; we obtain direct estimations assuming, of course, its convergence for all the sufficiently large values of the parameter $ \ |\lambda| :=
\sqrt{(\lambda,\lambda)}$**]{}.
[**Furthermore we also obtain an inverse evaluation, i.e. we deduce the bilateral bounds for the source function**]{} $ \ \zeta =
\zeta(x), \ \underline{x} \ge 1, \
\Lambda(x) \to \infty \ $, [**through its integral transform** ]{} $ \ I[\zeta](\lambda) \ $, [**with an inverse approach.** ]{}
The case of other octants, for instance, $ \ \lambda
\in R^d_- \stackrel{def}{=} \{\vec{\lambda}\}, \ \lambda(j) < 0 \ $ and $ \ \Lambda_- = \max_i \lambda(i) \to - \infty \ $, may be investigated quite analogously.
The one-dimensional case $ \ d = 1 \ $ was considered in [@Chen; @KozOs; @Subg; @KozOsRelations]; a preliminary result may be found in [@Maslov; @Fedoryuk].
We will generalize the main results obtained in the articles [@KozOs; @Subg; @KozOsRelations; @Maslov; @Fedoryuk], where are described also some applications of these estimates, in particular, in the probability theory. The estimates given below may be considered in turn as a generalization of the classical saddle-point method ([@Fedoryuk]).
The paper is organized as follows. In section 2 and in section 3 we deduce respectively an upper and a lower direct estimate for the Laplace integral $I(\lambda)$; section 4 and section 5 contain an investigation of the inverse problem and, respectively, an upper and a lower estimate for the source function through the exponential integral. In section 6 we consider the multidimensional Tauberian theorems for exponential integrals; in section 7 some important examples are described. The last section contains the concluding remarks.
Denote, as usually,
$$\vec{0} = \{0,0, \ldots, 0 \}, \ \ \vec{1} = \{ 1,1,\ldots,1 \}; \ \ \dim \vec{0} = \dim \vec{1} = d;$$
$$\vec{a} \ge \vec{b} \ \ \Leftrightarrow \ \ a(i) \ge b(i), \ \
\forall i = 1,2,\ldots,d ;$$
$$R^d_+(1) \stackrel{def}{=} \{x = \vec{x} \ge \vec{1} \}.$$
Let us mention briefly a possible application. Recall that the so-called (multivariate) moment generating function (MGF) for the random vector (r.v.) $ \ \vec{\xi} \ $ is defined by the equality $$\exp \left(\phi_{\xi}(\lambda) \right) \stackrel{def}{=} {\bf E} \exp \left(\vec{\xi} \cdot \vec{\lambda} \right) =$$
$${\bf E} \exp \left[ \ \sum_{i=1}^d \xi(i) \ \lambda(i) \ \right] = \int_{\Omega}\exp \left(\vec{\xi}(\omega) \cdot \vec{\lambda} \right) \ {\bf P}(d \ \omega) =$$
$$\int_{R^d} e^{(\lambda,x)} \ f_{\xi}(x) \ dx = \int_{R^d} e^{(\lambda, x) - \ln (1/f_{\xi}(x))} \ dx,$$
where $ \ f_{\xi}(x) \ $ denotes the density of the r.v. $ \ \xi, \ $ if there exists.
So, the MGF function $ \ \exp \left(\phi_{\xi}(\lambda) \right) \ $ is, on the other terms, the multivariate Laplace integral.
It will be presumed that the r.v. $ \ \xi \ $ satisfies the so-called Cramer’s condition:
$$\label{Cramer}
\exists \delta = {\rm const}> 0 \ : \forall \lambda, \ |\lambda| < \delta \ \Rightarrow \phi_{\xi}(\lambda) < \infty$$
and that the density function there exists.
Recall that the well-known Young-Fenchel or Legendre transform for the function $ \ \zeta: X \to R \ $ is defined as follows
$$\zeta^*(\lambda) \stackrel{def}{=} \sup_{x \in X} (\lambda \cdot x - \zeta(x)), \ \lambda \in R^d.$$
If some function $\phi = \phi(\lambda)$ is defined and is finite in a set $V$, i.e. ${\rm dom}[\phi] = V$, convex or not, one can define formally
$$\phi(\lambda) = + \infty, \ \lambda \notin V,$$ hence
$$\phi^*(x) \stackrel{def}{=} \sup_{\vec{\lambda} \in V} ( \vec{\lambda} \cdot\vec{x} - \phi( \vec{\lambda})), \ x \in R^d_+.$$
This notion plays an important role in the probability theory. Namely, let $ \ \xi = \vec{\xi} \ $ be a random vector for which
$$\label{upp MGF}
{\bf E} \exp(\lambda \cdot \xi) \le \exp(\phi(\lambda)), \ \lambda \in R^d_+.$$
Then
$$\label{upp Tail T}
T_{\xi}(x) \le \exp \left( \ - \phi^*(x) \ \right), \ x \in R^d_+,$$
where $ \ T_{\xi} = T_{\xi}(x) \ $ denotes the tail function for the r.v. $ \ \xi: \ $
$$\label{taild1}
T_{\xi}(x) \stackrel{def}{=}{\bf P}(\vec{\xi} \ge \vec{x}), \ x \in R^d_+,$$
the so-called generalized Chernoff’s inequality, see e.g. [@Chernoff1; @Chernoff2; @KozOsRelations].
Moreover, this assertion may be reversed under some natural conditions (smoothness, convexity etc.) in the following sense. Suppose $ \ d = 1 \ $ (one-dimensional case) and that the last estimate holds true. Then, under appropriate conditions (see [@KozOsRelations]), $$\label{upp MGF}
{\bf E} \exp(\lambda \cdot \xi) \le \exp(\phi(C_1 \cdot \lambda)), \
\ \lambda \in R^1_+$$ for some finite constant $ \ C_1. \ $
Main result. A direct approach. Upper estimate.
===============================================
Let us introduce some preliminary notations and conditions. Put
$$\label{def K}
K(\epsilon) = K[X,\mu, \zeta](\epsilon) := \int_X e^{-\epsilon \ \zeta(x)} \ \mu(dx),$$
here and in the sequel $ \ \epsilon = {\rm const}\in (0,1). \ $
Assume $X = R^d_+$. Let $\mu$ be the classical Lebesgue measure and let $ \zeta = \zeta(x), \ x \in R^d_+ $, be a non-negative strictly convex continuous differentiable function. The function $ \
K(\epsilon), \ \epsilon > 0$, defined by , satisfies the following estimate
$$K(\epsilon) \le C[\zeta,d] \ \exp(-C_0 \, \epsilon) \,
\epsilon^{-d}, \ \ C_0 = {{\rm const}} \in R.$$
There exist positive constants $ \ C_1, C_2, \ldots,C_d \ $ and a number $ \ C_0 \in R \ $ such that $$\zeta(\vec{x}) \ge C_0 + \sum_{i=1}^d C(i) \ x(i).$$
Indeed, one can apply the well-known Fenchel-Morau theorem
$$\zeta(x) = \sup_{y \in R^d_+} ( \ (x,y) - \zeta^*(y)),$$ so that, for an arbitrary $ \ y_0 \in R^d_+ \ $,
$$\zeta(x) \ge (x,y_0) - \zeta^*(y_0).$$
Therefore
$$\begin{split}
K(\epsilon) &\le \int_{R^d_+} \exp [ - \epsilon( \ C_0 +
\sum_{i=1}^d
C(i) \ x(i) \ ) \ ] \ \prod_{i=1}^d d x(i) \\
&= \left[ \
\prod_{i=1}^d C(i) \ \right]^{-1} \ e^{-C_0 \, \epsilon} \,
\epsilon^{-d}.
\end{split}$$
Furthermore, define
$$Z(\epsilon) = Z[X,\mu, \zeta](\epsilon) := \int_X \exp (\zeta( \ x(1 - \epsilon)) - \zeta(x) \ ) \ \mu(dx).$$
Let $D\subset X$ be a non-empty subset of the whole set $X$. We introduce the so-called [*regional*]{} Young-Fenchel transform for the function $ \ \zeta(\cdot) \ $
$$\zeta^*[D](\lambda) \stackrel{def}{=} \sup_{x \in D} (\lambda \cdot
x - \zeta(x)), \ \ \lambda \in R^d,$$ so that
$$\zeta^*[X](\lambda) = \zeta^*(\lambda).$$
We represent now [*three* ]{} methods for an [*upper*]{} estimate of $ I(\lambda)$ for sufficiently large values of the real parameter $ \ |\lambda|. \ $
[**A.**]{} First of all note that if the measure $ \ \mu \ $ is bounded: $ \ \mu(X) = M \in (0, \infty); \ $ then the integral $ \
I(\lambda) \ $ satisfies a very simple estimate
$$I(\lambda) \le M \cdot \sup_{x \in X} \exp \left( \lambda x - \zeta(x) \right) =
M \cdot \exp \left( \zeta^*(\lambda) \right).$$
Let now $ \ \mu(X) = \infty $ and let $ \ \epsilon = {\rm const}\in (0,1). \ $
[**B.**]{} It will be presumed the finiteness of the integral $ \ K(\epsilon) = K[X,\mu,\zeta](\epsilon) \ $ at least for some positive value $ \ \epsilon_0 \in (0,1)$, i.e. $$K(\epsilon) < \infty \ \ \forall \epsilon \ge \epsilon_0.$$
It is proved in particular in [@KozOsRelations] that
$$\label{est K}
I(\lambda) \le K(\epsilon) \cdot \exp \left\{ (1 - \epsilon) \zeta^* \left( \frac{\lambda}{1 - \epsilon} \right) \right\} \le
K(\epsilon) \cdot \exp \left\{ \ \zeta^* \left( \frac{\lambda}{1 - \epsilon} \ \right) \ \right\}.$$
Note that in [@KozOsRelations] was considered the one-dimensional case $ \ d = 1; \ $ but the general one may be investigated quite analogously. In detail, let $ \ \epsilon \in (0,1) \ $ be some number for which $ \ K(\epsilon) \in (0,\infty). \ $ Consider the following probability measure, more precisely, the family of probability measures
$$\nu_{\epsilon}(A) = \frac{1}{K(\epsilon)} \ \int_A e^{ - \epsilon \zeta(x) } \ \mu(dx),$$ or symbolically $$\nu_{\epsilon}(dx) = \frac{1}{K(\epsilon)} \ e^{ - \epsilon \zeta(x) } \ \mu(dx),$$ so that
$$\nu_{\epsilon}(X) = \int_X \nu_{\epsilon}(dx) = 1.$$ We have $$\frac{I(\lambda)}{K(\epsilon)} = \int_X e^{ (\lambda,x) - (1 - \epsilon) \zeta(x) } \ \nu_{\epsilon}(dx) \le$$
$$\exp \left\{ \sup_{x \in X} [ (\lambda,x) - (1 - \epsilon) \zeta(x) ] \right\} = \exp \left\{ (1 - \epsilon) \zeta^*(\lambda/(1 - \epsilon) ) \right\}.$$ So, the relation is proved.
As a slight consequence:
$$\label{IKeps1}
I(\lambda) \le \inf_{\epsilon \in (0,1)}
\left[ K(\epsilon) \cdot \exp \left\{ (1 - \epsilon) \zeta^* \left( \frac{\lambda}{1 - \epsilon} \right) \right\} \right];$$
$$\label{IKeps2}
I(\lambda) \le \inf_{\epsilon \in (0,1)}
\left[ K(\epsilon) \cdot \exp \left\{ \zeta^* \left( \frac{\lambda}{1 - \epsilon} \right) \right\} \right].$$
[**C.**]{} An opposite method, which was introduced in a particular case in [@KozOs; @Subg], [@KozOsRelations]. Define the following integral
$$Z(\epsilon) = Z[\zeta, \mu, X](\epsilon) := \int_X e^{ \zeta((1-\epsilon) x) - \zeta(x) } \mu(dx),$$ if, of course, it is finite at least for some value $ \ \epsilon
\in (0,1).\ $.
Let again $ \ \epsilon = {\rm const}\in (0, 1)$. Applying the well-known Young inequality
$$(\lambda,x) \le \zeta((1 -\epsilon) x) + \zeta^*(\lambda /(1-\epsilon)),$$ we have
$$I(\lambda) \le e^{ \zeta^*(\lambda/(1 -\epsilon)) } \ \int_X e^{ \zeta ((1-\epsilon) x) - \zeta(x) } \mu(dx) = Z(\epsilon) \ e^{ \zeta^*(\lambda/(1 -\epsilon)) }.$$ Of course
$$\label{estimate I inf}
I(\lambda) \le \inf_{\epsilon \in (0,1)} \left[ \ Z(\epsilon) \ e^{ \zeta^*(\lambda/ (1 -\epsilon)) } \ \right].$$
[**D.**]{} Denote
$$R(\epsilon) = R[X,\mu,\zeta](\epsilon) := \min(K(\epsilon), \ Z(\epsilon)), \ \epsilon \in (0,1).$$
We conclude
$$\label{R eps}
I(\lambda) \le R[X,\mu,\zeta](\epsilon) \ e^{ \zeta^*(\lambda/ (1 -\epsilon)) }.$$
Furthermore, we will use the following elementary inequality
$$1 + \epsilon < \frac{1}{1 - \epsilon} \le 1 + 2 \epsilon, \ 0 < \epsilon \le 1/2.$$
Let us introduce a new function $ \ \phi(\lambda) := \zeta^*(\lambda), \ $
$$\label{pi kappa}
\pi_{\kappa}(\lambda) \stackrel{def}{=} \frac{\kappa}{(\lambda \cdot \zeta^{*'}(\lambda))} = \frac{\kappa}{(\lambda \cdot \phi^{'}(\lambda))}, \ \ \kappa = {\rm const}\in (0, \infty),$$
$$\label{pi 1}
\pi(\lambda) = \pi_1(\lambda) \stackrel{def}{=} \frac{1}{(\lambda \cdot \zeta^{*'}(\lambda))} = \frac{1}{(\lambda \cdot \phi^{'}(\lambda))} ,$$
alike ones in the monograph [@Os; @Mono], chapter 3; and suppose that
$$\label{pi to 0}
\lim_{\Lambda(\lambda) \to \infty} \pi(\lambda) = 0;$$
so that the value $ \ \Lambda_0 = \Lambda(\kappa)\ $ may be chosen such that
$$\forall \lambda: \ \min_i \lambda(i) \ge \Lambda(\kappa) \ \
\Rightarrow \ \ \pi_{\kappa}(\lambda) \le 1/2.$$ Let us impose the following condition on the function $ \
\phi(\cdot): \ $
$$\label{condition phi}
\sup_{\min_i \lambda(i) \ge \Lambda(\kappa)} \left[ \phi \left( \lambda + \frac{2 \lambda}{(\lambda, \phi'(\lambda))} \ \right) - \phi(\lambda)\ \right] = C(\phi,\kappa) = C(\phi) < \infty.$$
Define also $$r(\lambda)= r[\zeta,\kappa](\lambda) \stackrel{def}{=} R[X,\mu,\zeta](\pi_{\kappa}(\lambda)).$$
Choosing $ \ \epsilon = \pi(\lambda) \ $ in the domain $
\ \min_i \lambda(i) \ge \Lambda(1) \ $, we have the following
\[upper th 2.1\] If the function $\phi(\cdot)=\zeta^*(\cdot)$ satisfies the condition , then $$\label{upp gen}
I(\lambda) \le e^{C(\phi)} \ r(\lambda) \ e^{ \zeta^*(\lambda) }.$$
Assume in addition $ \ R(\epsilon) \le C_1 \
\epsilon^{-\beta}, \ \beta = {\rm const}\in (0,\infty), \ \epsilon \in
(0,1); \ $ then
$$I(\lambda) \le C_1 \ e^{C(\phi)} \ \epsilon^{-\beta} \ e^{2 \epsilon/\pi(\lambda)} \ e^{\phi(\lambda)}, \ \lambda(i) \ge \Lambda,$$ and, after the minimization over $ \ \epsilon \ $,
$$I(\lambda) \le C_1 \ e^{C(\phi)} \ 2^{\beta} \ \beta^{-\beta} \ e^{\beta} \ \pi_1^{-\beta}(\lambda) \ e^{\zeta^*(\lambda)}.$$
[**E.**]{} Let us consider an arbitrary simple partition $ \ X = X_0 \cup X_1, \ X_0 \cap X_1 = \emptyset \ $ of the whole set $ \ X \ $ onto two disjoint measurable subsets. We deduce splitting integral $ \ I(\lambda) \ $ into two ones
$$I(\lambda) = \int_{X_0} \exp(\lambda x - \zeta(x)) \ \mu(dx) + \int_{X_1} \exp(\lambda x - \zeta(x)) \ \mu(dx) = I_0 + I_1,$$ and applying the foregoing estimates:
$$I_0 \le \mu(X_0) \exp \left[ \ \sup_{x \in X_0}(\lambda x - \zeta(x)) \ \right] = \mu(X_0) \ \exp \left[ \ \zeta^*[X_0](\lambda) \ \right],$$
$$\begin{split}
I_1 & \le R[X_1,\mu,\zeta] (\epsilon) \ \exp \left[ \ \sup_{x \in
X_1} (\lambda x/(1 - \epsilon) - \zeta(x)) \ \right] \\
& =R[X_1,\mu,\zeta] (\epsilon) \ \exp \left[
\zeta^*[X_1](\lambda/(1 - \epsilon) \right].
\end{split}$$
Denote $$W[X,\mu,\zeta, \epsilon](\lambda) = :\mu(X_0) \ \exp \left[ \ \zeta^*[X_0](\lambda) \ \right] + R[X_1,\mu,\zeta] (\epsilon) \ \exp \left[ \zeta^*[X_1](\lambda/(1 - \epsilon) \right],$$
$$W_0[X,\mu,\zeta](\lambda) = \inf_{\epsilon \in (0,1)} W[X,\mu,\zeta, \epsilon](\lambda).$$
We obtained actually the following compound estimate.
Suppose $$\exists c \in (0,\infty) \ : \ \forall \lambda, \ |\lambda| \ge c \
\Rightarrow \ W_0[X,\mu,\zeta](\lambda) < \infty.$$ Then, $ \ \forall \lambda: |\lambda| \ge c \ $ and $ \ \forall
\epsilon \in (0,1)$,
$$I(\lambda) \le W[X,\mu,\zeta, \epsilon](\lambda).$$
As a slight consequence: $$I(\lambda) \le W_0[X,\mu,\zeta](\lambda), \ \ |\lambda| \ge c.$$
Introduce the following condition on the function $ \
\zeta(\cdot)$:
$$\exists C_1 \in [1,\infty) \ : \ W_0[X,\mu,\zeta](\lambda) \le \
\exp \left\{ \ \zeta^*(C_1 \ \lambda) \ \right\}, \ \ |\lambda| \ge
c.$$
This condition is satisfied if, for example, the function $ \ \zeta = \zeta(x), \ x \in X \ $ is regular varying: $$\label{slowly1}
\zeta(\lambda) = |\lambda|^m \ L(|\lambda|), \ \ |\lambda| \ge 1,$$ where $ \ m = {\rm const}> 0, \ |\cdot| \ $ is the ordinary Euclidean norm (or an arbitrary other non-degenerate vector one) and $ \ L =
L(r), \ r \ge 1$, is some positive continuous slowly varying function as $ \ r \to \infty$, and we suppose
$$\forall A \in B \ \Rightarrow \mu(A) = \int_A |x|^{\alpha} \ M(|x|)
\ dx, \ \ \alpha = {{\rm const}} > -d,$$ where, as before, $ \ M = M(r), \ r \ge 1$, is some positive continuous slowly varying function as $ \ r \to \infty$. Briefly: $
\ \mu(dx) = |x|^{\alpha} \ M(|x|) \ dx. \ $ We have $ \
K(\epsilon) \le \overline{K}(\epsilon), \ \epsilon \in (0,1);\ $
$$\overline{K}(\epsilon) := \int_{R^d} \exp \left( \ - \epsilon |x|^m L(|x|) \ \right) \ |x|^{\alpha} \ M(|x|) \ dx.$$ One can apply the spherical coordinates:
$$\overline{K}(\epsilon) = \frac{\pi^{d/2}}{\Gamma(d/2 + 1)} \, K_0(\epsilon),$$ where $$K_0(\epsilon)=\int_0^{\infty} \exp \left( -\epsilon \ r^m \ L(r)
\right) \ r^{\alpha + d - 1} \ M(r) \ dr.$$ We obtain, after the substitution $ \ r^m \epsilon = y, \ dr =
m^{-1} y^{1/m - 1} \ \epsilon^{-1/m} \,dy$, $$\begin{split}
Z_m(\epsilon) & \stackrel{def}{=} \ m \ \epsilon^{ (\alpha + d)/m
}\ K_0(\epsilon) \\
&=\int_0^{\infty} y^{ (\alpha + d)/m - 1 } \exp
\left( \ -y \ L(y^{1/m} \epsilon^{-1/m}) \ \right) \ M
\left(y^{1/m} \ \epsilon^{-1/m} \right) \ dy
\end{split}$$ and, as $ \ \epsilon \to 0+ \ $, $$\begin{split}
Z_m(\epsilon) &\sim M(\epsilon^{-1/m}) \int_0^{\infty} e^{-y \
L(\epsilon^{-1/m}) } \ y^{ (\alpha + d)/m - 1 } \ dy \\
&= M(\epsilon^{-1/m}) \ \Gamma((\alpha + d)/m) \ L^{ -(\alpha +
d)/m}(\epsilon^{-1/m}),
\end{split}$$ where $\Gamma$ is the classical Gamma function.
To summarize: as $ \ \epsilon \to 0+ \ $
$$\label{overline K}
m \ \overline{K}(\epsilon) \sim
\frac{\pi^{d/2}}{\Gamma(d/2 + 1)} \ \epsilon^{-(\alpha + d)/m} \ \Gamma((\alpha + d)/m) \ \frac{M \left(\epsilon^{-1/m} \right)}{L^{(\alpha+d)/m} \left(\epsilon^{-1/m} \right)}.$$
Thus, in this case, the values $K = K(\epsilon)$ and $R = R(\epsilon)$, $\epsilon \in (0,1)$, are finite with concrete estimate following from : $$\label{overline Z}
m \ Z(\epsilon) \le C[\zeta,m,d] \
\frac{\pi^{d/2}}{\Gamma(d/2 + 1)} \ \epsilon^{-(\alpha + d)/m} \ \Gamma((\alpha + d)/m) \ \frac{M \left(\epsilon^{-1/m} \right)}{L^{(\alpha+d)/m} \left(\epsilon^{-1/m} \right)}.$$
If the condition of Remark 2.1 is satisfied, then
$$I(\lambda) \le \exp \left( \ \zeta^*(C_2 \ \lambda) \ \right), \ L(\lambda) \ge 1.$$
Let $ \ X = R^d_+ \ $ and $ \ \mu \ $ be the ordinary Lebesgue measure. Suppose that the random vector $ \ \vec{\xi} \ $, with non-negative entries $ \ \{\xi(i) \}, \ i = 1,2,\ldots,d \ $, satisfies the Cramer’s condition: $$\exists \ \lambda_0 = \vec{\lambda_0} = \{ \lambda_0(i) \}, \ i =
1,2,\ldots, \ \lambda_0(i) > 0 \ : \ {\bf E} \exp \left( \lambda_0
\cdot \xi \right) < \infty.$$ Then $$\exists \epsilon_0 > 0 \ : \ \forall \epsilon > \epsilon_0 \ \Rightarrow \ K(\epsilon) = K[X,\mu,\zeta](\epsilon) < \infty.$$
Denote for brevity $ \ G(x) = G[\xi](x), \ $ so that
$$T_{\xi}(\vec{x}) = e^{-G(\vec{x})}, \ x \ge 0.$$
It is sufficient to consider only the two-dimensional case: assume
$$B = B(\lambda,\mu):= \int_0^{\infty} \int_0^{\infty} e^{\lambda \ x + \mu \ y - G(x,y) } \ dx dy < \infty$$ for some positive values $ \ \lambda, \mu. \ $ We have
$$B = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \sum_{m=0}^{\infty} \int_n^{n+1} \int_m^{m+1} e^{\lambda \ x + \mu \ y - G(x,y) } \ dx dy \ge$$
$$\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \sum_{m=0}^{\infty} \int_n^{n+1} \int_m^{m+1} e^{ \lambda n + \mu m - G(n+1, m+1) } \ dx dy =
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \sum_{m=0}^{\infty} e^{ \lambda n + \mu m - G(n+1, m+1) },$$ therefore
$$\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \sum_{m=0}^{\infty} e^{ \lambda n + \mu m - G(n+1, m+1) } < B(\lambda,\mu) < \infty,$$ so
$$e^{ \lambda n + \mu m - G(n+1, m+1) } \le B(\lambda,\mu) < \infty, \ G(n+1,m+1) \le B \ e^{-\lambda n - \mu m},$$ and finally
$$(\lambda \ \mu)^{-1} K(\epsilon) < \int_0^{\infty} \int_0^{\infty} e^{-\epsilon G(x,y)} dx \ dy \le \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \sum_{m=0}^{\infty}
\exp \left\{ -\epsilon[\lambda (n-1) + \mu(m-1)] \right\} < \infty,$$ if
$$\epsilon > \epsilon_0 := \max \left(\lambda^{-1}, \mu^{-1} \right),$$
Main result. A direct approach. Lower estimate.
===============================================
We introduce additional notations.
$$S(\lambda,x) = (\lambda,x) - \zeta(x), \ x_0 = x_0(\lambda) \in
{{\rm argmax}}_{x \in X} S(\lambda,x),$$ where, by definition, $${{\rm argmax}}_{x \in X} S(\lambda,x) = \{ x \in X \ : \ S(\lambda, \ x)
= \zeta^*(\lambda) \ \}.$$
Obviously, the value $ \ x_0 = x_0(\lambda) \ $ may be non-unique.
Furthermore, we introduce the variables $$X_0 = X_0(\epsilon) = X_0(\epsilon, \lambda) := \{x \in X \ : \
S(\lambda,x) \ge \zeta^*(\lambda(1 - \epsilon)) \}, \ \epsilon =
{{\rm const}} \in (0,1),$$
$$U(\epsilon) = U[\zeta](\epsilon,\lambda) := \int_{X_0(\epsilon)} \mu(dx) = \mu(X_0(\epsilon,\lambda)).$$
\[lower estimate I-U\] Let $\epsilon \in (0,1)$ be such that $U(\epsilon)>0$. Then, for sufficiently large values $ \min_i \lambda(i) \ge \Lambda = {{\rm const}}
\ge 1$, we have $$I(\lambda) \ge U[\zeta](\epsilon,\lambda) \ \exp \left(
\zeta^*(\lambda(1 - \epsilon) ) \right), \ \epsilon \in (0,1), \ \
\min_i \lambda(i) \ge \Lambda.$$ Of course, $$I(\lambda) \ge \sup_{\epsilon \in (0,1)} [ \
U[\zeta](\epsilon,\lambda) \ \exp \left( \zeta^*(\lambda(1 -
\epsilon) ) \right) \ ], \ \ \min_i \lambda(i) \ge \Lambda.$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
I(\lambda) & = \int_X \exp \left[ \ \lambda \ x - \zeta(x) \ \right]
\mu(dx) \ge \int_{X_0} \exp [\ \lambda \ x - \zeta(x) \ ] \mu(dx)
\\
&\ge \int_{X_0} \exp \left[ \ \zeta^*(\lambda(1 - \epsilon)) \
\right] \ \mu(dx) = U[\zeta](\epsilon,\lambda) \ \exp \left[ \
\zeta^*(\lambda(1 - \epsilon) ) \ \right].
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$
As a slight consequence we get:
$$I(\lambda) \ge U[\zeta](\epsilon,\lambda) \ \exp \left( \ \zeta^*(\lambda) - \epsilon \ (\lambda, \zeta^{*'}(\lambda) ) \ \right),$$ and, if we choose $ \ \epsilon = \pi_{\kappa}(\lambda), \ $ $$\label{estimate Cor3.1}
I(\lambda) \ge U[\zeta](\pi_{\kappa}(\lambda),\lambda) \ \exp \left( \ \zeta^*(\lambda) - \kappa \ \right).$$
Let us define the following function $$\label{estim V}
V(\lambda) = V[\zeta](\lambda) \stackrel{def}{=} \sup_{\kappa > 0}
\left\{ \ U[\zeta](\pi_{\kappa}(\lambda), \lambda) \ e^{-\kappa} \
\right\},$$ so, by , we have $$\label{Low estim}
I(\lambda) \ge V[\zeta](\lambda) \ e^{ \ \zeta^*(\lambda) \,}, \ \
\min_i \lambda(i) \ge \Lambda.$$
For instance, it is reasonable to suppose in addition, see e.g. Example 3.1 below, that
$$U[\zeta](\pi_{\kappa}(\lambda),\lambda) \ge \gamma \ \Lambda^{\alpha} \ \kappa^{\beta} \ , \ \alpha,\beta,\gamma = {\rm const}\in (0,\infty);$$ then
$$I(\lambda) \ge \gamma \ (\beta/e)^{\beta} \ \Lambda^{\alpha} \ e^{ \zeta^*(\lambda) }, \ \Lambda = \min_i \lambda(i) \ge e.$$
Let us consider the following important example.
Suppose that $ \ X = R^d_+, \ d \mu = dx$ and that the function $ \ \zeta = \zeta(x), \ x \in X = R^d_+ \ $ is non-negative, strictly convex, twice continuous and differentiable as well as its conjugate $ \ \zeta^*(\lambda) \ $ and such that its second (matrix) derivative
$$\zeta^{''}(x) = \left\{ \frac{\partial^2 \zeta(x)}{\partial x(i) \ \partial x(j)} \right\}, \ i,j = 1,2,\ldots,d$$ is a strictly positive definite matrix for all sufficiently large values $ \ \min_i x(i). \ $
Denote also $$\zeta'(x) = {{\rm grad}} \zeta(x) = \left\{ \ \frac{\partial \zeta}{
\partial x(i)} \ \right\},$$
$$x_0 = \vec{x}_0[\zeta](\lambda) = x_0[\zeta](\lambda) = {{\rm argmax}}_{x
\in R^d_+} S(\lambda,x) = {{\rm argmax}}_{x \in R^d_+} [(\lambda,x) =
(\lambda,x) - \zeta(x)],$$
$$\Delta = \Delta(\lambda,x) = S(\lambda,x) - S(\lambda(1 -
\epsilon), x_0(\lambda)),$$ so that
$${{\rm grad}} \zeta(x_0) = \lambda, \ \ \lim_{\Lambda \to \infty}
x_0[\zeta](\lambda) = \infty$$ and $$\begin{split}
X_0(\epsilon,\lambda) &= \{ x \in R^d_+ \ : \ S(\lambda,x) \ge
\zeta^*(\lambda(1 - \epsilon))\\
&=\{\ x \in R^d_+ \ : \
S(\lambda,x) \ge S(\lambda(1 - \epsilon), x_0(\lambda)) \ \}.
\end{split}$$
We deduce after simple calculations, using Taylor’s formula, that the set $ X_0(\epsilon,\lambda) \ $ is asymptitical equivalent, as $ \ \epsilon \to 0+ \ $, to the following one (multidimensional ellipsoid) $$\tilde{X}_0 = \left\{ x: (\zeta^{''}(x_0)(x-x_0), (x - x_0)\ ) \le
\epsilon \ (\lambda, x_0) \ \right\},$$ in the sense that $$\lim_{\epsilon \to 0+} \frac{\mu(\tilde{X}_0)}{\mu(X_0)} = 1.$$ The case when the value $\epsilon=\epsilon(\lambda)$ is dependent on $\lambda$, but such that $$\lim_{\Lambda \to \infty} \epsilon(\lambda) = 0,$$ can not be excluded.
It is no hard to calculate the “volume” of ellipsoid $
\tilde{X}_0:\ $
$$\mu \left(\tilde{X}_0 \right) = \frac{\pi^{d/2} \ \left[ 2 \epsilon \cdot(\lambda, x_0) \right]^d \ }{\Gamma(d/2 + 1)} \ \cdot \left\{ \ \det \zeta^{''}(x_0) \ \right\}^{-1/2}.$$ Following
$$\mu \left(X_0 \right) \ge C_0(d) \ [ \ \epsilon \cdot (\lambda, x_0[\zeta](\lambda) \ ]^d \cdot \left\{ \ \det \zeta^{''}(x_0) \ \right\}^{-1/2}.$$
If, for instance, $ \ d = 1, \ m = {{\rm const}} > 1, \ $
$$\zeta(x) = \zeta_m(x) \stackrel{def}{=} x^m/m, $$ then
$$\ x_0 = \lambda^{1/(m-1)}, \ \ \lambda, x \ge 1; \ \ \mu(X_0) \ge C_m \epsilon^{1/2} \ \lambda^{1/(m-1)},$$ and we find, after some calculations,
$$\begin{split}
I_m(\lambda) & \stackrel{def}{=} \int_{0}^{\infty}\exp(\lambda x -
x^m/m) \ dx
\\
&\ge \left( \frac{2.5}{m-1} \right)^{1/2} \ \lambda^{(2- m)/(2m -
2)} \ \exp \left(\lambda^{m'}/m' \right),
\end{split}$$
where $m' = m/(m-1), \ \lambda \ge \lambda_0(m)$ and $$\lambda_0(m)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
2 & \hbox{if} \ \ 1< m \leq 2 \\
\displaystyle 2 \left( \frac{m-2}{2m - 2} \right)^{(m-1)/m} & \hbox{if} \ \ m> 2
\end{array}
\right.$$
The last estimate is in full accordance, up to a multiplicative constant, with the exact asymptotic estimates for $I_m(\lambda)$, as $\lambda \to \infty$, which may be find, e.g., in the well-known book [@Fedoryuk], sections 1, 2:
$$I_m(\lambda) \sim \sqrt{2\pi/(m-1)} \ \lambda^{(2- m)/(2m - 2)} \ \exp \left(\lambda^{m'}/m' \right).$$
The upper estimate corresponding to the lower one obtained above, for the integral $I_m(\lambda)$, has the form
$$I_m(\lambda) \le m^{2/m - 1} \ e^{1/m} \ \Gamma(1/m) \ \lambda^{1/(m-1)} \ \exp \left( \lambda^{m'}/m' \right), \ \lambda \ge \lambda_0(m).$$
Inverse approach. Upper estimation.
===================================
Let now the representation be given on the form of an [*inequality*]{}
$$\label{upper J}
\int_X e^{ (\lambda, x) - \zeta(x) } \ \mu(dx) \ge J(\lambda), \ \ \lambda \in R^d_+$$
for a certain non-negative continuous function $ J = J(\lambda)$. Here we derive the upper bound for the source function $ \ \zeta =
\zeta(x) \ $ for all the sufficiently large values $ \ \Lambda(x) = \min_i x(i), \ i = 1,2,\ldots,d$, of course, under appropriate conditions.
Let us impose the following condition on our datum. Namely, assume that for some finite constant $ \ C_{12} \ $
$$e^{C(\zeta^*)} \ r(\lambda) \ e^{\zeta^*(\lambda)} \le e^{ \ \zeta^*( \ C_{12}[\zeta](\lambda) \ ) \ }, \ \lambda \ge \Lambda = {\rm const}\ge 1,$$
Suppose also that the function $ \ \zeta(\cdot) \ $ is non-negative, continuous and convex. We have, by virtue of Theorem \[upper th 2.1\],
$$e^{ \ \zeta^*( \ C_{12}[\zeta](\lambda)\ ) \ } \ge J(\lambda), \ \lambda \ge \Lambda,$$
$$\ln J(\lambda) \le \zeta^*(C_{12} \lambda), \ C_{12} = C_{12}[\zeta] \in (0, \infty),$$ therefore
$$[ \ \ln J(\cdot) \ ]^*(x) \ge \zeta^{**}( \ x/C_{12} \ ).$$
Under the above conditions and by virtue of Fenchel-Moreau Theorem, we have
If the function $\zeta(\cdot)$ satisfies the condition , where $ J = J(\lambda)$ is a non-negative function, then $$\label{inver stat}
\zeta(x) \le [ \ \ln J(\cdot) \ ]^*(C_{12} \ x), \ \ \Lambda(x) =
\min_i x(i) \ge 1.$$
Inverse approach. Lower estimation.
===================================
Let now the representation be given on the form of an [*inequality*]{}
$$\label{lower K}
\int_X e^{ (\lambda, x) - \zeta(x) } \ \mu(dx) \le K(\lambda), \ \lambda \in R^d_+$$
for a certain non-negative continuous function $ \ K = K(\lambda)$. Here we derive the lower bound for the source function $ \ \zeta =
\zeta(x)$.
Let us impose the following condition on our datum. Namely, assume that there exists $C_{13} = C_{13}[\zeta] = {\rm const}\in (0,1)$ such that
$$e^{C(\zeta^*)} \ V[\zeta](\lambda) \ e^{\zeta^*(\lambda)} \ge e^{ \
\zeta^*( \ C_{13} \cdot \lambda \ ) \ }, \ \lambda \ge \Lambda =
{\rm const}\ge 1.$$
Suppose, as above, that the function $ \ \zeta(\cdot) \ $ is non-negative, continuous and convex. We have, by virtue of Theorem \[lower estimate I-U\] and its consequences,
$$e^{ \ \zeta^*( \ C_{13} \lambda \ ) \ } \le K(\lambda), \ \ \lambda
\ge \Lambda,$$
$$\ln K(\lambda) \ge \zeta^*(C_{13} \lambda),$$ therefore, under the above conditions and by virtue of Fenchel-Moreau Theorem, we have
If the function $\zeta(\cdot)$ satisfies the condition , where $K = K(\lambda)$ is a non-negative continuous function, then $$\label{inver stat}
\zeta(x) \ge [ \ \ln K(\cdot) \ ]^*(C_{13} \ x), \ \Lambda(x) \ge
1.$$
Multivariate Tauberian theorems.
================================
[**Preface.** ]{} Tauberian theorems are named the relations between asymptotical or not-asymptotical behavior of some function (sequence) and correspondent behavior of its certain integral transform, for example, Laplace, Fourier or power series transform, see [@Tauber; @Korevaar]. They play a very important role, for example, in the probability theory (see [@Bingham]), to establish the connection between the behavior of tail of distribution for a random variable and the asymptotic one of its Moment Generation Function (MGF).
There are many results in this direction for one-dimensional case, as well as asymptotical ones, see e.g. in [@Bagdasarov; @Broniatowski; @Davies; @Eichel; @Geluk1; @Geluk2; @Kasahara1; @Kasahara2; @Kosugi; @Mason; @OsSirInver; @Yakimiv].
In this section we investigate multivariate Tauberian theorems describing relations between the function $ \ \zeta = \zeta(x), \ x \in X \ $ and its Laplace integral transform $ \ I[\zeta](\lambda),\ \lambda \in R^d, \ $ when $ \ \Lambda(x) \to \infty \ $ or correspondingly $ \ \Lambda(\lambda) \to \infty. \ $
[Direct approach.]{}
\[upper limit\] [(**Upper limit**).]{} Under the same assumptions of Theorem \[upper th 2.1\] for the function $\phi(\lambda) =
\zeta^*(\lambda)$, if in addition suppose that $$\label{limphi}
\lim_{\min_i \lambda(i) \to \infty} \phi(\lambda) = \infty$$ and $$\label{lim r lambda}
\lim_{\min_i \lambda(i) \to \infty} \frac{|\ln
r(\lambda)|}{\phi(\lambda)} = 0,$$ then $$\label{underline1}
\overline{\lim}_{\min_i \lambda(i) \to \infty}
\frac{\ln I(\lambda)}{\phi(\lambda)} \le 1.$$
Choosing $ \ \epsilon = \epsilon(\lambda) = \pi(\lambda) = \pi_1(\lambda) \ $ we have, for sufficiently large values $ \ \Lambda(\lambda) = \min_i \lambda(i)$,
$$\frac{ \ln I(\lambda)}{\phi(\lambda)} \le \frac{|\ln r(\lambda)|}{\phi(\lambda)} + \frac{\phi(\lambda + \lambda \pi(\lambda))}{\phi(\lambda)}.$$ The term on the left hand side tends to zero as $\Lambda \to \infty$, the limit of the quantity on the right hand side is equal to one. In detail,
$$\frac{\phi(\lambda + \lambda \pi(\lambda))}{\phi(\lambda)} \ge \frac{\phi(\lambda )}{\phi(\lambda)} = 1.$$ On the other hand, from the condition it follows
$$\phi(\lambda + 2 \lambda \ \pi(\lambda)) \le C(\phi) + \phi(\lambda),$$ therefore, by virtue of condition ,
$$\frac{\phi(\lambda + \lambda \pi(\lambda))}{\phi(\lambda)} \le 1 + \frac{C_1(\phi)}{\phi(\lambda)} \to 1,$$ as $ \ \Lambda(\lambda) \to \infty.$
This completes the proof.
\[lower limit\] [(**Lower limit**).]{} Under the same assumptions of Theorem \[lower estimate I-U\] for the function $\phi(\lambda) =
\zeta^*(\lambda)$, if in addition suppose that $$\lim_{\Lambda(\lambda) \to \infty} \frac{ \ \ln \{ \ V(\lambda) \} \ }{\zeta^*(\lambda)} = 0,$$ where $V$ is defined in , then $$\underline{\lim}_{\Lambda (\lambda) \to \infty} \frac{ \ \ln I(\lambda) \ }{\zeta^*(\lambda)} \ge 1.$$
The proof is completely alike to the one based on Theorem \[upper limit\] and may be omitted.
As consequence of Theorems \[upper limit\] and \[lower limit\] we have
\[consequence upper-lower limit\] Suppose that all the conditions of Theorems \[upper limit\] and \[lower limit\] are satisfied. Then there exists the following limit and $$\label{Dir lim}
\lim_{ \Lambda(\lambda) \to \infty} \frac{ \ \ln I(\lambda) \ }{\zeta^*(\lambda)} = 1.$$
[Inverse approach.]{}
Given the representation , in which the function $ \ \zeta = \zeta(x) \ $ is [*convex and continuous*]{}, we have
\[inv lower limit\] [(**Lower estimate**)]{} Suppose that there exists a continuous non-negative function $Q = Q(\lambda), \ \lambda \in
R^d$, for which $$\lim_{ \Lambda(\lambda) \to \infty } \frac{\ln V(\lambda)}{Q(\lambda)} = 0,$$ $$\overline{\lim}_{\Lambda(\lambda) \to \infty} \frac{\ln I(\lambda)}{Q(\lambda)} \le 1,$$ and $$\lim_{\Lambda(\lambda) \to \infty} Q(\lambda) = \infty.$$ Then $$\underline{\lim}_{\Lambda(x) \to \infty} \frac{\zeta(x)}{Q^*(x)} \ge 1.$$
Let $\delta \in (0,1)$ be an arbitrary smallnumber. There exists a value $ \ \Lambda_0 = \Lambda_0(\delta) > 1 \ $ such that, for all the values $\lambda$, $$\Lambda(\lambda) \ge \Lambda_0 \ \ \Rightarrow \ \ \ln I(\lambda)
\le (1 + \delta) \ Q(\lambda),$$ $$I(\lambda) \le \exp ( (1 + \delta) \ Q(\lambda)).$$ We apply the estimation of Corollary \[estimate Cor3.1\], so that
$$V[\zeta](\lambda) \ e^{ \ \zeta^*(\lambda) \ } \le \exp ( (1 + \delta) \ Q(\lambda)),$$ and $$\frac{\zeta^*(\lambda)}{Q(\lambda)} \le \frac{\ln
V(\lambda)}{Q(\lambda)} + (1 + \delta) \le (1 + 2 \delta), \ \
\Lambda(\lambda) \ge 2 \Lambda_0.$$ Therefore $$\zeta^*(\lambda) \le ( 1 + 2 \delta) Q(\lambda),$$ and $$\zeta^{**}(x) \ge \frac{1}{1 + 2 \delta} \ Q^* \left( \frac{x}{1 + 2 \delta} \right).$$ Applying the Fenchel-Morau Theorem, we conclude the proof.
Given again the representation , in which the function $ \ \zeta = \zeta(\lambda) \ $ is [*convex and continuous*]{}, we have
\[inv upper limit\] [(**Upper estimate**)]{} Suppose that there exists a continuous non-negative function $Q = Q(\lambda), \ \lambda \in
R^d$, for which $$\lim_{ \Lambda(\lambda) \to \infty } \frac{\ln r(\lambda)}{Q(\lambda)} = 0,$$ $$\overline{\lim}_{\Lambda(\lambda) \to \infty} \frac{\ln I(\lambda)}{Q(\lambda)} \ge 1,$$ and $$\lim_{\Lambda(\lambda) \to \infty} Q(\lambda) = \infty.$$ Then $$\overline{\lim}_{\Lambda(x) \to \infty} \frac{\zeta(x)}{Q^*(x)} \le 1.$$
The proof is quite alike as the one in Theorem \[inv lower limit\]. Let $\delta \in (0,1)$ be an arbitrary smallnumber. There exists a value $ \Lambda_0 = \Lambda_0(\delta) > 1$ such that, for all the values $ \lambda$, $$\Lambda(\lambda) \ge \Lambda_0 \ \Rightarrow \ \ln I(\lambda) \ge
(1 - \delta) \ Q(\lambda),$$ $$I(\lambda) \ge \exp ( (1 - \delta) \ Q(\lambda)).$$ We apply the estimation of Corollary \[estimate Cor3.1\], so that
$$e^{C(\phi) \ }r[\zeta](\lambda) \ e^{ \ \zeta^*(\lambda) \ } \ge \exp ( (1 - \delta) \ Q(\lambda)),$$ and $$\frac{\zeta^*(\lambda)}{Q(\lambda)} \ge \frac{C(\phi) + \ln r(\lambda)}{Q(\lambda)} + (1 - \delta) \ge (1 - 2 \delta), \ \Lambda(\lambda) \ge 2 \Lambda_0.$$ Therefore $$\zeta^{**}(x) \le \frac{1}{1 - 2 \delta} \ Q^* \left( \frac{x}{1 - 2 \delta} \right).$$ Applying the Fenchel-Morau Theorem, we conclude the proof.
To summarize.
[(**Hybrid estimate**).]{} Suppose that all the conditions of Theorems \[inv lower limit\] and \[inv lower limit\] are satisfied. Then the following limit there exists and $$\lim_{\Lambda(x) \to \infty} \frac{\zeta(x)}{Q^*(x)} = 1.$$
An important example.
=====================
In this section we consider $ \ X = R^d \ $ as well as $ \ \lambda \in R^d. \ $
[Recall that the function $ \ g = g(x): R^d \to R \ $ is said to be [*radial*]{}, or equally [*spherical invariant*]{}, iff it depends only on the Euclidean norm $ \ |x| \ $ of the vector $ \ x =
\vec{x}$, namely there exists $g_0: R \to R$ such that $$g(x) = g_0(|x|).$$ ]{}
Suppose that the function $ \ g: R^d \to R \ $ is radial and such that its Young-Fenchel transformation $ \ g^*(y) \ $ there exists. Then it is again a radial function, namely there is a function $g_0:
R \to R $ for which $$\label{radial}
g^*(y) = g_0^*(|y|) = \sup_{z \in R} (|y| \ z - g_0(z)).$$ As a consequence, it is an even function.
Moreover, the optimal value in the definition of the Young-Fenchel transformation, i.e. the variable $$x(y) = x[g](y) := {{\rm argmax}}_{x \in R^d}( (x,y) - g(x) ),$$ so that $ \ g^*(y) = (y,x[g](y) - g(x[g])(y)), $ is also a radial function if, of course, there exists and is uniquely determined.
Let $ \ U: R^d \to R^d \ $ be an arbitrary linear [*unitary*]{} operator and let $ \ U^* \ $ be its conjugate (linear) operator, also unitary. Recall that a function $ \ f: R^d \to R \ $ is radial iff for an arbitrary linear unitary operator $U$, it is $ f(Ux) =
f(x), \ x \in R^d$.
We have $$\begin{split}
g^*(U y) & = \sup_{x \in R^d} ((x,Uy) - g(x)) = \sup_{x \in R^d}
((U^*x,y) - g(x)) \\
&= \sup_{x \in R^d} ((U^*x,y) - g(U^*x)) = \sup_{z \in R^d}
((z,y) - g(z)) = g^*(y).
\end{split}$$ Therefore the function $g^*(y)$ is radial.
The second proposition has an alike proof.
The radiality of the Fourier transform of a radial function is well-known, see e.g. [@SteinWeiss], chapters 2,3.
Let us consider the following family of Young-Fenchel functions
$$\zeta_{\kappa,L}(\lambda) \stackrel{def}{=} \kappa^{-1} \ |\lambda|^{\kappa} \ L^{1/\theta} \left(|\lambda|^{\kappa} \right), \ |\lambda| \ge e,$$
$$\zeta_{\kappa,L}(\lambda) = C \ \lambda^2, \ |\lambda| < e.$$ where $ \ \kappa = {{\rm const}} > 1, \theta = \kappa/(\kappa - 1), \
L(r), \ r \ge e \ $ is a slowly varying at infinity, twice continuous and differentiable function, such that $$\lim_{r \to \infty} \frac{L(r)}{L(r/L(r))} = 1.$$ The Young-Fenchel transformation for these functions is calculated in particular in the monograph [@Seneta], chapter 1, sections 1,3,4: as $ \ x \to \infty \ $ $$\zeta_{\kappa,L}^*(x) \sim \theta^{-1} \ |x|^{\theta} \ L^{1/\theta}(x).$$
One can apply our theory of Tauberian theorems.
Denote $$\label{Ex case}
I_{\kappa, L}(\lambda):= \int_X e^{ (\lambda, x) - \zeta_{\kappa,L}^*(x) } \ dx.$$ We have $$\label{ex kappa1}
\lim_{\Lambda(\lambda) \to \infty} \frac{\ln I_{\kappa, L}(\lambda) }{\zeta_{\kappa,L}(\lambda)} = 1.$$ Furthermore, the inverse conclusion holds true. Namely, if for some Young-Orlicz function $ \ \zeta = \zeta(x) \ $ $$\label{ex kappa2}
\lim_{\Lambda(\lambda) \to \infty} \frac{\ln I[\zeta](\lambda)(|\lambda|) }{\zeta_{\kappa,L}(|\lambda|)} = 1,$$ then $$\label{ex kappa2}
\lim_{\Lambda(x) \to \infty} \frac{\zeta(|x|)}{\zeta^*_{\kappa,L}(|x|)} = 1.$$
A particular case:
$$\zeta(x) = \zeta_{m,r}(x) = m^{-1} \ |x|^m \ \ln^r(|x|), \ \ |x|\ge e, \ m = {{\rm const}} > 1, \ r = {{\rm const}} \in R.$$ We obtain, after some calculations, as $|y| \to \infty$,
$$\zeta_{m,r}^*(y) \sim \frac{1}{m'} \ (m-1)^{r/(m-1)} \ |y|^{m'} \
[\ln |y| ]^{-r/(m-1)},$$ where $ m' = m/(m-1)$.
Concluding remarks.
=====================
[**A.**]{} It is interesting, by our opinion, to generalize the estimates obtained in the second section to the case of infinite-dimensional linear spaces, as well as to generalize our estimates for the more general integrals of the form
$$I[\zeta](\lambda) := \int_X \exp \zeta(\lambda,x) \ \mu(dx).$$
[**B.**]{} One can consider also the applications of the obtained results in the Probability theory, namely, in the theory of great deviation, asymptotical or not.
[55]{}
, [*Reversion of Chebyshev’s Inequality*]{}. Probab. Theory Appl., **40** (4) (1996), 737–742.
, [*Interpolation of operators*]{}. Academic Press, Inc., Boston, MA, 1988.
, [*Tauberian theorems and large deviations*]{}. arXiv:0712.3410v1 \[math.PR\] 20 Dec 2007.
, [*Tauberian Theorems, Chernoff Inequality and the Tail Behavior of Finite Convolution of Distribution Function*]{}. Adv. Math., **116** (1) (1995), 12–33.
, [*Metric Characterization of Random Variables and Random Processes*]{}. Translations of Mathematics Monograph, AMS, v.188 (1998).
, [*Evaluation of the Laplace integral*]{}. Internat. J. Math. Ed. Sci. Tech., **35** (5) (2004), 773–777.
, [*A career in statistics.*]{} In X. Lin, C. Genest, D.L. Banks, G. Molenberghs, D.W. Scott, J-L. Wang, [*Past, Present, and Future of Statistical Science*]{}. CRC Press. p. 35. ISBN 9781482204964 (2014).
, [*A measure of asymptotic efficiency for tests of a hypothesis based on the sum of observations*]{}. Ann. Math. Statistics , **23,** (1952), 493–507.
, [*Tail probabilities for positive random variables with entire characteristic functions of very regular growth*]{}. Z. Angew. Math. Mech., **56,** (1976), 334–336.
, [*Fine asymptotics for models with Gamma type moments.*]{}\
arXiv:1710.06484v1 \[math.PR\] 17 Oct 2017.
, [*The saddle-point method*]{}. Moscow, Nauka, (1977) (In Russian).
, [*A Tauberian theorem of exponential type*]{}. Canad. J. Math. **38** (3) (1986), 697-718.
, [*On the relation between the tail probability and the moments of a random variable*]{}. Nederl. Akad. Wetensch. Indag. Math. **46** (4) (1984), 401–405.
, [*Further examples with moments of Gamma type*]{}.\
arXiv:1204.5637v2, 6 Feb 2013.
, [*Moments of Gamma type and the Brownian supremum process area*]{}. Probab. Surv., **7** (2010), 1–52.
, [*Tauberian theorems of exponential type*]{}. J. Math. Kyoto Univ. **18** (2) (1978), 209–219.
, [*Remarks on Tauberian theorem of exponential type and Fenchel-Legendre transform*]{}. Osaka J. Math., **39** (3) (2002), 613–619.
, [*Multivariate Laplace approximation with estimated error and application to limit theorems*]{}. arXiv:1502.03266v5 \[math.PR\] 17 Jul 2018.
, [*Tauberian theory: a century of developments*]{}. Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften, **329** Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2004.
, [*Tauberian theorem of exponential type and its application to multiple convolution*]{}. J. Math. Kyoto Univ., **39** (2) (1999), 331–346.
, [*The Banach Spaces of random Variables of subgaussian Type*]{}. Theory of Probab. and Math. Stat. (in Russian). Kiev, KSU, 32, (1985). 43–57.
, [*Relations between exponential tails, moments and moment generating functions for random variables and vectors*]{}. arXiv:1701.01901v1 \[math.FA\] 8 Jan 2017.
, [*Logarithmic Asymptotic behavior of the Laplace integrals*]{}. Mathematical Notes, **30** (5) (1981), 763–768.
, [*An extended version of the Erdös-Rényi strong law of large numbers*]{}. Ann. Probab., **17** (1) (1989), 252–265.
, [*Exponential estimations for Random Fields and its applications,*]{} (in Russian). Moscow - Obninsk, OINPE (1999).
, [*Vector rearrangement invariant Banach spaces of random variables with exponential decreasing tails of distributions*]{}.\
arXiv:1510.04182v1 \[math.PR\] 14 Oct 2015.
, [*Non-asymptotical sharp exponential estimates for maximum distribution of discontinuous random fields*]{}.\
arXiv:1510.08945v1 \[math.PR\] 30 Oct 2015
, [*About supports of probability measures in separable Banach spaces*]{}. Soviet Math., Doklady, **255** (6) (1980), 836–838, (in Russian).
, [*Inversion of Tchebychev-Tchernov inequality*]{}. arXiv:1711.06896v1 \[math.PR\] 18 Nov 2017.
, [*Regularly Varying Functions*]{}. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1976.
, [*Introduction to Fourier analysis on Euclidean spaces.*]{} Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J., 1971.
, [*Ein Satz aus der Theorie der unendlichen Reihen*]{}. Monatsh. Math. Phys. **8** (1) (1897), 273–277.
, [*Probabilistic applications of Tauberian theorems*]{}. Modern probability and statistics, VSP, Leiden, 2005, ISBN: 9067644374.
, [*A Non-asymptotic, Sharp, and User-friendly Reverse Chernoff-Cramer Bound.*]{} arXiv:1810.09006v1 \[math.PR\] 21 Oct 2018.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We model for the first time the complete orbital evolution of a pair of Supermassive Black Holes (SMBHs) in a 1:10 galaxy merger of two disk dominated gas-rich galaxies, from the stage prior to the formation of the binary up to the onset of gravitational wave emission when the binary separation has shrunk to 1 milli parsec. The high-resolution smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) simulations used for the first phase of the evolution include star formation, accretion onto the SMBHs as well as feedback from supernovae explosions and radiative heating from the SMBHs themselves. Using the direct $N$-body code $\phi$-GPU we evolve the system further without including the effect of gas, which has been mostly consumed by star formation in the meantime. We start at the time when the separation between two SMBHs is $\sim 700$ pc and the two black holes are still embedded in their galaxy cusps. We use 3 million particles to study the formation and evolution of the SMBH binary till it becomes hard. After a hard binary is formed, we reduce (reselect) the particles to 1.15 million and follow the subsequent shrinking of the SMBH binary due to 3-body encounters with the stars. We find approximately constant hardening rates and that the SMBH binary rapidly develops a high eccentricity. Similar hardening rates and eccentricity values are reported in earlier studies of SMBH binary evolution in the merging of dissipationless spherical galaxy models. The estimated coalescence time is $\sim 2.9$ Gyr, significantly smaller than a Hubble time. We discuss why this timescale should be regarded as an upper limit. Since 1:10 mergers are among the most common interaction events for galaxies at all cosmic epochs, we argue that several SMBH binaries should be detected with currently planned space-borne gravitational wave interferometers, whose sensitivity will be especially high for SMBHs in the mass range considered here.'
author:
- Fazeel Mahmood Khan
- Ingo Berentzen
- Peter Berczik
- Andreas Just
- Lucio Mayer
- Keigo Nitadori
- Simone Callegari
title: Formation and Hardening of Supermassive Black Hole Binaries in Minor Mergers of Disk Galaxies
---
Introduction {#sec-intro}
============
Central supermassive black holes (SMBHs) are ubiquitous and are found in a variety of galaxies, ranging from low mass galaxies to the most massive early-type galaxies [@FF05; @gul09]. Within our current cosmological picture of hierarchical structure formation, galaxies form through continuous mergers. If both candidate galaxies harbor a central SMBH before the merger, the evolution of the latter is thought to be as follows [@beg80]: the SMBHs of the merging galaxies sink towards the center of the merger remnant due to dynamical friction and form a gravitationally bound binary system. The further evolution of the SMBH binary is governed by interactions with stars and gas. If the binary semi-major axis value shrinks to a value where emission of gravitational waves (GWs) efficiently takes away energy and angular momentum from the binary, the coalescence of SMBHs becomes inevitable. In fact there is growing observational evidence for this process: there are reports about two widely separated SMBHs in a single galaxy [e.g. @kom03; @rod06; @fab11] as well as indirect evidence for binary SMBHs [e.g. @mer02; @liu03; @val08; @bor09; @igu10].
Binary SMBHs are of particular interest in astrophysics and general relativity: if SMBH binary evolution leads to coalescence following a galaxy merger, such an event would give rise to one of the [*loudest*]{} possible bursts of GWs detectable for future space borne low-frequency laser interferometers [@Hughes03; @BC04; @LISA2012]. However, the exact pathway to SMBH coalescence and especially the associated timescales, and hence the chances for a possible detection during any satellite mission run-time, is still a matter of debate.
Numerical $N$-body simulations considering the decay of a pair of SMBHs in major mergers of massive elliptical galaxies due to the interaction with the stellar background only show that the critical separation for gravitational wave emission should be reached in about one Gyr as long as the galaxies deviate sufficiently from sphericity, a configuration which allows to have centrophilic orbits [@st99; @pm01; @MP04; @mv11] that efficiently refill the loss cone [@ber06; @ber09; @kha11; @kha12; @pre11]. @kha12 showed that SMBHs with masses ranging from $10^6 \mathrm{M}_{\odot} - 10^7 \mathrm{M}_{\odot}$, e.g., at the center of faint elliptical galaxies or in the bulge of spiral galaxies, coalesce well within a Gyr after the merger of the two galaxies/bulges. However, these simulations started from idealized initial conditions and do not consider the effects of gas dynamics, star formation, etc.
Conversely, numerical simulations investigating major mergers including hydrodynamics show that a SMBH binary can form very rapidly after the galaxy collision takes place, sometimes in less than a million years [@may07], but are not yet conclusive on the subsequent shrinking of the binary at sub-parsec scale separations due to the prohibitive cost of the computation with increasing resolution and the uncertainties in the modeling of gas thermodynamics and turbulence [@cha11].
Furthermore, minor mergers are the most frequent type of mergers in the Universe, especially those with a mass ratio of some $1:10$. In addition, they usually involve disk-dominated galaxies because these are not only the most common galaxies in the Universe today [@bin88] but they were even more common at higher redshift since they are the likely progenitors of present-day massive early type galaxies [@van11].
Simulations of minor mergers between disk galaxies show that the role of gas can be crucial in delivering the pair of SMBHs to the center of the merger remnant; without gas the SMBH of the secondary galaxy is left wandering at kilo-parsec distances, at which the dynamical friction timescale is longer than the Hubble time, because the core of the galaxy that is hosting it is tidally disrupted before it can sink to the center of the primary [@cal09]. With the gas the pairing of the two SMBHs is successful because the gas-rich merging satellite undergoes a strong central star formation burst, developing a higher central density allowing its survival to tidal disruption down to the center of the primary. @cal11, who studied the pairing of SMBHs in the merger of late type gas rich galaxies in simulations which include star formation and accretion onto the SMBH, found that the mass ratio of the two SMBHs can change significantly due to the fact that the secondary is fed at a higher rate as a result of the stronger gas inflow caused by the tidal disturbance. The latter simulations of minor mergers could not follow the decay of the two SMBHs to separations of less than tens of parsec. Hence it is unknown whether or not they would reach the critical separation for gravitational wave emission and on which timescales. Continuing the calculations further with gas dynamics is computationally challenging. In addition, at the end of the merger significant star formation takes place, increasing the contribution of the stars to the potential relative to the gas.
Therefore it is sensible to consider the approximation in which the stars are the dominant source of the drag acting onto the SMBHs during the last stage of the sinking before gravitational waves take over. This is what we attempt to do for the first time in this paper, starting from a realistic late configuration of a gas-rich minor merger performed by [@cal11], we followed the evolution of the SMBH binary to the milli parsec (mpc) regime where GWs start becoming important.
The paper is organized in the following way: In Section 2 we describe the initial conditions for our direct $N$-body simulations. The numerical methods and codes used for our simulations are described in Section 3. In Section 4 we explain the results for the evolution of the SMBH binary. Finally, Section 5 concludes the findings of our study.
Initial Conditions {#sec-model}
==================
![ Density distribution of the dark matter (top panels) and stellar component (bottom panels) in the $x-y$ (left column) and $y-z$ (right column) planes. The two high density regions are clearly visible around the two SMBHs (black dots) in the center. The size of each box is 4 kpc. []{data-label="fig1zu"}](page0000.eps){width="0.99\columnwidth"}
Owing to numerical limitations in simulations of galaxy mergers in respect of accuracy on parsec or sub-parsec scale, e.g., due to approximations in the force calculation (gravitational softening, tree-approximation) or insufficient integration schemes we follow a multi-step strategy to study the evolution of binary SMBHs. We take simulation data from a galaxy merger simulation including SMBHs in its final phase, i.e., before reaching resolution limits and then follow up these simulations in high-resolution using direct $N$-body calculations with the dynamically relevant though spatially truncated region of the original galaxy merger.
[@cal11] studied the pairing of binary SMBHs in several 1:10 mergers of two disk galaxies using $N$-body/Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH) simulations conducted with the GASOLINE code [@wad04]. The reference galaxy model in that study was a Milky Way type disk galaxy consisting of three components: (i) a spherical and isotropic Navarro, Frenk & White profile dark matter halo, (ii) an exponential disk consisting of stars and gas and (iii) a spherical Hernquist bulge. The mergers considered different orbital configurations. In all cases, except for a peculiar retrograde merger case, the two SMBHs paired at the center of the remnant in less than 1 Gyr from the end of the galaxy collision. In this paper we employ one particular merger set-up as initial conditions since already a single simulation of this kind requires several months of computation. In particular we choose the coplanar pro-grade merger simulation with 30% gas fraction in the disk since it resulted in the shortest merging time for the galaxies.
The gravitational softening adopted in the study of [@cal11] was $\epsilon = 45$ pc for dark matter and baryonic particles in the larger galaxy, whereas for smaller galaxy it was 20 pc. The SMBH was introduced at the center of each galaxy represented by a point mass particle. The adopted masses for the SMBHs were $6 \times 10^5 \mathrm{M}_\odot$ and $6 \times 10^4 \mathrm{M}_\odot$ for the primary and satellite galaxy respectively, consistent with the $M_{\bullet}$-$M_{bulge}$ relation [@mer01; @har04]. The simulation also includes the effects of star formation and accretion on to the SMBHs, as well as feedback from both processes. The final separation of the two SMBHs at the end of the simulation was $\sim 30$ pc, which is comparable to the softening that was used in the simulations. For more details of the construction of the galaxy models and the set up for the initial orbit of the galaxy merger we refer the reader to @cal11. Here it suffices to say that the merger was assumed to start at $z \sim 3-5$, and is completed at a time corresponding to $z \sim 1-2$, a choice motivated by the optimal detection window of planned laser interferometers such as eLISA. The choice of galaxy types and sizes, as well as of the masses of the SMBHs just reported, is thus made based on the characteristic densities expected in the concordance $\Lambda$CDM model for galaxies having the same circular velocity as the Milky Way $V_c \sim 200$ km s$^{-1}$.
In this study we choose a snapshot of the system at the time 2.56 Gyr of @cal11, when the separation between the two black holes is $~700$ pc and the black holes are still embedded in the individual cusps (Figure \[fig1zu\]). The masses of SMBHs are $M_{\bullet1} = 1.5 \times 10^6 \mathrm{M}_{\odot}$ and $M_{\bullet2} = 4.9 \times 10^5 \mathrm{M}_{\odot}$ corresponding to a mass ratio $q = M_{\bullet 2}/M_{\bullet1} = 0.3$. We select all particles in the central 5 kpc region of the merger remnant and added all those particles, which have pericenter passage smaller than 3 kpc.
Most of the gas in the central region is already converted into stars. The remaining gas particles, which contribute only a few percent in mass in the central region (Figure \[fig2zu\]) are also treated as stars in our simulations. The total mass of the selected sample is $3.3 \times 10^{10} M_{\odot}$.
Although state-of-the-art hydrodynamical simulations, the Callegari et al. (2011) mergers use a few million particles to represent the stellar component of a galaxy, it is still several orders of magnitude smaller than the actual number of stars in a real galaxy. Because of the small number of dark matter particles the mass of one particle in the primary galaxy is comparable to the mass of the SMBH in the satellite galaxy in @cal11. This is a potential problem for continuing the calculation to higher resolution in a regime in which the interaction with the background of stars and dark matter might dominate, since it can lead to unrealistic mass segregation of the dark matter and non-physically large kicks of the two SMBHs. To avoid such high mass particle encounters with the SMBH binary, we split each dark matter particle in the primary galaxy into ten particles. Each child particle has mass 1/10 of the parent particle. The child particles are randomly distributed over a 10 pc sphere corresponding to the softening of the parent dark matter particle used in our simulations (see Section 3.2.). The child particles have the same velocities as their parent particles. A similar technique of particle splitting, which conserves linear momentum, was applied by @may10 for SPH particles. We tested that split particles do not lead to artificial clumping.
We change the units of the original model from physical units to some model units. We choose our model units, so that the total mass of the galaxy ($3.3 \times 10^{10} M_{\odot}$) $M_\mathrm{gal} = 1$, the length unit R is 1 kpc and also G = 1. This results in a time unit of $2.6$ Myr, velocity unit of 376 km s$^{-1}$ corresponding to a speed of light $c = 795$ in model units.
For Run-1, which starts at $T=0$ (corresponding to the merger snapshot at time 2.56 Gyr of @cal11), we use $N = 3071296$ particles and evolve the system to the point, where the two cusps are merged and a “hard binary" is formed. In order to increase the computational speed, we reduce the number of particle by selecting those, which have a pericenter passage inside 1 kpc $N = 1153984$ for Run-2. To resolve the stellar encounters with the SMBH binary at pericenter passage during the late phase of evolution, we reduce the softening of star-black hole interactions (see Section \[sec-nm\]) in Run-3. Also for Run-3, we again split all dark matter particles having pericenter at less than 50 pc leading to $N = 1327488$. The orbit of the SMBH binary is integrated with higher accuracy during the late phase of the binary evolution in Run-4.
Numerical Methods {#sec-nm}
=================
Simulation Software
-------------------
We use the direct $N$-body code $\varphi$-GPU with 4$^{\rm th}$ order Hermite integration scheme and hierarchical block time steps for our $N$-body simulations. The code is written from scratch in [C++]{} and is based on an earlier [C]{} version of $\varphi$-GRAPE[^1] designed for [GRAPE6a]{} clusters [@har07]. In the present version of the $\varphi$-GPU code we use native GPU support and direct code access to the GPUs using only the NVIDIA CUDA library[^2]. The multi-GPU support is achieved through MPI parallelization. Each MPI process uses only a single GPU, but we usually start two or more MPI processes per node (to effectively use the multi core CPUs and the multi GPUs on our clusters).
The $\varphi$-GPU code is fully parallelized using the MPI library. The MPI parallelization was done in the same “j” particle parallelization scheme as in the earlier $\varphi$-GRAPE code. All the particles are divided equally between the working nodes (using the [MPI\_Bcast()]{} command) and in each node we calculate only the fractional forces for the particles in the current time step, i.e. the so called “active” or “i” particles. We get the full forces from all the particles acting on the active particles after the global [MPI\_Allreduce()]{} communication routine is applied.
Besides the used 4$^{\rm th}$ order Hermite integration scheme, $\varphi$-GPU additionally supports a 6$^{\rm th}$ and even 8$^{\rm th}$ order Hermite integration. The numerical integration of the particle orbits as well as the time step criterion (see Section 3.3 for details) is based on the (serial CPU) $N$-body code YEBISU [@nk08].
More details about the $\varphi$-GPU code can be found in @ber11. The present version of the code used here is extensively modified to handle computational challenges required for our current project.
Gravitational Softening
-----------------------
We use a gravitational (Plummer-) softening between all particles. $\varphi$-GPU supports the use of different softening lengths for different components and even individual softening for the particles. The softening between the SMBH particles is set equal to zero. But the use of zero softening for the stars and dark matter leads to the formation of tight binaries in the system, which causes an enormous slow down because of small time steps required to resolve the orbits of the binaries. $\varphi$-GPU does not include the regularization [@mikkola98] of close encounters or binaries, so we use softening to avoid the formation of tight binaries. For the interactions between two particles, we adopt the following criteria for the gravitational softening:
$$\epsilon_{ij} ^2 = (\epsilon_i ^2 + \epsilon_j ^2)/2 ,$$
\[soft\] where $\epsilon_{bh} = 0$ for SMBHs, $\epsilon_{s} = 0.01$ pc for stars and $\epsilon_{dm} = 10$ pc for dark matter particles.
During the late phase of the SMBH binary evolution (Run-3), we reduce the star-BH interaction softening additionally by a factor of ten to resolve the stellar encounters during the pericenter passage of the SMBH binary.
Time Step Criterion
-------------------
The applied time step criterion [@nk08] for individual particles is
$$\Delta t = \eta \left(\frac{A^{(1)}}{A^{(p-2)}} \right) ^{1/(p-3)} ,$$
\[TC1\]
where
$$A^{(k)} = \left(|a^{(k-1)}||a^{(k+1)}| + |a^{(k)}|^2 \right)^{1/2}.$$
\[TC2\]
Here $p$ is the order of the integrator, $a^{(k)}$ is the k-th order derivative of the acceleration and $\eta$ is the time step parameter.
$\varphi$-GPU can employ different time step parameters $\eta$ for different components (BH, stars and dark matter). We adopted $\eta = 0.1$ for all components. In the late phase of the SMBH binary evolution (Run-4), we reduce this parameter for SMBHs, $\eta = 0.3$, to integrate the binary orbit with smaller time steps, hence achieving higher accuracy.
GPU Clusters
------------
The $N$-body integrations were carried out on three GPU high-performance computing clusters. [laohu]{} employing 172 GPUs at the Center of Information and Computing at National Astronomical Observatories, Chinese Academy of Sciences. [titan]{} having 32 GPUs at the Astronomisches Rechen-Institut in Heidelberg, and [accre]{} employing 192 GPUs at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.
We used up to 64 GPUs for our runs with a total CPU wall-clock time of approximately one year.
SMBH Binary Evolution
=====================
We start our high resolution run at time ($T=0$), when the two SMBHs are still embedded in their respective galaxy cusps. Figure \[fig1zu\] shows the dark matter (top) and stellar volume mass densities (bottom) with view on the $x-y$ (left) and $y-z$ (right) plane. For visualization we use the open-source $\tt glnemo2$ software package[^3]. Two high density regions around the two SMBHs are clearly visible in the figure which suggest that individual galaxy cusps are still in the process of merging at the beginning of our run. The evolution of the SMBH binary can be described in the following three distinct phases as discussed in the following subsections.
Dynamical Friction
------------------
In the first phase, the two black holes centered in their respective galaxy cusps are unbound to each other and move independently in the potential of the merger remnant. Dynamical friction against the background dark matter and stars is very efficient in bringing the two SMBHs closer. At about $T = 40$ Myr the individual cusps are already merged into one and the two SMBHs are located in a single cusp (see Figure \[fig3\]). Earlier studies show that SMBHs form a binary when their relative separation $\Delta R_{BH}$ reaches $\sim r_h$ ($r_h$ is the gravitational influence radius defined as the radius of a sphere around the two black holes enclosing stellar mass equal to twice the SMBHs masses). Figure \[fig4\] shows the evolution of the binary separation. At the same time when the two cusps merge ($T = 40$ Myr) the separation between the two SMBHs is roughly about $r_h = 15 ~$pc and a SMBH binary system is formed.
Stellar-Dynamical Hardening
---------------------------
![ Same as in Figure 1 but at $T = 40$ Myr. Both SMBHs are embedded in a single cusp. []{data-label="fig3"}](page0015.eps){width="0.99\columnwidth"}
The subsequent evolution of the binary is governed by stellar encounters, i.e., predominantly three body encounters. For spherical galaxy models the subsequent hardening is reported to depend on the particle number [@mak04; @ber05]. For a realistic particle number $N$, which is several orders of magnitude larger than current state-of-the-art simulations can accommodate, the binary should stall when its semi-major axis $a \sim a_{h}$ for these models. Here $a_h$ is the semi-major axis of a “hard binary", as defined by
$$a_\mathrm{h} = \frac{q}{(1+q)^{2}}\frac{r_\mathrm{h}}{4}$$
\[ah\] .
In our model $r_\mathrm{h}$ is about 15 pc, $a_\mathrm{h} \approx 0.66$ pc with $a_\mathrm{h}^{-1} \approx 1.5$ pc$^{-1}$.
Figure \[fig5\] shows the evolution of the SMBH binary’s inverse semi-major axis and eccentricity. The eccentricity grows to a very high value of $e \approx 0.9$ soon after the formation of the SMBH binary. The inverse semi-major axis of the binary evolution is roughly constant in time and the phase of “hard binary" evolution is reached quickly. This behavior is consistent with the findings of @kha12, who noticed that for shallow cusps (with $\gamma$ = 0.5, 1.0) $1/a$ of the binary evolves at a constant rate immediately after its formation (see Figure 2 of @kha12). In fact, we find for stellar density profile, $\gamma = 1 =$ const in our simulation. For steep cusps ($\gamma$ = 1.5, 1.75) the SMBH binary undergoes a rapid phase of evolution before entering the hard binary regime, presumably corresponding to the clearing of the loss cone [@Yu02]. The long term evolution of the SMBH binary is discussed later. Here we describe in detail the different runs that we carried out in order to reach a SMBH separation where gravitational wave emission starts becoming important. At $T = 200$ Myr, we reduce the particle number from $\sim 3$ million to $\sim 1.15$ million by selecting the particles which have their estimated pericenter in the inner 1 kpc to increase the computational speed (Run-2). In order to see whether or not our selection has introduced some changes in the mass distribution, we plot the cumulative mass distribution at various time steps after the new selection of particles (Figure \[fig6\]). The cumulative mass profile looks very stable in the inner parts. Only in the outer parts there is a small expansion of the profile as expected due to the new cutoff. Also we start the new run (Run-2) 20 Myr earlier to see, if the evolution of the binary as it happened in the earlier run (Run-1) can be recovered. Figure \[fig5\] shows that both the inverse semi-major axis and the eccentricity evolution are well reproduced for the period where the two runs overlap.
![ The evolution of the binary’s inverse semi-major axis (top) and eccentricity (bottom). The red arrow in the upper panel of the figure points to value of $1/a$, which corresponds to the estimated semi-major axis $a_\mathrm{h}$ of the hard binary. The thin blue line shows the linear fit to estimate the constant SMBH binary hardening rate. []{data-label="fig5"}](bh-sem.ps "fig:"){width="0.99\columnwidth"} ![ The evolution of the binary’s inverse semi-major axis (top) and eccentricity (bottom). The red arrow in the upper panel of the figure points to value of $1/a$, which corresponds to the estimated semi-major axis $a_\mathrm{h}$ of the hard binary. The thin blue line shows the linear fit to estimate the constant SMBH binary hardening rate. []{data-label="fig5"}](bh-ecc.ps "fig:"){width="0.99\columnwidth"}
We stop Run-2 when the value of the inverse semi-major axis is roughly 40 pc$^{-1}$ or $a = 25$ mpc. The value of eccentricity at the end of Run-2 is $e \sim 0.96$. For these parameters the value of the pericenter r$_\mathrm{p}$ for the massive binary is $r_\mathrm{p} = (1-e)a = 1$ mpc, which is smaller than the softening for the star-BH interaction (7 mpc). In order to resolve the star-BH encounters accurately at the pericenter passage of the binary, we reduced the softening for star-BH encounters by an additional factor 10 and start a new run (Run-3) at an earlier time of 520 Myr. For Run-3, we again split the dark matter particles, this time only those having pericenter smaller than 50 pc from the center of the massive binary. As for the earlier splitting, each dark matter particle is split into ten particles and spread over a 10 pc sphere retaining the velocities of the parent particles. We employ the new particle splitting to avoid the unphysical jumps in the binary semi-major axis caused by massive dark matter particles that occur from time to time. Again, our new particle splitting does not introduce noticeable changes in the central mass profile. For Run-4, we reduce the $\eta$ parameter for the SMBHs from $\eta = 0.1$ to $\eta = 0.1$ to achieve higher accuracy in the integration of the SMBH binary orbit (there are roughly $10^4$ orbits in one model time unit). We evolve the SMBH binary till about 1.2 Gyrs with Run-4. The inverse semi-major axis value is 50 pc$^{-1}$ or $a = 20$ mpc. The eccentricity value is 0.955, which leads to the pericenter distance of 0.9 mpc. The binary evolution for Run-2 is very similar to Run-3 and Run-4. The binary’s inverse semi-major axis evolves at a constant rate (top panel of Figure \[fig5\]), which is consistent with our earlier studies where we followed the evolution of SMBH binary by merging two spherical galaxies [@kha11; @kha12]. We fit a straight line to calculate the binary’s hardening rate $s = \frac{d}{dt}(1/a)$ in the late phase of Run-3 and Run-4 (Figure \[fig5\] - top panel). The value of the hardening rate is 115.7 in model units and 44.5 kpc$^{-1}$ Myr$^{-1}$ in physical units. This value of the hardening rate is similar to those obtained by merging two spherical galaxies (see top panel of Figure 8 of @kha11) having a similar profile ($\gamma = 1$) as adopted for the galaxy bulges in the merger study of @cal11. In @kha11, the high value of the hardening rate was attributed to the non spherical shape of the merger remnant supporting a large fraction of stars on centrophilic orbits (see also @ber06). The value of the hardening rate is approximately 6 times higher for the same $N$ when compared to the value for similar mass of SMBHs in spherical galaxy models (top panel of Figure 3 of @kha11). For the merger remnant of two late type galaxies under consideration in our current study, we analyze the shape by calculating axes ratios defined for a homogeneous ellipsoid with same tensor of inertia. Figure \[fig7\] shows the intermediate to major and minor to major axes ratios at various distances from the center (top panel) and also for different times (bottom panel). We can see from the top panel of the Figure \[fig7\] that deviations from spherical symmetry extend all the way to the center (few tens of parsec). The merger remnant is considerably flattened, which can also be seen from Figure \[fig3\], when compared to those which result after the merger of two spherical galaxy progenitors. The flattening increases as we move to larger distances and becomes more or less constant about a distance of 1 kpc. We also calculate the axes ratio at different times of evolution for the merger remnant at a distance of 200 pc from the center, as most of the centrophilic orbits are expected to come at about this distance. As is seen from the bottom panel of Figure \[fig7\], the axes ratios remain constant during the whole time of the evolution of the SMBH binary. Due to the non-spherical shape of the merger remnant, we expect that the SMBH binary should evolve at a constant rate supported by the centrophilic orbit family of stars rather than the relaxation effects alone. Therefore it is reasonable to extrapolate our results for the merger of late-type galaxies to a realistic number of star particles. Hence we can predict the coalescence time for the SMBHs using the estimated hardening rates in the stellar dynamical phase plus those in the GWs dominated regime.
![ *Top*: Intermediate to major and minor to major axes ratios as a function of distance from the center of the SMBH binary at $T = 200$ Myr. *Bottom*: The time evolution of axes ratios calculated at a distance of $0.2$ kpc from the center of the SMBH binary. []{data-label="fig7"}](tri-dis.ps "fig:"){width="0.99\columnwidth"} ![ *Top*: Intermediate to major and minor to major axes ratios as a function of distance from the center of the SMBH binary at $T = 200$ Myr. *Bottom*: The time evolution of axes ratios calculated at a distance of $0.2$ kpc from the center of the SMBH binary. []{data-label="fig7"}](tri-time.ps "fig:"){width="0.99\columnwidth"}
![ The evolution of the binary’s inverse semi-major axis (top) and eccentricity (bottom). Run1 to Run4 describe the evolution of the SMBH binary during direct $N$-body simulations performed using $\varphi$-GPU. Thin blue line is the numerical solution of the coupled equations (\[ratea\]) to (\[dedt\]) for the estimate of the SMBH binary evolution. []{data-label="fig8"}](semi-maj.ps "fig:"){width="0.99\columnwidth"} ![ The evolution of the binary’s inverse semi-major axis (top) and eccentricity (bottom). Run1 to Run4 describe the evolution of the SMBH binary during direct $N$-body simulations performed using $\varphi$-GPU. Thin blue line is the numerical solution of the coupled equations (\[ratea\]) to (\[dedt\]) for the estimate of the SMBH binary evolution. []{data-label="fig8"}](ecc.ps "fig:"){width="0.99\columnwidth"}
Relativistic Regime
-------------------
At small enough separation whose value depends on the mass and eccentricity of the SMBH binary, gravitational waves extract energy and angular momentum efficiently from the binary, thus making its coalescence inevitable. As is shown in earlier studies [@ber09; @kha12], the estimated coalescence time obtained using constant hardening rate $s$ in the stellar dynamical regime and the formula of @pet64 for hardening in the gravitational wave dominated regime agree remarkably well with $T_{coal}$ obtained from simulations that follow the binary evolution till coalescence using post-Newtonian ($\mathcal{PN}$) terms in the equation of motion of the SMBH binary. But these simulations are computationally very expensive due to additional $\mathcal{PN}$ terms in the equation of motion of the binary and small softening needed to resolve the star-BH interactions at pericenter till the SMBH binary enters in the gravitational wave dominated regime. In order to further evolve the binary to the full coalescence of the SMBHs, we need to again reduce the softening and also add $\mathcal{PN}$ terms in the equation of motion of the binary, which would increases the computational time drastically (by several months).
Further evolution of the SMBH binary can be estimated by
$$\frac{da}{dt} = \left(\frac{da}{dt}\right)_\mathrm{NB} + \Big\langle\frac{da}{dt}\Big\rangle_\mathrm{GW} = -s a^{2}(t) + \Big\langle\frac{da}{dt}\Big\rangle_\mathrm{GW} \label{ratea}$$
The orbit-averaged expressions—including the lowest order 2.5 $\mathcal{PN}$ dissipative terms— for the rates of change of a binary’s semi-major axis, and eccentricity due to GW emission are given by @pet64:
$$\begin{aligned}
\Big\langle\frac{da}{dt}\Big\rangle_\mathrm{GW} &=& -\frac{64}{5}\frac{G^{3}M_{\bullet1}M_{\bullet2}(M_{\bullet1}+M_{\bullet2})}{a^{3}c^{5}(1-e^{2})^{7/2}}\times \nonumber \\
&&\left( 1+\frac{73}{24}e^{2}+\frac{37}{96}e^{4}\right), \label{dadt}\\
\Big\langle\frac{de}{dt}\Big\rangle_\mathrm{GW} &=& -\frac{304}{15}e\frac{G^{3}M_{\bullet1}M_{\bullet2}(M_{\bullet1}+M_{\bullet2})}{a^{4}c^{5}(1-e^{2})^{5/2}}
\times\nonumber\\
&&\left( 1+\frac{121}{304}e^{2}\right) . \label{dedt}\end{aligned}$$
Our estimates show that already for the parameters of the SMBH binary at $T \sim 1.2$ Gyr, the contribution to the hardening of the SMBH binary can be as large as 10%. This is the reason that we stop our Run-4 at this point.
We now solve the coupled equations (\[ratea\]) to (\[dedt\]) numerically to follow the SMBH binary evolution. For a numerical solution of the coupled equations, the semi-major axis of the binary was chosen at a time $T \sim 500$ Myr to have a significant overlap with the $N$-body evolution of the massive binary. The eccentricity value was chosen to be 0.95 and we assume that the eccentricity remains constant during the stellar dynamical hardening phase. This assumption is supported by the eccentricity evolution shown in Figure \[fig5\] (bottom) which shows that the value of e remains more or less constant from time $T \sim 600$ Myr onwards.
The estimated evolution is shown in Figure \[fig8\]. We can see that the coalescence time of the SMBH binary is $T_{coal} \sim 2.9$ Gyrs. The coalescence time of 2.9 Gyr, though longer when compared to @kha11 [@pre11; @kha12], is still short enough to have a handful 1:10 merger cases for the detection with eLISA. From @kha12, we know that binary hardening rates depend strongly on the adopted density profile. For steep density cusps with an inner power law density index $\gamma = 1.75$, their study shows 4 times higher values of $s$ when compared to $\gamma = 1.0$. In the current study the adopted density profile at the start of the merger simulation was a Hernquist profile, which has $\gamma =1$. This slope is observed in bright elliptical galaxies which host SMBHs having masses $\sim 10^8-10^9$ M$_\odot$. The faint bulges/ellipticals which host smaller SMBHs with masses $\sim 10^6-10^7$ M$_\odot$ have typically steep cusps ($\gamma \sim 1.5-1.75$). It is conceivable that the prolonged effect of gas dissipation at higher mass and spatial resolution in the last stages of the merger, beyond the starting point of the direct $N$-body calculation, would have led to a steeper baryonic cusp at small scales (see Mayer et al. 2007 on the dependence of the inner density profile of merger remnants on the numerical resolution of the gas component). In addition, the slope of the initial bulge profile in the galaxy models could be steeper and yet still consistent with the observed distribution of bulge slopes. Hence, we can easily expect that typical coalescence times for SMBH binaries in gas-rich mergers can be shorter and comparable to [@kha12].
Summary & Conclusions
=====================
Starting from the results of @cal11, we studied the orbital evolution of a pair of SMBHs in a minor merger of disk galaxies (with 30% gas fraction in the disk), from an initial separation of 60 kpc to a final separation of less than a milli parsec (binary’s pericenter distance). Initially the mass ratio between the galaxies and SMBHs is 0.1. During the merger the two SMBHs accrete gas and increase their masses in the process. The mass of the SMBH in the satellite galaxy increases almost 8 fold as the gas in the secondary galaxy is funneled towards the center due to the tidal force of the primary galaxy at each peri-center passage. The perturbations produced by the passages of the secondary galaxy are not significant for the primary galaxy, so the SMBH in the primary galaxy accretes gas steadily and the mass of SMBH here grows by a factor of $2$. At the end of SPH simulations, the mass ratio between the two SMBHs is approximately $q=0.3$ (see Figure 1 of @cal11).
At the start of our direct $N$-body simulations, the separation between the two SMBHs is roughly 700 pc, and the binary has yet to form. Gas particles, which contribute only a few percent to the mass of the selected central region, are treated as star particles. We use particle splitting to reduce the mass of dark matter particles to avoid both mass segregation and unphysical encounters of high mass dark matter particles with the SMBHs. Dynamical friction is very efficient in bringing the two SMBHs to a separation where they form a binary at a separation of roughly 15 pc. The subsequent hardening, which happens at a constant rate, is governed by individual stars interacting with the massive binary. We artificially suppress the contribution of dark matter to the hardening of the SMBH binary by introducing a large softening ($\epsilon_\mathrm{dm} = 10$ pc). The shape analysis of the merger product shows that the system is predominantly triaxial from the periphery to the center. The SMBH binary evolves at a constant rate and the hardening rate is high, which suggests that the stalling of the SMBH binary should not be an issue in realistic galaxy mergers such as those considered here. The eccentricity is very high ($e \sim 0.95$) as was observed for the shallow density profile ($\gamma \leq 1.0$) galaxy merger simulations performed in our earlier studies [@kha11; @kha12]. The dependence on eccentricity of the coalescence time under GW emission is $T_\mathrm{coal,GW} \sim (1-e^2)^{7/2}$. For very eccentric SMBH binaries this could easily account for a decrease of an order of magnitude. Accordingly it will be very important to further investigate the dependence of the eccentricity evolution under different values of $\gamma$ and $q$. Currently we are carrying out direct $N$-body simulations of galaxy mergers with galaxies having both steep and shallow density profiles at the centers together with an initial mass function to address this question.
With our current study we evolve the SMBH binary to a separation (0.9 mpc at pericenter of the SMBH binary), where the contribution to the hardening rate of the SMBH binary due to the emission of GWs becomes important (roughly 10%). Using the constant value of the hardening rate in the Newtonian regime and the formula of @pet64 for GWs emission from two point masses orbiting each other, in the relativistic regime, we estimate the coalescence time of two SMBHs to be 2.9 Gyr after the merger of the two galaxies. The coalescence time of 2.9 Gyr, although longer when compared to the times obtained for similar mass binaries in @kha12, is still short enough to have a few 1:10 mergers of SMBHs in late type galaxy mergers in the range at which eLISA is most sensitive. From @kha12, we know that binary hardening rates depend strongly on the adopted density profile. For steep density cusps observed at the center of faint bulges/ellipticals, we can expect the coalescence times to be much shorter, comparable to the ones that were obtained in @kha12 for the merger of steep power law density profile galaxies.
The current work should be regarded mainly as proof-of-concept, since we have considered only one particular initial condition and have not computed directly the binary SMBH shrinking in the post-Newtonian phase. Nevertheless, it shows for the first time that the coalescence of the two SMBHs on a timescale sufficiently short to be astrophysically relevant does indeed take place as a result of a quite realistic galaxy merger with previous effects of dissipation taken into account. In the future we will explore a wider range of initial conditions motivated by cosmological simulations of galaxy formation and we will carry out the direct computation of the binary shrinking to much smaller separations.
FK was supported by a grant from the Higher Education Commission (HEC) of Pakistan administrated by the Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst (DAAD). IB and PB acknowledge financial support by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) through SFB 881 “The Milky Way System" (sub-projects A1 and Z2) at the Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg.
PB acknowledges the special support by the NASU under the Main Astronomical Observatory GRID/GPU computing cluster project and by the program Cosmomicrophysics of NASU.
We acknowledge Jean-Charles Lambert for his help and support regarding the visualisation program [glnemo2]{} which has been used to produce some figures in this publication.
A main part of the simulations presented here was performed on the GPU cluster [laohu]{} at the Center of Information and Computing at the National Astronomical Observatories, Chinese Academy of Sciences, funded by the Ministry of Finance of People’s Republic of China under the grant ZDYZ2008-2.
We also used the GRAPE/GPU cluster [titan]{} funded through the GRACE project under the grants I/80 041-043 and I/81 396 by the Volkswagen Foundation and under the grants 823.219-439/30 and /36 of the Ministry of Science, Research and the Arts of Baden-Württemberg, Germany. Finally, part of this work was conducted using the resources of the Advanced Computing Center for Research and Education at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA.
———————
Amaro-Seoane, P. et al, 2012, astroph 1202.0839
Barack, L., & Cutler, C. 2004, Physical Review D, 69, 082005
Begelman, M. C., Blandford, R. D., & Rees, M. J. 1980, Nature, 287, 307
Berczik, P., Merritt, D., & Spurzem, R. 2005, , 633, 680
Berczik, P., Merritt, D., Spurzem, R., Bischof, H., 2006, ApJ, 642, L21
Berczik, P. et al, 2011, Proc. 1st International Conference on High Performence Computing HPC-UA 2011[^4], 8
Berentzen, I., Preto, M., Berczik, P., Merritt, D.,& Spurzem, R. 2009, , 695, 455
Binggeli, B., Sandage, A., & Tammann, G. A. 1988, ARA& A, 26, 509B
Boroson, T. A. & Lauer, T. R. 2009, , 458, 53
Callegari, S., Mayer, L., Kazantzidis, S., Colpi, M., Governato, F., Quinn, T., & Wadsley, J. 2009, , 696L, 89
Callegari, S., Kazantzidis, S., Mayer, L., Colpi, M., Bellovary, J. M., Quinn, T., & Wadsley, J. 2011, , 729, 85
Chapon, D., Mayer, L. & Teyssier, R. 2011, submitted, eprint arXiv:1110.6086
Fabbiano, G., Wang, J., Elvis, M., Risaliti, G. 2011, , 477, 431
Ferrarese, L., & Ford, H. 2005, Space Science Reviews, 116, 523
Gaburov E., Harfst S., Portegies Zwart S., 2009, New Astron., 14, 630
Gültekin K., et al. 2009, ApJ, 698, 198G
Harfst, S., Gualandris, M., Merrit D., Spurzem, Portegies Zwart S., Berczik P., 2007, NewA, 12, 357 Häring, N., & Rix, H. 2004, , 604, 89 Hernquist, L., 1990, ApJ, 356, 359
, S. A. 2003, Annals of Physics, 303, 142
Iguchi, S., Okuda, T., Sudou, H. 2009, , 724, L166
Khan, F. M., Just, A., & Merritt, D. 2011, , 732, 89
Khan, F. M., Preto, M., Berczik, P., Berentzen, I., Just, A., & Spurzem, R. 2012, , in press
Komossa, S., Burwitz, V., Hasinger, G., Predehl, P., Kaastra, J. S. & Ikebe, Y. 2003, , 582, L15
Lightman, A. P. & Shapiro, S. L. 1977, , 211, 244
Liu, F. K., Wu, X.-B. & Cao, S. L. 2003, , 340, 411
Makino, J., & Funato, Y. 2004, , 602, 93
Mayer, L., Kazantzidis, S., Madau, P., Colpi, M., Quinn, T. & Wadsley, J. 2007, Science, 316, 1874
Mayer, L., Kazantzidis, S., Escala, A. & Callegari, S. 2010, Nature, 466, 1082M
Merritt, D. & Ferrarese, L. 2001, , 320, L30
Merritt, D. & Ekers, R. D. 2002, Science, 297, 1310
Merritt, D., & Poon, M. Y. 2004, , 606, 788
Merritt, D., Mikkola, S., Szell, A. 2007, , 671, 53
Merritt, D., & Vasiliev, E. 2011, , 726, 61
Mikkola, S., Aarseth, S. 1998, New Astronomy, 3, 309
Milosavljevi[ć]{}, M., & Merritt, D. 2001, , 563, 34
Nitadori, k., & Makino, J. 2008, New Astronomy, 13, 498
Peters, P. C. 1964, Phys. Rev. B, 136, 1224
Poon, M. Y., & Merritt, D. 2001, , 549, 192
Preto, M.,Berentzen, I. Berczik, P., Merritt, D. & Spurzem, R. 2009, Journal of Physics: Conference Series, Volume 154, Issue 1, pp. 012049
Preto, M.,Berentzen, I. Berczik, P., & Spurzem, R. 2011, , 732, L26
Quinlan, G. D. 1996, New Astron., 1, 35
Rodriguez, C., Taylor, G. B., Zavala, R. T., Peck, A. B., Pollack, L. K., & Romani, R. W. 2006, , 646, 49
Sridhar, S., & Touma, J. 1999, , 303, 483
Valtonen, M. J. et al. 2008, Nature, 851, 452
Van der Wel, A. et al. 2011, , 730, 38
Wadsley, J. W., Stadel, J., & Quinn, T. 2004, New Astronomy, 9, 137
, Q. 2002, , 331, 935
[^1]: ftp://ftp.ari.uni-heidelberg.de/staff/berczik/phi-GRAPE/
[^2]: http://www.nvidia.com/object/cuda\_home\_new.html
[^3]: http://projets.oamp.fr/projects/glnemo2
[^4]: http://www.hpc-ua.org/sites/default/files/proceedings-2011/1.1(8).pdf
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Soft X-ray resonant scattering (XRS) has been used to observe directly, for the first time, the ordering of localized electronic states on both the Mn and Tb sites in multiferroic TbMnO$_3$. Large resonant enhancement of the X-ray scattering cross-section were observed when the incident photon energy was tuned to either the Mn $L$ or Tb $M$ edges which provide information on the Mn $3d$ and Tb $4f$ electronic states, respectively. The temperature dependence of the XRS signal establishes, in a model independent way, that in the high-temperature phase (28 K $\leq$ T $\leq$ 42 K) the Mn $3d$ sublattices displays long-range order. The Tb $4f$ sublattices are found to order only on entering the combined ferroelectric/magnetic state below 28 K. Our results are discussed with respect to recent hard XRS experiments (sensitive to spatially extended orbitals) and neutron scattering'
address:
- '$^1$London Centre for Nanotechnology, University College London, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom'
- '$^2$Department of Physics, University of Durham, Rochester Building, South Road, Durham, DH1 3LE, United Kingdom'
- '$^3$Brookhaven National Laboratory, Condensed Matter Physics and Material Science Department, Bldg \#501B, Upton, NY 11973-5000, United States of America'
- '$^4$Department of Physics, University of Oxford, Clarendon Laboratory, Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3PU, United Kingdom'
- '$^5$Institut N’[e]{}el, CNRS-UJF, BP166, 38042 Grenoble, France'
- '$^6$European Synchrotron Radiation Facility, BP220, 38043 Grenoble, France'
author:
- 'T R Forrest$^1$, S R Bland$^2$, S B Wilkins$^3$, H C Walker$^1$, T A W Beale$^2$, P D Hatton$^2$, D Prabhakaran$^4$, A T Boothroyd$^4$, D Mannix$^5$, F Yakhou$^6$ and D F McMorrow$^1$'
bibliography:
- 'tbmno3\_arXiv.bib'
---
Introduction
============
Magnetoelectric multiferroics are materials that simultaneously display ferroelectric and magnetic long-range order [@eerenstein]. Consequently, they are of considerable interest both from a fundamental point of view, and for the potential that they offer in the field of spintronics [@Fiebig; @Spaldin]. Of particular importance has been the recent discovery of multiferroic behaviour in a diverse range of compounds where the multiferroic state takes the form of the coexistence of ferroelectricity and antiferromagnetism, often with a large coupling between the two [@Hill; @Cheong]. Indeed the burgeoning interest in multiferroics can be traced to the pioneering work by Kimura *et al.* who demonstrated a giant magnetoelectric effect in TbMnO$_3$ where the electric polarization may be switched by applying a magnetic field [@KimuraTMO]. More recently it has been shown how an applied electric field can be used to manipulate the magnetic domain distribution [@yamasaki].
For TbMnO$_3$ (space group *Pbmn*) the Mn$^{3+}$ magnetic moments first order below $T_{N1}$=42 K. It has been reported, based on recent neutron diffraction data, that below this temperature the moments are polarized along the [**b**]{} direction with a modulation wavevector (0 q$_{Mn}$ 0), q$_{Mn}$ $\approx$ 0.29 b\*. Below $T_{N2}$=28 K the magnetic structure adopted by the Mn sublattice becomes non-collinear, forming a cycloid in the [**b**]{}-[**c**]{} plane [@kenzelmann] and, at exactly the same temperature, a ferroelectric polarization along the [**c**]{} direction is observed. By comparing the magnetic structures above and below $T_{N2}$, an elegant and appealing model was proposed whereby the ferroelectric transition is driven by a loss of inversion symmetry at the Mn sites as the magnetic structure changes from collinear to non-collinear. The same study also proposed that the Tb magnetic moments are disordered in the collinear phase, and become polarized along the [**a**]{} direction on cooling into the cycloidal phase.
X-ray resonant scattering (XRS) has much to offer the study of multiferroics in general [@ewings; @Prokhnenko; @yang; @koo], and TbMnO$_3$ in particular. It is an element and electron shell specific technique, which in the case of TbMnO$_3$ makes it possible to study any ordering of the Mn and Tb sublattices separately. Neutron diffraction by contrast measures the scattering from the sum of the separate contributions. Moreover, XRS is capable of providing information on the presence of any multipolar order [@matteo]. This includes multipoles with time-odd, parity-odd symmetry that may characterize the combined magnetic and ferroelectric state displayed by TbMnO$_3$ and other related multiferroics [@VanAken]. Recently the results of a number of XRS studies of TbMnO$_3$ have been reported, all performed in the hard part of the X-ray spectrum above 3 keV [@mannix; @argyriou]. The edges accessed in this part of the spectrum are the Mn $K$ and Tb $L_3$ edges which, for the dominant electric dipole resonances observed, provide information on the ordering of the $4p$ and $5d$ extended band states at the Mn and Tb sites, respectively. Here we highlight two of the main results of this X-ray work [@mannix]. The first is the surprising observation of a large polarization of the Tb $5d$ states in the collinear phase, where according to modeling of the neutron data the Tb magnetic moments are disordered. The second is the tentative report that the $5d$ states develop an anapolar moment, [*i*.e.]{} one with time-odd, parity-odd symmetry, in the cycloidal phase.
In order to shed further light on the ordering of the different electronic states in TbMnO$_3$ we have utilized XRS in the vicinity of the Mn $L_2$ (649.9 eV: $2p_{3/2}\rightarrow 3d$) and $L_3$ (638.7 eV: $2p_{5/2}\rightarrow 3d$) and the Tb $M_4$ (1276.9 eV: $3d_{3/2}\rightarrow4f$) and $M_5$ (1241.1 eV: $3d_{5/2}\rightarrow4f$) edges. The clear benefit of utilizing these edges is that they provide information on the localized $3d$ and $4f$ states. In this sense our soft X-ray study of TbMnO$_3$ is complementary to both neutron diffraction and hard XRS studies. There are, however, limitations as to what can be achieved with soft X-rays. For example, when compared to the studies performed with photon energies above 3 keV, the Ewald sphere of reciprocal space is severely limited.
One complication encountered in any study of TbMnO$_3$, in addition to the ordering of both the Tb and Mn sublattices, is the existence of a complex magnetic domain structure. Four possible domain states have been identified, which can be classified according to the Miller indices ($h,k,l$) of the associated satellite peaks: $A$ ($h$+$k$=even, $l$=odd), $C$ ($h$+$k$=odd, $l$=even), $F$ ($h$+$k$=even, $l$=even), and $G$ ($h$+$k$=odd, $l$=odd). The relative population of domains is found to differ from study to study [@Quezel; @Blasco; @Kajimoto; @kenzelmann], although the $A$ domain dominates in most cases reported. In our soft XRS study, the limited range of reciprocal space available had the consequence that only $F$-type satellite reflections fall within the Ewald sphere at the Mn $L$ edges, while at the Tb $M$ edges $A$, $C$ and $F$ satellites can in principle be accessed.
Experimental Details
====================
Single crystals of TbMnO$_3$ with dimensions $2\times2\times1$ mm$^3$ were grown at the University of Oxford using the flux growth method. They were cut with either the \[0 1 0\] or \[0 0.28 1\] directions as the surface normal and polished with 0.1$\mu$m diamond followed by 0.02$\mu$ Al$_2$O$_3$ pastes, to a flat, shiny surface. Experiments were carried out on both beamline 5U1 at the SRS, Daresbury Laboratory and ID08 at the European Synchrotron Radiation Facility. The former beamline was used to collect the temperature dependence of the scattering, while the latter was used for its superior flux and high incident photon energy resolution to determine the energy dependence of the scattering. These measurements were conducted in a similar fashion to that of Wilkins *et al.* [@Wilkins03_1; @Wilkins03_2; @wilkinsLSMO] on both beamlines. The samples were mounted on the diffractometer with the surface normal and \[001\] direction lying within the scattering plane. In both cases, the diffraction plane was vertical. At 5U1 and ID08 the base temperatures achievable were 22 K and 19 K respectively. Due to experimental apparatus limitations it was not possible to measure the polarization of the scattered X-rays.
Results and Discussion
======================
We first consider the results for the Mn $L$ edges taken using the \[0 1 0\] orientated sample. On cooling below $T_{N1}\approx$ 42 K an $F$-type satellite diffraction peak was observed at (0 q 0), with q $\approx$ 0.295 b\* just below $T_{N1}$. The peak was present at both the $L_2$ and $L_3$ edges, and was found to increase in intensity and move to lower q as the temperature was decreased (Fig. \[L$_3$ peak\] and \[L$_2$ peak\]). By fitting this satellite peak to a Lorentzian line shape, the correlation lengths (defined as $\zeta=\frac{1}{\kappa}$, where $\kappa$ is the characteristic half width of the Lorentzian distribution in reciprocal lattice units) were determined to exceed 200[Å]{} at both the $L_2$ and $L_3$ edges, and in both the cycloidal and collinear phases. This result demonstrates that the X-rays probe a significant number of unit cells within the crystal and hence, these measurements are not particularly surface sensitive.
A scan of the incident photon energy at fixed wavevector transfer in the high-temperature collinear phase revealed strong enhancements of the scattering cross-section at the Mn $L_2$ and $L_3$ edges (Fig.\[Escan\]). While a simple, single resonant response is evident at the $L_2$ edge, the energy line shape displays much more structure in the vicinity of the $L_3$ edge. Notwithstanding these important details, the strong electric dipole resonances, combined with the sharpness of the peaks in reciprocal space, establishes the fact that the Mn $3d$ electronic states display long-range order in the collinear phase. In Fig. \[Escan\] the results of an energy scan in the cycloidal phase at 19 K are also shown. Apart from an overall increase in intensity, the response in this phase is indistinguishable from that in the collinear one.
It should be noted that a number of soft X-ray resonant scattering studies have been made of related rare-earth manganite compounds, which are not multiferroic [@Wilkins03_1; @Wilkins03_2; @wilkinsLSMO; @Thomas]. Results from all of these studies have shown that, for both the magnetic and orbital reflections, the resonant feature at the Mn $L_3$ edge is always strongest. This is clearly not the case for the (0 $q$ 0) reflection observed in this study. However, to obtain further information from this fixed wavevector energy scan, detailed modeling of the electronic structure is required, which is beyond the scope of the present work.
\
Scans parallel to [**b\***]{}, across the (0 q 0) reflection were performed as a function of temperature at incident photon energies equal to the main features of the Mn $L_2$ and $L_3$ resonances shown in Fig.\[Escan\]. Figure \[fig2\] shows the temperature dependence of (a) the position and (b) the integrated intensity of the peak obtained by fitting a Lorentzian function to the peak profiles. In the cycloidal/ferroelectric phase below 28 K, the propagation vector is only weakly temperature dependent with $q\simeq0.285$ b\* before increasing linearly with increasing temperature within the collinear phase to a maximum value of $q\simeq0.295$ b\* at $T=42$ K. This trend is consistent with that deduced by neutron and hard X-ray scattering experiments [@kenzelmann; @mannix]. Above 42 K the peak was not observed. The evolution of the integrated intensity as a function of temperature clearly differs between the measurements performed at the Mn $L_2$ and $L_3$ edges, with a more significant change at the $L_3$ edge at the transition between the two magnetic phases. In other words the $L_2$/$L_3$ branching ratio is temperature dependent. A strongly temperature dependent branching ratio has previously been observed in DyFe$_4$Al$_8$, which was attributed to the effect of magneto-elastic coupling [@Langridge].
![\[fig2\]Temperature dependence of the (0 q 0) superlattice reflection: (a) the position and (b) the integrated intensity at the Mn $L_2$ (652.3 eV) and $L_3$ (643.1 eV) edges. (c) the integrated intensity of the (0 q 1) superlattice reflection at the Tb $M_5$ edge (1240 eV), (an offset of -2K has been applied to this data). Finally (d) is the integrated intensity of the (0 1-q 0) superlattice reflection, again this was recorded with photons equal in energy to the Tb $M_5$ edge (1240 eV).](tdep.eps){width=".6\textwidth"}
The fact that the main resonances occur at the Mn $L_2$ and $L_3$ edges indicates that the electric dipolar (E1) resonance dominates and therefore the Mn $3d$ electronic states are being probed. When this is combined with the observation, that the thermal evolution of the wavevector shown in Figure \[fig2\](a) tracks that of the fundamental magnetic wavevector [**q**]{} determined by neutron diffraction, the conclusion that the XRS in this experiment is most probably magnetic in origin may be drawn. The only other possible order parameter that might be probed using XRS for a purely dipolar transition is that associated with ordering of the electric quadrupole (orbital ordering) which these experiments do not exclude.
We now consider the results taken with photon energies close to the Tb $M_4$ & $M_5$ edges. In contrast to the Mn $L$ edges, where only the F-type reflection may be observed, at the Tb $M$ edges, A and C type reflections are also accessible. (To observe the A-type reflection, the \[0 1 0\] was replaced by the \[0 0.28 1\] orientated sample.) Comprehensive searches in the collinear phase for any of these reflections produced negative results. On cooling into the cycloidal phase, strong, well-defined A-type reflections appeared at both the $M_4$ and $M_5$ edges. The sharpness of the diffraction profiles (Fig. \[M$_4$ peak\] and \[M$_5$ peak\]) immediately establishes that the electronic states (in this case the Tb 4f states) are long-range ordered. Figure \[Escan2\] shows a energy scan at the fixed wavevector of the (0 q 1) reflection in the cycloidal phase, demonstrating significant resonances at the $M_5$ edge and $M_4$ edges. This indicates that for the (0 q 1) reflection, the Tb $4f$ electronic states are strongly influenced by the cycloidal magnetic order.
\
Figure \[fig2\] (c) shows the temperature dependence of the scattered intensity of the $A$-type (0 q 1) reflection taken at the Tb $M_5$ edge. As for the $F$-type peak, where the results were taken at the Mn $L$ edges, the magnitude of the modulation wavevector evolves as a function of temperature. For this crystal orientation, however, the reflection becomes off-specular. Experimental limitations at 5U1 made it impossible to accurately resolve the evolution of peak’s position as the temperature was increased, and hence here we only present the integrated intensity as a function of temperature, determined as for the (0 q 0) reflection. As can be seen, the intensity of the scattering at the $M_5$ edge drops rapidly and linearly with increasing temperature, with zero intensity being observed for $T\geq30$ K. Hence, it would appear that in this domain the localized Tb $4f$ states are strongly affected by the cycloidal order, but not by the collinear magnetism.
For the $F$-type (0 q 0) reflection, a very weak resonance was observed in the cycloidal phase at the Tb $M_5$-edge, but only with $\pi$-polarized incident photons. However, a stronger Tb $M_5$ resonance reflection was observed at a position of (0 $\sim$0.78 b\* 0). This superlattice reflection corresponds to the $C$-type (0 1-q 0) domain. Like the $F$-type reflection, the peak was only observed with $\pi$-polarized incident photons. Figure \[fig2\] (d) shows the temperature dependence of the scattered intensity for this (0 1-q 0) peak. As the temperature was increased, the intensity of the scattering at the Tb $M_5$ edge decreased, with zero intensity being observed for $T\geq24$ K. The position of this peak remained constant as the temperature was increased.
Finally, we note that fixed wavevector energy scans for the $F$-type (0 $q$ 0) reflection failed to identify any clear response in the vicinity of the oxygen $K$ (543.1 eV: $1s\rightarrow 2p$) edge.
Conclusions
===========
In conclusion, we have performed the first direct element-specific study of the effect of the magnetic order on the electronic structure of magnetoelectric multiferroic TbMnO$_3$. We have demonstrated that the Mn $3d$ localized bands display strong long range order in both magnetic phases for the F-type domain. The temperature dependence of this (0 q 0) reflection is in good agreement with previously observed trends for both the position of the modulation wavevector (0 $q_{Mn}$ 0) and the scattered intensity, with clear changes at the magnetic phase transitions. Mn $L$-edge energy scans at this wavevector show minimal changes in the overall $3d$ band structure between the collinear and cycloidal phases. The scattered intensity as a function of temperature does differ, however, between measurements performed at the Mn $L_2$ and $L_3$ edges. The transition at 28K into the ferroelectric phase is more significant for the measurements performed at the Mn $L_3$ edge. The energy scans taken at the Tb $M$-edges clearly show, that for the A-type (0 q 1) reflection, the Tb $4f$ band is highly influenced by the cycloidal magnetic order, whilst this reflection was absent in the collinear phase, indicating that there is no long range ordering of the Tb $4f$ states for this phase. This data supports the neutron diffraction model which states that the Tb $4f$ states should be disordered in the collinear phase. However the absence of Tb $4f$ ordering in the collinear phase suggests that ordering of Tb $5d$ bands as seen with hard X-rays [@mannix] is of a different origin. In addition to strong Tb $M$ edge resonances observed for the A-type peak, much weaker Tb $M$ edge resonance peaks corresponding to the F-type (0 q 0) and C-type (0 1-q 0) reflections were observed in the cycloidal phase. The fact that these two reflections were observed with $\pi$-incident X-rays only and are much weaker, suggest a difference between the magnetic structures of the domain states. Finally, the lack of an F-type reflection in the vicinity of the oxygen $K$ edge, shows that for this reflection at least, there is no long range ordering of the oxygen $2p$ band.
The authors thank R. Bean for his experimental assistance. Work in London was supported by the EPSRC and a Wolfson Royal Society Award and in Durham and Oxford by the EPSRC. The work at Brookhaven National Laboratory is supported by the Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy, under contract no. DE-AC02-98CH10886.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Confirming previous heuristic analyses à la Belinskii-Khalatnikov-Lifshitz, it is rigorously proven that certain “subcritical” Einstein-matter systems exhibit a monotone, generalized Kasner behaviour in the vicinity of a spacelike singularity. The $D-$dimensional coupled Einstein-dilaton-$p$-form system is subcritical if the dilaton couplings of the $p$-forms belong to some dimension dependent open neighbourhood of zero [@dh1], while pure gravity is subcritical if $D \geq 11$ [@DHS]. Our proof relies, like the recent theorem [@AR] dealing with the (always subcritical [@BK2]) Einstein-dilaton system, on the use of Fuchsian techniques, which enable one to construct local, analytic solutions to the full set of equations of motion. The solutions constructed are “general” in the sense that they depend on the maximal expected number of free functions.'
---
IHES/P/02/06\
ULB-TH-02/01
1.0cm
[Thibault Damour$^{a}$, Marc Henneaux$^{b,c}$, Alan D. Rendall$^{d}$ and\
Marsha Weaver$^{b}$]{}\
$^a$ Institut des Hautes Etudes Scientifiques, 35, Route de Chartres, F-91440 Bures-sur-Yvette, France\
$^b$ Physique Théorique et Mathématique, Université Libre de Bruxelles, C.P. 231, B-1050, Bruxelles, Belgium\
$^c$ Centro de Estudios Científicos, Casilla 1469, Valdivia, Chile\
$^d $Max-Planck-Institut für Gravitationsphysik, Albert-Einstein-Institut, Am Mühlenberg 1, D-14476 Golm, Germany
Introduction
============
The problem
-----------
In recent papers [@dh1; @dh2; @tDmH], the dynamics of the coupled Einstein-dilaton-$p$-form system in $D$ spacetime dimensions, with action (in units where $8 \pi G = 1$), $$\begin{aligned}
S[g_{\alpha \beta}, \phi, A^{(j)}_{\gamma_1 \cdots \gamma_{n_j}}]
&=& S_E [g_{\alpha \beta}] + S_\phi[g_{\alpha \beta}, \phi]
+ \sum_{j=1}^k S_j[g_{\alpha \beta}, \phi,
A^{(j)}_{\gamma_1 \cdots \gamma_{n_j}}]
+ \hbox{ ``more"},
\label{001} \\
S_E [g_{\alpha \beta}] &=&{1 \over 2} \int R \sqrt{-g} \, d^D x,
\label{action2} \\
S_\phi[g_{\alpha \beta}, \phi] &=& - {1 \over 2} \int
\partial_\mu \phi \, \partial^\mu \phi \sqrt{-g} \, d^D x,
\label{action3} \\
S_j[g_{\alpha \beta}, \phi, A^{(j)}_{\gamma_1 \cdots \gamma_{n_j}}] &=&
- {1 \over 2 ( n_j + 1)!} \int F^{(j)}_{\mu_1 \cdots \mu_{n_j + 1}}
F^{(j) \, \mu_1 \cdots \mu_{n_j + 1}} e^{\lambda_j \phi} \sqrt{-g} \, d^D x,
\label{action4}\end{aligned}$$ was investigated in the vicinity of a spacelike (“cosmological") singularity along the lines initiated by Belinskii, Khalatnikov and Lifshitz (BKL) [@BKL]. In (\[001\]), $g_{\alpha \beta}$ is the spacetime metric, $\phi$ is a massless scalar field known as the “dilaton", while the $A^{(j)}_{\gamma_1 \cdots \gamma_{n_j}}$ are a collection of $k$ exterior form gauge fields ($j=1, \cdots, k$), with exponential couplings to the dilaton, each coupling being characterized by an individual constant $\lambda_j$ (“dilaton coupling constant"). The $F^{(j)}$’s are the exterior derivatives $F^{(j)} = dA^{(j)}$, whereas “more" stands for possible coupling terms among the $p$-forms which can be either of the Yang-Mills type ($1$-forms), Chern-Simons type [@jdt] or Chapline-Manton type [@cm; @pvnetal]. The degrees of the $p$-forms are restricted to be smaller than or equal to $D-2$ since a $(D-1)$-form (or $D$-form) gauge field carries no local degree of freedom. In particular, scalars ($n_j=0$) are allowed among the $A^{(j)}$’s but we then require that the corresponding dilaton coupling $\lambda_j$ be non-zero, so that there is only one “dilaton”. Similarly, we require $\lambda_j \not=0$ for the $(D-2)$-forms (if any), since these are “dual”[^1] to scalars. This restriction to a single dilaton is mostly done for notational convenience: if there were other dilatons among the $0$-forms, then, these must be explicitly treated on the same footing as $\phi$ and separated off from the $p$-forms because they play a distinct rôle. In particular, they would appear explicitly in the generalized Kasner conditions given below and in the determination of what we call the subcritical domain. The discussion would proceed otherwise in the same qualitative way.
The main motivation for studying actions of the class (\[001\]) is that these arise as bosonic sectors of supergravity theories related to superstring or M-theory. In fact, in view of various no-go theorems, $p$-form gauge fields appear to be the only massless, higher spin fields that can be consistently coupled to gravity. Furthermore, there can be only one type of graviton [@bdgh]. With this observation in mind, the action (\[001\]) is actually quite general. The only restriction concerns the scalar sector: we assume the coupling to the dilaton to be exponential because this corresponds to the tree-level couplings of the dilaton field of string theory. Note, however, that string-loop effects are expected to generate more general couplings $\exp (\lambda \phi) \rightarrow B(\phi)$ which can exhibit interesting “attractor” behaviours [@tDaP]. We also restrict ourselves by not including scalar potentials; see, however, the end of the article for some remarks on the addition of a potential for the dilaton, which can be treated by our methods.
Two possible general, “competing" behaviours of the fields in the vicinity of the spacelike singularity have been identified[^2]:
1. \[Kasnerbehaviour\] The simplest is the [*“generalized Kasner behaviour”*]{}, in which the spatial scale factors and the field $\exp(\phi)$ behave at each spatial point in a monotone, power-law fashion in terms of the proper time as one approaches the singularity, while the effect of the $p$-form fields $A^{(j)}$’s on the evolution of $g_{\mu \nu}$ and $\phi$ can be asymptotically neglected. In that regime the spatial curvature terms can be also neglected with respect to the leading order part of the extrinsic curvature terms. In other words, as emphasized by BKL, time derivatives asymptotically dominate over space derivatives so that one sometimes uses the terminology “velocity-dominated" behaviour [@Eardley], instead of “generalized Kasner behaviour”. We shall use both terminologies indifferently in this paper, recalling that in the presence of $p$-forms, which act as potentials for the evolution of the spatial metric and the dilaton (as do the spatial curvature terms), “velocity-dominance" means not only that the spatial curvature terms can be neglected, but also that the $p$-forms can be neglected in the Einstein-dilaton evolution equations.[^3]
2. \[mixmasterbehaviour\] The second regime, known as [*“oscillatory”*]{} [@BKL], or [*“generalized mixmaster”*]{} [@misner69] behaviour, is more complicated. It can be described as the succession of an infinite number of increasingly shorter Kasner regimes as one goes to the singularity, one following the other according to a well-defined “collision" law. This asymptotic evolution is presumably strongly chaotic. It is expected that, at each spatial point, the scale factors of a general inhomogeneous solution essentially behave as in certain homogeneous models. For instance, for $D=4$ pure gravity this guiding homogeneous model is the Bianchi IX model [@BKL; @misner69], while for $D=11$ supergravity it is its naive one-dimensional reduction involving space-independent metric and three-forms [@dh2].
Whether it is the first or the second behaviour that is relevant depends on: (i) the spacetime dimension $D$, (ii) the field content (presence or absence of the dilaton, types of $p$-forms), and (iii) the values of the various dilaton couplings $\lambda_j$. Previous work reached the following conclusions:
- The oscillatory behaviour is general for pure gravity in spacetime dimension $4$ [@BKL], in fact, in all spacetime dimensions $4 \leq D \leq 10$, but is replaced by a Kasner-like behaviour in spacetime dimensions $ D \geq 11$ [@DHS]. (The sense in which we use “general" will be made precise below.)
- The Kasner-like behaviour is general for the gravity-dilaton system in all spacetime dimensions $D \geq 3$ (see [@BK2; @AR] for $D=4$).
- The oscillatory behaviour is general for gravity coupled to $p$-forms, in absence of a dilaton or of a dual $(D-2)$-form ($0<p<D-2$) [@dh2]. In particular, the bosonic sector of $11$-dimensional supergravity is oscillatory [@dh1]. Particular instances of this case have been studied in [@Jantzen; @Leblanc; @Weaver].
- The case of the gravity-dilaton-$p$-form system is more complicated to discuss because its behaviour depends on a combination of several factors, namely the dimension $D$, the menu of $p$-forms, and the numerical values of the dilaton couplings. For a given $D$ and a given menu of $p$-forms there exists a “subcritical” domain $\cal D$ (an open neighbourhood of the origin $\lambda_j = 0$ for all $j$’s) such that: (i) when the $\lambda_j$ belong to $\cal D$ the general behaviour is Kasner-like, but (ii) when the $\lambda_j$ do not belong to $\cal D$ the behaviour is oscillatory. Note that $\cal D$ is open. Indeed, the behaviour is oscillatory when the $\lambda_j$ are on the boundary of $\cal D$, as happens for instance for the low-energy bosonic sectors of type I or heterotic superstrings [@dh1]. For a single $p$-form, the subcritical domain $\cal D$ takes the simple form $\vert \lambda_j \vert <\lambda_j^c$, where $\lambda_j^c$ depends on the form-degree and the spacetime dimension. ($\lambda_j^c$ can be infinite.) For a collection of $p$-forms, $\cal D$ is more complicated and not just given by the Cartesian product of the subcritical intervals associated with each individual $p$-form.
The above statements were derived by adopting a line of thought analogous to that followed by BKL. Now, as understood by BKL themselves, these arguments, although quite convincing, are somewhat heuristic. It is true that the original arguments have received since then a considerable amount of both numerical and analytical support [@bgimw; @BIW; @U1; @WIB; @garf]. Yet, they still await a complete proof. One notable exception is the four-dimensional gravity-dilaton system, which has been rigorously demonstrated in [@AR] to be indeed Kasner-like, confirming the original analysis [@BK2]. Using Fuchsian techniques, the authors of [@AR] have proven the existence of a local (analytic) Kasner-like solution to the Einstein-dilaton equations in four dimensions that contains as many arbitrary, physically relevant functions of space as there are local degrees of freedom, namely $6$ (counting $q$ and $\dot{q}$ independently). To our knowledge, this was the first construction, in a rigorous mathematical sense, of a general singular solution for a coupled Einstein-matter system. Note in this respect several previous works in which formal solutions had been constructed near (Kasner-like) cosmological singularities by explicit perturbative methods, to all orders of perturbation theory [@GM93; @BDV].
The situation concerning the more complicated (and in some sense more interesting) generalized mixmaster regime is unfortunately – and perhaps not surprisingly – not so well developed. Rigorous results are scarce (note [@mixinhom]) and even in the case of the spatially homogeneous Bianchi IX model only partial results exist in the literature [@mix].
The purpose of this paper is to extend the Fuchsian approach of [@AR] to the more complicated class of models described by the action (\[001\]) and to prove that those among the above models that were predicted in [@DHS; @dh1; @dh2] to be Kasner-like are indeed so. This provides many new instances where one can rigorously construct a general singular solution for a coupled Einstein-matter (or pure Einstein, in $D \geq 11$) system. In fact, our (Fuchsian-system-based) results prove that the formal perturbative solutions that can be explicitly built for these models do converge to exact solutions. This provides a further confirmation of the general validity of the BKL ideas. We shall also explicitly determine the subcritical domain $\cal D$ for a few illustrative models. For all the relevant systems, we construct local (near the singularity) analytic solutions, which are “general” in the sense that they contain the right number of freely adjustable arbitrary functions of space (in particular, these solutions have generically no isometries), and which exhibit the generalized (monotone) Kasner time dependence.
Strategy and outline of the paper
---------------------------------
Our approach is the same as in [@AR], and results from that work will be used frequently here without restating the arguments. Here is an outline of the key steps.
A $d + 1$ decomposition is used, for $d$ spatial dimensions, $d = D-1$. A Gaussian time coordinate, $t$, is chosen such that the singularity occurs at $t=0$. The first step in the argument consists of identifying the leading terms for all the variables. This is accomplished by writing down a set of evolution equations which is obtained by truncating the full evolution equations, and then solving this simpler set of evolution equations. This simpler evolution system is called the Kasner-like[^4] evolution system (or, alternatively, the velocity-dominated system). It is a system of ordinary differential equations with respect to time (one at each spatial point) which coincides with the system that arises when investigating metric-dilaton solutions that depend only on time. The precise truncation rules are given in subsection \[stepone\] below. The second step is to write down constraint equations for the Kasner-like system (called “velocity-dominated" constraints) and to show that these constraints propagate, [*i.e.,*]{} that if they are satisfied by a solution to the Kasner-like evolution equations at some time $t_0>0$, then they are satisfied for all time $t>0$. In the set of Kasner-like solutions, one expects that there is a subset, denoted by $V$, of solutions which have the property of being asymptotic to solutions of the complete Einstein-dilaton-$p$-form equations as $t \rightarrow 0$, i.e as one goes to the singularity. This subset is characterized by inequalities on some of the initial data, which, however, are not always consistent. The existence of a non-empty $V$ requires the dilaton couplings to belong to some range, the “subcritical range". When $V$ is non-empty and open, the solutions in $V$ involve as many arbitrary functions of space as a “general solution" of the full Einstein equations should. On the other hand, if $V$ is empty the construction given in this paper breaks down and the dynamical system is expected to be not Kasner-like but rather oscillatory.
To show that indeed, the solutions in $V$ (when it is non-empty) are asymptotic to true solutions, the third step is to identify decaying quantities such that these decaying quantities along with the leading terms mentioned above uniquely determine the variables, and to write down a [*Fuchsian*]{} system for the decaying quantities which is equivalent to the Einstein-matter evolution system. As the use of Fuchsian systems is central to our work let us briefly recall what a Fuchsian system is and how such a system is related to familiar iterative methods. For a more detailed introduction to Fuchsian techniques see [@AR; @KR; @R00a; @Rendall:2001ai] and references therein. Note that we shall everywhere restrict ourselves to the analytic case. We expect that our results extend to the $C^{\infty}$ case, but it is a non-trivial task to prove that they do.
The general form of a Fuchsian system for a vector-valued unknown function $u$ is $$\label{fuchs0}
t \, \partial_t u + {\cal A}(x) \, u = f(t,x,u,u_x),$$ where the matrix ${\cal A}(x)$ is required to satisfy some positivity condition (see below), while the “source term” $f$ on the right hand side is required to be “regular.” (See [@AR] for precise criteria allowing one to check when the positivity assumption on ${\cal A}(x)$ is satisfied and when $f$ is regular.) A key point is that $f$ is required to be bounded by terms of order $O(t^{\delta})$ (with $ t \rightarrow 0, \delta > 0$) as soon as $u $ and their space derivatives $ u_x$ are in a bounded set (a simple, concrete example of a source term satisfying this condition is $f = t^{\delta_1} + t^{\delta_2} u + t^{\delta_3} u_x$, with $\delta_i$’s larger than $\delta$). A convenient form of positivity condition to be satisfied by the matrix ${\cal A}(x)$ is that the operator norm of $\tau^{{\cal A}(x)}$ be bounded when $ 0< \tau < 1$ (and when $x$ varies in any open set). Essentially this condition restricts the eigenvalues of the matrix ${\cal A}(x)$ to have positive real parts. The basic property of Fuchsian systems that we shall use is that there is a unique solution to the Fuchsian equation which vanishes as $t$ tends to zero [@KR]. One can understand this theorem as a mathematically rigorous version of the recursive method for solving the equation (\[fuchs0\]). Indeed, when confronted with equation (\[fuchs0\]), it is natural to construct a solution by an iterative process, starting with the zeroth order approximation $u_0 =0$ (which is the unique solution of (\[fuchs0\]) with $f \equiv 0$ that tends to zero as $t \rightarrow 0$), and solving a sequence of equations of the form $t \partial_t u^{(n)} + {\cal A}(x) u^{(n)} =
f(t,x,u^{(n-1)},u^{(n-1)}_x)$. At each step in this iterative process the source term is a known function which essentially behaves (modulo logarithms) like a sum of powers of $t$ (with space-dependent coefficients). The crucial step in the iteration is then to solve equations of the type $t \partial_t u + {\cal A}(x) u = C(x) t^{\delta(x)}$. The positivity condition on ${\cal A}(x)$ guarantees the absence of homogeneous solutions remaining bounded as $ t \rightarrow 0$, and ensures the absence of “small denominators” in the (unique bounded) inhomogeneous solution generated by each partial source term: $ u_{\rm inhom} = (\delta + {\cal A})^{-1} C t^{\delta}$. (See, [*e.g.,*]{} [@BDV] for a concrete iterative construction of a Kasner-like solution and the proof that it extends to all orders.) This link between Fuchsian systems and “good systems” that can be solved to all orders in a formal iteration makes it a priori probable that all cases which the heuristic approach à la BKL has shown to be asymptotic to a Kasner-like solution (by checking that the leading “post-Kasner” contribution is asymptotically sub-dominant) can be cast in a Fuchsian form. The main technical burden of the present work will indeed be to show in detail how this can be carried out for the evolution systems corresponding to all the sub-critical ([*i.e.,*]{} non-oscillatory) Einstein-matter systems. Our Fuchsian formulation proves that (in the analytic case) the formal all-orders iterative solutions for the models we consider do actually converge to the unique, exact solution having a given leading Kasner asymptotic behaviour as $ t \to 0$.
Finally, the fourth step of our strategy is to prove that the constructed solution does satisfy also all the Einstein and Gauss-like constraints so that it is a solution of the full set of Einstein-matter equations. We shall deal successively with the matter (Gauss-like) constraints, and the Einstein constraints.
Our paper is organized as follows. In section \[scaMax4D\], we first consider the paradigmatic example of gravity coupled to a massless scalar field and to a Maxwell field in 4 spacetime dimensions. The action (\[001\]) reads in this case $$\label{action1}
S[g_{\alpha \beta}, \phi, A_\gamma] =
{1 \over 2} \int \{ R - \partial_\mu \phi \, \partial^\mu \phi
- {1 \over 2} F_{\mu \nu} F^{\mu \nu} e^{\lambda \phi} \}
\sqrt{-g} \, d^4 x.$$ For this simple example, we shall explicitly determine the subcritical domain $\cal D$, [*i.e.,*]{} the critical value $\lambda_c$ such that the system is Kasner-like when $-\lambda_c < \lambda < \lambda_c$. Because this case is exemplary of the general situation, while still being technically rather simple to handle, we shall describe in some detail the explicit steps of the Fuchsian approach.
In section \[vacuum\], vacuum solutions governed by the pure Einstein action (\[action2\]) with $D \geq 11$ are considered. This system was argued in [@DHS] to be Kasner-like and we show here how this rigorously follows from the Fuchsian approach. Note that, contrary to what happens when a dilaton is present, Fuchsian techniques apply here even though not all Kasner exponents can be positive.
In sections \[scalar\] – \[yangmills\], the results of the previous sections are generalized to the wider class of systems (\[001\]). First, in section \[scalar\], to solutions of Einstein’s equation with spacetime dimension $D \geq 3$ and a matter source consisting of a massless scalar field, governed by the action $S_E [g_{\alpha \beta}] + S_\phi[g_{\alpha \beta}, \phi]$. This is the generalization to any $D \geq 3$ of the case $D = 4$ treated in [@AR]. In section \[nform\], we turn to the general situation described by the action (\[001\]), without, however, including the additional terms represented there by “more”. We then give some general rules for computing the subcritical domain of the dilaton couplings guaranteeing velocity-dominance (section \[subcritical\]). The inclusion of interaction terms is considered in the last sections. It is shown that they do not affect the asymptotic analysis. This is done first for the Chern-Simons and Chapline-Manton interactions in section \[couple\], and next, in section \[yangmills\], for the Yang-Mills couplings (for some gauge group $G$), for which the action reads $$\label{actionym}
S[g_{\alpha \beta}, \phi, A_\gamma] =
{1 \over 2} \int \{ R - \partial_\mu \phi \, \partial^\mu \phi
- {1 \over 2} F_{\mu \nu} \cdot F^{\mu \nu} e^{\lambda \phi} \}
\sqrt{-g} \, d^D x.$$ Here the dot product, $F \cdot F$, is a time-independent, Ad-invariant, non-degenerate scalar product on the Lie algebra of $G$ (such a scalar product exists if the algebra is compact, or semi-simple). Contrary to what is done in sections \[scaMax4D\], \[nform\] and \[couple\], we must work now with the vector potential (and not just with the field strength), since it appears explicitly in the coupling terms. In section \[nonlinear\] we show that self-interactions of a rather general type for the scalar field can be included without changing the asymptotics of the solutions. Explicitly, we add a (nonlinear) potential term, $$\label{actionnl}
S_{\rm NL}[g_{\alpha \beta}, \phi] =
- \int V(\phi) \sqrt{-g} \, d^D x,$$ to the action (\[001\]), where $V(\phi)$ must fulfill some assumptions given in section \[nonlinear\]. $V(\phi)$ may, for example, be an exponential function of $\phi$, a constant, or a suitable power of $\phi$. Similar forms for $V(\phi)$ were considered with $D=4$ in [@R00b].
Finally, in section \[conclusions\], we state two theorems that summarize the main results of the paper and give concluding remarks.
On the generality of our construction
-------------------------------------
As we shall see the number of arbitrary functions contained in solutions to the velocity-dominated constraint equations is equal to the number of arbitrary functions for solutions to the Einstein-matter constraints. In this function-counting sense, our construction describes what is customarily called a “general” solution of the system. Intuitively speaking, our construction concerns some “open set” of the set of all solutions (indeed, the Kasner-like behaviour of the solution is unchanged under arbitrary, small perturbations of the initial data, because this simply amounts to changing the integration functions). Note that, in the physics literature, such a “general” solution is often referred to as being a “generic” solution. However, in the mathematics literature the word “generic” is restricted to describing either an open dense subset of the set of all solutions, or (when this can be defined) a subset of measure unity of the set of all solutions. In this work we shall stick to the mathematical terminology. We shall have nothing rigorous to say about whether our general solution is also generic. However, we wish to emphasize the following points.
First, let us mention that the set $V$ of solutions to the velocity-dominated equations that are asymptotic to solutions of the complete equations is not identical to the set $U$ of all solutions to the velocity-dominated constraint equations. The subset $V \subset U$ is defined by imposing some inequalities on the free data. These inequalities do not change the number of free functions. Therefore the solutions in $V$ are still “general”. One can wonder whether there could be a co-existing general behaviour, corresponding to initial data that do not fulfill the inequalities. For instance, could such “bad” initial data lead to a generalized mixmaster regime? This is a difficult question and we shall only summarize here what is the existing evidence. There are heuristic arguments, supported by numerical study, [@BK2; @DHS2; @Berger00; @BG] that suggest that if one starts with initial data that do not fulfill the inequalities, one ends up, after a finite transient period (with a finite number of “collisions" with potential walls), with a solution that is asymptotically velocity-dominated, for which the inequalities are fulfilled almost everywhere. In that sense, the inequalities would not represent a real restriction since there is a dynamical mechanism that drives the solution to the regime where they are satisfied. For the subcritical values of the dilaton couplings that make the inequalities defining $V$ consistent, there is thus no evidence for an alternative oscillatory regime corresponding to a different (open) region in the space of initial data[^5]. It has indeed been shown that the inequalities defining $V$ are no restriction in a large spatially homogeneous class [@mix]. Such rigorous results are, however, lacking in the inhomogeneous case. In fact, an interesting subtlety might take place in the inhomogeneous case. The heuristic arguments and numerical studies of [@Berger00; @BG] suggest the possibility that the mechanism driving the system to $V$ may be suppressed at exceptional spatial points in general spacetimes, with the result that the asymptotic data at the exceptional spatial points are not consistent with the inequalities we assume and lead to so-called “spikes". This picture has been given a firm basis in a scalar field model with symmetries [@RW] but the status of the spikes in a general context remains unclear.
Finally, since we only deal with spacelike singularities, the classes of solutions we consider do not contain all solutions governed by the action (\[001\]). Other types of singularities ([*e.g.*]{} timelike or null ones) are known to exist. Whether these other types of singularities are general is, however, an open question.
Billiard picture
----------------
At each spatial point, the solution of the coupled Einstein-matter system can be pictured, in the vicinity of a spacelike singularity, as a billiard motion in a region of hyperbolic space [@Chitre; @Misnerb; @tDmH; @melni]. Hyperbolic billiards are chaotic when they have finite volume and non chaotic otherwise. In this latter case, the “billiard ball" generically escapes freely to infinity after a finite number of collisions with the bounding walls. Subcritical Einstein-matter systems define infinite-volume billiards. The velocity-dominated solutions correspond precisely to the last (as $t \rightarrow 0$) free motion (after all collisions have taken place), in which the billiard ball moves to infinity in hyperbolic space.
Conventions
-----------
We adopt a “mostly plus” signature ($-+++ \ldots$). The spacetime dimension is $ D \equiv d + 1$. Greek indices range from $0$ to $d$, while Latin indices $\in \{1,\ldots,d\}$. The spatial Ricci tensor is labeled $R$ and the spacetime Ricci tensor is labeled $^{(D)}R$. Our curvature conventions are such that the Ricci tensor of a sphere is positive definite. Einstein’s equations read $G_{\alpha \beta} = T_{\alpha \beta}$, where $G_{\alpha \beta} = R_{\alpha \beta} - R g_{\alpha \beta}/2$ denotes the Einstein tensor and $T_{\alpha \beta}$ denotes the matter stress-energy tensor, $T_{\alpha \beta}
= - (2/ \sqrt{-g}) \delta S_{\rm matter}/ \delta g^{\alpha \beta}$, and units such that $ 8 \pi G =1$. The spatial metric compatible covariant derivative is labeled $\nabla_a$ and the spacetime metric compatible covariant derivative is labeled $^{(D)} \nabla_\alpha$. The velocity-dominated metric compatible covariant derivative is labeled $^0 \nabla_a$. According to the context, $g$ denotes the (positive) determinant of $g_{ab}$ in $d +1$-decomposed expressions, and the (negative) determinant of $g_{\mu \nu}$ in spacetime expressions. Whenever $t^\delta$ or $t^{-\delta}$ appears, $\delta$ denotes a strictly positive number, arbitrarily small. We use Einstein’s summation convention on repeated tensor indices of different variances. (When the need arises to suspend the summation conventions for some non-tensorial indices, we shall explicitly mention it.) In expressions where there is a sum that the indices do not indicate, all sums in the expression are indicated explicitly by a summation symbol. Indices on the velocity-dominated metric and the velocity-dominated extrinsic curvature are raised and lowered with the velocity-dominated metric.
$d+1$ decomposition {#stepzero}
-------------------
Consider a solution to the Einstein’s equations following from (\[001\]), consisting of a Lorentz metric and matter fields on a $D$-dimensional manifold $M$ which is diffeomorphic to $(0,T) \times \Sigma$ for a $d$-dimensional manifold, $\Sigma$, such that the metric induced on each $t =$ constant hypersurface is Riemannian, for $t \in (0,T)$. Here $D$ is an integer strictly greater than two. Furthermore, consider a $d+1$ decomposition of the Einstein tensor, $G_{\alpha \beta}$, and the stress-energy tensor, $T_{\alpha \beta}$, with a Gaussian time coordinate, $t \in (0,T)$, and a local frame $\{e_a\}$ on $\Sigma$. Note that the frame $e_a = e_a^i(x) \partial_i$ is time-independent. The spacetime metric reads $ds^2 = - dt^2 + g_{a b}(t,x) e^a e^b$, where $e^a = e^a_i(x) d x^i$ (with $e^a_i e^i_b = \delta^a_b$) is the co-frame. Let $\rho = T_{00}$, $j_a = - T_{0a}$ and $S_{ab} = T_{ab}$. Define $$\begin{aligned}
\label{hamiltonian1}
C & = & 2 G_{00} - 2 T_{0 0} \\
& = & -{k^a}_b \, {k^b}_a + ( {\mbox{tr}}\, k )^2 + R - 2 \rho. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $C=0$ is the Hamiltonian constraint. Similarly, $C_a = 0$ is the momentum constraint, where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{momentum1}
C_a & = & -G_{0a} + T_{0a} \\
& = & \nabla_b {k^b}_a - \nabla_a ({\mbox{tr}}\, k) - j_a. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ In Gaussian coordinates, the relation between the metric and the extrinsic curvature is $$\label{dtg}
\partial_t g_{ab} = -2 k_{ab}.$$ The evolution equation for the extrinsic curvature is obtained by setting ${E^a}_b=0$, with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eveq1}
{E^a}_b & = & ^{(D)}{R^a}_b - {T^a}_b + {1 \over(D- 2)} T \, {\delta^a}_b \\
\label{eveq}
\Rightarrow \; \partial_t {k^a}_b & = &
{R^a}_b + ({\mbox{tr}}\, k) \, {k^a}_b - {M^a}_b.\end{aligned}$$ Here $${M^a}_b = {S^a}_b - {1 \over D-2} (({\mbox{tr}}\, S) - \rho) {\delta^a}_b.$$
Scalar and Maxwell fields in four dimensions
============================================
\[scaMax4D\]
Equations of motion
-------------------
As said above, let us start by considering in detail, as archetypal system, the system defined by the action (\[action1\]), [*i.e.,*]{} the spacetime dimension is $D=4$ and the matter fields are a massless scalar field exponentially coupled to a Maxwell field, with the magnitude of the dilaton coupling constant smaller in magnitude than some positive real number determined below, $0 \leq |\lambda| < \lambda_c$. The stress-energy tensor of the matter fields is $$T_{\mu \nu} = \, ^{(4)}\nabla_\mu \phi \,
^{(4)}\nabla_\nu \phi - {1 \over 2} g_{\mu \nu} \,
^{(4)}\nabla_\alpha \phi \,
^{(4)}\nabla^\alpha \phi + [F_{\mu \alpha} {F_\nu}^ \alpha
-{1 \over 4} g_{\mu \nu} F_{\alpha \beta} F^{\alpha \beta} ] e^{\lambda \phi}.$$ The matter fields satisfy the following equations. $$\begin{aligned}
^{(4)}\nabla_\alpha \, ^{(4)}\nabla^\alpha \phi & = & {\lambda \over 4}
F_{\alpha \beta} F^{\alpha \beta} e^{\lambda \phi}, \nonumber \\
^{(4)}\nabla_\mu (F^{\mu \nu} e^{\lambda \phi}) & = & 0, \nonumber \\
^{(4)}\nabla_{[ \alpha} F_{\beta \gamma ]} & = & 0. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The 3+1 decomposition of the stress-energy tensor is best expressed in terms of the electric spatial vector density ${\cal E}^a = \sqrt{g} \, F^{0a} e^{\lambda \phi}$ and the magnetic antisymmetric spatial tensor $F_{ab}$. $$\begin{aligned}
\rho & = & {1 \over 2} \{ (\partial_t \phi)^2 + g^{ab} e_a(\phi) e_b(\phi)
+{1 \over g} g_{ab} {\cal E}^a {\cal E}^b e^{-\lambda \phi} +
{1 \over 2} g^{ab} g^{ch} F_{ac} F_{bh} e^{\lambda \phi} \}, \nonumber \\
j_a & = & - \partial_t \phi \, e_a(\phi) +
{1 \over \sqrt{g} } {\cal E}^b \, F_{ab}, \nonumber \\
\label{calcM}
{M^a}_b & = & g^{ac} e_b(\phi) \, e_c(\phi)
- {1 \over g} \{ g_{bc} {\cal E}^a {\cal E}^c
- {1 \over 2} {\delta^a}_b g_{ch} {\cal E}^c {\cal E}^h \}
e^{-\lambda \phi} \nonumber \\ & & \; \;
+ \{ g^{ac} g^{hi} F_{ch} F_{bi} - {1 \over 4} {\delta^a}_b
g^{ch} g^{ij} F_{ci} F_{hj} \} e^{\lambda \phi}.\end{aligned}$$ The matter constraint equations are $$\begin{aligned}
\label{elconstraint}
e_a ( {\cal E}^a) + f^b_{ba} \, {\cal E}^a & = & 0 \\
\label{magconstraint}
e_{[a}(F_{bc]}) + f^h_{[a b} F_{c] h}& = & 0.\end{aligned}$$ Here $f^c_{ab}$ are the (time-independent) structure functions of the frame, $[e_a, e_b] = f^c_{ab} e_c$. The matter evolution equations are $$\begin{aligned}
\partial^2_t \phi - ({\mbox{tr}}k) \partial_t \phi & = & g^{ab} \nabla_a \nabla_b \phi
+ {\lambda \over 2 g } g_{ab} {\cal E}^a {\cal E}^b e^{-\lambda \phi}
- {\lambda \over 4 } g^{ab} g^{ch} F_{ac} F_{bh} e^{\lambda \phi},
\label{evoldil}\\
\partial_t {\cal E}^a & = & e_b( \sqrt{g} g^{ac} g^{bh} F_{ch}
e^{\lambda \phi})
+ (f^i_{ib} g^{ac} + {1 \over 2} f^a_{bi} g^{ic})
\sqrt{g} g^{bh} F_{ch} e^{\lambda \phi}, \label{evole}\\
\partial_t F_{ab} & = & -2 e_{[a} ( {1 \over \sqrt{g}}
g_{b] c} {\cal E}^c e^{-\lambda \phi}) + f^c_{ab}
{1 \over \sqrt{g}} g_{c h} {\cal E}^h e^{-\lambda \phi}.
\label{evolm}\end{aligned}$$
Velocity-dominated evolution equations and solution {#stepone}
---------------------------------------------------
The Kasner-like, or velocity-dominated, evolution equations are obtained from the full evolution equations by: (i) dropping the spatial derivatives from the right hand sides of (\[eveq\]), (\[evoldil\]), (\[evole\]) and (\[evolm\]) (note that $f^c_{ab}$-terms count as derivatives and that we keep the time derivatives of the magnetic field in (\[evolm\]) even though $F_{a b} = \partial_a A_b -\partial_b A_a $); and (ii) dropping the $p$-form terms in both the Einstein and dilaton evolution equations. This is a general rule and yields in this case $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dtg0}
\partial_t \, ^0g_{ab} & = & -2 \, ^0k_{ab}, \\
\label{dtk0}
\partial_t \, ^0{k^a}_b & = & ({\mbox{tr}}\, ^0k) \, ^0{k^a}_b, \\
\label{dtphi0}
\partial^2_t \, ^0 \phi - ({\mbox{tr}}\, ^0k) \, \partial_t \, ^0 \phi & = & 0, \\
\label{dtE0}
\partial_t \, {}^0 {\cal E}^a & = & 0, \\
\label{dtF0}
\partial_t \, {}^0 F_{ab} & = & 0.\end{aligned}$$ (As we shall see below, interaction terms of Yang-Mills or other types – if any – should also be dropped.)
It is easy to find the general analytic solution of the evolution system (\[dtg0\]) – (\[dtF0\]) since the equations are the same as for “Bianchi type I" homogeneous models (one such set of equations per spatial point). Taking the trace of (\[dtk0\]) shows that $ -1/ {\mbox{tr}}\, ^0k = t + C(x)$. By a suitable redefinition of the time variable one can set $C(x)$ to zero. Then (\[dtk0\]) shows that $- t \,^0{k^a}_b \equiv {K^a}_b$ is a constant matrix (which must satisfy ${\mbox{tr}}K = {K^a}_a = 1$, and be such that $^0g_{a c }(t_0) {K^c}_b$ is symmetric in $a$ and $b$), $$\label{0kab1}
^0 {k^a}_b(t) = - t^{-1} \, {K^a}_b .$$ Injecting this information into (\[dtg0\]) leads to a linear evolution system for $ ^0g_{a b}$: $ t \, \partial_t \, ^0 g_{a b} = 2 \; ^0 g_{a c } {K^c}_b$, which is solved by exponentiation, $$\label{exp}
\label{0gab1}
^0 g_{ab}(t) = \, ^0 g_{ac}(t_0) {{\left[ {\left(
{t \over t_0} \right)}^{2 K} \right]}^c}_b.$$ The other evolution equations are also easy to solve, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{0phi1}
^0 \phi(t) & = & A \ln t + B, \\
\label{0E1}
^0 {\cal E}^a(t) & = & ^0 {\cal E}^a \\
\label{0F1}
^0 F_{ab}(t) & = & ^0 F_{ab}.\end{aligned}$$ In (\[0gab1\]) $(t/t_0)^{2 K}$ denotes the exponentiation of a matrix. Quantities on the left hand side of (\[0kab1\]) – (\[0F1\]) may be functions of both time and space, while all the time dependence of the right hand side is made explicit. For instance, (\[0F1\]) is saying that the spacetime dependence of the general magnetic field $^0 F_{ab}(t,x)$ (solution of the velocity-dominated evolution system) is reduced to a simple space dependence $^0 F_{ab}(x)$ (where $^0F_{ab}$ is an antisymmetric spatial tensor). Let $p_a$ denote the eigenvalues of ${K^a}_b$, ordered such that $p_1 \leq p_2 \leq p_3$. Since ${\mbox{tr}}K=1$, we have the constraint p\_1 + p\_2 + p\_3 =1. \[Kasn1a\] In the works of BKL the matrix solution (\[0gab1\]) is simplified by using a special frame $\{e_a\}$ with respect to which the matrices $^0 g_{ab}(t_0)$ and ${K^a}_b$ are diagonal. However, as emphasized in [@AR], this choice can not necessarily be made analytically on neighbourhoods where the number of distinct eigenvalues of ${K^a}_b$ is not constant. To obtain an analytic solution, while still controlling the relation of the solution to the eigenvalues of ${K^a}_b$, a special construction was introduced in [@AR]. This construction is based on some (possibly small) neighbourhood $U_0$ of an arbitrary spatial point $x_0 \in \Sigma$ and uses a set of auxiliary exponents $q_a(x)$. These auxiliary exponents remain numerically close to the exact “Kasner exponents” $p_a(x)$, are analytic and enable one to define an analytic frame (see below). To construct the auxiliary exponents $q_a(x)$ one distinguishes three cases:
Case I (near isotropic): If all three eigenvalues are equal at $x_0$, choose a number $\epsilon > 0$ so that for $x \in U_0$, $\max_{a,b} |p_a(x) - p_b(x)| < \epsilon/2$. In this case define $q_a = 1/3$ on $U_0$, $a = 1,2,3$.
Case II (near double eigenvalue): If the number of distinct eigenvalues at $x_0$ is two, choose $\epsilon > 0$ so that for $x \in U_0$, $\max_{a,b} |p_a - p_b| > \epsilon/2$, and $|p_{a'} - p_{b'}| < \epsilon/2$ for some pair, $a'$, $b'$, $a' \neq b'$, shrinking $U_0$ if necessary. Denote by $p_\perp$ the distinguished exponent not equal to $p_{a'}$, $p_{b'}$. In this case define $q_\perp = p_\perp$ and $q_{a'} = q_{b'} = (1 - q_\perp)/2$ on $U_0$.
Case III (near diagonalizable): If all eigenvalues are distinct at $x_0$, choose $\epsilon > 0$ so that for $x \in U_0$, $\min_{\stackrel{a,b}{a \neq b}} |p_a(x) - p_b(x)| > \epsilon/2$, shrinking $U_0$ if necessary. In this case define $q_a = p_a$ on $U_0$.
The frame $\{ e_a \}$, called the adapted frame, is required to be such that the related (time-dependent) frame $\{ \tilde e_a (t) \equiv t^{-q_a} e_a \}$ is orthonormal with respect to the velocity-dominated metric at some time $t_0 > 0$, [*i.e.,*]{} such that $ ^0g_{a b}(t_0) = t_0^{2 q_a} \delta_{a b}$. (Here and in the rest of the paper, the Einstein summation convention does not apply to indices on $q_a$ and $p_a$. These indices should be ignored when determining sums. Furthermore, quantities with a tilde will refer to the frame $\{ \tilde e_a (t)\}$.)
In addition, in Case II it is required that $e_\perp$ be an eigenvector of $K$ corresponding to $q_\perp$ and that $e_{a'}$, $e_{b'}$ span the eigenspace of $K$ corresponding to the eigenvalues $p_{a'}$, $p_{b'}$. In case III it is required that the $e_{a}$ be eigenvectors of $K$ corresponding to the eigenvalues $q_a (\equiv p_a)$. In all cases it is required that $\{ e_a \}$ be analytic. The auxiliary exponents, $q_a$, are analytic, satisfy the Kasner relation $\sum q_a = 1$, are ordered ($q_1 \leq q_2 \leq q_3$), and satisfy $q_1 \geq p_1$, $q_3 \leq p_3$ and $\max_a |q_a - p_a| < \epsilon/2$. If $q_a \neq q_b$, then $^0g_{ab}$, $^0g^{ab}$, $^0 \tilde g_{ab}$ and $^0 \tilde g^{ab}$ all vanish, and the same is true with $g$ replaced by $k$.
Equations (\[0kab1\]) – (\[0F1\]), with the form of $g_{ab}(t_0)$ and ${K^a}_b$ specialized as given just above, are the general analytic solution to the velocity-dominated evolution equations in the sense that any analytic solution to the velocity-dominated evolution equations takes this form near any $x_0 \in \Sigma$ by choice of (global) time coordinate and (local) spatial frame.
Velocity-dominated constraint equations {#steptwo}
---------------------------------------
When written in terms of the velocity-dominated variables, the velocity-dominated constraints take the same form as the full constraint equations, except the Hamiltonian constraint, which is obtained by dropping spatial gradients and electromagnetic contributions to the energy-density. This is a general rule, valid also for the more general models considered below. Thus, if we define $$\begin{aligned}
^0 \rho & = & {1 \over 2} (\partial_t \, ^0 \phi)^2, \nonumber \\
^0 j_a & = & - \partial_t \, ^0 \phi \, e_a(\, ^0 \phi) +
{1 \over \sqrt{ \, ^0 g} } \, ^0 {\cal E}^b \, \, ^0 F_{ab}, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ we get $^0C=0$ and $^0C_a = 0$ for the velocity-dominated constraints corresponding to the Hamiltonian and momentum constraints, with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{hamiltonian0}
^0C & = & -\,{^0k^a}_b \, {^0k^b}_a + ( {\mbox{tr}}\, ^0k )^2 - 2 \, ^0\rho, \\
\label{momentum0}
^0C_a & = & \, ^0\nabla_b \, ^0{k^b}_a - e_a ({\mbox{tr}}\, ^0k) - \, ^0j_a.\end{aligned}$$ The velocity-dominated matter constraint equations read $$\begin{aligned}
e_a ( \, ^0 {\cal E}^a) + f^b_{ba} \, ^0 {\cal E}^a & = & 0, \nonumber \\
e_{[a}( \, ^0 F_{bc]}) + f^h_{[a b} \, ^0 F_{c] h} & = & 0. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
For the solution (\[0kab1\]) – (\[0phi1\]) the velocity-dominated Hamiltonian constraint equation is equivalent to \^2 + A\^2 = 1. \[Kasn1b\] The conditions (\[Kasn1a\]) and (\[Kasn1b\]) are the famous Kasner conditions when the dilaton is present. While $p_1$ is necessarily non-positive when $A =0$, this is no longer the case when the dilaton is nontrivial ($A \not=0$): all $p_a$’s can then be positive. This is the major feature associated with the presence of the dilaton, which turns the mixmaster behaviour of (4-dimensional) vacuum gravity into the velocity-dominated behaviour. We shall call $(p_a,A)$ the Kasner exponents (because they are the exponents of the proper time in the solution for the scale factors and $\exp \phi$) and refer to (\[Kasn1a\]) and (\[Kasn1b\]) as the Kasner conditions (note that $A$ is often denoted $p_{\phi}$ to emphasize its relation to the kinetic energy of $\phi$, and its similarity with the other exponents).
A straightforward calculation shows that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dt0C}
\partial_t \, {}^0 C - 2 ({\mbox{tr}}\, {}^0 k) \, {}^0 C & = & 0 ,\\
\label{dt0Ca}
\partial_t \, {}^0 C_a - ({\mbox{tr}}\, {}^0 k) \, {}^0 C_a & = &
-{1 \over 2} e_a( \, {}^0 C ).\end{aligned}$$ Thus if the velocity-dominated Hamiltonian and momentum constraints are satisfied at some $t_0 > 0$, then they are satisfied for all $t>0$. Similarly, since $^0 {\cal E}^a$ and $^0 F_{ab}$ are independent of time, if the matter constraints are satisfied at some time $t_0 > 0$, then they are clearly satisfied for all time.
Critical value of dilaton coupling $\lambda_c$ {#criticalvalue}
----------------------------------------------
Our ultimate goal is to show that the velocity-dominated solutions asymptotically approach (as $t \rightarrow 0$) solutions of the original system of equations. We shall prove that this is the case provided the Kasner exponents $p_i, A$, subject to the Kasner conditions \^2 - ()\^2 + A\^2 = 0, = 1 \[Kasner1\] obey additional restrictions. These restrictions are inequalities on the Kasner exponents and read explicitly $$\label{inequalities1}
2 p_1 - \lambda A > 0, \hspace{20pt} p_1 >0,
\hspace{20pt} 2 p_1 + \lambda A > 0.$$ As explained in [@dh1], and rigorously checked below, these restrictions are necessary and sufficient to ensure that the terms that are dropped when replacing the full Einstein-dilaton-Maxwell equations by the velocity-dominated equations become indeed negligible as $t \to 0$. More precisely, the first condition (respectively the third) among (\[inequalities1\]) guarantees that one can neglect the electric (respectively, magnetic) part of the energy-momentum tensor of the electromagnetic field in the Einstein equations, whereas the condition $p_1>0$ is necessary for the spatial curvature terms to be asymptotically negligible. The conditions (\[inequalities1\]) define the set $V$ of velocity-dominated solutions referred to in the introduction.
It is clear that if $\vert \lambda \vert$ is small enough – in particular, if $\lambda = 0$ – the inequalities (\[inequalities1\]) can be fulfilled since the Kasner exponents can be all positive when the dilaton is included. But if $\vert \lambda \vert$ is greater that some critical value $\lambda_c$, it is impossible to fulfill simultaneously the Kasner conditions (\[Kasner1\]) and the inequalities (\[inequalities1\]), because one of the terms $\pm \lambda A$ becomes more negative than $2p_1$ is positive. In that case, the set $V$ is empty and our construction breaks down. For $\vert \lambda \vert
<\lambda_c$, however, the set $V$ is non-empty and, in fact, stable under small perturbations of the Kasner exponents since (\[inequalities1\]) defines an open region on the Kasner sphere. We determine in this subsection the critical value $\lambda_c$ such that (\[Kasner1\]) and (\[inequalities1\]) are compatible whenever $\vert \lambda \vert
<\lambda_c$.
To that end, we follow the geometric approach of [@tDmH; @DHJN]. In the 4-dimensional space of the Kasner exponents $(p_a,A)$, we consider the “wall chamber” ${\cal W}$ defined to be the conical domain where p\_1 p\_2 p\_3, 2 p\_a - A 0, p\_a 0, 2 p\_a + A 0. These inequalities are not all independent since the four conditions p\_1 p\_2 p\_3, 2 p\_1 - A 0, 2 p\_1 + A 0 \[wallcone\] imply all others. The quadratic Kasner condition (\[Kasner1\]) can be rewritten G\_ p\^p\^= 0, (p\^) (p\_a, A) \[light\] where $G_{\m \n}$ defines a metric in “Kasner-exponent space” dS\^2 = G\_ dp\^dp\^= \^2 - ()\^2 + (dA)\^2 \[Kmetric\] The metric (\[Kmetric\]) has Minkowskian signature $(-,+,+,+)$. An example of timelike direction is given by $p_1 = p_2 = p_3$, $A=0$. Inside or on the light cone, the function $\sum {p_a}$ does not vanish. The upper light cone (in the space of the Kasner exponents) is conventionally defined by (\[light\]) and the extra condition $\sum {p_a} >0$. It is clear from our discussion that the Kasner conditions (\[Kasner1\]) and the inequalities (\[inequalities1\]) are compatible if and only if there are lightlike directions in the interior of the wall chamber ${\cal W}$ (by rescaling $p^\m \rightarrow \a p^\m$, $\a >0$, one can always make $\sum p_a = 1$ for any point in the interior of the wall chamber so that this condition does not bring a restriction). The problem amounts accordingly to determining the relative position of the light cone (\[light\]) and the wall chamber (\[wallcone\]).
This is most easily done by computing the edges of (\[wallcone\]), [*i.e.,*]{} the one-dimensional intersections of three faces among the four faces (\[wallcone\]) of ${\cal W}$. There are four of them: (i) $p_1 = p_2 = A = 0$, $p_3 = \a$; (ii) $p_1 = A = 0; p_2
=p_3 = \a$; (iii) $2p_1 = 2p_2 = 2p_3 = \lambda A = \a$; and (iv) $2p_1 = 2p_2 = 2p_3 = -\lambda A = \a$, where in each case, $\a \geq 0$ is a parameter along the edge ($\a = 0$ being the origin). The vectors $e^\m_A$ ($A=1,2,3,4$) along the edges corresponding to $\a = 1$, namely $(0,0,1,0)$, $(0,1,1,0)$, $(1/2, 1/2, 1/2, 1/\lambda)$ and $(1/2, 1/2, 1/2, -1/\lambda)$ form a basis in Kasner-exponent space. Any vector $v^\m$ can thus be expanded along the $e^\m_A$, $v^\m = v^A e^\m_A$. A point $P$ in Kasner-exponent space is on or inside the wall chamber ${\cal W}$ if and only if its coordinates $p^A$ in this basis fulfill $p^A \geq 0$ with $P$ inside when $p^A >0$ for all $A's$. Thus, if all the edge vectors $e^\m_A$ are timelike or lightlike, the Kasner conditions are incompatible with the inequalities (\[inequalities1\]) since any linear combination of causal vectors with non-negative coefficients is on or inside the forward light cone (the $e^\m_A$’s are future-directed since $p_1 + p_2 + p_3 >0$ for all of them). If, however, one (or more) of the edge vectors lies outside the light cone, then, the Kasner conditions and the inequalities (\[inequalities1\]) are compatible. The nature of some of the edge vectors depends on the value of the dilaton coupling $\lambda$: while the first one is always lightlike and the second one always timelike, the squared norm of the last two is $ - 3/2 + 1/\lambda^2 = (2 - 3 \lambda^2) /( 2 \lambda^2)$. This determines the critical value \_c = \[critical\] such that the edge vectors are timelike or null (incompatible inequalities) if $ \vert \lambda \vert \geq \lambda_c$, but spacelike (compatible inequalities) if $ \vert \lambda \vert < \lambda_c$. Note that the value of $\lambda$ that arises from dimensionally reducing $5$-dimensional vacuum gravity down to $4$ dimensions is $\lambda = \sqrt{6}$ and exceeds the critical value. This “explains” the conclusion reached in [@BK2] that the gravity-dilaton-Maxwell system obtained by Kaluza-Klein reduction of 5-dimensional gravity is oscillatory.
We shall assume from now on that $\vert \lambda \vert
<\lambda_c$ and that the Kasner exponents fulfill the above inequalities. For later use, we choose a number $\sigma > 0$ so that, for all $x \in U_0$, $\sigma < 2 p_1 - \lambda A $, $\sigma < 2 p_1 + \lambda A $ and $\sigma < p_1/2 $. Reduce $\epsilon$ if necessary so that $\epsilon < \sigma/7 $. If $\epsilon$ is reduced, it may be necessary to shrink $U_0$ so that the conditions imposed in section \[stepone\] remain satisfied. In section \[stepthree\] it is assumed that $\epsilon$ and $U_0$ are such that the conditions imposed in section \[stepone\] and the conditions imposed in this paragraph are all satisfied.
Fuchsian system which is equivalent to the Einstein-matter evolution equations {#stepthree}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
### Rewriting of equations
Theorem 3 in [@AR] (theorem 4.2 in preprint version), on which we rely for our result, states that a Fuchsian equation ([*i.e.,*]{} as we mentioned above, an equation of the form (\[fuchs0\]) where $\cal A$ satisfies a positivity condition and $f$ is regular, which includes a boundedness property) has a unique solution $u$ that vanishes as $t \downarrow 0$, and furthermore spatial derivatives of $u$ of any order vanish as $t \downarrow 0$, as shown in [@KR]. Our goal is to recast the Einstein-matter evolution equations as a Fuchsian equation for the deviations from the velocity-dominated solutions. Thus, we denote the unknown vector $u$ as $$\label{ucomponents}
u = ({\gamma^a}_b, {\lambda^a}_{bc},
{\kappa^a}_b, \psi, \omega_a, \chi,\xi^a,\varphi_{ab})$$ where the variables ${\gamma^a}_b$ [*etc.*]{} are related to the Einstein-matter variables by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{defgamma}
g_{ab} & = & \, ^0 g_{ab} + \, ^0 g_{ac} t^{{\alpha^c}_b}
{\gamma^c}_b, \\
\label{deflambda}
e_c({\gamma^a}_b) & = & t^{-\zeta} {\lambda^a}_{bc}, \\
\label{defkappa}
k_{ab} & = & g_{ac}( \, ^0{k^c}_b + t^{-1 + {\alpha^c}_b}
{\kappa^c}_b), \\
\label{defpsi}
\phi & = & \,^0 \phi + t^\beta \psi, \\
\label{defomega}
e_a(\psi) & = & t^{-\zeta} \omega_a, \\
\label{defchi}
t \, \partial_t \psi + \beta \, \psi & = & \chi, \\
\label{defxi}
{\cal E}^a & = & \, ^0 {\cal E}^a + t^\beta \xi^a, \\
\label{defvarphi}
F_{ab} & = & \, ^0 F_{ab} + t^\beta \varphi_{ab}.\end{aligned}$$ In the first of these equations $t^{{\alpha^c}_b}$ is [*not*]{} the exponentiation of a matrix with components ${\alpha^c}_b$ such as occurs in (\[exp\]). The expression $t^{{\alpha^c}_b}$ is for each fixed value of $c$ and $b$ the number which is $t$ raised to the power given by the number ${\alpha^c}_b$ (defined below). In equations (\[defgamma\]) and (\[defkappa\]) there is no summation on the index $b$ (but there is a summation on $c$). In (\[defvarphi\]) $\varphi_{ab}$ is a totally antisymmetric spatial tensor, which contributes three independent components to $u$. This assumption is consistent with the form of the evolution equation for $\varphi_{ab}$, equation (\[fuchvarphi\]) below. The exponents appearing in (\[defgamma\]) – (\[defvarphi\]) are as follows. Define $\alpha_0 = 4 \epsilon$, $\beta = \epsilon/100$ and $\zeta = \epsilon/200$ (where $\epsilon$ is the same (small) quantity which entered the definition of the auxiliary exponents $q_a$ in section \[stepone\] and which was further restricted at the end of section \[criticalvalue\]). All of these quantities are independent of $t$ and $x$. Finally define $${\alpha^a}_b = 2 \max(q_b - q_a, 0) + \alpha_0 =
2 q_{\max \{ a,b \} } - 2 q_a + \alpha_0.$$ Note that the numbers ${\alpha^a}_b$ are all strictly positive. In the second definition of ${\alpha^a}_b$ we have used the fact that the $q_a$’s are ordered. The role of ${\alpha^a}_b$ is to shift the spectrum of the Fuchsian-system matrix $\cal A$, in equation (\[fuchs0\]), to be positive. It is not clear to what extent the choice of ${\alpha^a}_b$ is fixed by the requirement of getting a Fuchsian system. It seems that the (triangle-like) inequality (42) of [@AR] (inequality (5.9) in preprint version) is a key property of these coefficients. We shall further comment below on the specific choice of ${\alpha^a}_b$ and its link with the BKL-type approach to the cosmological behaviour near $t = 0$.
When writing the first-order evolution system for $u$ we momentarily abandon the restriction that $g_{ab}$ and $k_{ab}$ be symmetric, as in [@AR]. Thus we need to define $g^{ab}$, and we do so by requiring that $g_{ab} g^{bc} = {\delta_a}^c$. This implies that $g^{ab} g_{bc} = {\delta^a}_c$. We lower indices on tensors by contraction with the second index of $g_{ab}$ and also raise indices on tensors by contraction with the second index of $g^{ab}$. This choice is so that raising and then lowering a given index results in the original tensor, and the same for lowering and then raising an index. The position of the indices on quantities appearing in $u$ and other such quantities is fixed. Repeated indices on these quantities imply a summation. On the other hand, as we already mentioned above, one qualifies the summation convention by insisting that indices repeated only because of their occurrence on $p_a$, $q_a$, ${\alpha^a}_b$ and other such non-tensorial quantities should be ignored when determining sums.
Substituting (\[defgamma\]) – (\[defvarphi\]) in the evolution equations yields equations of motion for $u$ of the form (\[fuchs0\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{fuchgamma}
&&\hspace{-40pt}
t \, \partial_t {\gamma^a}_b + {\alpha^a}_b {\gamma^a}_b
+ 2 {\kappa^a}_b -2 (t \, ^0{k^a}_c) {\gamma^c}_b
+ 2 {\gamma^a}_c (t \, ^0{k^c}_b) \; = \;
-2 \, t^{{\alpha^a}_c + {\alpha^c}_b - {\alpha^a}_b}
{\gamma^a}_c {\kappa^c}_b \\
\label{fuchlambda}
&&\hspace{-40pt}
t \, \partial_t {\lambda^a}_{bc} \; = \;
t^\zeta e_c(t \, \partial_t {\gamma^a}_b)
+ \zeta \, t^\zeta e_c({\gamma^a}_b) \\
\label{fuchkappa}
&&\hspace{-40pt}
t \, \partial_t {\kappa^a}_b + {\alpha^a}_b {\kappa^a}_b
-(t \, ^0{k^a}_b) ({\mbox{tr}}\kappa) \; = \; t^{\alpha_0} ({\mbox{tr}}\kappa) {\kappa^a}_b
+ t^{2 - {\alpha^a}_b} (\, ^S {R^a}_b - {M^a}_b) \\
\label{fuchpsi}
&&\hspace{-40pt}
t \, \partial_t \psi + \beta \psi - \chi \; = \; 0 \\
\label{fuchomega}
&&\hspace{-40pt}
t \, \partial_t \omega_a \; = \; t^\zeta \{ e_a(\chi)
+ (\zeta - \beta) e_a(\psi) \} \\
\label{fuchchi}
&&\hspace{-40pt}
t \, \partial_t \chi + \beta \chi \; = \; t^{\alpha_0 - \beta}
({\mbox{tr}}\, \kappa) ( A + t ^\beta \chi ) + t^{2 - \beta}
g^{ab} \nabla_a \nabla_b \, ^0 \phi + t^{2 - \zeta} \nabla^a \omega_a
\nonumber \\ && \hspace{60pt}
+t^{2 - \beta} \{ {\lambda \over 2 g}
g_{ab} {\cal E}^a {\cal E}^b e^{-\lambda \phi}
- {\lambda \over 4} g^{ab} g^{ch} F_{ac} F_{bh}
e^{\lambda \phi} \} \\
\label{fuchxi}
&&\hspace{-40pt}
t \, \partial_t \xi^a + \beta \xi^a \; = \;
t^{1 - \beta} \{
e_b( \sqrt{g} g^{ac} g^{bh} F_{ch} e^{\lambda \phi}) \nonumber \\
&& \hspace{60pt} + (f^i_{ib} g^{ac}
+ {1 \over 2} f^a_{bi} g^{ic})
\sqrt{g} g^{bh} F_{ch} e^{\lambda \phi} \} \\
\label{fuchvarphi}
&&\hspace{-40pt}
t \, \partial_t \varphi_{ab} + \beta \varphi_{ab} \; = \;
t^{1 - \beta} \{ -2 e_{[a} ( {1 \over \sqrt{g}}
g_{b] c} {\cal E}^c e^{-\lambda \phi})
+ f^c_{ab} {1 \over \sqrt{g}} g_{c h} {\cal E}^h e^{-\lambda \phi} \} \end{aligned}$$ All the quantities entering these equations have been defined, except $^S {R^a}_b$. This is done by taking the Ricci tensor of the symmetric part $ g_{(a b)}$ of $g_{a b}$ [@AR]. More explicitly, $^S {R^a}_b = g^{ac} \, ^S R_{cb}$, with $$\label{curvature}
^S R_{ab} =
t^{q_a + q_b} \, ^S \tilde R_{ahb}^{\; \; \; \; \; \; h}
= t^{q_a + q_b} \{ \tilde e_h ( \, ^S
\tilde \Gamma^h_{ab}) - \tilde e_a ( \, ^S \tilde \Gamma^h_{hb})
+ \, ^S \tilde \Gamma^i_{ab} \, ^S \tilde \Gamma^h_{hi}
- \, ^S \tilde \Gamma^i_{hb} \, ^S \tilde \Gamma^h_{ai}
+ \tilde f^i_{ah} \, ^S \tilde \Gamma^h_{ib} \},$$ and the connection coefficients in the frame $\{ \tilde e_a \}$, $$\label{christoffel}
^S \tilde \Gamma^c_{a b} =
{1 \over 2} \, ^S \tilde g^{ch} \left\{
\tilde e_a (\tilde g_{(bh)}) + \tilde e_b (\tilde g_{(ha)})
- \tilde e_h (\tilde g_{(ab)})
- \tilde g_{(ia)} \tilde f^i_{bh}
- \tilde g_{(bi)} \tilde f^i_{ah} \right\}
+ {1 \over 2} \tilde f^c_{ab}.$$ Here, $^S \tilde{g}^{ab}$ is defined as the inverse of $\tilde{g}_{(ab)}$. Once it is shown that the tensor $g_{ab}$ in equation (\[defgamma\]) is symmetric, then it follows that $^S {R^a}_b = {R^a}_b$ and that equations (\[fuchgamma\]) – (\[fuchvarphi\]) are equivalent to the Einstein-matter equations.
### The system (\[fuchgamma\])–(\[fuchvarphi\]) is Fuchsian
A good deal of the work needed to show that equation (\[fuchs0\]) (as written out in equations (\[fuchgamma\]) – (\[fuchvarphi\])) is Fuchsian was done in [@AR], in the massless scalar field case considered there. The form of the velocity-dominated evolution and the form of the function $u$ are the same in the two cases except for the crucial addition of new source terms and new evolution equations involving the Maxwell field. The presence of the new components does not alter already existing parts of the matrix $\cal A$, nor already existing terms in $f$. The difference between $\cal A$ here and $\cal A$ in the massless scalar field case considered in [@AR] is that here there are additional rows and columns, such that the only non-vanishing new entries are on the diagonal and strictly positive. Therefore the argument in [@AR] that their $\cal A$ satisfies the appropriate positivity condition implies that our $\cal A$ satisfies the appropriate positivity condition.
On the other hand, it is crucial to control in detail the new source terms in $f$, connected to the Maxwell field, which were absent in [@AR]. It is for the study of these terms that the results of [@dh1], and in particular the inequalities (\[inequalities1\]) which were shown there to guarantee that Maxwell source terms become asymptotically subdominant near the singularity, become important. Recall that the crucial criterion for the source $f(t,x,u,u_x)$ is that it be $O(t^\delta)$, for some strictly positive $\delta$. In regard to this estimate, we use the notation “big $O$,” “$\preceq$” and “small $o$” as follows. Given two functions $F(t,x,u,u_x)$ and $G(t,x,u,u_x)$ we use the notation $F \preceq G $, to denote that, for every compact set $K$, there exists a constant $C$ and a number $t_0 > 0$ such that $ \vert F(t,x,u,u_x) \vert \leq C \vert G(t,x,u,u_x) \vert$ when $(x,u,u_x) \in K$ and $0< t \leq t_0$ (see Definition 1 in [@AR]). If $G$ is a function only of $t$ (e.g. a power of $t$), then we replace $F \preceq G $ with $F = O(G)$. If $f(t,x,u,u_x) = O(t^\delta)$, then by reducing the value of $\delta$ (keeping it positive) we have that $f(t,x,u,u_x) = o(t^\delta)$ with a “small o” which denotes that $f/t^\delta$ tends to zero uniformly on compact sets $K$ as $t \rightarrow 0$.
The new source terms involving the Maxwell field are: the last four terms in ${M^a}_b$ (see equation (\[calcM\])), the last two terms on the right hand side of equation (\[fuchchi\]) and the terms of the right hand sides of equations (\[fuchxi\]) and (\[fuchvarphi\]).
The calculation of the estimates starts in the frame, $\{ \tilde e_a \}$, defined in section \[stepone\]. For more details concerning the basic estimates, we refer the reader to [@AR]. In the frame $\{ \tilde e_a \}$ the Kasner-like metric is ([*cf.*]{} (\[0gab1\])) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{0tildegab1}
^0 \tilde g_{ab} & = & ^0 \tilde g_{ac}(t_0) {{\left[ {\left(
{t \over t_0} \right)}^{2 ( K - Q)}\right]}^c}_b, \\
\label{0tildegab2}
^0 \tilde g^{ab} & = &
{{\left[ {\left(
{t \over t_0} \right)}^{-2 ( K - Q)}\right]}^a}_c
\, ^0 \tilde g^{cb}(t_0),\end{aligned}$$ where the matrix $Q$ is the diagonal matrix $ {Q^a}_b \equiv q_a {\delta^a}_b$ which commutes with $K$. With our choice of frame, $^0 \tilde g_{ab}(t_0) = \delta_{ab}$ and $^0 \tilde g^{ab}(t_0) = \delta^{ab}$. In Lemma 2 in [@AR] (lemma 5.1 in preprint version), the form of (\[0tildegab1\]) and (\[0tildegab2\]) is considered and it is shown that $^0\tilde g_{ab} = O(t^{-\epsilon})$ and $^0\tilde g^{ab} = O(t^{-\epsilon})$. It is useful to write down expressions for the proposed metric and extrinsic curvature in the frame $\{\tilde e_a\}$. The components in terms of this frame are $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde g_{ab} & = & \, ^0 \tilde g_{ab} +
\, ^0 \tilde g_{ac} t^{\tilde \alpha^c_{\; \; b}}
{\gamma^c}_b, \nonumber \\
\tilde k_{ab} & = & \tilde g_{ac}( \, ^0 \tilde k^c_{\; \; b} +
t^{-1 + \tilde \alpha^c_{\; \; b}} {\kappa^c}_b). \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Here, $\tilde \alpha^a_{\; \; b} = \alpha^a_{\; \; b} + q_a - q_b =
|q_a - q_b| + \alpha_0$ is symmetric in $a$, $b$, $\tilde \alpha^a_{\; \; b} = \tilde \alpha^b_{\; \; a}$. To get an estimate for the inverse metric, we note first that the inverse of $g_{ac}{}^0 g^{cb}$ is given by $g^{ca}{}^0 g_{cb}$. Thus it is possible to express the latter quantity algebraically in terms of ${}^0 g_{ab}$ and ${\gamma^a}_b$. Now define $$\bar{\gamma^a}_b=-t^{-{\tilde\alpha^a}_b}(\delta^a_b-\tilde{g}^{ac}
{}^0\tilde{g}_{cb}),$$ which, from what we just observed, can be expressed algebraically in terms of known quantities and ${\gamma^a}_b$. Then one has $$\label{tildeinvg}
\tilde g^{ab} = ^0 \tilde g^{ab} +
t^{\tilde \alpha^a_{\; \; c}} \bar \gamma^a_{\; \; c} \, ^0 \tilde g^{cb}.$$ As a consequence of an argument given in [@AR] which uses the (triangle-like) inequality (42) of that paper ((5.9) in preprint version) and the matrix identity preceding it, this exhibits $\bar{\gamma^a}_b$ as a regular function of ${\gamma^a}_b$. In particular, if it is known that ${\gamma^a}_b$ is $o(1)$ then the same is true of $\bar{\gamma^a}_b$.
To better grasp the usefulness of the introduction of the exponents $\alpha^a_{\; \; b}$ and $\tilde \alpha^a_{\; \; b}$, and the link of the Fuchsian estimates with the approximate estimates used in the BKL-like works, let us consider more closely the simple case where all the Kasner exponents are distinct (Case III). In this case $p_a = q_a$ and one can diagonalize the Kasner-metric, so that, in the rescaled frame $\tilde e_a$, we have simply (for all $t \leq t_0$) $\,^0 \tilde g_{ab}(t) = \delta_{ab}$. In such a case, the BKL-type estimates would be obtained (in the time-dependent rescaled frame ${\tilde e_a}$) by approximating the exact metric by its Kasner limit, i.e. simply $ \tilde g_{ab}^{\rm BKL}(t) = \delta_{ab}$. By contrast, the estimates of the Fuchsian analysis are made with the exact metric, $\tilde g_{ab}(t) = \delta_{ab}
+ t^{\tilde \alpha^a_{\; \; b}} \gamma^a_{\; \; b}$, in which $\gamma^a_{\; \; b}$, being part of $u$, is considered to be in a compact set and hence is bounded. As the diagonal $\tilde \alpha^a_{\; \; a} = \alpha_0 >0$, we see that (in the frame ${\tilde e_a}$) the diagonal components of the “Fuchsian” metric asymptote those of the “BKL” metric, and that both are close to one. Concerning the non-diagonal components (in the frame ${\tilde e_a}$) of the “Fuchsian” metric we see that they are constrained, by construction (i.e. by the choice $\tilde \alpha^a_{\; \; b} = |q_a - q_b| + \alpha_0$), to tend to zero faster than $ t^{|q_a - q_b|}$. This closeness between the metrics used in the two types of estimates explains the parallelism between the rigorous results derived here and the heuristic estimates used in BKL-type works. If we come back to the general case where the Kasner metric cannot be diagonalized in an analytic fashion, the optimal estimates become worse by a negative power of $t$ (coming from the estimate of the matrix difference $ 2 ( K - Q) $ in equations (\[0tildegab1\]), (\[0tildegab2\]) above). The proposed metric in the frame $\{\tilde e_a\}$ satisfies then $$\tilde g_{ab} \preceq t^{|q_a - q_b| - \epsilon}
\hspace{20pt} \mbox{and} \hspace{20pt}
\tilde g^{ab} \preceq t^{|q_a - q_b| - \epsilon}.$$ The proposed inverse metric in the adapted frame is $$g^{ab} = \,^0 g^{ab} + t^{{\alpha^a}_c} \bar \gamma^a_{\; \; c} \, ^0 g^{cb}.$$ The proposed metric in the adapted frame satisfies $$\label{estmetric}
g_{ab} \preceq t^{ 2 q_{\max \{ a,b \}} - \epsilon}
\hspace{20pt} \mbox{and} \hspace{20pt}
g^{ab} \preceq t^{ -2 q_{\min \{ a,b \}} - \epsilon}.$$ Estimates of spatial derivatives of the proposed metric are also needed. $$\begin{aligned}
e_c(\tilde g_{ab}) \preceq t^{|q_a - q_b| - \delta - \epsilon}
& \hspace{20pt} \mbox{and} \hspace{20pt} &
e_c(\tilde g^{ab}) \preceq t^{|q_a - q_b| - \delta - \epsilon},
\nonumber \\
\label{estdgab}
e_c(g_{ab}) \preceq t^{ 2 q_{\max \{ a,b \}} - \delta - \epsilon}
& \hspace{20pt} \mbox{and} \hspace{20pt} &
e_c(g^{ab}) \preceq t^{ -2 q_{\min \{ a,b \}} - \delta - \epsilon}\end{aligned}$$ for some strictly positive $\delta$.
The determinant of the proposed metric also appears in some of the new source terms. From (\[0gab1\]), the form of $^0g_{ab}(t_0)$ and ${\mbox{tr}}\, K = 1$, one gets $^0 g = t^2$. From (\[0tildegab1\]) and $^0 \tilde g_{ab}(t_0) = \delta_{ab}$ one gets $^0 \tilde g = 1$. The expression for the determinant is a sum of terms of the form $g_{ab} g_{cd} g_{ef}$, such that in each term, each index, 1, 2, 3, occurs exactly twice. From the Kasner relation for the $q_a$’s and the relation between the two frames, it follows that $g = t^2 \tilde g$. Considering the form of the various expressions, one then obtains $1/g = O(t^{-2})$, $\sqrt{g} = O(t)$, $1/\sqrt{g} = O(t^{-1})$, and $1/\sqrt{g} - 1/\sqrt{\, ^0g} = O(t^{-1 + \alpha_0 - 3 \epsilon})
= O(t^{-1 + \epsilon})$. Spatial derivatives of the determinant also appear in $f$. Considering the form of $\tilde g - \, ^0 \tilde g$ and that $e_a(\,^0 \tilde g) = 0$, it follows that $e_a(\tilde g) = O(t^{\alpha_0 - \delta - 3 \epsilon})$, and $$\label{estddetg1}
e_a(g) = O(t^{2 + \alpha_0 - \delta - 3 \epsilon}).$$ Finally, $$e_a(g^{-1/2}) = - {e_a(g) \over 2 g^{3/2}}
= O(t^{-1 + \alpha_0 - \delta - 3 \epsilon}).$$
Let us now consider the new source terms in $f$, beginning with the last four terms of $t^{2 - {\alpha^a}_b} {M^a}_b$. To estimate the contributions of ${\cal E}^a$ and $F_{a b}$ it is sufficient to note from (\[defxi\]) and (\[defvarphi\]) that ${\cal E}^a = O(1)$ and $F_{a b} = O(1)$. Then we get, using the definition of ${\alpha^a}_b$ and (\[estmetric\]), $$\begin{aligned}
& & t^{2 - {\alpha^a}_b} {1 \over g} \{g_{bc} {\cal E}^a {\cal E}^c
-{1 \over 2} {\delta^a}_b g_{ch} {\cal E}^c {\cal E}^h\}
e^{-\lambda \phi} \nonumber \\ & & \hspace{40pt} \preceq \,
\sum_c t^{-2 q_{\max\{a,b\}} + 2 q_a + 2 q_{\max\{b,c\}}
- \lambda A - \alpha_0 - \epsilon} +
\sum_{c,h} t^{+ 2 q_{\max\{c,h\}} - \lambda A - \alpha_0 -
\epsilon} \nonumber \\ & & \hspace{40pt} \preceq \,
t^{2 q_1 - \lambda A - \alpha_0 - \epsilon}
\, = \, O(t^{- \alpha_0 - \epsilon + \sigma})
\, = \, O(t^{\delta}), \nonumber \\
& & t^{2 - {\alpha^a}_b} \{g^{ac}
g^{hi} F_{ch} F_{bi} -{1 \over 4}{\delta^a}_b
g^{ch} g^{ij} F_{ci} F_{hj}\} e^{\lambda \phi}
\nonumber \\
&& \hspace{40pt} \preceq \,
\sum_{c,h \neq c,i \neq b} t^{2-2 q_{\max\{a,b\}} + 2 q_a - 2 q_{\min\{a,c\}}
- 2 q_{\min\{h,i\}} + \lambda A - \alpha_0 - 2 \epsilon}
\nonumber \\ & & \hspace{60pt}
+ \sum_{c,h,i \neq c,j\neq h}
t^{2- 2 q_{\min\{c,h\}} - 2 q_{\min\{i,j\}}
+ \lambda A - \alpha_0 - 2 \epsilon} \nonumber \\
&& \hspace{40pt} \preceq \, t^{2 q_1 + \lambda A - \alpha_0 - 2 \epsilon}
\, = \, O(t^{- \alpha_0 - 2 \epsilon + \sigma})
\, = \, O(t^{\delta}) \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ for some strictly positive $\delta$. The crucial inputs in getting these estimates are the inequalities (\[inequalities1\]). We recall also that the quantity $\sigma$ (linked to (\[inequalities1\]) being satisfied) was introduced at the end of subsection \[criticalvalue\]. The estimate of the last two terms on the right hand side of (\[fuchchi\]) is $$\begin{aligned}
t^{2 - \beta} {1 \over g}
g_{ab} {\cal E}^a {\cal E}^b e^{-\lambda \phi}
& = & O(t^{- \beta - \epsilon + \sigma}) \; = \; O(t^{\delta}),
\nonumber \\
t^{2-\beta} g^{ab} g^{ch} F_{ac} F_{bh} e^{\lambda \phi}
& = & O(t^{- \beta - 2 \epsilon + \sigma}) \; = \; O(t^{\delta}) \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The right hand side of (\[fuchxi\]) is $O(t^{\alpha_0- \beta - \delta - 5\epsilon + \sigma})=O(t^{\delta})$. The right hand side of (\[fuchvarphi\]) is $O(t^{\alpha_0- \beta - \delta - 4\epsilon + \sigma})=O(t^{\delta})$. The other terms which occur in $f$ were estimated in [@AR], resulting in $f = O(t^\delta)$.
To show that we indeed have a Fuchsian equation, we need to check not only that $f = O(t^\delta)$, but also that $\partial_u f= O(t^\delta)$ and $\partial_{u_x} f = O(t^\delta)$, along with other regularity conditions [@AR; @KR]. In [@AR] it is shown that $f$ is regular with equation (31) in that paper and the remarks following equation (31). In our case there is a factor involving the determinant of the metric in various of the terms in $f$ which are not present in the case considered in [@AR]. The discussion surrounding equation (31) in [@AR] applies to our case as well, even for terms in $f$ containing $g^{\pm 1/2}$. The Kasner-like contribution is the leading term, and this function of $t$ and $x$ can be factored out. What is left is of the form $w(t,x,u,u_x) (1 + h(t,x,u))^{\pm 1/2}$, which is analytic in $h$ at $h = 0$. The conditions listed following equation (31) hold. Thus we conclude that (\[fuchs0\]) as written out in (\[fuchgamma\]) – (\[fuchvarphi\]) is a Fuchsian equation.
### Symmetry of metric {#symmetryofg}
It remains to show that $g_{ab}$ is symmetric, so that equation (\[fuchs0\]) as written out in (\[fuchgamma\]) – (\[fuchvarphi\]) is equivalent to the Einstein-matter evolution equations. The structure of the argument is the same in any dimension and so it will be written down for general $d$[^6]. The number of distinct eigenvalues of ${K^a}_b$ is maximal almost everywhere. Thus it is enough to show that $g_{[ab]}$ and $k_{[ab]}$ vanish in the case that the Kasner-like metric is diagonal, since then by analytic continuation they vanish on the entire domain. We therefore consider the case that the Kasner-like metric is diagonal.
The redefinitions (\[defgamma\]), (\[defkappa\]) from the variables $g_{ab}$, $k_{ab}$ to the variables $\gamma^a{}_b$, ${\kappa^a}_b$ were viewed in the previous subsections as a change between variables with no particular symmetry properties in their indices (18 on each side). One can, however enforce $g_{[ab]} = 0$ by assuming that $\gamma^a{}_b$ is symmetric and vice-versa. Indeed, under our diagonality assumption for the Kasner-like metric, $\tilde g_{ab}(t) = \delta_{ab}
+ t^{\tilde \alpha^a_{\; \; b}} \gamma^a_{\; \; b}$ where ${\tilde \alpha^a_{\; \; b}} = |q_a - q_b| + \alpha_0$ is [*symmetric*]{} in $(a,b)$. Accordingly, imposing the symmetry $\gamma^a{}_b = \gamma^b{}_a$ algebraically ensures the symmetry of $g_{ab}$. Similarly, one can enforce $k_{[ab]}$ to vanish by imposing consistent constraints on $\kappa^a{}_b$: inserting (\[defgamma\]) into (\[defkappa\]) (with the velocity-dominated solution diagonal) and writing out the constraint $k_{ab} - k_{ba} = 0$ gives the following condition on $\kappa^a{}_b$ $$\label{symkappa}
{\kappa^a}_b - {\kappa^b}_a - {\gamma^a}_b p_b
+ {\gamma^b}_a p_a + t^{\alpha_{(ab) c}}
({\gamma^a}_c {\kappa^c}_b - {\gamma^b}_c {\kappa^c}_a) = 0,$$ with $\alpha_{(ab) c} = 2 p_{\max \{a,c\}} + 2 p_{\max \{b,c\}}
- 2 p_{\max \{a,b\}} -2 p_c + \alpha_0$. These conditions show that there are only six independent components among the $\kappa^a{}_b$, which can be taken to be those with $a \leq b$. This is because, the relation (\[symkappa\]) can be solved uniquely for the components $\kappa^a{}_b$ with $a>b$, given the other ones, at least for $t$ small. That this is true can be seen as follows. Rearrange the equations (\[symkappa\]) so that the terms containing $\kappa^a{}_b$ with $a>b$ are on the left hand side and all other terms are on the right hand side. The result is an inhomogeneous linear system of the form $A(t,x)v(t,x)=w(t,x)$ where $A(t,x)$ and $w(t,x)$ are known quantities and $v$ denotes the components $\kappa^a{}_b$ with $a>b$ which we want to determine. Furthermore $A(t,x)=I+o(1)$, where $I$ denotes the identity matrix. It follows that $A(t)$ is invertible for $t$ small, which is what we wanted to show. The solution $\kappa^a{}_b$ ($a>b$) remains moreover bounded when ${\gamma^b}_a$ and $\kappa^a{}_b$ are in a compact set. We shall assume from now on that $\gamma^a{}_b$ is symmetric and $\kappa^a{}_b$ constrained by (\[symkappa\]), so that symmetry of the metric is automatic. The redefinitions (\[defgamma\]), (\[defkappa\]) from $g_{ab}$, $k_{ab}$ to $\gamma^a{}_b$, ${\kappa^a}_b$ can now be viewed as an invertible change of variables, from 12 independent variables to 12 independent variables. We can also clearly assume $\lambda^a{}_{bc}$ in (\[deflambda\]) to be symmetric in $a$, $b$.
With these conventions, there are less components in $u$ than in the previous subsections. The independent components can be taken to be $\gamma^a{}_b$, ${\kappa^a}_b$ and $\lambda^a{}_{bc}$ with $a \leq b$, together with the matter variables. An independent system of evolution equations is given by (\[fuchgamma\]) – (\[fuchkappa\]) with $a\le b$ for the gravitational variables, and the same evolution equations as before for the matter variables. These evolution equations are equivalent to all the original evolution equations, since the equations (\[fuchgamma\]) – (\[fuchkappa\]) with $a>b$ are then automatically fulfilled, as can be shown using the fact that the Einstein tensor and the stress-energy tensor are symmetric for symmetric metrics. To see this it must be shown that given a symmetric tensor $S_{ab}$, the vanishing of ${S^a}_b = g^{ac} S_{cb}$ for $a \leq b$ implies that $S_{ab} = 0$. Consider the linear map which takes a symmetric tensor $S_{ab}$, raises an index, and keeps the components of the result with $a \leq b$. This is a mapping between vector spaces of dimension $d (d+1)/2$ and can be shown to be an isomorphism by elementary linear algebra. This proves the desired result.
Now, this reduced evolution system is also Fuchsian. This follows from the same reasoning as above, which still holds because all components of $u$, including the non-independent ones, can still be assumed to be bounded. Therefore, there is a unique $u$ that goes to zero, which must be equal to the one considered in the previous subsections. The metric considered previously is thus indeed symmetric.
### Unique solution on a neighbourhood of the singularity
Given an analytic solution to the velocity-dominated evolution equations on $(0,\infty) \times \Sigma$, such that inequalities (\[inequalities1\]) are satisfied, we now have a solution $u$ to a Fuchsian equation (and a corresponding solution to the Einstein-matter evolution equations) in the intersection of a neighbourhood of the singularity with $(0,\infty) \times U_0$ where $U_0$ is a neighbourhood of an arbitrary point on $\Sigma$. These local solutions can be patched together to get a solution to the Einstein-matter evolution equations everywhere in space near the singularity. It may seem like there could be a problem patching together the solutions obtained on distinct neighborhoods with non-empty intersection because the Fuchsian equation is not the same for different allowed choices of $\epsilon$ and adapted local frame. The construction is possible because different allowed choices of $\epsilon$ and local frame result in a well-defined relationship between the different solutions $u$ which are obtained, such that the corresponding Einstein-matter variables agree on the intersection (up to change of basis). It therefore follows that given an analytic solution to the velocity-dominated evolution equations on $(0,\infty) \times \Sigma$, such that inequalities (\[inequalities1\]) are satisfied, our construction uniquely determines a solution to the Einstein-matter evolution equations everywhere in space, near the singularity.
Einstein-matter constraints {#stepfour}
---------------------------
### Matter constraints
The time derivative of the matter constraint quantities (the left hand side of equations (\[elconstraint\]) and (\[magconstraint\])) vanishes. If the velocity-dominated matter constraints are satisfied, the matter constraint quantities are $o(1)$. A quantity which is constant in time and $o(1)$ must vanish. Therefore the matter constraints are satisfied.
### Diagonal Kasner metrics
It remains to show that the Hamiltonian and momentum constraints are satisfied, that $C$ and $C_a$, defined in (\[hamiltonian1\]) and (\[momentum1\]), vanish. Since we now have a metric, $g_{\mu \nu}$, it follows that $\nabla_\mu G^{\mu \nu} = 0$. Since the matter evolution and constraint equations are satisfied, it follows that $\nabla_\mu T^{\mu \nu} = 0$. From the vanishing of the right hand side of (\[eveq1\]) and the vanishing of the covariant divergence of both the Einstein tensor and the stress-energy tensor, it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{evC}
\partial_t C & = & 2 ({\mbox{tr}}k) C - 2 \nabla^a C_a \\
\label{evCa}
\partial_t C_a & = & ({\mbox{tr}}k) \, C_a - {1 \over 2} \nabla_a C.\end{aligned}$$ Now define $\bar C = t^{2 - \eta_1} C$ and $\bar C_a = t^{1-\eta_2} C_a $, with $0 < \eta_2 < \eta_1 < \beta$. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{fuchsianC}
t \, \partial_t \bar C + \eta_1 \bar C & = & 2 (1 + t \, {\mbox{tr}}\, k)
\bar C - 2 t^{2 - \eta_1 + \eta_2} \nabla^a \bar C_a \\
\label{fuchsianCa}
t \, \partial_t \bar C_a + \eta_2 \bar C_a & = &
(1 + t \, {\mbox{tr}}\, k) \bar C_a -
{1 \over 2} t^{\eta_1 - \eta_2} \nabla_a \bar C\end{aligned}$$ On the right hand side of (\[fuchsianC\]) and (\[fuchsianCa\]) $\bar C$ and $\bar C_a$ are to be considered as components of $u = (\bar C, \bar C_a)$. If it is shown that (\[fuchsianC\]) and (\[fuchsianCa\]) is a Fuchsian system, then there is a unique solution $u$ such that $u = o(1)$. It is clear that $u = 0$ is a solution to (\[fuchsianC\]) and (\[fuchsianCa\]). If it is shown that $\bar C = o(1)$ and $\bar C_a=o(1)$, (i.e. that $C = o(t^{-2 + \eta_1})$ and $C_a = o(t^{-1 + \eta_2})$), then they must be this unique solution. Furthermore, it is sufficient to consider the case that the Kasner-like metric is diagonal, since the number of distinct eigenvalues of ${K^a}_b$ is maximal on an open set of $\Sigma$. If the constraints vanish on an open set of their domain, then by analytic continuation they vanish everywhere on their domain.
Therefore we consider the case that the Kasner-like metric is diagonal and show first that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estconstraints3}
1 + t \, {\mbox{tr}}\, k & = & O(t^\delta) \\
\label{estconstraints4}
\nabla^a \bar C_a & = & O(t^{-2 + \delta + \eta_1 - \eta_2})\end{aligned}$$ (when $\bar C_a$ is bounded) so that the system (\[fuchsianC\]), (\[fuchsianCa\]) is Fuchsian (the complete regularity of $f(t,x,u, u_x)$ defined by (\[fuchsianC\]) and (\[fuchsianCa\]) can be easily verified); and second, that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estconstraints1}
C & = & o(t^{-2 + \eta_1}) \\
\label{estconstraints2}
C_a & = & o(t^{-1 + \eta_2}) .\end{aligned}$$
Some facts which will be used to show this follow. Consider indices $a \in \{1,2,3\}$. The following inequalities hold for some positive integer $n$ and for real numbers, $q_a$, ordered such that if $a < b$, then $q_a \leq q_b$. (In later sections we define ordered auxiliary exponents, $q_a$, for $a \in \{1,...,d\}$, for arbitrary fixed $d \geq 2$. Then (\[makeest1\]) – (\[makeest3\]) hold more generally for indices in $\{1,...,d\}$.) $$\label{makeest1}
q_{a_0} + \sum_{i=1}^n|q_{a_{i-1}} - q_{a_i}| - q_{a_n} \geq 0$$ $$\label{makeest2}
q_{a_0} + \sum_{i=1}^n|q_{a_{i-1}} - q_{a_i}| + q_{a_n} \geq
2 q_{\max\{a_k,a_j\}}$$ $$\label{makeest3}
-q_{a_0} + \sum_{i=1}^n|q_{a_{i-1}} - q_{a_i}| - q_{a_n} \geq
-2q_{\min\{a_k,a_j\}}$$ The latter two inequalities hold for any $k$, $j$ in $\{0,\ldots, n \}$.
In the case that the Kasner-like metric is diagonal, $q_a = p_a$. The metric in the frame $\{\tilde e_a \}$ is $^0 \tilde g_{ab} = \delta_{ab}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde g_{ab} & = & \delta_{ab} +
t^{\tilde \alpha^a_{\; \; b}} {\gamma^a}_b
\; \preceq \; t^{|p_a - p_b|}, \nonumber \\
\tilde g^{ab} & = & \delta^{ab} +
t^{\tilde \alpha^a_{\; \; b}} \bar \gamma^a_{\; \; b}
\; \preceq \; t^{|p_a - p_b|}. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The extrinsic curvature satisfies $ t \; ^0{k^a}_b = -{\delta^a}_b \, p_b $, $$\begin{aligned}
t \, {k^a}_b & = & -{\delta^a}_b \, p_b +
t^{{\alpha^a}_b} {\kappa^a}_b, \nonumber \\
t \, (\tilde k^a_{\; \; b} - \, ^0\tilde k^a_{\; \; b})
& = & t^{\tilde \alpha^a_{\; \; b}} {\kappa^a}_b, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and $t \, {\mbox{tr}}\; ^0 k = -1 $, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estttrk}
t \, {\mbox{tr}}\, k & = & -1 + t^{\alpha_0} \, {\mbox{tr}}\kappa, \\
\label{esttrksq}
t^2 \{ ({\mbox{tr}}\, k)^2 - ({\mbox{tr}}\, ^0 k)^2 \} & = & O(t^{\alpha_0}).\end{aligned}$$ The following estimates will also be useful. $$\begin{aligned}
- {k^a}_b \,{k^b}_a + \, ^0 {k^a}_b \, ^0 {k^b}_a & = & -
2 t^{-2 + \alpha_0} {\kappa^a}_a \, p_a - t^{-2 + {\alpha^a}_b
+ {\alpha^b}_a} {\kappa^a}_b \,{\kappa^b}_a \nonumber \\
\label{estksq}
& = & O(t^{-2 + \alpha_0}),\end{aligned}$$ and $$\label{estebtrk}
e_a ( {\mbox{tr}}\, k - {\mbox{tr}}\, ^0k) =
e_a(t^{-1 + \alpha_0} {\mbox{tr}}\, \kappa) = O (t^{-1 + \alpha_0}).$$ The structure functions of the frame $\{ \tilde e_a \}$ are $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde f^c_{ab} & = & t^{p_c - p_a - p_b} f^c_{ab}
- \ln t \, e_a(p_b) \, t^{-p_a} {\delta^c}_b
+ \ln t \, e_b(p_a) \, t^{-p_b} {\delta^c}_a \nonumber \\
& \preceq & t^{p_c - p_a - p_b -\delta}. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ It is convenient to have an estimate of $\tilde \Gamma^c_{ab}$, the connection coefficients (\[christoffel\]) in the frame $\{ \tilde e_a \}$, term by term. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{christoffela}
&&\mbox{Term A:} \hspace{40pt}
\tilde g^{ch} \tilde e_a (\tilde g_{bh})
\preceq \sum_h t^{|p_c - p_h | -p_a + |p_b - p_h| - \delta}, \\
\label{christoffelb}
&&\mbox{Term B:} \hspace{40pt}
\tilde g^{ch} \tilde e_b (\tilde g_{ha})
\preceq \sum_h t^{|p_c - p_h | -p_b + |p_h - p_a| - \delta}, \\
\label{christoffelc}
&&\mbox{Term C:} \hspace{40pt}
\tilde g^{ch} \tilde e_h (\tilde g_{ab})
\preceq \sum_h t^{|p_c - p_h | -p_h + |p_a - p_b| - \delta}, \\
\label{christoffeld}
&&\mbox{Term D:} \hspace{40pt}
\tilde g^{ci} \tilde g_{ha} \tilde f^h_{bi}
\preceq \sum_{h,i \neq b} t^{|p_c - p_i | + |p_h - p_a| + p_h - p_b - p_i - \delta}, \\
\label{christoffele}
&&\mbox{Term E:} \hspace{40pt}
\tilde g^{ci} \tilde g_{bh} \tilde f^h_{ai}
\preceq \sum_{h,i \neq a} t^{|p_c - p_i | + |p_b - p_h| + p_h - p_a - p_i - \delta}, \\
\label{christoffelf}
&&\mbox{Term F:} \hspace{40pt}
\tilde f^c_{ab} \preceq t^{ p_c - p_a - p_b - \delta}.\end{aligned}$$ The difference between the connection coefficients for the metric $\tilde g_{ab}$ and those for the Kasner-like metric is $\Delta \tilde \Gamma^c_{ab} =
\tilde \Gamma^c_{ab} - \, ^0\tilde \Gamma^c_{ab}$. It is useful to have the estimates $$\tilde \Gamma^a_{ac} = {1 \over 2} \tilde g^{ab}
\tilde e_c(\tilde g_{ab}) + \tilde f^a_{ac} \preceq t^{-p_c - \delta},$$ and $$\label{deltatracetildegamma}
\Delta \tilde \Gamma^a_{ac} =
{1 \over 2} \tilde g^{ab} \tilde e_c (\tilde g_{ab})
\preceq t^{-p_c + \alpha_0 - \delta}.$$
### Momentum and Hamiltonian constraints
First, we show (\[estconstraints3\]) and (\[estconstraints4\]). From equation (\[estttrk\]), $1 + t \, {\mbox{tr}}\, k = O(t^{\alpha_0})$. Similarly, we can estimate $\nabla^a \bar C_a$, $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla^a \bar C_a & = &
\tilde g^{ab} \, \tilde \nabla_a \tilde {\bar C}_b \nonumber \\
& = & \tilde g^{ab}
\{ t^{-p_a} \, e_a (\bar C_b \, t^{-p_b})
-\tilde \Gamma^c_{ab} \, \bar C_c \, t^{-p_c} \} \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The first term is $$\label{divmom1}
\tilde g^{ab} t^{-p_a} \, e_a ( \bar C_b \, t^{-p_b} )
\preceq t^{|p_a - p_b| - p_a - p_b - \delta}
\preceq t^{-2 p_{\min\{a,b\}} - \delta}.$$ From (\[christoffela\]) – (\[christoffele\]) the second term is $$\label{divmom2}
\tilde g^{ab} \tilde \Gamma^c_{ab} \, \bar C_c \, t^{-p_c}
\preceq t^{-2 p_3 - \delta}.$$ From (\[divmom1\]) and (\[divmom2\]), the desired estimate, $\nabla^a \bar C_a = O(t^{-2 + \eta_1 - \eta_2})$ is obtained. Thus, the system (\[fuchsianC\]), (\[fuchsianCa\]) is Fuchsian.
Next we turn to (\[estconstraints1\]) and (\[estconstraints2\]). A term that appears in the momentum constraint is $\nabla_a {k^a}_b$. The estimate is needed in the adapted frame, and the covariant derivative is calculated in the frame $\{\tilde e_a \}$. This adds a factor of $t^{p_b}$, $$\nabla_a {k^a}_b =
\{ \tilde e_a (\tilde k^a_{\; \; b}) +
\tilde \Gamma^a_{a c} \tilde k^c_{\; \; b}
- \tilde \Gamma^c_{a b} \tilde k^a_{\; \; c} \} \, t^{p_b}$$ Furthermore, the quantity whose estimate will be required is the difference between this term and the corresponding term in the velocity-dominated constraint, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estderk1a}
\nabla_a {k^a}_b - \, ^0 \nabla_a \, {^0 k^a}_b & = &
\{ \tilde e_a (\tilde k^a_{\; \; b}
- \, ^0\tilde k^a_{\; \; b})
+ \Delta \tilde \Gamma^a_{ac}
\, ^0 \tilde k^c_{\; \; b}
+ \tilde \Gamma^a_{a c} (\tilde k^c_{\; \; b}
- \, ^0\tilde k^c_{\; \; b}) \} t^{p_b} \\
\label{estderk1b} & &
- \tilde \Gamma^c_{a b} \tilde k^a_{\; \; c} t^{p_b}
+ \, ^0 \tilde \Gamma^c_{ab}
\, ^0 \tilde k^a_{\; \; c} \, t^{p_b}\end{aligned}$$
The right hand side of (\[estderk1a\]) is $O(t^{-1 + \alpha_0 - \delta})$. The terms in line (\[estderk1b\]) originating from Term E of the connection coefficients (see (\[christoffele\])) are cancelled in the sum, due to the antisymmetry of $\tilde f^h_{ai}$ and the symmetry of $\tilde k^{ai}$ and $^0 \tilde k^{ai}$. For estimating the rest of the terms in line (\[estderk1b\]), it is convenient to rewrite this line as, $$\label{estderk1c}
- \tilde \Gamma^c_{a b} \tilde k^a_{\; \; c} t^{p_b}
+ \, ^0 \tilde \Gamma^c_{ab}
\, ^0 \tilde k^a_{\; \; c} \, t^{p_b}
= - \Delta \tilde \Gamma^c_{ab}
\, ^0 \tilde k^a_{\; \; c} \, t^{p_b}
- \tilde \Gamma^c_{a b} (\tilde k^a_{\; \; c}
- \, ^0\tilde k^a_{\; \; c}) \, t^{p_b},$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{deltagamma1}
\Delta \tilde \Gamma^c_{ab} & = & {1 \over 2} \{
\tilde e_a(t^{\tilde \alpha^b_{\; \; c}} {\gamma^b}_c)
+ \tilde e_b(t^{\tilde \alpha^c_{\; \; a}} {\gamma^c}_a)
- \tilde e_c(t^{\tilde \alpha^a_{\; \; b}} {\gamma^a}_b) \\
\label{deltagamma2} & & \; \;
+ \sum_h t^{\tilde \alpha^c_{\; \; h}} \bar \gamma^c_{\; \; h} [
\tilde e_a(t^{\tilde \alpha^b_{\; \; h}} {\gamma^b}_h )
+ \tilde e_b(t^{\tilde \alpha^h_{\; \; a}} {\gamma^h}_a )
- \tilde e_h(t^{\tilde \alpha^a_{\; \; b}} {\gamma^a}_b ) ] \\
\label{deltagamma3} & & \; \;
- \sum_i t^{\tilde \alpha^i_{\; \; a}}{\gamma^i}_a \tilde f^i_{bc}
- \sum_h t^{\tilde \alpha^c_{\; \; h}} \bar \gamma^c_{\; \; h}
\tilde f^a_{bh}
- \sum_{hi} t^{\tilde \alpha^c_{\; \; h}} \bar \gamma^c_{\; \; h}
t^{\tilde \alpha^i_{\; \; a}}{\gamma^i}_a \tilde f^i_{bh} \\
\label{deltagamma4} & & \; \;
- t^{\tilde \alpha^b_{\; \; i}}{\gamma^b}_i \tilde f^i_{ac}
- \sum_h t^{\tilde \alpha^c_{\; \; h}} \bar \gamma^c_{\; \; h}
\tilde f^b_{ah}
- \sum_{hi} t^{\tilde \alpha^c_{\; \; h}} \bar \gamma^c_{\; \; h}
t^{\tilde \alpha^b_{\; \; i}}{\gamma^b}_i \tilde f^i_{ah} \}.\end{aligned}$$ The terms in line (\[deltagamma4\]) need not be considered since they originate from Term E of the connection coefficients and as stated above the contribution from this term is cancelled by terms in $\Lambda = \tilde \Gamma^c_{a b} \, ^0\tilde k^a_{\; \; c} \, t^{p_b}$. So considering only lines (\[deltagamma1\]) – (\[deltagamma3\]), the first term on the right hand side of (\[estderk1c\]) is $$\label{estimate4}
\Delta \tilde \Gamma^a_{ab} \, p_a \, t^{-1 + p_b}
= O(t^{-1 + \alpha_0 - \delta}) + \, \mbox{terms which are
cancelled by $\Lambda$.}$$ Since the terms in the sum come with different weights, $p_a$, (\[deltatracetildegamma\]) cannot be used in (\[estimate4\]). But the estimate is straightforward. For example, the term in (\[estimate4\]) originating from the 3rd term in line (\[deltagamma3\]) $\preceq \sum_{a,h,i}
t^{-1 + |p_a - p_h| + |p_i - p_a| + p_i - p_h + 2 \alpha_0
-\delta} = O(t^{-1 + \alpha_0 - \delta})$. Finally consider the rest of the right hand side of (\[estderk1c\]), $$\label{dangerous}
- {1 \over 2} \left [ \tilde g^{ch} \{
\tilde e_a (\tilde g_{bh}) + \tilde e_b (\tilde g_{ha})
- \tilde e_h (\tilde g_{ab})
- \tilde g_{ia} \tilde f^i_{bh}
- \tilde g_{bi} \tilde f^i_{ah} \}
+ \tilde f^c_{ab} \right ] \, t^{\tilde \alpha^a_{\; \; c}}
{\kappa^a}_c \, t^{-1 + p_b}.$$ For all terms except the 5th term in (\[dangerous\]), the estimate, $O(t^{-1 + \alpha_0 - \delta})$ can be obtained from (\[christoffela\]) – (\[christoffelf\]). The fifth term originates from Term E of the connection coefficients, and was already considered above. Therefore $$\label{estderk2}
\nabla_a {k^a}_b - \, ^0 \nabla_a \, {^0 k^a}_b =
O(t^{-1 + \alpha_0 - \delta}).$$
Next the matter terms are estimated. For the Hamiltonian constraint, an estimate of $\rho - \, ^0 \rho$ is needed. $$\begin{aligned}
(\partial_t \phi)^2 - (\partial_t \, ^0 \phi)^2
& = & \{ 2 \, \partial_t \, ^0 \phi +
t^{-1 + \beta} (\beta \psi + t \partial_t \psi)\} \,
t^{-1 + \beta} (\beta \psi + t \partial_t \psi) \nonumber \\
& = & \{ 2 A + t^\beta (\beta \psi + t \partial_t \psi)\} \,
t^{-2 + \beta} (\beta \psi + t \partial_t \psi) \nonumber \\
& = & o(t^{-2 + \eta_1}), \nonumber \\
g^{ab} e_a(\phi) e_b(\phi) & \preceq & t^{-2p_3 - \delta - \epsilon}
\; = \; o(t^{-2 + \eta_1}), \nonumber \\
{ 1 \over g } g_{a b} {\cal E}^a {\cal E}^b e^{-\lambda_j \phi}
& = & O(t^{-2 - \epsilon + \sigma}) = o(t^{-2 + \eta_1}), \nonumber \\
g^{a b} g^{c h} F_{a c} F_{b h} e^{\lambda_j \phi}
& = & O(t^{-2 - 2 \epsilon + \sigma})
= o(t^{-2 + \eta_1}). \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $$\label{estrho}
\rho - \, ^0 \rho = o(t^{-2 + \eta_1}).$$ The difference between the matter terms in the momentum constraint and in $^0C_a$ is $$\begin{aligned}
- \partial_t \phi \, e_a(\phi) + \partial_t \,
^0 \phi \, e_a( \, ^0 \phi)
\; = \; - \partial_t \, ^0 \phi \, e_a(t^\beta \psi)
- \partial_t (t^\beta \psi) e_a(\phi) & = &
O(t^{-1 + \beta - \delta}), \nonumber \\
\label{estjb1f}
({1 \over \sqrt{g} } - {1 \over \sqrt{\, ^0 g} })
\, ^0{\cal E}^b \, ^0 F_{a b} +
{1 \over \sqrt{g} } ( {\cal E}^b \, F_{a b} -
\, ^0{\cal E}^b \, ^0 F_{a b} ) & = & o(t^{-1 + \eta_2}).\end{aligned}$$ Estimates related to the determinant which are relevant to (\[estjb1f\]) can be found immediately preceding equation (\[estddetg1\]). From the estimates just obtained, $$\label{estjb}
j_a - \, ^0 j_a = o(t^{-1 + \eta_2}).$$
From $R = O(t^{-2 + \alpha_0})$ (shown in [@AR]) and from $^0 C = 0$, (\[estksq\]), (\[esttrksq\]), (\[estrho\]) and the relative magnitude of the various exponents, it follows that $C = o(t^{-2 + \eta_1})$. From $^0C_a = 0$, (\[estderk2\]), (\[estebtrk\]), (\[estjb\]) and the relative magnitude of the various exponents, it follows that $C_a = o(t^{-1 + \eta_2})$.
Since (\[estconstraints1\]) – (\[estconstraints2\]) are satisfied, the Hamiltonian and momentum constraints are satisfied.
Counting the number of arbitrary functions
------------------------------------------
The number of degrees of freedom of the Einstein-Maxwell-dilaton system in 4 spacetime dimensions is 5: 2 for the gravitational field, 2 for the electromagnetic field and 1 for the dilaton. Hence, a general solution to the equations of motion should contain 10 freely adjustable, physically relevant, functions of space (each degree of freedom needs two initial data, $q$ and $\dot{q}$). This is exactly the number that appears in the above Kasner-like solutions.
- The metric carries four, physically relevant, distinct functions of space. This is the standard calculation [@BKL].
- The scalar field carries two functions of space, $A$ and $B$.
- The electromagnetic field carries six functions of space, $\! ^0 {\cal E}^a$ and $\! ^0 F_{ab}$. These are physically relevant because they are gauge invariant, but they are subject to two constraints, leaving four independent functions.
A different way to arrive at the same conclusions is to observe that the respective number of fields, dynamical equations and (first class) constraints are the same for the velocity-dominated system and the full system. Hence, a general solution of the velocity-dominated system (in the sense of function counting) will contain the same number of physically distinct, arbitrary functions as a general solution of the full system. This general argument applies to all systems considered below and hence will not be repeated.
In [@AR] a different way of assessing the generality of the solutions constructed was used. This involved exhibiting a correspondence between solutions of the velocity-dominated constraints and solutions of the full constraints using the conformal method. That method starts with certain free data and shows the existence of a unique solution of the constraints corresponding to each set of free data. It is a standard method for exploring the solution space of the full Einstein constraints [@choquet] and in [@AR] it was shown how to modify it to apply to the velocity-dominated constraints. While it is likely that the conformal method can be applied in some way to all the matter models considered in this paper, the details will only be worked out in two cases which suffice to illustrate the main aspects of the procedure. These are the Einstein-Maxwell-dilaton system with $D=4$ (this section) and the Einstein vacuum equations with arbitrary $D\ge 4$ (next section). Even in those cases no attempt will be made to give an exhaustive treatment of all issues arising. It will, however, be shown that the strategies presented for solving the velocity-dominated constraints are successful in some important situations.
The procedure presented in the following is slightly different from that used in [@AR]. Even for the case of the Einstein-scalar field system with $D=4$ it gives results which are in principle stronger than those in [@AR] since they are not confined to solutions which are close to isotropic ones. In the presence of exponential dilaton couplings a change of method seems unavoidable. One part of the conformal method concerns the construction of symmetric second rank tensors which are traceless and have prescribed divergence from the truly free data. In this step there is no difference between the full constraints and the velocity-dominated ones. An account of the methods applied to the full constraints in the case $D=4$ can be found in [@choquet]. (These arguments generalize in a straightforward way to other $D$. It is merely necessary to find the correct conformal rescalings. For $D\ge 4$ and vacuum these are written down in the next section.) In view of this we say, with a slight abuse of terminology, that the free data consists of a collection $\tilde g_{ab}$, $\tilde k_{ab}$, $H$, $\phi$, $\tilde\phi_t$, ${\cal E}^a$, $F_{ab}$ where $\tilde g_{ab}$ is a Riemannian metric, $\tilde k_{ab}$ is a symmetric tensor with vanishing trace and prescribed divergence with respect to $\tilde g_{ab}$, $H$ is a non-zero constant, $\phi$ and $\tilde\phi_t$ are scalar functions and ${\cal E}^a$ and $F_{ab}$ are objects of the same kind as elsewhere in this section. All these objects are defined on a three-dimensional manifold. Next we introduce a positive real-valued function $\omega$ which is used to construct solutions of the constraints from the free data. Define $g_{ab}=\omega^4 \tilde g_{ab}$, $k_{ab}=\omega^{-2}\tilde k_{ab}+Hg_{ab}$, $\phi_t=\omega^{-6}\tilde\phi_t$. The objects $g_{ab}$, $k_{ab}$, $\phi$, $\phi_t$, ${\cal E}^a$ and $F_{ab}$ satisfy the constraints provided the divergence of $\tilde k_{ab}$ is prescribed as $\omega^6 j_a$ and $\omega$ satisfies a nonlinear equation which in the case of the full Einstein equations is known as the Lichnerowicz equation. In the case of the velocity-dominated constraints it is an algebraic equation. The Lichnerowicz equation is of the form $$\label{lichno3}
\Delta_{\tilde g}\omega-\frac 18 R_{\tilde g}\omega+\sum_{i=1}^3
a_i \omega^{\alpha_i}-\frac 34 H^2\omega^5=0$$ Here $\alpha_1=1$, $\alpha_2=-3$ and $\alpha_3=-7$. The functions $a_i$ depend on the free data and their exact form is unimportant. All that is of interest are that each $a_i$ is non-negative and that at any point of space $a_1=0$ iff $\nabla_a\phi=0$ , $a_2=0$ iff the electromagnetic data vanish and $a_3=0$ iff $\phi_t$ and $\tilde k_{ab}$ vanish. Next consider the velocity-dominated constraints for $d=3$. The analogue of the elliptic equation (\[lichno3\]) is the algebraic equation $$\label{vdlichno3}
b \omega^{-7}-\frac 34 H^2\omega^5=0$$ Here $b$ is a non-negative function which vanishes at a point of space iff $\phi_t$ and $\tilde k_{ab}$ vanish. This can be solved trivially for $\omega>0$ provided $b$ does not vanish at any point since the mean curvature $H$ is non-zero. For each choice of free data satisfying this non-vanishing condition there is a unique solution $\omega$ of (\[vdlichno3\]).
In order to compare the sets of solutions of the full and velocity-dominated constraints in these two cases it remains to investigate the solvability of the elliptic equation (\[lichno3\]) for $\omega$. A discussion of this type of problem in any dimension can be found in [@isenberg]. We would like to show that for suitable metrics on a compact manifold the equation for $\omega$ always has a unique solution, [*i.e.,*]{} the situation is exactly as in the case of the velocity-dominated equations. The problem can be simplified by the use of the Yamabe theorem, which says that any metric can be conformally transformed to a metric of constant scalar curvature $-1$, $0$ or $1$. In the following only the cases of negative and vanishing scalar curvature of the metric supplied by the Yamabe theorem will be considered. A key role in the existence and uniqueness theorems for equation (\[lichno3\]) is played by the positive zeros of the algebraic expressions $x+8\sum_{i=1}^3 a_i x^{\alpha_i}-6 H^2 x^5$ and $8\sum_{i=1}^3 a_i x^{\alpha_i}-6 H^2 x^5$. Provided $\sum_{a=1}^3 a_i$ does not vanish anywhere it is possible to show that each of the algebraic expressions has a unique positive zero for each value of the parameters.
The significance of the information which has been obtained concerning the zeros of certain algebraic expressions is that it guarantees the existence of a positive solution of the corresponding elliptic equations for any set of free data satisfying the inequalities already stated using the method of sub- and supersolutions ([*cf.*]{} [@isenberg]). In the case of equation (\[lichno3\]) uniqueness also holds. For in that case the equation has a form considered in [@om] for which uniqueness is demonstrated in that paper. The advantage of the three dimensional case is that there the problem reduces to the analysis of the roots of a cubic equation, a relatively simple task compared to the analysis of the zeros of the more complicated algebraic expressions occurring in higher dimensions.
For the purpose of analysing Kasner-like (monotone) singularities it is not enough to know about producing just any solutions of the constraints. What we have shown is that (i) if the Kasner constraints are satisfied at time $t_0$, then they are propagated at all times by the velocity-dominated evolution equations; and (ii) if the Kasner constraints are satisfied, the exact constraints are also satisfied. It is also necessary to verify, however, that one can satisfy simultaneously the Kasner constraints [*and*]{} the inequalities necessary for applying the Fuchsian arguments, i.e., we must make sure that we can produce a sufficiently large class of solutions which satisfy the inequalities necessary to make them consistent with Kasner behaviour. Because of the indirect nature of the way of solving the momentum constraint (which has not been explained here) it is not easy to control the generalized Kasner exponents of the resulting spacetime. There is however, one practical possibility. Choose a spatially homogeneous solution with Abelian isometry group (for $d=3$ this means Bianchi type I) which satisfies the necessary inequalities. Take the free data from that solution and deform it slightly. Then the generalized Kasner exponents of the final solution of the velocity-dominated equations will also only be changed slightly. If the homogeneous solution is defined on the torus $T^3$ then it is known that any other metric of constant scalar curvature has non-positive scalar curvature. Therefore we are in the case for which existence and uniqueness is discussed above. We could also start with a negatively curved Friedmann model.
Vacuum solutions with $D \geq 11$ {#vacuum}
=================================
The second class of solutions we consider is governed by the action (\[action2\]), with $D \geq 11$. The $d+1$ decomposition is as in section \[stepzero\], with the matter terms vanishing. The Kasner-like evolution equations are (\[dtg0\]) and (\[dtk0\]). The general analytic solution of these equations is given by (\[0kab1\]) and (\[0gab1\]). To obtain this form, we again adapt a global time coordinate such that the singularity is at $t=0$. We label the eigenvalues of $K$, $p_1, \ldots , p_d$, such that $p_a \leq p_b$ if $a < b$. The eigenvalues again satisfy $\sum_{i=1}^d p_i = 1$, coming from ${\mbox{tr}}\, K = 1$. As in the $D=4$ case, in order to preserve analyticity even near the points where some of the eigenvalues coincide, while retaining control of the solution in terms of the eigenvalues, we introduce a special construction involving auxiliary exponents and an adapted frame.
In higher dimensions, there are more possibilities to take care of, but the idea is the same as in the $D=4$ case. Consider an arbitrary point $x_0 \in \Sigma$. Let $n$ be the number of distinct eigenvalues of $K$ at $x_0$. Let $m_i$ be the multiplicity of $p_{A_i}$, $i \in \{1, \ldots, n \}$, with $p_{A_i}$ such that $p_b$ is strictly less than $p_{A_i}$ if $b < A_i$. Thus $p_{A_i}, \ldots, p_{A_i + m_i -1}$ are equal at $x_0$. For each integer $a \in \{ A_i, \ldots, A_i + m_i -1 \}$, define $$q_a = {1 \over m_i} \sum_{j= A_i}^{A_i + m_i -1} p_j$$ on a neighbourhood of $x_0$, $U_0$. Note that if $m_i = 1$, then $q_{A_i} = p_{A_i}$. Shrinking $U_0$ if necessary, choose $\epsilon > 0$ such that for $x \in U_0$, for $a \in \{ A_i, \ldots, A_i + m_i -1 \}$ and for $b \in \{ A_j, \ldots, A_j + m_j -1 \}$, if $i = j$, then $|p_a - p_b| < \epsilon/2$, while if $i \neq j$, $|p_a - p_b| > \epsilon/2$.
The adapted frame $\{ e_a \}$ is again required to be analytic and such that the related frame $\{ \tilde e_a \}$ is orthonormal with respect to the Kasner-like metric at some time $t_0 > 0$, with $\tilde e_a = t^{-q_a} e_a$. In addition, it is required that $e_{A_i},\ldots, e_{A_i + m_i -1}$ span the eigenspace of $K$ corresponding to the eigenvalues $p_{A_i},\ldots, p_{A_i + m_i -1}$. Note that if $m_i = 1$ then $e_{A_i}$ is an eigenvector of $K$ corresponding to the eigenvalue $q_{A_i}$. The auxiliary exponents, $q_a$, are analytic, satisfy the Kasner relation ($\sum q_a = 1$), are ordered ($q_a \leq q_b$ for $a < b$), and satisfy $q_1 \geq p_1$, $q_d \leq p_d$ and $\max_a |q_a - p_a| < \epsilon/2$. If $q_a \neq q_b$, then $^0g_{ab}$, $^0g^{ab}$, $^0 \tilde g_{ab}$ and $^0 \tilde g^{ab}$ all vanish, and the same is true with $g$ replaced by $k$.
The velocity-dominated constraints corresponding to the Hamiltonian and momentum constraints are $^0C=0$ and $^0C_a = 0$, with $^0C$ and $^0C_a$ as in equations (\[hamiltonian0\]) and (\[momentum0\]), with the matter terms vanishing. For the solution (\[0kab1\]) – (\[0gab1\]) the velocity-dominated Hamiltonian constraint equation is equivalent to $\sum p_a^2 = 1$. Equations (\[dt0C\]) – (\[dt0Ca\]) are satisfied, so if the velocity-dominated constraints are satisfied at some $t_0$, then they are satisfied for all $t > 0$.
For this class of solutions, the inequality [@DHS], $2 p_1 + p_2 + \cdots + p_{d-2} > 0$, or equivalently, $$\label{inequalities2}
1 + p_1 - p_d - p_{d-1} > 0,$$ defines the set $V$ which was referred to in the introduction. As shown in [@DHS], this inequality can be realized when the spacetime dimension $D$ is equal to or greater than $11$. As in our Maxwell archetypal example above, we expect that this inequality will be crucial to control the effect of the source terms (here linked to the spatial curvature) near the singularity. It is again convenient to introduce a number $\sigma > 0$ so that, for all $x \in U_0$, $4 \sigma < 1 + p_1 - p_d - p_{d-1} $. Reduce $\epsilon$ if necessary so that $\epsilon < \sigma/(2 d + 1) $. If $\epsilon$ is reduced, it may be necessary to shrink $U_0$ so that the conditions imposed above remain satisfied. It is assumed that $\epsilon$ and $U_0$ are such that the conditions imposed above and the condition imposed in this paragraph are all satisfied.
We again recast the evolution equations in the form (\[fuchs0\]) and show, for $D \geq 11$, that (\[fuchs0\]) is Fuchsian and equivalent to the vacuum Einstein equation, with quantities $u$, $\cal A$ and $f$ as follows. Let $u = ({\gamma^a}_b, {\lambda^c}_{ef}, {\kappa^h}_i)$ be related to the Einstein variables by (\[defgamma\]) – (\[defkappa\]). For general $d$ define $\alpha_0=(d+1)\epsilon$ and define ${\alpha^a}_b$ in terms of $\alpha_0$ as in section \[scaMax4D\]. Let $\cal A$ and $f$, be given by equations (\[fuchgamma\]) – (\[fuchkappa\]), with ${M^a}_b = 0$. The argument that $\cal A$ in equation (\[fuchs0\]) satisfies the appropriate positivity condition is analogous to the part of the argument concerning the submatrix of $\cal A$ corresponding to $(\gamma, \kappa)$ in [@AR]. A transformation to a frame in which $^0g_{ab}$ is diagonal induces a similarity transformation of $\cal A$. The eigenvalues of the submatrix are calculated in this representation in [@AR], and the generalization of the calculation to integer $d \geq 2$ is straightforward.
To obtain $f = O(t^\delta)$ requires the estimate $t^{2 - {\alpha^a}_b} \,^S {R^a}_b = O(t^\delta)$. The strategy used here is different from that used to estimate the curvature in [@AR]. The general problem is one of organization. There are many terms to be estimated, each of which on its own is not too difficult to handle. The difficulty is to maintain an overview of the different terms. The procedure in [@AR] made essential use of the fact that the indices only take three distinct values and in the case of higher dimensions, where this simplification is not available, an alternative approach had to be developed.
First $^S{R^a}_b$ is estimated by considering each of the five terms in the expression (\[curvature\]) These five terms are expanded by considering each of the six terms in (\[christoffel\]) if the indices on $^S\Gamma^c_{ab}$ are distinct, but carrying out the summation before estimating $^S\Gamma^a_{ab}$. There are thus 55 terms to estimate. While many of these terms are actually identical up to numerical factors, the ease with which each term can be estimated, using the inequalities (\[makeest1\]) – (\[makeest3\]), led to estimation of all 55 terms, rather than first combining terms. We do however, take into account that $f^i_{jk} = 0$ if $j = k$ for obtaining the estimates.
Once an equation such as (\[fuchs0\]) is shown to be Fuchsian, then it follows that spatial derivatives of $u$ of any order are $o(1)$. At the stage of the argument we are at here, we cannot assume $u_{xx} = O(1)$. This means that $t^{-\zeta} {\lambda^a}_{bc}$ must be used for $e_b({\gamma^a}_c)$ in places where a spatial derivative of $e_b({\gamma^a}_c)$ occurs. This makes a slight difference, compared to section \[stepfour\], in what estimate of the terms in the connection coefficients is used for the first and second terms of (\[curvature\]) ($t^{-\delta}$ is replaced by $t^{-\zeta}$). There are additional differences from (\[christoffela\]) – (\[christoffelf\]), because there it is assumed that the Kasner-like metric is diagonal. The estimates $^0 \tilde g_{ab} = O(t^{-\epsilon})$ and $^0 \tilde g^{ab} = O(t^{-\epsilon})$, obtained in Lemma 2 of [@AR], hold in the case we are considering, so that $\tilde g_{(ab)} \preceq t^{|q_a - q_b| -\epsilon}$ and (see [@AR]) $^S \tilde g^{ab} \preceq t^{|q_a - q_b| -\epsilon}$. This adds factors of $t^{-\epsilon}$ to the estimate of terms in the connection coefficients.
With these considerations, from (\[christoffel\]), $$\label{atracetildegamma2}
^S \tilde \Gamma^a_{ac} =
{1 \over 2} \, ^S \tilde g^{ab} \tilde e_c(\tilde g_{(ab)})
+ \tilde f^a_{ac}
\preceq t^{-q_c - 2 \epsilon - \zeta}.$$
Here we do not write out the estimates of all 55 terms, but instead give some examples, with a number designating which term of (\[curvature\]) is being considered (1 – 5), and a letter designating which term of (\[christoffel\]) is being considered (A – F). Thus, for example, term 1C is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estcurvature12c}
t^{-q_a + q_b} \tilde g^{ac}
\tilde e_h ( \, ^S \tilde g^{hi} \tilde e_i (\tilde g_{(cb)}) ) & \preceq &
\sum_{c,h,i} t^{- q_a + q_b + |q_a - q_c| - q_h + |q_h - q_i|
- q_i + |q_c - q_b| - \delta - 3 \epsilon - \zeta} \nonumber \\
& \preceq & t^{- 2 q_a + 2 q_{\max\{a,b\}} - 2 q_d
- \delta - 3 \epsilon - \zeta}.\end{aligned}$$ Term 3E is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estcurvature32e}
t^{-q_a + q_b} \tilde g^{ac}
\, ^S \tilde g^{ik} \tilde g_{(bj)} \tilde f^j_{ck}
\, ^S \tilde \Gamma^h_{hi} & \preceq &
\sum_{c,i,j,k \neq c} t^{- q_a + q_b + |q_a - q_c| + |q_i - q_k|
+ |q_b - q_j| + q_j - q_c - q_k - q_i - \delta - 5 \epsilon} \nonumber \\
& \preceq & \sum_{c,k \neq c} t^{- 2 q_{\min\{a,c\}} + 2 q_b
- 2 q_{\min\{d,k\}} - \delta - 5 \epsilon}.\end{aligned}$$ In term 4, $t^{- q_a + q_b} \tilde g^{ac} \, ^S
\tilde \Gamma^h_{ib} \, ^S \tilde \Gamma^i_{ch}$, the terms resulting from expanding $^S \tilde \Gamma^h_{ib}$ are designated by small letters a – f, and those from $^S \tilde \Gamma^i_{ch}$ are designated by capital letters A – F. Term 4dA is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estcurvature42dA}
& & t^{-q_a + q_b} \tilde g^{ac}
\, ^S \tilde g^{hl} \tilde g_{(ji)} \tilde f^j_{bl}
\, ^S \tilde g^{ik} \tilde e_c (\tilde g_{(hk)}) \nonumber \\ & \preceq &
\sum_{c,h,i,j,k,l} t^{- q_a + q_b + |q_a - q_c| + |q_h - q_l|
+ |q_j - q_i| + q_j - q_b - q_l + |q_i - q_k| - q_c + |q_h - q_k|
- \delta - 5 \epsilon} \nonumber \\
& \preceq & t^{- 2 q_a - \delta - 5 \epsilon}.\end{aligned}$$ Term 4eD is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estcurvature42eD}
& & t^{-q_a + q_b} \tilde g^{ac}
\, ^S \tilde g^{hn} \tilde g_{(bj)} \tilde f^j_{in}
\,^ S \tilde g^{il} \tilde g_{(kc)} \tilde f^k_{hl}
\nonumber \\ & \preceq &
\sum_{c,h,i,j,k,l \neq h,n \neq i} t^{- q_a + q_b + |q_a - q_c|
+ |q_h - q_n| + |q_b - q_j| + q_j - q_i - q_n
+ |q_i - q_l| + |q_k - q_c| + q_k - q_h - q_l
- \delta - 5 \epsilon} \nonumber \\
& \preceq & t^{2 q_b - 2 q_d -2 q_{d-1}
- \delta - 5 \epsilon}\end{aligned}$$ Term 5D is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estcurvature52d}
t^{-q_a + q_b} \tilde g^{ac} \tilde f^i_{cj}
\, ^S \tilde g^{jk} \tilde g_{(hi)} \tilde f^h_{bk}
& \preceq &
\sum_{c,h,i,j \neq c ,k \neq b} t^{- q_a + q_b + |q_a - q_c|
+ q_i - q_c - q_j + |q_j - q_k|
+ |q_h - q_i| + q_h - q_b - q_k - \delta - 3 \epsilon} \nonumber \\
& \preceq & \sum_{c,j \neq c ,k \neq b}
t^{- 2 q_{\min \{a,c\}} + 2 q_1
-2 q_{\min \{j,k\}} - \delta - 3 \epsilon}.\end{aligned}$$ The estimates of the remaining terms are obtained as these. The examples include one of the terms which limits the estimate for each possible choice of indices $a$ and $b$. The result is, $$\label{estrab}
^S {R^a}_b \preceq
t^{2 q_b - 2 q_d -2 q_{d-1}
- \delta - 5 \epsilon}
+ \sum_{c,j \neq c ,k \neq b}
t^{- 2 q_{\min \{a,c\}} + 2 q_1
-2 q_{\min \{j,k\}} - \delta - 5 \epsilon}.$$ And $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estrabforkappa}
t^{2 - {\alpha^a}_b} \, ^S {R^a}_b
& \preceq &
\{ t^{2 q_{\min \{a,b\}} - 2 q_d -2 q_{d-1}} +
\sum_{c \geq a,j \neq c ,k \neq b}
t^{-2 q_{\max \{a,b\}} + 2 q_1 -2 q_{\min \{j,k\}}} \}
t^{2 - \alpha_0 - \delta - 5 \epsilon} \nonumber \\
& \preceq & t^{2 - 2q_d - 2q_{d-1} + 2q_1 - (d + 7) \epsilon}
\preceq t^{8 \sigma - (d + 7) \epsilon} = O(t^{\delta}).\end{aligned}$$
The estimate of the rest of the terms in $f$ is obtained straightforwardly by checking that the exponent of $t$ in each case is strictly positive. The other regularity conditions that $f$ should satisfy are shown to hold by equation (31) in [@AR] and the remarks following equation (31). The symmetry of $g_{ab}$ is shown for all $d$’s in subsection \[symmetryofg\]. That the Hamiltonian and momentum constraints are satisfied is shown by the direct analogue of argument made in section \[stepfour\] and the estimate $R = o(t^{-2 + \eta_1})$ obtained from equation (\[estrab\]). The only change is that equation (\[divmom2\]) is replaced by $$\tilde g^{ab} \tilde \Gamma^c_{ab} \, \bar C_c \, t^{-p_c}
\preceq t^{-2 p_d - \delta}.$$
To conclude this section we discuss the solution of the velocity-dominated constraints for the vacuum equations and $D\ge 4$. The case $D=3$ could be discussed in a similar way but the analogue of the Lichnerowicz equation has a different form and so for brevity that case will be omitted. The discussion proceeds in a way which is parallel to that of the last section. As already indicated there, the essential task is the analysis of the Lichnerowicz equation. In the present case we start with free data $\tilde g_{ab}$, $\tilde k_{ab}$ and $H$ where $\tilde k_{ab}$ has zero divergence. The actual data are defined by $g_{ab}=\omega^{4/(d-2)}
\tilde g_{ab}$ and $k_{ab}=\omega^{-2}\tilde k_{ab}+Hg_{ab}$. The constraints will be satisfied is $\omega$ satisfies the following analogue of the Lichnerowicz equation: $$\label{lichnod}
\Delta_{\tilde g}\omega+\frac{d-2}{4(d-1)}(-R_{\tilde g}\omega
+\tilde k^{ab}\tilde k_{ab}\omega^{\frac{3d-2}{d-2}})-\frac{d(d-2)}{4}
H^2\omega^{\frac{d+2}{d-2}}=0$$ The corresponding equation in the velocity-dominated case is $$\label{vdlichnod}
\frac{d-2}{4(d-1)}\tilde k^{ab}\tilde k_{ab}\omega^{\frac{3d-2}{d-2}}
-\frac{d(d-2)}{4}H^2\omega^{\frac{d+2}{d-2}}=0$$ As in the case of (\[vdlichno3\]) it is trivial to solve (\[vdlichnod\]) provided $\tilde k_{ab}$ does not vanish at any point. To determine the solvability of equation (\[lichnod\]) it is necessary to study the positive zeros of the algebraic expressions $x+b x^{\frac{3d-2}{d-2}}-ax^{\frac{d+2}{d-2}}$ and $b x^{\frac{3d-2}{d-2}}-ax^{\frac{d+2}{d-2}}$ where $a>0$ and $b>0$. The second expression is very close to what we had in the velocity-dominated case and clearly has a unique positive zero for any values of $a$ and $b$ satisfying the inequalities assumed. Looking for positive zeros of the first algebraic expression is equivalent to looking for positive solutions of $x^{-\frac{d+2}{d-2}}+a x^{-2}-b=0$. Note that the function on the left hand side of this equation is evidently decreasing for all positive $x$, tends to infinity as $x\to 0$ and tends to $-b$ as $x\to\infty$. Hence as long as the constant $b$ is non-zero this function has exactly one positive zero, as desired. This is what is needed to obtain an existence theorem. It would be desirable to also obtain a uniqueness theorem for the solution of (\[lichnod\]). To obtain solutions of the velocity-dominated constraints of the right kind to be consistent with Kasner-like behaviour we can use the same approach as in the last section, starting with Kasner solutions with an appropriate set of Kasner exponents.
Massless scalar field, $D \geq 3$ {#scalar}
==================================
Consider Einstein’s equations, $D \geq 3$, with a massless scalar field as source, the action given by $S_E [g_{\alpha \beta}] + S_\phi[g_{\alpha \beta}, \phi]$, and $d + 1$ decomposition as in section \[stepzero\]. The stress-energy tensor is $$\label{stressenergy}
T_{\mu \nu} = \, ^{(D)}\nabla_\mu \phi \,
^{(D)}\nabla_\nu \phi - {1 \over 2} g_{\mu \nu} \,
^{(D)}\nabla_\alpha \phi \, ^{(D)}\nabla^\alpha \phi.$$ Thus $\rho = {1 \over 2} \{ (\partial_t \phi)^2 +
g^{ab} e_a(\phi) e_b(\phi)\}$, $j_a = - \partial_t \phi \, e_a(\phi)$, and ${M^a}_b = g^{ac} e_b(\phi) \, e_c(\phi)$. A crucial step in the generalization to arbitrary $D \geq 3$ is that the cancellation of terms involving $\partial_t \phi$ in the expression for ${M^a}_b$ is not particular to $D = 4$. The scalar field satisfies $^{(D)}\nabla_\alpha \, ^{(D)}\nabla^\alpha \phi = 0$, which has $d + 1$ decomposition $$\label{eveqphi0}
\partial^2_t \phi - ({\mbox{tr}}k) \partial_t \phi =
g^{ab} \nabla_a \nabla_b \, \phi.$$
Let the Kasner-like evolution equations be equations (\[dtg0\]) – (\[dtphi0\]), with solution (\[0kab1\]) – (\[0phi1\]) for time coordinate as in section \[vacuum\]. Given a point $x_0 \in \Sigma$, let the neighbourhood $U_0$, the (local) adapted frame and the constant $\epsilon$ be as in section \[vacuum\]. Define $^0 \rho = {1 \over 2} (\partial_t \, ^0 \phi)^2$ and $^0 j_a = - \partial_t \, ^0 \phi \, e_a(\, ^0 \phi)$. The velocity-dominated constraints corresponding to the Hamiltonian and momentum constraints are $^0C=0$ and $^0C_a = 0$, with $^0C$ and $^0C_a$ given by equations (\[hamiltonian0\]) and (\[momentum0\]). For the solution (\[0kab1\]) – (\[0phi1\]) the velocity-dominated Hamiltonian constraint is equivalent to $\sum {p_a}^2 + A^2 = 1$. Equations (\[dt0C\]) and (\[dt0Ca\]) are satisfied so if the velocity-dominated constraints are satisfied at some $t_0$, then they are satisfied for all $t > 0$. The restriction defining the set $V$ is the inequality (\[inequalities2\]). (If $D < 11$, then satisfying simultaneously (\[inequalities2\]), $\sum p_a = 1$ and $\sum {p_a}^2 + A^2 = 1$ requires $A \neq 0$. Note that conversely, for $D=3$, the restrictions defining $V$ are simply equivalent to $A \not=0$, since (\[inequalities2\]) is in this case a consequence of $p_1 + p_2 = 1$ and $p_1^2 + p_2^2 <1$.) The constant $\sigma > 0$ is chosen so that, for all $x \in U_0$, $4 \sigma < 1 + p_1 - p_d - p_{d-1}$ from which it follows that $$\label{inequalities3}
\sigma < 2 - 2 p_d.$$ Now reduce $\epsilon$ if necessary so that $\epsilon < \sigma/(2 d + 1) $. As before, this may in turn require shrinking $U_0$.
The unknown $u = ({\gamma^a}_b, {\lambda^a}_{bc},
{\kappa^a}_b, \psi, \omega_a,\chi)$ is related to the Einstein-matter variables by (\[defgamma\]) – (\[defchi\]). The quantities $\cal A$ and $f$ appearing in equation (\[fuchs0\]) are given by the evolution equations (\[fuchgamma\]) – (\[fuchomega\]) and $$\label{fuchchi0}
t \, \partial_t \chi + \beta \chi = t^{\alpha_0 - \beta}
({\mbox{tr}}\, \kappa) ( A + t ^\beta \chi ) + t^{2 - \beta}
\; ^S g^{ab} \, ^S \nabla_a \, ^S \nabla_b \, ^0 \phi
+ t^{2 - \zeta} \; ^S \nabla^a \omega_a.$$ The argument that the matrix $\cal A$ satisfies the appropriate positivity condition is analogous to the argument in [@AR]. Regarding the estimate $f = O(t^\delta)$, the estimate $t^{2 - {\alpha^a}_b} \,^S {R^a}_b = O(t^\delta)$ was obtained in equation (\[estrabforkappa\]). The estimate $t^{2 - {\alpha^a}_b} {M^a}_b = O(t^\delta)$ follows from the inequality (\[inequalities3\]) and from $q_d < p_d$. The only other terms in $f$ whose estimates are not immediate from the estimates made in [@AR] are the last two terms on the right hand side of equation (\[fuchchi0\]). The covariant derivative compatible with the symmetrized metric is used in equation (\[fuchchi0\]) for convenience. From the estimate $^S \tilde g^{ab} \preceq t^{|q_a - q_b| -\epsilon}$ [@AR], equations (\[estmetric\]) and (\[estdgab\]), $$^S g^{ab} \preceq t^{-2 q_{\min \{ a,b \}} - \epsilon}
\hspace{20pt} \mbox{and} \hspace{20pt}
e_c(g_{(ab)}) \preceq t^{ 2 q_{\max \{ a,b \}}
- \delta - \epsilon}.$$ Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
^S g^{ab} \, ^S \Gamma^c_{ab} & = & ^S g^{ab} \;^S g^{ch}
\Big(e_a(g_{(bh)}) - {1 \over 2} e_h(g_{(ab)}) \Big)
- \, ^S g^{ch} f^a_{ah} \nonumber \\
& \preceq & t^{- 2 q_d - \delta - 3 \epsilon} \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
t^{2 - \beta} \; ^S g^{ab} \, ^S \nabla_a
\, ^S \nabla_b \, ^0 \phi & = &
t^{2 - \beta} \; ^S g^{ab}
\{e_a( e_b(\,^0 \phi)) - \, ^S \Gamma^c_{ab}
e_c(\,^0 \phi)\} \nonumber \\
& \preceq & t^{2 - 2 q_d - \beta - \delta
- 3 \epsilon} = O(t^\delta), \nonumber \\
t^{2 - \zeta} \; ^S \nabla^a \omega_a & = &
t^{2 - \zeta} \; ^S g^{ab}
\{e_a( w_b) - \, ^S \Gamma^c_{ab}
w_c \} \nonumber \\
& \preceq & t^{2 - 2 q_d - \zeta - \delta
- 3 \epsilon} = O(t^\delta) \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
The other regularity conditions that $f$ should satisfy are again shown to hold by equation (31) in [@AR] and the remarks following equation (31). That $g_{ab}$ is symmetric (so that equation (\[fuchchi0\]) and equation (\[eveqphi0\]) are equivalent) is shown as in subsection \[symmetryofg\]. That the Hamiltonian and momentum constraints are satisfied is shown by the analogue of the argument made in section \[stepfour\] and the estimate $R = o(t^{-2 + \eta_1})$ obtained from equation (\[estrab\]).
Note that the case $D=3$ of this result has an interesting connection to the Einstein vacuum equations in $D=4$. As it follows from standard Kaluza-Klein lines, the solutions of the latter with polarized $U(1)$ symmetry are equivalent to the Einstein-scalar field system in $D=3$ (see e.g. [@nicolai] and [@andersson99], section 5). Hence the result of this section implies that we have constructed the most general known class of singular solutions of the Einstein vacuum equations in four spacetime dimensions. These spacetimes have one spacelike Killing vector.
Matter fields derived from $n$-form potentials {#nform}
==============================================
Equations of motion
-------------------
We now turn to the general system (\[001\]), but without the interaction terms “more". These are considered in section \[couple\] below. The action is the sum of (\[action2\]), (\[action3\]) and $k$ additional terms, each of the form (\[action4\]). The argument is based on that of section \[scalar\]. It is enough here to note the differences. Furthermore, since there is no coupling between additional matter fields, the differences from the argument made in section \[scalar\] can be noted for each additional matter field independently of the others. Therefore consider the $j$th additional matter field, $$F_{\mu_0 \cdots \mu_{n_j}} =
(n_j+1) \nabla_{[\mu_0} A_{\mu_1 \cdots \mu_{n_j}]},$$ with $A$ an $n_j$-form. This matter field contributes the following additional terms to the stress-energy tensor, equation (\[stressenergy\]), $$T_{\mu \nu} = \cdots + \left\{ {1 \over n_j!}
F_{\mu \alpha_1 \cdots \alpha_{n_j}}
{F_\nu}^{\alpha_1 \cdots \alpha_{n_j}}
-{1 \over 2 (n_j + 1)!} g_{\mu \nu}
F_{\alpha_0 \cdots \alpha_{n_j}}
F^{\alpha_0 \cdots \alpha_{n_j}} \right\}
e^{\lambda_j \phi}.$$ Define ${\cal E}^{a_1 \cdots a_{n_j}} = \sqrt{g} \,
F^{0 a_1 \cdots a_{n_j}} \;
e^{\lambda_j \phi}$. If $n_j = 0$, $\cal E$ is a spatial scalar density. Throughout this section and the next we use the following conventions. If $n_j = 0$, then $P_{a_1 \cdots a_{n_j}}$ is a scalar, $g_{a_1 b_1} \cdots
g_{a_{n_j} b_{n_j}} =1$, etc. The $d+1$ decomposition of the contribution of this matter field to the stress-energy tensor is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{rhonf}
\rho & = & \cdots + { 1 \over 2 \, g \, n_j!}
g_{a_1 b_1} \cdots g_{a_{n_j} b_{n_j}}
{\cal E}^{a_1 \cdots a_{n_j}}
{\cal E}^{b_1 \cdots b_{n_j}} e^{-\lambda_j \phi}
\nonumber \\ & & \; \; \; \; \; + {1 \over 2 (n_j + 1)!}
\, g^{a_0 b_0} \cdots g^{a_{n_j} b_{n_j}}
F_{a_0 \cdots a_{n_j}}
F_{b_0 \cdots b_{n_j}} e^{\lambda_j \phi}, \\
\label{currentnf}
j_a & = & \cdots +
{1 \over \sqrt{g} \, n_j!} \, {\cal E}^{b_1 \cdots b_{n_j}}
\, F_{a b_1 \cdots b_{n_j}}, \\
{M^a}_b & = & \cdots -
{1 \over g} \Big( {n_j \over n_j!} \,
g_{b h_1} g_{c_2 h_2} \cdots g_{c_{n_j} h_{n_j}}
{\cal E}^{a c_2 \cdots c_{n_j}} {\cal E}^{h_1 \cdots h_{n_j}}
\nonumber \\ & & \; \; \; \; \;
- {n_j \over (d - 1) n_j!} \, {\delta^a}_b \, g_{c_1 h_1}
\cdots g_{c_{n_j} h_{n_j}} {\cal E}^{c_1 \cdots c_{n_j}}
{\cal E}^{h_1 \cdots h_{n_j}} \Big) e^{-\lambda_j \phi}
\nonumber \\ & & \; \; \; \; \; + \Big({1 \over n_j!} \,
g^{ac} g^{h_1 i_1} \cdots g^{h_{n_j} i_{n_j}}
F_{c h_1 \cdots h_{n_j}} F_{b i_1 \cdots i_{n_j}}
\nonumber \\ & & \; \; \; \; \;
- {n_j \over (d - 1) (n_j +1)!} \, {\delta^a}_b \,
g^{c_0 h_0} \cdots g^{c_{n_j} h_{n_j}} F_{c_0 \cdots c_{n_j}}
F_{h_0 \cdots h_{n_j}} \Big) e^{\lambda_j \phi}. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The $j$th matter field satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{matter1nf}
^{(D)}\nabla_\mu (F^{\mu \nu_1 \cdots \nu_{n_j}}
e^{\lambda_j \phi}) & = & 0, \\
\label{matter2nf}
^{(D)} \nabla_{[\mu} F_{\nu_0 \cdots \nu_{n_j}]} & = & 0,\end{aligned}$$ with $d+1$ decomposition into constraint equations, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{elconstraintnf}
e_a ( {\cal E}^{a b_2 \cdots b_{n_j}}) +
f^c_{ca} \, {\cal E}^{a b_2 \cdots b_{n_j}} +
{1 \over 2} \sum_{i=2}^{n_j} f^{b_i}_{ac}
{\cal E}^{a b_2 \cdots c \cdots b_{n_j}} & = & 0, \\
\label{magconstraintnf}
e_{[a}(F_{b_0 \cdots b_{n_j}]})
-{(n_j + 1) \over 2} f^c_{[a b_0}
F_{|c| b_1 \cdots b_{n_j}]} & = & 0,\end{aligned}$$ and evolution equations, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{elevnf}
\partial_t {\cal E}^{a_1 \cdots a_{n_j}} & = &
-e_b( \sqrt{g} g^{b c_0}
g^{a_1c_1} \cdots g^{a_{n_j} c_{n_j}}
F_{c_0 \cdots c_{n_j}} e^{\lambda_j \phi})
-\{f^h_{hb} g^{b c_0} g^{a_1 c_1} \cdots g^{a_{n_j} c_{n_j}}
\nonumber \\ & & \; \;
+ {1 \over 2} \sum_{i=1}^{n_j}
f^{a_i}_{bh} g^{b c_0} g^{a_1 c_1} \cdots g^{h c_{i}} \cdots
g^{a_{n_j} c_{n_j}} \}
\sqrt{g} F_{c_0 \cdots c_{n_j}}
e^{\lambda_j \phi}, \\
\label{magevnf}
\partial_t F_{a_0 \cdots a_{n_j}}
& = & -(n_j+1) e_{[a_0} ( {1 \over \sqrt{g}}
g_{a_1 |b_1|} \cdots g_{a_{n_j} ] b_{n_j}}
{\cal E}^{b_1 \cdots b_{n_j}} e^{-\lambda_j \phi})
\nonumber \\ & & \; \;
+ {(n_j+1) n_j \over 2 \sqrt{g}} f^c_{[a_0 a_1}
g_{|c| |b_1|} g_{a_2 |b_2|} \cdots g_{a_{n_j} ] b_{n_j}}
{\cal E}^{b_1 \cdots b_{n_j}} e^{-\lambda_j \phi}.\end{aligned}$$ The $j$th matter field contributes the following terms to the evolution equation (\[eveqphi0\]) for $\phi$. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{phievnf}
\partial^2_t \phi - ({\mbox{tr}}k) \partial_t \phi & = & \cdots
+ {\lambda_j \over 2 \, g \, n_j!} g_{a_1 b_1} \cdots g_{a_{n_j} b_{n_j}}
{\cal E}^{a_1 \cdots a_{n_j}}
{\cal E}^{b_1 \cdots b_{n_j}} e^{-\lambda_j \phi} \nonumber \\
& & \; \; \; \; \; - {\lambda_j \over 2 (n_j+1)! }
g^{a_0 b_0} \cdots g^{a_{n_j} b_{n_j}}
F_{a_0 \cdots a_{n_j}} F_{b_0 \cdots b_{n_j}} e^{\lambda_j \phi}\end{aligned}$$
Velocity-dominated system
-------------------------
The Kasner-like evolution equations corresponding to this matter field are $\partial_t \, ^0 {\cal E}^{a_1 \cdots a_{n_j}} = 0$ and $\partial_t \, {}^0 F_{a_0 \cdots a_{n_j}} = 0$. The quantities $^0{\cal E}^{a_1 \cdots a_{n_j}}$ and $^0F_{a_0 \cdots a_{n_j}}$ are constant in time with analytic spatial dependence and both are totally antisymmetric.
The velocity-dominated matter constraint equations are equations (\[elconstraintnf\]) and (\[magconstraintnf\]) with $^0\cal E$ and $^0F$ substituted for $\cal E$ and $F$. Since all quantities in the velocity-dominated matter constraints are independent of time, if the matter constraints are satisfied at some time $t_0 > 0$, then they are satisfied for all $t > 0$. This matter field does not contribute to $^0 \rho$. Its contribution to $^0 j_a$ is the term shown on the right hand side of equation (\[currentnf\]) with $^0 g$, $^0 {\cal E}$ and $^0 F$ substituted for $g$, ${\cal E}$ and $F$. The velocity-dominated constraints corresponding to the Hamiltonian and momentum constraints are $^0C=0$ and $^0C_a = 0$, with $^0C$ and $^0C_a$ given by equations (\[hamiltonian0\]) and (\[momentum0\]). Equations (\[dt0C\]) and (\[dt0Ca\]) are satisfied, so as before, if the velocity-dominated constraints are satisfied at some $t_0>0$, then they are satisfied for all $t > 0$.
The presence of the matter field $A^{(j)}$ puts the following restrictions on the set $V$ [@dh1]. $$\label{inequalitiesnf}
2 p_1 + \cdots + 2p_{n_j} - \lambda_j A > 0
\hspace{20pt} \mbox{and}
\hspace{20pt} 2 p_1 + \cdots + 2 p_{d-n_j-1} + \lambda_j A > 0.$$ The restrictions generalize the inequalities (\[inequalities1\]) found for a Maxwell field in 4 dimensions and, like them, guarantee that one can asymptotically neglect the $p$-form $A^{(j)}$ in the Einstein-dilaton dynamical equations. (For $n_j = 0$, the inequality on the left of (\[inequalitiesnf\]) is $-\lambda_j A > 0$, while for $n_j = 1$ it is $2 p_1 - \lambda_j A > 0$. For $n_j = d-1$, the inequality on the right is $\lambda_j A > 0$, while for $n_j = d-2$ it is $2 p_1 + \lambda_j A > 0$.)
The constant $\sigma$ is reduced from its value in section \[scalar\], if necessary, so that, for all $x \in U_0$, $\sigma < 2 p_1 + \cdots + 2p_{n_j} - \lambda_j A$ and $\sigma < 2 p_1 + \cdots + 2 p_{d-n_j-1} + \lambda_j A$. If $\sigma$ is reduced, it may be necessary to reduce $\epsilon$, and in turn shrink $U_0$, so that the conditions imposed in section \[scalar\] are still all satisfied.
Fuchsian property - Estimates
-----------------------------
The $j$th matter field contributes the following components to the unknown $u$ in the Fuchsian equation (\[fuchs0\]). $$\begin{aligned}
\label{defxinf}
{\cal E}^{a_1 \cdots a_{n_j}}
& = & \, ^0 {\cal E}^{a_1 \cdots a_{n_j}}
+ t^\beta \xi^{a_1 \cdots a_{n_j}}, \\
\label{defvarphinf}
F_{a_0 \cdots a_{n_j}}
& = & \, ^0 F_{a_0 \cdots a_{n_j}}
+ t^\beta \varphi_{a_0 \cdots a_{n_j}}.\end{aligned}$$ Here, $\beta = \epsilon / 100$ as above, $\xi^{a_1 \cdots a_{n_j}}$ is a totally antisymmetric spatial tensor density, so contributes $d \choose n_j$ independent components to $u$, and $\varphi_{a_0 \cdots a_{n_j}}$ is a totally antisymmetric spatial tensor, so contributes $d \choose n_j + 1$ components to $u$. This is consistent with the form of the evolution equations. Note that ${\cal E}^{a_1 \cdots a_{n_j}} = O(1)$ and $F_{a_0 \cdots a_{n_j}} = O(1)$.
This matter field contributes additional rows and columns to the matrix $\cal A$ such that the only non-vanishing new entries are on the diagonal and strictly positive. Therefore, the presence of this matter field does not alter that $\cal A$ satisfies the appropriate positivity condition.
The terms in the source $f$ which must be estimated on account of the $j$th matter field are the following. It contributes terms to the components of $f$ corresponding to $\kappa$ through its contribution to ${M^a}_b$. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estM1nf}
& & t^{2 - {\alpha^a}_b} {1 \over g}
g_{b h_1} g_{c_2 h_2} \cdots g_{c_{n_j} h_{n_j}}
{\cal E}^{a c_2 \cdots c_{n_j}} {\cal E}^{h_1 \cdots h_{n_j}}
e^{-\lambda_j \phi} \nonumber \\ & & \hspace{40pt} \preceq \,
\sum t^{-2 q_{\max\{a,b\}} + 2 q_a + 2 q_{\max\{b,h_1\}} +
\cdots + 2 q_{\max\{c_{n_j},h_{n_j}\}} - \lambda_j A - \alpha_0 -
n_j \epsilon} \nonumber \\
& & \hspace{40pt} \preceq \, t^{2 q_1 + \cdots + 2q_{n_j}
- \lambda_j A - \alpha_0 - n_j \epsilon}
\, = \, O(t^{- \alpha_0 - n_j \epsilon + \sigma})
\, = \, O(t^{\delta}) \\
\label{estM3nf}
& & t^{2 - {\alpha^a}_b}
g^{ac} g^{h_1 i_1} \cdots g^{h_{n_j} i_{n_j}}
F_{c h_1 \cdots h_{n_j}} F_{b i_1 \cdots i_{n_j}}
e^{\lambda_j \phi} \nonumber \\ & & \hspace{40pt} \preceq \,
\sum t^{2-2 q_{\max\{a,b\}} + 2 q_a - 2 q_{\min\{a,c\}}
- 2 q_{\min\{h_1,i_1\}} - \cdots
- 2 q_{\min\{h_{n_j},i_{n_j}\}} + \lambda_j A - \alpha_0 -
(n_j + 1) \epsilon} \nonumber \\& & \hspace{40pt} \preceq \,
t^{2 q_1 + \cdots + 2 q_{d - n_j - 1} + \lambda_j A - \alpha_0 -
(n_j + 1) \epsilon}
\, = \, O(t^{- \alpha_0 - (n_j + 1) \epsilon + \sigma})
\, = \, O(t^{\delta})\end{aligned}$$ Here it is used that both ${\cal E}^{a_1 \cdots a_{n_j}}$ and $F_{a_0 \cdots a_{n_j}}$ are totally antisymmetric, so that the sums indicated by a summation symbol are not over all indices. Note that the inequalities (\[inequalitiesnf\]) have been crucially used in getting the estimates (\[estM1nf\]) and (\[estM3nf\]). The desired estimates for the other two terms are obtained similarly.
The terms contributed to the component of $f$ corresponding to $\chi$ by the $j$th matter field are obtained by multiplying the right hand side of equation (\[phievnf\]) by $t^{2 - \beta}$. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estchinf}
t^{2 - \beta} {1 \over g }
g_{a_1 b_1} \cdots g_{a_{n_j} b_{n_j}}
{\cal E}^{a_1 \cdots a_{n_j}}
{\cal E}^{b_1 \cdots b_{n_j}} e^{-\lambda_j \phi}
& = & O(t^{- \beta - n_j \epsilon + \sigma})=O(t^{\delta}) \\
t^{2-\beta}
g^{a_0 b_0} \cdots g^{a_{n_j} b_{n_j}}
F_{a_0 \cdots a_{n_j}} F_{b_0 \cdots b_{n_j}} e^{\lambda_j \phi}
& = & O(t^{- \beta - (n_j + 1) \epsilon + \sigma})=O(t^{\delta}).\end{aligned}$$ The terms in $f$ corresponding to $\xi^{a_1 \cdots a_{n_j}}$ for the $j$th matter field are obtained by multiplying the right hand side of equation (\[elevnf\]) by $t^{1 - \beta}$. These terms are $O(t^{- \beta - \delta
- (n_j + 1) \epsilon + \sigma})=O(t^{\delta})$. The terms in $f$ corresponding to $\varphi_{a_0 \cdots a_{n_j}}$ for the $j$th matter field are obtained by multiplying the right hand side of equation (\[magevnf\]) by $t^{1 - \beta}$. These terms are $O(t^{- \beta - \delta - n_j \epsilon + \sigma})=O(t^{\delta})$. Thus the terms which occur in $f$ due to the $j$th matter field are $O(t^\delta)$.
The time derivative of the matter constraint quantities for the $j$th field (the left hand side of equations (\[elconstraintnf\]) and (\[magconstraintnf\])) vanishes. If the velocity-dominated matter constraints are satisfied, the matter constraint quantities are $o(1)$. A quantity which is both constant in time and $o(1)$ must vanish. Therefore the matter constraints for the $j$th field are satisfied.
Next the matter terms due to the $j$th field in the Einstein constraints are estimated, in order to verify that they are consistent with equations (\[estconstraints1\]) and (\[estconstraints2\]). The contribution to the Hamiltonian constraint is, from equation (\[rhonf\]), $$\begin{aligned}
{ 1 \over g } g_{a_1 b_1} \cdots g_{a_{n_j} b_{n_j}}
{\cal E}^{a_1 \cdots a_{n_j}}
{\cal E}^{b_1 \cdots b_{n_j}} e^{-\lambda_j \phi}
& = & O(t^{-2 - n_j \epsilon + \sigma}) = o(t^{-2 + \eta_1}), \\
g^{a_0 b_0} \cdots g^{a_{n_j} b_{n_j}}
F_{a_0 \cdots a_{n_j}}
F_{b_0 \cdots b_{n_j}} e^{\lambda_j \phi}
& = & O(t^{-2 - (n_j + 1) \epsilon + \sigma})
= o(t^{-2 + \eta_1}).\end{aligned}$$ The contribution to the momentum constraint is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estjbnf}
j_a - ^0 j_a & = & \cdots +
({1 \over \sqrt{g} } - {1 \over \sqrt{\, ^0 g} })
\, ^0{\cal E}^{b_1 \cdots b_{n_j}}
\, ^0 F_{a b_1 \cdots b_{n_j}} \\ & & \; \; \; \; \; +
{1 \over \sqrt{g} } ( {\cal E}^{b_1 \cdots b_{n_j}}
\, F_{a b_1 \cdots b_{n_j}} -
\, ^0{\cal E}^{b_1 \cdots b_{n_j}}
\, ^0 F_{a b_1 \cdots b_{n_j}} ) = o(t^{-1 + \eta_2}).
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Estimates related to the determinant which are relevant to (\[estjbnf\]) are analogues of the estimates for $d=3$ immediately preceding equation (\[estddetg1\]). The form of these estimates for general $d$ will now be presented. These are $1/\sqrt{g} - 1/\sqrt{\, ^0g} = O(t^{-1 + \alpha_0 - d \epsilon})$, $e_a(\tilde g) = O(t^{\alpha_0 - \delta - d \epsilon})$, $$\nonumber
e_a(g) = O(t^{2 + \alpha_0 - \delta - d \epsilon}),$$ and $$e_a(g^{-1/2}) = - {e_a(g) \over 2 g^{3/2}}
= O(t^{-1 + \alpha_0 - \delta - d \epsilon}).$$
Determination of subcritical domain {#subcritical}
===================================
The explicit determination of the subcritical range of the dilaton couplings for which the inequalities on the Kasner exponents are consistent so that $V$ exists may be a complicated matter. We consider in this section a few cases and give some general rules. As in subsection \[criticalvalue\], we introduce the metric dS\^2 = G\_ dp\^dp\^= \^2 - ()\^2 + (dA)\^2 \[Kmetricbis\] in the $D$-dimensional space of the Kasner exponents $(p_a,A)
\equiv (p^\m)$. This metric has again Minkowskian signature $(-,+,+, \cdots, +)$. The forward light cone is defined by G\_ p\^p\^= 0, >0 . \[lightbis\] The Kasner conditions met in the previous section are equivalent to the conditions that the Kasner exponents be on the forward light cone (since $\sum {p_a} = 1$ can always be achieved by positive rescalings).
The wall chamber ${\cal W}$ is now defined by $$\begin{aligned}
&{}& p_1 \leq p_2 \leq \cdots \leq p_d \label{symmwalls}\\
&{}& 2 p_1 + p_2 + \cdots + p_{d-2} \geq 0
\label{gravwalls} \end{aligned}$$ and, for each $p$-form, $$\begin{aligned}
&{}& p_1 + p_2 + \cdots + p_{n_j} - \frac{\lambda_j}{2} A \geq 0
\label{elecwalls} \\
&{}& p_1 + p_2 + \cdots + p_{d-n_j-1} + \frac{\lambda_j}{2} A \geq 0.
\label{magnwalls}\end{aligned}$$ These inequalities may not be all independent. The question is to determine the “allowed" values of the dilaton couplings for which the wall chamber contains in its interior future-directed lightlike vectors. It is clear that this set is non-empty since the inequalities can be all fulfilled when the couplings are zero (the $p_a$’s can be chosen to be positive in the presence of a dilaton).
Einstein-dilaton-Maxwell system in $D$ dimensions
-------------------------------------------------
We consider first the case of a single 1-form in $D \geq 4$ dimensions. This case is simple because the inequalities (\[gravwalls\]) are then consequences of (\[elecwalls\]) and (\[magnwalls\]), which read p\_1 - A 0 , p\_1 + p\_2 + + p\_[d-2]{} + A 0. Furthermore, the number of faces of the wall chamber (defined by these inequalities and (\[symmwalls\])) is exactly $D$ and the edge vectors form a basis. Thus, the analysis of subsection \[criticalvalue\] can be repeated.
A basis of edge vectors can be taken to be $$\begin{aligned}
&{}& (0,0, \cdots, 0,1,0) \label{first} \\
&{}& \big(-\frac{d-k-2}{k+1}, \cdots, -\frac{d-k-2}{k+1}, 1, \cdots, 1,
-\frac{2(d-k-2)}{\lambda(k+1)} \big), \; \; k = 1,2, \cdots, d-2
\label{second} \\
&{}& (1,1, \cdots, 1, \frac{2}{\lambda}) \label{nexttolast} \\
&{}& (1,1, \cdots, 1, -\frac{2(d-2)}{\lambda}) \label{last}\end{aligned}$$ In (\[second\]), the first $k$ components are equal to $-\frac{d-k-2}{k+1}$ and the next $d-k$ components are equal to $1$.
The first vector is lightlike. The $k$-th vector in the group (\[second\]) has squared norm - + , k = 1,2, , d-2 \[nc2a\] while (\[nexttolast\]) and (\[last\]) have norm squared equal to -d(d-1) + \[nc2b\] and -d(d-1) +, \[nc2c\] respectively. The subcritical values of $\lambda$ must (by definition) be such that at least one of the expressions (\[nc2a\]), (\[nc2b\]) or (\[nc2c\]) is positive. To determine the boundaries $\pm \lambda_c$ of the subcritical interval, we first note that (\[nc2b\]) is positive whenever $\vert \lambda \vert < \Lambda_1$, with $\Lambda_1 = 2/\sqrt{d(d-1)}$. Similarly, (\[nc2c\]) is positive whenever $\vert \lambda \vert < \Lambda_2$ with $\Lambda_2
= 2(d-2)/\sqrt{d(d-1)}$. To analyse the sign of (\[nc2a\]), we must consider two cases, according to whether $k^2 -k(d-3)+d$ is positive or negative.
If $d< 9$, the factor $k^2 -k(d-3)+d$ is always positive (for any choice of $k$, $k = 1, 2, \cdots, d-2$) and the expression (\[nc2a\]) is positive provided $\vert \lambda \vert < \Pi_k$, with \_k = . The critical value $\lambda_c$ is equal to the largest number among $\Lambda_1$, $\Lambda_2$ and $\Pi_k$. This largest number is $\Lambda_2$ for $d=3,4,5,6$, $\Pi_1$ for $d=7$ and $\Pi_2$ for $d=8$. We thus have the following list of critical couplings: $$\begin{aligned}
&{}& \lambda_c = \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}, \; \; \; \; \; \; \; d = 3 \nn \\
&{}& \lambda_c = \frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}, \; \; \; \; \; \; \; d = 4 \nn \\
&{}& \lambda_c = \frac{3}{\sqrt{5}} , \; \; \; \;\; \; \; d = 5 \nn \\
&{}& \lambda_c = \frac{4\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{15}}, \; \; \; \; \; \; \; d = 6 \nn \\
&{}& \lambda_c = \frac{2\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{3}}, \; \; \; \; \; \; \; d = 7 \nn \\
&{}& \lambda_c = \frac{4\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{7}}, \; \; \; \; \; \; \; d = 8.
\label{6.16}\end{aligned}$$ Note that the value of the dilaton coupling that comes from dimensional reduction of vacuum gravity in one dimension higher \_[KK]{} = 2 is always strictly greater than the critical value, except for $d=8$, where $\lambda_{KK} = \lambda_c$. (The corresponding values of the Kasner exponents are those of the point on the Kasner sphere exhibited in [@DHS] for $D=10$, where all gravitational inequalities are marginally fulfilled.)
If $d \geq 9$, the factor $k^2 -k(d-3)+d$ is non-positive for k (this always occurs for $k=3$). Thus, the expression (\[nc2a\]) is positive for such $k$’s no matter what $\lambda$ is. This implies that the critical value of $\lambda$ is infinite, \_c = , d 9. \[6.19\] The fact that $D=10$ appears as a critical dimension for the Einstein-dilaton-Maxwell system, above which the system is velocity-dominated no matter what the value of the dilaton coupling is in the line of the findings of [@DHS], since the edges (\[second\]) differ from those of the pure gravity wall chambers only by an additional component along the spacelike dilaton direction.
Einstein-dilaton system with one $p$-form ($p \not=0$, $p \not= D-2$)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The same geometrical procedure for determining the critical values of the dilaton couplings can be followed when there is only one $p$-form in the system ($p \not=0$, $p \not= D-2$), because in that case the wall chamber has exactly $D$ faces and the edge vectors form a basis. Indeed, the gravitational inequalities (\[gravwalls\]) are always consequences of the symmetry inequalities (\[symmwalls\]) and the form inequalities (\[elecwalls\]) and (\[magnwalls\]) (for $n_j \not= 0$ and $n_j \not= D-2$), 2 p\_1 + p\_2 + + p\_[d-2]{} = (p\_1 + + p\_[n\_j]{} - A) + (p\_1 + p\_[n\_j + 1]{} + + p\_[d-2]{} + A). So, if there is only one $p$-form (with $p \not=0$ and $p \not= D-2$), the $D-2$ symmetry inequalities (\[symmwalls\]) together with the two form inequalities (\[elecwalls\]) and (\[magnwalls\]) completely define the wall chamber, which has $D$ faces. We shall not provide an explicit example of a calculation of $\lambda_c$ for such a system, since it proceeds as for a 1-form.
When there is more than one exterior form, one can still drop the gravitational inequalities (if there is at least one $p$-form with $p \not=0$ and $p \not= D-2$), but the situation is more involved because the inequalities corresponding to different forms are usually independent, so that the wall chamber has more than $D$ faces (its intersection with the hyperplane $\sum{p_a} = 1 $ is not a simplex). The calculation is then more laborious. The same feature arises for a $0$-form, which we now examine.
0-form in 4 dimensions
----------------------
We consider the case of a $0$-form in $4$ spacetime dimensions. As explained above, we impose the condition $\lambda \not=0$ to the corresponding dilaton coupling[^7]. Without loss of generality (in view of the $\phi \to - \phi$ symmetry), we can assume $\lambda >0$. The inequalities defining the subcritical domain relevant to the $0$-form case can be brought to the form $$\begin{aligned}
& &p_1 >0 \label{ineq0fa}\\
& & A >0 \label{ineq0fb} \\
& & p_1 + p_2 - \frac{\lambda}{2} A >0 \label{ineq0fc} \\
& & p_2 - p_1 >0 \label{ineq0fd} \\
& & p_3 - p_2 >0 \label{ineq0fe}\end{aligned}$$ We denote by $\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$, $\delta$ and $\epsilon$ the corresponding border hyperplanes ([*i.e.,*]{} $\alpha : p_1 = 0$, $\beta : A =0$ etc). The inequalities (\[ineq0fa\])–(\[ineq0fe\]) guarantee that all potential walls are negligible asymptotically. They are independent. The five faces $\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$, $\delta$ and $\epsilon$ intersect along the 7 one-dimensional edges generated by the vectors: $$\begin{aligned}
& & e_1 = (0,0,1,0) \in \alpha \cap \beta \cap \gamma =
\alpha \cap \beta \cap \delta = \alpha \cap \gamma \cap \delta
= \beta \cap \gamma \cap \delta
\label{e1e1} \\
& & e_2 = (0,1,1,0) \in \alpha \cap \beta \cap \epsilon
\label{e2e2} \\
& & e_3 = (0,1,1, \frac{2}{\lambda}) \in \alpha \cap \gamma
\cap \epsilon \label{e3e3} \\
& & e_4 = (0,0,0,1) \in \alpha \cap \delta \cap \epsilon
\label{e4e4} \\
& & e_5 = (-1,1,1,0) \in \beta \cap \gamma \cap \epsilon
\label{e5e5} \\
& & e_6 = (1,1,1,0) \in \beta \cap \delta \cap \epsilon
\label{e6e6} \\
& & e_7 = (1,1,1,\frac{4}{\lambda}) \in \gamma \cap
\delta \cap \epsilon \label{e7e7}\end{aligned}$$ Among these vectors, neither $e_4$ nor $e_5$ bound the subcritical domain since $e_4$ is such that $p_1 + p_2 - (\lambda/2) A <0$ (changing its sign would make $A<0$), while $e_5$ is such that $p_1 <0$ (changing its sign would make $p_2 - p_1 <0$).
The edge-vectors $\{e_1, e_2 ,e_3, e_6, e_7\}$ form a complete (but not linearly independent) set. Any vector can be expanded as v = v\_1 e\_1 + v\_2 e\_2 + v\_3 e\_3 + v\_6 e\_6 + v\_7 e\_7 \[expansion\] The coefficients $v_1$, $v_2$, $v_3$, $v_6$, $v_7$ are not independent but can be changed as v\_2 v\_2 +2 k, v\_3 v\_3 - 2 k , v\_6 v\_6 - k, v\_7 v\_7 + k \[redef1\] For (\[expansion\]) to be interior to the wall chamber, the coefficients $v_1$, $v_2$, $v_3$, $v_6$ and $v_7$ must fulfill v\_1 >0, v\_2+v\_3 >0, v\_2+ 2 v\_6 >0, v\_3+ 2 v\_7 >0, v\_6 + v\_7 >0. \[wallcone0F\] Using the above redefinitions, which leave the inequalities invariant, we can make $v_A \geq 0$, $A = 1,2,3,6,7$, with at most two $v_A$’s equal to zero. Indeed, let $s = \min(v_2, v_3, 2v_6, 2v_7)$. Assume for definiteness that $s = v_2$ (the other cases are treated in exactly the same way). One has then $v_2 \leq 2 v_7$. Take $2k = -s$ in the redefinitions (\[redef1\]). This makes $v_2$ equal to zero and makes $v_7$ equal to $v_7 -(v_2/2) \geq 0$. Because of (\[wallcone0F\]), the new $v_3$ and $v_6$ are strictly positive, as claimed. Thus, one sees that any vector in the wall chamber can be expanded as in (\[expansion\]) with non-negative coefficients. But the vectors $e_1$, $e_2$, $e_3$, $e_6$ and $e_7$ are all future-pointing and timelike or null when $\lambda \geq \sqrt{8/3}$. It follows that for such $\lambda $’s, there is no lightlike direction in the interior of the wall chamber. Conversely, if $\lambda < \sqrt{8/3}$, the vector $e_7$ is spacelike and one can find an interior vector $\a e_1 + \b e_2 + e_7$ ($\a, \b >0$) that is lightlike. We can thus conclude: \_c = i.e., the system is velocity-dominated for $\vert \lambda \vert
< \sqrt{8/3}$.
The action for the matter fields in the case of a 0-form $A$ coupled to a dilaton $\phi$ is S\_= - [1 2]{} (\_ \^ +e\^ \_A \^A) d\^4 x Note that this is the action for a wave map (also known as a nonlinear $\sigma$-model or hyperbolic harmonic map) with values in a two-dimensional Riemannian manifold of constant negative curvature. Its curvature is proportional to $\lambda^2$. Thus we obtain an interesting statement on velocity-dominated behaviour for the Einstein equations coupled to certain wave maps. Note for comparison that wave maps in flat space occurring naturally in the context of solutions of the vacuum Einstein equations with symmetry, for instance in Gowdy spacetimes ([*cf.*]{} [@BG]), are defined by a Lagrangian of the above type (using the flat metric) with $\lambda=2$.
Collection of 1-forms
---------------------
We now turn to a system of several 1-forms. It is clear that if these have all the same dilaton coupling, as in the Yang-Mills action (\[actionym\]), then, the critical value of $\lambda$ is just that computed in (\[6.16\]) and (\[6.19\]) since each form brings in the same walls. The situation is more complicated if the dilaton couplings are different. One could naively think that the subcritical domain is then just the Cartesian product of the individual subcritical intervals $[- \lambda_c^{(j)}, \lambda_c^{(j)}]$, but this is not true because the intersection of the wall chambers associated with each 1-form may have no interior lightlike direction, even if each wall chamber has some.
This is best seen on the example of two 1-forms in $D$ spacetime dimensions with opposite dilaton couplings. The relevant inequalities, from which all others follow, are in this case $$\begin{aligned}
& & p_1 - \frac{\lambda}{2} A >0 , \; \; \; \;
p_1 + \frac{\lambda}{2} A >0 \label{6.37}\\
& & p_1 < p_2 < \cdots <p_d\end{aligned}$$ and can be easily analysed because they determine, in this particular instance, a simplex in the hyperplane $\sum p_a = 1$. It follows from (\[6.37\]) that $p_1 >0$. The edge-vectors can be taken to be $(0, \cdots, 0, 1, \cdots, 1,0)$ ($k$ zeros, $d-k$ ones, $k =
1, \cdots, d-1$) and $(1,1, \cdots, 1,\pm 2/\lambda)$. The first $d-1$ edge-vectors are timelike or null, while the last two are spacelike provided $-d(d-1)\lambda^2 + 4 >0$. This yields \_c = Accordingly, $\lambda_c$ is finite for any spacetime dimension (and in fact, tends to zero as $d \rightarrow \infty$), even though $\lambda_c = \infty$ for a single 1-form whenever $d>8$.
Coupling between the matter fields {#couple}
==================================
The actions for the bosonic sectors of the low-energy limits of superstring theories or M-theory contain coupling terms between the $p$-forms, indicated by “more" in (\[001\]). These coupling terms are of the Chern-Simons or the Chapline-Manton type. In this section, we show that these terms are consistent with the results obtained in section \[nform\], in that they are also asymptotically negligible in the dynamical equations of motion when the Kasner exponents are subject to the above inequalities (\[symmwalls\])–(\[magnwalls\]).
More precisely, the form of the velocity-dominated evolution equations and solutions are in each case exactly as in section \[nform\]. The velocity-dominated matter constraints have additional terms, but as before, the velocity-dominated matter variables (besides the dilaton) are constant in time, so if the constraints are satisfied at some $t > 0$ they are satisfied for all $t > 0$. The quantities $^0\rho$ and $^0j_a$ are defined exactly as in section \[nform\]. Since the velocity-dominated evolution equations are also the same, there is nothing additional to check concerning the velocity-dominated Hamiltonian and momentum constraints.
Turning now to the exact equations, the restrictions defining the set $V$ are unchanged from section \[nform\]. The form of the evolution equation for the dilaton is unchanged. The form of the stress-energy tensor is also unchanged, and so the form of the Einstein evolution equations and the Einstein constraints is unchanged. The additional matter field variables considered in section \[nform\] are still all $O(1)$, so estimates of terms involving the matter fields do not need to be reconsidered, as long as their form has not changed, for instance, in the argument that the Einstein constraints are satisfied. That the matter constraints are satisfied follows as in the other cases, once it is verified that their time derivative vanishes and that they are $o(1)$. Since so much of the argument is identical to that of section \[nform\], we only point out the few places where there are differences.
Chern-Simons terms
------------------
First we consider the coupling of $i$ of the additional matter fields via a Chern-Simons term in the action. These additional matter fields should be such that $$\label{formscs}
i-1 + \sum_{j=1}^i n_j = D.$$ The Chern-Simons term which is added to the action is $$\label{actioncs}
S_{\rm CS}[A^{(1)}_{\gamma_1 \cdots \gamma_{n_1}},
\cdots,A^{(i)}_{\gamma_1 \cdots \gamma_{n_i}}] =
\int A^{(1)} \wedge \, d A^{(2)}
\wedge \cdots \wedge \, d A^{(i)}.$$ The variation of this term with respect to both the metric and the dilaton field, $\phi$, vanishes. The matter equation (\[matter2nf\]) is unchanged, since it is still the case that $F^{(j)} = d A^{(j)}$ for all $j$. But the equation (\[matter1nf\]) for each of the $i$ coupled matter fields acquires a non-vanishing right hand side. $$\label{mattercs}
^{(D)}\nabla_\mu (F^{(j) \mu \nu_1 \cdots
\nu_{n_j}} e^{\lambda_j \phi}) \sqrt{-g} =
C_j \, \epsilon^{\cdots \nu_1 \cdots \nu_{n_j} \cdots}
F^{(1)}_{\cdots } \cdots F^{(j-1)}_{\cdots }
F^{(j+1)}_{\cdots } \cdots F^{(i)}_{\cdots }$$ Here $\epsilon^{0 ... d} = 1$ and $C_j$ is a numerical factor. Next, considering the $d+1$ decomposition of equation (\[mattercs\]), the constraint equation (\[elconstraintnf\]), for the $j$th coupled matter field, acquires the following term on its right hand side, $$\label{elconstraintcs}
-C_j \epsilon^{\cdots 0 b_1 \cdots}
F^{(1)}_{\cdots} \cdots F^{(j-1)}_{\cdots }
F^{(j+1)}_{\cdots } \cdots F^{(i)}_{\cdots }$$ Here all indices which are not explicit are spatial. So, only magnetic fields appear in (\[elconstraintcs\]). The following term is added to the right hand side of the evolution equation (\[elevnf\]) for the $j$th coupled matter field. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{elevcs}
& & - C_j \Big\{\sum_{m =1}^{j-1} (n_m + 1)
\epsilon^{\cdots 0 c_1 \cdots c_{n_m}
\cdots a_1 \cdots a_{n_j} \cdots }
F^{(1)}_{\cdots } \cdots \nonumber \\ & &
\times \Big({ 1 \over \sqrt{g} }
g_{c_1 h_1} \cdots g_{c_{n_m} h_{n_m}}
{\cal{E}}^{(m) h_1 \cdots h_{n_m}} e^{-\lambda_m \phi} \Big)
\cdots F^{(j-1)}_{\cdots } F^{(j+1)}_{\cdots }
\cdots F^{(i)}_{\cdots } \Big\} \nonumber \\ & &
- C_j \Big\{ \sum_{m =j+1}^{i} (n_m + 1)
\epsilon^{\cdots a_1 \cdots a_{n_j} \cdots
0 c_1 \cdots c_m \cdots} F^{(1)}_{\cdots }
\cdots F^{(j-1)}_{\cdots } F^{(j+1)}_{\cdots }
\cdots \\ & & \times \Big({ 1 \over \sqrt{g} }
g_{c_1 h_1} \cdots g_{c_{n_m} h_{n_m}}
{\cal E}^{(m) h_1 \cdots h_{n_m}} e^{-\lambda_m \phi} \Big)
\cdots F^{(i)}_{\cdots }\Big\}. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Again, all indices which are not explicit are spatial. There is in each term only one electric field.
The velocity-dominated matter constraint equations for the $j$th coupled matter field can be obtained from the “full” matter constraint equations for the same field by substituting the velocity-dominated quantities for all variables.
The only additional terms occurring in $f$ are due to equation (\[elevcs\]). The form of the $m$th term on the right hand side of equation (\[elevcs\]) is just like the form of the terms on the right hand side of equation (\[magevnf\]) for the $m$th coupled field. The factors which differ, comparing the $m$th term of (\[elevcs\]) to equation (\[magevnf\]) for the $m$th field, are $0(1)$. Since in both cases a factor of $t^{1 - \beta}$ is added in order to obtain the terms appearing in $f$, the estimate that the additional terms in $f$ due to the Chern-Simons coupling are $O(t^\delta)$ is obtained just as the corresponding previously obtained estimates.
Chapline-Manton couplings
-------------------------
Next we consider Chapline-Manton couplings. For definiteness, we treat two explicit examples, leaving to the reader the task of checking that the general case works in exactly the same way. The first coupling is between an $n$-form $A$ and an $(n+1)$-form $B$ and is equivalent to making $B$ massive. Let $F = dA + B$ and $H = dB$. The gauge transformations are $ B \rightarrow B + d \eta $, for arbitrary $n$-form $\eta$, and $A \rightarrow A - \eta + d \gamma$, for arbitrary $(n-1)$-form $\gamma$. (If $n=0$, then $d \gamma$ is replaced by a constant scalar and we require that the corresponding constant, $\lambda_A$, in the coupling to the dilaton be nonzero.) The form of the action is the same as in section \[nform\], but since $F$ now depends on $B$ and not just on $A$, the variation of the action with respect to $B$ acquires an additional term. Also, it is now the case that $dF = H$.
The matter equation (\[matter1nf\]) is unchanged for $F$ and equation (\[matter2nf\]) is unchanged for $H$. Equation (\[matter1nf\]) for $H$ and equation (\[matter2nf\]) for $F$ are now as follows. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{matter1nfcm1}
^{(D)}\nabla_\mu (H^{\mu \nu_0 \cdots \nu_n}
e^{\lambda_B \phi}) & = &
F^{\nu_0 \cdots \nu_n} e^{\lambda_A \phi}, \\
\label{matter2nfcm1}
^{(D)} \nabla_{[\mu} F_{\nu_0 \cdots \nu_n]} & = &
{1 \over (n+2)} H_{\mu \nu_0 \cdots \nu_n}.\end{aligned}$$ Define ${\cal E}^{a_1 \cdots a_n} = \sqrt{g} \,
F^{0 a_1 \cdots a_n } e^{\lambda_A \phi}$ and ${\cal D}^{a_0 \cdots a_n} = \sqrt{g} \,
H^{0 a_0 \cdots a_n} e^{\lambda_B \phi}$. The matter constraint equations which are affected are $$\begin{aligned}
\label{elconstraintcm1}
e_a ( {\cal D}^{a b_1 \cdots b_n}) +
f^c_{ca} \, {\cal D}^{a b_1 \cdots b_n} +
{1 \over 2} \sum_{i=1}^n f^{b_i}_{ac}
{\cal D}^{a b_1 \cdots c \cdots b_n} & = &
-{\cal E}^{b_1 \cdots b_n}, \\
\label{magconstraintcm1}
e_{[a}(F_{b_0 \cdots b_n]})
-{(n + 1) \over 2} f^c_{[a b_0}
F_{|c| b_1 \cdots b_n]} & = &
{1 \over n+2} H_{a b_0 \cdots b_n},\end{aligned}$$ The additional term which appears on the right hand side of equation (\[elevnf\]) for ${\cal D}^{a_0 \cdots a_n}$ is $$\label{elevcm1}
\sqrt{g} g^{a_0 b_0} \cdots g^{a_n b_n}
F_{b_0 \cdots b_n} e^{\lambda_A \phi}.$$ The additional term which appears on the right hand side of equation (\[magevnf\]) for $F_{a_0 \cdots a_n}$ is $$\label{magevcm1}
{-1 \over \sqrt{g}}
g_{a_0 b_0} \cdots g_{a_n b_n}
{\cal D}^{b_0 \cdots b_n} e^{-\lambda_B \phi}.$$
The velocity-dominated matter constraint equations which are affected can be obtained from equation (\[elconstraintcm1\]) and (\[magconstraintcm1\]) by substituting the corresponding velocity-dominated quantities for all variables. The only additional terms occurring in $f$ are due to equations (\[elevcm1\]) for $\cal D$ and (\[magevcm1\]) for $F$. The form of the additional terms in these equations is just like the form of the terms which appear in equations (\[elevnf\]) for $\cal E$ and in (\[magevnf\]) for $H$. Therefore the estimate that the additional terms are $O(t^\delta)$ is obtained just as the corresponding previously obtained estimates.
The second Chapline-Manton type coupling is between an $n$-form $A$ and a $(2n)$-form $B$. Let $F = d A $ and $H = dB + A \wedge F$. The gauge transformations are $ A \rightarrow A + d \gamma $, for arbitrary $(n-1)$-form $\gamma$, and $B \rightarrow B + d \eta - \gamma \wedge F$, for arbitrary $(2n-1)$-form $\eta$. (If $n=0$ the gauge transformations are $ A \rightarrow A + C$ and $B \rightarrow B + D - CA$ for constant scalars $C$ and $D$ and we require both $\lambda_A \neq 0$ and also $\lambda_B \neq 0$.) The form of the action is again the same as in section \[nform\]. Define ${\cal E}^{a_1 \cdots a_n} = \sqrt{g} \,
F^{0 a_1 \cdots a_n } e^{\lambda_A \phi}$ and ${\cal D}^{a_1 \cdots a_{2n}} = \sqrt{g} \,
H^{0 a_1 \cdots a_{2n}} e^{\lambda_B \phi}$. The matter equations (\[matter1nf\]) for $F$ and (\[matter2nf\]) for $H$ are affected, only if $n$ is odd. The equation for $F$ which is affected (if $n$ is odd) and its $d + 1$ decomposition are $$\label{matter1nfcm2}
^{(D)}\nabla_\mu (F^{\mu \nu_1 \cdots \nu_n}
e^{\lambda_A \phi}) =
{2 \over (n + 1)!} H^{\mu \nu_1 \cdots \nu_n
\sigma_1 \cdots \sigma_n} F_{\mu \sigma_1 \cdots \sigma_n}
e^{\lambda_B \phi},$$ $$\label{elconstraintcm2}
e_a ( {\cal E}^{a b_2 \cdots b_n}) +
f^c_{ca} \, {\cal E}^{a b_2 \cdots b_n} +
{1 \over 2} \sum_{i=2}^{n} f^{b_i}_{ac}
{\cal E}^{a b_2 \cdots c \cdots b_n} = {2 \over (n+1)!}
{\cal D}^{a b_2 \cdots b_n h_1 \cdots h_n}
F_{a h_1 \cdots h_n },$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{elevcm2}
\partial_t {\cal E}^{a_1 \cdots a_n} & = & \cdots
- { 2 \over \sqrt{g} \, n!}
{\cal D}^{a_1 \cdots a_n b_1 \cdots b_n}
g_{b_1 c_1} \cdots g_{b_n c_n} {\cal E}^{c_1 \cdots c_n}
\\ & & \; \; + {2 \over (n+1)!} \sqrt{g} g^{b h_0}
g^{a_1 h_1} \cdots g^{a_n h_n}
g^{c_1 h_{n +1}} \cdots g^{c_n h_{2n}}
H_{h_0 \cdots h_{2n}}
F_{b c_1 \cdots c_n} e^{\lambda_B \phi}. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The equation for $H$ which is affected (if $n$ is odd) and its $d+1$ decomposition are $$\label{matter2nfcm2}
^{(D)} \nabla_{[\mu_0} H_{\mu_1 \cdots \mu_{2n+1}]} =
{(2n + 1)! \over (n+1)! (n+1)!}
F_{[\mu_0 \cdots \mu_n} F_{\mu_{n +1} \cdots \mu_{2n+1}]},$$ $$\label{magconstraintcm2}
e_{[a}(H_{b_0 \cdots b_{2n}]})
-{(2n + 1) \over 2} f^c_{[a b_0}
H_{|c| b_1 \cdots b_{2n}]} =
{(2n + 1)! \over (n + 1)! (n + 1)!}
F_{[a b_0 \cdots b_{n-1}} F_{b_n \cdots b_{2n}]},$$ $$\label{magevcm2}
\partial_t H_{a_0 \cdots a_{2n}}
= \cdots + {(2n + 2)! \over \sqrt{g} \,
(n + 1)! (n + 1)!}
g_{[a_0 |b_1|} \cdots g_{a_{n-1} |b_n|}
{\cal E}^{b_1 \cdots b_n} e^{-\lambda_A \phi}
F_{a_n \cdots a_{2n}]}. \nonumber$$ The velocity-dominated matter constraint equations which are affected can be obtained from equation (\[elconstraintcm2\]) and (\[magconstraintcm2\]) by substituting the corresponding velocity-dominated quantities for all variables. The only additional terms occurring in $f$ are due to equations (\[elevcm2\]) for $\cal E$ and (\[magevcm2\]) for $H$. Here again, the estimate that the additional terms in $f$ are $O(t^\delta)$, is just as the estimate of terms appearing already in section \[nform\], either in equation (\[elevnf\]) for $\cal D$ or in equation (\[magevnf\]) for $F$.
Yang-Mills {#yangmills}
==========
We complete our analysis by proving that Yang-Mills couplings also enjoy the property of not modifying the conclusions. The action is (\[actionym\]), with a Yang-Mills field as source in addition to the scalar field considered in section \[scalar\] and with $\vert \lambda \vert < \lambda_c$. The argument is again based on that of sections \[scaMax4D\] – \[nform\] and it is enough here to note differences. The main one is that one must work with the vector potential instead of the fields themselves, because bare $A$’s appear in the equations. We could, in fact, have developed the entire previous analysis in terms of the vector potentials, thereby reducing the number of matter constraint equations. We followed a manifestly gauge-invariant approach for easing the physical understanding, but this was not mandatory. The stress-energy tensor is $$T_{\mu \nu} = \, ^{(D)}\nabla_\mu \phi \,
^{(D)}\nabla_\nu \phi - {1 \over 2} g_{\mu \nu} \,
^{(D)}\nabla_\alpha \phi \,
^{(D)}\nabla^\alpha \phi + [F_{\mu \alpha} \cdot {F_\nu}^\alpha
-{1 \over 4} g_{\mu \nu} F_{\alpha \beta} \cdot
F^{\alpha \beta} ] e^{\lambda \phi}.$$ We work in the temporal gauge, $A_0 = 0$. The matter fields satisfy the following equations. $$^{(D)}\nabla_\alpha \, ^{(D)}\nabla^\alpha \phi - {\lambda \over 4}
F_{\alpha \beta} \cdot F^{\alpha \beta} e^{\lambda \phi} = 0$$ $$^{(D)}\nabla_\mu (F^{\mu \nu} e^{\lambda \phi})
+ [A_\mu, F^{\mu \nu}] e^{\lambda \phi}= 0,$$ $$\label{ffroma}
F_{\mu \nu } = \partial_\mu A_\nu - \partial_\nu A_\mu
+ [A_\mu,A_\nu].$$ The Lie Bracket has no intrinsic time dependence. The $d$+1 decomposition of the stress-energy tensor is expressed in terms of the spatial tensor density ${\cal E}^a = \sqrt{g} \, F^{0a} e^{\lambda \phi}$ and the antisymmetric spatial tensor $F_{ab}$. $$\begin{aligned}
\rho & = & {1 \over 2} \{ (\partial_t \phi)^2 + g^{ab} e_a(\phi) e_b(\phi)
+{1 \over g} g_{ab} {\cal E}^a \cdot
{\cal E}^b e^{-\lambda \phi} +
{1 \over 2} g^{ab} g^{ch} F_{ac} \cdot
F_{bh} e^{\lambda \phi} \}, \\
j_a & = & - \partial_t \phi \, e_a(\phi) +
{1 \over \sqrt{g} } {\cal E}^b \cdot F_{ab}, \\
\label{calcMym}
{M^a}_b & = & g^{ac} e_b(\phi) \, e_c(\phi)
- {1 \over g} \{ g_{bc} {\cal E}^a \cdot {\cal E}^c
- {1 \over 2} {\delta^a}_b g_{ch} {\cal E}^c \cdot {\cal E}^h \}
e^{-\lambda \phi} \nonumber \\ & & \; \;
+ \{ g^{ac} g^{hi} F_{ch} \cdot F_{bi}
- {1 \over 4} {\delta^a}_b g^{ch} g^{ij} F_{ci} \cdot
F_{hj} \} e^{\lambda \phi}.\end{aligned}$$ The matter constraint equation is $$\label{elconstraintym}
e_a ( {\cal E}^a) + f^b_{ba} \, {\cal E}^a + [A_a,{\cal E}^a] = 0.$$ The matter evolution equations are $$\begin{aligned}
\partial^2_t \phi - ({\mbox{tr}}k) \partial_t \phi & = & g^{ab} \nabla_a \nabla_b \phi
+ {\lambda \over 2 g } g_{ab} {\cal E}^a \cdot
{\cal E}^b e^{-\lambda \phi}
- {\lambda \over 4 } g^{ab} g^{ch} F_{ac}
\cdot F_{bh} e^{\lambda \phi}, \\
\partial_t {\cal E}^a & = & e_b( \sqrt{g} g^{ac} g^{bh}
F_{ch} e^{\lambda \phi})
+ (f^i_{ib} g^{ac} + {1 \over 2} f^a_{bi} g^{ic})
\sqrt{g} g^{bh} F_{ch} e^{\lambda \phi} \\
\partial_t A_a & = & -{1 \over \sqrt{g}} g_{ab} {\cal E}^b e^{- \lambda \phi}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that we use as basic matter variables $A_a$ and ${\cal E}^b$ (the quantity $F_{ab}$ being then defined in terms of $A_a$ as $F_{ab} = \partial_a A_b - \partial_b A_a
+ [A_a,A_b]$).
The Kasner-like evolution equations are equations (\[dtg0\]) – (\[dtE0\]) and $\partial_t \, ^0 A_a = 0$. We consider analytic solutions of the Kasner-like evolution equations of the form (\[0kab1\]) – (\[0E1\]) along with the quantity $\, ^0A_a$ which is constant in time. Given a point $x_0 \in \Sigma$, we use an adapted spatial frame on a neighbourhood of $x_0$, $U_0$, as in section \[vacuum\]. Thus, $^0g_{ab}(t_0)$ and ${K^a}_b$ are specialized as in that section. There is one velocity-dominated matter constraint equation, obtained from equation (\[elconstraintym\]) by replacing ${\cal E}^a$ and $A_a$ with $^0 {\cal E}^a$ and $^0 A_a$. If the velocity-dominated matter constraint is satisfied at some time $t_0 > 0$, then it is satisfied for all $t > 0$. Define $$\begin{aligned}
^0 \rho & = & {1 \over 2} (\partial_t \, ^0 \phi)^2, \\
^0 j_a & = & - \partial_t \, ^0 \phi \, e_a(\, ^0 \phi) +
{1 \over \sqrt{ \, ^0 g} } \, ^0 {\cal E}^b \,
\cdot \, ^0 F_{ab}.\end{aligned}$$ The velocity-dominated Einstein constraints are defined as in the other cases. Equations (\[dt0C\]) and (\[dt0Ca\]) are again satisfied, so if the velocity-dominated constraints are satisfied at some $t_0$, then they are satisfied for all $t > 0$. The restrictions defining the set $V$ are as in section \[nform\], with $n_j = 1$. The relation of the unknown, $u$, in equation (\[fuchs0\]) to the Einstein-matter variables is given by equations (\[defgamma\]) – (\[defxi\]) and $$\label{defvarphiym}
A_a = \, ^0 A_a + t^\beta \varphi_a.$$ The quantities $\cal A$ and $f$ in equation (\[fuchs0\]) are given by equations (\[fuchgamma\]) – (\[fuchomega\]) and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{fuchchiym}
t \, \partial_t \chi + \beta \chi & = & t^{\alpha_0 - \beta}
({\mbox{tr}}\, \kappa) ( A + t ^\beta \chi ) + t^{2 - \beta}
\, ^S g^{ab} \, ^S \nabla_a \, ^S \nabla_b \, ^0 \phi
+ t^{2 - \zeta} \, ^S \nabla^a \omega_a
\nonumber \\ & & \; \;
+t^{2 - \beta} \{ {\lambda \over 2 g}
g_{ab} {\cal E}^a \cdot {\cal E}^b e^{-\lambda \phi}
- {\lambda \over 4} g^{ab} g^{ch} F_{ac} \cdot F_{bh}
e^{\lambda \phi} \}, \\
\label{fuchxiym}
t \, \partial_t \xi^a + \beta \xi^a & = &
t^{1 - \beta} \{
e_b( \sqrt{g} g^{ac} g^{bh} F_{ch} e^{\lambda \phi}) \nonumber \\
& & \; \; + (f^i_{ib} g^{ac} + {1 \over 2} f^a_{bi} g^{ic})
\sqrt{g} g^{bh} F_{ch} e^{\lambda \phi} \}, \\
\label{fuchvarphiym}
t \, \partial_t \varphi_a + \beta \varphi_a & = & - t^{1 - \beta}
{1 \over \sqrt{g}} g_{ab} {\cal E}^b e^{-\lambda \phi}.\end{aligned}$$ The estimate that $f = O(t^\delta)$ is obtained as before, using ${\cal E}^a = O(1)$ and $F_{ab} = O(1)$. The matter constraint quantity, the left hand side of equation (\[elconstraintym\]), is $o(1)$ and its time derivative vanishes, so the matter constraint is satisfied. The estimate of the matter terms in the Einstein constraints is obtained as in section \[nform\] for $n_j = 1$.
To conclude: the whole analysis goes through even in the presence of the Yang-Mills coupling terms and the system is asymptotically Kasner-like provided $\vert \lambda \vert < \lambda_c$, where $\lambda_c$ is the same as in the abelian case and explicitly given by (\[6.16\]) and (\[6.19\]).
Self-interacting scalar field
=============================
\[nonlinear\] Consider Einstein’s equations, $D \geq 3$, with sources as in sections \[scalar\], \[nform\], \[couple\] or \[yangmills\], except that the massless scalar field, $\phi$, is replaced by a self-interacting scalar field. That is, the expression (\[actionnl\]) is added to the action. Solutions with a monotone singularity can be constructed as in sections \[scalar\] – \[yangmills\], with assumptions regarding the function $V(\phi)$ which appears in (\[actionnl\]) given below. There is no change in the velocity-dominated evolution equations and solutions, nor in the velocity-dominated constraints. The only change to equation (\[fuchs0\]) is that two new terms appear in $f$. There is a new term, $t^{2 - \alpha_0} {\delta^a}_b \, 2 \, V(\phi) / (D-2)$, on the right hand side of the evolution equation for ${\kappa^a}_b$ (through ${M^a}_b$). There is also a new term, $ - t^{2 - \beta} V'(\phi)$, on the right hand side of the evolution equation for $\chi$. For equation (\[fuchs0\]) to be Fuchsian, it must be the case that $f = O(t^\delta)$ and, in addition, that $f$ satisfy other regularity conditions [@AR; @KR].
Some examples were considered in [@R00b]. A trivial example is obtained by taking $V$ to be a constant. Then the equation for the scalar field is not changed by the potential while its effect on the Einstein equations is equivalent to the addition of a cosmological constant. Thus we see that the analysis of [@AR] generalizes directly to the case of the Einstein-scalar field system with non-zero cosmological constant. Of course the analogous statement applies to the other dimensions and matter fields considered in previous sections. To get another simple example take $V(\phi)=\lambda\phi^p$ for a constant $\lambda$ and an integer $p\ge 2$. Showing that the equation is Fuchsian involves examining the expression V(At+B+t\^)=(At+B+t\^)\^p and corresponding expressions for the first and second derivatives of $V$. Of course in this particular case these are given by multiples of smaller powers of $t$. The aim is to estimate these quantities by suitable powers of $t$. In this case a Fuchsian system is always obtained. A linear massive scalar field is obtained by choosing $p=2$. Another interesting possibility is to choose $V(\phi)=e^{\lambda\phi}$ for a constant $\lambda$, in which case the derivatives of $V$ are also exponentials. Then V(At+B+t\^)=e\^[B]{} t\^[A]{} (t\^) Note that such an exponential potential can be (formally) generated by adding, as matter field, a $d-$form $A_{\mu_1 \cdots \mu_d}$ with dilaton coupling $\lambda_d = - \lambda$. Indeed, eliminating the field-strength $ F = d A$ (which satisfies $e^{\lambda_d \phi} F = C \eta $, where $C$ is a constant and $\eta$ the volume form), leads to a term in the action proportional to $e^{- \lambda_d \phi} C^2$. A Fuchsian system is obtained provided the general “electric” $p-$form condition (\[inequalitiesnf\]) (with $n_j=d$), $2 p_1 + \cdots + 2p_d - \lambda_d A > 0 $ is satisfied, i.e. (after using $p_1 + \cdots + p_d = 1$ and $ \lambda_d = -\lambda $) provided $ \lambda A>-2$. This therefore yields a restriction on the data.
More generally, it is enough to have a function $V$ on the real line which has an analytic continuation to the whole complex plane and which satisfies estimates of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{restrictV}
t^{2 - c_1} \tilde V(\tilde A \ln t + \tilde B
+t^\beta \tilde \psi) & = & O(1), \nonumber \\
t^{2 - c_2} \tilde V'(\tilde A \ln t + \tilde B
+t^\beta \tilde \psi) & = & O(1), \\
t^{2 - c_3} \tilde V''(\tilde A \ln t + \tilde B
+t^\beta \tilde \psi) & = & O(1), \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ for some positive numbers $c_1$, $c_2$ and $c_3$. Here $\tilde A$ and $\tilde B$ are the analytic continuations of $A(x)$ and $B(x)$, to some (small, simply connected) complex neighbourhood of the range of a coordinate chart. And $\tilde \psi$ lies in some region of the complex plane containing the origin. For $f$ to be regular, it must be the case that $c_1 \geq \alpha_0$ and $c_2 \geq \beta$, which can be achieved by reducing $\epsilon$, if necessary, and also possibly $U_0$, so that previous assumptions are satisfied. By taking suitable account of the domains of the functions involved it is also possible to obtain an analogue of this result when the functions $V$ and $\tilde V$ are only defined on some open subsets of $\bf R$ and $\bf C$.
The only other change to the construction given in sections \[scalar\] – \[yangmills\] is that $\rho \rightarrow \rho + V(\phi)$. It is still the case that $^{(D)} \nabla_\mu T^{\mu \nu} = 0$, so equations (\[fuchsianC\]) and (\[fuchsianCa\]) are satisfied. Equation (\[estconstraints1\]) is satisfied due to the assumptions concerning $V(\phi)$, so the Einstein constraints are satisfied.
Conclusions
===========
\[conclusions\]
Our paper establishes the Kasner-like behaviour for vacuum gravity in spacetime dimensions greater than or equal to $11$, as well as the Kasner-like behaviour for the Einstein-dilaton-matter systems with subcritical dilaton couplings. Our results can be summarized as follows
\[thvacuum\] Let $\Sigma$ be a d-dimensional analytic manifold, $d \geq 10$ and let $(\,^0g_{ab}, \, ^0k_{ab})$ be a $C^\omega$ solution of the Kasner-like vacuum Einstein equations on $(0,\infty) \times \Sigma$ such that $t \, {\mbox{tr}}\,^0k=-1$ and such that the ordered eigenvalues of $-t \, ^0k_{ab}$ satisfy $1 + p_1 - p_d - p_{d-1} > 0$.
Then there exists an open neighbourhood $U$ of $\{0\} \times \Sigma$ in $[0,\infty) \times \Sigma$ and a $C^\omega$ solution $(g_{ab},k_{ab})$ of the Einstein vacuum field equations on $U\cap ((0,\infty) \times \Sigma)$ such that for each compact subset $K\subset \Sigma$ there are positive real numbers $\alpha^a_{\ b}$ for which the following estimates hold uniformly on $K$:
1. $^0g^{ac}g_{cb}=\delta^a_{\ b}+o(t^{\alpha^a_{\ b}})$
2. $k^a_{\ b}=\,^0k^a_{\ b}+o(t^{-1+\alpha^a_{\ b}})$
\[thscalarmaxwell\] Let $\Sigma$ be a d-dimensional analytic manifold, $d \geq 2$ and let $X=(\,^0g_{ab}, \, ^0k_{ab}, \, ^0 \phi ,
\, ^0 {\cal E}^{(j) a_1 \cdots a_{n_j}},
\, ^0 F^{(j)}_{a_0 \cdots a_{n_j}})$, with $j$ taking on values 1 through $k$ for some nonnegative integer $k$ (possibly 0, in which case $j$ takes on no values), $0 \leq n_j \leq d-1$. Let $\lambda_j$ be constants in the subcritical range. Let $X$ be a $C^\omega$ solution of the Kasner-like Einstein-matter equations on $(0,\infty) \times \Sigma$ such that $t \, {\mbox{tr}}\,^0k=-1$ and such that the ordered eigenvalues of $-t \, ^0k_{ab}$ satisfy $1 + p_1 - p_d - p_{d-1} > 0$ and, for each $j$, $2p_1 + \cdots + 2p_{n_j}
- \lambda_j \, t \, \partial_t \, ^0 \phi > 0$ and $2p_1 + \cdots + 2p_{d-n_j-1} +
\lambda_j \, t \, \partial_t \, ^0 \phi > 0$.
Then there exists an open neighbourhood $U$ of $\{0\} \times \Sigma$ in $[0,\infty) \times \Sigma$ and a $C^\omega$ solution $(g_{ab}, k_{ab}, \phi,
{\cal E}^{(j) a_1 \cdots a_{n_j}},
F^{(j)}_{a_0 \cdots a_{n_j}})$ of the Einstein-matter field equations on $U\cap ((0,\infty) \times \Sigma)$ such that for each compact subset $K\subset \Sigma$ there are positive real numbers $\beta, \alpha^a_{\ b}$, with $\beta < \alpha^a_{\ b}$, for which the following estimates hold uniformly on $K$:
1. $^0g^{ac}g_{cb}=\delta^a_{\ b}+o(t^{\alpha^a_{\ b}})$
2. $k^a_{\ b}=\,^0k^a_{\ b}+o(t^{-1+\alpha^a_{\ b}})$
3. $\phi=\, ^0\phi+o(t^\beta)$
4. ${\cal E}^{(j) a_1 \cdots a_{n_j}} =
\, ^0{\cal E}^{(j) a_1 \cdots a_{n_j}} + o(t^\beta)$
5. $F^{(j)}_{a_0 \cdots a_{n_j}} =
\, ^0 F^{(j)}_{a_0 \cdots a_{n_j}} + o(t^\beta)$
[**Remarks**]{}
1. Corresponding estimates hold for certain first order derivatives of the basic unknowns in Theorems \[thvacuum\] and \[thscalarmaxwell\] ([*cf.*]{} Theorem 2.1 in [@AR]). These are the derivatives which arise in the definition of new unknowns when second order equations are reduced to first order so as to produce a first order Fuchsian system.
2. Our analysis shows that a solution of the full subcritical Einstein-matter equations satisfying the estimates given in the theorems and the corresponding estimates for first order derivatives just mentioned is uniquely determined by the solution of the velocity-dominated equations (the integration functions are included in the zeroth order, Kasner-like solutions; the deviation from them is uniquely determined).
3. The Einstein-matter field equations may include interaction terms of Chern-Simons, Chapline-Manton and Yang-Mills type, and the scalar field may be self-interacting, with assumptions on $V(\phi)$ as stated in section \[nonlinear\]. If the $j$th field is a Yang-Mills field, then $F^{(j)}_{a b}$ is obtained from $A^{(j)}_a$ and $^0F^{(j)}_{a b}$ is obtained from $^0A^{(j)}_a$ through equation (\[ffroma\]). Note that the condition on ${\mbox{tr}}\, ^0k$ which is assumed in both theorems can always be arranged by means of a time translation.
4. The spacetimes of the class whose existence is established by these theorems have the desirable property that it is possible to determine the detailed nature of their singularities by algebraic calculations. This allows them to be checked for consistency with the cosmic censorship hypothesis. What should be done from this point of view is to check that some invariantly defined physical quantity is unbounded as the singularity at $t=0$ is approached. This shows that $t=0$ is a genuine spacetime singularity beyond which no regular extension of the spacetime is possible. For this purpose it is common to examine curvature invariants but in fact it is just as good if an invariant of the matter fields can be found which is unbounded in the approach to $t=0$. This is particularly convenient in the cases where a dilaton is present. Then $\nabla^\alpha\phi\nabla_\alpha\phi$ is equal in leading order to the corresponding velocity-dominated quantity and the latter is easily seen to diverge like $t^{-4}$ for $t\to 0$. The vacuum case is more difficult. It will be shown below that the approximation of the full solution by the velocity-dominated solution is sufficiently good that it is enough to do the calculation for the velocity-dominated metric. This means that it is enough to do the calculation for the Kasner metric in $D$ dimensions. Note that the Kasner metric is invariant under reflection in each of the spatial coordinates. Hence curvature components of the form $R_{0abc}$ vanish, as do components of the form $R_{0a0b}$ with $a\ne b$. Hence the Kretschmann scalar $R^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}R_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}$ is a sum of non-negative terms of the form $R^{abcd}R_{abcd}$ and $(R^a{}_{0a0})^2$. In order to show that the Kretschmann scalar is unbounded it is enough to show that one of these terms is unbounded. A simple calculation shows that $(R^a{}_{0a0})^2=p_a^2(1-p_a)^2 t^{-4}$ in a Kasner spacetime. Thus the curvature invariant under consideration can only be bounded as $t\to 0$ if all Kasner exponents are zero or one, which does not occur for the solutions we construct. To see that the approximation of the full solution by the velocity-dominated solution is valid for determining the asymptotics of the Kretschmann scalar it is enough to note that all terms appearing in the Kretschmann scalar which were not just considered are $o(t^{-4})$. Only two estimates additional to those already obtained are needed – for these, the estimates $\tilde R_{abc}^{\; \; \; \; \; \; h} = O(t^{-2 + \epsilon})$ and $\tilde \nabla_a {\tilde k^b}_c = O(t^{-2 + \epsilon})$ are sufficient. Both of these estimates are straightforward to obtain. The main input is $\tilde \Gamma^c_{ab} = O(t^{-1 + 4 \sigma
-2 \epsilon - \delta})$ ([*i.e.,*]{} the connection coefficients [*do not*]{} need to be expanded). The expression for the Kretschmann scalar is $$\begin{aligned}
&&4 (({\mbox{tr}}\, k) {k^a}_b - {k^a}_c {\k^c}_b)
(({\mbox{tr}}\, k) {k^b}_a - {k^b}_h {k^h}_a)
+ ({k^a}_b {k^c}_h - {k^a}_h {k^c}_b)
({k^b}_a {k^h}_c - {k^h}_a {k^b}_c)
\nonumber \\ &&
+ 4 \{ ({R^a}_b - {M^a}_b) ({R^b}_a - {M^b}_a)
+ 2 ({R^a}_b - {M^a}_b) (({\mbox{tr}}\, k) {k^b}_a - {k^b}_h {k^h}_a)
\nonumber \\ &&
-2 (\tilde \nabla_a \tilde k^b_{\; \; c})
(\tilde \nabla_h \tilde k^c_{\; \; b}) \tilde g^{ah}
-2 (\tilde \nabla_a \tilde k^b_{\; \; c})
(\tilde \nabla_b \tilde k^a_{\; \; h})
\tilde g^{ch} \} - \tilde g^{ab} \tilde g^{ch}
\tilde R_{aci}^{\; \; \; \; \; \; j}
\tilde R_{bhj}^{\; \; \; \; \; \; i} \nonumber \\ &&
+ 2 \tilde R_{abc}^{\; \; \; \; \; \; h}
( \tilde k^a_{\; \; i} \tilde k^b_{\; \; h} -
\tilde k^a_{\; \; h} \tilde k^b_{\; \; i}) \tilde g^{ci}. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Apart from the Kasner terms (which can each be written as two factors, with each factor $O(t^{-2})$), the remaining terms can each be written as two factors, with each factor $O(t^{-2}$) and at least one of the two factors $o(t^{-2})$.
5. We have constructed large classes of solutions of the Einstein-matter equations with velocity-dominated singularities for matter models defined by those field theories where the BKL picture predicts that solutions of this kind should exist. No symmetry assumptions were made. When symmetry assumptions are made there are more possibilities of finding specialized classes of spacetimes with velocity-dominated singularities. See for instance [@narita00], where there are results for the Einstein-Maxwell-dilaton and other systems under symmetry assumptions. There are also results for the case where the Einstein equations are coupled to phenomenological matter models such as a perfect fluid and certain symmetry assumptions are made. For one of the most general results of this kind so far see [@anguige00].
6. When solutions are constructed by Fuchsian methods as is done is this paper there is the possibility of algorithmically constructing an expansion of the solution about the singularity to all orders which is convergent when the input data are analytic, as in this paper. (If the input data are only $C^\infty$ the expansion is asymptotic in a rigorous sense when Fuchsian techniques can be applied.) At the same time, there is the possibility of providing a rigorous confirmation of the reliability of existing expansions such as those of [@GM93] and [@BDV]. This is worked out for the case of [@GM93] in [@KR].
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We thank Mme Choquet-Bruhat for comments which led to clarifications in the exposition. The work of MH and MW is supported in part by the “Actions de Recherche Concert[é]{}es" of the “Direction de la Recherche Scientifique - Communaut[é]{} Fran[ç]{}aise de Belgique", by a “Pôle d’Attraction Interuniversitaire" (Belgium) and by IISN-Belgium (convention 4.4505.86). The research of MH is also supported by Proyectos FONDECYT 1970151 and 7960001 (Chile) and by the European Commission RTN programme HPRN-CT-00131, in which he is associated to K. U. Leuven. MW would also like to thank the organizers of the Mathematical Cosmology Program at the Erwin Schrödinger Institute, Summer 2001, where a portion of this work was completed.
[99]{} T. Damour and M. Henneaux, “Chaos in superstring cosmology,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 920 (2000) \[arXiv:hep-th/0003139\]. T. Damour and M. Henneaux, “Oscillatory behaviour in homogeneous string cosmology models,” Phys. Lett. B [**488**]{}, 108 (2000) \[arXiv:hep-th/0006171\]. T. Damour and M. Henneaux, “E(10), BE(10) and arithmetical chaos in superstring cosmology,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{}, 4749 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-th/0012172\]. V.A. Belinskii, I.M. Khalatnikov and E.M. Lifshitz, “Oscillatory approach to a singular point in the relativistic cosmology,” Adv. Phys. [**19**]{}, 525 (1970); “A general solution of the Einstein equations with a time singularity,” Adv. Phys. [**31**]{}, 639 (1982). S. Deser, R. Jackiw and S. Templeton, “Topologically Massive Gauge Theories,” Annals Phys. [**140**]{}, 372 (1982) \[Erratum-[*ibid.*]{} [**185**]{}, 406.1988 APNYA,281,409 (1982)\]. G. F. Chapline and N. S. Manton, “Unification Of Yang-Mills Theory And Supergravity In Ten-Dimensions,” Phys. Lett. B [**120**]{}, 105 (1983). E. Bergshoeff, M. de Roo, B. de Wit and P. van Nieuwenhuizen, “Ten-Dimensional Maxwell-Einstein Supergravity, Its Currents, And The Issue Of Its Auxiliary Fields,” Nucl. Phys. B [**195**]{}, 97 (1982). N. Boulanger, T. Damour, L. Gualtieri and M. Henneaux, “Inconsistency of interacting, multigraviton theories,” Nucl. Phys. B [**597**]{}, 127 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-th/0007220\]. T. Damour and A. M. Polyakov, “The String dilaton and a least coupling principle,” Nucl. Phys. B [**423**]{}, 532 (1994) \[arXiv:hep-th/9401069\]; T. Damour and A. Vilenkin, “String theory and inflation,” Phys. Rev. D [**53**]{}, 2981 (1996) \[arXiv:hep-th/9503149\]; M. Gasperini, F. Piazza and G. Veneziano, “Quintessence as a run-away dilaton,” arXiv:gr-qc/0108016. J. D. Barrow and S. Hervik, “Magnetic brane-worlds,” arXiv:gr-qc/0109084. D. Eardley, E. Liang and R. Sachs, “Velocity-Dominated Singularities In Irrotational Dust Cosmologies,” J. Math. Phys. [**13**]{}, 99 (1972). C.W. Misner, “Mixmaster universe,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**22**]{}, 1071-1074 (1969). J. Demaret, M. Henneaux and P. Spindel, “Nonoscillatory Behavior In Vacuum Kaluza-Klein Cosmologies,” Phys. Lett. [**164B**]{}, 27 (1985);\
J. Demaret, Y. De Rop and M. Henneaux, “Are Kaluza-Klein Models Of The Universe Chaotic?,” Int. J. Theor. Phys. [**28**]{}, 1067 (1989). V.A. Belinskii and I.M. Khalatnikov, “Effect of scalar and vector fields on the nature of the cosmological singularity,” Sov. Phys. JETP [**36**]{}, 591-597 (1973). L. Andersson and A.D. Rendall, “Quiescent cosmological singularities,” Commun. Math. Phys. [**218**]{}, 479-511 (2001) \[arXiv:gr-qc/0001047\]. R.T. Jantzen, “Finite-dimensional Einstein-Maxwell-scalar-field system,” Phys. Rev. D [**33**]{}, 2121-2135 (1986). V.G. LeBlanc, “Asymptotic states of magnetic Bianchi I cosmologies,” Class. Quantum Grav. [**14**]{}, 2281-2301 (1997); “Bianchi II magnetic cosmologies,” Class. Quantum Grav. [**15**]{}, 1607-1626 (1998). M. Weaver, “Dynamics of magnetic Bianchi VI$_0$ cosmologies,” Class. Quantum Grav. [**17**]{}, 421-434 (2000) \[arXiv:gr-qc/9909043\]. B.K. Berger, D. Garfinkle, J. Isenberg, V. Moncrief and M. Weaver, “The singularity in generic gravitational collapse is spacelike, local, and oscillatory,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A [**13**]{}, 1565-1574 (1998) \[arXiv:gr-qc/9805063\]. B.K. Berger, J. Isenberg and M. Weaver, “Oscillatory approach to the singularity in vacuum spacetimes with $T^2$ isometry,” Phys. Rev. D [**64**]{}, 084006–1-20 (2001) \[arXiv:gr-qc/0104048\]. B.K. Berger and V. Moncrief, “Evidence for an oscillatory singularity in generic U(1) symmetric cosmologies on $T^3 \times R$,” Phys. Rev. D [**58**]{}, 064023–1-8 (1998) \[arXiv:gr-qc/9804085\]. M. Weaver, J. Isenberg and B.K. Berger, “Mixmaster behavior in inhomogeneous cosmological spacetimes,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80**]{} 2984-2987 (1998) \[arXiv:gr-qc/9712055\]. D. Garfinkle, “Harmonic coordinate method for simulating generic singularities,” arXiv:gr-qc/0110013. B. Grubišić and V. Moncrief, “Asymptotic behaviour of the $T^3 \times R$ Gowdy spacetimes,” Phys. Rev. D [**47**]{} 2371-2382 (1993). A. Buonanno, T. Damour and G. Veneziano, “Pre-big bang bubbles from the gravitational instability of generic string vacua,” Nucl. Phys. B [**543**]{}, 275 (1999) \[arXiv:hep-th/9806230\]. B.K. Berger and V. Moncrief, “Exact U(1) symmetric cosmologies with local Mixmaster dynamics,” Phys. Rev. D [**62**]{} 02359 (2000) \[arXiv:gr-qc/0001083\]. H. Ringström, “The Bianchi IX attractor,” Ann. H. Poincaré [**2**]{}, 405-500 (2001) \[arXiv:gr-qc/0006035\]. S. Kichenassamy, and A.D. Rendall, “Analytic description of singularities in Gowdy spacetimes,” Class. Quantum Grav. [**15**]{} 1339-1355 (1998). A.D. Rendall, “Fuchsian analysis of singularities in Gowdy spacetimes beyond analyticity,” Class. Quantum Grav. 3305-3316 (2000) \[arXiv:gr-qc/0004044\]. A. D. Rendall, “Applications of the theory of evolution equations to general relativity,” arXiv:gr-qc/0109028. A.D. Rendall, “Blow-up for solutions of hyperbolic PDE and spacetime singularities,” in [*Proceedings of Journees EDP Atlantique*]{}, 2000 \[arXiv:gr-qc/0006060\]. J. Demaret, J.L. Hanquin, M. Henneaux, P. Spindel and A. Taormina, “The Fate Of The Mixmaster Behavior In Vacuum Inhomogeneous Kaluza-Klein Cosmological Models,” Phys. Lett. B [**175**]{}, 129 (1986). B.K. Berger, “Influence of scalar fields on the approach to a cosmological singularity,” Phys. Rev. D [**61**]{}, 023508–1-6 (1999) \[arXiv:gr-qc/9907083\]. B.K. Berger and D. Garfinkle, “Phenomenology of the Gowdy universe on $T^3 \times R$,” Phys. Rev. D [**57**]{}, 4767-4777 (1998) \[arXiv:gr-qc/9710102\]. A.D. Rendall and M. Weaver, “Manufacture of Gowdy spacetimes with spikes,” Class. Quantum Grav. [**18**]{}, 2959-2975 (2001) \[arXiv:gr-qc/0103102\]. D.M. Chitre, Ph. D. thesis, University of Maryland, 1972. C.W. Misner, in: D. Hobill et al. (Eds), Deterministic chaos in general relativity, Plenum, 1994, pp. 317-328 \[gr-qc/9405068\]. A. A. Kirillov and V. N. Melnikov, “Dynamics Of Inhomogeneities Of Metric In The Vicinity Of A Singularity In Multidimensional Cosmology," Phys. Rev. D [**52**]{}, 723 (1995) \[gr-qc/9408004\]; V.D. Ivashchuk and V.N. Melnikov, “Billiard Representation For Multidimensional Cosmology With Multicomponent Perfect Fluid Near The Singularity,” Class. Quantum Grav. [**12**]{}, 809 (1995). T. Damour, M. Henneaux, B. Julia and H. Nicolai, “Hyperbolic Kac-Moody algebras and chaos in Kaluza-Klein models,” Phys. Lett. B [**509**]{}, 323 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-th/0103094\]. H. Nicolai, “Two-dimensional gravities and supergravities as integrable system,” DESY-91-038 [*Lectures presented at 30th Schladming Winter School, Schladming, Austria, Feb 27 - Mar 5, 1991*]{}. L. Andersson, “The global existence problem in general relativity,” arXiv:gr-qc/9911032. Y. Choquet-Bruhat and J.W. York, “The Cauchy problem,” in A. Held (ed.), [*General Relativity*]{} Plenum, New York, 1980. Y. Choquet-Bruhat, J. Isenberg and J.W. York, “Einstein constraints on asymptotically Euclidean manifolds,” Phys. Rev. D [**61**]{}, 084034 (2000). N. Ó Murchadha and J.W. York, “Existence and uniqueness of solutions of the Hamiltonian constraint of general relativity on compact manifolds,” J. Math. Phys. [**14**]{}, 1551-1557, 1973. M. Narita, T. Torii and K. Maeda, “Asymptotic singular behaviour of Gowdy spacetimes in string theory,” Class. Quantum Grav [**17**]{}, 4597-4613 (2000) \[arXiv:gr-qc/0003013\]. K. Anguige, “A class of perfect-fluid cosmologies with polarised Gowdy symmetry and a Kasner-like singularity,” arXiv:gr-qc/0005086.
[^1]: We recall that the Hodge duality between a $(n_j+1)$-form and a $(D - n_j -1)$-form allows one to replace (locally) a $n_j$-form potential $A^{(j)}$ by a $(D - n_j -2)$-form potential $A^{(j')}$ (with dilaton coupling $\lambda_j' = - \lambda_j$).
[^2]: For a recent extension of these ideas to the brane-worlds scenarios, see [@jdBsH].
[^3]: The Kasner solution is generalized in two ways: first, the original Kasner exponents include a dilaton exponent (if there is a dilaton), which appears in the Kasner conditions; second, the exponents are not assumed to be constant in space. We shall shorten “exhibits generalized Kasner behaviour" to Kasner-like. We stress that we do not use this term to indicate that the solution becomes asymptotically homogeneous in space.
[^4]: Note that we use the terms “Kasner-like solutions" to label both exact solutions of the truncated system and solutions of the full system that are asymptotic to such solutions. Which meaning is relevant should be clear from the context.
[^5]: The oscillatory regime may however be present for peculiar initial data, presumably forming a set of zero measure. For instance, gravity + dilaton is generically Kasner-like, but exhibits an oscillatory behaviour for initial data with $\phi = 0$ (in $D<11$ spacetime dimensions).
[^6]: The argument for the symmetry of the metric in [@AR] is not valid as written since some terms were omitted in the evolution equation for the antisymmetric part of the extrinsic curvature. The correct equation is $$\partial_t(k_{ab}-k_{ba})=({\mbox{tr}}k)(k_{ab}-k_{ba})
-2(k_{ac}k^c{}_b-k_{bc}k^c{}_a).$$ In the following a proof of the symmetry of the tensors $g_{ab}$ and $k_{ab}$ is supplied with the help of a different method.
[^7]: The case $\lambda = 0$ is clearly in the subcritical region but must be treated separately because there are then two dilatons. The Kasner conditions read $p_1 + p_2 + \cdots + p_d = 1$ and $p_1^2 + \cdots p_d^2 + A_1^2 + A_2^2 = 1$, where the scalar fields behave as $\phi_1 \sim A_1 \ln t$, $\phi_2 \sim
A_2 \ln t$. This allows positive $p_i$’s, which enables one to drop spatial derivatives as $t \rightarrow 0$. The system is velocity-dominated.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We prove a non-vanishing theorem of the cohomology $H^0$ of the adjoint divisor $K_X + \lceil L \rceil$ where $\lceil L \rceil$ is the round up of a nef and big ${\bold Q}$-divisor $L$.'
address:
- 'Department of Mathematics, National Taiwan University, Taipei, 106, Taiwan'
- 'Mathematics Division, National Center for Theoretical Science at Taipei'
- 'Institute of Mathematics, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200433, P. R. China'
- 'Department of Mathematics, National University of Singapore, 2 Science Drive 2, Singapore 117543, Singapore'
author:
- Jungkai Alfred Chen
- Meng Chen
- 'De-Qi Zhang'
title: 'A nonvanishing theorem for Q-divisors'
---
\#1 \#1 \#1 \#1 \#1 \#1 \#1
\#1 \#1
[^1]
Introduction
=============
We work over the complex number field [**C**]{}. The motivation of this note is to find an effective version of the famous non-vanishing theorem of Kawamata and Shokurov (see [@KMM], [@Sh]). We propose the following:
\[mainconj\] Let $X$ be a nonsingular projective variety. Let $L$ be a [**Q**]{}-divisor on $X$ satisfying the conditions below:
[ ]{}
$L$ is nef and big,
$K_X + L$ is nef, and
either $L$ is a Cartier integral divisor, or $L$ is effective.
Then $H^0(X, K_X + \lceil L \rceil) \ne 0$, where $\lceil L \rceil$ is the round up of $L$.
This kind of non-vanishing problem has been considered by Ambro \[Am\], A. Chen-Hacon \[CH\], Kawamata \[Ka\], Kollar \[Ko\], Takayama \[Ta\], and others. When $L$ is an integral Cartier divisor, Kawamata \[Ka\] has proved the above Conjecture \[mainconj\] if either $\dim X =
2$, or $\dim X = 3$ and $X$ is minimal (i.e., the canonical divisor $K_X$ is nef).
Conjecture \[mainconj\] is slightly different from that of Kawamata’s in [@Ka]. It is somewhat general in the sense that the divisor $L$ in question is not assumed to have integral coefficients. It is precisely this non-Cartierness of $L$ that causes a lot of trouble when estimating $h^0(X, K_X + \lceil L \rceil)$. To elaborate, the Kawamata-Viehweg vanishing ([@KV], [@Vi1]) implies that $h^0(X, K_X + \lceil L \rceil) =
\chi(K_X + \lceil L \rceil)$ when the fractional part of $L$ is of normal crossings. However, the Riemann-Roch formula for $\chi$ may not be effective because $\lceil L \rceil$ may not be nef and hence $\lceil L \rceil . (K_X + \lceil L \rceil)$ may not be non-negative when $X$ is a nonsingular surface. The worse thing is that as remarked in a recent paper of \[Xi\], there are ${\bf Q}$-Fano 2-folds and 3-folds (see \[Fl\]) with vanishing $H^0(X, K_X +(-2K_X))$.
Despite of the observations above, in \[Xi\] it is proved that $H^0(X, K_X + (D-K_X)) \ne 0$ for Picard number one Gorenstein del Pezzo surface $X$ and nef and big ${\bf Q}$-Cartier Weil divisor $D$. In this note we shall prove the following which is a consequence of Theorems \[theoremk=0\], \[ruled\], \[theoremk=2\] and \[theoremk=1\] (for the case of integral Cartier $L$, see \[Ka\]).
\[main\] Let $X$ be a nonsingular projective surface. Suppose that $X$ and $L$ satisfy the conditions $(1)$ - $(3)$ in Conjecture \[mainconj\]. Suppose further that $X$ is relatively minimal. Then either $H^0(X, K_X + \lceil L \rceil) \ne 0$ or $H^0(X, K_X + 4L_{\rm red}) \ne 0$.
The second conclusion may occur when $K_X$ is nef (and the Kodaira dimension $\kappa(X) \ge 1$). In this case, the conditions in Conjecture \[mainconj\] are automatically satisfied whenever $L$ is nef and big. So if $L$ is an effective [**Q**]{}-divisor with all coefficients less than $1$, then the non-vanishing of $H^0(X, K_X + \lceil L \rceil)$ is equivalent to that of $H^0(X,
K_X + L_{\rm red})$, which is stronger than our conclusion. Remark \[remk=1\] shows that it is hard to replace the coefficient $"4"$ in the theorem above by $"1"$.
In Sections 3 and 6 (Theorems \[irreg\] and Theorem \[ratell\]), we prove the following non-vanishing results without assuming the condition (3) in Conjecture \[mainconj\], and the proof presented for the first assertion is applicable to higher dimensional varieties. The Fourier-Mukai transforms are applied in the proof.
Let $X$ and $L$ be as in Conjecture \[mainconj\] satisfying the first two conditions only. Then $H^0(X, K_X + \lceil L \rceil) \ne 0$ if either
$(i)$ $X$ is a surface with irregularity $q(X) > 0$, or
$(ii)$ $X$ is a relatively minimal elliptic surface with $\kappa(X) = -\infty$ and $K_X + L$ nef and big.
$(1)$ In Example \[example\], we construct an example of pair $(X, L)$ satisfying the conditions (1) and (2) in Conjecture \[mainconj\] (indeed, both $L$ and $K_X + L$ are nef and big) but with $H^0(X, K_X + \lceil L \rceil) = 0$. So an extra condition such as the (3) in Conjecture \[mainconj\] is necessary.
\(2) The same example shows that in Kollar’s result \[Ko\] on non-vanishing of $H^0(X, K_X + M)$ for big divisor $M$, the “bigness” assumption on the fundamental group $\pi_1(X)$ is necessary, because in (1) the $M: = \lceil L \rceil \ge L$ is big and $\pi_1(X) = (1)$.
\(3) The example also shows the necessity to assume the nefness of the Cartier integral divisor $D$ (with $(X, B)$ klt and $D - (K_X
+ B)$ nef and big) in Kawamata’s conjecture \[Ka\] for the non-vanishing of $H^0(X, D)$. Indeed, in the example, we have $\lceil L
\rceil = L + B$ with $B$ a simple normal crossing effective divisor so that $[B] = 0$, whence $(X, B)$ is klt. To be precise, let $D : = \lceil L \rceil$. Then $D - (K_X + B) = \lceil L \rceil
- B = L$ is nef and big, $D = K_X + \lceil L \rceil$, and $D$ is not nef for $D . D_i = -1$ with the notation in the example.
We end the Introduction with:
Consider a fibred space $f:V\longrightarrow C$ where $V$ is a nonsingular projective variety and $C$ a complete curve. Assume $L$ is a nef and big normal crossing ${\bf Q}$-divisor such that $K_V+L$ is nef. The well-known positivity says that $f_*(\omega_{V/C}\otimes {\mathcal O}_V(\lceil L\rceil))$ is positive whenever it is not equal to $0$. Pick up a general fibre $F$ of $f$. The induction of the non-vanishing problem on $F$ may imply that $$\text{rk}(f_*(\omega_{V/B}\otimes {\mathcal
O}_V(\lceil L\rceil)))=h^0(F, K_F+\lceil L\rceil|_F)\ge h^0(F,
K_F+\lceil L|_F\rceil)\ne 0.$$
The positivity of $f_*(\omega_{V/B}\otimes {\mathcal O}_V(\lceil
L\rceil))$ has direct applications in studying properties of the moduli schemes for polarized manifolds. Please refer to [@Vi2] for more details.
The above remark shows one aspect of the importance of the effective non-vanishing for [**Q**]{}-divisors.
We would like to thank the referee for his / her very careful reading and suggestions for the improvement of the paper.
Some preparations and an example {#prep}
================================
We begin with:
A reduced connected divisor $\Gamma$, with only simple normal crossings, is a rational tree if every component of $\Gamma$ is a rational curve and the dual graph of $\Gamma$ is a tree (i.e., it contains no loops).
Before proving Proposition \[treeprop\] below, we need two lemmas in advance.
\[rat\] Let $D = \sum_{j=1}^n D_j$ be a reduced connected divisor on a nonsingular projective surface $X$. Then $D . (K_X + D) \ge -2$ and the equality holds if and only if $D$ is a rational tree.
Note that $\sum_{k < j} D_k . D_j \ge n-1$ and the equality holds if and only if $D$ is a tree. We calculate: $D . (K_X+D) = \sum D_j^2 + \sum K_X . D_j + 2 \sum_{k < j} D_k . D_j$ $\ge \sum_j (2p_a(D_j)-2) + 2(n-1) \ge -2$. The lemma follows.
\[treelem\] Suppose that $X$ is a nonsingular projective surface with $\chi({{\mathcal{O}}}_X) = 1$ and $D$ ($\ne 0$) a connected reduced divisor such that $H^0(X, K_X + D) = 0$. Then the following statements are true.
$(1)$ $D$ is a connected rational tree.
$(2)$ Suppose further that $D$ supports a nef and big divisor (so $D$ is automatically connected). Then $\pi_1(X) = (1)$.
The Serre duality and Riemann-Roch theorem imply $0 = h^0(X, K_X +
D) = h^1(X, K_X + D) + \frac{1}{2}(K_X + D) . D + \chi({{\mathcal{O}}}_X) \ge
0 + (-1) + 1$ by Lemma \[rat\]. Thus $D. (K_X + D) = -2$ and hence $D$ is a connected rational tree by the same lemma. So $\pi_1(D) = (1)$. Suppose that $D$ supports on a nef and big effective divisor. Then the surjective map $\pi_1(D) \rightarrow
\pi_1(X)$ in Nori \[No, Cor. 2.3\] infers $\pi_1(X) = (1)$.
The next result is a very important restriction on $X$ and $L$ in Theorem \[main\].
\[treeprop\] Let $X$ be a nonsingular projective surface with $q(X)=0$ and $L$ a nef and big effective ${\bold Q}$-divisor such that $H^0(X,
K_X + L_{\rm red}) = 0$. Then $\chi({{\mathcal{O}}}_X) = 1$, $L_{\rm red}$ is a connected rational tree and $X$ is simply connected.
Note that $p_g(X) \le h^0(X, K_X + L_{\rm red}) = 0$. So $\chi({{\mathcal{O}}}_X) = 1$. Now the proposition follows from Lemma \[treelem\].
The result below is used in the subsequent sections.
\[fibk=1\] Suppose that $X$ is a minimal nonsingular projective surface with Kodaira dimension $\kappa(X) = 1$, $p_g(X) = 0$, and $\pi_1^{\rm alg}(X) = (1)$ (this is true if $\pi_1(X) = (1)$). Let $\pi : X \rightarrow {\bf
P}^1$ be the unique elliptic fibration with $F$ a general fibre. The following statements are true:
$(1)$ $\pi$ has exactly two multiple fibres $F_1, F_2$, and their multiplicities $m_1, m_2$ are coprime. In particular, if $E$ is horizontal then $E . F = m_1m_2 m_3$ ($\ge 6$) for some positive integer $m_3$.
$(2)$ Suppose further that a reduced connected divisor $D$ on $X$ is a rational tree and contains strictly the support of an effective $\Gamma$ of elliptic fibre type. Then $\Gamma$ is a full fibre of $\pi$ and of type $II^*$, $(m_1, m_2) = (2, 3)$ and $E . F = 6$ for some $E$ in $D$ (see [@BPV], Ch V, §7, for notation of singular fibres).
\(1) Since $\pi_1(X)^{\rm alg} = (1)$, we have $H_1(X, {\bold Z}) = (0)$ and hence $q(X) = 0$. So $\chi({{{\mathcal{O}}}_X}) = 1$. Since $\kappa(X) = 1$, there is an elliptic fibration $\pi : X \rightarrow \pi(X) = {\bf P}^1$, where the image is ${\bf P}^1$ because $q(X) = 0$. Let $F_i$ ($1 \le i \le t$) be all multiple fibres of $\pi$, with multiplicity $m_i$. If $m = gcd(m_1, m_2) \ge 2$, then the relation $m(F_1/m - F_2/m) \sim 0$ induces an unramified Galois ${\bf Z}/(m)$-cover of $X$, contradicting the assumption $\pi_1(X)^{\rm alg} = (1)$. If $t \ge 3$, then by Fox’s solution to Fenchel’s conjecture (see \[Fo\], \[Ch\]), there is a base change $B \rightarrow {\bold P}^1$ ramified exactly over $\pi(F_i)$ ($1 \le i \le t$) and with ramification index $m_i$. Then the normalization $Y$ of the fibre product $X \times_{{\bf P}^1} B$ is an unramified cover of $X$ (so that the induced fibration $Y \rightarrow B$ has no multiple fibres), again contradicting the assumption that $\pi_1(X)^{\rm alg} = (1)$.
On the other hand, by the canonical divisor formula, we have $K_X = \pi^*(K_{{\bf P}^1}) + \chi({{{\mathcal{O}}}_X}) F_1
+ \sum_{i=1}^t (m_i - 1) (F_i)_{\rm red}
\sim_{\bf Q} (-1 + \sum_{i=1}^t (1 - \frac{1}{m_i})) F_1$ (so $\pi$ is the only elliptic fibration on $X$). Since $\kappa(X) = 1$, we see that $t \ge 2$. Now the lemma follows from the results above.
\(2) Since $\Gamma$ is of elliptic fibre type, $0 = K_X . \Gamma = \Gamma^2 = 0$. Hence $\Gamma$ is a multiple of a fibre of $\pi$. Since the support of $\Gamma$ ($< D$) is a tree, it is of type $I_n^*$, $II^*$, $III^*$ or $IV^*$, whence $\Gamma$ is a full fibre (and is not a multiple fibre). By the assumption, there is an $E$ in $D$ such that ${\text{\rm Supp}}(E + \Gamma)$ is a connected rational tree. Thus $E . \Gamma \le 6$ and the equality holds if and only if $\Gamma$ is of type $II^*$ and $E$ meets the coefficient-6 component of $\Gamma$. Now (2) follows from (1).
The example below shows that an assumption like the condition (3) in Conjecture \[mainconj\] might be necessary.
\[example\] We shall construct a nonsingular projective surface $X$ and a [**Q**]{}-divisor $L$ such that the conditions (1) and (2) in Conjecture \[mainconj\] are satisfied, but that $H^0(X, K_X + \lceil L
\rceil) = 0$. Indeed, we will see that both $L$ and $K_X + L$ are nef and big ${\bold Q}$-divisors.
Let $C$ be a sextic plane curve with $9$ ordinary cusps (of type $(2, 3)$) and no other singularities. This $C$ (regarded as a curve in the dual plane ${\bf P}^{2*}$) is dual to a smooth plane cubic (always having $9$ inflectins). Let $\overline{X}
\rightarrow {\bf P}^2$ be the double cover branched at $C$. Then $\overline{X}$ is a normal $K3$ surface with exactly $9$ Du Val singularities (lying over the $9$ cusps) of Dynkin type $A_2$. Let $X$ be the minimal resolution. According to Barth \[Ba\], these $9
A_2$ are $3$-divisible. That is, for some integral divisor $G$, we have $3 G \sim \sum_{i=1}^9 (C_i + 2D_i)$ where $\coprod (C_i +
D_i)$ is a disjoint union of the $9$ intersecting ${\bf P}^1$ (i.e., the $9A_2$). Let $H$ be the pull back of a general line away from the $9$ cusps on $C$. Then $H^2 = 2$ and $H$ is disjoint from the $9A_2$, so $H . G = 0$. We can also calculate that $G^2 =
-6$. Now let $L = H + G - \frac{1}{3}\sum_{i=1}^9 (C_i + 2D_i)$. Then $\lceil L \rceil = H + G$ and $\lceil L \rceil^2 = -4$. Clearly, $K_X + L = L \equiv H$ is nef and big. However, by the Kawamata-Viehweg vanishing, and Riemann-Roch theorem, we have $h^0(X, K_X + \lceil L \rceil) = \frac{1}{2} \lceil L \rceil^2 + 2
= 0$.
A similar example can be constructed, if one can find a quartic surface with $16$ nodes (i.e., a normal Kummer quartic surface).
Irregular surfaces
==================
In this section, we shall show that Conjecture \[mainconj\] holds true (with only the first two conditions there but not the last condition) for surfaces $X$ with positive irregularity $q(X)$.
To be precise, let $X$ be a nonsingular projective surface with $q(X)>0$ and let ${\text{\rm alb}}: X \to {\text{\rm Alb}}(X)$ be the Albanese map. Then we have:
\[irreg\] Let $X$ be a nonsingular projective surface with $q(X)>0$. Let $L$ be a nef and big ${\bf Q}$-divisor such that $K_X+L$ is nef. Then $H^0(X,K+ \lceil L \rceil) \ne 0$.
To see this, we need the following lemma:
Let ${{\mathcal{F}}}\ne 0$ be a $IT^0$ sheaf on an abelian variety $A$, i.e. for every $i > 0$ we have $H^i(A, {{\mathcal{F}}}{{\otimes}}P) =0 $ for all $P \in
{\text{\rm Pic}}^0(A)$. Then $H^0(A,{{\mathcal{F}}}) \ne 0$.
The proof can be found in [@CH], but we reprove it here.
Suppose on the contrary that $H^0(A, {{\mathcal{F}}}) =0$. Since ${{\mathcal{F}}}$ is $IT^0$, the Fourier-Mukai transform of ${{\mathcal{F}}}$ is a locally free sheaf of rank $= h^0(A, {{\mathcal{F}}})$, hence the zero sheaf. The only sheaf that transforms to the zero sheaf is the zero sheaf, which is a contradiction.
Let $f: X' \to X$ be an embedded resolution for $(X,L)$. It is clear that $f^*L$ is nef and big with simple normal crossing support. Let $\Delta:=\lceil f^*L \rceil-f^*L$, then $(X', \Delta)$ is Kawamata log terminal (klt for short; for its definition and property, see [@KMM], Def 0-2-10). By a property of nef and big divisor (see e.g. [@La], ex 2.2.17), there is an effective divisor $N$ such that $A_k:=f^*L-\frac{1}{k} N $ is ample for all $k \gg 0$. We fix $k$ such that $(X', \Delta+ \frac{1}{k} N)$ is klt. Now we can write $A_k=
({\text{\rm alb}}\circ f)^*M +E$ for some ample $\bf{Q}$-divisor $M$ on $A:={\text{\rm Alb}}(X)$ and effective divisor $E$ on $X'$. Pick irreducible divisor $ B \in |(n-1)A|$ for $n \gg 0$ such that $(X', \Delta')$ is klt, where $\Delta':=\Delta+\frac{1}{k}N + \frac{1}{n}E +\frac{1}{n}B$. Then we have, where $P' = ({\rm alb} \circ f)^*P$ with $P \in {\rm Pic}^0(A)$: $$K_{X'}+\lceil f^*L \rceil + P' \equiv K_{X'}+\frac{({\text{\rm alb}}\circ
f)^*M}{n}+\Delta'.$$ Let ${{\mathcal{F}}}:= {\text{\rm alb}}_* f_* {{\mathcal{O}}}_{X'}(K_{X'} +\lceil
f^*L \rceil)$. By Kollár’s relative vanishing theorem (cf. [@Ko], 10.19.2), one sees that ${{\mathcal{F}}}$ is $IT^0$.
We claim that ${{\mathcal{F}}}\ne 0$.
Grant this claim for the time being. By the above lemma, it follows that $$h^0(X', K_{X'}+\lceil f^*L \rceil)=h^0(A, {{\mathcal{F}}})
\ne 0.$$ Since $K_{X'}+\lceil f^*L \rceil= f^*(K_X+\lceil L
\rceil) + \Gamma$, where $\Gamma$ is an exceptional divisor (possibly non-effective). It’s easy to see that $f_*
{{\mathcal{O}}}_{X'}(\Gamma) \subset {{\mathcal{O}}}_X$. By the projection formula, one has: $$0 \ne H^0(X',K_{X'}+\lceil f^*L \rceil)= H^0(X,{{\mathcal{O}}}_X(K_X+\lceil L
\rceil) {{\otimes}}f_* {{\mathcal{O}}}_{X'}(\Gamma) ) \subset H^0(X,K_X+\lceil L
\rceil).$$ This is the required non-vanishing.
To see the claim, if ${{\text{\rm dim}}}({\text{\rm alb}}(X))=2$, then ${\text{\rm alb}}\circ f$ is generically finite. Hence it is clear that ${{\mathcal{F}}}\ne 0$. If ${{\text{\rm dim}}}({\text{\rm alb}}(X))=1$. Let $F$ be a general fiber of ${\text{\rm alb}}\circ f$. Then we have: $${{\text{\rm rank}}}({{\mathcal{F}}}) =h^0(F, (K_{X'} +\lceil f^*L \rceil) |_F ) = h^0(F,
K_F+\lceil f^*L|_F \rceil ).$$ Since $f^*L$ is big, $f^*L.F >0$. It follows that $\deg(\lceil f^*L|_F \rceil)>0$.
If $g(F) > 0$, then we have $h^0(F, K_F+\lceil f^*L|_F \rceil )
>0$ already. If $g(F)=0$, note that $K_X+L$ is nef. Note also that $(K_{X'}+f^*L).F= (K_X+L).f(F)$ since $F$ is general. This implies that $$\deg(K_F+\lceil f^*L|_F \rceil) =
(K_{X'}+f^*L).F + (\lceil f^*L \rceil -f^*L).F$$ $$=(K_X+L).f(F) + (\lceil f^*L \rceil -f^*L ).F \ge 0.$$ Hence $h^0(F,K_F+\lceil L_F \rceil )>0$. We conclude that ${{\mathcal{F}}}\ne
0$ and hence the required non-vanishing that $h^0(X, K_X+\lceil L
\rceil) \ne 0$.
In the proof of Theorem \[irreg\], without taking log-resolution at the beginning, one can apply Sakai’s lemma [@Sa] for surfaces to get the vanishing of higher cohomology. However, our argument here works for higher dimensional situation. It shows that non-vanishing for general fiber gives the non-vanishing.
Surfaces of Kodaira dimension 0
===============================
In this section, we show that the Conjecture \[mainconj\] in the Introduction is true for surfaces $X$ (not necessarily minimal) with Kodaira dimenion $\kappa(X) = 0$.
\[theoremk=0\] Suppose that $X$ is a nonsingular projective surface (not necessarily minimal) of Kodaira dimension $\kappa(X) = 0$. Then Conjecture \[mainconj\] is true for effective ${\bf Q}$-divisor $L$.
By Theorem \[irreg\], we may assume that $q(X) = 0$. We may also assume that $0 = h^0(X, K_X + L_{\rm red}) $ ($\ge p_g(X)$). So $X$ is the blow up of an Enriques surface by the classification theory. On the other hand, $\pi_1(X) = (1)$ by Proposition \[treeprop\], a contradiction. This proves the theorem.
Surfaces with negative $\kappa$, Part I : ruled surfaces
========================================================
In this section, we prove Conjecture \[mainconj\] for relatively minimal surfaces $X$ of Kodaira dimension $\kappa(X) = - \infty$. By Theorem \[irreg\], we may assume that $q(X) = 0$, so $X$ is a relatively minimal rational surface. If $X= \bf{P}^2$ or $\bf{P}^1 \times
\bf{P}^1$, it is easy to verify that Conjecture \[mainconj\] is true since effective divisor is then nef. We thus assume that $X$ is the Hirzebruch surface $\mathbb{F}_d$ of degree $d \ge 1$ (though, $\mathbb{F}_1$ is not relatively minimal).
We first fix some notations. Let $\pi:\mathbb{F}_d \to
\bf{P}^1$ be the ruling. Let $F$ be a general fibre and $C$ the only negative curve (a cross-section, indeed) on $\mathbb{F}_d$. So $C^2 = -d$.
\[ruled\] Let $X$ be a relative minimal surface of Kodaira dimension $\kappa(X) = - \infty$. Then Conjecture \[mainconj\] holds for effective ${\bold Q}$-divisor $L$.
As mentioned above, we assume that $X = \mathbb{F}_d$ for some $d \ge 1$. Let $L$ be a nef and big effective [**Q**]{}-divisor such that $K_X+L$ is nef. If ${\text{\rm Supp}}(L)$ does not contain the negative curve $C$, then $E : = \lceil L \rceil - L$ is effective and nef; so $\lceil L \rceil = L + E$ is nef and big and $K_X + \lceil L \rceil = K_X + L + E$ is nef; then the Serre duality and Riemann-Roch theorem for Cartier divisor imply that $h^0(X, K_X + \lceil L \rceil) \ge
\frac{1}{2} \lceil L \rceil (K_X + \lceil L \rceil)
+ \chi({{\mathcal{O}}}_X) \ge 0 + 1$. Theorefore, we may assume that ${\text{\rm Supp}}(L)$ contains $C$.
Write $L = \sum_i c_i C_i + \sum f_j F_j$ where $C_1 = C$, the $C_i$’s are distinct horizontal components and $F_j$’s are distinct fibres, where $c_i > 0$, $f_j > 0$.
Suppose on the contrary that $H^0(X, K_X+ \lceil L
\rceil)=0$. Then by Lemma \[treelem\], $L_{\rm red}$ is a connected rational tree. Hence one of the following cases occurs:
Case (i). $L = c_1C_1 + \sum_{j=1}^k f_j F_j$ ($k \ge 0$),
Case (ii). $L = \sum_{i=1}^k c_i C_i + f_1F_1$ ($k \ge 2$), and $L_{\rm red}$ is comb-shaped, i.e., $C_i$’s are disjoint cross-sections.
Case (iii). $L = \sum_{i=1}^k c_iC_i$ ($k \ge 2$).
Recall that $K_X \sim -2 C_1 -(d+2) F$. The nefness of $K_X + L$ implies: $$0 \le (K_X+L ). F = -2 + \sum c_i (C_i . F),$$ $$0 \le (K_X + L) . C_1 = d- 2 - d c_1 + \sum_{i \ge 2} c_i (C_i . C_1) + \sum f_j,$$ $$\sum c_i (C_i . F) \ge 2,$$ $$\sum f_j \ge 2 + (c_1-1) d - \sum_{i \ge 2} c_i (C_i . C_1).$$
In Case (i), the above inequalities imply $c_1 \ge 2$ and $\sum f_j \ge 2 + (c_1 - 1) d \ge d+2$, whence $\lceil L \rceil = \lceil c_1\rceil C_1 + \sum \lceil f_j \rceil F_j
\sim \lceil c_1 \rceil C_1 + (\sum \lceil f_j \rceil) F
\ge 2 C_1 + (\sum f_j) F \ge 2 C_1 + (d+2) F_1\sim -K_X$. Hence $H^0(X, K_X + \lceil L \rceil) \ne 0$.
Consider Case (ii). Then one sees easily that $k = 2$ and $C_2 \sim C_1 + d F_1$ (see \[Ha, Chapter V, §2\]). By the displayed inequalities, we have $c_1 \ge 2 - c_2$ and $f_1 \ge 2 + (c_1 - 1) d$. If $c_2 > 1$ then $\lceil L \rceil \ge C_1 + 2 C_2 + F_1 > -K_X$, whence $H^0(X, K_X + \lceil L \rceil) \ne 0$. So we may assume that $c_2 \le 1$. Then $c_1 \ge 1$ and $f_1 \ge 2$. Thus $\lceil L \rceil \ge C_1 + C_2 + 2F_1 \sim -K_X$, whence $H^0(X, K_X + \lceil L \rceil) \ne 0$.
Consider Case (iii). Since $L$ is a connected tree, we may assume that $C_1 . C_2 = 1$. So $C_2 \sim n(C_1 + d F) + F$ for some integer $n \ge 1$. Since $C_i$ ($i \ge 2$) is irreducible, we have $C_i \ge C_1 + d F$ by [@Ha]. If $k \ge 3$ or $n \ge 2$, then we see that $\lceil L \rceil \ge \sum_{i=1}^k C_i > - K_X$. So assume that $k = 2$ and $n = 1$. By the inequalities displayed above, we have $c_1 \ge 2 - c_2$ and $c_2 \ge 2 + (c_1-1) d$. If $c_2 > 1$ then $\lceil L \rceil \ge C_1 + 2C_2 > -K_X$. So assume that $c_2 \le 1$. Then $c_1 \ge 2 - 1$ and $c_2 \ge 2 + 0 d$, a contradiction.
Surfaces with negative $\kappa$, Part II: relatively minimal elliptic
=====================================================================
In this section we consider relatively minimal elliptic surface $\pi : X \rightarrow B$ with Kodaira dimension $\kappa(X)
= -\infty$. As far as the Conjecture \[mainconj\] is concerned, we may assume that the irregularity $q(X) = 0$ by virtue of Theorem \[irreg\]. So $X$ is a rational surface and $B = {\bf
P}^1$. By the canonical divisor formula, we see that $\pi$ has at most one fibre $F_0$ with multiplicity $m \ge 2$; moreover, such $F_0$ (if exists) is of Kodaira type $I_n$ ($n \ge 0$), and $-K_X
= (F_0)_{\rm red}$.
We show that Conjecture 1.1 is true if $K_X + L$ is nef and big (but without the assumption of the effectiveness of $L$):
\[ratell\] Let $\pi : X \rightarrow B$ be a relatively minimal elliptic surface with $\kappa(X) = -\infty$. Suppose that $L$ is a nef and big ${\bf Q}$-divisor such that $K_X
+ L$ is nef and big. Then $H^0(X, K_X + \lceil L \rceil) \ne 0$.
By Theorem \[irreg\], we may assume that $q(X) = 0$, so $B = {\bf P}^1$ and $X$ is a rational surface.
Suppose that the ${\bf Q}$-divisor $L$ is nef and big and $K_X + L$ is nef. Let $F_0 = m (F_0)_{\rm red}$ be the multiple fiber. We set $m = 1$ and let $F_0$ be a general (smooth) fibre, if $\pi$ is multiple fibre free. Then $K_X \sim -(F_0)_{\rm red}$. Let $a > 0$. Consider the exact sequence: $$0 \rightarrow {{{\mathcal{O}}}}_X(K_X + \lceil aL \rceil - (F_{\rm 0})_{\rm red}) \rightarrow
{{{\mathcal{O}}}}_X(K_X + \lceil aL \rceil) \rightarrow {{{\mathcal{O}}}}_{(F_{\rm 0})_{\rm red}}
(K_X + \lceil aL \rceil|_{(F_{\rm 0})_{\rm red}}) \rightarrow 0.$$
Let us find the condition for $aL - (F_{\rm 0})_{\rm red}$ to be nef and big. Note that $aL - (F_{\rm 0})_{\rm red} \sim aL + K_X = (a-1) L + (K_X + L)$. So $aL - (F_{\rm 0})_{\rm red}$ is nef and big if either
\(i) $a > 1$, or
\(ii) $a = 1$ and $K_X + L$ is nef and big.
Assume that either (i) or (ii) is satisfied. Then $H^i(X, K_X + \lceil aL \rceil - (F_{\rm 0})_{\rm red}) = 0 =
H^i(X, K_X + \lceil aL \rceil)$ for all $i > 0$, by Sakai’s vanishing for surfaces. For the integral divisor $M := K_X + \lceil aL \rceil$ and the reduced divisor $C := (F_{\rm 0})_{\rm red} $ on $X$, the above exact sequence implies that $\chi({{\mathcal{O}}}_C(M|C) ) = \chi({{\mathcal{O}}}_X(M)) - \chi({{\mathcal{O}}}_X(M-C))
= C . M - C . (K_X + C)/2$, where we applied the Riemann-Roch theorem for both ${{\mathcal{O}}}_X(M)$ and ${{\mathcal{O}}}_X(M - C)$. Now $C . (K_X + C) = 0$ and $C . M \ge (F_{\rm 0})_{\rm red} . (K_X + aL) > 0$ (for $0 \ne C$ being nef and $K_X + aL$ nef and big), so $\chi({{\mathcal{O}}}_C(M|C)) > 0$. By the vanishing above, $h^0(X, K_X + \lceil aL \rceil) = \chi({{\mathcal{O}}}_X(M)) = \chi({{\mathcal{O}}}_X(M-C)) + \chi({{\mathcal{O}}}_C(M|C) ) =
h^0(X, K_X + \lceil aL \rceil - (F_{\rm 0})_{\rm red}) ) + \chi({{\mathcal{O}}}_C(M|C) ) > 0 + 0$. This proves the theorem.
The above argument actually proved the following: let $\pi : X
\rightarrow B$ be a relatively minimal elliptic surface with $\kappa(X) = -\infty$. Suppose that $L$ is a nef and big ${\bf Q}$-divisor such that $K_X + L$ is nef. Then $H^0(X, K_X + \lceil aL \rceil) \ne 0$ provided that either $a > 1$, or $a = 1$ and $K_X + L$ is nef and big.
Preparations for surfaces with $\kappa = 1$ or $2$
==================================================
Throughout this section, we assume that $X$ is a nonsingular projective surface with $K_X$ nef and Kodaira dimension $\kappa(X)
= 1$ or $2$. The main result is Proposition \[key\] to be used in the next section.
Up to Lemma \[bound\], we let $\Gamma$ be a connected effective integral divisor on $X$ which consists of smooth rational curves and has a (rational) tree as its dual graph.
$(1)$ We say that $\Gamma$ is of type $A_n'$ (resp. $D_n'$, or $E_n'$) if its weighted dual graph is of Dynkin type $A_n$ (resp. $D_n$, or $E_n$) but its weights may not all be $(-2)$.
$(2)$ $\Gamma$ is of type $I_n^*$ (resp. $II^*$, or $III^*$, or $IV^*$) if $\Gamma$ is of the respective elliptic fibre type (hence ${\text{\rm Supp}}(\Gamma)$ is a union of $(-2)$-curves). $\Gamma$ is of type $I_n^*$’ (resp. $II^*$’, or $III^*$’, or $IV^*$’) if $\Gamma$ is equal to an elliptic fibre of type $I_n^*$ (resp. $II^*$, or $III^*$, or $IV^*$), including coefficients, but the self intersections of components of $\Gamma$ may not all be $(-2)$. E.g. $\Gamma = 2\sum_{i=0}^n C_i + \sum_{j=n+1}^{n+4} C_j$ is of type $I_n^*$’, where $C_i + C_0 + C_1 + \dots + C_n + C_j$ is an ordered linear chain for all $i \in \{n+1, n+2\}$ and $j \in \{n+3, n+4\}$.
$(3)$ For a divisor $D$ on $X$, we denote by $\#D$ the number of irreducible components of $D$.
The assertion(1) below follows from the fact that $C^2 = -2 - C . K_X \le -2$. The others are clear.
\[negdef\] $(1)$ If $C$ is a smooth rational curve on $X$, then $C^2 \le -2$.
$(2)$ If $\Gamma$ is of type $A_n$’, $D_n$’ or $E_n$’ then it is negative definite, i.e., the intersection matrix of components in $\Gamma$ is negative definite.
$(3)$ If $\Gamma$ is one of types $I_n^*$, $II^*$, $III^*$ and $IV^*$ (resp. $I_n^*$’, $II^*$’, $III^*$’ and $IV^*$’, but at least one component of $\Gamma$ is not a $(-2)$-curve), then $\Gamma$ is negative semi-definite (resp. negative definite).
$(4)$ If $\#\Gamma \le 5$, then $\Gamma$ is negative definite, unless $\Gamma$ supports a divisor of type $I_0^*$.
The Picard number can be estimated in the following way:
\[bound\] Suppose that the $(-2)$-components of $\Gamma$ do not support a divisor of type $I_0^*$. Let $r
= \min\{9, \, \#\Gamma - 1\}$. Then there is a subgraph $\Gamma'$ of $r$ components with negative definite intersection matrix. In particular, $\rho(X) \ge r+1$. Also if $\rho(X) \le 9$ then $\#\Gamma \le 9$.
We have only to prove the first assertion. By taking a subgraph, we may assume that $\#\Gamma \le 10$.
If $\Gamma$ is a linear chain, then it has negative definite intersection matrix, and we are done. Thus we may assume that there exists an irreducible component which meets more than two other irreducible components. Let $C_0$ be the irreducible component that meets $k$ other components with the largest $k$. Then $\Gamma - C_0$ has exactly $k$ connected components $\{\Delta_i\}$. We may assume that $k \ge 3$. Let $C_i$ be the irreducible component of $\Delta_i$ that meets $C_0$.
By Lemma \[negdef\], if $\#\Delta_i \le 5$ for all $i$ then each $\Delta_i$ is negative definite. By taking $\Gamma'=\sum
\Delta_i$, we are done.
The remaining cases of $(\#\Delta_1, ..., \#\Delta_k)$ are $\{
(1,1,6), (1,1,7), (1,2,6), (1,1,1,6)\}$. For the case $(1,1,1,6)$, we take $\Gamma'= \Gamma-C_4$, then now $\Gamma'$ has at least two connected components: $C_0+C_1+C_2+C_3$ and others. It is clear that each connected component has at most $5$ irreducible components. Hence $\Gamma'$ is negative definite. For the cases $(1,1,6)$ and $(1,2,6)$, similar argument works.
It remains to work with the case $(1,1,7)$. If $C_3$ meets at least 3 components, we take $\Gamma'=\Gamma-C_3$. Then $\Gamma'$ has at least 3 connected components and each one has length $\le 5$. If $C_3$ meets 2 components, say $C_0, C_4$, then we take $\Gamma'= \Gamma-C_4$. Again, each connected component of $\Gamma'$ has at most $5$ irreducible components . This proves the lemma.
\[elltype\] Suppose that $q(X) = p_g(X) = 0$ and $\pi_1^{\rm alg}(X) = (1)$ (these are satisfied in the situation of Proposition \[key\]; see its proof).
$(1)$ We have $\rho(X) \le 10 - K_X^2 \le 10$, and $\rho(X) = 10$ holds only when $\kappa(X) = 1$.
$(2)$ For $L$ in Proposition \[key\], suppose that some $(-2)$-components of $L$ support an effective divisor $\Gamma$ of elliptic fibre type. Then $\Gamma$ is of type $II^*$, $\kappa(X) = 1$ and $\rho(X) = 10 \le \#L$. Moreover, $L_{\rm red}$ supports an effective divisor $C$ of type $I_0^*$’ whose central and three of the tip components are all $(-2)$-curves.
\(1) follows from: $\rho(X) \le b_2(X) = c_2(X) -2 + 4q(X) = 12
\chi({{\mathcal{O}}}_X) - K_X^2 - 2 = 10 - K_X^2 \le 10$ (Noether’s equality).
\(2) Since a surface of general type does not contain such $\Gamma$, we have $\kappa(X) = 1$. By Lemma \[fibk=1\] and its notation and noting that $L_{\rm red} > {\text{\rm Supp}}(\Gamma)$ (for $L$ being nef and big), $\Gamma$ is of type $II^*$ and ${\text{\rm Supp}}(E +
\Gamma)$ ($\le L_{\rm red}$) supports a $I_0^*$’ as described in (2). Also $\#L \ge \#\Gamma + 1 = 10$ and $\rho(X) \ge 2 +
(\#\Gamma - 1) = 10$. Thus $\rho(X) = 10$. This proves the lemma.
By the lemma above and Lemma \[bound\], to prove Proposition \[key\], we may assume:
Assumption: $\#L \le 9$, and the $(-2)$-components of $L$ do not support a divisor of elliptic fibre type.
We need three more lemmas in proving Proposition \[key\].
\[int\] Let $D = \sum_{i=0}^n D_i$ be a reduced divisor on $X$. Suppose that $D - D_0$ has a negative definite $n \times n$ intersection matrix $(D_i . D_j)_{1 \le i, j \le n}$ and $D$ supports a divisor with positive self intersection.
$(1)$ We have $\det(D_k . D_{\ell})_{0 \le k, \ell \le n} > 0$ (resp. $< 0$) if $n$ is even (resp. odd).
$(2)$ Assign formally $G_i : = D_i$ and define $G_i . G_j := D_i . D_j$ ($i \ne j$) and $G_i^2 := - x_i$. Suppose that $(*)$ the $n \times n$ matrix $(G_i . G_j)_{1 \le i, j \le n}$ is negative definite. If $G_i^2 \ge D_i^2$ for all $0 \le i \le n$, then $(**)$ $\det(G_k . G_{\ell})_{0 \le k, \ell \le n} > 0$ (resp. $< 0$) if $n$ is even (resp. odd).
$(3)$ Suppose that $D_i^2 \le -2$ for all $0 \le i \le n$. In $(2)$ above for $0 \le k \le n$, choose the largest positive integer $m_k$ (if exists) such that $(*)$ and $(**)$ in $(2)$ are satisfied for $G_i$ with $G_k^2 = -m_k$ and $G_i^2 = -2$ ($i \ne k$). Then $D_k^2 \ge -m_k$.
For $(1)$, suppose that the matrix in $(1)$ is similar (over [**Q**]{}) to a diagonal matrix $J$. Then the condition implies that $J$ has one positive and $n$ negative diagonal entries. So $(1)$ follows.
For $(2)$, we have only to show that a linear combination of $G_i$ has positive self intersection. By the assumption some divisor $\Delta = \sum b_i D_i$ has positive self intersection, then so is $\Gamma = \sum b_i G_i$ because $\Gamma^2 = \sum b_i b_j G_i . G_j \ge \sum b_i b_j D_i . D_j
= \Delta^2 > 0$. The (3) follows from (2).
Let $D = \sum_{i=0}^n D_i$ be a reduced divisor and let $D = P + N$ be the Zariski decomposition with $P$ the nef and $N$ the negative part so that $P$ and $N$ are effective ${\bold Q}$-divisor with $P . N = 0$ (see \[Fu1\], \[Fu2\], \[Mi\]). $D$ supports a nef and big divisor if and only if $P^2 > 0$.
In Lemmas \[zarlem1\] and \[zarlem2\] below, we do not need the bigness of $P$; in Lemma \[zarlem1\], $K_X$ is irrelevant.
\[zarlem1\] $(1)$ Write $P = \sum_{i=0}^n p_i D_i$. Then $0 \le p_i \le 1$, and $p_i < 1$ holds if and only if $D_i \le {\text{\rm Supp}}(N)$.
$(2)$ Write ${\text{\rm Supp}}(N) = \sum_{i=0}^s D_i$ after relabelling. Then $(p_0, \dots, p_s)$ is the unique solution of the linear system $\sum_{i=0}^n x_i (D_i . D_j) = 0$ ($j = 0, \dots, s$), where we set $x_j = 1$ ($j > s$).
$(3)$ Assign formally $G_i := D_i$ and $G_i . G_j = D_i . D_j$ ($i \ne j$). Suppose that for $\alpha \le i \le \beta$, we assign $G_i^2$ such that $-2 \ge G_i^2 \ge D_i^2$ and $(G_i . G_j)_{\alpha \le i, j \le \beta}$ is negative definite. Let $(x_i = b_i \,|\, \alpha \le i \le \beta)$ be the unique solution of the linear system $\sum_{i=0}^n x_i G_i . G_j = 0$ ($\alpha \le j \le \beta$), where we set $x_j = b_j = p_j$ if $j < \alpha$ or $j > \beta$. Then $b_i \ge p_i$ for all $\alpha \le i \le \beta$.
For (1), see \[Fu1\] or \[Mi\]. (2) follows from the fact that $P . D_j = 0$ ($0 \le j \le s$) and that $N$ has negative definite (and hence invertible) intersection matrix.
We prove (3). It suffices to show that (\*) the sum $\sum_{i=\alpha}^{\beta} (b_i-p_i) G_i . G_j \le 0$ for all $\alpha \le j \le \beta$.
Indeed, write $\sum (b_i - p_i) G_i = A - B$ with $A \ge 0, B \ge 0$ and with no common components in $A$ and $B$; then the condition (\*) implies that $A . B - B^2 = \sum (b_i - p_i) G_i . B \le 0$; this and $A . B \ge 0$ and $B^2 \le 0$ imply that $B^2 = 0$ and hence $B = 0$ by the negative-definiteness of $(G_i . G_j)$.
Coming to the sum in (\*) above, it is equal to $\sum_{i=0}^n b_i G_i . G_j - \sum_{i=0}^n p_i G_i . G_j \le 0 - \sum_{i=0}^n p_i D_i . D_j
\le 0$. This proves the lemma.
\[zarlem2\] Suppose that $\Gamma = D_1+\cdots+D_m$ is an ordered linear chain contained in $D$ such that $\Gamma . (D - \Gamma) = 1$. Let $D_t \le \Gamma$ and $D_{m+1} \le D - \Gamma$ such that $D_t . D_{m+1} = 1$. If either $t = m$ or $D_t^2 \le -3$, then $\Gamma \le {\text{\rm Supp}}(N)$.
Write $P = \sum_j p_j D_j$. If $t = m$, we set $G_i^2 = -2$ ($1 \le i \le m$) in Lemma \[zarlem1\] and obtain $p_i \le b_i = (i/(m+1)) p_{m+1} < 1$ and hence $\Gamma \le {\text{\rm Supp}}(N)$. If $D_t^2 \le -3$, we have only to show that $p_t < 1$ because we already have $p_j < 1$ for every $1 \le j \le m$ with $j \ne t$, by the previous case. Now $0 \le P . D_t = p_t D_t^2 + p_{t-1} + p_{t+1} + p_{m+1} < -3 p_t + 3$, whence $p_t < 1$. This proves the lemma.
For $L$ in Proposition \[key\], let $L_{\rm red} = P + N$ be the Zariski decomposition, so $P \ge
0$ and $N \ge 0$. By the maximality of $P$, we have $L_{\rm red}
\ge P \ge \varepsilon L$ for a suitable small $\varepsilon > 0$ (one can take $\varepsilon$ such that $1/\varepsilon$ is the maximum of coefficients in $L$). So $P_{\rm red} = L_{\rm red}$. Write $$P = \sum_{i=0}^n p_i C_i,$$ Then $0 < p_i \le 1$. Note that $p_j = 1$ for some $j$ for otherwise ${\text{\rm Supp}}(L) = {\text{\rm Supp}}(P) \subseteq {\text{\rm Supp}}(N)$ would be negative definite. So we assume the following (after relabelling):
In order to prove the Proposition below, we may and will assume that $L = P$ and $p_0 = 1$.
Now we state the main result of the section.
\[key\] Let $X$ be a minimal nonsingular projective surface (i.e., $K_X$ is nef) with $p_g(X) = 0$. Suppose that $L$ is a nef and big effective ${\bold Q}$-divisor supported by a rational tree. Then $X$ is simply connected and ${\text{\rm Supp}}(L)$ is connected. Moreover, either (the number of irreducible components) $\#L \ge 10 = \rho(X)$ and $\kappa(X) = 1$, or $\#L \le 9$ and $(A)$ or $(B)$ below is true:
$(A)$ There is a linear chain $C = \sum_{i=0}^r C_i \le L_{\rm red}$ with $r \ge 0$ (after relabelling) such that $L_{\rm red}$ $. \sum_{i=0}^r C_i \ge 2$.
$(B)$ ${\text{\rm Supp}}(L)$ supports an effective divisor $C$ of type in $\{$ $I_n^*$’, $III^*$’, $IV^*$’ $\}$ and the weights of the multiplicity $\ge 2$ components of $C$ are all $(-2)$, so $C . (K_X + C) = 0$. Also the type $III^*$’ occurs only when $L_{\rm red}$ is given as follows:
Case $(B1)$. $\kappa(X) = 1$ and $\rho(X) = 10$; $\det({\text{\rm Pic}}(X)) = -1$, and ${\text{\rm Pic}}(X)$ is generated by the divisor class of $K_X$ and those of the $9$ curves in $L_{\rm red} = \sum_{i=0}^8 C_i$; $C_0$ meets exactly $C_1, C_2, C_3$; $C_2 + C_4 + C_6$ and $C_3 + C_5 + C_7 + C_8$ are linear chains; $C_6^2 = -3$ and $C_i^2 = -2$ ($i \ne 6$).
Since $L$ is nef and big and a rational tree, $\kappa(X) = 1, 2$. Since $L$ is nef and big, a positive multiple of $L$ is Cartier and 1-connected. By \[No, Cor. 2.3\] or the proof of Lemma \[treelem\], $\pi_1(X) = (1)$. In particular, $q(X) = 0$ and $\chi({{\mathcal{O}}}_X) = 1$.
Since $p_0 = 1$ by the additional assumption, $C_0$ is not in ${\text{\rm Supp}}(N)$. Since $0 \le P . C_0 = C_0^2 + \sum p_j$ and $C_0^2 \le -2$, where $j$ runs in the set so that $C_j$ meets $C_0$, this $C_0$ meets at least two components of ${\text{\rm Supp}}(P) - C_0$. Now the proposition follows from the lemmas below.
By Lemma 7.4, to prove the above Proposition, we only need to consider the case $\#P \le 9$.
\[2-comp\] Suppose that $C_0$ meets exactly two components of ${\text{\rm Supp}}(P) - C_0$. Then Proposition \[key\] is true.
Suppose that $C_0$ meets only $C_1$ and $C_2$ in ${\text{\rm Supp}}(P) - C_0$. Then $0 \le P . C_0 = C_0^2 + p_1 + p_2$ and $C_0^2 \le -2$ imply that $p_1 = p_2 = 1$ and $C_0^2 = -2$. Inductively, we can prove that there is an ordered linear chain (after relabelling) $\sum_{i=a}^b C_i$ in ${\text{\rm Supp}}(P)$ such that $p_i = 1$ and $C_i^2 = -2$ for all $a \le i \le b$ and $C_a$ (resp. $C_b$) meets $C_{a-1}$ and $C_{a-2}$ (resp. $C_{b+1}$ and $C_{b+2}$) such that $C_{a-2} + C_{a-1} +
2 \sum_{i=a}^b C_i + C_{b+1} + C_{b+2}$ is of type $I_{b-a}^*$’ and Proposition \[key\] (B) is true.
\[4-comp\] Suppose that $C_0$ meets at least four components of ${\text{\rm Supp}}(P) - C_0$. Then Proposition \[key\] is true.
Suppose that $C_0$ meets $C_i$ ($1 \le i \le k$) with $k \ge 4$. Let $\Delta_i$ ($1 \le i \le k$) be the connected component of $P_{\rm red} - C_0$ containing $C_i$. Set $n_i := \#\Delta_i$. Assume that for only $1 \le j \le s$ the divisor $C_0 + \Delta_j$ is a linear chain. By the proof of Lemma \[zarlem2\], we have $p_j \le n_j/(n_j+1)$ ($j \le s$).
If $P_{\rm red} . C_0 = C_0^2 + k \ge 2$, then Proposition \[key\] (A) is true. So assume that $C_0^2 \le 1-k \le -3$. Note that $0 \le P . C_0 = C_0^2 + \sum_{i=1}^k p_i
\le C_0^2 + (k-s) + \sum_{i=1}^s p_i \le 1 - s + \sum_{i=1}^s p_i
\le 1 - \sum_{i=1}^s 1/(n_i+1)$. Suppose that $\#\Delta_i = 1$ for $1 \le i \le s_1$ and $\#\Delta_i \ge 2$ for $i \ge s_1+1$. Then $$0 \le \sum_{i=s_1+1}^s 1/(n_i+1) \le 1 - s_1/2.$$ Note also that $\#\Delta_j \ge 3$ for all $s+1 \le j \le k$. Thus, $$3k-s-s_1 = s_1+2(s-s_1)+3(k-s) \le \#P - 1 \le 8.$$ These two highlighted inequalities imply that $s = 2$ and $(\#\Delta_1,\dots,\#\Delta_k) = (1, 1, 3, 3)$.
Note that $C_0$ meets the mid-component $C_j$ of $\Delta_j$ ($j = 3, 4$). By the proof of Lemma \[zarlem2\], for every $j$ with $j \ne 0, 3, 4$, we have $p_j \le 1/2$. Thus $0 \le P . C_0 =
C_0^2 + \sum_{i=1}^4 p_i \le -3 + (1/2)+(1/2)+1+1 = 0$, so $C_0^2 = -3$ and $p_3 = p_4 = 1$. Now $0 \le P . C_3 \le C_3^2 + p_0 + (1/2) + (1/2)$ implies $C_3^2 = -2$. So $P_{\rm red} . (C_0+C_3) = 2$ and Proposition \[key\] (A) is true.
Now we assume that $C_0$ meets exactly three components $C_i$ ($i = 1, 2, 3$) of ${\text{\rm Supp}}(P) - C_0$. Let $\Delta_i$ be the connected component of ${\text{\rm Supp}}(P) - C_0$ containing $C_i$. Set $n_i := \#\Delta_i$. Then $\sum_{i=1}^3 n_i = \#P - 1 \le 8$. We may assume that $n_1 \le n_2 \le n_3$. Then $n_3 \le 6$ and $n_1 \le 2$, so $C_0 + \Delta_1$ is a linear chain. By the proof of Lemma \[zarlem2\], we have $p_1 \le n_1/(n_1+1) < 1$. This and $0 \le P . C_0 = C_0^2 + p_1 + p_2 + p_3$, together with $C_0^2 \le -2$, imply that $C_0^2 = -2$. We shall apply Lemma \[int\] frequently, where $G_0$ can be chosen as $C_0$ or $C_3$.
\[1-1\] Suppose that $\#\Delta_i = 1$ for $i = 1$ and $2$ (this is true if $\#\Delta_3 = 6$). Then Proposition \[key\] is true.
By the proof of Lemma \[zarlem2\], we have $p_i \le 1/2$ for $i = 1$ and $2$. Now $0 \le P . C_0 = C_0^2 + p_1 + p_2 + p_3$ (and $C_0^2 = -2$) imply $p_3 = 1$ and $p_i = 1/2$ ($i = 1, 2$). By Lemma \[2-comp\] and \[4-comp\] (applied to $C_3$), we may assume that $C_3$ meets exactly three components $C_0, C_4, C_5$ of ${\text{\rm Supp}}(P) - C_3$. If $C_3^2 = -2$, then $P_{\rm red} . (C_0 + C_3) = 2$ and Proposition \[key\] (A) is true. Suppose that $C_3^2 \le -3$. Then as above $C_3^2 + p_0 + p_4 + p_5 = P . C_3 \ge 0$ implies that $C_3^2 = -3$ and $p_4 = p_5 = 1$. (Of course, $p_0 = 1$ is always assumed). Again by the same Lemmas we may assume that $C_i$ ($i = 4, 5$) meets exactly three components (one of which is $C_3$). Then $\#P \ge 10$, a contradiction to the additional assumption $\# P \le 9$.
\[linchain\] Suppose that $C_0 + \Delta_i$ is a linear chain for all $i = 1, 2, 3$. Then Proposition \[key\] is true.
Note that $\sum_{i=1}^3 n_i = \#P - 1 \le 8$. By Lemma \[1-1\], we may assume that $n_3 \le 5$. Except the cases below, $P$ is negative definite or semi-definite by Lemma \[negdef\], which is impossible: $$(n_1, n_2, n_3) = (1, 3, 4), (2, 2, 4), (2, 3, 3), (2, 2, 3).$$
In the first (resp. the last three) cases, ${\text{\rm Supp}}(P)$ supports a divisor $D$ of type $III^*$’ (resp. $IV^*$’). We need to show that the coefficient $\ge 2$ components of $D$ are $(-2)$-curves and that $P_{\rm red} = L_{\rm red}$ is given as in Proposition \[key\] (B1) in the first case. These follow from Lemma \[int\] applied to all $0 \le k \le 8$. For instance, in notation of Proposition \[key\] (B1), if we set $-2 \ge G_k^2 = - x_k$ ($k = 6, 8$) and $G_j^2 = -2$ ($j \ne 6, 8$), then $\det(G_i . G_j)_{0 \le i, j \le 8} = -4 + 3x_6 + 4x_8 - 2x_6x_8 > 0$ provided that $G_k^2 \ge C_k^2$; also if the case $C_i^2 = -2$ ($i \ne 8$) occurs then the $(-2)$-components of $P$ support a $C$ of [*elliptic fibre type*]{} $III^*$.
When $P_{\rm red}$ is as in Proposition \[key\] (B1), one can check that the lattice ${\bold Z}[K_X, C_i's]$ generated by the divisor class of $K_X$ and those of the nine curves in $P$, has determinant $K_X^2 - 1$. Note also that $\rho(X) \le 10 - K_X^2$. So either $K_X^2 = 0$ (and $\kappa(X) = 1$), ${\text{\rm Pic}}(X) = {\bold Z}[K_X, C_i's]$ (noting that ${\text{\rm Pic}}(X)$ is torsion free for $\pi_1(X) = (1)$), $\det({\text{\rm Pic}}(X)) = -1$ and Proposition \[key\] (B1) is true, or $K_X^2 = 1$; but the latter situation implies, after a direct calculation, that $K_X$ is numerically (and hence linearly, for $\pi_1(X) = (1)$) equivalent to an effective integral divisor $\sum k_i C_i$ with $(k_0, k_1, \dots, k_8) = (10, 5, 7, 8, 4, 6, 1, 4, 2)$, contradicting the assumption that $p_g(X) = 0$.
\[the5\] Suppose that $n_3 = \#\Delta_3 = 5$. Then Proposition \[key\] is true.
Since $n_1 + n_2 = \#P -1 - n_3\le 3$, we have $(n_1, n_2) = (1, 1), (1, 2)$ and $C_0 + \Delta_i$ ($i = 1, 2$) is a linear chain. By Lemma \[linchain\], we may assume that $C_0 + \Delta_3$ is not a linear chain.
We shall apply Lemma \[int\] to deduce the result. The case $\#P \le 8$ can be reduced to the case $\#P = 9$ because if an effective $P_1$ with $\#P_1 = 8$ supports a nef and big divisor then $P$ with $P > P_1$ supports a nef and big divisor too. So $(n_1, n_2) = (1, 2)$.
Suppose that $\Delta_3$ is a linear chain. By Lemma \[int\], we have $C_3^2 = -2$, whence $P_{\rm red} . (C_0 + C_3) = 2$ and Proposition \[key\] (A) is true. Indeed, if we set $-2 \ge G_3^2 = -x_3$ and $G_j^2 = -2$ ($j \ne 3$) then $0 < \det(G_{i, j})_{0 \le i, j \le 8}$ equals $114 - 45 x_3$ (when $C_0$ meets the middle component of $\Delta_3$), or $98 - 40 x_3$ (otherwise), provided that $G_3^2 \ge C_3^2$ (to guarantee the inequality on the determinant).
Suppose that $\Delta_3$ is not a linear chain. Then it is of type $I_0^*$’ or $D_5$’. We denote by $C_{\ell}$ the central component. Consider the case where $\Delta_3$ is of type $I_0^*$’. If $C_3$ in $\Delta_3$ (and meeting $C_0$) is a tip component (resp. the central component $C_{\ell}$) of $\Delta_3$, then applying Lemma \[int\], we have $C_{\ell}^2 = -2$ (resp. $C_{\ell}^2 = -2, -3$). Thus $P_{\rm red} . C_{\ell} \ge 2$ and Proposition \[key\] (A) is true.
Consider the case where $\Delta_3$ is of type $D_5'$ so that $C_{\alpha} + C_{\beta} + C_{\ell}$ is the ordered linear chain in $\Delta_3$. If $C_3$ is $C_{\alpha}$ (resp. $C_{\beta}$, or $C_{\ell}$, or a tip component $C_{\gamma} \ne C_{\alpha}$ of $\Delta_3$), applying Lemma \[int\], we have $C_i^2 = -2$ for all $C_i$ in $C$ so that $P_{\rm red} . C = 2$ and hence Proposition \[key\] (A) is true, where $C$ equals $C_0 + C_{\alpha} + C_{\beta} + C_{\ell}$ (resp. $C_0 + C_{\beta}$, or $C_{\ell}$, or $C_0 + C_{\gamma} + C_{\ell}$).
\[the4\] Suppose that $n_3 = \#\Delta_3 = 4$. Then Proposition \[key\] is true.
As in the previous lemma, we only need to consider the case $\#P = 9$. Then $n_1 + n_2 = \#P - 1 - n_3 = 4$ and $(n_1, n_2) = (1, 3), (2, 2)$. So $C_0 + \Delta_1$ is a linear chain.
Consider the case that $C_0 + \Delta_2$ is not a linear chain. Then $(n_1, n_2) = (1, 3)$. If $C_2^2 = -2$, then $P_{\rm red} . (C_0 + C_2) = 2$ and Proposition \[key\] (A) is true. Suppose that $C_2^2 \le -3$. By Lemma \[zarlem2\], $\Delta_1 + \Delta_2
\le {\text{\rm Supp}}(N)$, and by Lemma \[zarlem1\] with $G_1^2 = -2$ (resp. $G_2^2 = -3$) we have $p_1 \le 1/2$ (resp. $p_2 \le 1/2$ , and the other two components of $\Delta_2$ have coefficients less than or equal to $1/4$ in $P$). This and $0 \le P . C_0 = C_0^2 + p_1 + p_2 + p_3$ imply that $p_3 = 1$. By Lemma \[2-comp\] and \[4-comp\] we may assume that $C_3$ meets exactly three components (one of which is $C_0$), so $\Delta_3$ is a linear chain. If $C_3^2 = -2$, then $P_{\rm red} . (C_0 + C_3) = 2$ and Proposition \[key\] (A) is true. If $C_3^2 \le -3$, then $\Delta_3 \le {\text{\rm Supp}}(N)$ by Lemma \[zarlem2\]; applying Lemma \[zarlem1\] with $G_3^2 = -3$, we have $p_3 \le 6/11$ (the coefficients of components of $\Delta_3$ in $P$ are respectively less than or equal to $2/11, 4/11, 6/11, 3/11$); this leads to that $P . C_0 < 0$, a contradiction.
Therefore, we may assume that $C_0 + \Delta_2$ is a linear chain but $C_0 + \Delta_3$ is not a linear chain (see Lemma \[linchain\]). If $\Delta_3$ is a linear chain and $C_3^2 = -2$, then $P_{\rm red} . (C_0 + C_3) = 2$ and Proposition \[key\] (A) is true. If $\Delta_3$ is a linear chain and $C_3^2 \le -3$, then as above we have $p_3 \le 6/11$ and $p_1 + p_2 \le \sum_{i=1}^2 \frac{n_i}{n_i+1} \le 4/3$. This leads to that $0 \le P . C_0 = C_0^2 + p_1 + p_2 + p_3
\le -2 + (4/3) + (6/11) < 0$, a contradiction.
Thus we may assume that $\Delta_3$ is not a linear chain, hence of type $D_4$’ with the central component $C_{\ell}$. For both cases of $(n_1, n_2) = (1, 3)$ and $(2, 2)$, if $C_3$ is a tip component (resp. $C_{\ell}$) of $\Delta_3$, then applying Lemma \[int\] we have $C_i^2 = -2$ for all $C_i$ in $C$ so that $P_{\rm red} . C = 2$ and Proposition \[key\] (A) is true, where $C$ equals $C_0 + C_3 + C_{\ell}$ (resp. $C_{\ell}$). This proves the lemma.
\[the3\] Suppose that $n_3 = \#\Delta_3 \le 3$. Then Proposition \[key\] is true.
As in the previous lemmas, we may assume that $\#P = 9$, so $(n_1, n_2, n_3) = (2, 3, 3)$. Hence $C_0 + \Delta_1$ is a linear chain. By Lemma \[linchain\], we may assume that $C_0 + \Delta_3$ is not a linear chain. When $C_0 + \Delta_i$ ($i = 2$ or $3$) is not a linear chain and $C_i^2 = -2$, we have $P_{\rm red} . (C_0 + C_i) = 2$ and Proposition \[key\] (A) is true. So assume that $C_3^2 \le -3$. Then $p_3 \le 1/2$ by Lemmas \[zarlem2\] and \[zarlem1\] with $G_3^2 := -3$. Also we may assume either $C_0 + \Delta_2$ is a linear chain or otherwise and $C_2^2 \le -3$ (and hence $p_2 \le 1/2$). If the former case occurs, by the proof of Lemma \[zarlem2\], we have $p_i \le n_i/(n_i+1)$ ($i = 1, 2$) and $0 \le P . C_0 =
C_0^2 + p_1 + p_2 + p_3 \le -2 + (2/3) + (3/4) + (1/2) < 0$, a contradiction. If the latter case occurs, then $0 \le P . C_0 \le -2 + (2/3) + (1/2) + (1/2) < 0$, a contradiction. This proves the lemma. The proof of Proposition \[key\] is also completed.
Surfaces of Kodaira dimension 1 or 2
====================================
In this section we shall prove the two theorems below:
\[theoremk=2\] Let $X$ be a minimal nonsingular projective surface of Kodaira dimension $2$. Let $L$ be a nef and big effective ${\bf Q}$-divisor. Then $H^0(X, K_X + 3 L_{\rm red}) \ne 0$.
\[theoremk=1\] Let $X$ be a minimal nonsingular projective surface of Kodaira dimension $1$. Let $L$ be a nef and big effective ${\bf Q}$-divisor.
$(1)$ We have $H^0(X, K_X + 4 L_{\rm red}) \ne 0$.
$(2)$ Suppose that $H^0(X, K_X + 3 L_{\rm red}) = 0$. Then $L_{\rm red}$ contains at least its name sake with $9$ components given in Proposition \[key\] $(B1)$. Further, $\pi_1(X) = (1)$, $\rho(X) = 10$, $\det({\text{\rm Pic}}(X)) = -1$ and the elliptic fibration $\pi : X \rightarrow {\bf P}^1$ has exactly two multiple fibres, and their multiplicities are $2$ and $3$. The ${\text{\rm Pic}}(X)$ is generated by the divisor class of $K_X$ and those of the $9$ components of $L$.
We now prove Theorems \[theoremk=2\] and \[theoremk=1\] simultaneously. By Theorem \[irreg\], we may assume that $q(X) = 0$. We may also assume that $H^0(X, K_X + L_{\rm red}) = 0$, so $p_g(X) = 0$ and $\chi({{{\mathcal{O}}}}_X) = 1$. By Proposition \[treeprop\], the $L_{\rm red}$ is a connected rational tree and $\pi_1(X) = (1)$. So we can apply Proposition \[key\].
Consider first the case $\#L \le 9$ (this is true if $\kappa(X) = 2$ by Proposition \[key\]). We apply Proposition \[key\]. If Proposition \[key\] (A) occurs, applying the Serre duality and Riemann Roch theorem, we have $h^0(X, K_X + L_{\rm red} + C) \ge \frac{1}{2}(K_X + L_{\rm red} + C) . (L_{\rm red} + C)
+ \chi({{\mathcal{O}}}_X) =
\frac{1}{2}\{(K_X + L_{\rm red}) . L_{\rm red} + (C^2 + K_X . C) + 2 C . L_{\rm red}\}
+ 1 \ge \frac{1}{2}\{(-2) + (-2) + 2 \times 2\} + 1 = 1$, where the terms $(-2)$ are due to the fact that both $L_{\rm red}$ and $C$ are connected rational trees. Since $2 L_{\rm red} \ge L_{\rm red} + C$, the theorems follow in this case.
Suppose Proposition \[key\] (B) occurs. As above we have $h^0(X, K_X + C) \ge \frac{1}{2}(K_X + C) . C
+ \chi({{\mathcal{O}}}_X) = 0 + 1 = 1$. If $C$ is of type $III^*$’, then $L_{\rm red}$ is given in Proposition \[key\] (B1) (so $\kappa(X) = 1$) and we have $4 L_{\rm red} \ge C$; thus both Theorems \[theoremk=1\] and \[theoremk=2\] are true by Lemma \[exceptional\] below. If $C$ is of other type, then $3 L_{\rm red} \ge C$. This proves the theorems.
It remains to consider the case where $\#L \ge 10$. So $\kappa(X) = 1$ and $\rho(X) = 10$ by Proposition \[key\]. By Lemma \[elltype\] and the calculation above, we may proceed with the additional assumption that no divisor of elliptic fibre type is supported by some $(-2)$-components of ${\text{\rm Supp}}(L)$. By Lemma \[bound\], we have $\rho(X) = 10$ and we may assume that ${\text{\rm Pic}}(X) \otimes {\bold Q}$ is generated by $C_i$ ($1 \le i \le 10$) in $L_{\rm red}$ after relabelling: first find 9 components of $L_{\rm red}$ having a negative definite intersection matrix, and then the $10th$ generator can be found from ${\text{\rm Supp}}(L)$ because $L$ is nef and big (so not negative definite).
Theorefore, $K_X$ is numerically equivalent to a ${\bf Q}$-linear combination of $C_i$ ($1 \le i \le 10$). Split the combination as $L_2 - L_1$ so that $K_X + L_1 \sim_{\bf Q} L_2$, where both $L_j$ are effective, $(L_{j})_{\rm{red}} \le \sum_{i=1}^{10} C_i$ and there is no common component of $L_1$ and $L_2$. Since $\kappa(X) = 1$, we have $L_2 > 0$. Also $L_2$ is nef, noting that $K_X$ is nef.
Suppose that $L_2$ is not big. Then $0 = L_2^2 = L_2 . K_X + L_2 . L_1 \ge 0 + 0$. Thus $K_X . L_2 = 0$ and hence $L_2$ is contained in fibres of the elliptic fibration $\pi : X \rightarrow {\bold P}^1$, noting that $q(X) = 0$, (so that $K_X$ is numerically equal to a positive multiple of a fibre). This and the fact that $L_2^2 = 0$ and fibre components are negative semi-definite \[Re\], imply that $L_2 = \sum b_j F_j$ where $b_j$’s are positive rational numbers and $F_j$’s are full fibres, whence $(-2)$-components of $L_{\rm red}$ ($\ge (L_{2})_ {\rm{red}}$) support an elliptic fibre, contradicting the additional assumption.
Therefore, $L_2$ is nef and big. Thus $L_1 \ne 0$ because $K_X \sim_{\bf Q} L_2 - L_1$ is nef but not big. This and the fact that $\#L_1 + \#L_2 = \#(L_1 + L_2) \le 10$ imply that $\#L_2 \le 9$.
So we are reduced to the case $\#L \le 9$ after replacing $L_{\rm red}$ by its subdivisor $(L_{2})_{\rm{red}}$. This proves the theorem.
\[exceptional\] Suppose that $X$ is a minimal nonsingular projective surface of Kodaira dimension $\kappa(X) = 1$ and $p_g(X) = 0$. Let $D$ be the reduced divisor given in Proposition \[key\] $(B1)$ (denoted as $L_{\rm red}$ there). Then the elliptic fibration $\pi : X \rightarrow {\bf P}^1$ has exactly two multiple fibres, and their multiplicities are $2$ and $3$.
We change the labelling and write $D = \sum_{i=0}^8 D_i$, where $D_0$ meets $D_1, D_5$ and $D_8$; $D_1 + \dots + D_4$ amd $D_5 + D_6 + D_7$ are linear chains; $D_7^2 = -3$ and $D_i^2 = -2$ ($i \ne 7$). We can check that $D$ supports a nef and big divisor (the Zariski positive part of $D$): $P = D_0 + \frac{1}{5}(D_4 + 2D_3 + 3D_2 + 4D_1) +
\frac{1}{7}(D_7 + 3D_6 + 5D_5) + \frac{1}{2} D_8$. Indeed, $P^2 = P . D_0 = 1/70$. By \[No, Cor. 2.3\] or the proof of Lemma \[treelem\], we have $\pi_1(X) = (1)$, whence $q(X) = 0$ and $\chi({{\mathcal{O}}}_X) = 1$. As in the proof of Lemma \[elltype\], we have $\rho(X) \le 10$. We can check that the lattice ${\bf Z}[K_X, D_i's]$ generated by the divisor classes of $K_X$ and those of the $9$ curves of $D$ has determinant $-1$. So this lattice equals ${\text{\rm Pic}}(X)$ and $\rho(X) = 10$, noting that ${\text{\rm Pic}}(X)$ is torsion free for $\pi_1(X) = (1)$.
By Lemma \[fibk=1\] (and the notation there) and by the canonical divisor formula we have $K_X \sim_{\bf Q} (1 - \frac{1}{m_1} - \frac{1}{m_2}) F_1$. We still have to show that $(m_1, m_2) = (2, 3)$. Let $F_3$ be the fibre of $\pi$ containing the eight $(-2)$-components of $D$. Then $F_3$ must be of type $II^*$, so there is a $(-2)$-curve $G$ such that $G$ and the eight $(-2)$-components of $D$ support the fibre $F_3$ (whence $G . D_4 = 1$ and $G . D_i = 0$ ($i \ne 4, 7$)).
On the other hand, express $G \sim k K_X + \sum_{i=0}^8 d_iD_i$ for some integers $k, d_i$. Intersecting the equality by $K_X$, we obtain $0 = d_7 D_7 . K_X = d_7$. So $k K_X \sim G - \sum_{i \ne 7} d_i D_i$ and the RHS is supported on the fibre $F_3$ and has self intersection $0$ (because $K_X^2 = 0$). Since the fibre components are negative semi-definite, this implies that the RHS is a multiple of $F_3$. Now $G$ has coefficient $1$ in $F_3$, so the RHS $= F_3$. Namely, $kK_X \sim F_3$, or $K_X \sim_{\bf Q} F_3/k$. Comparing with the expression of $K_X$ in the previous paragraph, we obtain: $\frac{1}{k} = (1 - \frac{1}{m_1} - \frac{1}{m_2})$. Simplifying, we obtain: $m_1 m_2 = k(m_1 m_2 - m_1 - m_2)$. Since $m_1$ and $m_2$ are coprime, we have $m_1 m_2 | k$. So $k = m_1 m_2$ and $m_1 m_2 - m_1 - m_2 = 1$, or $1 = \frac{1}{m_1} + \frac{1}{m_2} + \frac{1}{m_1m_2}$. One sees then $(m_1, m_2) = (2, 3)$. By the way, then $F_3 \sim F_1 \sim 6 K_X$. Intersecting this relation with $D_7$, we see that $D_7$ is a $6$-section and $D_7 . G = 4$. This proves the lemma.
\[remk=1\] The non-vanishing of $H^0(X, K_X + L_{\rm red})$ or $H^0(X,$ $K_X + \lceil L \rceil)$, when $\kappa(X) = 1$, is subtle and is not easy to be proven at all. Indeed, suppose that $X$ is a minimal nonsingular projective surface with Kodaira dimension $1$, $q(X) = 0$ and $p_g(X) = 0$. Let $\pi : X \rightarrow {\bf P}^1$ be the elliptic fibration. Suppose that there is a type $II^*$ elliptic fibre $F_0$ and also there is a $6$-section $E$ ($\cong {\bf P}^1$) such that $E$ meets the multiplicity-6 component of $F_0$. (We have this possible situation in mind: $\pi$ has exactly two multiple fibres. Their multiplicities are 2, 3; see Lemma \[fibk=1\]). Then $L = \frac{1}{6n}(E + nF_0)$ is nef and big for $n > > 0$. Clearly, $L_{\rm red}$ is a connected rational tree (hence also of simple normal crossing) and the round up $\lceil L \rceil = L_{\rm red}$. By the Kawamata-Viehweg vanishing and Riemann-Roch theorem, we have $h^0(X, K_X + L_{\rm red}) = \frac{1}{2}(K_X + L_{\rm red}) . L_{\rm red} +
\chi({{\mathcal{O}}}_X) = (-1) + 1 = 0$. (However, as in the proof of Theorem \[theoremk=1\] or Lemma \[elltype\], we have $H^0(X, K_X + 2 L_{\rm red}) \ne 0$.) Therefore, to prove the desired non-vanishing, one has to show that the above geometric situation will never occur.
[aCZ]{}
F. Ambro, *Ladders on Fano varieties. Algebraic geometry*, 9. J. Math. Sci. (New York) [**94**]{} (1999), no. 1, 1126–1135.
W. Barth, *On the classification of $K3$ surfaces with nine cusps*, Complex analysis and algebraic geometry, 41–59, de Gruyter, Berlin, 2000.
W. Barth, C. Peters and Van de Ven, Compact complex surfaces, Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete (3), Band 4, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Jungkai A. Chen and C. Hacon, *Linear series of irregular varieties*, Algebraic Geometry in East Asia, Japan, 2002, World Scientific Press.
T. C. Chau, *A note concerning Fox’s paper on Fenchel’s conjecture*, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 88 (1983), no. 4, 584–586.
A. R. Fletcher, *Working with weighted complete intersections*, Explicit birational geometry of 3-folds, 101–173, London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser., 281, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2000.
R. H. Fox, *On Fenchel’s conjecture about $F$-groups*, Mat. Tidsskr. B. 1952, (1952). 61–65.
T. Fujita, *On Zariski problem*, Proc. Japan Acad. Ser. A Math. Sci. 55 (1979), 106–110.
T. Fujita, *On the topology of noncomplete algebraic surfaces*, J. Fac. Sci. Univ. Tokyo Sect. IA Math. 29 (1982), 503–566.
R. Hartshorne, *Algebraic Geometry*, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, No. 52. Springer-Verlag, New York-Heidelberg, 1977.
Y. Kawamata, *On effective non-vanishing and base-point-freeness*, Kodaira’s issue. Asian J. Math. 4 (2000), no. 1, 173–181.
Y. Kawamata, *A generalization of Kodaira-Ramanujam’s vanishing theorem*, Math. Ann. [**261**]{}(1982),43-46.
Y. Kawamata, K. Matsuda and K. Matsuki, *Introduction to the minimal model problem*, Algebraic geometry, Sendai, 1985, 283–360, Adv. Stud. Pure Math., 10, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1987.
J. Kollar, *Shafarevich maps and automorphic forms*, M. B. Porter Lectures. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1995.
R. Lazarsfeld, *Positivity in algebraic geometry I, II*, Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete. 3. Folge. Band [**48**]{}, [**49**]{}, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2004.
M. Miyanishi, *Open algebraic surfaces*, CRM Monograph Series, 12. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2001.
M. Nori, *Zariski’s conjecture and related problems*, Ann. Sci. École Norm. Sup. (4) 16 (1983), no. 2, 305–344.
M. Reid, *Chapters on algebraic surfaces* Complex algebraic geometry (Park City, UT, 1993), 3–159, IAS/Park City Math. Ser., 3, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1997.
F. Sakai, *Weil divisors on normal surfaces*, Duke Math. J. 51 (1984), 877–887.
V. V. Shokurov, *A nonvanishing theorem*, (Russian) Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR Ser. Mat. 49 (1985), no. 3, 635–651.
S. Takayama, *Nonvanishing theorems on an algebraic variety with large fundamental group*, J. Algebraic Geom. 8 (1999), no. 1, 181–195.
E. Viehweg, *Vanishing theorems*, J. Reine Angew. Math. 335 (1982), 1–8.
E. Viehweg, *Quasi-projective moduli for polarized manifolds*, Ergebnisse der Mathematik, 3, Folge [**30**]{}(1995), Springer Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York.
Q. Xie, *On Effective Non-vanishing of Weil Divisors on Algebraic Surfaces*, math.AG/0404276.
[^1]: The first author was partially supported by NSC, Taiwan. The second author was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.10131010). The third author was supported by an Academic Research Fund of NUS
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In a financial market model, we consider the variance-optimal semi-static hedging of a given contingent claim, a generalization of the classic variance-optimal hedging. To obtain a tractable formula for the expected squared hedging error and the optimal hedging strategy, we use a Fourier approach in a general multidimensional semimartingale factor model. As a special case, we recover existing results for variance-optimal hedging in affine stochastic volatility models. We apply the theory to set up a variance-optimal semi-static hedging strategy for a variance swap in both the Heston and the $3/2$-model, the latter of which is a non-affine stochastic volatility model.'
author:
- 'P. Di Tella[^1], M. Haubold, M. Keller-Ressel[^2]\'
bibliography:
- 'bibliography.bib'
title: |
Semi-Static Variance-Optimal Hedging\
in Stochastic Volatility Models\
with Fourier Representation
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Variance-optimal hedging was introduced by [@S84; @FS86] as a tractable method of hedging contingent claims in incomplete markets (cf. [@Sch99] for an overview). The main idea of variance-optimal hedging is to find a self-financing trading strategy $\vartheta$ for a given claim $\eta^0$, which minimizes the (risk-neutral) variance of the residual hedging error at a terminal time $T > 0$. As shown in [@FS86], the solution of this optimization problem is given by the so-called Galtchouk–Kunita–Watanabe (GKW) decomposition of $\eta^0$ with respect to the underlying stock $S$. The GKW decomposition takes the form $$\eta^0= {\mathbb{E}}[\eta^0] + (\vartheta \cdot S)_T + L^0_T\,,$$ where $L_T$ is the terminal value of a local martingale that is orthogonal to the underlying $S$. For applications it is important to have tractable formulas for the variance-optimal strategy $\vartheta$ and for the minimal expected hedging error $\epsilon^2 := {\mathbb{E}}[(L_T^0)^2]$. To this end, several authors have combined variance-optimal hedging with *Fourier methods*. This idea was first pursued in [@HK06], where in an exponential Lévy market the expected hedging error has been explicitly computed for contingent claims with integrable and invertible Laplace transform. This method has been further investigated in [@KalP07], where the underlying market model is a stochastic volatility model described by an *affine semimartingale*.
In this paper we extend the results of [@HK06; @KalP07] in two directions: First, we consider a very general setting of semimartingale factor models that is not limited to processes with independent increments or with affine structure. Second, in addition to classic variance optimal hedging, we also consider the variance-optimal *semi-static* hedging problem that we have introduced in [@DTHKR17]. The semi-static hedging problem combines dynamic trading in the underlying $S$ with static (i. e. buy-and-hold) positions in a finite number of given contingent claims $(\eta^1, \dotsc, \eta^d)$, e. g. European puts and calls. Such semi-static hedging strategies have been considered for the hedging of Barrier options (cf. [@carr2011semi]), in model-free hedging approaches based on martingale optimal transport (cf. [@beiglbock2013model; @B17]), and finally for the semi-static replication of variance swaps by Neuberger’s formula (cf. [@N94]).
As shown in [@DTHKR17] and summarized in Section \[sec:GKW.dec\] below, the semi-static hedging problem can be solved under a variance-optimality criterion when also the *covariances* $\epsilon_{ij} := {\mathbb{E}}[L_T^i L_T^j]$ of the residuals in the GKW-decompositions of all supplementary claims $(\eta^1, \dotsc, \eta^d)$ are known. This leads to a natural extension of the questions investigated in [@HK06; @KalP07]: If the model for $S$ allows for explicit calculation of the characteristic function $S = \log X$ (such as Lévy models, the Heston model or the 3/2 model) and the supplementary claims $(\eta^1, \dotsc, \eta^d)$ have a Fourier representation (such as European puts and calls), how can we compute the quantities $\epsilon_{ij}$?
In our main results, Theorems \[thm:hed.err\], \[thm:pred.cov.mixt\] and \[thm:comsec3.sec4\] we provide answers to this question and show that the covariances $\epsilon_{ij} := {\mathrm{E}}[L_T^i L_T^j]$ and the optimal strategies can be recovered by Fourier-type integrals, extending the results of [@HK06; @KalP07]. In addition, these results serve as the rigorous mathematical underpinning of the more applied point of view taken in [@DTHKR17].
This paper has the following structure: In Section \[sec:GKW.dec\] we collect some notions about stochastic analysis and discuss semi-static variance optimal strategies. Section \[sec:sem.quad\] is devoted to the study of the GKW decomposition for some square integrable martingales, which play a fundamental role in our setting. In Section \[sec:GKW.eu\] we discuss certain problems related to stochastic analysis of processes depending on a parameter and Fourier methods in a general multidimensional factor model. We also recover some of the results of [@KalP07] for affine stochastic volatility models. In Section \[sec:app\] we apply the results of the previous sections to the Heston model (which is an affine model) and the $3/2$-model (which is non-affine).
Basic Tools and Motivation {#sec:GKW.dec}
==========================
By $({\Omega},{\mathscr{F}},{\mathbb{P}})$ we denote a complete probability space and by ${\mathbb{F}}$ a filtration satisfying the usual conditions. We fix a time interval $[0,T]$, $T>0$, assume that ${\mathscr{F}}_0$ is trivial and set ${\mathscr{F}}={\mathscr{F}}_T$.
Because of the usual conditions of ${\mathbb{F}}$, we only consider [càdlàg ]{}martingales and when we say that a process $X$ is a martingale we implicitly assume the [càdlàg ]{}property of the paths of $X$.
A real-valued martingale $X$ is square integrable if $X_T\in L{^}2({\mathbb{P}}):=L{^}2({\Omega},{\mathscr{F}},{\mathbb{P}})$. By ${\mathscr{H}}{^}{\,2}={\mathscr{H}}{^}{\,2}({\mathbb{F}})$ we denote the set of real-valued ${\mathbb{F}}$-adapted square integrable martingales. For $X\in{\mathscr{H}}{^}{\,2}$, we define $\|X\|_{{\mathscr{H}}{^}{\,2}}:=\|X_T\|_2$, where $\|\cdot\|_2$ denotes the $L{^}2({\mathbb{P}})$-norm. The space $({\mathscr{H}}{^}{\,2},\|\cdot\|_2)$ is a Hilbert space; we also introduce ${\mathscr{H}}{^}{\,2}_{\,0}:=\{X\in{\mathscr{H}}{^}{\,2}: X_{\,0}=0\}$.
If $X,Y$ belong to ${\mathscr{H}}{^}{\,2}$, then there exists a unique predictable càdlàg process of finite variation, denoted by ${\ensuremath{\langle X,Y \rangle}}$ and called predictable covariation of $X$ and $Y$, such that ${\ensuremath{\langle X,Y \rangle}}_{\,0}=0$ and $XY-{\ensuremath{\langle X,Y \rangle}}$ is a uniformly integrable martingale. Clearly ${\mathbb{E}}[X_TY_T-X_{\,0}Y_{\,0}]={\mathbb{E}}[{\ensuremath{\langle X,Y \rangle}}_T]$. We say that two local martingales $X$ and $Y$ are orthogonal if $XY$ is a local martingale starting at zero. If $X$ and $Y$ are (locally) square integrable (local) martingales, they are orthogonal if and only if $X_0Y_0=0$ and ${\ensuremath{\langle X,Y \rangle}}=0$.
If $H$ is a measurable process and $A$ a process of finite variation, by $H\cdot A$ we denote the (Riemann–Stieltjes) integral process of $H$ with respect to $A$, i. e., $H\cdot A_t({\omega}):=\int_0{^}tH_s({\omega}){\mathrm{d}}A_s({\omega})$. We also use the notation $\int_0{^}\cdot H_s{\mathrm{d}}A_s$ to denote the process $H\cdot A$. We recall that $H\cdot A$ is of finite variation if and only if $|H|\cdot \mathrm{Var}(A)_t({\omega})<+\infty$, for every $t\in[0,T]$ and ${\omega}\in{\Omega}$. Notice that, if $H\cdot A$ is of finite variation, then $$\label{eq:var.int}
{\mathrm{Var}}(H\cdot A)=|H|\cdot{\mathrm{Var}}(A).$$
For $X\in{\mathscr{H}}{^}{\,2}$, we define $${\mathrm{L}}_{\mathbb{C}}{^}2(X):=\{\vartheta\textnormal{ predictable and complex-valued: } {\mathbb{E}}[|\vartheta|{^}2\,\cdot{\ensuremath{\langle X,X \rangle}}_T]<+\infty\},$$ the space of complex-valued integrands for $X$. For $\vartheta\in{\mathrm{L}}_{\mathbb{C}}{^}2(X)$, $\vartheta\cdot X$ denotes the stochastic integral process of $\vartheta$ with respect to $X$ and it is characterized as it follows: Let $Z$ be a complex-valued square integrable martingale. Then $Z=\vartheta\cdot X$ if and only if $Z_{\,0}=0$ and ${\ensuremath{\langle Z,Y \rangle}}=\vartheta\cdot{\ensuremath{\langle X,Y \rangle}}$, for every $Y\in{\mathscr{H}}{^}2$. We also use the notation $\int_0{^}\cdot \vartheta_s{\mathrm{d}}X_s$ to indicate the martingale $\vartheta\cdot X$. By ${\mathrm{L}}{^}2(X)$ we denote the subspace of predictable integrands in ${\mathrm{L}}_{\mathbb{C}}{^}2(X)$ which are *real-valued*.
#### Variance-Optimal Hedging.
In a financial market, where the price process is described by a strictly positive square integrable martingale $S$, a square integrable contingent claim ${\eta}$ is given and $H=({\mathbb{E}}[{\eta}|{\mathscr{F}}_t])_{t\in[0,T]}$ is the associated martingale. We then consider the optimization problem $$\label{var.op.cl}
{\varepsilon}{^}2=\min_{c\in{\mathbb{R}},\vartheta\in{\mathrm{L}}{^}2(S)}{\mathbb{E}}\big[\big(c+\vartheta\cdot S_T-{\eta}\big){^}2\big].$$ The meaning of is to minimize the variance of the hedging error: If the market is complete the solution of is identically equal to zero, as perfect replication is possible. If the market is incomplete, the squared hedging error will be strictly positive, in general. In [@FS86] was shown that the solution $(c{^}\ast,\vartheta{^}\ast)$ of always exists and is given by the so-called Galtchouk-Kunita-Watanabe (GKW) decomposition of $H$. The GKW decomposition is the unique decomposition $$\label{eq:gkw.dec}
H=H_{\,0}+\vartheta\cdot X+L\,,$$ where $\vartheta\in{\mathrm{L}}{^}2(X)$ and the martingale $L$ is in the orthogonal complement of ${\mathscr{L}}{^}2(X)$ in $({\mathscr{H}}{^}{\,2}_{\,0}, \|\cdot\|_2)$. The solution of the hedging problem is then given by $c{^}\ast={\mathbb{E}}[{\eta}]$ and $\vartheta{^}\ast$ being the integrand in the GKW decomposition of $H$ with respect to $S$. The minimal hedging error can be expressed as $${\varepsilon}{^}2={\mathbb{E}}[{\ensuremath{\langle L,L \rangle}}_T]={\mathbb{E}}[L_T{^}2],$$ using the orthogonal component $L$ in the GKW decomposition .
Moreover, notice that, if $L\in{\mathscr{H}}{^}2_0$ is orthogonal to ${\mathscr{L}}{^}2(S)$ in the Hilbert space sense, then $L$ is also orthogonal to $S$, i. e. $LS$ is a martingale starting at zero and, in particular, ${\ensuremath{\langle L,S \rangle}}=0$. Therefore, from we can compute the optimal strategy $\vartheta^\ast$ by $$\label{eq:gkw.dec.int}
{\ensuremath{\langle S,H \rangle}}=\vartheta^\ast\cdot{\ensuremath{\langle S,S \rangle}}=\int_0{^}\cdot\vartheta^\ast_s\,{\mathrm{d}}{\ensuremath{\langle S,S \rangle}}_s\,,$$ that is $\vartheta^\ast={\mathrm{d}}{\ensuremath{\langle S,H \rangle}}\slash{\mathrm{d}}{\ensuremath{\langle S,S \rangle}}$ in the Radon-Nikodym-derivative sense.
#### Semi-Static Variance-Optimal Hedging.
In [@DTHKR17] we have introduced the following generalization of the classic variance-optimal hedging problem : Assume that in addition to a dynamic (i. e. continuously rebalanced) position in the underlying stock, a static (i. e. buy-and-hold) position in a fixed basket of contingent claims $({\eta}^1, \dots, {\eta}^d)$ is allowed. More precisely, let $S$ be a strictly positive square integrable martingale modelling the evolution of the stock price and ${\eta}=({\eta}^1, \dots, {\eta}^d)^\top$ the *fixed* vector of square integrable contingent claims.
\[def:sems.st\] (i) A *semi-static* strategy is a pair $(\vartheta,v)\in{\mathrm{L}}{^}2(S)\times{\mathbb{R}}{^}d$. A semi-static strategy of the form $(\vartheta,0)$ (resp., $(0,v)$) is called a *dynamic* (resp., *static*) strategy.
\(ii) A semi-static variance-optimal hedging strategy for the square integrable contingent claim ${\eta}{^}0$ is a solution of the *semi-static variance-optimal hedging problem* given by $$\label{eq:setup}
{\varepsilon}{^}2=\min_{v\in{\mathbb{R}}{^}{d}, \vartheta \in {\mathrm{L}}^2(S) ,c\in{\mathbb{R}}}{\mathbb{E}}\left[\Big(c-v{^}\top{\mathbb{E}}[{\eta}]+\vartheta\cdot S_T-({\eta}{^}{\,0}-v{^}\top {\eta})\Big){^}{\,2}\right].$$
Comparing the solution of with the one of , it is clear that the latter one will be smaller or equal than the first one, as the minimization problem in is taken over a bigger set. Therefore, semi-static strategies allow for a reduction of the quadratic hedging error in comparison with classic dynamic hedging in the underlying.
Following [@DTHKR17], the semi-static hedging problem can be split into an inner and outer optimization problem, i. e. it can be written as $$\label{eq:inner_outer}
\begin{cases}
\epsilon^2(v) = \min_{\vartheta \in {\mathrm{L}}^2(S), c \in {\mathbb{R}}}{\mathbb{E}}\left[\Big(c-v^\top{\mathbb{E}}[{{\eta}}]+\vartheta\cdot S_T - ({\eta}^0-v^\top {\eta})\Big)^2\right], & \quad \text{(inner prob.)}\\
\epsilon^2 = \min_{v \in {\mathbb{R}}^d} \epsilon(v)^2. &\quad \text{(outer prob.)}\\
\end{cases}$$ Notice that the inner optimization problem in is a classical variance-optimal hedging problem as in , while the outer problem becomes a finite dimensional quadratic optimization problem of the form $$\label{eq:hed.err}
\varepsilon(v){^}{\,2} =A - 2 v{^}\top B+ v^\top C v\,.$$ As shown in [@DTHKR17 Theorem 2.3] the coefficients of this problem can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{not:var.cov}
A:={\mathbb{E}}[{\ensuremath{\langle L{^}0,L{^}0 \rangle}}_T],\qquad B{^}i:={\mathbb{E}}[{\ensuremath{\langle L{^}0,L{^}i \rangle}}_T],\qquad C{^}{ij}:={\mathbb{E}}[{\ensuremath{\langle L{^}i,L{^}j \rangle}}_T]\,,\quad i,j=1,\ldots,d.\end{aligned}$$ where $L^0$ and $L^i$ are the orthogonal parts of the GKW-decompositions of $H^0$ and $H^i$ respectively. Moreover, we can write $$\label{eq:pb.res}
{\ensuremath{\langle L{^}i,L{^}j \rangle}}={\ensuremath{\langle H{^}i,H{^}j \rangle}}-\vartheta{^}i\vartheta{^}j\cdot{\ensuremath{\langle S,S \rangle}},\quad i,j=0,\ldots,d.$$ where the $\vartheta^i$ are the integrands in the respective GKW decompositions. If $C$ is invertible, then the optimal strategy $(v^\ast, \vartheta^\ast)$ for the semi-static variance-optimal hedging problem is given by $$v^* = C^{-1} B, \qquad \vartheta^\ast = \vartheta^0 - (v^\ast)^\top (\vartheta^1, \dotsc, \vartheta^d).$$
Hence, to solve the semi-static variance-optimal hedging problem, it is necessary to compute all covariations of the residuals in the GKW decomposition of ${\eta}{^}i$, $i=1,\ldots,d$. This extends beyond the classic variance-optimal hedging problem considered in [@KalP07], where it was enough to determine $A$ in order to compute the squared hedging error and the optimal strategy.
The GKW-decomposition in factor models {#sec:sem.quad}
======================================
To solve the inner minimization problem in the semi-static hedging problem , it is necessary to compute the predictable covariations of the GKW-residuals in and then their expectation to get $A$, $B$ and $C$ in . In this section, we consider the particular case of a so-called factor-model, where both the underlying $S$ and the claims $Y^i$ of interest only depend on the state of a finite-dimensional economic factor process $X = (X^1, \dotsc, X^n)$. More precisely, we assume that $X$ is a quasi-left-continuous locally square integrable semimartingale (cf. [@JS00 Definition II.2.27]) with state space $(E,{\mathscr{E}}):=({\mathbb{R}}{^}n,{\mathscr{B}}({\mathbb{R}}{^}n))$; the underlying stock is a locally square integrable local martingale[^3] given by $S = e^{X^1}$, and the claims of interest are of the form $$\label{eq:Y_factor}
Y_t^i = f^i(t,X_t^1, \dotsc, X_t^n)$$ where the $f^i$ are in $C^{1,2}({\mathbb{R}}_+\times{\mathbb{R}}{^}n)$, $i=1,\ldots,d$. To simplify notation we only consider two claims $Y^1$ and $Y^2$; the extension to more than two claims is straight-forward.
To prepare for our results and their proofs, we recall that any local martingale $X$ can be decomposed in a unique way as $X=X_0+X{^}c+X{^}d$, where $X{^}c$ is a continuous local martingale starting at zero, called *the continuous part* of $X$, while $X{^}d$, called *the purely discontinuous part* of $X$, is a local martingale starting at zero which is orthogonal to all adapted and continuous local martingales (cf. [@JS00 Theorem I.4.18]). We also recall that a locally square integrable semimartingale $X$ is a special semimartingale and thus there exists a semimartingale decomposition (which is unique) $$\label{eq:sp.smart.dec}
X{^}j=X{^}j_0+M{^}j+A{^}j,\quad j=1,\ldots,n,$$ where $A{^}j$ is a predictable processes of finite variation and $M{^}j$ a locally square integrable local martingale. Notice that $X{^}{j,c}=M{^}{j,c}$. Since $X$ is quasi-left-continuous, the predictable processes $A{^}j$ are continuous and the local martingales $M{^}j$ are quasi-left-continuous (cf. [@HWY92 Corollary 8.9]).
We denote by $\mu$ be the jump measure of $X$ and by $\nu$ its predictable compensator. In particular, $\mu$ is an integer valued random measure on $[0,T]\times E$, $T>0$. The space ${\mathscr{G}}{^}2_\textnormal{loc}(\mu)$ of the predictable integrands for the compensated jump measure $(\mu-\nu)$ is defined in [@J79 Eq. (3.62)], as the space of real-valued processes $W$ on ${\mathbb{R}}_+\times E$ which are ${\mathscr{P}}\otimes{\mathscr{E}}$-measurable, ${\mathscr{P}}$ denoting the predictable ${\sigma}$-algebra on ${\Omega}\times[0,T]$, such that the increasing process $$\sum_{s\leq\cdot}W(s,{\omega},\Delta X_s({\omega})){^}21_{\{\Delta X_s({\omega})\neq0\}}$$ is locally integrable. For $W\in{\mathscr{G}}_\textnormal{loc}{^}2(\mu)$, we denote by $W\ast(\mu-\nu)$ the stochastic integral of $W$ with respect to the compensated jump measure $(\mu-\nu)$ and define it as the unique purely discontinuous locally square integrable local martingale $Y$ such that $$\Delta Y_t({\omega})=W(t,{\omega},\Delta X_t({\omega})),$$ $\Delta Z$ denoting the jump process of a [càdlàg ]{}process $Z$ with the convention $\Delta Z_0=0$.
The existence and uniqueness of this locally square integrable local martingale is guaranteed by [@JS00 Theorem I.4.56, Corollary I.4.19]. Observe that, if $U,W\in{\mathscr{G}}{^}2_\mathrm{loc}(\mu)$, then [@JS00 Theorem II.1.33(a)], yields $$\label{eq:com.pb}
{\ensuremath{\langle U\ast(\mu-\nu),W\ast(\mu-\nu) \rangle}}_t=\int_{[0,t]\times E}U(s,x)W(s,x)\nu({\mathrm{d}}s,{\mathrm{d}}x),\quad t\in[0,T].$$
The next lemma is the key result for the computation of under the factor-model assumption.
\[lem:rep.it.for\] Let $X$ be a locally square integrable semimartingale with canonical decomposition as in . Let $Y=(Y_t)_{t\in[0,T]}$ be a locally square integrable local martingale of the form $Y_t=f(t,X{^}1_t,\ldots,X{^}n_t)$, where $f \in C^{1,2}({\mathbb{R}}_+\times{\mathbb{R}}{^}n)$. Then, $$\label{eq:rep.it.for}
Y=Y_0+\sum_{j=1}{^}n\partial_{x_j} f_-\cdot X{^}{j,c}+W\ast(\mu-\nu)$$ where $f_t:=f(t,X{^}1_t,\ldots,X{^}n_t)$, $f_{t-}:=f(t,X{^}1_{t-},\ldots,X{^}n_{t-})$, $\partial_{x_j}$ denotes the $j$-th partial derivatives of $f$ and $$\label{eq:proc.W}
W(t,{\omega},x_1,\ldots,x_n):=f(t,x_1+X{^}1_{t-}({\omega}),\ldots,x_n+X{^}n_{t-}({\omega}))-f(t,X{^}1_{t-}({\omega}),\ldots,X{^}n_{t-}({\omega})).$$
We denote by $\mathrm{Id}$ the identity on $[0,T]$. Applying Itô formula to the ${\mathbb{R}}{^}{n+1}$-valued semimartingale $(\mathrm{Id},X{^}1,\ldots,X{^}n)$ (cf. [@JS00 Theorem I.4.57]), from the canonical decomposition , we deduce $$\label{eq:it.for.lem}
\begin{split}
Y=Y_0+&\sum_{j=1}{^}n\partial_{x_j} f_-\cdot M{^}j+\partial_t f_-\cdot \textnormal{Id}+\sum_{j=1}{^}n\partial_{x_j} f_-\cdot A{^}j+\frac12\sum_{j,k=1}{^}n\partial_{x_jx_k}{^}2 f_-\cdot{\ensuremath{\langle X{^}{j,c},X{^}{k,c} \rangle}}\\&+\sum_{s\leq\cdot}\Delta Y_{s}-\sum_{j=1}{^}n\partial_{x_j} f_{s-}\Delta X{^}j_s,
\end{split}$$ where $\partial{^}2_{\cdot\cdot}$ denotes the second-partial-derivative operator. We define $N:=\sum_{j=1}{^}n\partial_{x_j} f_-\cdot M{^}j$, $$A:=\partial_t f_-\cdot \textnormal{Id}+\sum_{j=1}{^}n\partial_{x_j} f_-\cdot A{^}j+\frac12\sum_{j,k=1}{^}n\partial_{x_jx_k}{^}2 f_-\cdot{\ensuremath{\langle X{^}{j,c},X{^}{k,c} \rangle}}$$ and finally $$\begin{split}
U(t,{\omega},x_1,x_2)&:=\\&f(t,x_1+X{^}1_{t-}({\omega}),\ldots,x_n+X{^}n_{t-}({\omega}))-f(t,X{^}1_{t-}({\omega}),\ldots,X{^}n_{t-}({\omega}))-\sum_{j=1}{^}n\partial_{x_j} f_{t-} x{^}j.
\end{split}$$ The process $U$ belongs to ${\mathscr{G}}{^}2_\mathrm{loc}(\mu)$. Indeed, because of and the continuity of $A$, $U$ is the jump process of the locally square integrable local martingale $Y-N$. Hence $\sum_{s\leq\cdot}U_s{^}2\leq[Y-N,Y-N]$ and the right-hand side of this estimate is locally integrable because of [@JS00 Proposition I.4.50(b)]. This means that we can define the locally square integrable local martingale $U\ast(\mu-\nu)$. The process $\sum_{s\leq t}U(s,{\omega},\Delta X{^}1_s({\omega}),\ldots\Delta X{^}n_s({\omega}))+A_t({\omega})=U\ast\mu_t({\omega})+A_t({\omega})$ is of finite variation and by it is a locally square integrable local martingale. Hence it is purely discontinuous and has the same jumps as $U\ast(\mu-\nu)$. From [@JS00 Corollary I.4.19], these two local martingales are indistinguishable. Hence becomes $$Y=Y_0+\sum_{j=1}{^}n\partial_{x_j} f_-\cdot M{^}j+U\ast(\mu-\nu).$$ From [@HWY92 Theorem 11.24], we can write $M{^}{j,d}=x_j\ast(\mu-\nu)$, $M{^}{j,d}$ denoting the purely discontinuous part of the local martingales $M{^}j$, $j=1,\ldots,n$. Using that $M{^}j=X{^}{ j,c}+M{^}{ j,d}$ and [@JS00 Proposition II.1.30(b)], we get by linearity of the involved stochastic integrals $$Y=Y_0+\sum_{j=1}{^}n\partial_{x_j} f_-\cdot X{^}{ j,c}+\left(U+\sum_{j=1}{^}n\partial_{x_j} f_-x_j\right)\ast(\mu-\nu),$$ $j=1,\ldots,n$, which is the desired result.
Notice that is the decomposition of $Y$ in its continuous and purely discontinuous martingale part $Y{^}c$ and $Y{^}d$ respectively. It can be rephrased saying that every locally square integrable local martingale $Y$ such that $Y_t=f(t,X_t{^}1,\ldots,X_t{^}n)$ can be represented as the sum of stochastic integrals with respect to the continuous martingale parts of $X$ and a stochastic integral with respect to the compensated jump measure of $X$.
Applying Lemma \[lem:rep.it.for\] to the locally square integrable local martingale $S={\mathrm{e}}{^}{X{^}1}$, we get $$\label{eq:exp.S}
S=S_0+S_-\cdot X{^}{1,c}+\big(S_-({\mathrm{e}}{^}{x_1}-1)\big)\ast(\mu-\nu).$$ We observe that the processes $S$ and $S_-$ are strictly positive. Hence the process $S{^}{-1}_-$ is locally bounded and $S{^}{-1}_-\cdot S$ is a locally square integrable local martingale. Furthermore $\Delta \big[S{^}{-1}_-\cdot S\big]=({\mathrm{e}}{^}{\Delta X{^}1}-1)$. Therefore the function $x_1\mapsto({\mathrm{e}}{^}{x_1}-1)$ belongs to ${\mathscr{G}}{^}2_\textnormal{loc}(\mu)$ and we can define
$$\label{eq:def.R}
\widetilde S{^}d:=g\ast(\mu-\nu),\qquad g(x_1):=({\mathrm{e}}{^}{x_1}-1),$$
which is a locally square integrable local martingale. Combining this with and [@JS00 Proposition II.1.30(b)], we get $$\label{eq:exp.S.st.ex}
S=S_0+S_-\cdot \widetilde S,\qquad \widetilde S:=(X{^}{1, c}+\widetilde S{^}d).$$ Notice that $\widetilde S$ is the s*tochastic logarithm* of $S$ (cf. [@JS00 Theorem II.8.10]). Moreover, if $Y$ is as in Lemma \[lem:rep.it.for\], from and , we have $$\label{eq:pb.Y.S}
{\ensuremath{\langle S,Y \rangle}}=\sum_{j=1}{^}n(S_-\partial_{x_j} f_-)\cdot{\ensuremath{\langle X{^}{j,c},X{^}{1, c} \rangle}}+\int_{[0,\cdot]\times E}({\mathrm{e}}{^}{x_1}-1)S_{s-}W(s,x)\nu({\mathrm{d}}s,{\mathrm{d}}x).$$
The next result is our main result on the predictable covariation of the GKW-residuals under the factor-model assumption .
\[thm:poi.br.res.smar\] Let $X=(X{^}1,\ldots,X{^}n)$ be a locally square integrable semimartingale. Let $Y{^}1$ and $Y{^}2$ be locally square integrable local martingales such that $Y{^}i_t=f{^}i(t,X{^}1_t,\ldots,X{^}n_t)$, where $f{^}i$ satisfies the assumptions of Lemma \[lem:rep.it.for\], and let $Y{^}i=Y{^}i_0+\vartheta{^}i\cdot S+L{^}i$ be the GKW decomposition of $Y{^}i$ with respect to $S$, $i=1,2$. Then the explicit form of the integrand $\vartheta{^}i$ is $$\label{eq:var.opt.str}
\vartheta_t{^}i=\frac{1}{S_{t-}}\left(\sum_{j=1}{^}n\partial_{x_j}f{^}i_{t-}\frac{{\mathrm{d}}{\ensuremath{\langle X{^}{1,c},X{^}{ j,c} \rangle}}_t}{{\mathrm{d}}{\ensuremath{\langle \widetilde S,\widetilde S \rangle}}_t}+\frac{{\mathrm{d}}{\ensuremath{\langle \widetilde S{^}d,Y{^}{i,d} \rangle}}_t}{{\mathrm{d}}{\ensuremath{\langle \widetilde S,\widetilde S \rangle}}_t}\right),\qquad i=1,2.$$ Furthermore the differential of the predictable covariation of the residuals $L{^}1$ and $L{^}2$ in the GKW decomposition of $Y{^}1$ and $Y{^}2$ with respect to $S$ is $$\label{eq:res.pb.exp}
\begin{split}
{\mathrm{d}}{\ensuremath{\langle L{^}1,L{^}2 \rangle}}_t&={\mathrm{d}}{\ensuremath{\langle Y{^}1,Y{^}2 \rangle}}_t-\vartheta{^}1_t\vartheta{^}2_t{\mathrm{d}}{\ensuremath{\langle S,S \rangle}}_t
\\&=
\sum_{j=1}{^}n\sum_{k=1}{^}n\partial_{x_j}f{^}1_{t-}\partial_{x_k}f{^}2_{t-}\left({\mathrm{d}}{\ensuremath{\langle X{^}{j, c},X{^}{k, c} \rangle}}_t-\frac{{\mathrm{d}}{\ensuremath{\langle X{^}{1, c},X{^}{j, c} \rangle}}_t}{{\mathrm{d}}{\ensuremath{\langle \widetilde S,\widetilde S \rangle}}_t}{\mathrm{d}}{\ensuremath{\langle X{^}{1, c},X{^}{k, c} \rangle}}_t\right)
\\&-
\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}i,\ell=1,\\ i\neq\ell\end{subarray}}{^}2\sum_{j=1}{^}n\partial_{x_j}f{^}i_{t-}\frac{{\mathrm{d}}{\ensuremath{\langle \widetilde S{^}d,Y{^}{\ell,d} \rangle}}_t}{{\mathrm{d}}{\ensuremath{\langle \widetilde S,\widetilde S \rangle}}_t}{\mathrm{d}}{\ensuremath{\langle X{^}{1, c},X{^}{j, c} \rangle}}_t
\\&+
{\mathrm{d}}{\ensuremath{\langle Y{^}{1, d},Y{^}{ 2, d} \rangle}}_t-\frac{{\mathrm{d}}{\ensuremath{\langle \widetilde S{^}d,Y{^}{1, d} \rangle}}_t}{{\mathrm{d}}{\ensuremath{\langle \widetilde S,\widetilde S \rangle}}_t}{\mathrm{d}}{\ensuremath{\langle \widetilde S{^}d,Y{^}{2, d} \rangle}}_t
\end{split}$$ where, $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\langle \widetilde S,\widetilde S \rangle}}&=&{\ensuremath{\langle X{^}{1, c},X{^}{1, c} \rangle}}+\int_{[0,\cdot]\times E}({\mathrm{e}}{^}{x_1}-1){^}2\nu({\mathrm{d}}s,{\mathrm{d}}x),\label{eq:pb.St.St}
\\
{\ensuremath{\langle \widetilde S{^}d,\widetilde S{^}d \rangle}}&=&\int_{[0,\cdot]\times E}({\mathrm{e}}{^}{x_1}-1){^}2\nu({\mathrm{d}}s,{\mathrm{d}}x),\label{eq:pb.R.R}\\
{\ensuremath{\langle \widetilde S{^}d,Y{^}{i, d} \rangle}}&=&\int_{[0,\cdot]\times E}({\mathrm{e}}{^}{x_1}-1)W{^}i(s,x)\nu({\mathrm{d}}s,{\mathrm{d}}x)\label{eq:pb.R.Yi},\\
{\ensuremath{\langle Y{^}{1, d},Y{^}{2, d} \rangle}}&=&\int_{[0,\cdot]\times E}W{^}1(s,x)W{^}2(s,x)\nu({\mathrm{d}}s,{\mathrm{d}}x) \label{eq:pb.Y1.Y2}.\end{aligned}$$ and $W{^}i$ is given by with $f=f{^}i$, $i=1,2$.
We first show . From , we have $$\label{eq:thti}
\vartheta{^}i=\frac{{\mathrm{d}}{\ensuremath{\langle S,Y{^}i \rangle}}_t}{{\mathrm{d}}{\ensuremath{\langle S,S \rangle}}_t}.$$ From , ${\ensuremath{\langle S,S \rangle}}=S_-{^}2\cdot{\ensuremath{\langle \widetilde S,\widetilde S \rangle}}$. To compute ${\ensuremath{\langle \widetilde S,\widetilde S \rangle}}$, we use , and . This, in particular shows and . The process ${\ensuremath{\langle S,Y{^}i \rangle}}$ is given by with $Y=Y{^}i$ and $W=W{^}i$. Inserting this expression for ${\ensuremath{\langle S,Y{^}i \rangle}}$ and the previous one for ${\ensuremath{\langle S,S \rangle}}$ in , yields . To compute ${\ensuremath{\langle Y{^}1,Y{^}2 \rangle}}$ we again use Lemma \[lem:rep.it.for\] and : The computations are similar to those for the computation of $\vartheta{^}i$. The proof of is straightforward, once ${\ensuremath{\langle Y{^}1,Y{^}2 \rangle}}$, ${\ensuremath{\langle S,S \rangle}}$, $\vartheta{^}1$ and $\vartheta{^}2$ are known. The proof of the theorem is now complete.
If the semimartingale $X$ is continuous, then the formulas in Theorem \[thm:poi.br.res.smar\] become simpler. Indeed, in this case, all purely discontinuous martingales appearing in vanish and the following corollary holds:
\[cor:poi.br.res.smar.con\] Let the assumptions of Theorem \[thm:poi.br.res.smar\] be satisfied and furthermore assume that the semimartingale $X$ is continuous. Then ${\ensuremath{\langle \widetilde S,\widetilde S \rangle}}={\ensuremath{\langle X{^}{1, c},X{^}{1, c} \rangle}}$ and becomes
$$\label{eq:var.opt.str.con}
\vartheta_t{^}i=\frac{1}{S_{t}}\sum_{j=1}{^}n\partial_{x_j}f{^}i_{t}\frac{{\mathrm{d}}{\ensuremath{\langle X{^}{1,c},X{^}{ j,c} \rangle}}_t}{{\mathrm{d}}{\ensuremath{\langle X{^}{1, c},X{^}{1, c} \rangle}}_t}$$
while reduces to $$\label{eq:res.pb.exp.con}
{\mathrm{d}}{\ensuremath{\langle L{^}1,L{^}2 \rangle}}_t=\sum_{j=2}{^}n\sum_{k=2}{^}n\partial_{x_j}f{^}1_{t}\partial_{x_k}f{^}2_{t}\left({\mathrm{d}}{\ensuremath{\langle X{^}{j, c},X{^}{k, c} \rangle}}_t-\frac{{\mathrm{d}}{\ensuremath{\langle X{^}{1, c},X{^}{j, c} \rangle}}_t}{{\mathrm{d}}{\ensuremath{\langle X{^}{1, c},X{^}{1, c} \rangle}}_t}{\mathrm{d}}{\ensuremath{\langle X{^}{1, c},X{^}{k, c} \rangle}}_t\right).$$
Notice that the summations in start from $j=2$ and $k=2$.
We now denote by $(B,C,\nu)$ the semimartingale characteristics of $X$ (cf. [@JS00 II.§2a]) with respect to the truncation function $h=(h{^}1,\ldots,h{^}n)$, where $h{^}j(x_j)=x_j1_{\{|x_j|\leq1\}}$, $j=1,\ldots,n$, and assume that they are absolutely continuous with respect to the Lebesgue measure, that is $$\label{eq:sm.ch.ac}
B_t=\int_0{^}tb_s{\mathrm{d}}s,\quad C_t=\int_0{^}tc_s{\mathrm{d}}s,\quad \nu({\omega},{\mathrm{d}}t,{\mathrm{d}}x)=K_t({\omega},{\mathrm{d}}x){\mathrm{d}}t$$ where $b$ and $c$ are predictable processes taking values in ${\mathbb{R}}{^}n$ and in the subspace of symmetric matrices in ${\mathbb{R}}{^}{n\times n}$ respectively, while $K_t({\omega},{\mathrm{d}}x)$ is a predictable kernel as in [@JS00 Proposition II.2.9]. We stress that for every $t$ and ${\omega}$, $K_t({\omega},{\mathrm{d}}x)$ is a measure on $({\mathbb{R}}{^}n,{\mathscr{B}}({\mathbb{R}}{^}n))$. Furthermore, we have $$c{^}{jk}_t={\mathrm{d}}{\ensuremath{\langle X{^}{j, c},X{^}{k, c} \rangle}}_t, \quad j,k=1,\ldots,n.$$ The triplet $(b,c,K)$ is sometimes called *differential characteristics* of the semimartingale $X$. In this context we get the following corollary to Theorem \[thm:poi.br.res.smar\]:
\[cor:poi.br.res.smar.abs.con\] Let the assumptions of Theorem \[thm:poi.br.res.smar\] hold and furthermore let the semimartingale characteristics $(B,C,\nu)$ of $X$ be absolutely continuous with respect to the Lebesgue measure on $[0,T]$ and let $(b,c,K)$ be the corresponding differential characteristics.
[(i)]{.nodecor} Then $\vartheta{^}i$, $i=1,2$, becomes $$\label{eq:var.opt.str.abs.con}
\vartheta_t{^}i=\frac{1}{S_{t-}\xi_t}\left(\sum_{j=1}{^}n\partial_{x_j}f{^}i_{t-}c{^}{1j}_t+\int_E({\mathrm{e}}{^}{x_1}-1)W{^}i(t,x)K_t({\mathrm{d}}x)\right).$$ while reduces to $$\label{eq:res.pb.exp.abs.co}
\begin{split}
\frac{{\mathrm{d}}{\ensuremath{\langle L{^}1,L{^}2 \rangle}}_t}{{\mathrm{d}}t}&
=\sum_{j=1}{^}n\sum_{k=1}{^}n\partial_{x_j}f{^}1_{t-}\partial_{x_k}f{^}2_{t-}\left(c{^}{jk}_t-\frac{c{^}{1j}_t}{\xi_t}c{^}{1k}_t\right)
\\&-
\frac1{\xi_t}\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}i,l=1,\\ i\neq\ell\end{subarray}}{^}2\sum_{j=1}{^}n\partial_{x_j}f{^}i_{t-}c{^}{j,1}_t\int_E({\mathrm{e}}{^}{x_1}-1)W{^}\ell(t,x)K_t({\mathrm{d}}x)
\\&+
\int_EW{^}1(t,x)W{^}2(t,x)K_t({\mathrm{d}}x)
\\&-\frac1{\xi_t}\left(\int_E({\mathrm{e}}{^}{x_1}-1)W{^}1(t,x)K_t({\mathrm{d}}x)\right)\left(\int_E({\mathrm{e}}{^}{x_1}-1)W{^}2(t,x)K_t({\mathrm{d}}x)\right)
\end{split}$$ where, $\xi_t:=c_t{^}{11}+\int_E({\mathrm{e}}{^}{x_1}-1){^}2K_t({\mathrm{d}}x)$, $t\in[0,T]$.
[(ii)]{.nodecor} If furthermore $X$ is continuous then $$\label{eq:var.opt.str.abs.con.con}
\vartheta_t{^}i=\frac{1}{S_{t}c{^}{11}_t}\sum_{j=1}{^}n\partial_{x_j}f{^}i_{t}c{^}{1j}_t$$ and $$\label{eq:res.pb.exp.abs.con}
{\mathrm{d}}{\ensuremath{\langle L{^}1,L{^}2 \rangle}}_t
=\sum_{j=2}{^}n\sum_{k=2}{^}n\partial_{x_j}f{^}1_{t}\partial_{x_k}f{^}2_{t}\left(c{^}{jk}_t-\frac{c{^}{1j}_t}{c{^}{11}_t}c{^}{1k}_t\right){\mathrm{d}}t$$
Models with Fourier representation {#sec:GKW.eu}
==================================
In this section we combine variance-optimal hedging with Fourier methods. We do not assume a special stochastic volatility model, as in e. g. [@KalP07] where affine stochastic volatility models were considered. We rather work in a general multidimensional factor-model setting. This requires some technical considerations about stochastic processes depending on a parameter, which we discuss in Subsection \[subsec:par.proc\]. In Subsection \[subsec:four.met\] we consider contingent claims whose pay-offs have a Fourier representation. As a special case, we discuss semimartingale stochastic volatility models and, in particular, affine models recovering some of the results of [@KalP07].
As a preliminary, we discuss the notion of ‘variation’ for complex-valued processes. If $C=C{^}1+{\mathrm{i}}C{^}2$ is a complex-valued process and $C{^}1$ and $C{^}2$ are its real and imaginary part, respectively, we set $$\label{eq:var.com.val.proc}
{\mathrm{Var}}(C):={\mathrm{Var}}(C{^}1)+{\mathrm{Var}}(C{^}2)\,.$$ In particular, from $|C|\leq|C{^}1|+|C{^}2|$, yields $|C|\leq{\mathrm{Var}}(C)$. Let $A$ be a real-valued process of finite variation and $K=K{^}1+{\mathrm{i}}K{^}2$ a measurable complex-valued process. Then and imply $$\label{eq:var.int.com}
{\mathrm{Var}}(K\cdot A)=(|K{^}1|+|K{^}2|)\cdot{\mathrm{Var}}(A).$$
A complex-valued process $Z=X+{\mathrm{i}}Y$ is a square integrable martingale if the real-valued processes $X$ and $Y$ are square integrable martingales. For two complex-valued square integrable martingales $Z{^}1=X{^}1+{\mathrm{i}}Y{^}1$ and $Z{^}2=X{^}2+{\mathrm{i}}Y{^}2$ we define $${\ensuremath{\langle Z{^}1,Z{^}2 \rangle}}:=\big({\ensuremath{\langle X{^}1,X{^}2 \rangle}}-{\ensuremath{\langle Y{^}1,Y{^}2 \rangle}}\big)+{\mathrm{i}}\big({\ensuremath{\langle X{^}1,Y{^}2 \rangle}}+{\ensuremath{\langle Y{^}1,X{^}2 \rangle}}\big)$$ and the variation process ${\mathrm{Var}}({\ensuremath{\langle Z{^}1,Z{^}2 \rangle}})$ is given by . Notice that $Z{^}1Z{^}2-{\ensuremath{\langle Z{^}1,Z{^}2 \rangle}}$ is a martingale and ${\ensuremath{\langle Z{^}1,Z{^}2 \rangle}}$ is the unique complex-valued predictable process of finite variation starting at zero with this property. Furthermore, because of Kunita–Watanabe inequality for real-valued martingales (cf. [@Me76 Corollary II.22, p25]) we immediately get $$\label{eq:kwi.com}
{\mathbb{E}}\big[{\mathrm{Var}}({\ensuremath{\langle Z{^}1,Z{^}2 \rangle}})_t\big]\leq2{\mathbb{E}}\big[{\ensuremath{\langle Z{^}1,\overline Z{^}1 \rangle}}_t\big]{^}{1/2}{\mathbb{E}}\big[{\ensuremath{\langle Z{^}2,\overline Z{^}2 \rangle}}_t\big]{^}{1/2}\,,$$ where $\overline Z{^}j$ denotes the complex conjugate of $Z{^}j$, $j=1,2$.
Notice that, if $Z{^}1$ and $Z{^}2$ are complex-valued square integrable martingales, then the GKW decomposition of $Z{^}2$ with respect to $Z{^}1$ clearly holds but the residual is a complex-valued square integrable martingale and the integrand belongs to ${\mathrm{L}}{^}2_{\mathbb{C}}(Z{^}1)$. Obviously also an analogous relation as holds.
Complex-Valued Processes Depending on a Parameter {#subsec:par.proc}
-------------------------------------------------
We denote by ${\mathscr{S}}$ the space of parameters and assume that it is a Borel subspace of ${\mathbb{C}}{^}n$ and ${\mathscr{B}}({\mathscr{S}})$ denotes the Borel ${\sigma}$-algebra on ${\mathscr{S}}$. On $({\mathscr{S}},{\mathscr{B}}({\mathscr{S}}))$ a finite complex measure ${\zeta}$ is given. We recall that with ${\zeta}$ we can associate the *positive* measure $|{\zeta}|$ called *total variation* of ${\zeta}$. Furthermore, there exists a complex-valued function $h$ such that $|h|=1$ and ${\mathrm{d}}{\zeta}=h\,{\mathrm{d}}|{\zeta}|$, so $L{^}1({\zeta})=L{^}1(|{\zeta}|)$. For details about complex-valued measures see [@Ru87 §6.1]. Note that Fubini’s theorem also holds for products of complex-valued measures (cf. [@C13 Theorem 8.10.3]).
\[def:joi.mea\] Let $U(z)=(U(z)_t)_{t\in[0,T]}$ be a (complex-valued) stochastic process for every $z\in{\mathscr{S}}$. By $U(\cdot)$ we denote the mapping $(t,{\omega},z)\mapsto U({\omega},z)_t$.
[(i)]{.nodecor} We say that $U(\cdot)$ is jointly measurable if it is a ${\mathscr{B}}([0,T])\otimes{\mathscr{F}}_T\otimes{\mathscr{B}}({\mathscr{S}})$-measurable mapping.
[(ii)]{.nodecor} We say that $U(\cdot)$ is *jointly progressively measurable* if for every $s\leq t$ the mapping $(s,{\omega},z)\mapsto U({\omega},z)_s$ is ${\mathscr{B}}([0,t])\otimes{\mathscr{F}}_t\otimes{\mathscr{B}}({\mathscr{S}})$-measurable.
[(iii)]{.nodecor} We say that $U(\cdot)$ is *jointly optional* if it is ${\mathscr{O}}\otimes{\mathscr{B}}({\mathscr{S}})$-measurable, ${\mathscr{O}}$ denoting the optional ${\sigma}$-algebra on $[0,T]\times{\Omega}$.
[(iv)]{.nodecor} We say that $U(\cdot)$ is *jointly predictable* if it is ${\mathscr{P}}\otimes{\mathscr{B}}({\mathscr{S}})$-measurable, ${\mathscr{P}}$ denoting the predictable ${\sigma}$-algebra on $[0,T]\times{\Omega}$.
Let $U(z)$ be a stochastic process for every $z\in{\mathscr{S}}$. If there exists a jointly measurable (or jointly progressively measurable, or jointly optional or jointly predictable) mapping $(t,{\omega},z)\mapsto Y({\omega},z)_t$ such that, for every $z\in{\mathscr{S}}$ the processes $U(z)$ and $Y(z)$ are indistinguishable, we identify them in notation, i.e. $U(\cdot):=Y(\cdot)$. We shall use this convention without further mention.
\[prop:poi.br.com\] Let $U(z)$ be a square integrable martingale for every $z\in{\mathscr{S}}$ and let the estimate $\sup_{z\in{\mathscr{S}}}{\mathbb{E}}[|U(z)_T|{^}2]<+\infty$ hold.
[(i)]{.nodecor} If $z\mapsto U({\omega},z)_t$ is ${\mathscr{B}}({\mathscr{S}})$-measurable for every $t\in[0,T]$, the process $U=(U_t)_{t\in[0,T]}$, $$\label{eq:proc.U}
U_t:=\int_{\mathscr{S}}U(z)_t{\zeta}({\mathrm{d}}z),\quad t\in[0,T],$$ is a square integrable martingale, provided that it is adapted.
[(ii)]{.nodecor} For every complex-valued square integrable martingale $Z$ such that $(t,{\omega},z)\mapsto{\ensuremath{\langle Z,U(z) \rangle}}_t({\omega})$ is jointly measurable, the mapping $(t,{\omega},z)\mapsto {\mathrm{Var}}({\ensuremath{\langle Z,U(z) \rangle}})_t({\omega})$ is jointly measurable as well and $$\label{eq:est.var}
{\mathbb{E}}\left[\int_{\mathscr{S}}{\mathrm{Var}}({\ensuremath{\langle Z,U(z) \rangle}})_t|{\zeta}|({\mathrm{d}}z)\right]\leq2{\mathbb{E}}\big[|Z_T|{^}2\big]{^}{1/2}\left(\sup_{z\in{\mathscr{S}}} {\mathbb{E}}\big[|U(z)_T|{^}2\big]\right){^}{1/2}|{\zeta}|({\mathscr{S}})<+\infty.$$
If furthermore the process $D:=\int_{\mathscr{S}}{\ensuremath{\langle Z,U(z) \rangle}}{\zeta}({\mathrm{d}}z)$ is predictable, then $$\label{eq:com.ZU}
{\ensuremath{\langle Z,U \rangle}}=\int_{\mathscr{S}}{\ensuremath{\langle Z,U(z) \rangle}}{\zeta}({\mathrm{d}}z),$$ whenever the process $U$ defined in is a square integrable martingale.
[(iii)]{.nodecor} If there exists a complex-valued jointly progressively measurable process $K(\cdot)$ such that $${\ensuremath{\langle Z,U(z) \rangle}}_t=\int_0{^}t K(z)_s{\mathrm{d}}s\,,$$ then the identity $$\label{eq:ch.in}
D=\int_0{^}\cdot\int_{\mathscr{S}}K(z)_s {\zeta}({\mathrm{d}}z){\mathrm{d}}s$$ holds. Hence $D$ is predictable and $$\label{eq:est.pb.ass.con.as}
{\ensuremath{\langle Z,U \rangle}}=\int_0{^}\cdot\int_{\mathscr{S}}K(z)_s{\zeta}({\mathrm{d}}z){\mathrm{d}}s,$$ whenever $U$ is well-defined and adapted.
To see (i) we assume that $U$ is well-defined and adapted and verify the martingale property and the square integrability. From $${\mathbb{E}}\big[|U_t|{^}2\big]\leq\left(\int_{\mathscr{S}}{\mathbb{E}}\big[|U(z)_t|{^}2\big]|{\zeta}|({\mathrm{d}}z)\right){^}{1/2}\Big(|{\zeta}|({\mathscr{S}})\Big){^}{1/2}\leq\left(\sup_{z\in{\mathscr{S}}} {\mathbb{E}}\big[|U(z)_T|{^}2\big]\right){^}{1/2}|{\zeta}|({\mathscr{S}})<+\infty$$ we deduce the square integrability of $U$. Furthermore we can apply Fubini’s theorem to get $${\mathbb{E}}[U_t|{\mathscr{F}}_s]=\int_{\mathscr{S}}{\mathbb{E}}\left[U(z)_t|{\mathscr{F}}_s\right]\zeta({\mathrm{d}}z)=U_s\quad \textnormal{a.s.},\quad 0\leq s\leq t\leq T,$$ and this completes the proof of (i). We now verify (ii). The joint measurability of ${\mathrm{Var}}({\ensuremath{\langle Z,U(\cdot) \rangle}})$ follows from the joint measurability of ${\ensuremath{\langle Z,U(\cdot) \rangle}}$ and from the definition of variation process. To prove observe that Tonelli’s theorem, Kunita–Watanabe inequality and ${\mathbb{E}}[{\ensuremath{\langle X,\overline X \rangle}}_t]\leq{\mathbb{E}}[|X{^}2_t|]$, $t\geq0$, for every complex-valued square integrable martingale $X$, imply $$\begin{split}
{\mathbb{E}}\left[\int_{\mathscr{S}}{\mathrm{Var}}({\ensuremath{\langle Z,U(z) \rangle}})_t|{\zeta}|({\mathrm{d}}z)\right]&=\int_{\mathscr{S}}{\mathbb{E}}\big[{\mathrm{Var}}({\ensuremath{\langle Z,U(z) \rangle}})_t\big]|{\zeta}|({\mathrm{d}}z)
\\&\leq\sup_{z\in{\mathscr{S}}} {\mathbb{E}}\big[{\mathrm{Var}}({\ensuremath{\langle Z,U(z) \rangle}})_t\big]|{\zeta}|({\mathscr{S}})
\\&\leq
2{\mathbb{E}}\big[|Z_T|{^}2\big]{^}{1/2}\left(\sup_{z\in{\mathscr{S}}} {\mathbb{E}}\big[|U(z)_T|{^}2\big]\right){^}{1/2}|{\zeta}|({\mathscr{S}})<+\infty.
\end{split}$$ This proves . To see , because of we can apply Fubini’s theorem. From (i), for $ 0\leq s\leq t\leq T$, we compute $$\begin{split}
{\mathbb{E}}[Z_tU_t-D_t|{\mathscr{F}}_s]&=\int_{\mathscr{S}}{\mathbb{E}}[Z_tU(z)_t-{\ensuremath{\langle Z,U(z) \rangle}}_t|{\mathscr{F}}_s]{\zeta}({\mathrm{d}}z)\\&=\int_{\mathscr{S}}\big(Z_sU(z)_s-{\ensuremath{\langle Z,U(z) \rangle}}_s\big){\zeta}({\mathrm{d}}z)\\&=Z_sU_s-D_s,
\end{split}$$ which is because $D$ is a predictable process of finite variation starting at zero such that $ZU-D$ is a martingale. Finally, we show (iii). First we notice that the mapping $(s,{\omega})\mapsto\int_{\mathscr{S}}K({\omega},z)_s{\zeta}({\mathrm{d}}z)$ is ${\mathscr{B}}([0,t])\otimes{\mathscr{F}}_t$-measurable, for $s\leq t$, that is, it is a progressively measurable process. Therefore, the stochastic process $\int_0{^}\cdot\int_{\mathscr{S}}K(z)_s{\zeta}({\mathrm{d}}z){\mathrm{d}}s$ is adapted and continuous, hence predictable. Furthermore, the mapping $({\omega},z)\mapsto\int_0{^}t K(z)_s {\mathrm{d}}s$ is ${\mathscr{F}}_t\otimes{\mathscr{B}}({\mathscr{S}})$-measurable. Therefore $D=\int_{\mathscr{S}}\int_0{^}\cdot K(z)_s {\mathrm{d}}s {\zeta}({\mathrm{d}}z)$ is an adapted process. We now observe that, because of and (ii), the estimation $$\label{eq:est.Y}
\int_0{^}t |K(z)_s|{\mathrm{d}}s\leq {\mathrm{Var}}({\ensuremath{\langle Z,U(z) \rangle}})_T$$ holds. From and , we then have $${\mathbb{E}}\left[\int_{\mathscr{S}}\int_0{^}t |K(z)_s|{\mathrm{d}}s|{\zeta}|({\mathrm{d}}z)\right]\leq {\mathbb{E}}\left[\int_{\mathscr{S}}{\mathrm{Var}}({\ensuremath{\langle Z,U(z) \rangle}})_T|{\zeta}|({\mathrm{d}}z)\right]<+\infty.$$ Hence, applying Fubini’s theorem we deduce $$\label{eq:pred.con.mod}
\int_{\mathscr{S}}\int_0{^}t K(z)_s{\mathrm{d}}s{\zeta}({\mathrm{d}}z)=\int_0{^}t\int_{\mathscr{S}}K(z)_s{\zeta}({\mathrm{d}}z){\mathrm{d}}s,\quad \textnormal{a.s., }\quad t\in[0,T].$$ By , because from the mapping $({\omega},z)\mapsto {\mathrm{Var}}({\ensuremath{\langle Z,U(z) \rangle}})_T({\omega})$ belongs to $L{^}1(|{\zeta}|)$ a. s., an application of Lebesgue’s theorem on dominated convergence now yields that the left-hand side of is a. s. continuous. Hence, identifying $D$ with a continuous version, we can claim the $D$ and $\int_0{^}\cdot\int_{\mathscr{S}}K(z)_s{\zeta}({\mathrm{d}}z){\mathrm{d}}s$ are indistinguishable. In particular, the process $D$ of (ii) is predictable, because it is continuous and adapted. From (ii), we get . The proof of the proposition is now complete.
We remark that a sufficient condition for the process $U$ in Proposition \[prop:poi.br.com\] to be well defined and adapted is the joint progressive measurability of the mapping $U(\cdot)$.
We conclude this subsection with the following lemma:
\[lem:joi.pred.int.fv\] Let $K(\cdot)$ be a jointly predictable complex-valued mapping and $A$ a predictable increasing process. Let $\int{^}T|K({\omega},z)_s|{\mathrm{d}}A_s({\omega})<+\infty$ a. s. Then the mapping $(t,{\omega},z)\mapsto\int_0{^}t K({\omega},z)_s{\mathrm{d}}A_s({\omega})$ is jointly predictable.
Let $f:{\mathscr{S}}\longrightarrow{\mathbb{R}}$ be a ${\mathscr{B}}({\mathscr{S}})$-measurable bounded real-valued function and let $K(\cdot)$ be of the form $K(t,{\omega},z)=f(z)k_t$, where $k$ is a bounded real-valued predictable process. Let ${\mathscr{C}}$ denote the class of all real-valued predictable processes of this form. Then, by [@JS00 Proposition I.3.5], for any $K(\cdot)\in{\mathscr{C}}$, the mapping $(t,{\omega},z)\mapsto\int_0{^}tK(z,{\omega})_s{\mathrm{d}}A_s({\omega})$ is jointly predictable. If now $K(\cdot)$ is real-valued and bounded, by the monotone class theorem (see [@HWY92 Theorem 1.4]), it is easy to see that the mapping $(t,{\omega},z)\mapsto\int_0{^}tK(z,{\omega})_s{\mathrm{d}}A_s({\omega})$ is jointly predictable. Now it is a standard procedure to get the claim for every $K(\cdot)$ which is real-valued and integrable with respect to $A$. The case of a complex-valued integrable $K(\cdot)$ follows immediately from this latter one and the proof of the lemma is complete.
Fourier representation of the GKW-decomposition {#subsec:four.met}
-----------------------------------------------
Let $X$ be a factor process taking values in ${\mathbb{R}}{^}n$. We assume that there exist an $R\in{\mathbb{R}}{^}n$ such that ${\mathbb{E}}[\exp(2R{^}\top X_T)]<\infty$ and define the ‘strip’ ${\mathscr{S}}:=\{z\in{\mathbb{C}}{^}n: {\mathrm{Re}}(z)=R\}$. A square integrable European option is given and its pay-off is ${\eta}=h({X_T})$ for some real-valued function $h$ with domain in ${\mathbb{R}}{^}n$. We assume that the two-sided Laplace transform $\widetilde{h}$ of $h$ exists in $R$ and that it is integrable on ${\mathscr{S}}$. Then $h$ has the following representation $$\label{eq:rep.fourier}
h(x)=\frac1{(2\pi\,{\mathrm{i}}){^}n}\,\int_{R-{\mathrm{i}}\,\infty}{^}{R+{\mathrm{i}}\,\infty}\exp(\,z{^}\top x)\widetilde h(z){\mathrm{d}}z=\int_{\mathscr{S}}\exp(\,z{^}\top x){\zeta}({\mathrm{d}}z)\,,$$ where ${\zeta}$ is the complex-valued non-atomic finite measure on ${\mathscr{S}}$ defined by $$\label{eq:meas.zet}
{\zeta}({\mathrm{d}}z):=\frac1{(2\pi\,{\mathrm{i}}){^}n}\,\widetilde h(z)\,{\mathrm{d}}z\,.$$
For each $z\in{\mathscr{S}}$, the process $H(z)=(H(z)_t)_{t\in[0,T]}$ defined by $H(z)_t:={\mathbb{E}}[\exp(z{^}\top X_T)|{\mathscr{F}}_t]$ is a square integrable *complex-valued* martingale. Analogously $H=(H_t)_{t\in[0,T]}$, $H_t:={\mathbb{E}}[{\eta}|{\mathscr{F}}_t]$, is a square integrable martingale. We recall that we always consider [càdlàg ]{}martingales.
We now make the following assumption which will be in force throughout this section.
\[ass:joi.prog\] The mapping $(t,{\omega},z)\mapsto H({\omega},z)_t$ is jointly progressively measurable.
Under Assumption \[ass:joi.prog\] we can show the following result:
\[prop:H.mart\] The estimate $\sup_{z\in{\mathscr{S}}}{\mathbb{E}}[|H(z)_t|{^}2]<+\infty$ holds. Furthermore, under Assumption \[ass:joi.prog\], the process $\widetilde H_t:=\int_{\mathscr{S}}H(z)_t {\zeta}({\mathrm{d}}z)$ is a square integrable martingale which is indistinguishable from $H$ and hence the identity $$\label{eq:rep.Hz}
H_t=\int_{\mathscr{S}}H(z)_t{\zeta}({\mathrm{d}}z)$$ holds.
From $$\sup_{z\in{\mathscr{S}}}|H(z)_t|{^}2\leq H(2R)_t\in L{^}1({\mathbb{P}}),\quad t\in[0,T]$$ we get the first part of the proposition. By Assumption \[ass:joi.prog\] and Proposition \[prop:poi.br.com\], (i), the process $\widetilde H$ is a square integrable martingale. To see , we recall that $H$ and $\widetilde H$ are martingales (hence càdlàg) and clearly modifications of each other. Therefore they are indistinguishable and the proof of the proposition is complete.
Let $S$ describe the price process of some traded asset. We assume that $S$ is a strictly positive square integrable martingale starting at $S_0>0$. We now consider the GKW-decomposition of $H$ and $H(z)$ with respect to $S$, that is $$\label{eq:gkw dec.H.Hz}
H=H_0+\vartheta\cdot S+L\,,\qquad H(z)=H(z)_0+\vartheta(z)\cdot S+L(z)\,, \quad z\in{\mathscr{S}}\,,$$ where $\vartheta\in {\mathrm{L}}{^}2(S)$, $\vartheta(z)\in{\mathrm{L}}{^}2_{\mathbb{C}}(S)$, $L\in{\mathscr{H}}{^}2_0$ and $L(z)$ is a complex-valued square integrable martingale $z\in{\mathscr{S}}$. By definition of the GKW-decomposition, $L$ and $L(z)$ are orthogonal to $S$.
\[thm:hed.err\] Let $H$ and $H(z)$ be defined as above and let their respective GKW-decomposition be given by . Let Assumption \[ass:joi.prog\] hold and the mapping $(t,{\omega},z)\mapsto\vartheta({\omega},z)_t$ be jointly predictable. Then the identities $$\begin{aligned}
&\vartheta=\int_{\mathscr{S}}\vartheta(z){\zeta}({\mathrm{d}}z)\label{eq:hed.str}\,;
\\&
\Big(\int_{\mathscr{S}}\vartheta(z)\zeta({\mathrm{d}}z)\Big) \cdot S=\int_{\mathscr{S}}\big(\vartheta(z)\cdot S\big)\zeta({\mathrm{d}}z)\label{eq:stoc.fub}\,;
\\&L=\int_{\mathscr{S}}L(z){\zeta}({\mathrm{d}}z)\label{eq:hed.error}\end{aligned}$$ hold. In particular the GKW-decomposition of $H$ is $$\label{eq:gkw.eu.op}
H=H_0+\Big(\int_{\mathscr{S}}\vartheta(z)\zeta({\mathrm{d}}z)\Big) \cdot S+\int_{\mathscr{S}}L(z){\zeta}({\mathrm{d}}z)\,.$$
In a nutshell, this theorem shows that the Fourier representation of a claim and its GKW-decomposition can be interchanged under very general conditions. In other words, the GKW-decomposition of the claim can be obtained by integrating the GKW-decomposition of the conditional moment generating function $H(z)_t$ in a suitable complex domain ${\mathscr{S}}$ against the measure ${\zeta}$ that determines the claim via .
First we show . Clearly $\vartheta(z)\cdot{\ensuremath{\langle S,S \rangle}}_T({\omega})<+\infty$ a. s. Hence, because of $${\ensuremath{\langle S,H(z) \rangle}}_t({\omega})=\int_0{^}t\vartheta({\omega},z)_s{\mathrm{d}}{\ensuremath{\langle S,S \rangle}}_s({\omega}),$$ from Lemma \[lem:joi.pred.int.fv\], $(t,{\omega},z)\mapsto{\ensuremath{\langle S,H(z) \rangle}}_t({\omega})$ is jointly predictable. So $\int_{\mathscr{S}}{\ensuremath{\langle S,H(z) \rangle}}{\zeta}({\mathrm{d}}z)$ is a predictable process. Proposition \[prop:poi.br.com\] (ii) and Proposition \[prop:H.mart\] yield $$\label{eq:rep.pb.SH}
{\ensuremath{\langle S,H \rangle}}=\int_{\mathscr{S}}{\ensuremath{\langle S,H(z) \rangle}}{\zeta}({\mathrm{d}}z)=\int_{\mathscr{S}}\int_0{^}\cdot\vartheta(z)_s{\mathrm{d}}{\ensuremath{\langle S,S \rangle}}_s{\zeta}({\mathrm{d}}z).$$ Furthermore, for every $z\in{\mathscr{S}}$, the identity $${\mathbb{E}}[|H(z)_t|{^}2]={\mathbb{E}}[|\vartheta(z)\cdot S_t|{^}2+|L(z)_t|{^}2+|H(z)_0|{^}2]$$ holds. Hence we can estimate $$\label{eq:est.GKW.hz}
{\mathbb{E}}[|\vartheta(z)\cdot S_t|{^}2]\leq {\mathbb{E}}[|H(z)_t|{^}2]\,,\qquad{\mathbb{E}}[|L(z)_t|{^}2]\leq {\mathbb{E}}[|H(z)_t|{^}2],\quad z\in{\mathscr{S}},\quad t\geq0,$$ which, from Proposition \[prop:H.mart\], imply $$\label{eq:est.GKW.hz.sup}
\sup_{z\in{\mathscr{S}}}{\mathbb{E}}\left[|\vartheta(z)\cdot S_t|{^}2\right]<+\infty\,,\qquad \sup_{z\in{\mathscr{S}}}{\mathbb{E}}\left[|L(z)_t|{^}2\right]<+\infty.$$ Because of $$\label{eq:int.thtz.inL2}
\begin{split}
{\mathbb{E}}\left[\int_0{^}T\int_{\mathscr{S}}|\vartheta(z)_t|{^}2|\zeta|({\mathrm{d}}z){\mathrm{d}}{\ensuremath{\langle S,S \rangle}}_t\right]
&=\int_{\mathscr{S}}{\mathbb{E}}\left[\int_0{^}T|\vartheta(z)_t|{^}2{\mathrm{d}}{\ensuremath{\langle S,S \rangle}}_t\right]|\zeta|({\mathrm{d}}z)
\\&
=\int_{\mathscr{S}}{\mathbb{E}}\left[|\vartheta(z) \cdot{S}_T|{^}2\right]|\zeta|({\mathrm{d}}z)
<\infty,
\end{split}$$ where in the last estimation we applied , Fubini’s theorem and yield $$\int_0{^}\cdot\int_{\mathscr{S}}\vartheta(z)_s\zeta({\mathrm{d}}z){\mathrm{d}}{\ensuremath{\langle S,S \rangle}}_s={\ensuremath{\langle S,H \rangle}},$$ which, since $\vartheta={\mathrm{d}}{\ensuremath{\langle S,H \rangle}}/{\mathrm{d}}{\ensuremath{\langle S,S \rangle}}$, proves . Now we show . Because of , the predictable process $$\int_{\mathscr{S}}\vartheta(z){\zeta}({\mathrm{d}}z)=\int_{\mathscr{S}}\vartheta(z)h(z)|{\zeta}|({\mathrm{d}}z)$$ belongs to $L{^}2(S)$, where $h$, with $|h|=1$, is the density of ${\zeta}$ with respect to $|{\zeta}|$. From [@StYo78 Theorem 1 in §5.2], there exists a jointly optional mapping $(t,{\omega},z)\mapsto\widetilde Y({\omega},z)_t$ such that $\widetilde Y(z)$ is indistinguishable from $\vartheta(z)\cdot S$, for every $z\in{\mathscr{S}}$. Hence we can apply [@J79 Theorem 5.44], to deduce that the process $Y{^}{\zeta}:=\int_{\mathscr{S}}\big(\vartheta(z)\cdot S\big){\zeta}({\mathrm{d}}z)$ is well defined and a version of $$\vartheta\cdot S=\int_0{^}\cdot\left(\int_{\mathscr{S}}\vartheta(z)_s\zeta({\mathrm{d}}z)\right){\mathrm{d}}S_s,$$ and we do not distinguish these versions. This proves . In the next step we show . From , for every $z\in{\mathscr{S}}$, we get the identity $$\label{eq:Lz.rew}
L(z)_t= H(z)_t-H(z)_0-\vartheta(z)\cdot S_t=H(z)_t-H(z)_0-\widetilde Y(z)_t,\quad\textnormal{ a.s., }\ t\geq0.$$ We can therefore integrate with respect to ${\zeta}$, obtaining $$\widetilde L_t:=\int_{\mathscr{S}}\big(H(z)_t-H(z)_0-\vartheta(z)\cdot S_t\big){\zeta}({\mathrm{d}}z)=H_t-H_0-\vartheta\cdot S_t=L_t,\quad\textnormal{ a.s., }\ t\geq0.$$ Hence $\widetilde L$ is a version of $L$ and therefore ${\mathbb{F}}$-adapted (because ${\mathbb{F}}$ is complete). From we can apply Proposition \[prop:poi.br.com\] (i), to deduce that $\widetilde L$ is a martingale. Hence, $L$ and $\widetilde L$ are indistinguishable. The proof of the theorem is now complete.
In the proposition below, the set of parameters is ${\mathscr{S}}:={\mathscr{S}}{^}1\times{\mathscr{S}}{^}2$, where ${\mathscr{S}}{^}1$ and ${\mathscr{S}}{^}2$ are two strips of ${\mathbb{C}}{^}n$. Hence all joint measurability properties (see Definition \[def:joi.mea\]) are formulated with respect to the ${\sigma}$-algebra ${\mathscr{B}}({\mathscr{S}})={\mathscr{B}}({\mathscr{S}}{^}1)\otimes{\mathscr{B}}({\mathscr{S}}{^}2)$.
\[thm:pred.cov.mixt\] Let ${\mathscr{S}}{^}j:=\{z\in{\mathbb{C}}^n: {\mathrm{Re}}(z)=R^j\}$ with ${\mathbb{E}}[\exp(2(R{^}j){^}\top X_T)]<+\infty$ and let ${\eta}{^}j$ have the representation on the strip ${\mathscr{S}}{^}j$ with respect to the measure ${\zeta}{^}j$ (cf. ); let $L{^}j$ denote the orthogonal component in the GKW decomposition of $H{^}j=\big({\mathbb{E}}[{\eta}{^}j|{\mathscr{F}}_t]\big)_{t\in[0,T]}$ with respect to $S$, for $j=1,2$.
[(i)]{.nodecor} If the mapping $(t,{\omega},z_1,z_2)\mapsto{\ensuremath{\langle L(z_1),L(z_2) \rangle}}_t({\omega})$ is jointly measurable then $(t,{\omega},z_1,z_2)\mapsto{\mathrm{Var}}({\ensuremath{\langle L(z_1),L(z_2) \rangle}})_t({\omega})$ is jointly measurable as well and $$\label{eq:joi.bb.var}\begin{split}
{\mathbb{E}}\bigg[\int_{{\mathscr{S}}{^}1}\int_{{\mathscr{S}}{^}2}&{\mathrm{Var}}({\ensuremath{\langle L(z_1),L(z_2) \rangle}})_T|{\zeta}{^}2|({\mathrm{d}}z_2)|{\zeta}{^}1|({\mathrm{d}}z_1)\bigg]<+\infty
\end{split}$$ holds. Moreover, if the process $D:=\int_{{\mathscr{S}}{^}1}\int_{{\mathscr{S}}{^}2}{\ensuremath{\langle L(z_1),L(z_2) \rangle}}{\zeta}{^}2({\mathrm{d}}z_2){\zeta}{^}1({\mathrm{d}}z_1)$ is predictable, the covariation of the square integrable martingales $L{^}1$ and $L{^}2$ is given by $$\label{eq:joi.pg}
{\ensuremath{\langle L{^}1,L{^}2 \rangle}}=\int_{{\mathscr{S}}{^}1}\int_{{\mathscr{S}}{^}2}{\ensuremath{\langle L(z_1),L(z_2) \rangle}}{\zeta}{^}2({\mathrm{d}}z_2){\zeta}{^}1({\mathrm{d}}z_1)\,.$$ and hence $$\label{eq:joi.pb.exp}
{\mathbb{E}}[{\ensuremath{\langle L{^}1,L{^}2 \rangle}}_T]=\int_{{\mathscr{S}}{^}1}\int_{{\mathscr{S}}{^}2}{\mathbb{E}}[{\ensuremath{\langle L(z_1),L(z_2) \rangle}}_T]{\zeta}{^}2({\mathrm{d}}z_2){\zeta}{^}1({\mathrm{d}}z_1)\,.$$
[(ii)]{.nodecor} If furthermore there exists a jointly progressively measurable complex-valued stochastic process $K(z_1,z_2)=K{^}1(z_1,z_2)+{\mathrm{i}}K{^}2(z_1,z_2)$ such that $${\ensuremath{\langle L(z_1),L(z_2) \rangle}}=\int_0{^}\cdot K(z_1,z_2)_s{\mathrm{d}}s,$$ then the identity $$\label{eq:for.pb.gen}
{\ensuremath{\langle L{^}1,L{^}2 \rangle}}=\int_0{^}\cdot\int_{{\mathscr{S}}{^}1}\int_{{\mathscr{S}}{^}2}K(z_1,z_2)_s{\zeta}{^}2({\mathrm{d}}z_2){\zeta}{^}1({\mathrm{d}}z_1){\mathrm{d}}s$$ holds and $$\label{eq:for.pb.gen.exp}
{\mathbb{E}}[{\ensuremath{\langle L{^}1,L{^}2 \rangle}}_T]=\int_0{^}T\int_{{\mathscr{S}}{^}1}\int_{{\mathscr{S}}{^}2}{\mathbb{E}}[K(z_1,z_2)_s]{\zeta}{^}2({\mathrm{d}}z_2){\zeta}{^}1({\mathrm{d}}z_1){\mathrm{d}}s.$$
From , we have $L{^}j=\int_{{\mathscr{S}}{^}j}L(z_j){\zeta}{^}j({\mathrm{d}}z_j)$, $j=1,2$. Furthermore, the estimation holds with both ${\mathscr{S}}={\mathscr{S}}{^}1$ and ${\mathscr{S}}={\mathscr{S}}{^}2$. Hence, to prove this theorem one has to proceed exactly as in Proposition \[prop:poi.br.com\] and we omit further details.
We now combine in a theorem the results obtained in this section with those of Section \[sec:sem.quad\] (for complex valued semimartingales).
\[thm:comsec3.sec4\] Let the factor process $X$ be a locally square integrable semimartingale and $S={\mathrm{e}}{^}{X{^}1}$ be a square integrable martingale.
[(i)]{.nodecor} Let $f:[0,T]\times{\mathbb{R}}{^}n\times{\mathscr{S}}{^}j \longrightarrow{\mathbb{C}}$ be a ${\mathscr{B}}([0,T])\otimes{\mathscr{B}}({\mathbb{R}}{^}n)\otimes{\mathscr{B}}({\mathscr{S}})$ measurable function with $f\in C{^}{1,2}([0,T]\times{\mathbb{R}}{^}n)$, such that $H(z)_t=f(t,X_t{^}1,\ldots,X{^}n,z)$.
[(ii)]{.nodecor} Let ${\eta}{^}j=h{^}j(S_T)$ be an European option such that $h{^}j$ is a function with representation as in and over ${\mathscr{S}}{^}j$, $j=1,2$.
Then the assumptions of Proposition \[prop:poi.br.com\], Theorem \[thm:hed.err\] and Theorem \[thm:pred.cov.mixt\] (i) hold.
The joint progressively measurability of $H(\cdot)$ is clear because of the assumption (i) in the theorem. The joint predictability of $\vartheta(\cdot)$ follows from Theorem \[thm:poi.br.res.smar\], in particular from . Hence the assumptions of Theorem \[thm:hed.err\] are satisfied. We define for $z\in{\mathscr{S}}{^}j$ and $j=1,2$, $f{^}j(\cdot,z):=f(\cdot,z_j)$ and $$\label{eq:proc.Wz}
\begin{split}
W{^}j(t,{\omega},x_1,\ldots,x_n,z)&:=W (t,{\omega},x_1,\ldots,x_n,z_j):=\\&f(t,x_1+X{^}1_{t-}({\omega}),\ldots,x_n+X{^}n_{t-}({\omega}),z_j)-f(t,X{^}1_{t-}({\omega}),\ldots,X{^}n_{t-}({\omega}),z_j).
\end{split}$$ The mapping $(t,{\omega},x_1,\ldots,x_n,z_j)\mapsto W(t,{\omega},x_1,\ldots,x_n,z_j)$ is ${\mathscr{P}}\otimes{\mathscr{B}}({\mathbb{R}}{^}n)\otimes{\mathscr{B}}({\mathscr{S}}{^}j)$-measurable. So, from , we deduce that the mapping $(t,{\omega},z_1,z_2)\mapsto{\ensuremath{\langle L(z_1),L(z_2) \rangle}}_t({\omega})$ is jointly predictable and hence it is jointly measurable. This yields the predictability of the process $D$ defined in Theorem \[thm:pred.cov.mixt\]. Hence all the assumptions of Theorem \[thm:pred.cov.mixt\], (i) are fulfilled. The proof of the theorem in now complete.
Variance-Optimal Hedging in Affine Stochastic Volatility Models {#subs:vo.smar.mod}
---------------------------------------------------------------
We now more closely discuss the case in which $(X,V):=(X{^}1,X{^}2)$ is an affine process and a semimartingale. An affine process $(X,V)$ in the sense of [@DFS03] is a stochastically continuous Markov process taking values in ${\mathbb{R}}\times{\mathbb{R}}_+$ such that the joint conditional characteristic function of $(X_t,V_t)$ is of the form $$\label{eq:char.fun.aff.pr}
{\mathbb{E}}\big[\exp( u_1X_t+ u_2V_t)|{\mathscr{F}}_s\big]=\exp\big(\phi_{t-s}(u_1,u_2)+\psi_{t-s}(u_1,u_2)V_s+u_1X_s\big),\quad s\leq t$$ where $(u_1,u_2)\in{\mathrm{i}}{\mathbb{R}}{^}2$. The complex-valued functions $\phi_t$ and $\psi_t$ are the solutions of the *generalized Riccati equations*
$$\begin{aligned}
\partial_t\phi_t(u_1,u_2) &= F((\psi_t(u_1,u_2),u_2)),\quad\phi_0(u_1,u_2)=0, \label{eq:ex.Ri.eq.phi} \\
\partial_t\psi_t(u_1,u_2) &= R((\psi_t(u_1,u_2),u_2)),\quad\psi_0(u_1,u_2)=u_2,\label{eq:ex.Ri.eq.psi}\end{aligned}$$
where $(F,R)$ are the Lévy symbols associated with the Lévy triplets $({\beta}{^}0,{\gamma}{^}0,\kappa{^}0)$ and $({\beta}{^}1,{\gamma}{^}1,\kappa{^}1)$ respectively. That is, setting $ u:=(u_1,u_2){^}\top$ and considering only Markov processes without killing, we have $$\begin{aligned}
F(u) &:= u{^}\top{\beta}{^}0+\frac12 u{^}\top{\gamma}{^}0 u+\int_{{\mathbb{R}}_+\times{\mathbb{R}}}\big({\mathrm{e}}{^}{ u{^}\top x}-1- u{^}\top h(x_1,x_2)\big)\kappa{^}0({\mathrm{d}}x),\\
R(u) &:= u{^}\top{\beta}{^}1+\frac12 u{^}\top{\gamma}{^}1 u+\int_{{\mathbb{R}}_+\times{\mathbb{R}}}\big({\mathrm{e}}{^}{ u{^}\top x}-1- u{^}\top h(x_1,x_2)\big)\kappa{^}1({\mathrm{d}}x).\end{aligned}$$ Under a mild non-explosion condition, affine processes are semimartingales with absolutely continuous characteristics (cf. [@DFS03 Sec. 9]) and according to [@KalMV11 §3], the differential characteristics $(b,c,K)$ are given by $$b_t= \begin{bmatrix}
{\beta}_1{^}0+{\beta}_1{^}1 V_{t-}\\[.5em]
{\beta}{^}0_2+{\beta}_1{^}2 V_{t-}
\end{bmatrix},\quad
c_t=\begin{bmatrix}
{\gamma}{^}0_{11}+{\gamma}{^}1_{11}V_{t-}&{\gamma}{^}1_{12}V_{t-}\\[.5em]
{\gamma}{^}1_{12}V_{t-}&{\gamma}{^}1_{22}V_{t-}
\end{bmatrix}
,\quad
K_t({\omega},{\mathrm{d}}x)=\kappa{^}0({\mathrm{d}}x)+\kappa{^}1({\mathrm{d}}x)V_{t-}({\omega}),$$ where ${\beta}{^}i$ belongs to ${\mathbb{R}}{^}2$, ${\gamma}{^}i$ is a symmetric matrix in ${\mathbb{R}}{^}{2\times2}$ and $\kappa{^}i$ is a Lévy measure on ${\mathbb{R}}{^}2$ with support in ${\mathbb{R}}_+\times{\mathbb{R}}$, $i=0,1$. Furthermore, ${\gamma}{^}0_{22}={\gamma}{^}0_{12}=0$; ${\beta}{^}0_2-\int_{{\mathbb{R}}_+\times{\mathbb{R}}}h{^}2(x_2)\kappa_0({\mathrm{d}}x)$ is well-defined and nonnegative (we recall that we define $h(x_1,x_2):=(h{^}1(x_1),h{^}2(x_2)):=(x_11_{\{|x_1|\leq1\}},x_21_{\{|x_2|\leq1\}})$) and we assume $\int_{\{x_2>1\}}x_2\kappa{^}1({\mathrm{d}}x)<+\infty$, to rule out explosion in finite time (cf. [@DFS03 Lem. 9.2]).
We now deduce some of the results of [@KalP07] from the theory that we have developed. Assume that $(X,V)$ is locally square integrable and that ${\mathrm{e}}{^}{zX_T}$ is square integrable for every $z$ in a given complex strip ${\mathscr{S}}=\{z\in{\mathbb{C}}: z=R+{\mathrm{i}}{\mathrm{Im}}(z)\}$. Moreover, assume that $S={\mathrm{e}}{^}X$ is a square integrable martingale. In this case, $F(1,0)=R(1,0)=0$, where $F$ and $R$ denote the Lévy symbols associated with the Lévy triplets $({\beta}{^}0,{\gamma}{^}0,\kappa{^}0)$ and $({\beta}{^}1,{\gamma}{^}1,\kappa{^}1)$ respectively. Because of the affine property, $H(z)$ takes the form $$H(z)_t={\mathrm{e}}{^}{zX_t}\exp\big(\phi_{T-t}(z,0)+\psi_{T-t}(z,0)V_t\big),\quad z\in{\mathscr{S}}.$$ Hence, $f(t,x,v,z)={\mathrm{e}}{^}{zx}\exp\big(\phi_{T-t}(z,0)+\psi_{T-t}(z,0)v\big)$, so that $$\label{eq:f.aff}
\partial_{x} f(t,x,v,z)=zf(t,x,v,z),\qquad\partial_{v} f(t,x,v,z)=\psi_{T-t}(z,0)f(t,x,v,z) .$$ The process $W$ in is now given by $W(t,x,v,z)=H(z)_{t-}(\exp(zx+\psi_{T-t}(z,0)v)-1)$. The process $\xi$ of Corollary \[cor:poi.br.res.smar.abs.con\] becomes
$$\label{eq:proc.xi}
\xi_t=\xi{^}0+\xi{^}1V_{t-},\qquad
\xi{^}i:={\gamma}{^}i_{11}+\int_E({\mathrm{e}}{^}{x}-1){^}2\kappa{^}i({\mathrm{d}}x),\quad i=0,1.$$
We notice that now $\xi{^}i$ are constant in time, $i=0,1$. Furthermore, setting $$\label{eq:def.p.aff}
p{^}i:=z{\gamma}{^}i_{11}+\psi_{T-t}(z,0){\gamma}{^}i_{12}+\int_E\big(\exp(zx+\psi_{T-t}(z,0)v)-1\big)\big({\mathrm{e}}{^}{x}-1\big)\kappa{^}i({\mathrm{d}}x),\quad i=0,1,$$ from , we deduce $$\label{eq:thtz.aff}
\vartheta(z)_t=\frac{H(z)_{t-}}{S_{t-}}\frac{p{^}0+p{^}1V_{t-}}{\xi{^}0+\xi{^}1 V_{t-}}$$ which is [@KalP07 Lemma 5.2]. Furthermore, from Theorems \[thm:hed.err\] and \[thm:comsec3.sec4\], the integrand $\vartheta$ in the GKW decomposition of $H$ with respect to $S$ is given by $$\vartheta_t=\int_{\mathscr{S}}\vartheta(z)_t{\zeta}({\mathrm{d}}z)=\int_{\mathscr{S}}\frac{H(z)_{t-}}{S_{t-}}\frac{p{^}0+p{^}1V_{t-}}{\xi{^}0+\xi{^}1 V_{t-}}{\zeta}({\mathrm{d}}z)$$ which is [@KalP07 Theorem 4.1]. With a straightforward computation, from with $f{^}i_t=f(t,x,v,z_i)$, $i=1,2$, we also obtain the explicit expression of ${\ensuremath{\langle L(z_1),L(z_2) \rangle}}$, which is given in [@KalP07 Eq. (5.10), p. 97]. The process $(t,{\omega},z_1,z_2)\mapsto{\ensuremath{\langle L(z_1),L(z_2) \rangle}}_t({\omega})$ is ${\mathscr{P}}\otimes{\mathscr{B}}({\mathscr{S}})\otimes{\mathscr{B}}({\mathscr{S}})$-measurable. Therefore, from we deduce the explicit expression of ${\ensuremath{\langle L,L \rangle}}$.
Notice that we can obtain an exact representation of ${\ensuremath{\langle L,L \rangle}}$, while in [@KalP07], this predictable covariation is represented only as Cauchy principal value of the right-hand side of . We also stress that we are able to compute the quantities $\vartheta(z)$, ${\ensuremath{\langle L(z_1),L(z_2) \rangle}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\langle L,L \rangle}}$ under the only assumption that $(X,V)$ is a locally square integrable semimartingale. In [@KalP07 Assumption 3.1(i)], stronger assumptions based on analyticity properties of $\phi$ and $\psi$ are made. According to our results, these assumptions are only needed to calculate the expectation ${\mathbb{E}}[{\ensuremath{\langle L,L \rangle}}_T]$, but not ${\ensuremath{\langle L,L \rangle}}_T$ itself.
Applications {#sec:app}
============
In this section we apply the results of Section \[sec:sem.quad\] and \[sec:GKW.eu\] to two continuous stochastic volatility models: The Heston model, which is an affine model in the sense of [@DFS03], and the $3/2$-model, which is a non-affine model.
We set up a variance-optimal semi-static hedging strategy for a variance swap ${\eta}{^}0$: If $(X,V)$ is the continuous semimartingale describing the stochastic volatility model, then $$\label{eq:var.sw}
{\eta}{^}0=[X,X]_T-k{^}\textnormal{swap}={\ensuremath{\langle X{^}c,X{^}c \rangle}}_T-k{^}\textnormal{swap}.$$ By continuity, the process $(X,V,[X,X])$ is a locally square integrable semimartingale. The price process $S={\mathrm{e}}{^}X$ is assumed to be a square integrable martingale. A basket $({\eta}{^}1,\ldots,{\eta}{^}d)$ of European options written on $S$ is fixed and we use them to implement a variance-optimal semi-static hedging strategy for ${\eta}{^}0$. We assume that each option ${\eta}{^}j$ in the basket is square integrable and such that ${\eta}{^}j=h{^}j(S_T)$, where $h{^}j$ can be represented as in and on a strip ${\mathscr{S}}{^}j=\{z\in{\mathbb{C}}: z=R{^}j+{\mathrm{Im}}(z)\}$, with ${\mathbb{E}}[\exp(2R{^}jX_T)]<+\infty$; $H{^}j$ is the square integrable martingale associated with ${\eta}{^}j$, that is $H{^}j_t:={\mathbb{E}}[{\eta}{^}j|{\mathscr{F}}_t]$, and its GKW decomposition is $H{^}j=H{^}j_0+\vartheta{^}j\cdot S+L{^}j$.
The Heston model {#subsec:hes.mod}
----------------
The Heston stochastic volatility model $(X,V)$ is given by $$\label{eq:Heston}
{\mathrm{d}}X_{\,t}=-\frac12 V_{\,t}{\mathrm{d}}t+\sqrt{V_{\,t}} {\mathrm{d}}W_{\,t}{^}{\,1},\quad {\mathrm{d}}V_{\,t}=-\lambda(V_{\,t}-\kappa ){\mathrm{d}}t+\sigma\sqrt{V_{\,t}} {\mathrm{d}}W_{\,t}{^}{\,2},$$ where $(W{^}{\,1}, W{^}{\,2})$ is a two-dimensional correlated Brownian motion such that ${\ensuremath{\langle W{^}{\,1},W{^}{\,2} \rangle}}_{\,t}=\rho t$, $\rho\in[-1,1]$. Typical values of $\rho$ are negative and around $-0.7$. The parameters $\lambda$, $\sigma$ and $\kappa$ are strictly positive. This model for the dynamics of $(X,V)$ is known as *Heston model*, cf. [@H93]. Notice that $(X,V)$ is an homogeneous Markov process with respect to ${\mathbb{F}}$. Furthermore, $V_t\geq0$, $t\geq0$ (cf. [@AP07 Proposition 2.1]).
#### Properties of Heston model.
The continuous semimartingale $(X,V)$, whose dynamic is given by , is an affine process in the sense of [@DFS03]. Hence for $ u=(u_1,u_2){^}\top\in{\mathbb{C}}{^}2$ such that ${\mathbb{E}}[\exp(u_1X_T+u_2V_T)]<+\infty$, the conditional characteristic function of $(X_T,V_T)$ is given by $$\label{eq:joi.char}
{\mathbb{E}}[\exp( u_1X_T+u_2V_T)|{\mathscr{F}}_t]=\exp(\phi_{T-t}(u)+u_1 X_t+\psi_{T-t}(u)V_t)\,,\quad t\in[0,T],$$ where $\phi,\psi:{\mathbb{C}}{^}2\longrightarrow{\mathbb{C}}$ and $\psi$ is the solution of the following Riccati equation: $$\label{eq:psi.hest}
\partial_t\psi_t(u)=\textstyle\frac12\displaystyle{\sigma}{^}{\,2}\psi_t(u){^}{\,2}-({\lambda}-\rho{\sigma}u_{\,1})\psi_t(u)+\textstyle\frac12\,\displaystyle \big(u_{\,1}{^}{\,2}-u_{\,1}\big),\quad\psi_0(u)=u_{\,2}\,,$$ and $$\label{eq:phi.hest}
\phi_t(u)={\lambda}\kappa\,\int_0{^}t\psi_t(u)\,{\mathrm{d}}s\,.$$ The unique solution of exists up to an explosion time $t_{\,+}(u_{\,1})$ *which can be finite*. The analytic expression of the explosion time $t_{\,+}(u_{\,1})$ is given in [@AP07 Proposition 3.1] (see also [@FK10] or [@K11 § 6.1]).
Considering the root $$\Psi=\Psi(u_{\,1}):=\frac{1}{{\sigma}{^}{\,2}}\,\Big({\lambda}-\rho{\sigma}u_{\,1}-\sqrt{\Delta(u_{\,1})}\Big)$$ of the characteristic polynomial of , it is possible to write the explicit solution of . The root $\Psi$ leads to a representation of $\psi$ which is continuous in the complex plane, i.e. it does not cross the negative real axis, which is the standard branch cut for the square-root function in the complex plane, and is therefore more suitable for numerical implementations (cf. [@JK05] and [@AMST06]). Following [@Al15 Proposition 4.2.1] – where however the complex conjugate of $\Psi$ is used – the explicit expression of $\psi_t(u)$ in its interval of existence $[0,t_+(u_1))$, is
$$\label{eq:sol.psi}
\psi_t(u):=\begin{cases}
u_{\,2}+(\Psi-u_{\,2})\,\frac{1-\exp\big(-t\sqrt{\Delta}\big)}{1-g\exp(-t\sqrt{\Delta})},&\quad \Delta(u_{\,1})\neq0;\\\\
u_{\,2}+(\Psi-u_{\,2}){^}{\,2}\,\frac{{\sigma}{^}{\,2}t}{2+{\sigma}{^}{\,2}(\Psi-u_{\,2})t},&\quad \Delta(u_{\,1})=0\,,
\end{cases}$$
where we define $$g(u_1,u_{\,2}):=\frac{{\lambda}-\rho{\sigma}u_{\,1}-{\sigma}{^}{\,2}u_{\,2}-\sqrt{\Delta(u_{\,1})}}{{\lambda}-\rho{\sigma}u_{\,1}-{\sigma}{^}{\,2}u_{\,2}+\sqrt{\Delta(u_{\,1})}}$$ and use the conventions $$\frac{\exp(-t\sqrt\Delta)-g}{1-g}:=1,\qquad \frac{1-\exp(t\sqrt\Delta)}{1-g\exp(t\sqrt\Delta)}:=0$$ whenever the denominator of $g$ is equal to zero. Then, from ,
$$\label{eq:sol.phi}
\phi_t(u):=\begin{cases}
{\lambda}\kappa(\Psi+\frac{2\sqrt{\Delta}}{{\sigma}{^}{\,2}})\,t-\frac{2{\lambda}\kappa}{{\sigma}{^}{\,2}}\,\log\frac{\exp(t\sqrt{\Delta})-g}{1-g},&\quad \Delta(u_1)\neq0;\\\\
{\lambda}\kappa\Psi\,t-\frac{2{\lambda}\kappa}{{\sigma}{^}{\,2}}\,\log\Big(1+\frac{{\sigma}{^}{\,2}}{2}(\Psi-{u_{\,2}})t\Big),&\quad \Delta(u_1)=0\,.
\end{cases}$$
We observe that, from , the quadratic covariation of $X$ is $$[X,X]_t:=\int_0{^}tV_s{\mathrm{d}}\, s\,,\quad t\geq0,$$ and the process $Z:=(X,V,[X,X]){^}\top$ is affine (cf. [@KalMV11 Lemma 4.1]). Furthermore, the moment generating function of $Z_T$ exists in an open neighbourhood of the origin in ${\mathbb{R}}{^}3$, say $B_{\varepsilon}(0)$, ${\varepsilon}>0$, (cf. [@F09 Theorem 10.3(b), Lemma 10.1(c)]). Therefore, $Z_T$ possesses exponential moments in $B_{\varepsilon}(0)$ and hence each component has finite moments of every order.
The dynamic of the price process $S=(S_t)_{t\in[0,T]}$, $S_t:=\exp(X_t)$, is given by $$\label{eq:proc.S}
{\mathrm{d}}S_{\,t}=S_{\,t}\sqrt{V_{\,t}}{\mathrm{d}}W{^}{\,1}_{\,t}\,.$$ From [@KalM10 Corollary 3.4], $S$ is a martingale. We assume that $S$ is square integrable, that is $S_T\in L{^}2({\mathbb{P}})$. According to [@KM15 Theorem 2.14, Example 2.19], the square integrability of $S_T{^}{\, z}=\exp(z\,X_{\,T})$ for $z\in{\mathbb{C}}$ is equivalent to the existence up to time $T$ of the solution of the Riccati equation starting at $u=(2{\mathrm{Re}}(z),0){^}\top$, that is $T<t_+(2{\mathrm{Re}}(z))$. In particular we assume that $T<t_+(2)$.
Let $z\in{\mathbb{C}}$ be such that $z=R+{\mathrm{i}}{\mathrm{Im}}(z)$, where ${\mathbb{E}}[\exp(2RX_T)]<+\infty$. The complex-valued process $H(z)_t={\mathbb{E}}[\exp(zX_T)|{\mathscr{F}}_t]$ is a square integrable martingale. We set $$\begin{aligned}
&r{^}0_{z_1,z_2}:=\phi_t(z_1,0)+\phi_t(z_2,0)\label{eq:xi0}\\\nonumber\\&r{^}1_{z_1,z_2}:=\psi_t(z_1,0)+\psi_t(z_2,0)\label{eq:xi1} \,.\end{aligned}$$
The next formula was established in [@KalP07 Eq. (5.18)]. For completeness we give the proof in the appendix.
\[prop:mix.mom\] Let $z_j\in{\mathbb{C}}$, $z_j=R{^}j+{\mathrm{i}}{\mathrm{Im}}(z_j)$, with $R{^}j\in {\mathbb{R}}$ such that ${\mathbb{E}}[\exp(2R{^}jX_T)]<+\infty$, $j=1,2$. Then $$\label{eq:mix.mom}
\begin{split}
{\mathbb{E}}[V_tH(z_1)_tH(z_2)_t]=S_0{^}{z_1+z_2}&{\mathrm{e}}{^}{r{^}0_{z_1,z_2}}\times\\&\exp\big(\phi_t(z_1+z_2,r{^}1_{z_1,z_2})+\psi_t(z_1+z_2,r{^}1_{z_1,z_2})V_0\big)\times\\&\qquad\partial_{u_2}\Big[\phi_t(z_1+z_2,u_2)+\psi_t(z_1+z_2,u_2)V_0\Big]\Big|_{u_2=r{^}1_{z_1,z_2}}.
\end{split}$$
#### Semi-Static Variance-Optimal Hedging.
We now discuss the inner variance-optimal problem in for the variance swap ${\eta}{^}0$ in Heston model and compute the quantities $A$, $B$ and $C$ defined in . For notation we refer to Corollary \[cor:poi.br.res.smar.abs.con\] (ii). Setting $${\mathrm{d}}Q_t:={\mathrm{d}}{\ensuremath{\langle V{^}c,V{^}c \rangle}}_t-\frac{{\mathrm{d}}{\ensuremath{\langle X{^}c,V{^}c \rangle}}_t}{{\mathrm{d}}{\ensuremath{\langle X{^}c,X{^}c \rangle}}_t}{\mathrm{d}}{\ensuremath{\langle X{^}c,V{^}c \rangle}}_t=\left(c_t{^}{22}-\frac{c{^}{12}_t}{c{^}{11}_t}c{^}{12}_t\right){\mathrm{d}}t,$$ yields $$c_t{^}{11}=V_t,\quad c_t{^}{12}=\rho{\sigma}V_t,\quad c_t{^}{22}={\sigma}{^}2V_t,\quad c_t{^}{j3}=0,\quad j=1,2,3,$$ and hence $$\label{eq:def.Q.Hes}
{\mathrm{d}}Q_t={\sigma}{^}2(1-\rho{^}2)V_t{\mathrm{d}}t.$$
We recall that for ${\eta}{^}0\in L{^}2({\mathbb{P}})$ defined as in , we define the square integrable martingale $H{^}0=(H{^}0_t)_{t\in[0,T]}$ by $H{^}0_t:={\mathbb{E}}[{\eta}{^}0|{\mathscr{F}}_t]$, $t\in[0,T]$.
\[prop:A.hes.mod\] Let $A:={\mathbb{E}}[{\ensuremath{\langle L{^}0,L{^}0 \rangle}}_T]$, $L{^}0$ being the residual in the GKW decomposition of $H{^}0$ with respect to $S$. Then $$A={\sigma}{^}2(1-\varrho{^}2)\int_0{^}T{\alpha}{^}2(t)[(V_0-\kappa){\mathrm{e}}{^}{-{\lambda}t}+\kappa]\,{\mathrm{d}}t,$$ where ${\alpha}(t):=\frac{1}{{\lambda}}\,\big(1-{\mathrm{e}}{^}{-{\lambda}(T-t)}\big)$.
The process $(X,V,[X,X])$ is a square integrable semimartingale and the random variables $X_t$, $V_t$ and $[X,X]_t$ have finite moments of every order, for every $t\leq T$. We first show that the formula $H{^}0_t=f{^}0(t,V_t,[X,X]_t)$ holds, where the function $(t,v,w)\mapsto f{^}0(t,v,w)$ has to be determined. From Proposition \[prop:mix.mom\], we get $$\label{eq:mom.V.aux}
{\mathbb{E}}[V_t]={\mathbb{E}}[H(0)_tH(0)_tV_t]=\partial_{u_2}\big[\phi_t(0,u_2)+\psi_t(0,u_2)V_0\big]\Big|_{u_2=0}.$$ Notice that $\Delta(0)={\lambda}>0$. Hence, to compute the derivative in , we take the expressions of $\phi$ and $\psi$ in and for $\Delta(u_1)\neq0$. By direct computation we then get $$\partial_{u_2}\phi_t(0,u_2)\big|_{u_2=0}=\kappa(1-{\mathrm{e}}{^}{-{\lambda}t}) \,,\quad \partial_{u_2}\psi_t(0,u_2)\big|_{u_2=0}={\mathrm{e}}{^}{-{\lambda}t}$$ and therefore becomes $$\label{eq:mom.V}
{\mathbb{E}}[V_t]=\kappa(1-{\mathrm{e}}{^}{-{\lambda}t})+{\mathrm{e}}{^}{-{\lambda}t}V_0.$$ Now, using the homogeneous Markov property of $V$ with respect to the filtration ${\mathbb{F}}$, we get $${\mathbb{E}}[V_s|{\mathscr{F}}_t]=\kappa(1-{\mathrm{e}}{^}{-{\lambda}(s-t)})+{\mathrm{e}}{^}{-{\lambda}(s-t)}V_t,\quad s\geq t.$$ Therefore, by Fubini’s theorem, $$H{^}0_t+k{^}\textnormal{swap}={\mathbb{E}}[[X,X]_T|{\mathscr{F}}_t]=\int_0{^}tV_s{\mathrm{d}}s+\int_t{^}T\big[\kappa\big(1-{\mathrm{e}}{^}{-{\lambda}(s-t)}\big)+{\mathrm{e}}{^}{-{\lambda}(s-t)}V_t\big]{\mathrm{d}}s$$ and hence $$H{^}0_t+k{^}\textnormal{swap}={\beta}(t)+{\alpha}(t)V_t+[X,X]_t,\quad t\in[0,T],$$ where $${\alpha}(t):=\frac{1}{{\lambda}}\,\big(1-{\mathrm{e}}{^}{-{\lambda}(T-t)}\big),\qquad{\beta}(t):=\frac{\kappa}{{\lambda}}\big({\lambda}(T-t)-1+{\mathrm{e}}{^}{-{\lambda}(T-t)}\big),\quad t\in[0,T].$$ So, we see that $H{^}0_t+k{^}\textnormal{swap}=f{^}0(t,V_t,[X,X]_t)$ where $$\label{eq:fun.f0}
f{^}0(t,v,w)={\beta}(t)+{\alpha}(t)v+w;\quad \partial_{v}f{^}0={\alpha}(t).$$ By Corollary \[cor:poi.br.res.smar.abs.con\] (ii), and we get $${\ensuremath{\langle L{^}0,L{^}0 \rangle}}_T=\int_0{^}T{\alpha}{^}2(t){\mathrm{d}}Q_t={\sigma}{^}2(1-\rho{^}2)\int_0{^}T{\alpha}{^}2(t)V_t{\mathrm{d}}t.$$ Hence $$A={\sigma}{^}2(1-\rho{^}2)\int_0{^}T{\alpha}{^}2(t){\mathbb{E}}[V_t]{\mathrm{d}}t.$$ The explicit computation of ${\mathbb{E}}[V_t]$ is given in and the proof is complete.
As a next step, we compute the vector $B$ in . Recall that, if $z\in{\mathscr{S}}{^}j$, then ${\mathbb{E}}[{\mathrm{e}}{^}{zX_T}]<+\infty$. Therefore, the solution of the Riccati equation starting at $(z,0)$ exists up to time $T$, (cf. [@KM15]).
\[rem:app.main.thm\] We remark that, because of the affine formula and by continuity of (X,V) $(t,{\omega},z)\mapsto H({\omega},z)_t$ is ${\mathscr{P}}\otimes{\mathscr{B}}({\mathscr{S}}{^}j)$-measurable, for every $j=1,\ldots,d$. Therefore, from Theorems \[thm:hed.err\] and \[thm:comsec3.sec4\] we get $$\vartheta{^}j=\int_{{\mathscr{S}}{^}j}\frac{H(z)_t}{S_t}\big(z+{\sigma}\rho\psi_{T-t}(z,0)\big){\zeta}{^}j({\mathrm{d}}z).$$
Notice that in the following two propositions we can consider the determination of $\psi$ and $\phi$ in and for $\Delta(u_1)\neq0$. Indeed, there exist only two complex numbers $u_1{^}j$, $j=1,2$, such that $\Delta(u_1{^}j)=0$ and, by assumption, ${\zeta}$ is a non-atomic measure.
\[prop:comp.B\] Let $B\in{\mathbb{R}}{^}d$ be defined as in . Then, for $j=1,\ldots,d$, $$B{^}j={\sigma}{^}2(1-\varrho{^}2)\int_0{^}T\int_{{\mathscr{S}}{^}j}{\alpha}(t){\mathbb{E}}\big[ H(z)_tV_t\big]\psi_{T-t}(z,0){\zeta}{^}j({\mathrm{d}}z){\mathrm{d}}t$$ where $${\mathbb{E}}[H(z)_tV_t]=S_0{^}{z}{\mathrm{e}}{^}{r{^}0_{z,0}}\exp\big(\phi_t(z,r{^}1_{z,0})+\psi_t(z,r{^}1_{z,0})V_0\big)\partial_{u_2}\Big[\phi_t(z,u_2)+\psi_t(z,u_2)V_0\Big]\Big|_{u_2=r{^}1_{z,0}}$$
The components of the vector $B=(B{^}1,\ldots,B{^}d){^}\top$ are $B{^}j={\mathbb{E}}[{\ensuremath{\langle L{^}0,L{^}j \rangle}}_T]$, $j=1,\ldots,d$, where $L{^}j$ is the residual in the GKW decomposition of $H{^}j$ with respect to $S$, $j=1,\ldots,d$. We start computing ${\ensuremath{\langle L{^}0,L(z) \rangle}}$, where $L{^}0$ and $L(z)$ are the residuals in the GKW-decomposition of $H{^}0$ and $H(z)$ (see ) with respect to $S$, respectively. From and , according to (applied now to the complex-valued square integrable martingale $L(z)$) and , we deduce $$\begin{split}
{\mathrm{d}}{\ensuremath{\langle L{^}0,L(z) \rangle}}_t&=\partial_{v}f(t,X_t,V_t,z)\partial_{v}f{^}0(t,X_t,V_t,[X,X]_t){\mathrm{d}}Q_t\\&={\sigma}{^}2(1-\rho{^}2){\alpha}(t)\psi_{T-t}(z,0)H(z)_tV_t{\mathrm{d}}t.\end{split}$$ Using the affine formula , the process $K(z)_t:={\sigma}{^}2(1-\rho{^}2){\alpha}(t)\psi_{T-t}(z,0)H(z)_tV_t$ is jointly progressively measurable. Therefore, from Theorem \[thm:comsec3.sec4\] we can apply Theorem \[thm:hed.err\] and deduce $$L{^}j=\int_{{\mathscr{S}}{^}j}L(z){\zeta}{^}j({\mathrm{d}}z).$$ Hence, because $\sup_{z\in{\mathscr{S}}}{\mathbb{E}}[|L(z)_T|{^}2]\leq\sup_{z\in{\mathscr{S}}}{\mathbb{E}}[|H(z)_T|{^}2]<+\infty$, Proposition \[prop:poi.br.com\] (iii) yields $$\label{eq:pb.L0.Lj.hest}
{\ensuremath{\langle L{^}0,L{^}j \rangle}}_T={\sigma}{^}2(1-\rho{^}2)\int_0{^}T\int_{{\mathscr{S}}{^}j}{\alpha}(t)\psi_{T-t}(z,0)H(z)_tV_t{\zeta}{^}j({\mathrm{d}}z){\mathrm{d}}t\,,\quad j=1,\ldots,d.$$ To compute $B{^}j$, we apply Theorem \[thm:comsec3.sec4\], Proposition \[prop:poi.br.com\] (ii) and Fubini’s theorem to exchange expectation and integrals on the right-hand side of . The explicit expression of ${\mathbb{E}}[H(z)_tV_t]$ is now given by Proposition \[prop:mix.mom\] setting $z_1=z$ and $z_2=0$. The proof is now complete
As a last step, we compute the covariance matrix $C$.
\[prop:cov.mat.C\] Let $C=(C{^}{ij})_{i,j=1,\ldots,d}$ be defined as in . Then, for $i,j=1,\ldots,n$, $$\begin{split}
C{^}{ij}={\sigma}{^}2(1-\varrho{^}2)\int_0{^}T\int_{{\mathscr{S}}{^}i}\int_{{\mathscr{S}}{^}j}\psi_{T-t}(z_1,0)\psi_{T-t}(z_2,0){\mathbb{E}}\big[&H(z_1)_tH(z_2)_tV_t\big]{\zeta}{^}j({\mathrm{d}}z_2){\zeta}{^}i({\mathrm{d}}z_1){\mathrm{d}}t\,,
\end{split}$$ where the explicit expression of ${\mathbb{E}}\big[H(z_1)_tH(z_2)_tV_t\big]$ is given by Proposition \[prop:mix.mom\].
By definition, we have $C{^}{ij}={\mathbb{E}}\big[{\ensuremath{\langle L{^}i,L{^}j \rangle}}_T]$, $j=1,\ldots, n$. Furthermore, from , we get $$\begin{split}
{\mathrm{d}}{\ensuremath{\langle L(z_1),L(z_2) \rangle}}_t&=\partial_{v}f(t,X_t,V_t,z_1)\partial_{v}f(t,X_t,V_t,z_2){\mathrm{d}}Q_t
\\&={\sigma}{^}2(1-\varrho{^}2)\psi_{T-t}(z_1,0)\psi_{T-t}(z_2,0)H(z_1)_tH(z_2)_tV_t{\mathrm{d}}t
\\&=:K(z_1,z_2){\mathrm{d}}t,
\end{split}$$ where $f$ is given in . By the affine formula, $K(z_1,z_2)$ is a jointly predictable process. From Theorem \[thm:comsec3.sec4\] and Theorem \[thm:hed.err\] we deduce $$L{^}i=\int_{{\mathscr{S}}{^}i}L(z){\zeta}{^}i({\mathrm{d}}z),\qquad L{^}j=\int_{{\mathscr{S}}{^}j}L(z){\zeta}{^}j({\mathrm{d}}z),\quad i,j=1,\ldots,d.$$ Theorem \[thm:pred.cov.mixt\] (ii) now yields $${\ensuremath{\langle L{^}i,L{^}j \rangle}}_T={\sigma}{^}2(1-\varrho{^}2)\int_0{^}T\int_{{\mathscr{S}}{^}i}\int_{{\mathscr{S}}{^}j}\psi_{T-t}(z_1,0)\psi_{T-t}(z_2,0)H(z_1)_tH(z_2)_tV_t{\zeta}{^}j({\mathrm{d}}z_2){\zeta}{^}i({\mathrm{d}}z_1){\mathrm{d}}t.$$ From Proposition \[prop:poi.br.com\] (ii) and Proposition \[prop:mix.mom\], the claim of the proposition follows and the proof is complete.
The 3/2-Model {#ssec:3/2.mod}
-------------
We consider the bivariate continuous stochastic volatility model described by the continuous semimartingale $(X,V)$, where $$\label{eq:3/2.mod}
{\mathrm{d}}X_t=-\frac{V_t}{2}{\mathrm{d}}t+\sqrt{V_t}{\mathrm{d}}W_t{^}1,\qquad {\mathrm{d}}V_t=V_t({\lambda}-\kappa V_t){\mathrm{d}}t+{\sigma}V_t{^}{3/2}{\mathrm{d}}W{^}2_t\,,\quad V_0>0.$$ This model is usually called the 3/2-model and has been considered e. g. in [@lewis2000option; @CS07]. As in the Heston model, $(W{^}{\,1}, W{^}{\,2})$ is a correlated two-dimensional Brownian motion with predictable covariation ${\ensuremath{\langle W{^}{\,1},W{^}{\,2} \rangle}}_{\,t}=\rho t$, $\rho\in[-1,1]$. To have a well-defined model, we assume $\kappa\geq-{\sigma}{^}2/2$ (see [@D12 Eq. (3)]) which ensures non-explosion of $V$ in finite time. Notice that the non-explosion condition is always satisfied whenever $\kappa>0$, as we assume. Under the non-explosion condition $V_t>0$ for all $t\in[0,T]$. Note that the two dimensional semimartingale $(X,V)$ given by is *not an affine process*.
For the computation of the conditional moment generating function we mainly refer to [@G16], that is we regard $3/2$-model as a special case of the so-called $4/2$-model. More precisely, setting $a=0$, $b=1$ and $r=0$ in [@G16 Eq. (2.1)], we get the dynamics of the price process $S={\mathrm{e}}{^}X$ in the $3/2$-model under the local martingale measure, and hence of $X=\log(S)$. We stress that, denoting by $\kappa_G, \theta_G, {\sigma}_G$ the parameters in [@G16 Eq. (2.2)], the relation between ${\lambda}$, $\kappa$ and ${\sigma}$ in and $\kappa_G, \theta_G, {\sigma}_G$ is $$\label{eq:par.gra.rel}
\kappa=\kappa_G\theta_G-{\sigma}{^}2_G,\quad {\lambda}=\kappa_G,\quad {\sigma}=-{\sigma}_G.$$
In [@JCY09 Proposition 6.3.2.1] the transition density of the process process $R=(R_t)_{t\in[0,T]}$, $R_t:=1/V_t$ is given. Therefore, denoting by $f_{R_t}(\cdot)$ and $f_{V_t}(\cdot)$ the density function of the distribution of $R_t$ and $V_t$, respectively, and using the relation $f_{V_t}(v)=x{^}{-2}f_{R_t}(v{^}{-1})$, we obtain the density function of $V_t$, which is given by $f_{V_t}(v)=0$ for $v\leq0$ and for $v>0$ $$\label{eq:den.fun.V_t}
\begin{split}
f_{V_t}(v)=\frac{1}{2v{^}2}\,\frac{4{\lambda}}{{\sigma}{^}2({\mathrm{e}}{^}{{\lambda}t}-1)}\,\exp\bigg({\lambda}\Big(1+\frac{ q}2\Big)t-\frac{2{\lambda}}{{\sigma}{^}2({\mathrm{e}}{^}{{\lambda}t}-1)}\Big(\frac{1}{V_0}+\frac{{\mathrm{e}}{^}{{\lambda}t}}{v}&\Big)\bigg)\bigg(\frac{V_0}v\bigg){^}{q/2}\times\\&I_q\bigg(\frac{4{\lambda}{\mathrm{e}}{^}{\frac{{\lambda}}{2}t}}{{\sigma}{^}2({\mathrm{e}}{^}{{\lambda}t}-1)\sqrt{V_0v}}\bigg),
\end{split}$$ where $q:=2({\kappa}+{\sigma}{^}2)/{\sigma}{^}2-1$ and $I_p(\cdot)$ denotes the modified Bessel function of the first kind. Knowing the density of $V_t$, we can compute the (non-integer) moments of $V_t$.
From [@G16 p17], denoting by ${\mathrm{M}}(a,b,\cdot)$ the confluent hypergeometric function, we get $$\label{eq:mom.v_t}
\begin{split}
{\mathbb{E}}\big[V_t{^}{{\eta}}\big]=\left(\frac{2{\lambda}{\mathrm{e}}{^}{{\lambda}t}}{{\sigma}{^}2({\mathrm{e}}{^}{{\lambda}t}-1)}\right){^}{{\eta}}\exp\left(-\frac{2{\lambda}}{{\sigma}{^}2({\mathrm{e}}{^}{{\lambda}t}-1)V_0}\right)&\frac{\Gamma(q+1-{\eta})}{\Gamma(q+1)}\times\\&{\mathrm{M}}\left(q+1-{\eta},q+1,\frac{2{\lambda}}{{\sigma}{^}2({\mathrm{e}}{^}{{\lambda}t}-1)V_0}\right)\,,
\end{split}$$ for ${\eta}\in{\mathbb{R}}$ such that $q+1-{\eta}>0$. By definition of $q$ and because $\kappa>0$, this condition is in particular satisfied if ${\eta}=2$. Furthermore, there exists an ${\varepsilon}>0$ such that is true also for $2+{\varepsilon}$: In $3/2$-model, contrarily to Heston model, $V_t$ does not have finite moments of every order. However, is a useful formula to infer, in function of the parameters $\kappa$ and ${\sigma}{^}2$ of the model, up to which number ${\eta}>2$, the random variable $V_t{^}{\eta}$ is integrable: If, for example, $\kappa=1$ and ${\sigma}{^}2=0.2$, then ${\mathbb{E}}[V_t{^}{{\eta}}]<+\infty$ for ${\eta}<13$.
In [@G16 Proposition 3.1], conditions on the parameters of the model are given to ensure integrability of $\exp(zX_T)$, which read as ${\mathrm{Re}}(z)\in{\mathscr{A}}_{0,+\infty}$, where the set ${\mathscr{A}}_{0,+\infty}$ is defined in [@G16 Eq. (3.7)].
For $z\in{\mathbb{C}}$ such that $\exp(zX_T)$ is integrable, in the next step we deduce the explicit expression of the square integrable complex-valued martingale $H(z)_t:={\mathbb{E}}[\exp(zX_T)|{\mathscr{F}}_t]$, $t\geq0$.
Recalling the relation ${\mathrm{M}}(x,y,z)={\mathrm{e}}{^}z\,{\mathrm{M}}(y-x,y,-z)$, $z\in{\mathbb{C}}$, for the confluent hypergeometric function, from [@G16 Eq. (3.3)] with $a=0$ and $b=1$, we obtain $$\label{eq:cond.char.fun}
H(z)_t={\mathrm{e}}{^}{zX_t}g(t,V_t,z)\,,$$ where the function $g$ is given by $$\label{eq:cond.char.fun.h}
g(t,v,z):=\frac{\Gamma({\beta}_z-{\alpha}_z)}{\Gamma({\beta}_z)}\left(\frac{2{\lambda}}{v{\sigma}{^}2({\mathrm{e}}{^}{{\lambda}(T-t)}-1)}\right){^}{{\alpha}_z}{\mathrm{M}}\left({\alpha}_z,{\beta}_z,-\frac{2{\lambda}}{v{\sigma}{^}2({\mathrm{e}}{^}{{\lambda}(T-t)}-1)}\right)$$ and $$\label{eq:def.alz.btz}
{\alpha}_z=-\frac12-\frac{\tilde\kappa_z}{{\sigma}{^}2}+c_z\,,\quad {\beta}_z=1+2c_z\,,\quad\tilde\kappa_z=k-z\varrho{\sigma}\,,\quad c_z:=\sqrt{\left(\frac12+\frac{\tilde\kappa_z}{{\sigma}{^}2}\right){^}2+\frac{z-z{^}2}{{\sigma}{^}2}}\,.$$ Taking $m_z$ as in [@G16 Eq. (3.5)] with $a=0$ and $b=1$, then $c_z=\frac{m_z}2$. Using the properties of the confluent hypergeometric function ${\mathrm{M}}(x,y,z)$, we get the derivative with respect to $v$ of $g$ in : $$\label{eq:g.der.v}
\begin{split}
\partial_{v} &g(t,v,z)=\\&\ \ \ \frac{{\alpha}_z}{v}\big({\gamma}(t,v)\big){^}{{\alpha}_z}\frac{\Gamma({\beta}_z-{\alpha}_z)}{\Gamma({\beta}_z)}\bigg[\frac{{\gamma}(t,v)}{{\beta}_z}{\mathrm{M}}\big({\alpha}_z+1,{\beta}_z+1,-{\gamma}(t,v)\big)-{\mathrm{M}}\big({\alpha}_z,{\beta}_z,-{\gamma}(t,v)\big)\bigg]\,
\end{split}$$ where $$\label{eq:def.gm}
{\gamma}(t,v):=\frac{2{\lambda}}{{\sigma}{^}2({\mathrm{e}}{^}{{\lambda}(T-t)}-1)v}.$$
To ensure that the price process $S={\mathrm{e}}{^}X$ is a true martingale the so-called *Feller condition*, which reads $$\label{eq:mar.con.S}
\kappa-\varrho{\sigma}\geq-\frac{{\sigma}{^}2}{2},$$ is sufficient (see [@D12 Eq. (4)] or [@G16 Remark 3.3] with the identification of parameter in ). Notice that, if $\varrho\leq0$, then is always satisfied. To get square integrability of $S_t$, $t\in[0,T]$, we require $2\in{\mathscr{A}}_{0,+\infty}$.
In the following, we consider square integrable contingent claims ${\eta}{^}j, j=1,\dotsc,d$ and denote by $H{^}j$ the associated square integrable martingales$H{^}j_t:={\mathbb{E}}[{\eta}{^}j|{\mathscr{F}}_t]$. We assume that the pay-off function $h{^}j$ of ${\eta}{^}j$ has the representation in with respect to a complex-valued non-atomic finite measure ${\zeta}{^}j$ on the strip ${\mathscr{S}}{^}j=\{z\in{\mathbb{C}}: z=R{^}j+{\mathrm{Im}}(z)\}$, where ${\mathbb{E}}[\exp(2R{^}jX_T)]<+\infty$. In addition, we consider the variance swap ${\eta}{^}0=[X,X]_T-k{^}{\textnormal{swap}}$. Analyzing the explicit expression of the Laplace transform of ${\eta}{^}0$, which was calculated in [@CS07 Theorem 3] (cf. also [@G16 Appendix A]), it follows that it is defined in an open neighbourhood of zero. Therefore ${\eta}{^}0$ has finite moments of every order and we can consider the associated martingale $H{^}0_t:={\mathbb{E}}[{\eta}{^}0|{\mathscr{F}}_t]$, $t\in[0,T]$, which is, in particular, square integrable.
#### Variance-Optimal Semi-Static Hedging. {#variance-optimal-semi-static-hedging. .unnumbered}
As for the Heston model we define $${\mathrm{d}}Q_t:={\mathrm{d}}{\ensuremath{\langle V{^}c,V{^}c \rangle}}_t-\frac{{\mathrm{d}}{\ensuremath{\langle X{^}c,V{^}c \rangle}}_t}{{\mathrm{d}}{\ensuremath{\langle X{^}c,X{^}c \rangle}}_t}{\mathrm{d}}{\ensuremath{\langle X{^}c,V{^}c \rangle}}_t=\left(c_t{^}{22}-\frac{c{^}{12}_t}{c{^}{11}_t}c{^}{12}_t\right){\mathrm{d}}t,$$ from we see that $$c_t{^}{11}=V_t,\quad c_t{^}{12}=\rho{\sigma}V_t{^}2,\quad c_t{^}{22}={\sigma}{^}2V_t{^}3,\quad c_t{^}{j3}=0,\quad j=1,2,3,$$ and hence $$\label{eq:def.Q.th.ex}
{\mathrm{d}}Q_t={\sigma}{^}2(1-\rho{^}2)V_t{^}3{\mathrm{d}}t.$$
\[prop:A.3/2\] Let $A={\mathbb{E}}[{\ensuremath{\langle L{^}0,L{^}0 \rangle}}_T]$, $L{^}0$ being the residual in the GKW-decomposition of $H{^}0$ with respect to $S$. Then $$\begin{split}
A=&\frac{{\sigma}{^}2(1-\rho{^}2)}{2}V_0\int_0{^}T\int_0{^}\infty\Big\{\frac{4}{{\sigma}{^}2{\lambda}({\mathrm{e}}{^}{{\lambda}t}-1)}\exp\Big({\lambda}\Big(1+\frac{ q}{2}\Big)t-\frac{2{\lambda}}{{\sigma}{^}2({\mathrm{e}}{^}{{\lambda}t}-1)}\Big(\frac1{V_0}+\frac{{\mathrm{e}}{^}{{\lambda}t}}{v}\Big)\Big)\Big(\frac{v}{V_0}\Big){^}{1-q/2}\times
\\&
\hspace{4cm} \Big(\big({\mathrm{e}}{^}{{\lambda}(T-t)}-1\big)h{^}\prime\Big(\frac{{\mathrm{e}}{^}{{\lambda}(T-t)}-1}{{\lambda}}v\Big)\Big){^}2I_q\Big(\frac{4{\lambda}{\mathrm{e}}{^}{\frac{{\lambda}}{2}t}}{{\sigma}{^}2({\mathrm{e}}{^}{{\lambda}t}-1)\sqrt{vV_0}}\Big)\Big\}{\mathrm{d}}v\,{\mathrm{d}}t\,,
\end{split}$$ where $h$ is given by $$\label{eq:fct.h.swap}
h(y):=\int_0{^}y{\mathrm{e}}{^}{-{2/x{\sigma}{^}2}}x{^}{{2k/{\sigma}{^}2}}\int_x{^}\infty \frac{2}{{\sigma}{^}2}{\mathrm{e}}{^}{{2/u{\sigma}{^}2}}u{^}{-{2k/{\sigma}{^}2}-2}{\mathrm{d}}u\,{\mathrm{d}}x\,$$ with derivative $$\label{eq:fct.h.swap.der}
h{^}\prime(y)={\mathrm{e}}{^}{-{2/y{\sigma}{^}2}}y{^}{{2k/{\sigma}{^}2}}\int_y{^}\infty \frac{2}{{\sigma}{^}2}{\mathrm{e}}{^}{{2/u{\sigma}{^}2}}u{^}{-{2k/{\sigma}{^}2}-2}{\mathrm{d}}u\,.$$
By continuity, the semimartingale $(X,V,[X,X])$ is locally square integrable. To compute $A$ we start from . Because of the Markov property of $V$ with respect to ${\mathbb{F}}$ and [@CS07 Theorem 4], we have $$\label{eq:H0.3/2}
\begin{split}
H{^}0_t+k{^}{\textnormal{swap}}&=\int_0{^}t V_s{\mathrm{d}}s+{\mathbb{E}}\left[\int_t{^}TV_s{\mathrm{d}}s\Big|{\mathscr{F}}_t\right]
\\&=
\int_0{^}t V_s{\mathrm{d}}s+h\Big(\frac{{\mathrm{e}}{^}{{\lambda}(T-t)}-1}{{\lambda}}V_t\Big).
\end{split}$$ The function $h$ in is twice continuously differentiable and satisfies an ODE of the second order (cf. [@CS07 Eq. (81)]). Hence we see that $H{^}0_t=f{^}0(t,V_t,[X,X]_t)$, where $$\label{eq:fun.form.H0.th}
f{^}0(t,v,w)=h\Big(\frac{{\mathrm{e}}{^}{{\lambda}(T-t)}-1}{{\lambda}}v\Big)+w;\quad\partial_{v}f{^}0=h{^}\prime\Big(\frac{{\mathrm{e}}{^}{{\lambda}(T-t)}-1}{{\lambda}}v\Big)\frac{{\mathrm{e}}{^}{{\lambda}(T-t)}-1}{{\lambda}}.$$ By Corollary \[cor:poi.br.res.smar.abs.con\] (ii), and we obtain $${\ensuremath{\langle L{^}0,L{^}0 \rangle}}_T={\sigma}{^}2(1-\rho{^}2)\int_0{^}T\Big\{h{^}\prime\Big(\frac{{\mathrm{e}}{^}{{\lambda}(T-t)}-1}{{\lambda}}V_t\Big)\frac{{\mathrm{e}}{^}{{\lambda}(T-t)}-1}{{\lambda}}\Big\}{^}2V_t{^}3{\mathrm{d}}t.$$ Therefore, $$\begin{split}A&={\mathbb{E}}[{\ensuremath{\langle L{^}0,L{^}0 \rangle}}_T]\\&={\sigma}{^}2(1-\rho{^}2)\int_0{^}T\Big(\frac{{\mathrm{e}}{^}{{\lambda}(T-t)}-1}{{\lambda}}\Big){^}2{\mathbb{E}}\Big[h{^}\prime\Big(\frac{{\mathrm{e}}{^}{{\lambda}(T-t)}-1}{{\lambda}}V_t\Big){^}2V_t{^}3\Big]{\mathrm{d}}t\,.
\end{split}$$ To complete the proof, it is now sufficient to compute the expectation in the previous formula using the density of $V_t$ and . Notice that, because of Fubini’s theorem, the inner expectation is finite for almost all $t\in[0,T]$. The proof of the proposition is now complete.
\[rem:app.main.thm.3/2\] We remark that, from and , the mapping $(t,{\omega},z)\mapsto H({\omega},z)_t$ is ${\mathscr{P}}\otimes{\mathscr{B}}({\mathscr{S}}{^}j)$-measurable, for every $j=1,\ldots,d$, by continuity of $(X,V)$. Therefore, we can apply Theorems \[thm:hed.err\] and \[thm:comsec3.sec4\] to obtain $$\vartheta{^}j=\int_{{\mathscr{S}}{^}j}\frac{1}{S_t}\big(zH(z)_t+{\sigma}\rho\partial_v g(t,V_t,z)V_t\big){\zeta}{^}j({\mathrm{d}}z).$$
As a next step, we compute the vector $B$ of the covariation of ${\eta}{^}0$ with ${\eta}{^}1,\ldots,{\eta}{^}d$, using formula . We recall that ${\eta}{^}1,\ldots,{\eta}{^}d$ are square integrable European options with representation as in , while $H{^}j$ denotes the square integrable martingale associated with ${\eta}{^}j$, $j=1,\ldots,d$.
\[prop:B.3/2\] Let $B=(B{^}1,\ldots,B{^}d){^}\top$ be defined as in . If, for $j=1,\ldots,d$, the square integrable European option ${\eta}{^}j$ has the representation , then $$\begin{split}
B{^}j&=\frac{{\sigma}{^}2(1-\rho{^}2)}{2}V_0\int_0{^}T\int_{{\mathscr{S}}{^}j} \int_0{^}\infty\Big\{\exp\Big(zX_0+{\lambda}\Big(\frac{q}{2}+1-\frac{z\rho}{{\sigma}}\Big)t-\frac{2{\lambda}}{{\sigma}{^}2({\mathrm{e}}{^}{{\lambda}t}-1)}\Big(\frac1{V_0}+\frac{{\mathrm{e}}{^}{{\lambda}t}}{v}\Big)\Big)\times
\\&\hspace{4cm}\times \frac{4}{{\sigma}{^}2({\mathrm{e}}{^}{{\lambda}t}-1)}h{^}\prime\Big(\frac{{\mathrm{e}}{^}{{\lambda}(T-t)}-1}{{\lambda}}v\Big)\big({\mathrm{e}}{^}{{\lambda}(T-t)}-1\big)\partial_{v}g(t,v,z)\times \\&\hspace{5cm}\times I_{\frac2{{\sigma}{^}2}\sqrt{B_z}}\Big(\frac{4{\lambda}{\mathrm{e}}{^}{\frac{{\lambda}}{2}t}}{{\sigma}{^}2({\mathrm{e}}{^}{{\lambda}t}-1)\sqrt{vV_0}}\Big)\Big(\frac{v}{V_0}\Big){^}{z\rho/{\sigma}+1-q/2}
\Big\}{\mathrm{d}}v\,{\zeta}{^}j({\mathrm{d}}z){\mathrm{d}}t,
\end{split}$$ where $$\label{eq:def.Bz}
B_z:=\left(\kappa+\frac{{\sigma}{^}2}{2}\right){^}2+2{\sigma}{^}2\left[z\left(\frac{\rho}{{\sigma}}\left(\kappa+\frac{{\sigma}{^}2}{2}\right)-\frac12\right)+\frac{z{^}2}{2}(1-\rho{^}2)\right]\,.$$
The proof is completely analogous to the one of Proposition \[prop:comp.B\], at least up to the computation of the expectation of ${\ensuremath{\langle L{^}0,L{^}j \rangle}}_T$. The components of the vector $B=(B{^}1,\ldots,B{^}d){^}\top$ are $B{^}j={\mathbb{E}}[{\ensuremath{\langle L{^}0,L{^}j \rangle}}_T]$, $j=1,\ldots,d$, where $L{^}j$ is the residual in the GKW decomposition of $H{^}j$ with respect to $S$, $j=1,\ldots,d$. We start computing ${\ensuremath{\langle L{^}0,L(z) \rangle}}$, where $L{^}0$ and $L(z)$ are the residuals in the GKW-decomposition of $H{^}0$ and $H(z)$ (see ) with respect to $S$, respectively. From , , and , because of , we deduce: $${\mathrm{d}}{\ensuremath{\langle L{^}0,L(z) \rangle}}_t={\sigma}{^}2(1-\rho{^}2)h{^}\prime\Big(\frac{{\mathrm{e}}{^}{{\lambda}(T-t)}-1}{{\lambda}}V_t\Big)\frac{{\mathrm{e}}{^}{{\lambda}(T-t)}-1}{{\lambda}}\partial_vg(t,V_t,z)V_t {^}3{\mathrm{e}}{^}{zX_t}{\mathrm{d}}t=:K(z)_t{\mathrm{d}}t.$$ Clearly, $(t,{\omega},z)\mapsto K({\omega},z)_t$ is a jointly predictable mapping. Furthermore, from Theorem \[thm:comsec3.sec4\] we can apply Theorem \[thm:hed.err\] to get $$L{^}j=\int_{{\mathscr{S}}{^}j}L(z){\zeta}({\mathrm{d}}x),\quad j=1,\ldots,d.$$ Because of $\sup_{z\in{\mathscr{S}}{^}j}{\mathbb{E}}[|L(z)_t|{^}2]<+\infty$, we can apply Proposition \[prop:poi.br.com\] (iii) and deduce $$\begin{split}
{\ensuremath{\langle L{^}0,L{^}j \rangle}}_t&=\int_{{\mathscr{S}}{^}j}{\ensuremath{\langle L{^}0,L(z) \rangle}}_t{\zeta}{^}j({\mathrm{d}}z)
\\&={\sigma}{^}2(1-\rho{^}2)\int_0{^}t\int_{{\mathscr{S}}{^}j}h{^}\prime\Big(\frac{{\mathrm{e}}{^}{{\lambda}(T-s)}-1}{{\lambda}}V_s\Big)\frac{{\mathrm{e}}{^}{{\lambda}(T-s)}-1}{{\lambda}}{\mathrm{e}}{^}{zX_s}\partial_vg(s,V_s,z)V_s{^}3{\zeta}{^}j({\mathrm{d}}z){\mathrm{d}}s.
\end{split}$$ Therefore, Proposition \[prop:poi.br.com\] (ii) and Fubini’s theorem yield $$\label{eq:Bj.3/2.mod}
B{^}j={\sigma}{^}2(1-\rho{^}2)\int_0{^}T\int_{{\mathscr{S}}{^}j}{\mathbb{E}}\Big[h{^}\prime\Big(\frac{{\mathrm{e}}{^}{{\lambda}(T-s)}-1}{{\lambda}}V_s\Big)\frac{{\mathrm{e}}{^}{{\lambda}(T-s)}-1}{{\lambda}}\partial_vg(s,V_s,z)V_s{^}3{\mathrm{e}}{^}{zX_s}\Big]{\zeta}{^}j({\mathrm{d}}z){\mathrm{d}}s,$$ for $j=1,\ldots,d$. We now compute the inner expectation in . We have $$\label{eq:exp.first}
\begin{split}
{\mathbb{E}}\Big[h{^}\prime\Big(\frac{{\mathrm{e}}{^}{{\lambda}(T-t)}-1}{{\lambda}}V_t\Big)&\frac{({\mathrm{e}}{^}{{\lambda}(T-t)}-1)}{{\lambda}}V_t{^}3\partial_{v}g(t,V_t,z){\mathrm{e}}{^}{zX_t}\Big]
\\&=
{\mathbb{E}}\Big[h{^}\prime\Big(\frac{{\mathrm{e}}{^}{{\lambda}(T-t)}-1}{{\lambda}}V_t\Big)\frac{({\mathrm{e}}{^}{{\lambda}(T-t)}-1)}{{\lambda}}V_t{^}3\partial_{v}g(t,V_t,z){\mathbb{E}}\big[{\mathrm{e}}{^}{zX_t}|V_t\big]\Big]\,.
\end{split}$$ To compute the conditional expectation ${\mathbb{E}}[{\mathrm{e}}{^}{zX_t}|V_t]$ we apply the results of [@G16]. If $(R_t)_{t\in[0,T]}$ denotes the volatility process of [@G16] (cf. [@G16 Eq. (2.2)]), we have $R_t=V_t{^}{-1}$. Because $V_t$ does not vanish nor explode, the ${\sigma}$-algebras generated by $V_t$ and $R_t$ coincide. Therefore, from [@G16 Proposition 4.1], with $a=0$ and $b=1$, recalling , we get $$\label{eq:con.cha.X.v}
\begin{split}
{\mathbb{E}}\big[{\mathrm{e}}{^}{zX_t}|V_t\big]=\exp\left(zX_0-z\frac{{\lambda}\rho}{{\sigma}}\,t\right)\left(\frac{V_t}{V_0}\right){^}{\frac{z\rho}{{\sigma}}}\frac{I_{\frac{2}{{\sigma}{^}2}\,\sqrt{B_z}}\left(\frac{4{\lambda}{\mathrm{e}}{^}{\frac{{\lambda}}{2}t}}{{\sigma}{^}2({\mathrm{e}}{^}{{\lambda}t}-1)\sqrt{V_0V_t}}\right)}{I_q\left(\frac{4{\lambda}{\mathrm{e}}{^}{\frac{{\lambda}}{2}t}}{{\sigma}{^}2({\mathrm{e}}{^}{{\lambda}t}-1)\sqrt{V_0V_t}}\right)},
\end{split}$$ where $I_p(x)$ denotes the modified Bessel function of the first kind and $B_z$ is as in . Hence, inserting in and using the expression of the density of $V_t$ (cf. ), the statement follows from .
We now compute the covariance matrix $C$.
\[prop:com.C.3/2.mod\] Let $C=(C{^}{ij})_{i,j=1,\ldots,d}$ be defined as in . Then, for $i,j=1,\ldots,d$, $$\begin{split}
C{^}{ij}&=
\frac{{\sigma}{^}2(1-\rho{^}2)}{2}V_0\int_0{^}T\int_{{\mathscr{S}}{^}i}\int_{{\mathscr{S}}{^}j}\int_0{^}\infty\Big\{\exp
\Big((z_1+z_2)X_0+{\lambda}\Big(\frac{q}{2}+1-\frac{z_1+z_2}{{\sigma}}\rho\Big)t\Big)\times
\\&
\hspace{2cm}\frac{4{\lambda}}{{\sigma}{^}2({\mathrm{e}}{^}{{\lambda}t}-1)}\exp\Big(-\frac{2{\lambda}}{{\sigma}{^}2({\mathrm{e}}{^}{{\lambda}t}-1)}\Big(\frac1{V_0}+\frac{{\mathrm{e}}{^}{{\lambda}t}}{v}\Big)\Big)\partial_{v}g(t,v,z_1)\partial_{v}g(t,v,z_2)\times\\&\hspace{2.5cm}\times\Big(\frac{v}{V_0}\Big){^}{(z_1+z_2)\rho/{\sigma}+1-q/2} I_{\frac{2}{{\sigma}{^}2}\sqrt{B_{z_1+z_2}}}\Big(\frac{4{\lambda}{\mathrm{e}}{^}{\frac{{\lambda}}{2}t}}{{\sigma}{^}2({\mathrm{e}}{^}{{\lambda}t}-1)\sqrt{vV_0}}\Big)\Big\}{\mathrm{d}}v\,{\zeta}{^}j({\mathrm{d}}z_2)\,{\zeta}{^}i({\mathrm{d}}z_1)\,{\mathrm{d}}t,
\end{split}$$ where $g$ is defined in and $B_z$ in . The expression of the partial derivative $\partial_v g$ is given in .
We proceed as in Proposition \[prop:cov.mat.C\]: By definition, we have $C{^}{ij}={\mathbb{E}}\big[{\ensuremath{\langle L{^}i,L{^}j \rangle}}_T]$, $j=1,\ldots, d$. Furthermore, from and , we get $$\begin{split}
{\mathrm{d}}{\ensuremath{\langle L(z_1),L(z_2) \rangle}}_t&=\partial_{v}f(t,X_t,V_t,z_1)\partial_{v}f(t,X_t,V_t,z_2){\mathrm{d}}Q_t
\\&={\sigma}{^}2(1-\varrho{^}2)\partial_vg(t,V_t,z_1)\partial_vg(t,V_t,z_2)V_s{^}3{\mathrm{e}}{^}{(z_1+z_2)X_t}{\mathrm{d}}t
\\&=:K(z_1,z_2)_t{\mathrm{d}}t,
\end{split}$$ and $(t,{\omega},z_1,z_2)\mapsto K({\omega},z_1,z_2)_t$ is a jointly progressively measurable process. As in Proposition \[prop:cov.mat.C\], we now deduce $$\label{eq:Cij.3/2.mod}
\begin{split}
C{^}{ij}&={\sigma}{^}2(1-\rho{^}2)\int_0{^}T\int_{{\mathscr{S}}{^}i}\int_{{\mathscr{S}}{^}j}{\mathbb{E}}\Big[V_s{^}3\partial_{v}g(s,V_s,z_1)\partial_{v}g(s,V_s,z_2){\mathrm{e}}{^}{(z_1+z_2)X_s}\Big]{\zeta}{^}j({\mathrm{d}}z_2){\zeta}{^}i({\mathrm{d}}z_1) {\mathrm{d}}s
\\&=
{\sigma}{^}2(1-\rho{^}2)\int_0{^}T\int_{{\mathscr{S}}{^}i}\int_{{\mathscr{S}}{^}j}{\mathbb{E}}\Big[V_s{^}3\partial_{v}g(s,V_s,z_1)\partial_{v}g(s,V_s,z_2){\mathbb{E}}\big[{\mathrm{e}}{^}{(z_1+z_2)X_s}\big|V_s\big]\Big]{\zeta}{^}j({\mathrm{d}}z_2){\zeta}{^}i({\mathrm{d}}z_1) {\mathrm{d}}s,
\end{split}$$ for every $i,j=1,\ldots,d$. From with $z=z_1+z_2$ we can compute the conditional expectation on the right-hand side of . The statement of the proposition follows computing the outer expectation on the right-hand side of with the help of the density function of $V_t$ (cf. ) and the proof is complete.
Moments in Heston Model {#subsec:mom.H}
=======================
This appendix is devoted to the proof Proposition \[prop:mix.mom\]. We start with a preliminary lemma. The notation was introduced in and .
\[lem:int.mix.mom\] Let $R{^}j\in{\mathbb{R}}$ be such that ${\mathbb{E}}[\exp(2R{^}jX_T)]<+\infty$, $j=1,2$. Then there exists ${\varepsilon}={\varepsilon}(t)>0$ such that ${\mathbb{E}}[\exp((R{^}1+R{^}2)X_t+(r{^}1_{R{^}1,R{^}2}+{\varepsilon})V_t)]<+\infty$ for every $t\in[0,T]$. In particular, the solution of the Riccati equation starting at $(R{^}1+R{^}2,u)$ exists up to time $T$, for each $u\in{\mathbb{R}}$ in the interval $(r{^}1_{R{^}1,R{^}2}-{\varepsilon},r{^}1_{R{^}1,R{^}2}+{\varepsilon})$ and $V_tH(R{^}1)_tH(R{^}2)_t$ is integrable, for every fixed $t\in[0,T]$.
Because of the affine structure of the Heston model, we have $$\label{eq:int.prod}
H(R{^}1)_tH(R{^}2)_t=\exp\big(r{^}0_{R{^}1,R{^}2}\big)\exp\big((R{^}1+R{^}2)X_t+r{^}1_{R{^}1,R{^}2}V_t\big).$$ The left-hand side of the previous identity is integrable by the assumptions on $R{^}1$ and $R{^}2$. Hence also the right-hand side of is integrable. Therefore, $(R{^}1+R{^}2,r{^}1_{R{^}1,R{^}2})$ belongs to the open set (see [@F09 Theorem 10.3(b), Lemma 10.1(c)]) $M(t):=\{(u_1,u_2)\in{\mathbb{C}}{^}2:\ {\mathbb{E}}[{\mathrm{e}}{^}{u_1X_t+u_2V_t}]<+\infty\}$, for every $t\in[0,T]$. So, for every $t\in[0,T]$, there exists ${\varepsilon}={\varepsilon}(t)>0$ such that $(R{^}1+R{^}2,r{^}1_{R{^}1,R{^}2}\pm{\varepsilon})\in M(t)$. Because $V_t\geq0$, using Taylor expansion of ${\mathrm{e}}{^}{{\varepsilon}V_t}$, we deduce $$\begin{split}
V_tH(R{^}1)_tH(R{^}2)_t&=V_t\exp\big(r{^}0_{R{^}1,R{^}2}\big)\exp\big((R{^}1+R{^}2)X_t+r{^}1_{R{^}1,R{^}2}V_t\big)\\&\leq\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}}\exp\big(r{^}0_{R{^}1,R{^}2}\big)\exp\big((R{^}1+R{^}2)X_t+(r{^}1_{R{^}1,R{^}2}+{\varepsilon})V_t\big)
\end{split}$$ and the right-hand side is integrable. The existence of the solution of the Riccati equation starting at $(R{^}1+R{^}2,r{^}1_{R{^}1,R{^}2})$ follows from [@KM15 Theorem 2.14, Example 2.19]. The proof is now complete.
We are now ready to give a proof of Proposition \[prop:mix.mom\].
Notice that $V_tH(z_1)_tH(z_2)_t$ is integrable. This follows from Lemma \[lem:int.mix.mom\] and the estimate $$|V_tH(z_1)_tH(z_2)_t|\leq V_tH(R{^}1)_tH(R{^}2)_t\,,\qquad t\in[0,T].$$ Because $H(z_j)_t=\exp\big(\phi_{T-t}(z_j,0))+\psi_{T-t}(z_j,0))V_t+z_jX_t\big)$, $j=1,2$, the Heston model being affine, we also have $$H(z_1)_tH(z_2)_t=\exp\big(r{^}0_{z_1,z_2}\big)\exp\big((z_1+z_2)X_t+r{^}1_{z_1,z_2}V_t\big),$$ which implies the integrability of the right-hand side. From Lemma \[lem:int.mix.mom\] this holds also for each $u\in{\mathbb{C}}$ such that $u\in B_{\tilde{\varepsilon}}(r{^}1_{z_1,z_2})$, $\tilde{\varepsilon}={\varepsilon}/2$, where ${\varepsilon}={\varepsilon}(t)>0$ is as in Lemma \[lem:int.mix.mom\] and $B_\delta(z)$ denotes the open ball in the complex plane centered in $z\in{\mathbb{C}}$ and of radius $\delta>0$. From the affine formula, for $u\in B_{\tilde{\varepsilon}}(r{^}1_{z_1,z_2})$, we deduce $$\label{eq:aff.for}
\begin{split}
{\mathbb{E}}\big[\exp\big(&(z_1+z_2)X_t+uV_t\big)\big]\\&=\exp\big(\phi_t((z_1+z_2),u))+(z_1+z_2)X_0+\psi_t((z_1+z_2),u)V_0\big)\,.\end{split}$$ Now, setting $g(t,u):=\exp((z_1+z_2)X_t+uV_t)$, we have $$V_tH(z_1)_tH(z_2)_t=\exp\big(r{^}0_{z_1,z_2}\big)\partial_{u}g(t,u)\big|_{u=r{^}1_{z_1,z_2}}\,,$$ so $${\mathbb{E}}\big[V_tH(z_1)_tH(z_2)_t\big]=\exp\big(r{^}0_{z_1,z_2}\big){\mathbb{E}}\Big[\partial_{u}g(t,u)\big|_{u=r{^}1_{z_1,z_2}}\Big]\,.$$ Our aim is now to exchange expectation and derivative in the previous formula. Taking the supremum over $u\in B_{\tilde{\varepsilon}}\big(r{^}1_{z_1,z_2}\big)$ we get $$\begin{split}
\textstyle\sup_{u}\displaystyle\big|\partial_{u}g(t,u)\big|&\\&=\textstyle\sup_{u}\displaystyle\big|V_t\exp\big((z_1+z_2)X_t+uV_t\big)\big|\\&=V_t\textstyle\sup_{u}\displaystyle\big(\exp\big((R{^}1+R{^}2)X_t+{\mathrm{Re}}(u)V_t\big)\big)
\\&\leq V_t\textstyle\sup_{u}\displaystyle\big(\exp\big((R{^}1+R{^}2)X_t+\big({\mathrm{Re}}\big(r{^}1_{z_1,z_2}\big)+\tilde{\varepsilon}\big) V_t\big)\\&\leq V_t\exp\big((R{^}1+R{^}2)X_t+\big(r{^}1_{R{^}1,R{^}2}+\tilde{\varepsilon}\big) V_t\big)
\\&\leq \frac{2}{{\varepsilon}}\exp\big((R{^}1+R{^}2)X_t+\big(r{^}1_{R{^}1,R{^}2}+{\varepsilon}\big) V_t\big),
\end{split}$$ where, in the second estimation we used ${\mathrm{Re}}(\psi_t(z))\leq\psi_t({\mathrm{Re}}(z))$, for every $z\in{\mathbb{C}}{^}2$. The last term in the previous estimation is integrable because of Lemma \[lem:int.mix.mom\] and therefore we can exchange derivative and expectation in the following computation: $$\begin{split}
{\mathbb{E}}\big[V_tH(z_1)_tH(z_2)_t\big]&=\exp\big(r{^}0_{z_1,z_2}\big){\mathbb{E}}\Big[\partial_{u}g(t,u)\big|_{u=r{^}1_{z_1,z_2}}\Big]\\&=\exp\big(r{^}0_{z_1,z_2}\big)\partial_{u}{\mathbb{E}}\big[g(t,u)\big]\Big|_{u=r{^}1_{z_1,z_2}}.
\end{split}$$ Using now and computing the derivative, the statement follows because, from Lemma \[lem:int.mix.mom\], the solution of the Riccati equation starting at $(z_1+z_2,u)$ exists up to time $T$, for each $u$ in $B_{\tilde{\varepsilon}}\big(r{^}1_{z_1,z_2}\big)$.
[^1]: Corresponding author. Mail: Paolo.Di\[email protected].
[^2]: MKR thanks Johannes Muhle-Karbe for early discussions on the idea of “Variance-Optimal Semi-Static Hedging”. We acknowledge funding from the German Research Foundation (DFG) under grant ZUK 64 (all authors) and KE 1736/1-1 (MKR, MH)
[^3]: In order to compute the quantities in , we will need the stronger assumption that $S$ is a square integrable martingale. However, this assumption is not needed to compute
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering () is the dominant neutrino scattering channel for neutrinos of energy $E_\nu<$. We report a limit for this process using data collected in an engineering run of the liquid argon detector located from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) Hg target with $4.2\times 10^{22}$ protons on target. The dataset yielded < observed events implying a cross section for the process, averaged over the SNS pion decay-at-rest flux, of <, a limit within twice the Standard Model prediction. This is the first limit on from an argon nucleus and confirms the earlier non-standard neutrino interaction constraints from the collaboration. This run demonstrated the feasibility of the ongoing experimental effort to detect with liquid argon.'
bibliography:
- 'lar\_engrun\_main.bib'
date: September 2019
title: 'First Constraint on Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering in Argon'
---
\[sec:intro\]Introduction
=========================
Coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering (), predicted in 1974 as a consequence of the neutral weak current [@Freedman:1973yd; @Kopeliovich:1974mv], is the dominant neutrino interaction for neutrinos of energy $E_\nu < \SI{100}{\MeV}$. It has a characteristic dependence on the square of the number of neutrons ($N^2$) reflecting the coherent sum of the weak charge carried by the neutrons, and is sensitive to nuclear physics effects [@bib:formfactorscevns; @bib:cadedduNeutronRad; @bib:cadeddu; @Patton:2012jr; @AristizabalSierra:2019zmy; @Hoferichter:2018acd] through the nuclear form factor, ($F(Q^{2})$), as seen in the differential cross section for a spin-zero nucleus [@bib:formfactorscevns]: $$\label{eq:xsec}
\frac{d\sigma}{dT} = \frac{G_{F}^{2}M}{2\pi}\left[ 2 - \frac{2T}{E_{\nu}} + \left( \frac{T}{E_{\nu}}\right)^{2} -\frac{MT}{E_{\nu}^{2}}\right]\frac{Q_{W}^{2}}{4}F^{2}(Q^{2})$$ where $T$ is the recoil energy, $M$ is the mass of the nucleus, and $Q_{W} = N - Z \left( 1-4\sin^{2}\theta_{W} \right)$ is the weak charge with weak mixing angle $\theta_{W}$. is also sensitive to physics beyond the Standard Model (SM) [@bib:barrancoCrossSection; @bib:scholberg; @bib:barrancoNSI; @bib:duttaBSM; @bib:papoulias; @bib:kraussWeakCharge]. In particular, the ability of a measurement to constrain so-called “Non-Standard Interactions" (NSI) is critical as their presence can confound the mass ordering determination by long-baseline neutrino experiments such as DUNE [@bib:coloma; @bib:coloma2; @bib:coloma3].
has eluded detection until recently due to the challenging technical requirements: $\bigO(\SI{10}{\keV})$ nuclear recoil energy thresholds, intense sources/large target masses, and low backgrounds. The COHERENT collaboration has recently overcome these challenges with state-of-the-art detector technology combined with the intense, pulsed, stopped-pion neutrino source available at the Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), using a crystal to achieve the first measurement of [@Akimov:2017ade].
The next step for this program is a demonstration of the $N^2$ cross section dependence via observation of the process in other nuclei. To that end, the liquid argon detector was commissioned as part of the COHERENT experiment. We report here results from as configured for an initial engineering run to establish the scintillation response, light yield, and energy calibration of the detector, as well as characterize the expected backgrounds. The results reported here informed a detector upgrade for a longer-term search with improved light yield and background reduction.
\[sec:exp\] Experiment
======================
The ORNL SNS produces neutrons via a , proton beam pulsed at on a liquid- target (with a typical proton beam trace having a $\mathrm{FWHM} = \SI{360}{\ns}$). This beam also produces copious charged pions leading to a large neutrino flux via decay-at-rest (DAR). While the total integrated beam power may be known to , the total neutrino flux is only known to due to systematic uncertainties in the pion production rate at the SNS, predicted to be for each proton-on-target (POT) at the beam energy for this run period [@Akimov:2017ade]. These produce a prompt ($\tau = \SI{26}{\ns}$) along with a which then decays, yielding a delayed ($\tau=\SI{2.2}{\micro\s}$) 3-body spectrum of , , and $e^{+}$ with an endpoint of . The majority of and capture on nuclei within the target yielding a very pure DAR neutrino flux. The pulsed nature of the SNS beam allows for a large reduction in beam-unrelated backgrounds for neutrino experiments.
After a campaign of background measurements in the SNS experimental hall, a low-background area in a basement corridor was identified as a suitable area in which to measure . This corridor (“Neutrino Alley”), is shielded by $\gtrsim\SI{20}{\m}$ of concrete and gravel from the SNS target assembly and by overburden. This provides a space with a low total background rate and, in particular, a sufficiently low beam-related-neutron rate for a measurement of .
In late 2016 the detector, a single-phase liquid-argon () scintillation detector (Fig. \[fig:CENNS-10\]) [@Tayloe:2017edz], was installed in Neutrino Alley from the SNS target. was initially built at Fermilab for a prototype experiment [@bib:CENNS] to run near the Fermilab Booster neutrino source. It contains a total mass of .
For this engineering run, a active detector mass was defined by a surrounding acrylic cylindrical shell coated with TPB (tetraphenyl-butadiene) to wavelength-shift the argon scintillation light to a distribution with $\lambda_{peak} \approx \SI{400}{\nm}$ [@bib:tpbeff1; @bib:tpbeff2; @bib:mckinsey; @bib:agnesTPB]. This visible light was viewed with two 8" diameter Hamamatsu R5912-02MOD photomultiplier tubes (PMTs) read out with a CAEN V1720 digitizer. The , cooled and liquified with a Cryomech PT-90 cold head, was contained in a stainless-steel detector vessel within a vacuum cryostat. As seen in Fig. \[fig:CENNS-10\], the cryostat was suspended in a cylindrical water tank which was further contained within an external copper layer sitting on a layer of lead. The water layer reduces the beam-related neutron backgrounds, the lead is designed to reduce the flux from environmental $\gamma$ backgrounds, and the copper is added to shield from x-rays produced from $\beta$ decays in the lead.
![\[fig:CEvNSrecoilE\] Nuclear recoil kinetic energy distribution from for the SNS neutrino spectrum for currently-deployed and planned COHERENT detectors at their respective detector locations in Neutrino Alley. ](cevns_recspect_allnuc_evtsPerkeVPerkgPeryearNominalDist_log_noNa.pdf){width="0.99\columnwidth"}
This engineering run coincided with three months of SNS neutron production corresponding to a total integrated beam power of () at an average energy of . A search was performed with of beam following the completion of the full-shielding (water and copper) installation. Data were read from the digitizer in windows centered around the beam spills. In addition to these “beam” triggers, identical windows (“strobe” triggers) were read asynchronously with the beam spills to precisely characterize beam-unrelated events.
is a natural choice as a medium to detect . It provides a light nucleus in contrast to CsI to test the $N^{2}$ dependence of the cross section. Argon has been widely used for both dark matter WIMP searches [@PhysRevD.98.102006; @Ajaj:2019imk] and for neutrino detection [@PhysRevD.99.091102], and has therefore been well-characterized in the literature. It has a high light yield, [@bib:Doke90] (electron equivalent energy deposition), providing a sufficiently low threshold for detection, and the quenched response to nuclear recoils has been well-characterized [@bib:microclean; @bib:scene; @bib:creus; @bib:aris] allowing for well-understood predictions. scintillates on two significantly different time scales ($\tau_{singlet} \approx \SI{6}{\ns}, \tau_{triplet} \approx \SI{1600}{\ns}$) [@bib:Hitachi83] providing powerful pulse-shape discrimination (PSD) capabilities to separate nuclear from electronic recoils (NR and ER respectively) [@bib:deap1; @bib:benetti; @bib:lippincott]. Both the light output and PSD capabilities depend on the purity.
As seen in Fig. \[fig:CEvNSrecoilE\], the process in with the SNS neutrino source produces nuclear recoils up to (nuclear recoil). Due to the low-energy recoil signal, and the low event rates, the expected backgrounds need to be well characterized. In Neutrino Alley, is sensitive to both beam-related and beam-unrelated backgrounds. These beam-unrelated backgrounds typically cause electronic recoils and are dominated by a high flux of gamma rays from a pipe running through Neutrino Alley carrying radioactive gas from the SNS target system. The PSD capabilities of are used to reject most of these events; the rate of those remaining in the sample is measured via the strobe windows. In a strict sense, these gamma rays are beam-related and their rates change with the time history of accelerator operations. However, as the rate of change is small compared to the beam pulse rate, they are characterized as beam-unrelated. External beam-unrelated backgrounds have largely been mitigated in a subsequent run of with the installation of additional shielding, making the dominant beam-unrelated background. The isotope is cosmogenically produced and is inherent in atmospheric sources of . COHERENT is considering the use of underground argon depleted in [@bib:backuar; @bib:backuar2; @bib:agnesuar] for future measurements.
A more challenging background for a analysis is caused by beam-related neutrons (BRNs) produced in the SNS target. BRNs arrive in-time with the SNS beam pulse and elastically scatter, generating nuclear recoils and mimicking the signal. To characterize the BRN flux in energy and time, it was measured by the SciBath detector [@Cooper:2011kx; @bib:CENNS] at the location in late 2015. This measurement indicated that the BRN flux in time with the beam pulse is substantial compared to the prompt signal while the delayed BRN flux is negligible, thus providing a suitable time window in which to search for [@Heath:2019jpj].
\[sec:anl\] Analysis
====================
The analysis of this dataset proceeded as follows: First a suite of radioactive $\gamma$ and neutron sources were used to calibrate the detector energy and PSD response and the detector simulation was tuned to match these data. Then beam-unrelated backgrounds were measured with strobe triggers, the beam-related background from BRNs was predicted with simulation based on the previous SciBath measurement, and the signal was predicted from the SM cross section. Energy, PSD, and time cuts were then optimized with those estimates to maximize beam-related signal significance. With those cuts, a reduced neutron-shielding dataset was used to adjust the BRN prediction for the full shielded configuration. Finally, cuts were optimized and fixed for both a ‘counting experiment’ and a likelihood fit before analyzing the full shielded beam-on dataset.
The individual, digitized PMT waveforms are analyzed for every trigger in the data stream and saturated waveforms are removed from the dataset. A baseline is determined from the average ADC value in the first of each remaining waveform. This baseline is then used to identify PMT pulses on each channel above a () threshold. Events are identified when there are coincident PMT signals above this threshold to avoid triggering on single photoelectron-level pulses from PMT dark rate. A requirement that the maximum ADC value occur within the first of the event minimizes the effects from event pileup. A local baseline is calculated immediately before each pulse and a least-squares parabola fit is performed to the pulse peak for an accurate singlet pulse-height measurement. The results from the parabola fit are used to fit a single photoelecton (SPE) template shape to the singlet peak and the residual between the SPE template and the data is taken. Finally, the integral of the residual waveform is taken as a measure of the amount of triplet light in the event. A pulse shape parameter (defined as the ratio of singlet to total light) can then be calculated to separate ER background events from the NR signal.
![Reconstructed energy spectrum with a source. The singlet pulse fitting allows for the singlet light to be summed separately.[]{data-label="fig:ly"}](ly_v3.pdf){width="0.99\columnwidth"}
Weekly calibration datasets with a source were used to measure the detector light output as well as track any changes over the course of this run. The detected photon yield was as determined from the observed photopeak from the summed singlet and triplet light in the spectrum (Fig. \[fig:ly\]). It should be noted that the light yield was increased by a factor of in a subsequent upgrade of this detector. With the use of the datasets, the triplet lifetime in was measured to be $\bigO(\SI{1.2}{\micro\s})$, consistent with an impurity level on the order of $\bigO(\SI{1}{ppm})$ [@bib:WArP10], adequate for a scintillation-only detector.
Monthly datasets collected with a fission source were used to characterize the response of to NR events. The separation of NR and ER events in the dataset is shown in Fig. \[fig:arpsd\] where the band at low is identified as due to ER events and that at high is identified as NR events due to the fission neutrons. The observed is consistent with the expected singlet:triplet ratios of ER and NR events [@bib:Hitachi83].
These calibration datasets enabled the tuning of the -based [@Agostinelli:2002hh] Monte Carlo (MC) simulation optical properties for both ER and NR events. These detector simulations were used to evaluate the efficiency for low-energy NR events to be detected and to form predictions of the expected BRN and event rates in . An energy-independent fit over the energy range of interest to the global data on nuclear recoil scintillation quenching [@bib:microclean; @bib:scene; @bib:creus; @bib:aris] provided a quenching factor ($0.289 \pm 0.035$) for NR vs ER response in . With these waveform analysis and calibration procedures, each detector event can be identified as an ER or NR candidate and be assigned a corresponding energy with units of or .
![Distribution of the parameter as a function of detected light in calibration data with decays to both neutrons and $\gamma$s. The overlaid red curve is a PSD cut optimized for the cuts-based counting experiment analysis discussed in the text.[]{data-label="fig:arpsd"}](figures/argonpsd_v4.pdf){width="0.99\columnwidth"}
Initial BRN predictions using a simulation based on the 2015 SciBath measurement were compared to a dedicated two-week minimal-neutron-shielding dataset. From this comparison, the predicted BRN rate was found to be lower than the observed rate. This factor was used to adjust the expected neutron rates for the primary dataset. However, the BRN normalization was allowed to float in the final analysis. predictions were based on the convolution of the pion decay-at-rest neutrino flux and SNS pion-production rate [@Akimov:2017ade] with the Standard Model-predicted cross section. Beam-unrelated backgrounds were measured *in situ* with strobe triggers.
Both a cuts-based (“counting experiment”) analysis and a likelihood fit in energy, time, and space were performed on the full-shielded dataset. In the cuts-based analysis, to form a sample, a figure-of-merit $\fom \equiv N_{sig} / \sigma_{sig}$ was optimized to set a reconstructed energy range, a delayed $1.4 < t_{Trig} < \SI{4.4}{\micro\s}$ time window (where $t_{Trig}$ is measured relative to a timing signal provided by the SNS close to the onset of POT), and an energy-dependent PSD selection seen in Fig. \[fig:arpsd\]. For this analysis, it was assumed that the BRNs observed in Neutrino Alley are produced by fast neutrons from the target scattering in the shielding near the detector and that the neutrinos should arrive roughly before the fast neutron peak determined from the BRN measurements. The results reported here are not sensitive to this assumption. A BRN-enhanced sample was selected with an expanded energy range () in both the prompt ($0.4 < t_{Trig} < \SI{1.4}{\micro\s}$) and the delayed ($1.4 < t_{Trig} < \SI{4.4}{\micro\s}$) time windows.
![Estimated efficiency for acceptance of nuclear recoil events in as function of nuclear recoil energy. “Detected Events” are those that pass the coincidence required for event building. The likelihood and counting experiment cuts reflect the change in efficiency due to analysis cuts discussed in the text.[]{data-label="fig:eff"}](effcurveonly_psdcut_v2.pdf){width="0.99\columnwidth"}
For the likelihood fit, cuts were loosened, increasing the sensitivity to a signal, to , relative to the SNS timing signal, and from values ranging from . The lack of events with reconstructed energy $E_{reco} > \SI{50}{\keV ee}$ and the lack of BRN events in the delayed window ($t_{Trig} > \SI{1.4}{\micro\s}$) serves to separate the BRN and signals. The efficiencies as a function of nuclear recoil energy for these cuts is seen in Fig. \[fig:eff\].
Systematic errors were assigned to the beam-related (and BRN) predictions for the quenching factor and pulse-finding threshold. These uncertainties were dominated by the uncertainty of the NR PSD band in the energy region due to the high threshold of the calibration datasets. An additional source of uncertainty was included on the overall BRN normalization due to the extrapolation of the BRN rate from the minimal-shielded dataset. For the cuts-based analysis, correlated systematic errors were calculated and a goodness-of-fit ($\chi^{2}$) quantity was determined for the beam excess compared to the MC prediction. For the cross section limits from the likelihood fits, alternative PDFs incorporating excursions for each systematic were fit to the data, and the difference from the central value result were added in quadrature as a measure of the systematic uncertainty.
Results
=======
![Time distribution of beam-on and strobe samples in the BRN-enhanced energy window. The blue curve is that expected from the timing shape of the SNS POT signal scaled to the beam-on-target excess.[]{data-label="fig:counting_time"}](figures/fullshield_tspect.pdf){width="0.99\columnwidth"}
The resulting sample from the BRN-enhanced cuts-based analysis () over the full time range is shown in Fig. \[fig:counting\_time\]. Note the clear evidence of BRNs with time structure consistent with the POT trace from the SNS beam. Note also that there is no evidence of this signal in the delayed ($t_{Trig} > \SI{1.4}{\micro\s}$) region. This is consistent with the hypothesis that the BRN that reach the detector inside of the shielding are the result of fast neutrons in Neutrino Alley that lose sufficient energy to create low-energy nuclear recoils in . This is verified by MC simulations.
The reconstructed energy distribution from this sample in the prompt time region ($0.4 < t_{Trig} < \SI{1.4}{\micro\s}$) is shown in Fig. \[fig:counting\_prompt\]. The beam-related excess of in this sample is consistent with the BRN prediction of . The uncertainty on the BRN prediction is dominated by the uncertainty in the overall fast neutron flux (), the uncertainty of the NR PSD band mean near threshold (), the pulse-finding threshold (), and the quenching factor (). The predicted signal in this sample is detected event. A comparison of the data with the predicted BRN energy spectrum gives a $\chi^{2} / N_{bins}$, including correlated uncertainties, of $99 / 70$ ($2.0 / 3$ in the energy ROI). The excess of events above prediction at $E \approx \SI{440}{\keV ee}$ has a global p-value under the null hypothesis of and is above the energy region of interest for the likelihood fit.
![Energy distribution of the cuts-based analysis beam-residual event sample in the prompt time window along with the BRN prediction. The error bars are statistical and the error band on the prediction is systematic. Plot inlay shows un-subtracted spectra from the prompt beam-on triggers (black) and the expected beam-unrelated background as measured with strobe triggers (gray). []{data-label="fig:counting_prompt"}](figures/promptresid_v2.pdf){width="0.99\columnwidth"}
The energy distribution of events in the delayed sample is shown in Fig. \[fig:fullpsddelayed\]. In the energy region , an excess of is observed, with a predicted sample of with an uncertainty dominated by the pulse-finding threshold (), the NR PSD band mean behavior near threshold (), the quenching factor (), and the uncertainty in the neutrino flux (). The first two errors are large because the CEvNS events are so near the threshold in this dataset. In addition, there are in the extended energy range out to , consistent with earlier measurements [@Akimov:2017ade; @bib:coherent2015] indicating no delayed beam-related neutron flux in Neutrino Alley.
![Energy distribution of the cuts-based analysis beam-residual event sample in the delayed time window. Plot inlay shows un-subtracted beam-on spectrum (black) along with the expected beam-unrelated backgrounds as measured with strobe triggers (gray).[]{data-label="fig:fullpsddelayed"}](figures/delresid.pdf){width="0.99\columnwidth"}
The likelihood fit was performed by passing a total of 4663 events surviving the likelihood cuts to a 3D likelihood function in energy, time, and space including beam-unrelated and BRN backgrounds along with a signal. A profile likelihood curve was calculated as a function of the number of events and a frequentist confidence limit (C.L.) method [@Feldman:1997qc; @Thornton:2017etu; @bib:mb], along with a simple treatment of the large systematic errors, was used to place on upper limit on the number of events of . This result can be used to place a C.L. on the stopped-pion flux-averaged cross section of , within twice the Standard Model prediction of [@Akimov:2018ghi]. These results are summarized in Table \[tab:evtrates\] and the projections in time, $F_{prompt}$, and reconstructed energy can be seen in Fig. \[fig:likelihoodbfspectra\].
sample size
------------------------------------- ------------------------------
beam-unrelated background
fit BRN
1$\sigma$ ( C.L.) events $<\num{7.4}$
1$\sigma$ cross section $<\SI{3.4e-39}{\cm\squared}$
1$\sigma$ cross section sensitivity $<\SI{7.1e-39}{\cm\squared}$
: Results of a maximum likelihood fit to the data (details in text). The quoted beam-unrelated background counts includes the statistical uncertainty in its determination from the strobe trigger sample.[]{data-label="tab:evtrates"}
{width="\textwidth"}\
(a)
{width="\textwidth"}\
(b)
{width="\textwidth"}\
(c)
Using the same frequentist method a C.L. on the cross section of $\SI{<8.3e-39}{\cm\squared}$ was extracted and used to set limits on the NSI couplings $\epsilon_{ee}^{uV}, \epsilon_{ee}^{dV}$ [@bib:barrancoCrossSection]. Under the assumption of heavy mediators, these couplings result in an overall scaling factor to the cross section [@Akimov:2017ade]. Fig. \[fig:nsi\] indicates the allowed parameter values consistent with this C.L. cross section.
![ CL on NSI parameters $\epsilon_{ee}^{uV}$ and $\epsilon_{ee}^{dV}$ from this engineering run. The earlier result [@Akimov:2017ade] is confirmed and much of the pre-COHERENT phase space allowed by CHARM [@bib:charm] is ruled out.[]{data-label="fig:nsi"}](csi-lar-charm-461Crop.png){width="0.99\columnwidth"}
\[sec:concl\] Conclusions
=========================
In this first result from the liquid argon detector as part of the COHERENT experiment, a dataset taken as part of an engineering run corresponding to protons on the SNS target collected from Feb. 24, 2017 to May 28, 2017, has been analyzed. The energy threshold in this configuration is not adequate for high sensitivity to . However, beam-related neutrons were characterized, further refining constraints on this important background which will inform future measurements. In addition, no BRN were observed in the delayed time window, outside of the beam pulse, consistent with previous measurements. The observation of no significant beam excess does allow for a first limit on the cross section on argon within twice the SM prediction and for a corresponding limit on NSI.
The detector was upgraded in the summer of 2017 to improve light collection and lower the energy threshold to , and additional shielding was installed to minimize the dominant beam-unrelated background in Neutrino Alley. has collected of data in this configuration with the sensitivity to make a first observation of on argon. COHERENT is also working towards measurements with a array, also sensitive to charged current interactions, as well as with p-type point-contact to maximize the neutrino physics capabilities at the SNS [@Akimov:2018ghi].
Acknowledgments
===============
The COHERENT collaboration acknowledges the generous resources provided by the ORNL Spallation Neutron Source and thanks Fermilab for the continuing loan of the detector. We also acknowledge support from: the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the Consortium for Nonproliferation Enabling Capabilities, the Institute for Basic Science (Korea, grant No. IBS-R017-G1-2019-a00), the National Science Foundation, the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (proj.\# 17-02-01077 A), and the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science. Laboratory Directed Research and Development funds from ORNL and LLNL also supported this project. This research used the Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility, which is a DOE Office of Science User Facility.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We give a new proof of Quillen’s conjecture for solvable groups via a geometric and explicit method. For $p$-solvable groups, we provide both a new proof using the Classification of Finite Simple Groups and an asymptotic version without employing it.'
address: 'Departamento de [Á]{}lgebra, Geometr[í]{}a y Topolog[í]{}a, Universidad de M[á]{}laga, Apdo correos 59, 29080 M[á]{}laga, Spain.'
author:
- Antonio Díaz Ramos
title: 'On Quillen’s conjecture for $p$-solvable groups'
---
Introduction {#section:Introduction and motivation}
============
Let $G$ be a finite group, let $p$ be a prime and let $\A_p(G)$ be the poset consisting of the non-trivial elementary abelian $p$-groups of $G$ ordered by inclusion. The homotopy properties of the topological realization $|\A_p(G)|$ were first studied in [@Quillen1978]. There, Quillen introduced the following conjecture, where we denote by $O_p(G)$ the largest normal $p$-subgroup of $G$:
\[conj:Quillen’s\] If $|\A_p(G)|$ is contractible then $O_p(G)\neq 1$.
We start discussing some of the known progress on this conjecture as well as we briefly comment on the methods employed so far. If the implication \[conj:Quillen’s\] holds for $G$ we say that *$G$ satisfies $\Q\C$*. Let us introduce the following notion.
Let $G$ be a finite group of $p$-rank $r$. We say that $G$ has *Quillen dimension at $p$* if $O_p(G)=1\Rightarrow \widetilde H_{r-1}(|\A_p(G)|;\QQ)\neq 0$.
This notion was introduced by Ashchbacher and Smith in [@AS1993 p.474] and we denote it by $\Q\D_p$. Note that $r-1$ is the top dimension for which $\widetilde H_*(|\A_p(G)|;\QQ)$ can possibly be non-zero. As contractibility leads to zero homology it is clear that: $$\text{$\Q\D_p$ holds for $G$$\Rightarrow$ $\Q\C$ holds for $G$.}$$ Quillen observed the following: $$\label{equ:Quillenenoughforsolvablecase}
\text{$\Q\D_p$ for all $K\rtimes \FF_p^r$ with $K$ solvable $p'$-group $\Rightarrow$ $\Q\D_p$ for all $G$ solvable,}$$ where $\FF_p^r$ is an elementary abelian group of order $p^r$ acting on $K$ and $K\rtimes \FF_p^r$ is their semidirect product. In fact, the left hand side of the implication above was proven by Quillen himself [@Quillen1978 Corollary 12.2], leading to the solution of the conjecture in the solvable case. This is an inductive proof built on Cohen-Macaulay posets. Alperin supplied an alternative approach that examines a minimal counterexample via coprime action results [@Smith2011 Theorem 8.2.9]. A further observation of Quillen is: $$\label{equ:Quillenenoughforpsolvablecase}
\text{$\Q\D_p$ for all $K\rtimes \FF_p^r$ with $K$ $p'$-group $\Rightarrow$ $\Q\D_p$ for all $G$ $p$-solvable.}$$ Note that the solvability requirement on $K$ has been dropped. In this case, the left hand side, and hence $\Q\C$ for $p$-solvable groups, holds by an extension of the aforementioned argument of Alperin via the Classification of the Finite Simple Groups (CFSG). See [@Alperin1990 Theorem 1], [@Smith2011 Theorem 8.2.12] and [@AS1993 Theorem 0.5].
As contractiblity produces zero homology with any trivial coefficients, it makes sense to include in the above discussion homology with (trivial) coefficients in any abelian group $A$. In this work, we investigate certain homology classes that we term *constructible classes* and that form a subgroup $\widetilde H^c_{r-1}(|\A_p(K\rtimes \FF_p^r)|;A)$ of $\widetilde H_{r-1}(|\A_p(K\rtimes \FF_p^r)|;A)$, see Definition \[defn:constructiblelclass\] for details.
\[def:QDpA\] Consider the semidirect product $K\rtimes \FF_p^r$ with $K$ a $p'$-group and let $A$ be any abelian group. We say that $K\rtimes \FF_p^r$ has *constructible Quillen dimension at $p$ and $A$* if $O_p(K\rtimes \FF_p^r)=1\Rightarrow \widetilde H^c_{r-1}(|\A_p(K\rtimes \FF_p^r)|;A)\neq 0$.
We denote this condition by $\Q\D^{c,A}_p$. By the expression $\Q\D^c_p$ we mean that $\Q\D^{c,A}_p$ holds for some abelian group $A$. Note that for the semidirect product $K\rtimes \FF_p^r$: $$\label{equ:O_p=1sameasfaithfulaction}
O_p(K\rtimes \FF_p^r)=1\Leftrightarrow\text{ the action of $\FF_p^r$ on $K$ is faithful.}$$ As before, we have that: $$\label{equ:enoughforsolvablecase}
\text{$\Q\D^c_p$ for all $K\rtimes \FF_p^r$ with $K$ solvable $p'$-group $\Rightarrow$ $\Q\C$ for all $G$ solvable}$$ and $$\label{equ:enoughforpsolvablecase}
\text{$\Q\D^c_p$ for all $K\rtimes \FF_p^r$ with $K$ $p'$-group $\Rightarrow$ $\Q\C$ for all $G$ $p$-solvable.}$$
A constructible class for the group $K\rtimes \FF_p^r$ is defined by a choice of an element of $A$ for each Sylow $p$-subgroup of this group, $a_\cdot=(a_S)_{S\in {\operatorname{Syl}\nolimits}_p(K\rtimes \FF_p^r)}$, such that certain homogeneous linear equations are satisfied. Non-trivial solutions of these equations gives rise to non-trivial elements in $\widetilde H^c_{r-1}(|\A_p(K\rtimes \FF_p^r)|;A)$. So, roughly speaking, we have removed a subdivision when computing constructible homology classes. This means that we only need to look at the top two layers of this poset, i.e., Sylow subgroups and their hyperplanes. We show below that constructible classes suffice to prove Quillen’s conjecture in the $p$-solvable case. We start with the following findings.
\[thm:Kisqgroupabelianasymptotic\] For the elementary abelian group $\FF_p^r$ or order $p^r$ we have:
(a) \[thm:Kisqgroupabelianasymptotic.qgroup\]$\Q\D^{c,\ZZ_q}_p$ holds for $K\rtimes \FF_p^r$ with $K$ a $q$-group and $q\neq p$.
(b) \[thm:Kisqgroupabelianasymptotic.abelian\] $\Q\D^{c,\ZZ_2}_p$ holds for $K\rtimes \FF_p^r$ with $K$ an abelian $p'$-group.
Here, $\ZZ_D=\ZZ/D\ZZ$. We succinctly outline the families $a_\cdot$ utilised for this result. For case , we choose $a_\cdot$ to take the constant value $1\in \ZZ_q$. Letting $a_\cdot$ to be the characteristic function of an appropriately selected subset of Sylow $p$-subgroups gives . For the next result, we show that the aforementioned linear equations have at least a non-trivial solution.
\[thm:asymptotic\] $\Q\D^{c,\ZZ}_p$ holds for $K\rtimes \FF_p^r$ with $K$ a $p'$-group if $|K|={q_1}^{e_1}\cdots {q_l}^{e_l}$ satisfies that $r<q_i$ for all $i=1,\ldots,l$.
In view of the previous discussion, Theorem \[thm:asymptotic\] is in fact an asymptotic version of Quillen’s conjecture for $p$-solvable groups. If $K$ is solvable, its Fitting subgroup is self-centralizing and has abelian Frattini quotient. These two techniques are of interest here because they preserve faithfulness and because of Equation . Hence, the solvable case can be studied via the abelian case above together with the following fact that constructible classes behave extremely well with respect to quotients.
\[thm:conquotients\] Consider $K\rtimes \FF_p^r$ with $K$ a $p'$-group and let $N\unlhd K$ be an $\FF_p^r$-invariant subgroup of $K$. Let $A$ be any abelian group. If $\widetilde H^c_{r-1}(|\A_p(K/N\rtimes \FF_p^r)|;A)\neq 0$ then $\widetilde H^c_{r-1}(|\A_p(K\rtimes \FF_p^r)|;A)\neq 0$.
From here and Theorem \[thm:Kisqgroupabelianasymptotic\] we obtain the next result.
\[thm:QDpcZ2solvable\] $\Q\D^{c,\ZZ_2}_p$ holds for $K\rtimes \FF_p^r$ with $K$ a solvable $p'$-group.
This result together with Equation has the following immediate consequence.
\[thm:QCsolvable\] Quillen’s conjecture holds for solvable groups.
For general $p'$-group $K$, the Frattini quotient of its generalized Fitting subgroup is the direct product of an abelian group with simple groups. Theorem \[thm:conquotients\] again reduces the problem to building constructible classes on this quotient. As in Theorem \[thm:Kisqgroupabelianasymptotic\], we choose $a_\cdot$ to be the characteristic function of a certain subset of Sylow $p$-subgroups, and we use the CFSG to single out this subset.
\[thm:QDpcZ2p’\] $\Q\D^{c,\ZZ_2}_p$ holds for $K\rtimes \FF_p^r$ with $K$ a $p'$-group.
Now employing Equation we obtain the $p$-solvable case.
\[thm:QCpsolvable\] Quillen’s conjecture holds for $p$-solvable groups.
Going back to the initial discussion, we point out that Alperin’s arguments for the solvable and $p$-solvable cases are aimed to build a homology sphere in top dimension $r-1$. This sphere is built by appropriately choosing points to form $r$ $0$-spheres, and the considering its join. Here, our constructible homology class in top dimension $r-1$ is made out of conical pieces of that dimension glued along a graph, see Examples \[exa:chainforeagr=3\], \[exa:chainforsemidirectr=2\] and \[exa:c3c3c3c2c2c2\]. The weight of our arguments lies in the geometry of the situation, and we do not use neither induction nor minimal counterexample reasoning. For more details on this comparison, please see Remarks \[rmk:liftstoZZjoinofspheres\] and \[rmk:final\].
The methods explained here are open in at least a couple of directions: First, one can also define the constructible subgroup $\widetilde H^c_{r-1}(|\A_p(G)|;A)$ for any finite group $G$ of rank $r$ and any abelian group $A$. Nevertheless, the situation is more complicated as, to start with, the coprime action Propositions \[prop:semidirectbasics\] and \[prop:semidirectbasicsCpir\] do not hold in general. Second, it is easy to sharpen Theorem \[thm:existenceof2system\] in several ways. For instance, the conditions $c_i$ normalizes $C_K(H)$ and $[c_i,c_j]\in C_K(H)$ for all $i$ and $j$, are also enough to have a $2$-system.
\[rmk:aposteriorifaithfulaction\] By [@Quillen1978 Proposition 2.4], which is the reversed implication of Conjecture \[conj:Quillen’s\], the condition $\widetilde H_*(|\A_p(K\rtimes \FF_p^r)|;A)\neq 0$ forces the action of $\FF_p^r$ on $K$ to be faithful. In particular, if the thesis of Theorem \[thm:quotient\] holds, we deduce that $\FF_p^r$ acts faithfully on $K$ and on $K/N$.
**Acknowledgements:** I am really grateful to Stephen D. Smith for his time and generosity. He read an earlier version of this work and contributed many interesting and clarifying comments, specially those concerning buildings and the relation to Alperin’s solution. He also pointed out some flaws in the examples and in the analysis of fixed points in Section \[section:Quillen’sconjecture\] that are now fixed.
**Organization of the paper:** In Section \[section:Preliminaries\] we introduce notation and basic facts about the semidirects products we are interested in. In Section \[section:chainelementaryabelianpgroups\] we define, for each element $a\in A$, a chain in top dimension $r-1$ for $|\A_p(\FF_p^r)|$. Then, in Section \[section:chainsemidirectproduct\], we add up these chains to form a chain in top dimension for $|\A_p(K\rtimes \FF_p^r)|$. We also formulate the linear equations that must be satisfied in order for this chain to become a cycle in $\widetilde H^c_{r-1}(|\A_p(K\rtimes \FF_p^r)|;A)$. Case of Theorem \[thm:Kisqgroupabelianasymptotic\] and Theorem \[thm:asymptotic\] are also proven. In Section \[section:Dsystemsandquotients\], we introduce some tool needed to prove later in the same section the abelian case Theorem \[thm:Kisqgroupabelianasymptotic\]. Afterwards, we prove Theorem \[thm:conquotients\]. In the final Section \[section:Quillen’sconjecture\], we prove Theorems \[thm:QDpcZ2solvable\], \[thm:QCsolvable\], \[thm:QDpcZ2p’\] and \[thm:QCpsolvable\].
Preliminaries {#section:Preliminaries}
=============
Throughout the paper, $p$ denotes a prime and $A$ denotes an abelian group. For a poset $\P$, its realization $|\P|$ is the topological realization of its order complex $\Delta(\P)$, i.e., of the simplicial complex whose $n$-simplices are the compositions $p_0<p_1<\ldots<p_n$ in $\P$. In particular, we compute the homology $\widetilde H_*(|\P|;A)$ via the simplicial complex $C_*(\Delta(\P);A)$. Here, $C_n(\Delta(\P);A)$ has one generator for each $n$-simplex of $\Delta(P)$ and $C_{-1}(\Delta(\P);A)$ has as generator the empty composition $\emptyset$. The differential $d\colon C_n(\Delta(\P);A)\to C_{n-1}(\Delta(\P);A)$ is given as usual by $d=\sum_{i=0}^n (-1)^id_i$, where $d_i$ forgets the $i$-th vertex of a given simplex. If $G$ is a finite group and $p$ is a prime, let $\A_p(G)$ denote the Quillen poset of $G$ at the prime $p$ [@Quillen1978]. This poset consists of the non-trivial elementary abelian $p$-subgroups of $G$ ordered by inclusion. We will pay special attention to $\A_p(G)$ for $G$ a semidirect product $G=K\rtimes H$, where $H$ is an abelian $p$-group acting on the $p'$-group $K$. Note that in this situation ${\operatorname{Syl}\nolimits}_p(G)={}^KH=\{kHk^{-1},k\in K\}$ and $|{\operatorname{Syl}\nolimits}_p(G)|=|K|/|C_K(H)|$. We introduce the following notation.
\[defn:G=KHSKN\] Let $G$ be the semidirect product $G=K\rtimes H$, where $H$ is an abelian $p$-group and $K$ is a $p'$-group. For any subgroup $I\leq G$, we define $\N(I)$ as the subset of Sylow $p$-subgroups of $G$ that contain $I$ and we also set $N(I)=|\N(I)|$.
The next two results are basic coprime action properties about the semidirect products we are concerned with.
\[prop:semidirectbasics\] Let $G$ be a semidirect product $G=K\rtimes H$, with $H$ an abelian $p$-group and $K$ a $p'$-group. Let $I$ be a subgroup of $H$. Then:
1. \[prop:semidirectbasicsonlyconjugate\]$I$ is the only conjugate of $I$ that lies in $H$.
2. \[prop:semidirectbasicsnumbersupergroups\]$N(I)=|C_K(I)|/|C_K(H)|$.
3. \[prop:semidirectbasicscentralizerinquotient\] If $N\unlhd K$ is $H$-invariant then $C_{K/N}(H)=C_K(H)N/N$.
For the first claim, we reproduce here for convenience the proof in [@HH1988 Lemma 1.2]. So let ${}^gI$ be a conjugate of $I$ that lies in $H$. Then we have $g=kh$ for some $k\in K$ and $h\in H$ and, as $H$ is abelian, we have ${}^gI={}^kI$. Now let $i\in I$. Then $i^{-1}({}^ki)\in H$ and $i^{-1}({}^ki)=k^{i}k^{-1}\in K$. As $K\cap H=\{1\}$ we obtain $i={}^ki$, $k\in C_K(I)$ and ${}^gI={}^kI=I$. For the second claim, consider the action of $C_K(I)$ on $\N(I)$ given by $k\cdot J={}^k J$ for $k\in C_K(I)$ and $J\in \N(I)$. This action is easily seen to be transitive by the previous argument. Moreover, the isotropy group of $J=H$ is exactly $C_K(H)$. The second claim follows. The last item is standard and can be found in [@HH1988 Lemma 2.2(c)].
From here on, we will only consider the case with $H$ an elementary abelian $p$-group of rank $r$, $\FF_p^r$. Then we will think of $H$ as an $\FF_p$-vector space whose elements are $r$-tuples of elements from $\FF_p$: $(x_1,\ldots,x_r)\in H$ with $x_i\in \FF_p$. Consequently, we call *hyperplanes* of $H$ those subgroups $I$ of $H$ with $|H:I|=p$. We say that a collection of hyperplanes is *linearly independent* if their corresponding one-dimensional subspaces are independent in the dual vector space $H^*$.
\[prop:semidirectbasicsCpir\] Let $G$ be a semidirect product $G=K\rtimes H$, with $H=\FF_p^r$ and $K$ a $p'$-group. If $H$ acts faithfully on $K$ then there exists $r$ linearly independent hyperplanes of $H$, $H_1,\ldots,H_r$, that satisfy $N(H_i)>1$.
A proof may be found in [@HH1988 Lemma 3.1] but we include here an alternative argument: By [@AS2000 Exercise 8.1], we have $K=\langle C_K(I)| I\text{ hyperplane of }H\rangle$. Denote by $\I$ the set of hyperplanes $I$ of $H$ that satisfy $C_K(H)\subsetneq C_K(I)$, i.e., that, by Proposition \[prop:semidirectbasics\](2), satisfy $N(I)>1$. The intersection $\cap_{I\in \I} I$ acts trivially on $K$ because $K$ is generated by $\{C_K(I)\}_{I\in \I}$. Hence this intersection must be trivial as the action is faithful. Now observe that the dimension of $\cap_{I\in \I} I$ is exactly $r$ minus the maximal number of linearly independent hyperplanes in $\I$.
For the case $H=\FF_p^r$, we also introduce the notation $[i_1,\ldots,i_l]$ to denote a sequence of elements from $\{1,\ldots,r\}$ with no repetition, and we say that two sequences are equal if they have the same length and the same elements in the same order. Moreover, we denote by $S^r_l$ the set of all such sequences which are of length $l$. For a sequence $[i_1,\ldots,i_l]\in S^r_l$, we define the following subspace of $H$: $$\label{equ:hyperplanesofH}
H_{[i_1,\ldots,i_l]}=\{(x_1,\dots,x_r)\in H| x_{i_1}=\ldots=x_{i_l}=0\}.$$ Thus $H_\emptyset=H$, $H_{[i]}$ is the hyperplane with zero $i$-th coordinate and $H_{[i_1,\ldots,i_l]}=H_{[i_1]}\cap \ldots \cap H_{[i_l]}\cong \FF_p^{r-l}$. In addition, we also have $$\label{equ:Hseq=Hseq'-equivalence}
H_{[i_1,\ldots,i_l]}=H_{[j_1,\ldots,j_l]}\Leftrightarrow \{i_1,\ldots,i_l\}=\{j_1,\ldots,j_l\},$$ where on the right-hand side the equality is between (unordered) sets. We define the signature $\epsilon_{[i_1,\ldots,i_l]}$ as $$\label{equ:defsignature}
\epsilon_{[i_1,\ldots,i_l]}=(-1)^{n+m},$$ where $n$ is the number of transpositions we need to apply to the sequence $[i_1,\ldots,i_l]$ to arrange it in increasing order $[j_1,\ldots,j_l]$, and $m$ is the number of entries in which $[j_1,\ldots,j_l]$ differ from $[1,\ldots,l]$. It is immediate that the parity of $n$ does not depend on the particular choice of transpositions and so $\epsilon_{[i_1,\ldots,i_l]}$ is well defined. As an example consider $[1,4,3]\in S^4_3$. Then we have $\epsilon_{[1,4,3]}=(-1)^{1+2}=-1$. We will need the following property of the signature $\epsilon_\cdot$:
\[lem:signatureoppositesigns\] Let $[i_1,\ldots,i_{r-1}]$ and $[j_1,\ldots,j_{r-1}]$ be sequences in $S^r_{r-1}$ such that $[i_1,\ldots,i_{r-2}]=[j_1,\ldots,j_{r-2}]$ and $i_{r-1}\neq j_{r-1}$. Then $\epsilon_{[i_1,\ldots,i_{r-1}]}+\epsilon_{[j_1,\ldots,j_{r-1}]}=0$.
Write $\epsilon_{[i_1,\ldots,i_{r-1}]}=(-1)^{n_i+m_i}$ and $\epsilon_{[j_1,\ldots,j_{r-1}]}=(-1)^{n_j+m_j}$ as in . Without loss of generality we may assume that $i_{r-1}<j_{r-1}$ and so we can order the set $\{1,\ldots,r\}$ as follows: $$\label{equ:signatureproperty}
1<2<\ldots<i_{r-1}<\ldots<j_{r-1}<\ldots<r.$$ Denote by $n$ the number of transpositions needed to arrange $[i_1,\ldots,i_{r-2}]$ in increasing order. Then, from , $n_i=n+r-1-i_{r-1}$ and $n_j=n+r-j_{r-1}$. It is also clear from that $m_i=r-j_{r-1}$ and that $m_j=r-i_{r-1}$. Hence we get $(n_j+m_j)-(n_i+m_i)=1$ and we are done.
A chain for elementary abelian $p$-groups {#section:chainelementaryabelianpgroups}
=========================================
Let $H=\FF^r_p$ be an elementary abelian $p$-subgroup of rank $r$ and let $A$ be an abelian group. We consider the poset $\A_p(H)$ of dimension $r-1$ and its order complex $\Delta(\A_p(H))$. We shall explicitly define a chain in the abelian group $C_{r-1}(\Delta(\A_p(H));A)$, i.e., a chain in top dimension $r-1$. We start defining, for $[i_1,\ldots,i_l]\in S^r_l$, the following $l$-simplex in $\Delta(\A_p(H))$: $$\label{equ:sigmasimplex}
\sigma_{[i_1,\ldots,i_l]}=H_{[i_1,\ldots,i_l]}<H_{[i_1,\ldots,i_{l-1}]}<\ldots<H_{[i_1,i_2]}<H_{[i_1]}<H.$$
Note that, by repeated application of , we have that $$\sigma_{[i_1,\ldots,i_l]}=\sigma_{[j_1,\ldots,i_j]}\Leftrightarrow [i_1,\ldots,i_l]=[j_1,\ldots,j_l].$$
Now, for any $a\in A$, we define the following chain in $C_{r-1}(\Delta(\A_p(H));A)$ : $$\label{equ:Zrpi}
Z_{H,a}=\sum_{[i_1,\ldots,i_{r-1}]\in S^r_{r-1}}{\epsilon_{[i_1,\ldots,i_{r-1}]}}\cdot a\cdot \sigma_{[i_1,\ldots,i_{r-1}]}.$$ The next proposition exhibits the key feature of the chain $Z_{H,a}$.
\[prop:differentiakzrpi\] The differential $d(Z_{H,a})\in C_{r-2}(\Delta(\A_p(H));A)$ is given by $$d(Z_{H,a})=(-1)^{r-1}\sum_{[i_1,\ldots,i_{r-1}]\in S^r_{r-1}} {\epsilon_{[i_1,\ldots,i_{r-1}]}}\cdot a\cdot \tau_{[i_1,\ldots,i_{r-1}]},$$ where $$\tau_{[i_1,\ldots,i_{r-1}]}=H_{[i_1,\ldots,i_{r-1}]}<H_{[i_1,\ldots,i_{r-2}]}<\ldots<H_{[i_1,i_2]}<H_{[i_1]}.$$
Again by , we have $
\tau_{[i_1,\ldots,i_l]}=\tau_{[j_1,\ldots,i_j]}\Leftrightarrow [i_1,\ldots,i_l]=[j_1,\ldots,j_l].
$
The differential $d\colon C_{r-1}(\Delta(\A_p(H));A)\to C_{r-2}(\Delta(\A_p(H));A)$ is given by the alternate sum $\sum_{i=0}^{r-1} (-1)^i d_i$. Note that, by the rank of the subspaces of $H$, $d_i(\sigma_{[i_1,\ldots,i_{r-1}]})=d_j(\sigma_{[j_1,\ldots,j_{r-1}]})\Rightarrow i=j$. We show below that $d_i(Z_{H,a})=0$ for $0\leq i\leq r-2$. Then the theorem follows. We start considering $d_0$. Note that $$d_0(\sigma_{[i_1,\ldots,i_{r-1}]})=H_{[i_1,\ldots,i_{r-2}]}<\ldots<H_{[i_1,i_2]}<H_{[i_1]}<H,$$ and that, by repeated application of , we have $$d_0(\sigma_{[i_1,\ldots,i_{r-1}]})=d_0(\sigma_{[j_1,\ldots,j_{r-1}]})\Leftrightarrow [i_1,\ldots,i_{r-2}]=[j_1,\ldots,j_{r-2}].$$ Assume that such condition holds for the sequences $[i_1,\ldots,i_{r-1}]$ and $[j_1,\ldots,j_{r-1}]$. Then they must be identical but for the last terms $i_{r-1}$ and $j_{r-1}$. Moreover, if the given sequences are different, we must have $i_{r-1}\neq j_{r-1}$. Then, by Lemma \[lem:signatureoppositesigns\], $\epsilon_{[i_1,\ldots,i_{r-1}]}$ and $\epsilon_{[j_1,\ldots,j_{r-1}]}$ have opposite signs and the corresponding summands cancel each other in the expression for $d_0(Z_{H,a})$. Hence $d_0(Z_{H,a})=0$.
Now we consider $d_i$ for $0<i\leq r-2$. In this case we have: $$d_i(\sigma_{[i_1,\ldots,i_{r-1}]})=H_{[i_1,\ldots,i_{r-1}]}<\ldots< \hat H_{[i_1,\ldots,i_{r-1-i}]}<\ldots<H_{[i_1,i_2]}<H_{[i_1]}<H,$$ where the term $H_{[i_1,\ldots,i_{r-1-i}]}$ is missing. Again by , if the sequences $[i_1,\ldots,i_{r-1}]$ and $[j_1,\ldots,j_{r-1}]$ have the same differential $d_i$, then they are identical but for the entries $i_{r-i-1},i_{r-i}$ and $j_{r-i-1},j_{r-i}$, and these entries satisfy $\{i_{r-i-1},i_{r-i}\}=\{j_{r-i-1},j_{r-i}\}$. So, if the two given sequences are not the same one, then they differ by a transposition. Hence $\epsilon_{[i_1,\ldots,i_{r-1}]}$ and $\epsilon_{[j_1,\ldots,j_{r-1}]}$ have opposite signs and their corresponding summands cancel each other in the expression for $d_i(Z_{H,a})$. Thus $d_i(Z_{H,a})=0$.
\[exa:chainforeagr=3\] For $r=3$ we have $S^3_2=\{[1,2],[2,1],[1,3],[3,1],[2,3],[3,2]\}$ and the signatures are $+1,-1,-1,+1,+1$ and $-1$ respectively. Within $\Delta(A_p(\FF_p^3))$ we have the following cover relations involving the six $2$-simplexes $\sigma_{[i_1,i_2]}$, $[i_1,i_2]\in S^3_2$: [$$\xymatrix@R=0pt@C=60pt{
&H_{[1]}<H\ar@{-}[]+L;[ld]+R\ar@{-}[]+L;[lddddd]+R\\
H_{[1,2]}<H_{[1]}<H&H_{[1,2]}<H\ar@{-}[]+L;[l]+R\ar@{-}[]+L;[ldd]+R\\
&H_{[1,2]}<H_{[1]}\ar@{-}[]+L;[lu]+R\\
H_{[2,1]}<H_{[2]}<H&H_{[2]}<H\ar@{-}[]+L;[l]+R\ar@{-}[]+L;[ldddddd]+R\\
&H_{[2,1]}<H_{[2]}\ar@{-}[]+L;[lu]+R\\
H_{[1,3]}<H_{[1]}<H&H_{[1,3]}<H\ar@{-}[]+L;[l]+R\ar@{-}[]+L;[ldd]+R\\
&H_{[1,3]}<H_{[1]}\ar@{-}[]+L;[lu]+R\\
H_{[3,1]}<H_{[3]}<H&H_{[3]}<H\ar@{-}[]+L;[l]+R\ar@{-}[]+L;[ldddd]+R\\
&H_{[3,1]}<H_{[3]}\ar@{-}[]+L;[lu]+R\\
H_{[2,3]}<H_{[2]}<H&H_{[2,3]}<H\ar@{-}[]+L;[l]+R\ar@{-}[]+L;[ldd]+R\\
&H_{[2,3]}<H_{[2]}\ar@{-}[]+L;[lu]+R\\
H_{[3,2]}<H_{[3]}<H&H_{[3,2]}<H_{[3]}.\ar@{-}[]+L;[l]+R
}$$ ]{}
The different signs for the signatures cause $Z_{H,a}$ to have boundary $d(Z_{H,a})$ supported on the six $1$-simplexes $\tau_{[i_1,i_2]}$ with $[i_1,i_2]\in S^3_2$. So the chain $Z_{H,a}$ has support in the right-hand side cone-shaped $2$-dimensional simplicial complex.
(0,-4.3) rectangle (6,1.5); (5.86,0.42) – (1.98,-0.88) – (0.76,-1.82) – (1.6,-3.44) – (4.22,-4.3) – (5.62,-3.04) – cycle; (1.6,-3.44)– (4.22,-4.3); (4.22,-4.3)– (5.62,-3.04); (5.62,-3.04)– (4.6,-1.26); (4.6,-1.26)– (1.98,-0.88); (1.98,-0.88)– (0.76,-1.82); (0.76,-1.82)– (1.6,-3.44); (5.86,0.42)– (1.98,-0.88); (4.6,-1.26)– (5.86,0.42); (5.62,-3.04)– (5.86,0.42); (5.020999275887038,-1.9946850108616958)– (4.22,-4.3); (5.020999275887038,-1.9946850108616958)– (5.86,0.42); (4.087880668257756,-1.1857231503579952)– (1.6,-3.44); (4.087880668257756,-1.1857231503579952)– (5.86,0.42); (2.6717487318747755,-0.9803299687451964)– (0.76,-1.82); (2.6717487318747755,-0.9803299687451964)– (5.86,0.42);
The figure above suggest that $Z_{H,a}$ is a sort of cone construction. In fact, it is straightforward that $Z_{H,a}$ is the join of the vertex $H$ with the standard apartment arising from the basis of the one-dimensional subspaces $\FF_pv_i$, where the vector $v_i=(0,\ldots,0,1,0,\ldots,0)$ has the $1$ in the $i$-th position for $i=1,\ldots,r$.
A chain for semidirect products {#section:chainsemidirectproduct}
===============================
Let $H=\FF^r_p$ be an elementary abelian $p$-subgroup of rank $r$ that acts on the $p'$-group $K$ and consider the semidirect product $G=K\rtimes H$. We consider the poset $\A_p(G)$ of dimension $r-1$ and its order complex $\Delta(\A_p(G))$. We shall define a chain $C_{r-1}(\Delta(\A_p(G));A)$ in top dimension $r-1$ using the chain defined in Section \[section:chainelementaryabelianpgroups\]. For each Sylow $p$-subgroup $S\in {\operatorname{Syl}\nolimits}_p(G)$ choose $k_S\in K$ with $S={}^{k_S} H$ and choose an element $a_S$ of the abelian group $A$. Then consider the conjugated chain $$Z_{S,a_S}:={}^{k_S}(Z_{H,a_S}),$$ where $Z_{H,a_S}\in C_{r-1}(\Delta(\A_p(H));A)\subseteq C_{r-1}(\Delta(\A_p(G));A)$ was defined in Equation and $k_S$ acts by conjugation on $C_{r-1}(\Delta(\A_p(G));A)$ and hence transforms $Z_{H,a_S}$ somewhere inside this chain space. The next lemma shows that $Z_{S,a_S}$ does not depend on the conjugating element $k_S$:
Let $k_1,k_2\in K$ with ${}^{k_1}H={}^{k_2}H$ and let $a\in A$. Then ${}^{k_1}(Z_{H,a})={}^{k_2}(Z_{H,a})$.
By Equations and , it is enough to see that $${}^{k_1}H_{[i_1,\ldots,i_{r-1}]}<{}^{k_1}H_{[i_1,\ldots,i_{r-2}]}<\ldots<{}^{k_1}H_{[i_1,i_2]}<{}^{k_1}H_{[i_1]}<{}^{k_1}H$$ and $${}^{k_2}H_{[i_1,\ldots,i_{r-1}]}<{}^{k_2}H_{[i_1,\ldots,i_{r-2}]}<\ldots<{}^{k_2}H_{[i_1,i_2]}<{}^{k_2}H_{[i_1]}<{}^{k_2}H$$ are equal for each sequence $[i_1,\ldots,i_{r-1}]$ of length $r-1$. But note that for any $1\leq l\leq r-1$, the subgroups ${}^{k_1}H_{[i_1,\ldots,i_l]}$ and ${}^{k_2}H_{[i_1,\ldots,i_l]}$ are $K$-conjugates of $H_{[i_1,\ldots,i_l]}$ lying in ${}^{k_1}H={}^{k_2}H$. Hence, by Proposition \[prop:semidirectbasics\], these two subgroups must be equal. The result follows.
Now, for $a_\cdot=(a_S)_{S\in {\operatorname{Syl}\nolimits}_p(G)}$ elements of $A$, and $(k_S)_{S\in {\operatorname{Syl}\nolimits}_p(G)}$ elements from $K$ satisfying ${}^{k_S}H=S$, we define the following element of $C_{r-1}(\Delta(\A_p(G));A)$: $$\label{equ:Z}
Z_{G,a_\cdot}=\sum_{S\in {\operatorname{Syl}\nolimits}_p(G)} Z_{S,a_S}=\sum_{S\in {\operatorname{Syl}\nolimits}_p(G)} {}^{k_S}(Z_{H,a_S}).$$ The lemma above shows that $Z_{G,a_\cdot}$ does not depend on the particular choice of the elements $k_S$’s.
\[prop:dZG\] The differential $d(Z_{G,a_\cdot})\in C_{r-2}(\Delta(\A_p(G));A)$ is given by $$d(Z_{G,a_\cdot})=(-1)^{r-1}\sum_{([i_1,\ldots,i_{r-1}],S)\in T} {\epsilon_{[i_1,\ldots,i_{r-1}]}}\cdot \Big(\sum_{S'\in \N({}^{k_S}H_{[i_1]})} a_{S'}\Big)\cdot {}^{k_S}\tau_{[i_1,\ldots,i_{r-1}]},$$ where $T$ is certain subset of $S^r_{r-1}\times {\operatorname{Syl}\nolimits}_p(G)$ and $${}^{k_S}\tau_{[i_1,\ldots,i_{r-1}]}={}^{k_S}H_{[i_1,\ldots,i_{r-1}]}<{}^{k_S}H_{[i_1,\ldots,i_{r-2}[}<\ldots<{}^{k_S}H_{[i_1,i_2]}<{}^{k_S}H_{[i_1]}.$$
We have $d(Z_{G,a_\cdot})=\sum_{S\in {\operatorname{Syl}\nolimits}_p(G)} d({}^{k_S}Z_{H,a_s})$ and, by Proposition \[prop:differentiakzrpi\], the differential of ${}^{k_S}Z_{H,a_s}$ is given by $$d({}^{k_S}Z_{H,a_s})=(-1)^{r-1}\sum_{[i_1,\ldots,i_{r-1}]\in S^r_{r-1}} {\epsilon_{[i_1,\ldots,i_{r-1}]}}\cdot a_S\cdot {}^{k_S}\tau_{[i_1,\ldots,i_{r-1}]},$$ where $\tau_{[i_1,\ldots,i_{r-1}]}=H_{[i_1,\ldots,i_{r-1}]}<H_{[i_1,\ldots,i_{r-2}]}<\ldots<H_{[i_1,i_2]}<H_{[i_1]}$.
To study $d(Z_{G,a_\cdot})$, we define on the set $S^r_{r-1}\times {\operatorname{Syl}\nolimits}_p(G)$ the following equivalence relation: $$([i_1,\ldots,i_{r-1}],S)\sim ([j_1,\ldots,j_{r-1}],S')\Leftrightarrow {}^{k_S}\tau_{[i_1,\ldots,i_{r-1}]}={}^{k_{S'}}\tau_{[j_1,\ldots,j_{r-1}]}.$$ We also set $T\subseteq S^r_{r-1}\times {\operatorname{Syl}\nolimits}_p(G)$ to be any set of representatives for the equivalence classes of $\sim$. Now we fix $([i_1,\ldots,i_{r-1}),S)\in T$ and study its $\sim$-equivalence class. So assume that $([i_1,\ldots,i_{r-1}],S)\sim ([j_1,\ldots,j_{r-1}],S')$. Then, in the first place, we have ${}^{k_S}H_{[i_1]}={}^{k_{S'}}H_{[j_1]}< {}^{k_{S'}}H$. In addition, for any $1\leq l\leq r-1$, the subgroup ${}^{{k_{S'}}^{-1}k_S}H_{[i_1,\ldots,i_l]}=H_{[j_1,\ldots,j_l]}$ is a subgroup of $H$ that is $K$-conjugated to $H_{[i_1,\ldots,i_l]}\leq H$. Hence, by Proposition \[prop:semidirectbasics\], we must have $H_{[i_1,\ldots,i_l]}=H_{[j_1,\ldots,j_l]}$. Using we obtain then that $[i_1,\ldots,i_{r-1}]=[j_1,\ldots,j_{r-1}]$. So we have proven the left to right implication of the next claim: $$\begin{aligned}
([i_1,\ldots,i_{r-1}],S)\sim ([j_1,\ldots,j_{r-1}],S')\Leftrightarrow [i_1,\ldots,i_{r-1}]&=[j_1,\ldots,j_{r-1}]\\
\text{ and }{}^{k_S}H_{[i_1]}&<{}^{k_{S'}}H,\end{aligned}$$ and the right to left implication is a direct consequence of Proposition \[prop:semidirectbasics\] again. It turns out then that the signature is constant along the $\sim$-equivalence class of $([i_1,\ldots,i_{r-1}],S)$ and the formula in the statement follows.
Note that the chain $Z_{G,a_\cdot}$ is a cycle, i.e., $d(Z_{G,a_\cdot})=0$, if and only if $$\label{equ:chainZiscycle}
\sum_{S\in \N({}^{k}H_{[i]})} a_{S}=0$$ for all $i\in \{1,\ldots,r\}$ and all $K$-conjugates ${}^kH_{[i]}$ of $H_{[i]}$, and it is non-trivial if and only if $$\label{equ:chainZisnontrivial}
a_S\neq 0\text{ for some $S\in {\operatorname{Syl}\nolimits}_p(G)$.}$$
\[defn:constructiblelclass\] If equations are satisfied we say that $[Z_{G,a_\cdot}]$ is a *constructible class* in $\widetilde H_{r-1}(|\A_p(K\rtimes H)|;A)$.
It is immediate that constructible classes form a subgroup $\widetilde H^c_{r-1}(|\A_p(K\rtimes H)|;A)$ of $\widetilde H_{r-1}(|\A_p(K\rtimes H)|;A)$ as claimed in the introduction. For $r=1$, i.e., for $H=\FF_p$, and considering the “hyperplane” $\emptyset \in \Delta(\A_p(K\rtimes H))$, Equations and just say that $\widetilde H^c_0(|\A_p(K\rtimes H)|;A)=\widetilde H_0(|\A_p(K\rtimes H)|;A)$.
\[remark:z\_kconstant\] If for some $a\in A$ we choose $a_S=a$ for all $S\in {\operatorname{Syl}\nolimits}_p(G)$ then the Equation for acyclicity of $Z_{G,a_\cdot}$, (\[equ:chainZiscycle\]), simplifies to: $$\label{equ:chainZiscycleconstantvalue}
N(H_{[i]})\cdot a=0$$ for all $i\in\{1,\ldots,r\}$.
\[cor:gcdgreaterthan1\] Let $G$ be a semidirect product $G=K\rtimes H$ with $H=\FF_p^r$ and $K$ a $p'$-group. Assume there are $r$ linearly independent hyperplanes $H_1,\ldots,H_r$ such that $D>1$ divides the numbers $N(H_1),\ldots,N(H_r)$. Then $\widetilde H^c_{r-1}(|\A_p(G)|;\ZZ_D)\neq 0$.
By a suitable change of basis in the $\FF_p$-vector space $H$, we may assume that $H_i=H_{[i]}$ for $i=1,\ldots,r$. Set $A=\ZZ/D\ZZ=\ZZ_D$. Then, if we choose $a=1\in A$ as in Remark \[remark:z\_kconstant\], we have $N(H_i)\cdot 1=0 \mod D$ for all $i$ and it follows that $Z_{G,a_\cdot}$ is a non-trivial homology class in $\widetilde H^c_{r-1}(|\A_p(G)|;A)$.
\[cor:Kisrhogroup\] Let $G$ be a semidirect product $G=K\rtimes H$ with $H=\FF_p^r$ acting faithfully on the $q$-group $K$ for a prime $q\neq p$. Then $\widetilde H^c_{r-1}(|\A_p(G)|;\ZZ_q)\neq 0$.
By Proposition \[prop:semidirectbasicsCpir\], there exist $r$ linearly independent hyperplanes $H_1,\ldots,H_r$ that satisfy $N(H_i)>1$. Being $K$ a $q$-group, this implies that $1<q$ divides $N(H_i)$ for all $i$. Then, by Corollary \[cor:gcdgreaterthan1\], $\widetilde H^c_{r-1}(|\A_p(G)|;\ZZ_q)\neq 0$.
This proves Theorem \[thm:Kisqgroupabelianasymptotic\] of the introduction. Equations form a system of homogeneous linear equations over the abelian group $A$. It consists of $\sum_{i=1}^r |K|/|C_K(H_{[i]})|$ equations over $|K|/|C_K(H)|$ variables and the entries of the matrix associated to the system are either $0$ or $1$. Assume that $A$ is a ring which is a Principal Ideal Domain (P.I.D.). Then, if there are fewer equations than variables: $$\label{equation:linearsystem_undetermined}
\sum_{i=1}^r \frac{|K|}{|C_K(H_{[i]})|}<\frac{|K|}{|C_K(H)|}\Leftrightarrow\sum_{i=1}^r \frac{1}{|N(H_{[i]})|}<1,$$ the Smith-Normal form of the matrix associated to the system shows that there exists at least a non-trivial solution.
\[cor:asymptotic\] Let $G$ be a semidirect product $G=K\rtimes H$ with $H=\FF_p^r$ acting faithfully on the $p'$-group $K$ with $|K|=q_1^{e_1}\cdots q_l^{e_l}$. If $r<q_i$ for $i=1,\ldots,l$, then $\widetilde H^c_{r-1}(|\A_p(G)|;\ZZ)\neq 0$.
After a suitable reordering, we may assume that $q_1<\ldots<q_r$ and hence the hypothesis on $r$ reads as $r<q_1$. As the integers $\ZZ$ form a P.I.D., we must check that Equation holds. By Proposition \[prop:semidirectbasicsCpir\] and a suitable change of basis in the $\FF_p$-vector space $H$ we may assume that $H_i=H_{[i]}$ for $i=1,\ldots,r$ with $|N(H_{[i]})|>1$. Because these numbers divide $|K|$ we have $|N(H_{[i]})|\geq q_1$ and $
\sum_{i=1}^r \frac{1}{|N(H_{[i]})|}\leq \frac{r}{q_1}<1$.
This result proves Theorem \[thm:asymptotic\] of the introduction. In view of Equations , it is worth considering the following graph.
\[def:graphKH\] For the semidirect product $G=K\rtimes H$ with $K$ a $p'$-group and $H\cong \FF_p^r$, let $\G$ be the graph with vertices all $K$-conjugates of $H$ together with all $K$-conjugates of the hyperplanes $H_{[i]}$, and with edges all the inclusions among them.
By Proposition \[prop:semidirectbasics\], the vertices that are $K$-conjugates of $H$ have degree equal to $r$. A vertex which is $K$-conjugate to $H_{[i]}$ has degree $N(H_{[i]})$. Moreover, Equations can be interpreted as assigning the value $a_S$ with $S\in {\operatorname{Syl}\nolimits}_p(G)$ to the vertex $S\in {\operatorname{Syl}\nolimits}_p(G)$ and, for each vertex ${}^k H_{[i]}$ with $k\in K$, equalizing to zero the sum of the values associated to its neighbours.
\[exa:chainforsemidirectr=2\] Consider $G=C_3\times C_3\rtimes \FF_2\times \FF_2$ with the generators acting by $(x_1,x_2)\mapsto (-x_1,x_2)$ and $(x_1,x_2)\mapsto (x_1,-x_2)$ respectively. Set $H_1=\FF_2\times 0$ and $H_2=0\times \FF_2$. Then we have $C_K(H_1)=0\times C_3$, $C_K(H_2)=C_3\times 0$, $C_K(H)=1$ and $N(H_1)=N(H_2)=3$. The graph $\G$ is shown below, where upper-case letters correspond to conjugates of $H$ and lower-case letters to conjugates of hyperplanes. By Corollary \[cor:Kisrhogroup\], there exists a non-trivial homology class $Z_G$ in the top dimension homology group $H^c_1(\Delta(\A_2(G));\ZZ_3)$. Moreover, by Corollary \[cor:asymptotic\], as there are $6$ equations and $9$ variables, we also have $\widetilde H^c_1(\Delta(\A_2(G));\ZZ)\neq 0$.
(-1,2) rectangle (9,8); (2.,7.)– (0.,5.); (0.,5.)– (2.,3.); (2.,7.)– (1.,5.); (1.,5.)– (4.,3.); (2.,7.)– (2.,5.); (2.,5.)– (6.,3.); (4.,7.)– (3.,5.); (3.,5.)– (2.,3.); (4.,7.)– (4.,5.); (4.,5.)– (4.,3.); (4.,7.)– (5.,5.); (5.,5.)– (6.,3.); (5.848559003862463,7.066314453177751)– (6.,5.); (6.,5.)– (2.,3.); (5.848559003862463,7.066314453177751)– (7.,5.); (7.,5.)– (4.,3.); (5.848559003862463,7.066314453177751)– (8.,5.); (8.,5.)– (6.,3.); (0.,5.) circle (1.5pt); (0.12498176809010648,5.2598698106582376) node [$A$]{}; (1.,5.) circle (1.5pt); (1.132787726548362,5.2598698106582376) node [$B$]{}; (2.,5.) circle (1.5pt); (2.140593685006617,5.2598698106582376) node [$C$]{}; (3.,5.) circle (1.5pt); (3.1293844367015096,5.2598698106582376) node [$D$]{}; (4.,5.) circle (1.5pt); (4.137190395159765,5.2598698106582376) node [$E$]{}; (5.,5.) circle (1.5pt); (5.125981146854658,5.2598698106582376) node [$F$]{}; (6.,5.) circle (1.5pt); (6.133787105312913,5.2598698106582376) node [$G$]{}; (7.,5.) circle (1.5pt); (7.141593063771168,5.2598698106582376) node [$H$]{}; (8.,5.) circle (1.5pt); (8.130383815466061,5.2598698106582376) node [$I$]{}; (2.,7.) circle (1.5pt); (2.140593685006617,7.275481727574747) node [$a$]{}; (4.,7.) circle (1.5pt); (4.137190395159765,7.275481727574747) node [$b$]{}; (5.848559003862463,7.066314453177751) circle (1.5pt); (5.981665451206006,7.332527347864837) node [$c$]{}; (2.,3.) circle (1.5pt); (2.140593685006617,3.2632731005050912) node [$d$]{}; (4.,3.) circle (1.5pt); (4.137190395159765,3.2632731005050912) node [$e$]{}; (6.,3.) circle (1.5pt); (6.133787105312913,3.2632731005050912) node [$f$]{};
$D$-systems and quotients {#section:Dsystemsandquotients}
=========================
Under some hypothesis, we have constructed above non-trivial classes in top homology that are constant solutions (Remark \[remark:z\_kconstant\]) to the Equations . In this section, we construct solutions which are characteristic functions. We first specialize Definition \[defn:G=KHSKN\].
Let $G$ be a semidirect product $G=K\rtimes H$ with $H=\FF_p^r$ and $K$ a $p'$-group. Let $\SS\subseteq {\operatorname{Syl}\nolimits}_p(G)$ be a non-empty subset of Sylow $p$-subgroups. For any subgroup $I\leq G$, we define $\N_\SS(I)$ as the subset of Sylow $p$-subgroups of $\SS$ that contain $I$ and we also set $N_\SS(I)=|\N_\SS(I)|$. If $D>1$ is an integer, we say that $\SS$ is a *$D$-system* if $D$ divides $N_\SS({}^kH_{[i]})$ for all $i$ and all $k\in K$.
\[thm:Dsystem\] Let $G$ be a semidirect product $G=K\rtimes H$ with $H=\FF_p^r$ and $K$ a $p'$-group. If $\SS$ is a $D$-system then $\widetilde H^c_{r-1}(|\A_p(G)|;\ZZ_D)\neq 0$.
Form the chain $Z_{G,a_\cdot}$ as in Equation , where we choose $a_S=1$ for $S\in \SS$ and $0$ otherwise. This is a not trivial chain and the Equations for $Z_{G,a_\cdot}$ being a cycle become $$N_\SS({}^kH_{[i]})=0 \mod D,$$ for all $i\in \{1,\ldots,r\}$ and all $K$-conjugates ${}^kH_{[i]}$ of $H_{[i]}$. This holds by hypothesis.
Next we formulate a group theoretical condition that implies the existence of a $2$-system.
\[thm:existenceof2system\] Let $G$ be a semidirect product $G=K\rtimes H$ with $H=\FF_p^r$ and $K$ a $p'$-group. Assume there are elements $c_i\in C_K(H_{[i]})\setminus C_K(H)$ for $i=1,\ldots,r$ such $[c_i,c_j]=1$ for all $i$ and $j$. Then there exists a $2$-system for $G$ and hence $\widetilde H^c_{r-1}(|\A_p(G)|;\ZZ_2)\neq 0$.
Let $\SS=\{{}^{c_1^{\delta_1}c_2^{\delta_2}\ldots c_r^{\delta_r}}H\text{, with $\delta_i\in \{0,1\}$ }\} \subseteq {\operatorname{Syl}\nolimits}_p(G)$. We claim that $\SS$ is a $2$-system: consider ${}^kH_{[i]}$ for some $i\in \{1,\ldots,r\}$ and some $k\in K$. If $N_S({}^kH_{[i]})=0$ then there is nothing to prove. Assume then that the set $\N_\SS({}^kH_{[i]})$ is not empty and choose one of its elements: ${}^{c_1^{\delta_1}c_2^{\delta_2}\ldots c_r^{\delta_r}}H\in \N_\SS({}^kH_{[i]})$ for some values $\delta_i$’s in $\{0,1\}$. Then by Proposition \[prop:semidirectbasics\] we have $${}^kH_{[i]}={}^{c_1^{\delta_1}c_2^{\delta_2}\ldots
c_r^{\delta_r}}H_{[i]}<{}^{c_1^{\delta_1}c_2^{\delta_2}\ldots c_r^{\delta_r}}H.$$ Assume first that $\delta_i=0$. Because $[c_i,c_j]=1$ for all $j$, we have: $${}^{c_i}({}^{c_1^{\delta_1}\ldots c_{i-1}^{\delta_{i-1}}c_{i+1}^{\delta_{i+1}}\ldots c_r^{\delta_r}}H)={}^{c_1^{\delta_1}\ldots c_{i-1}^{\delta_{i-1}}c_ic_{i+1}^{\delta_{i+1}}\ldots c_r^{\delta_r}}H={}^{c_1^{\delta_1}\ldots c_{i-1}^{\delta_{i-1}}c_{i+1}^{\delta_{i+1}}\ldots c_r^{\delta_r}c_i}H.$$ From here we deduce that ${}^{c_i}({}^{c_1^{\delta_1}\ldots c_{i-1}^{\delta_{i-1}}c_{i+1}^{\delta_{i+1}}\ldots c_r^{\delta_r}}H_{[i]})$ is a subgroup of the last two subgroups in the display above. So, by Proposition \[prop:semidirectbasics\] again, we must have: $${}^{c_i}({}^{c_1^{\delta_1}\ldots c_{i-1}^{\delta_{i-1}}c_{i+1}^{\delta_{i+1}}\ldots c_r^{\delta_r}}H_{[i]})={}^{c_1^{\delta_1}\ldots c_{i-1}^{\delta_{i-1}}c_ic_{i+1}^{\delta_{i+1}}\ldots c_r^{\delta_r}}H_{[i]}={}^{c_1^{\delta_1}\ldots c_{i-1}^{\delta_{i-1}}c_{i+1}^{\delta_{i+1}}\ldots c_r^{\delta_r}c_i}H_{[i]}.$$ As $c_i$ centralizes $H_{[i]}$, the right-hand side group in the equation above is equal to ${}^{c_1^{\delta_1}\ldots c_{i-1}^{\delta_{i-1}}c_{i+1}^{\delta_{i+1}}\ldots c_r^{\delta_r}}H_{[i]}$. Hence, ${}^{c_i}({}^{c_1^{\delta_1}\ldots c_{i-1}^{\delta_{i-1}}c_{i+1}^{\delta_{i+1}}\ldots c_r^{\delta_r}}H)\in \N_\SS({}^kH_{[i]})$. Moreover, this $K$-conjugate of $H$ cannot be equal to ${}^{c_1^{\delta_1}\ldots c_{i-1}^{\delta_{i-1}}c_{i+1}^{\delta_{i+1}}\ldots c_r^{\delta_r}}H$ because then we would obtain $c_i\in C_K(H)$, a contradiction. So, we have shown, in the case $\delta_i=0$, that $${}^{c_1^{\delta_1}\ldots c_i^{\delta_i}\ldots c_r^{\delta_r}}H\in \N_\SS({}^kH_{[i]})\Rightarrow {}^{c_1^{\delta_1}\ldots c_i^{1-\delta_i}\ldots c_r^{\delta_r}}H\in \N_\SS({}^kH_{[i]}),$$ and both $K$-conjugates of $H$ are different. The case $\delta_i=1$ is proven analogously using conjugation by $c_i^{-1}$ instead of by $c_i$. It follows that $N_\SS({}^kH_{[i]})$ is an even number.
\[rmk:liftstoZZjoinofspheres\] The set $\SS$ defined in the proof of Theorem \[thm:existenceof2system\] has size $2^r$: Consider non-trivial elements $h_i\in \cap_{j\neq i} H_{[j]}$. Then $H=\langle h_1,\ldots,h_r\rangle$. Moreover, if we have ${}^{c_1^{\epsilon_1}\ldots c_r^{\epsilon_r}}H=H$ with $\epsilon_i\in \{-1,0,1\}$, we obtain, by Proposition \[prop:semidirectbasics\], that ${}^{c_i^{\epsilon_i}}h_i=h_i$ for all $i$. If there exists $i_0$ with $\epsilon_{i_0}\neq 0$, we deduce that $[c_{i_0},h_{i_0}]=1$ and then, as $H=\langle H_{[i_0]},h_{i_0}\rangle$, that $c_{i_0}\in C_K(H)$, a contradiction.
Consider then the chain $Z_{G,b_\cdot}$, where $b_S=(-1)^{\sum_i \delta_i}$ if $S={}^{c_1^{\delta_1}c_2^{\delta_2}\ldots c_r^{\delta_r}}H\in \SS$ and $b_S=0$ otherwise. It represents a homology class $[Z_{G,b_\cdot}]\in \widetilde H^c_{r-1}(|\A_p(G)|;\ZZ)$ which is a lift of $[Z_{G,a_\cdot}]\in \widetilde H^c_{r-1}(|\A_p(G)|;\ZZ_2)$. In fact, $Z_{G,b_\cdot}$ is exactly the cycle corresponding to the join of the $r$ $0$-spheres $\{h_1,{}^{c_1}h_1\}, \ldots, \{h_r,{}^{c_r}h_r\}$.
\[cor:abelian\] Let $G$ be a semidirect product $G=K\rtimes H$ with $H=\FF_p^r$ acting faithfully on the abelian $p'$-group $K$. Then there exists a $2$-system for $G$ and hence $H^c_{r-1}(|\A_p(G)|;\ZZ_2)\neq 0$.
By Proposition \[prop:semidirectbasicsCpir\], there exist $r$ linearly independent hyperplanes $H_1,\ldots,H_r$ that satisfy $N(H_i)=|C_K(H_i)|/|C_K(H)|>1$. By a suitable change of basis in the $\FF_p$-vector space $H$, we may assume that $H_i=H_{[i]}$ for $i=1,\ldots,r$. As $K$ is abelian, any choice of elements $c_i\in C_K(H_{[i]})\setminus C_K(H)\neq \emptyset$ for $i=1,\ldots,r$ satisfies the hypothesis of Theorem \[thm:existenceof2system\].
This prove Theorem \[thm:Kisqgroupabelianasymptotic\]. We finish this section by proving Theorem \[thm:conquotients\] of the introduction.
\[thm:quotient\] Let $G$ be a semidirect product $G=K\rtimes H$ with $H=\FF_p^r$ and $K$ a $p'$-group and let $N\unlhd K$ be a normal $H$-invariant subgroup of $K$. Consider the quotient $\bar G=G/N$ and let $A$ be an abelian group. Then every class $[Z_{\bar G,\bar a_\cdot}]\in H^c_{r-1}(|\A_p(\bar G)|;A)$ can be lifted to a class $[Z_{G,a}]\in \widetilde H^c_{r-1}(|\A_p(G)|;A)$. Moreover, a non-trivial class lifts to a non-trivial class.
Consider the projection homomorphism $\pi\colon G\to \bar G$. Because its kernel is the $p'$-order subgroup $N$, there is an induced surjective application: $${\operatorname{Syl}\nolimits}_p(\pi)\colon {\operatorname{Syl}\nolimits}_p(G)\to {\operatorname{Syl}\nolimits}_p(\bar G).$$ Moreover, for $\pi(S)\in {\operatorname{Syl}\nolimits}_p(\bar G)$, we have ${\operatorname{Syl}\nolimits}_p(\pi)^{-1}( \pi(S))=\{{}^nS,n\in N\}$ by Proposition \[prop:semidirectbasics\]. We have the collection of elements of $A$, $\bar a_\cdot=({\bar a}_{\bar S})_{\bar S\in {\operatorname{Syl}\nolimits}_p(\bar G)}$, and we define $a_\cdot=(a_S)_{S\in {\operatorname{Syl}\nolimits}_p(G)}$ by $a_S={\bar a}_{\pi(S)}$. Now choose a $K$-conjugate ${}^kH_{[i]}$ of $H_{[i]}$. Then the equality $${\operatorname{Syl}\nolimits}_p(\pi)(\N({}^kH_{[i]}))=\N({}^{\pi(k)}\pi(H_{[i]}))$$ follows from Proposition \[prop:semidirectbasics\]. Equation for $Z_{G,a}$ at ${}^kH_{[i]}$ become: $$\sum_{S\in \N({}^{k}H_{[i]})} a_{S}=\sum_{\pi(S)\in \N({}^{\pi(k)}\pi(H_{[i]}))}\hspace{10pt}\sum_{S'\in \N({}^{k}H_{[i]})\cap {\operatorname{Syl}\nolimits}_p^{-1}(\pi)(\pi(S))} {\bar a}_{\pi(S)}=0.$$
Note that $\N({}^{k}H_{[i]})\cap {\operatorname{Syl}\nolimits}_p^{-1}(\pi)(\pi(S))=\{{}^nS,n\in N\cap C_K({}^{k}H_{[i]})\}$ and that this set has order $m=|C_N({}^{k}H_{[i]})|/|C_N(S)|$. As $N$ is normal in $K$, the denominator $|C_N(S)|$ does not depend on the Sylow $p$-subgroup $S\in \N({}^{k}H_{[i]})$ and it is clear that $m$ does not depend neither. Hence, we may rewrite the equation above as $$m\cdot \sum_{\pi(S)\in \N({}^{p(k)}\pi(H_{[i]}))}{\bar a}_{\pi(S)}=0,$$ and this equation holds because $Z_{\bar G,\bar a}$ is a cycle. It is immediate from the construction that non-trivial classes lifts to non-trivial classes.
\[exa:c3c3c3c2c2c2\] Consider $G=C_5\times C_5\times C_5 \rtimes \FF_2\times \FF_2\times \FF_2$ with the generators acting by sending $(x_1,x_2,x_3)$ to $(-x_1,x_2,x_3)$, $(x_1,-x_2,x_3)$ and $(x_1,x_2,-x_3)$ respectively. Set $H_1=0\times \FF_2\times \FF_2$, $H_2=\FF_2\times 0\times \FF_2$ and $H_3=\FF_2\times \FF_2\times 0$. Then we have $C_K(H_1)=C_5\times 0\times 0$, $C_K(H_2)=0\times C_5\times 0$, $C_K(H_3)=0\times 0\times C_5$, $N(H_i)=25$ and $C_K(H)=1$. Although Corollaries \[cor:Kisrhogroup\] and \[cor:asymptotic\] apply in this case, we focus on the construction in Corollary \[cor:abelian\]. Set $c_1=(1,0,0)$, $c_2=(0,1,0)$ and $c_3=(0,0,1)$. Then the elements $c_i\in C_K(H_i)\setminus C_K(H)$ satisfy the hypothesis of Theorem \[thm:existenceof2system\]. The $2$-system constructed in the proof of this result is exactly $\SS=\{H,{}^{c_1}H,{}^{c_2}H,{}^{c_3}H,{}^{c_1c_2}H,{}^{c_1c_3}H,{}^{c_2c_3}H,{}^{c_1c_2c_3}H\}$ and has size $8$. The subgraph of the graph $\G$ (Definition \[def:graphKH\]) containing $\SS$ and its neighbours is the following. [$$\xymatrix@C=5pt{
&&H\ar@{-}[]+D;[dll]+U\ar@{-}[]+D;[dl]+U\ar@{-}[]+D;[d]+U
&{}^{c_1}H\ar@{-}[]+D;[dlll]+U\ar@{-}[]+D;[d]+U\ar@{-}[]+D;[dr]+U
&{}^{c_2}H\ar@{-}[]+D;[dlll]+U\ar@{-}[]+D;[dr]+U\ar@{-}[]+D;[drr]+U
&{}^{c_3}H\ar@{-}[]+D;[dlll]+U\ar@{-}[]+D;[drr]+U\ar@{-}[]+D;[drrr]+U
&{}^{c_1c_2}H\ar@{-}[]+D;[dlll]+U\ar@{-}[]+D;[dl]+U\ar@{-}[]+D;[drrr]+U
&{}^{c_1c_3}H\ar@{-}[]+D;[dlll]+U\ar@{-}[]+D;[d]+U\ar@{-}[]+D;[drrr]+U
&{}^{c_2c_3}H\ar@{-}[]+D;[dll]+U\ar@{-}[]+D;[d]+U\ar@{-}[]+D;[drrr]+U
&{}^{c_1c_2c_3}H\ar@{-}[]+D;[d]+U\ar@{-}[]+D;[dr]+U\ar@{-}[]+D;[drr]+U\\
H_1&H_2&H_3&{}^{c_1}H_2&{}^{c_1}H_3&{}^{c_2}H_1&{}^{c_2}H_3&{}^{c_3}H_1&{}^{c_3}H_2&{}^{c_1c_2}H_3&{}^{c_1c_3}H_2&{}^{c_2c_3}H_1
}$$ ]{}
The homology class $[Z_{G,a_\cdot}]\in \widetilde H^c_2(|\A_p(G)|;\ZZ_2)$ has support in the $2$-dimensional simplicial complex on the right-hand side. The eight faces of the hollow octahedron are in bijection with the set $\SS$. For each element of $\SS$, its corresponding face is decomposed as in Example \[exa:chainforeagr=3\], that is, via its barycentric subdivision (shown in one of the faces of the figure).
(4,2) rectangle (14, 13); (9.12,12.28) – (5.12,7.36) – (9.78,5.5) – cycle; (9.12,12.28) – (5.12,7.36) – (8.34,9.5) – cycle; (9.12,12.28) – (9.78,5.5) – (13.42,9.02) – cycle; (9.12,12.28) – (8.34,9.5) – (13.42,9.02) – cycle; (8.34,9.5) – (5.12,7.36) – (9.,3.) – cycle; (5.12,7.36) – (9.78,5.5) – (9.,3.) – cycle; (9.,3.) – (9.78,5.5) – (13.42,9.02) – cycle; (9.,3.) – (8.34,9.5) – (13.42,9.02) – cycle; (9.12,12.28)– (5.12,7.36); (5.12,7.36)– (9.78,5.5); (9.78,5.5)– (13.42,9.02); (9.12,12.28)– (9.78,5.5); (9.12,12.28)– (13.42,9.02); (9.12,12.28)– (8.34,9.5); (8.34,9.5)– (5.12,7.36); (8.34,9.5)– (13.42,9.02); (5.12,7.36)– (9.,3.); (9.,3.)– (9.78,5.5); (9.,3.)– (13.42,9.02); (9.,3.)– (8.34,9.5); (9.45,8.89)– (11.1,8.84); (11.1,8.84)– (11.27,10.65); (11.1,8.84)– (11.6,7.26); (11.1,8.84)– (9.12,12.28); (11.1,8.84)– (9.78,5.5); (11.1,8.84)– (13.42,9.02);
Quillen’s conjecture {#section:Quillen'sconjecture}
====================
In this section we prove the results of the introduction directly related to Quillen’s conjecture. We start with Theorem \[thm:QDpcZ2solvable\].
\[thm:QDpcZ2solvableproven\] $\Q\D^{c,\ZZ_2}_p$ holds for $K\rtimes H$ with $H=\FF_p^r$ and $K$ a solvable $p'$-group.
As $O_p(K\rtimes H)=1$ we have that the action of $H$ on $K$ is faithful. Because $K\rtimes H$ is solvable, its Fitting group $F(K\rtimes H)=F(K)$ is self-centralizing [@AS2000 31.10] and hence $H$ also acts faithfully on the nilpotent group $F(K)$. Now, the Frattini quotient $F(K)/\Phi(F(K))$ is abelian and, by a result of Burnside [@Gor1980 5.1.4], $H$ acts faithfully on it. Next, by Corollary \[cor:abelian\], $\widetilde H^c_{r-1}(|\A_p(F(K)/\Phi(F(K))\rtimes H)|;\ZZ_2)\neq 0$. Then by Theorem \[thm:quotient\] we also have $\widetilde H^c_{r-1}(|\A_p(F(K)\rtimes H)|;\ZZ_2)\neq 0$. Finally, the inclusion $\widetilde H^c_{r-1}(|\A_p(F(K)\rtimes H)|;\ZZ_2)\leq \widetilde H^c_{r-1}(|\A_p(K\rtimes H)|;\ZZ_2)$ finishes the proof.
Next we prove Theorem \[thm:QCsolvable\] of the introduction.
\[thm:QCsolvableproven\] Quillen’s conjecture holds for solvable groups.
We reproduce Quillen’s argument that reduces this result to the configuration of Theorem \[thm:QDpcZ2solvableproven\]: Let $G$ be a solvable group with $O_p(G)=1$. Let $r$ be the $p$-rank of $G$ and choose $H\in A_p(G)$ of rank $r$. By Hall-Highman [@HH1956 Lemma 1.2.3] we have that $K=O_{p'}(G)$ is self centralizing and hence $H$ acts faithfully on this solvable group $K$. By Theorem \[thm:QDpcZ2solvableproven\] we have that $\widetilde H^c_{r-1}(|\A_p(K\rtimes H)|;\ZZ_2)\neq 0$. The inclusion $\widetilde H_{r-1}(|\A_p(K\rtimes H)|;\ZZ_2)\leq \widetilde H_{r-1}(|\A_p(G)|;\ZZ_2)$ finishes the proof.
Next, we focus on the $p$-solvable case. We start describing fixed points for actions on direct products. We say that the group $H$ acts by permutations on the direct product $Y=X_1\times\ldots\times X_m$ if $H$ acts on $Y$ and each $h\in H$ permutes the groups $\{X_1,\ldots,X_m\}$ among themselves. This is the case, for instance, if each $X_i$ is quasisimple, by the Krull-Schmidt Theorem [@GLSII 3.22].
\[prop:nleqm\] Let $H$ be an elementary abelian $p$-group acting by permutations on the $m$-fold direct product $Y=X\times \ldots \times X$ and transitively permuting these components. Then the following hold:
1. \[prop:nleqmcentralizerdescription\] If $H'=N_H(X)$ and $H''$ satisfies $H=H'\times H''$ then $$C_Y(H)=\{\prod_{h\in H''} {}^hx\text{ with $x\in C_X(H')$}\}.$$
2. \[prop:nleqmcentralizerquotientequivalence\]For $I\leq H$, $H'=N_H(X)$, $I'=N_I(X)$, and $k$ equal to the number of orbits for the permutation action of $I$ on the components of $Y$, we have: $$C_Y(I)>C_Y(H)\Leftrightarrow \bigg[ \Big[ k=1 \text{ and }C_X(I')>C_X(H')\Big] \text{ or }\Big[ k>1 \text{ and } C_X(I')>1 \Big]\bigg].$$
Set $H'=N_H(X)$ and choose $H''\leq H$ such that $H=H'\times H''$. Then we have $Y={}^{h_1}X\times {}^{h_2}X\times\ldots\times {}^{h_m}X$, where $H''=\{h_1=1,h_2,\ldots,h_m\}$. Moreover, $C_Y(H)=C_Y(H')\cap C_Y(H'')$ and we compute these two centralizers separately. For the former, we have $C_Y(H')=\prod_{h\in H''} C_{{}^h X}(H')=\prod_{h\in H''} {}^h C_X(H')$. For the latter, notice that $H''$ regularly permutes the components of $Y$. The map $X\to Y$ given by $x\mapsto \prod_{h\in H''} {}^h x$ is a homomorphism which image is exactly $C_Y(H'')$ (cf. [@GLSII Lemma 3.27]). The expression in follows.
Regarding , write $Y=Y_1\cdots Y_k$, where each $Y_l$ is an orbit for the permutation action of $I$ on the components of $Y$. Then $C_Y(I)=C_{Y_1}(I)\cdots C_{Y_k}(I)$. For the action of $I$ on each orbit $Y_l$ and with the notation of , we have $I'=I\cap H'$ and we may choose $I''$ and $H''$ such that $I''=I\cap H''$. Moreover, if $J\leq H''$ satisfies $H''=I''\times J$, then we may write $J=\{j_1,\ldots,j_k\}$ with $Y_l$ the $I$-orbit of ${}^{j_l}X$: $$Y_l=\prod_{i\in I''} {}^{i}({}^{j_l}X).$$ Note that $k=|J|=|H'':I''|=\frac{|H:H'|}{|I:I'|}$. The result follows from inspection of the expressions in for the centralizers $C_Y(H)$ and $C_{Y_l}(I)$ for $l=1,\ldots k$.
The next result is of independent interest and it is the only place where we use the Classification of the Finite Simple Groups (CFSG).
\[prop:nleqmCFSG\] Let $H$ be an elementary abelian $p$-group acting on a direct product $Y$ of $m$ copies of a nonabelian simple $p'$-group $X$ and transitively permuting these components. Let $H_1,\ldots,H_n$ be linearly independent hyperplanes of $H$ such that $C_Y(H_i)>C_Y(H)$ for all $i$. Then there exist elements $c_i\in C_Y(H_i)\setminus C_Y(H)$ such that $[c_i,c_j]=1$ for all $i,j$.
Write $H'=N_H(X)$, $H'_i=N_{H_i}(X)$ and choose $H''$ and $H''_i$ for each $i$ such that $H=H'\times H''$ and $H_i=H_i'\times H_i''$. As $H'_i\leq H'$ and $|H:H_i|=p$, we have:
1. either $H'=H'_i$ and $|H''|/|H''_i|=p$,
2. or $|H':H_i'|=p$ and $|H''|=|H''_i|$.
In case $(1)$, we have $C_X(H')=C_X(H'_i)$ and, by Lemma \[prop:nleqm\], the permutation action of $H_i$ on $Y$ has exactly $p$ orbits and $|C_X(H'_i)|>1$. In case $(2)$, Lemma \[prop:nleqm\] implies that $C_X(H'_i)>C_X(H')$. If $C_H(X)=N_H(X)$, then also $C_{H_i}(X)=N_{H_i}(X)$ and $C_X(H')=C_X(H'_i)=X$, a contradiction. Otherwise, $\Aut_H(X)=N_H(X)/C_H(X)$ is a non-trivial group of outer automorphisms of $X$. But: $$\begin{aligned}
&\textit{If $P$ is a $p$-group and $1\neq P\leq \Out(X)$ for a nonabelian simple $p'$-group $X$,}\label{equ:pouterautomorphismsp'nonabeliansimplegroup}\\
&\textit{then $X$ is of Lie type and $P$ is cyclic and consists of field automorphisms.}\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The proof of the claim is an exhaustive check via the CFSG. Details are provided in [@Smith2011 Theorem 8.2.12(2)] and the same argument is used in [@AS1993]. Hence, $\Aut_H(X)$ is cyclic of order $p$. Then, either $|C_H(X):C_{H_i}(X)|=|N_{H_i}(X):C_{H_i}(X)|=p$ or these two indexes are equal to $1$. In the former case, $\Aut_{H_i}(X)$ is a non-trivial subgroup of $\Aut_H(X)$ and hence $\Aut_{H_i}(X)=\Aut_H(X)$. Then $H'=H'_i+C_H(X)$ and $C_X(H')=C_X(H'_i)$, contradiction again. So the latter case must hold, i.e., $C_H(X)=C_{H_i}(X)=N_{H_i}(X)$. We deduce that $C_X(H'_i)=X$ and, from , that $C_X(H')=X^{\sigma}$ for a field automorphism $\sigma$ of $X$ of order $p$. To sum up, we conclude that for each hyperplane $H_i$:
1. either $H_i$ has $p$ permutation orbits on $Y$ and $C_X(H'_i)=C_X(H')>1$,
2. or $H_i$ transitively permutes $Y$ and $C_X(H'_i)=X>C_X(H')=X^\sigma$.
Now we construct the elements $c_i$ in the statement. If all hyperplanes are of type $(1)$ then pick $c\in C_X(H')$ with $c\neq 1$ and set $c_i=\prod_{h\in H''_i} {}^hc$ for all $i$. Otherwise, some hyperplane is of type $(2)$, $X$ is of Lie type and we notice that: $$\textit{There exists $c\in X^\sigma$ and $d\in X\setminus X^\sigma$ such that $[c,d]=1$.} \label{equ:elementsinXandXsigma}\nonumber$$ The elements $c$ and $d$ may be chosen as elements in the maximal torus of $X$ satisfying $\sigma(c)=c$ and $\sigma(d)\neq d$. For $H_i$ of type $(1)$, set $c_i=\prod_{h\in H''_i} {}^hc$. For $H_i$ of type $(2)$, set $c_i=\prod_{h\in H''} {}^h d$. These elements satisfy $[c_i,c_j]=1$ for all $i,j$.
Under the hypotheses of Proposition \[prop:nleqmCFSG\], it also holds that $n\leq m$.
\[thm:QDpcZ2p’proven\] $\Q\D^{c,\ZZ_2}_p$ holds for $K\rtimes \FF_p^r$ with $K$ a $p'$-group.
As $O_p(K\rtimes H)=1$ we have that the action of $H$ on $K$ is faithful. Now, the generalized Fitting subgroup $F^*(K\rtimes H)=F^*(K)$ is self-centralizing [@AS2000 31.13] and hence $H$ acts faithfully on it. Here, $F^*(K)=F(K)E(K)$ with $[E(K),F(K)]=1$ and where $E(K)$ is the *layer*, which is a central product of quasisimple groups. Moreover, By [@GLSII 3.15(v)], $\Phi(F^*(K))=\Phi(F(K))Z(E(K))$ and by [@GLSII 3.5(v)], $F(K)\cap E(K)=Z(E(K))$. Then by [@GLSII 3.9(ii)], it follows that $F^*(K)/\Phi(F^*(K))=A\times B$, where $A$ is elementary abelian and $B$ is a direct product of nonabelian simple $p'$-groups. By Burnside [@Gor1980 5.1.4], $H$ acts faithfully on $D=A\times B$, and we are going to show that the hypothesis of Theorem \[thm:existenceof2system\] holds for $D\rtimes H$. Then the same arguments as in Theorem \[thm:QDpcZ2solvableproven\] finish the proof.
Write $B=\prod_j B_j$, where each $B_j$ is an $H$-orbit for the permutation action of $H$ on the direct factors of $B$. For any subgroup $I\leq H$ we have $C_D(I)=C_A(I)\times \prod_j C_{B_j}(I)$. By Proposition \[prop:semidirectbasicsCpir\], there are $r$ linearly independent hyperplanes of $H$, $H_1,\ldots,H_r$ such that $|C_D(H_i)|/|C_D(H)|>1$. Hence, for each $i$, either $|C_A(H_i)|/|C_A(H)|>1$ or $|C_{B_j}(H_i)|/|C_{B_j}(H)|>1$ for some $j$. In the former case, let $c'_i\in C_A(H_i)\setminus C_A(H)$ by any element in this non-empty set and set $c_i=(c'_i,1)\in C_D(H_i)\setminus C_D(H)$. To choose $c_i$ for the latter case, consider, for a fixed orbit $B_j$, the following set: $$\B_j=\{i\in\{1,\ldots,r\}\text{ such that } |C_{B_j}(H_i)|/|C_{B_j}(H)|>1\}.$$ Let $B_j={}^{r_1}X\times {}^{r_2}X\times\ldots {}^{r_m}X$, where $X$ is a simple nonabelian $p'$-group and $r_1=1,r_2,\ldots,r_m$ are representatives for the set $H/N_H(X)$ of size $m$. By Proposition \[prop:nleqmCFSG\], there are elements $c''_i\in C_{B_j}(H_i)\setminus C_{B_j}(H)$ for each $i\in \B_j$ such that $[c''_i,c''_{i'}]=1$ for all $i,i'\in \B_j$. Then define $c'_i=(1,1,\ldots,1,c''_i,1,\ldots,1)\in C_B(H_i)\setminus C_B(H)$, where we place $c'_i$ in the position of the orbit $B_j$. Define $c_i=(1,c'_i)\in C_D(H_i)\setminus C_D(H)$. It is straightforward that the chosen elements $c_i$’s satisfy the hypothesis of Theorem \[thm:existenceof2system\], i.e., they commute pairwise.
We finally prove Theorem \[thm:QCpsolvable\]
\[thm:QCpsolvableproven\] Quillen’s conjecture holds for $p$-solvable groups.
As Hall-Highman [@HH1956 Lemma 1.2.3] is valid for $p$-soluble groups, the argument employed in the proof of Theorem \[thm:QCsolvableproven\] can be used here but for replacing Theorem \[thm:QDpcZ2solvableproven\] by Theorem \[thm:QDpcZ2p’proven\].
\[rmk:final\] Here we give more details on Alperin’s approach compared to the approach on this work. The reductions for the former route are as follows, where $K$ is a $p'$-group: $$\xymatrix@R=10pt{
\text{$G$ $p$-solvable }\ar@{~>}[r]^<<<<<<<<<{\eqref{equ:Quillenenoughforpsolvablecase}} & \text{$K\rtimes \FF_p^r$}\ar@{~>}[d]^{\text{CFSG}} \\
\text{$G$ solvable }\ar@{~>}[r]^<<<<<<{\eqref{equ:Quillenenoughforsolvablecase}} & \text{$K\rtimes \FF_p^r$, $K$ solvable } \ar@{~>}[r]^{\text{Alperin}} & \text{Join of $r$ $0$-spheres}
}$$ Here, CFSG refers to the argument already used in the proof of Proposition \[prop:nleqmCFSG\]. The rightmost reduction on the bottom line consists of Alperin’s coprime action arguments leading to a minimal counterexample for which the join of spheres may be considered. Our approach can be summarized as follows: $$\xymatrix@R=10pt{
\text{$G$ $p$-solvable }\ar@{~>}[r]^{\eqref{equ:Quillenenoughforpsolvablecase}} & \text{$K\rtimes \FF_p^r$} \ar@{~>}[r]^<<<<<<<<<<{\ref{thm:quotient}} & \text{$K\rtimes \FF_p^r$, $K=A\times S$}\ar@{~>}[rd]^<<<<<<<<{\text{\ref{thm:existenceof2system}$+$CFSG}}\\
&&&\text{\ref{thm:Dsystem}}\\
\text{$G$ solvable }\ar@{~>}[r]^<<<<<<{\eqref{equ:Quillenenoughforsolvablecase}} & \text{$K\rtimes \FF_p^r$, $K$ solvable }\ar@{~>}[r]^<<<<<<{\text{\ref{thm:quotient}}} & \text{$K\rtimes \FF_p^r$, $K=A$}
\ar@{~>}[ru]_<<<<<<<<<<<{\text{\ref{thm:existenceof2system}$+$abelian}}
}$$ Here, $A$ is an abelian $p'$-group and $S$ is a $p'$-group that is a direct product of nonabelian simple groups. Theorem \[thm:quotient\] lifts classes from the quotient, and it is a tool that was not available before. Theorem \[thm:existenceof2system\] implies the existence of a $2$-system, and it is a generalization to possibly non-solvable groups of the join of spheres construction (see Remark \[rmk:liftstoZZjoinofspheres\]).
[99]{}
M. Aschbacher, [*Finite group theory*]{}, Second edition. Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, 10. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000.
M. Aschbacher, S. Smith, [ *On Quillen’s conjecture for the p-groups complex*]{}, Ann. of Math. (2) 137 (1993), no. 3, 473-529.
J.L. Alperin, [*A Lie approach to finite groups*]{}, Groups—Canberra 1989, 1–9, Lecture Notes in Math., 1456, Springer, Berlin, 1990.
D. Gorenstein, [Finite groups]{}, Second edition. Chelsea Publishing Co., New York, 1980.
D. Gorenstein, R. Lyons, R. Solomon, [*The classification of the finite simple groups. Number 2. Part I. Chapter G*]{}, General group theory. Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, 40.2. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1996.
P. Hall, G. Higman, [*On the $p$-length of $p$-soluble groups and reduction theorems for Burnside’s problem*]{}, Proc. London Math. Soc. (3) 6 (1956), 1-42.
T. Hawkes, I.M. Isaacs, [*On the poset of p-subgroups of a p-solvable group*]{}, J. London Math. Soc. (2) 38 (1988), no. 1, 77-86.
D. Quillen, [*Homotopy properties of the poset of nontrivial p-subgroups of a group*]{}, Adv. Math. 28 (1978), no. 2, 101-128.
S.D. Smith, [*Subgroup complexes*]{}, Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, 179. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2011.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We conducted a Doppler survey at Keck combined with NIRC2 K-band AO imaging to search for massive, long-period companions to 123 known exoplanet systems with one or two planets detected using the radial velocity (RV) method. Our survey is sensitive to Jupiter mass planets out to 20 AU for a majority of stars in our sample, and we report the discovery of eight new long-period planets, in addition to 20 systems with statistically significant RV trends indicating the presence of an outer companion beyond 5 AU. We combine our RV observations with AO imaging to determine the range of allowed masses and orbital separations for these companions, and account for variations in our sensitivity to companions among stars in our sample. We estimate the total occurrence rate of companions in our sample to be $52 \pm 5\%$ over the range 1 - 20 $M_{\rm Jup}$ and 5 - 20 AU. Our data also suggest a declining frequency for gas giant planets in these systems beyond 3-10 AU, in contrast to earlier studies that found a rising frequency for giant planets in the range 0.01-3 AU. This suggests either that the frequency of gas giant planets peaks between 3-10 AU, or that outer companions in these systems have a different semi-major axis distribution than the overall gas giant planet population. Our results also suggest that hot gas giants may be more likely to have an outer companion than cold gas giants. We find that planets with an outer companion have higher average eccentricities than their single counterparts, suggesting that dynamical interactions between planets may play an important role in these systems.'
author:
- 'Marta L. Bryan, Heather A. Knutson, Andrew W. Howard, Henry Ngo, Konstantin Batygin, Justin R. Crepp, B. J. Fulton, Sasha Hinkley, Howard Isaacson John A. Johnson, Geoffry W. Marcy Jason T. Wright'
title: Statistics of Long Period Gas Giant Planets in Known Planetary Systems
---
=1
Introduction
============
The presence of a substantial population of gas giant planets on orbits interior to 1 AU poses a challenge to models of planet formation and migration. Standard core accretion models favor giant planet formation beyond the ice line, where core-nucleated accretion may proceed on a timescale substantially shorter than the lifetime of the disk [@Pollack1996; @Alibert2005; @Rafikov2006]. In this scenario, gas giant planets on short period orbits most likely migrated in from their original formation locations [@Lin1996]. Migration models for these planets can be divided into two broad categories. The first is smooth disk migration, in which exchanges of angular momentum with the disk causes the planet’s orbit to gradually decay. This mechanism would be expected to produce close to, if not completely, circular orbits that are well aligned with the spin axis of the host star [@Goldreich1980; @Lin1986; @Tanaka2002]. The second migration channel is three-body interactions. These include the Kozai mechanism, in which the presence of a stellar or planetary companion causes the argument of periastron to undergo resonant librations, allowing the planet’s orbit to exchange between mutual inclination and eccentricity. Alternatively, planet-planet scattering or long term secular interactions between planets could impart a large orbital eccentricity to the inner planet [@Chatterjee2008; @Nagasawa2008; @Wu2010]. This highly eccentric orbit can then shrink and circularize at short periods via tidal dissipation.
High eccentricity migration channels and dynamical interactions between planets are thought to frequently produce planets whose orbits are misaligned with the rotation axes of their host stars[^1]. Over the past decade, Rossiter-McLaughlin measurements of spin-orbit alignment have found a number of hot Jupiter systems that are misaligned [@Winn2010; @Hebrard2011; @Albrecht2012]. However, previous studies demonstrated that there is no correlation between the presence of an outer planetary or stellar companion and the spin-orbit angle of hot Jupiters [@Knutson2014; @Ngo2014]. Furthermore, Batygin (2012) and Batygin $\&$ Adams (2013) have suggested that a distant stellar companion could tilt the protoplanetary disk with respect to the star’s spin axis, in which case disk migration could lead to a misaligned orbit [@Spalding2014]. This scenario is supported by the discovery of apparently coplanar multi-planet systems with spin-orbit misalignments [@Huber2013; @Bourrier2014], although other surveys have suggested that such systems may be relatively rare [@Albrecht2013; @Morton2014]. In either case, it appears that the cause of hot Jupiter misalignment is more complicated than the simple picture presented above.
Measurements of orbital eccentricities for a large sample of single and multi-planet systems provide a more direct diagnostic of the importance of dynamical interactions in shaping the observed architectures of planetary systems. We expect dynamical interactions between planets to pump up the eccentricities of their orbits, a process that could result in migration if the periapse of an orbit gets close enough to the star for tidal forces to become significant [@Rasio1996; @Juric2008]. However, previous radial velocity studies of gas giants indicate that high eccentricities are more common in apparently single systems [@Howard2013]. It has been suggested that this enhanced eccentricity may be due to planet-planet scattering, where one planet was ejected from the system [@Chatterjee2008]. This is consistent with the results of @Dawson2013, which suggest that higher eccentricities are more common when the star has a high metallicity, and infer that this is because higher metallicity stars are more likely to form multiple giant planets, which then interact and pump up planet eccentricities. @Limbach2014 also find a positive correlation between lower eccentricity and higher system multiplicity. Conversely, @Dong2014 finds that warm Jupiters with outer companions are more likely to have higher eccentricities than single warm Jupiters, albeit with a relatively small sample size of just 26 systems. We can test these trends by directly searching for outer companions at wide orbital separations in a large sample of known planetary systems, and checking to see if these companions are associated with a larger orbital eccentricity for the inner planet.
In order to understand whether or not dynamical interactions between planets are responsible for the inward migration of a subset of these planets, it is useful to study systems where we can obtain a complete census of gas giant planets across a broad range of orbital separations. While large surveys have made it possible to understand the statistical properties of exoplanet populations, recent studies have focused on determining mass distributions and occurrence rates of short period, low mass planets around apparently single main sequence FGK stars [e.g. @Howard2012; @Fressin2013; @Howard2013; @Petigura2013]. Many of these surveys are primarily sensitive to short-period planets, making it difficult to evaluate the role that a massive distant planetary companion might have on the formation and orbital evolution of the inner planets. Early studies of hot Jupiters, which are among the best-studied exoplanet populations, indicated that they rarely contain nearby companions (Steffen et al. 2012, but see Becker et al. 2015 for a recent exception). In contrast, recent work by Knutson et al (2014) looked at 51 hot Jupiter systems and found that they are not lonely - the occurrence rate of massive, outer companions was $51 \pm10 \%$ for companions with masses of 1-13 $M_{\rm Jup}$ and separations of 1-20 AU. This implies that long period companions to hot Jupiters are common, and thus might play an important role in the orbital evolution of these systems. In this study we combine Keck HIRES radial velocity measurements with NIRC2 K band adaptive optics (AO) imaging to search for massive, long period companions to a sample of 123 known exoplanet systems detected using the radial velocity (RV) method. Unlike our previous survey, which focused exclusively on transiting hot Jupiter systems, our new sample includes planets with a wide range of masses and orbital separations (Fig. 1). We present results from this survey in two papers. In this paper, we focus on long-term RV monitoring of the confirmed exoplanet systems, probing planetary and brown dwarf mass companions out to $\sim$100 AU. We test whether close-in gas giant planets are more likely to have outer companions than their long period counterparts, and whether planets in two-planet systems are more likely to have higher eccentricities than single planet systems. In the second paper, we will use our complementary K-band AO images to find and confirm low mass stellar companions in these systems in order to determine how stellar companions might influence the formation and evolution of the inner planets. In section 2 we describe the selected sample of systems, as well as the methods for obtaining the RV and K-band AO imaging data. In section 3 we describe fits to the RV data, generation of contrast curves from the AO data, identification of significant RV accelerations, calculation of two-dimensional companion probability distributions, and the completeness analysis that was performed for each individual system. Finally, in section 4 we discuss our occurrence rate calculations and analysis of eccentricity distributions.
![Transiting hot Jupiters from our previous radial velocity study [@Knutson2014] are shown as red triangles, and the new sample of gas giant planets in this study are shown as black circles. The blue diamonds represent the gas and ice giant planets in the solar system for comparison.](sema_v_mass.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
{width="50.00000%"}
Observations
============
Radial velocity measurements were made at Keck Observatory as part of more than a dozen PI-led programs falling under the umbrella of the California Planet Survey [CPS; @Howard2010]. We observed each target star using the High Resolution Echelle Spectrometer (HIRES) [@Vogt94] following standard practices of CPS. Our selected sample includes all known one- and two-planet systems discovered via the radial velocity method with at least ten RV observations obtained using HIRES. We also excluded systems with a Keck baseline shorter than the published orbital period. The published planets in our resulting sample of 123 systems span a range of masses and semi-major axes, as shown in Figure 1. RV baselines for these targets range from 5.02 to 18.18 years, making it possible to detect gas giant planets spanning a broad range of orbital semi-major axes. Properties of the target stars are described in Table 1. Figure 2 shows the distribution of stellar masses in our sample. While most stars are F and G stars, there are significant numbers of M, K, and A stars. The A stars in this sample are all moderately evolved, which facilitates precise radial velocity measurements [@Johnson2010; @Johnson2011].
Keck HIRES Radial Velocities
----------------------------
All of the target stars were observed using the High Resolution Echelle Spectrometer (HIRES) on Keck I [@Vogt94]. While the majority of the RV data used in this study was published in previous papers, we also obtained new observations that extend these published baselines by up to 12 years. To reduce the RV data, the standard CPS HIRES configuration and reduction pipeline were used (Wright et al 2004; Howard et al 2009; Johnson et al 2010). We measured Doppler shifts from the echelle spectra using an iodine absorption spectrum and a modeling procedure descended from @Butler96 and described in @Howard2011. The set of observations for each star comprise a “template spectrum" taken without iodine and de-convolved using a reference point spread function (PSF) inferred from near-in-time observations of B-stars through iodine, and a set of dozens to hundreds of observations through iodine that each yield an RV. We used one of the 0-wide slits (‘B5’ or ‘C2’) for the observations taken through iodine and a 0 (‘B1’ or ‘B3’) or 0-wide slit for the template observations. Using a real-time exposure meter, integration times of 1–8 minutes were chosen to achieve (in most cases) a signal-to-noise ratio of $\sim$220 in the reduced spectrum at the peak of the blaze function near 550 nm. All Doppler observations were made with an iodine cell mounted directly in front of the spectrometer entrance slit. The dense set of molecular absorption lines imprinted on the stellar spectra provide a robust wavelength fiducial against which Doppler shifts are measured, as well as strong constraints on the shape of the spectrometer instrumental profile at the time of each observations [@Marcy92; @Valenti95]. The velocity and corresponding uncertainty for each observation is based on separate measurements for $\sim$700 spectral chunks each 2Å wide. The RVs are corrected for motion of Keck Observatory through the solar System (barycentric corrections). The measurements span 1996–2015 (see Table 2). Measurements made after the HIRES CCD upgrade in 2004 August have a different (arbitrary) velocity zero point (not the star’s systemic velocity) and suffer from somewhat smaller systematic errors. A summary of the radial velocity data used in this work is provided in Table 2. We include best-fit stellar jitter and RV acceleration “trend" values from our orbital solution fitting described in section 3.
NIRC2 AO Imaging
----------------
We observed $K$ band images for all targets using the NIRC2 instrument (Instrument PI: Keith Matthews) on Keck II. We used natural guide star AO imaging and the narrow camera setting (10$\,$mas$\,$pixel$^{-1}$) to achieve better contrast and spatial resolution. For most targets, we imaged using the full NIRC2 array (1024$\times$1024 pixels) and used a 3-point dither pattern that avoids NIRC2’s noisier quadrant. Because NIRC2 does not have neutral density filters, we used the subarray mode (2.5“ or 5” field of view) to decrease readout time when it was necessary to avoid saturation. We typically obtained two minutes of on-target integration time per system in position angle mode.
We use dome flat fields and dark frames to calibrate the images. We identify image artifacts by searching for pixels that are $8\sigma$ outliers compared to the counts in the surrounding 5$\times$5 box. We replace these pixels by the median value of the same 5$\times$5 box. To compute contrast curves, we register all frames with the target star and then combine using a median stack. Table 3 summarizes the NIRC2 AO observations taken during this survey that were used in subsequent analysis.
[lccccc]{}
$\rho$ CrB&0.97&-0.20&0.61&0.15& @Takeda2007\
16 Cyg B&0.96&0.04&0.66&0.15& @Takeda2007\
24 Sex&1.54&-0.0&0.91&0.14& @Mortier2013\
51 Peg&1.05&0.20&0.67&0.15& @Takeda2007\
70 Vir&1.10&-0.012&0.69&0.14& @Takeda2007\
GJ 176&0.49&-0.10&1.5&1.5& @Endl2007\
GJ 179&0.36&0.30&1.6&1.1& @Howard2009\
GJ 317&0.24&-0.23&1.6&1.2 & @Johnson2007\
GJ 649&0.54&0.08&1.6&1.6& @Johnson20102\
GJ 849&0.49&0.16&1.5&1.0& @Butler2006\
HD 1461&1.03&0.18&0.68&0.16& @Takeda2007\
HD 1502&1.61&-0.04&0.92&0.10&@Mortier2013\
HD 3651&0.88&0.16&0.92&0.17& @Takeda2007\
HD 4203&1.13&0.45&0.73&0.14 & @Takeda2007\
HD 4208&0.88&-0.28&0.67&0.15 & @Takeda2007\
HD 4313&1.72&0.05&0.96&0.12& @Mortier2013\
HD 5319&1.56&0.02&0.98&12.& @Mortier2013\
HD 5891&1.61&-0.38&0.99&0.12&@Mortier2013\
HD 8574&1.12&-0.01&0.57&0.15& @Takeda2007\
HD 10697&1.11&0.19&0.66&0.15& @Takeda2007\
HD 11506&1.19&0.31&0.60&0.15& @Fischer2007\
HD 11964A&1.11&0.14&0.83&0.13& @Mortier2013\
HD 12661&1.14&0.36&0.72&0.15& @Takeda2007\
HD 13931&1.02&0.03&0.64&0.15& @Takeda2007\
HD 16141&1.05&0.17&0.71&0.15& @Takeda2007\
HD 17156&1.29&0.24&0.64&0.15& @Gilliland2011\
HD 24040&1.09&0.21&0.66&0.15& @Boisse2012\
HD 28678&1.74&-0.21&1.0&0.13& @Mortier2013\
HD 30856&1.35&-0.14&0.96&0.13& @Mortier2013\
HD 33142&1.48&0.03&0.95&0.14& @Mortier2013\
HD 33283&1.24&0.37&0.61&0.13& @Johnson2006\
HD 33636&1.02&-0.13&0.58&0.17 & @Takeda2007\
HD 34445&1.07&0.14&0.62&0.16& @Takeda2007\
HD 37605&1.00&0.34&0.82&0.16& @Wang2012\
HD 38529&1.48&0.40&0.77&0.16& @Mortier2013\
HD 38801&1.36&0.25&0.87&0.16& @Mortier2013\
HD 40979&1.15&0.17&0.52&0.22& @Takeda2007\
HD 43691&1.38&0.25&0.59&0.15& @Silva2007\
HD 45350&1.05&0.29&0.74&0.14& @Takeda2007\
HD 46375&0.93&0.24&0.86&0.18& @Takeda2007\
HD 49674&1.02&0.31&0.71&0.19& @Takeda2007\
HD 50499&1.28&0.34&0.57&0.14& @Takeda2007\
HD 50554&1.03&-0.07&0.53&0.16& @Takeda2007\
HD 52265&1.17&0.19&0.53&0.14& @Takeda2007\
HIP 57050&0.34&0.32&1.6&0.76& @Haghighipour2010\
HD 66428&1.06&0.31&0.71&0.14& @Takeda2007\
HD 68988&1.12&0.32&0.62&0.16 & @Takeda2007\
HD 72659&1.07&-0.0&0.57&0.15& @Takeda2007\
HD 73534&1.23&0.16&0.95&0.12& @Mortier2013\
HD 74156&1.24&0.13&0.54&0.14& @Takeda2007\
HD 75898&1.28&0.27&0.59&0.14& @Robinson2007\
HIP 79431&0.49&0.40&1.5&0.90& @Delfosse2000\
HD 80606&1.06&0.34&0.71&0.15& @Takeda2007\
HD 82886&1.06&-0.31&0.86&0.14& @Johnson2011\
HD 83443&0.99&0.36&0.79&0.19& @Takeda2007\
HD 86081&1.21&0.26&0.66&0.16& @Johnson2006\
HD 88133&1.20&0.33&0.82&0.13& @Mortier2013\
HD 92788&1.08&0.32&0.69&0.16& @Takeda2007\
HD 96063&1.02&-0.20&0.85&0.14& @Mortier2013\
HD 96167&1.31&0.34&0.68&0.13& @Peek2009\
HD 97658&0.78&-0.30&0.80&0.17& @Dragomir2013\
HD 99109&0.94&0.32&0.87&0.15& @Takeda2007\
HD 99492&0.83&0.36&1.0&0.25& @Takeda2007\
HD 99706&1.72&0.14&0.99&0.12& @Johnson2011\
HD 102195&0.87&0.05&0.90&0.35& @Melo2007\
HD 102329&1.95&0.05&1.0&0.12& @Mortier2013\
HD 102956&1.68&0.19&0.97&0.15& @Johnson20102\
HD 104067&0.79&-0.06&0.99&0.33& @Segransan2011\
HD 106270&1.32&0.06&0.74&0.21& @Mortier2013\
HD 107148&1.14&0.31&0.66&0.15& @Takeda2007\
HD 108863&1.85&0.20&0.99&0.13& @Mortier2013\
HD 108874&0.95&0.18&0.71&0.15& @Takeda2007\
HD 109749&1.21&0.25&0.70&0.16& @Fischer2006\
HD 114729&1.00&-0.26&0.62&0.15& @Takeda2007\
HD 114783&0.85&0.12&0.90&0.18 & @Takeda2007\
HD 116029&1.58&0.08&1.0&0.12& @Mortier2013\
HD 117207&1.03&0.27&0.72&0.15& @Takeda2007\
HD 126614&1.15&0.56&1.2&0.14& @Takeda2007\
HD 128311&0.83&0.21&0.99&0.57& @Takeda2007\
HD 130322&0.84&0.01&0.75&0.23& @Takeda2007\
HD 131496&1.61&0.25&1.0&0.13& @Johnson2011\
HD 134987&1.05&0.28&0.70&0.14& @Takeda2007\
HD 141937&1.05&0.13&0.60&0.20& @Takeda2007\
HD 142245&1.69&0.23&1.0&0.14& @Johnson2011\
HD 149143&1.20&0.26&0.68&0.16& @Fischer2006\
HD 152581&0.93&-0.46&0.90&0.14& @Johnson2011\
HD 154345&0.89&-0.11&0.76&0.20& @Takeda2007\
HD 156279&0.93&0.14&0.80&0.16& @Diaz2012\
HD 156668&0.77&0.05&1.0&0.23& @Howard20112\
HD 158038&1.65&0.28&1.0&0.13& @Johnson2011\
HD 163607&1.09&0.21&0.77&0.16& @Giguere2012\
HD 164509&1.13&0.21&0.66&0.18& @Giguere2012\
HD 164922&0.93&0.17&0.80&0.15& @Takeda2007\
HD 168443&1.00&0.04&0.70&0.14& @Pilyavsky2011\
HD 168746&0.92&-0.08&0.69&0.15& @Takeda2007\
HD 169830&1.41&0.15&0.47&0.14& @Takeda2007\
HD 170469&1.14&0.30&0.62&0.15& @Takeda2007\
HD 175541&1.52&-0.11&0.89&0.13& @Mortier2013\
HD 177830&1.46&0.30&1.1&0.12& @Mortier2013\
HD 178911B&1.06&0.29&0.73&0.18& @Valenti2005\
HD 179079&1.09&0.29&0.74&0.16& @Valenti2009\
HD 180902&1.52&0.0&0.93&0.15& @Mortier2013\
HD 181342&1.58&0.15&1.0&0.12& @Mortier2013\
HD 183263&1.12&0.30&0.63&0.15& @Takeda2007\
HD 187123&1.04&0.12&0.61&0.15& @Takeda2007\
HD 188015&1.06&0.29&0.70&0.16& @Takeda2007\
HD 189733&0.81&-0.03&0.93&0.50& @Torres2008\
HD 190228&1.82&-0.18&0.75&0.17& @Takeda2007\
HD 190360&0.98&0.21&0.73&0.14& @Takeda2007\
HD 192263&0.80&0.05&0.93&0.48& @Takeda2007\
HD 192310&0.85&-0.04&0.87&0.19& @Pepe2011\
HD 195019&1.03&0.07&0.64&0.16& @Takeda2007\
HD 200964&1.44&-0.15&0.88&0.14& @Mortier2013\
HD 206610&1.56&0.10&1.0&0.14& @Mortier2013\
HD 207832&0.94&0.06&0.69&0.24& @Haghighipour2012\
HD 209458&1.13&0.0&0.53&0.16& @Takeda2007\
HD 210277&0.99&0.21&0.71&0.15& @Takeda2007\
HD 212771&1.15&-0.14&0.88&0.14& @Mortier2013\
HD 217107&1.11&0.39&0.72&0.14& @Takeda2007\
HD 222582&0.97&-0.03&0.60&0.16& @Takeda2007\
HD 224693&1.33&0.34&0.63&0.14& @Johnson2006\
HD 231701&1.14&0.07&0.53&0.17& @Fischer2007
[lccccccc]{}
$\rho$ CrB&210&1997 Jun 2&2015 Feb 8&6460&$0.16^{+0.13}_{-0.12}$&$1.1^{+0.0036}_{-0.0037}$& @Vogt2006\
16 Cyg B&135&2006 Jul 11&2014 Dec 9&3073&$0.099^{+0.13}_{-0.13}$&$2.4^{+0.19}_{-0.18}$& @Vogt2006\
24 Sex&44&2008 Dec 5&2013 Dec 12&1833&$-0.062^{+1.4}_{-1.5}$&$7.3^{+1.3}_{-0.96}$& @Johnson2011\
51 Peg&43&2006 Jul 10&2014 Sep 13&2987&$-0.42^{+0.20}_{-0.20}$&$2.4^{+0.37}_{-0.31}$& @Vogt2006\
70 Vir&56&2006 Jul 17&2015 Feb 4&3124&$0.14^{+0.25}_{-0.25}$&$3.5^{+0.44}_{-0.37}$& @Kane2015\
GJ 176&71&1998 Jan 26&2014 Sep 6&6067&$0.33^{+0.35}_{-0.34}$&$4.9^{+0.61}_{-0.48}$& @Forveille2009\
GJ 179&43&2000 Feb 6&2014 Aug 24&5313&$-0.62^{+0.55}_{-0.57}$&$5.8^{+1.1}_{-0.93}$& @Howard2010\
GJ 317&48&2000 Jan 7&2013 Dec 10&2535&$ = 0\pm0 \hspace{0.1cm}\tablenotemark{10}$&$8.6^{+1.2}_{-1.0}$& @Anglada2012\
GJ 649&52&1999 Aug 19&2014 Feb 20&5299&$0.58^{+0.49}_{-0.48}$&$4.5^{+0.63}_{-0.51}$& @Johnson2010\
GJ 849&87&1997 Jun 6&2014 Aug 14&6278&$0.32^{+2.5}_{-2.6}$&$3.5^{+0.41}_{-0.37}$& @Bonfils2013\
HD 1461&218&1996 Oct 10&2015 Feb 7&6694&$-0.0064^{+0.87}_{-0.65}$&$3.8^{+0.14}_{-0.13}$& @Rivera2010\
HD 1502&61&2007 Aug 27&2013 Dec 12&2299&$-0.46^{+1.1}_{-1.1}$&$11.^{+1.2}_{-1.0}$& @Johnson2011\
$\bf{HD 3651}$&91&1996 Oct 10&2015 Feb 7&6694&$\bf{0.50^{+0.14}_{-0.14}}$&$3.1^{+0.30}_{-0.26}$& @Wittenmyer2009\
HD 4203&46&2000 Jul 31&2014 Dec 11&5246&$ = 0\pm0 \hspace{0.1cm}\tablenotemark{10}$&$3.4^{+0.54}_{-0.45}$ & @Vogt2006\
$\bf{HD 4208}$&12&2005 Aug 21&2014 Sep 6&3303&$\bf{-1.2^{+0.30}_{-0.30}}$&$3.8^{+0.51}_{-0.44}$& @Vogt2006\
HD 4313&43&2007 Aug 27&2014 Aug 4&2534&$-1.1^{+0.42}_{-0.42}$&$4.2^{+0.65}_{-0.54}$& @Johnson2010\
HD 5319&87&2004 Jan 10&2014 Dec 11&3988&$0.50^{+0.31}_{-0.31}$&$6.7^{+0.61}_{-0.55}$& @Robinson2007\
HD 5891&63&2007 Aug 27&2013 Dec 14&2301&$0.86^{+4.2}_{-4.2}$&$33.^{+3.4}_{-2.9}$&@Johnson2011\
HD 8574&25&1999 Feb 17&2014 Aug 12&5655&$0.31^{+0.96}_{-1.0}$&$-7.2^{+15.}_{-2.1}$ & @Wittenmyer2009\
HD 10697&77&1996 Oct 10&2014 Jul 8&6480&$0.17^{+0.36}_{-0.35}$&$6.0^{+0.59}_{-0.51}$& @Wittenmyer2009\
$\bf{HD 11506}$&125&2004 Jan 10&2015 Feb 7&4046&$\bf{-7.4^{+0.47}_{-0.47}}$&$9.9^{+0.71}_{-0.63}$& @Fischer2007\
HD 11964A&149&1996 Oct 9&2014 Aug 4&6508&$-0.22^{+0.13}_{-0.13}$&$3.2^{+0.23}_{-0.21}$& @Wright2009\
HD 12661&98&1998 Dec 23&2014 Aug 12&5711&$-0.11^{+0.19}_{-0.18}$&$2.7^{+0.28}_{-0.25}$& @Wright2009\
HD 13931&57&1998 Jan 24&2014 Jul 27&6028&$-0.14^{+0.37}_{-0.39}$&$2.8^{+0.39}_{-0.32}$& @Howard2010\
HD 16141&90&1996 Oct 9&2014 Aug 11&6515&$-0.37^{+0.19}_{-0.19}$&$3.3^{+0.33}_{-0.30}$& @Vogt2006\
HD 17156&48&2006 Jan 11&2014 Sep 10&3164&$-0.13^{+0.41}_{-0.41}$&$3.2^{+0.85}_{-0.96}$& @Barbieri2009\
$\bf{HD 24040}$&60&1998 Jan 25&2014 Aug 5&6036&$\bf{2.0^{+0.34}_{-0.35}}$&$4.7^{+0.54}_{-0.47}$& @Boisse2012\
$\bf{HD 28678}$&39&2007 Aug 27&2014 Aug 25&2555&$\bf{3.9^{+0.99}_{-1.0}}$&$6.4^{+0.99}_{-0.82}$&@Johnson2011\
HD 30856&22&2007 Aug 27&2013 Dec 14&2301&$-2.4^{+1.4}_{-1.5}$&$6.1^{+1.5}_{-1.1}$&@Johnson2011\
HD 33142&40&2007 Aug 27&2014 Sep 12&2573&$-1.3^{+0.97}_{-1.0}$&$1.4^{+0.079}_{-0.074}$& @Johnson2011\
HD 33283&42&2004 Jan 10&2014 Sep 7&3893&$-0.18^{+0.27}_{-0.26}$&$3.3^{+0.55}_{-0.46}$ & @Johnson2006\
HD 33636&48&1998 Jan 25&2014 Sep 7&6069&$-0.56^{+0.35}_{-0.34}$&$4.2^{+0.59}_{-0.50}$& @Vogt2006\
HD 34445&117&1998 Jan 25&2015 Feb 4&6219&$-0.93^{+0.32}_{-0.32}$&$6.7^{+0.51}_{-0.45}$& @Howard2010\
HD 37605&41&2006 Sep 3&2014 Sep 7&2926&$3.8^{+1.7}_{-5.3}$&$2.3^{+0.41}_{-0.35}$& @Wang2012\
HD 38529&96&1996 Dec 1&2014 Aug 19&6470&$0.65^{+0.57}_{-0.55}$&$8.9^{+0.76}_{-0.67}$& @Wright2009\
$\bf{HD 38801}$&17&2006 Sep 3&2014 Sep 7&2926&$\bf{4.1^{+1.2}_{-1.3}}$&$10.^{+3.3}_{-2.2}$& @Harakawa2010\
HD 40979&35&2001 Nov 6&2014 Sep 8&4689&$-0.99^{+1.6}_{-1.6}$&$19.^{+3.1}_{-2.4}$& @Wittenmyer2009\
HD 43691&19&2004 Jan 10&2014 Sep 6&3892&$-0.51^{+0.63}_{-0.60}$&$4.8^{+1.7}_{-1.1}$& @Silva2007\
HD 45350&58&1999 Dec 31&2014 Sep 10&5367&$-0.29^{+0.21}_{-0.20}$&$3.7^{+0.46}_{-0.39}$ & @Endl2006\
HD 46375&57&1998 Sep 13&2014 Sep 10&5841&$-0.29^{+0.31}_{-0.30}$&$3.8^{+0.55}_{-0.46}$& @Vogt2006\
HD 49674&79&2000 Dec 4&2014 Sep 8&5026&$-0.21^{+0.34}_{-0.33}$&$5.2^{+0.50}_{-0.44}$& @Vogt2006\
$\bf{HD 50499}$&61&1996 Dec 1&2013 Dec 14&6222&$\bf{ = 0\pm 0 \hspace{0.1cm}\tablenotemark{11}}$&$4.6^{+0.60}_{-0.53}$& @Vogt2005\
$\bf{HD 50554}$&41&1998 Dec 23&2015 Feb 4&5887&$\bf{-1.2^{+0.39}_{-0.37}}$&$4.8^{+0.77}_{-0.64}$& @Vogt2006\
HD 52265&65&1998 Jan 25&2014 Sep 7&6069&$0.63^{+0.25}_{-0.24}$&$4.4^{+0.51}_{-0.43}$& @Vogt2006\
HIP 57050&43&2000 Feb 6&2013 Dec 14&5060&$0.88^{+0.85}_{-0.85}$&$8.1^{+1.3}_{-1.0}$& @Haghighipour2010\
$\bf{HD 66428}$&57&2000 Dec 4&2015 Feb 4&5175&$\bf{-3.1^{+0.23}_{-0.23}}$&$3.5^{+0.45}_{-0.38}$& @Vogt2006\
$\bf{HD 68988}$&48&2000 Jan 8&2013 Dec 13&5088&$\bf{ = 0\pm 0 \hspace{0.1cm}\tablenotemark{11} }$&$1.8^{+0.036}_{-0.042}$& @Vogt2006\
$\bf{HD 72659}$&61&1998 Jan 25&2015 Feb 4&6219&$\bf{ = 0\pm 0 \hspace{0.1cm}\tablenotemark{11} }$&$3.5^{+0.46}_{-0.40}$& @Moutou2011\
HD 73534&46&2004 Jan 10&2015 Feb 8&4047&$0.62^{+0.29}_{-0.29}$&$3.8^{+0.53}_{-0.44}$& @Valenti2009\
HD 74156&53&2001 Apr 8&2013 Dec 12&4631&$1.9^{+0.73}_{-0.74}$&$6.9^{+0.99}_{-0.85}$& @Meschiari2011\
$\bf{HD 75898}$&54&2004 Jan 10&2015 Feb 5&4044&$ \bf{= 0\pm 0 \hspace{0.1cm}\tablenotemark{11}} $&$2.7^{+0.074}_{-0.076}$& @Robinson2007\
HIP 79431&31&2009 Apr 6&2014 Aug 23&1965&$1.8^{+1.9}_{-2.0}$&$6.0^{+1.1}_{-0.88}$ & @Apps2010\
HD 80606&79&2001 Apr 8&2013 Dec 13&4632&$0.23^{+0.27}_{-0.28}$&$3.8^{+0.40}_{-0.35}$& @Moutou2009\
HD 82886&35&2007 Apr 26&2013 Dec 12&2422&$-1.2^{+1.4}_{-1.5}$&$9.6^{+1.6}_{-1.3}$& @Johnson2011\
HD 83443&37&2000 Dec 19&2015 Feb 8&5164&$-0.081^{+0.64}_{-0.64}$&$5.8^{+1.0}_{-0.82}$& @Vogt2006\
$\bf{HD 86081}$&41&2005 Nov 19&2013 Dec 14&2947&$\bf{-1.3^{+0.25}_{-0.25}}$&$4.2^{+0.66}_{-0.55}$& @Johnson2006\
HD 88133&53&2004 Jan 10&2013 Dec 11&3623&$-0.48^{+0.36}_{-0.35}$&$4.7^{+0.61}_{-0.51}$& @Vogt2006\
$\bf{HD 92788}$&37&2000 Jan 8&2014 Feb 20&5157&$\bf{ = 0\pm0 \hspace{0.1cm}\tablenotemark{11}} $&$3.7^{+0.069}_{-0.065}$& @Vogt2006\
HD 95089&37&2007 Apr 26&2013 Dec 12&2422&$ = 0\pm0 \hspace{0.1cm}\tablenotemark{10} $&$7.6^{+1.3}_{-1.1}$& @Johnson2010\
HD 96063&22&2007 Apr 26&2013 Dec 11&2421&$-0.69^{+0.10}_{-1.0}$&$6.0^{+1.5}_{-1.1}$& @Johnson2011\
HD 96167&59&2004 Jan 10&2013 Dec 14&3626&$-0.047^{+0.29}_{-0.29}$&$4.3^{+0.51}_{-0.44}$& @Peek2009\
HD 97658&209&1997 Jan 14&2015 Feb 11&6602&$0.39^{+0.11}_{-0.12}$&$2.9^{+0.16}_{-0.15}$& @Dragomir2013\
HD 99109&54&1998 Dec 24&2013 Dec 11&5466&$-0.73^{+0.56}_{-0.53}$&$7.0^{+0.10}_{-0.84}$ & @Vogt2006\
HD 99492&104&1997 Jan 13&2015 Feb 11&6603&$0.42^{+0.19}_{-0.19}$&$4.1^{+0.35}_{-0.31}$ & @Vogt2006\
HD 99706&33&2007 Nov 23&2014 Jul 7&2418&$-2.5^{+1.2}_{-1.1}$&$1.7^{+2.5}_{-0.57}$& @Johnson2011\
HD 102195&31&2006 Jan 11&2013 Dec 11&2891&$1.3^{+0.69}_{-0.69}$&$10.^{+1.8}_{-1.4}$& @Melo2007\
HD 102329&27&2007 Apr 26&2013 Dec 11&2421&$3.5^{+1.7}_{-1.8}$&$3.7^{+0.31}_{-0.35}$& @Johnson2011\
HD 102956&31&2007 Apr 26&2013 Aug 9&2297&$0.39^{+1.3}_{-1.3}$&$7.3^{+1.2}_{-1.0}$& @Johnson2010\
HD 104067&61&1997 Jan 13&2013 Dec 14&6179&$-0.16^{+0.43}_{-0.42}$&$6.0^{+0.71}_{-0.60}$& @Segransan2011\
HD 106270&27&2007 Apr 26&2014 Jul 13&2635&$1.9^{+1.7}_{-1.6}$&$12.^{+2.4}_{-1.8}$& @Johnson2011\
HD 107148&57&2000 Jan 9&2013 Dec 11&5085&$0.20^{+0.44}_{-0.50}$&$5.0^{+0.64}_{-0.54}$ & @Vogt2006\
HD 108863&41&2007 Apr 26&2013 Dec 10&2420&$-1.2^{+0.98}_{-0.93}$&$6.5^{+0.91}_{-0.75}$& @Johnson2011\
HD 108874&89&1999 Jun 11&2014 Aug 19&5548&$-0.30^{+0.23}_{-0.23}$&$3.4^{+0.36}_{-0.32}$& @Wright2009\
$\bf{HD 109749}$&28&2004 Jan 10&2013 Dec 14&3626&$\bf{0.75^{+0.19}_{-0.20}}$&$1.9^{+0.48}_{-0.39}$& @Fischer2006\
HD 114729&48&1997 Jan 14&2013 Dec 12&6176&$0.16^{+0.35}_{-0.37}$&$4.2^{+0.61}_{-0.52}$& @Vogt2006\
HD 114783&119&1998 Jun 19&2015 Feb 4&6074&$-0.18^{+0.34}_{-0.34}$&$3.8^{+0.30}_{-0.28}$& @Wittenmyer2009\
HD 116029&28&2007 Apr 26&2014 Aug 25&2678&$0.83^{+1.0}_{-1.0}$&$6.2^{+1.5}_{-1.1}$& @Johnson2011\
HD 117207&52&1997 Jan 14&2014 Jun 18&6364&$-0.074^{+0.33}_{-0.32}$&$3.2^{+0.47}_{-0.41}$& @Vogt2006\
HD 126614&81&1999 Jan 21&2015 Feb 7&5861&$87.^{+1.2}_{-1.6}$&$3.1^{+0.33}_{-0.29}$& @Howard2010\
HD 128311&118&1998 Jun 19&2015 Feb 11&6081&$-0.18^{+0.70}_{-0.69}$&$16.^{+1.2}_{-1.1}$& @Wittenmyer2009\
HD 130322&25&2000 Jul 30&2014 Jun 18&5071&$0.36^{+1.1}_{-1.1}$&$7.0^{+1.5}_{-1.1}$& @Wittenmyer2009\
HD 131496&48&2007 Jun 6&2014 Jul 7&2588&$-1.5^{+1.1}_{-0.99}$&$7.6^{+1.0}_{-0.82}$& @Johnson2011\
HD 134987&103&1996 Jul 12&2015 Feb 11&6788&$-0.32^{+0.68}_{-0.69}$&$3.1^{+0.29}_{-0.26}$ & @Jones2010\
HD 141937&33&2002 Aug 29&2014 Jul 9&4332&$-0.61^{+0.52}_{-0.53}$&$6.3^{+1.1}_{-0.86}$& @Udry2002\
HD 142245&26&2007 Jun 6&2014 Jul 7&2588&$0.82^{+0.76}_{-0.74}$&$6.0^{+1.2}_{-0.91}$& @Johnson2011\
HD 149143&48&2004 Jul 11&2014 Aug 13&3685&$0.12^{+0.40}_{-0.40}$&$6.7^{+0.88}_{-0.75}$& @Fischer2006\
HD 152581&30&2007 Jun 6&2014 Jul 24&2605&$0.22^{+0.71}_{-0.71}$&$5.1^{+0.93}_{-0.75}$& @Johnson2011\
HD 154345&113&1997 Apr 8&2015 Feb 4&6511&$0.053^{+0.19}_{-0.19}$&$2.8^{+0.25}_{-0.22}$& @Wright2008\
HD 156279&73&2003 Jul 12&2015 Feb 4&4225&$-5.1^{+6.0}_{-2.8}$&$2.2^{+0.27}_{-0.23}$& @Diaz2012\
HD 156668&219&2003 Jul 12&2015 Feb 5&4226&$-0.24^{+0.080}_{-0.085}$&$2.060^{+0.092}_{-0.085}$& @Howard2011\
$\bf{HD 158038}$&33&2007 Jun 6&2015 Feb 4&2800&$ \bf{= 0\pm0 \hspace{0.1cm}\tablenotemark{11}}$&$12.^{+4.4}_{-2.0}$& @Johnson2011\
$\bf{HD 163607}$&66&2005 Jul 19&2015 Feb 4&3487&$\bf{2.3^{+0.37}_{-0.39}}$&$4.4^{+0.50}_{-0.43}$& @Giguere2012\
HD 164509&57&2005 Jul 19&2014 Sep 8&3338&$-3.3^{+0.56}_{-0.53}$&$6.2^{+0.76}_{-0.64}$& @Giguere2012\
HD 164922&166&1996 Jul 11&2015 Feb 8&6786&$-0.030^{+0.10}_{-0.10}$&$3.0^{+0.20}_{-0.18}$& @Vogt2006\
$\bf{HD 168443}$&139&1996 Jul 12&2014 Aug 11&6604&$\bf{-3.0^{+0.16}_{-0.16}}$&$3.6^{+0.27}_{-0.25}$& @Pilyavsky2011\
HD 168746&27&2000 Jul 30&2014 Jul 26&5109&$-0.24^{+0.30}_{-0.30}$&$2.6^{+0.77}_{-0.61}$ & @Vogt2006\
HD 169830&52&2000 Jul 30&2014 Sep 10&5155&$-0.30^{+0.30}_{-0.29}$&$4.5^{+0.64}_{-0.53}$& @Mayor2004\
HD 170469&42&2000 Jun 10&2014 Jun 22&5125&$0.93^{+0.50}_{-0.52}$&$4.5^{+0.69}_{-0.56}$& @Fischer2007\
HD 175541&81&1996 Jul 19&2014 Jul 25&6580&$0.66^{+0.40}_{-0.41}$&$6.4^{+0.61}_{-0.53}$& @Johnson2007\
HD 177830&121&1996 Jul 11&2014 Sep 6&6631&$0.097^{+0.27}_{-0.27}$&$4.7^{+0.36}_{-0.33}$& @Vogt2006\
HD 178911b&41&1999 Jun 12&2014 Aug 11&5539&$-0.070^{+0.47}_{-0.47}$&$5.5^{+0.82}_{-0.66}$& @Wittenmyer2009\
HD 179079&84&2004 Jul 11&2014 Sep 8&3711&$0.15^{+0.33}_{-0.33}$&$3.9^{+0.38}_{-0.33}$& @Valenti2009\
$\bf{HD 180902}$&26&2007 Aug 27&2014 Aug 11&2541&$\bf{470^{+5.7}_{-6.0}}$&$4.4^{+1.0}_{-0.77}$& @Johnson2010\
HD 181342&30&2007 Aug 27&2014 Aug 11&2541&$-0.43^{+1.5}_{-1.5}$&$12.^{+2.0}_{-1.6}$ & @Johnson2010\
HD 183263&73&2001 Jul 4&2014 Dec 11&4908&$-2.5^{+4.6}_{-2.6}$&$3.4^{+0.39}_{-0.34}$& @Wright2009\
HD 187123&113&1997 Dec 23&2014 Sep 6&6101&$-0.22^{+0.24}_{-0.22}$&$2.4^{+0.23}_{-0.21}$& @Wright2009\
HD 188015&63&2000 Jul 29&2014 Sep 6&5152&$-0.21^{+0.33}_{-0.33}$&$4.7^{+0.54}_{-0.47}$& @Vogt2006\
HD 189733&28&2003 Jul 12&2014 Aug 24&4061&$-0.63^{+1.0}_{-1.0}$&$14.^{+2.6}_{-2.0}$& @Bouchy2005\
HD 190228&31&2002 Aug 28&2013 Dec 11&4123&$-0.36^{+0.61}_{-0.61}$&$4.7^{+0.90}_{-0.70}$& @Wittenmyer2009\
HD 190360&150&1996 Oct 9&2014 Jun 22&6465&$-0.32^{+0.15}_{-0.15}$&$2.8^{+0.21}_{-0.20}$& @Wright2009\
HD 192263&39&1998 Jun 19&2014 Sep 7&5924&$-0.38^{+0.69}_{-0.66}$&$8.1^{+1.2}_{-0.97}$& @Vogt2006\
HD 192310&112&2004 Aug 20&2014 Sep 10&3673&$0.26^{+0.14}_{-0.14}$&$2.1^{+0.19}_{-0.17}$& @Pepe2011\
HD 195019&57&1998 Sep 12&2014 Sep 11&5843&$1.1^{+0.37}_{-0.36}$&$4.7^{+0.58}_{-0.50}$& @Vogt2006\
HD 200964&58&2007 Oct 26&2014 Sep 11&2512&$-0.38^{+0.55}_{-0.53}$&$5.1^{+0.65}_{-0.54}$& @Johnson2011\
$\bf{HD 206610}$&38&2007 Aug 1&2014 Aug 9&2565&$\bf{-8.8^{+0.68}_{-0.63}}$&$4.9^{+0.80}_{-0.65}$& @Johnson2010\
HD 207832&63&2004 Jul 4&2013 Oct 20&3395&$-2.3^{+1.3}_{-0.89}$&$7.7^{+0.99}_{-0.82}$& @Haghighipour2012\
HD 209458&81&1999 Jun 11&2014 Aug 19&5548&$0.10^{+0.32}_{-0.33}$&$5.9^{+0.56}_{-0.49}$ & @Torres2008\
HD 210277&139&1996 Jul 12&2014 Jul 22&6584&$0.36^{+0.16}_{-0.16}$&$3.6^{+0.26}_{-0.24}$& @Vogt2006\
HD 212771&30&2007 Aug 27&2014 Aug 14&2544&$2.1^{+1.1}_{-1.2}$&$8.3^{+1.5}_{-1.2}$& @Johnson2010\
HD 217107&123&1998 Sep 12&2014 Sep 8&5840&$-0.36^{+0.50}_{-0.47}$&$3.6^{+0.40}_{-0.30}$& @Wright2009\
HD 222582&51&1997 Dec 23&2014 Aug 4&6068&$-0.21^{+0.32}_{-0.32}$&$3.3^{+0.47}_{-0.40}$& @Vogt2006\
HD 224693&38&2004 Jul 4&2014 Aug 14&3693&$0.66^{+0.47}_{-0.47}$&$6.1^{+1.1}_{-0.85}$& @Johnson2006\
HD 231701&28&2004 Jul 4&2014 Aug 11&3690&$0.067^{+0.79}_{-0.80}$&$6.4^{+1.5}_{-1.1}$& @Fischer2007
[llllll]{} HD 3651 & 2013 Aug 19 & $K_{\rm cont}$ & 256 & 9.0 & 12\
HD 4208 & 2013 Nov 17 & $K_{\rm cont}$ & 1024 & 10.0 & 15\
HD 11506 & 2013 Nov 17 & $K_{\rm cont}$ & 1024 & 10.0 & 15\
HD 24040 & 2015 Jan 10 & $K_{\rm cont}$ & 1024 & 13.6 & 12\
HD 28678 & 2014 Oct 04 & $K_{\rm cont}$ & 1024 & 13.6 & 12\
HD 38801 & 2014 Dec 7 & $K_{\rm cont}$& 1024 & 12.5 & 12\
HD 38801 & 2014 Jan 12 & $K_p$ & 1024 & 9.0 & 9\
HD 50499 & 2014 Nov 07 & $K_{\rm cont}$& 1024 & 13.6 & 12\
HD 50554 & 2013 Dec 18 & $K_{\rm cont}$ & 1024 & 10.0 & 12\
HD 66428 & 2013 Dec 18 & $K_{\rm cont}$& 1024 & 10.0 & 12\
HD 68988 & 2013 Dec 18 & $K_{\rm cont}$& 1024 & 10.0 & 12\
HD 72659 & 2014 Jan 12 & $K_{\rm cont}$ & 1024 & 9.0 & 15\
HD 72659 & 2014 Nov 10 & $K_{\rm cont}$ & 1024 & 13.6 & 12\
HD 75898 & 2014 May 21 & Kc & 1024 & 12.5 & 12\
HD 75898 & 2014 May 21 & Jc & 1024 & 12.5 & 12\
HD 86081 & 2013 Dec 18 & $K_{\rm cont}$ & 1024 & 10.0 & 12\
HD 86081 & 2014 Dec 5 & $K_{\rm cont}$ & 1024 & 12.0 & 12\
HD 92788 & 2014 Dec 5 & $K_{\rm cont}$& 1024 & 13.6 & 12\
HD 109749 & 2014 Jun 09 & $K_{\rm cont}$ & 1024 & 12.5 & 12\
HD 158038 & 2013 Jul 17 & BrG & 1024 & 2.8 & 25\
HD 163607 & 2013 Aug 19 & $K_{\rm cont}$ & 1024 & 9.0 & 12\
HD 168443 & 2013 Aug 19 & $K_{\rm cont}$ & 512 & 10.0 & 12\
HD 180902 & 2014 Jul 12 & $K_{\rm cont}$ & 1024 & 13.6 & 12\
HD 206610 & 2013 Aug 19 & $K_{\rm cont}$& 1024 & 9.0 & 12
Analysis
========
Radial Velocity Fitting
-----------------------
The presence of a distant, massive companion manifests as a long-term acceleration for observations with baselines significantly shorter than the companion’s orbital period (e.g. Crepp et al 2012). To detect and quantify the significance of these “trends", we performed a uniform analysis of these systems using a Markov Chain Monte Carlo technique.
The initial set of parameter values for the MCMC run were determined using a $\chi^2$ minimization fitting procedure. For a single-planet system, the MCMC algorithm simultaneously fit eight free parameters to the RV data - six orbital parameters (the velocity semi-amplitude, the period of the orbit, the eccentricity of the orbit, the argument of periastron, the true anomaly of the planet at a given time, and the arbitrary RV zero point), a linear velocity trend, and a stellar jitter term [@Isaacson2010]. This additional error term is added to the internal uncertainty of each radial velocity measurement in quadrature. All parameters had uniform priors. While it is formally correct to use log priors for parameters such as the velocity semi-amplitude, jitter term, and linear trend, we find that our use of uniform priors has a negligible effect on our posterior PDFs. We initialize our MCMC chains using the published parameters for the inner planets in these systems, which are typically quite close to our final best-fit parameters. Furthermore, we note that the choice of prior should only affect the posterior probability distributions in the data-poor regime; in this case the data provide good constraints on the parameters in question, and as a result the posterior PDF is effectively independent of our choice of prior. The likelihood function used in this analysis is given in Equation 1, where $\sigma_i$ is the instrumental error, $\sigma_{jit}$ is the stellar jitter, $v$ are the data, and $m$ is the model.
$$\mathscr{L} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}\sqrt{\sigma_i^2 + \sigma_{jit}^2}}\exp\bigg(-0.5\bigg(\frac{(v - m)^2}{\sigma_i^2 + \sigma_{jit}^2}\bigg)\bigg)$$
The confidence intervals on each parameter were obtained from their posterior distribution functions.
On August 19 2004, the HIRES CCD was upgraded, leading to a different RV zero point for data taken before and after this date. For systems with Keck HIRES RVs obtained prior to 2004, we include an offset parameter between the two datasets as an additional free parameter. Although there is some evidence that the post-upgrade jitter is lower than the pre-upgrade jitter by approximately 1 m/s (e.g. Howard et al. 2014), we find that this change is much smaller than the average jitter level for the majority of our targets, and our decision to fit a single jitter term across both epochs is therefore unlikely to have a significant effect on our conclusions. Approximately 30$\%$ of our targets have no pre-upgrade data at all, while an additional 50$\%$ have fewer than ten data points pre- or post-upgrade, making it difficult to obtain meaningful constraints on the change in jitter between these two epochs (e.g., Fulton et al. 2015). We therefore conclude that a uniform approach to these fits is preferable to a more customized approach in which we include two separate jitter terms for the approximately 20$\%$ of systems where such an approach is feasible.
In addition to reproducing the published solutions of confirmed exoplanets, we detected eight new long-period planets with fully resolved orbits in systems GJ 317, HD 4203, HD 33142, HD 95089, HD 99706, HD 102329, HD 116029, and HD 156279. Trends were previously mentioned for GJ 317 [@Anglada2012], HD 4203 [@Vogt2006], HD 95089 [@Johnson2010], HD 99706 [@Johnson2011], and HD 116029 [@Johnson2011].
We note that the two planets in HD 116029 are in 3:2 period commensurability. To assess whether a dynamical model fit was needed, we used the Mercury integrator to numerically integrate the orbits of both planets in HD 116029 in order to determine the magnitude of the change in orbital parameters. We found that over the observational window of $\sim 8$ years, the orbital elements of both planets varied by less than a fraction of a percent. Thus we conclude that a Keplerian model fit is sufficient to characterize the planets in HD 116029. Relevant characteristics of the new outer planets are listed in Table 5, and the corresponding RV solutions are plotted in Figures 3 through 10. RV measurements for these eight systems are listed in Table 4.
{width="3.5"}
{width="3.5"}
{width="3.5"}
{width="3.5"}
{width="3.5"}
{width="3.5"}
{width="3.5"}
{width="3.5"}
We considered a linear trend detection to be statistically significant if the best-fit slope differed from zero by more than 3$\sigma$, and report best-fit trend slopes and stellar jitter values for all systems in Table 2. The nominal values quoted in this table are taken from the $\chi^2$ fits, and the errors come from the MCMC analysis. We detected 20 statistically significant trends due to the presence of an outer companion. We find that all but 16 of our orbital solutions for the known inner planets in these systems were consistent with the published orbits at the 2$\sigma$ level or better.
Of the solutions that changed, the majority were systems with long-period planets for which our newly extended baseline provided a more tightly constrained orbital solution. This longer baseline was particularly important for systems with both long-period planets and RV accelerations, such as HD 190360. We present updated orbital solutions for all of the planets outside 3 AU in Table 5. We defer the publication of updated orbits for planets inside 3 AU and individual radial velocities for all systems to future publications, as these systems are the subject of other research projects currently in progress.
[lccc]{} HD 156279 &12832.9&-436.3&1.084\
HD 156279 &13074.1&-191.6&1.302\
HD 156279 &13238.8&-465.2&0.870\
HD 156279 &13479.0&-184.7&0.874\
HD 156279 &13934.9&471.5&0.896\
HD 156279 &13981.8&77.0&0.814\
HD 156279 &13982.9&67.7&0.843\
HD 156279 &13983.8&61.7&0.845\
HD 156279 &13984.9&55.8&0.785\
HD 156279 &15016.0&395.2&0.951
[lccccccc]{} HD 13931 b&$4460^{+77}_{-67}$& $13359^{+1592}_{-826}$ & $0.033^{+0.030}_{-0.017}$&$18^{+123}_{-67}$&$23.92^{+0.90}_{-0.85}$&$1.92^{+0.08}_{-0.07}$ & $1.022^{+0.020}_{-0.022}$\
HD 24040 b&$3498^{+23}_{-23}$& $12264^{+467}_{-348}$&$0.010^{+0.015}_{-0.009}$&$332^{+48}_{-36}$&$51.4^{+1.4}_{-1.4}$&$4.08^{+0.11}_{-0.11}$ & $1.18^{+0.10}_{-0.10}$\
HD 33636 b&$2112.6^{+1.6}_{-1.6}$&$13305.9^{+3.5}_{-3.4}$&$0.488^{+0.005}_{-0.005}$&$336.18^{+0.90}_{-0.88}$&$160.9^{+1.0}_{-1.1}$&$8.98^{+0.06}_{-0.06}$ & $1.017^{+0.032}_{-0.032}$\
HD 50499 b&$2453^{+27}_{-27}$& $13612^{+65}_{-67}$&$0.334^{+0.059}_{-0.059}$&$241^{+15}_{-14}$&$18.4^{+1.6}_{-1.3}$&$1.36^{+0.12}_{-0.10}$ & $1.280^{+0.034}_{-0.080}$\
HD 66428 b&$2280.4^{+6.6}_{-6.6}$& $12277^{+20}_{-20}$&$0.448^{+0.016}_{-0.015}$&$179.7^{+3.1}_{-3.1}$&$51.4^{+1.5}_{-1.4}$&$3.09^{+0.07}_{-0.07}$ & $1.061^{+0.070}_{-0.056}$\
HD 72659 b&$3506^{+40}_{-38}$& $15301^{+54}_{-59}$ &$0.249^{+0.028}_{-0.027}$&$272.7^{+8.4}_{-6.9}$&$39.0^{+2.4}_{-2.1}$&$2.99^{+0.19}_{-0.17}$ & $1.068^{+0.022}_{-0.022}$\
HD 73534 b&$1707^{+37}_{-35}$& $14981^{+808}_{-280}$ &$0.022^{+0.058}_{-0.037}$&$83^{+171}_{-60}$&$15.2^{+1.1}_{-1.0}$&$1.02^{+0.07}_{-0.07}$ & $1.170^{+0.070}_{-0.070}$\
HD 106270 b&$1872^{+20}_{-19}$& $14774^{+32}_{-28}$&$0.197^{+0.035}_{-0.035}$&$7.5^{+6.1}_{-5.2}$&$137.3^{+4.4}_{-4.3}$&$9.78^{+0.28}_{-0.28}$ & $1.330^{+0.050}_{-0.050}$\
HD 117207 b&$2628^{+21}_{-20}$& $13325^{+83}_{-83}$&$0.150^{+0.026}_{-0.027}$&$85^{+12}_{-12}$&$27.8^{+0.95}_{-0.94}$&$1.90^{+0.07}_{-0.06}$ & $1.031^{+0.046}_{-0.040}$\
HD 154345 b&$3267^{+33}_{-33}$& $15278^{+197}_{-359}$&$0.038^{+0.027}_{-0.021}$&$341^{+22}_{-40}$&$17.05^{+0.48}_{-0.49}$&$1.15^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$ & $0.893^{+0.038}_{-0.038}$\
$\bf{GJ}$ $\bf{317}$ $\bf{c}$ & $5312^{+758}_{-1248}$ & $17424^{+1913}_{-3660}$&$0.308^{+0.065}_{-0.079}$ & $194^{+27}_{-31}$ & $30^{+36}_{-14}$ & $1.54^{+1.26}_{-0.57}$ & $0.240^{+0.040}_{-0.040}$\
$\bf{HD}$ $\bf{4203}$ $\bf{c}$&$7053^{+1624}_{-2324}$& $16179^{+1365}_{-1733}$&$0.182^{+0.124}_{-0.172}$&$232.2^{+30.7}_{-32.5}$&$12.5^{+11.0}_{-5.0}$&$1.51^{+0.98}_{-0.57}$ & $1.130^{+0.028}_{-0.100}$\
HD 11964A c&$1956^{+26}_{-25}$& $14189^{+682}_{-341}$&$0.073^{+0.051}_{-0.037}$&$158^{+125}_{-64}$&$9.00^{+0.45}_{-0.45}$&$0.583^{+0.029}_{-0.029}$ & $1.080^{+0.028}_{-0.012}$\
$\bf{HD}$ $\bf{33142}$ $\bf{c}$ & $834^{+29}_{-24}$ & $15664^{+326}_{-117}$&$0.05^{+0.172}_{-0.114}$ & $322^{+139}_{-53}$ & $ 11.4^{+2.0}_{-1.9}$ & $5.97^{+1.04}_{-0.80}$ & $1.620^{+0.090}_{-0.090}$\
HD 37605 c&$2455^{+468}_{-148}$& $14285^{+151}_{-213}$&$0.^{+0.055}_{-0.029}$&$136^{+18}_{-28}$&$426^{+9.1}_{-3.1}$&$3.37^{+0.83}_{-0.26}$ & $1.00^{+0.50}_{-0.50}$\
HD 38529 c&$2132.4^{+3.2}_{-3.2}$& $14398.1^{+8.0}_{-8.0}$&$0.342^{+0.007}_{-0.007}$&$19.9^{+1.5}_{-1.5}$&$171.1^{+1.5}_{-1.5}$&$13.23^{+0.11}_{-0.12}$ & $1.340^{+0.020}_{-0.020}$\
HD 74156 c&$2460^{+14}_{-15}$& $13440^{+16}_{-16}$&$0.370^{+0.016}_{-0.016}$&$267.1^{+3.3}_{-3.2}$&$109.4^{+2.4}_{-2.3}$&$7.77^{+0.16}_{-0.16}$& $1.238^{+0.040}_{-0.044}$\
$\bf{HD}$ $\bf{95089}$ $\bf{c}$ & $1860^{+370}_{-570}$ & $15492^{+43}_{-50}$&$0.294^{+0.070}_{-0.067}$ & $74.6^{+8.1}_{-9.8}$ & $46.1^{+3.4}_{-4.7}$ & $3.97^{+0.33}_{-0.59}$ & $1.38^{+0.12}_{-0.12}$\
$\bf{HD}$ $\bf{99706}$ $\bf{c}$ & $1278^{+151}_{-198}$ & $15383^{+249}_{-140}$&$0.411^{+0.231}_{-0.178}$ & $136^{+64}_{-64}$ & $13.8^{+2.9}_{-2.5}$ & $5.69^{+1.43}_{-0.96}$ & $1.72^{+0.12}_{-0.12}$\
$\bf{HD}$ $\bf{102329}$ $\bf{c}$ & $1123^{+79}_{-53}$ & $14736^{+569}_{-200}$&$0.209^{+0.231}_{-0.202}$ & $21^{+165}_{-74}$ & $27.4^{+6.8}_{-4.5}$ & $1.52^{+0.30}_{-0.25}$ & $1.30^{+0.15}_{-0.15}$\
HD 114783 c&$4319^{+151}_{-130}$& $18112^{+422}_{-537}$&$0.^{+0.091}_{-0.085}$&$6.5^{+37.9}_{-44.4}$&$9.21^{+0.71}_{-0.68}$&$0.611^{+0.056}_{-0.053}$ & $0.853^{+0.034}_{-0.038}$\
$\bf{HD}$ $\bf{116029}$ $\bf{c}$ & $907^{+30.}_{-29.}$& $15291^{+134}_{-86}$&$0.038^{+0.127}_{-0.075}$&$17.3^{+167.0}_{-49.7}$&$20.7^{+2.2}_{-2.2}$&$1.27^{+0.15}_{-0.15}$ & $1.33^{+0.11}_{-0.11}$\
$\bf{HD}$ $\bf{156279}$ $\bf{c}$&$4191^{+270}_{-310}$& $15912^{+17}_{-17}$&$0.231^{+0.018}_{-0.021}$&$101.0^{+2.3}_{-1.9}$&$110.2^{+4.8}_{-5.3}$&$8.60^{+0.50}_{-0.55}$ & $0.930^{+0.040}_{-0.040}$\
HD 169830 c&$1834.3^{+8.3}_{-8.2}$& $15350^{+40}_{-39}$&$0^{+0.018}_{-0.019}$&$95.7^{+8.2}_{-7.9}$&$39.7^{+1.3}_{-1.3}$&$3.54^{+0.10}_{-0.10}$ & $1.410^{+0.028}_{-0.112}$\
HD 183263 c&$5048^{+433}_{-701}$& $14952^{+77}_{-74}$&$0.073^{+0.025}_{-0.034}$&$284.9^{+6.1}_{-5.4}$&$85.2^{+9.1}_{-14.5}$&$9.0^{+1.1}_{-1.7}$ & $1.121^{+0.064}_{-0.040}$\
HD 187123 c&$3380^{+41}_{-40}$& $13649^{+42}_{-44}$&$0.295^{+0.026}_{-0.025}$&$260.4^{+3.7}_{-3.7}$&$24.97^{+0.76}_{-0.70}$&$1.80^{+0.06}_{-0.06}$ & $1.037^{+0.026}_{-0.024}$\
HD 190360 c&$2889^{+14}_{-14}$& $13548^{+32}_{-25}$&$0.301^{+0.020}_{-0.020}$&$17.9^{+4.7}_{-3.8}$&$21.95^{+0.50}_{-0.49}$&$1.45^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$ & $0.983^{+0.026}_{-0.048}$\
HD 217107 c&$5178^{+74}_{-67}$& $15951^{+49}_{-59}$&$0.376^{+0.014}_{-0.014}$&$206.2^{+2.7}_{-2.7}$&$53.2^{+1.9}_{-1.7}$&$4.48^{+0.20}_{-0.18}$ & $1.108^{+0.034}_{-0.052}$
Non-Planetary Sources of RV Trends
----------------------------------
There were two scenarios in which systems with statistically significant trend detections were excluded from further analysis. In two systems, we found that the observed accelerations were correlated with stellar activity. We compared the RV trends in each system to the measured emission in the Ca II H$\&$K lines, quantified by the ${\ensuremath{S_{\mbox{\scriptsize HK}}}}$ index [@Wright2004; @Isaacson2010], to determine if the RV trends were caused by stellar activity instead of an outer companion [@Santos2010]. Both HD 97658 and HD 1461 showed a clear correlation between the observed RV trend and the measured ${\ensuremath{S_{\mbox{\scriptsize HK}}}}$ values, and we therefore excluded them from subsequent analysis.
We also excluded systems with a linear acceleration that could have been caused by a nearby directly imaged stellar companion. We first examined our K band AO images for all stars with statistically significant radial velocity trends in order to determine which systems contained a directly imaged stellar companion. HD 164509 has a companion 0.75$\arcsec$ away, and HD 195109 has a companion 3.4$\arcsec$ away. To determine whether these companions could have caused the RV trends in these systems, we compared the minimum mass estimate from the RV trend to the companion mass estimate from the AO image. We calculated the minimum companion mass using the equation from Torres (1999):
$$\begin{aligned}
M_{\rm comp} = 5.34 \times 10^{-6} M_{\odot} \bigg(\frac{d}{\rm pc}\frac{\rho}{\rm arcsec}\bigg)^2 \nonumber \\
\times \bigg|\frac{\dot v}{\rm m s^{-1}yr^{-1}}\bigg|F(i,e,\omega,\phi).\end{aligned}$$
In this equation, $d$ is the distance to the star, $\rho$ is the projected separation of the companion and the star on the sky, $\dot v$ is the radial velocity trend, and $F(i,e,\omega,\phi)$ is a variable that depends on the orbital parameters of the companion that are currently unconstrained. We use a value of $\sqrt{27}/2$ for $F$, which is the minimum value of this function calculated in Liu et al (2002).
HD 164509 is 52 pc away and has a companion located at a separation of 0.75$\arcsec$. With a radial velocity trend of 3.4 m s$^{-1}$ yr$^{-1}$, this trend corresponds to a minimum companion mass of $0.072$ $M_{\odot}$. To estimate the mass of the companion from the AO image, the brightness of the companion in K band relative to the primary is used, as described in section 3.4. With a relative K band magnitude of 3.59, we find that the estimated mass from the AO data is 0.33 $M_{\odot}$. Since the companion mass calculated from the AO data is greater than the minimum mass needed to explain the RV trend, we therefore conclude that this companion may indeed be responsible for the observed trend and exclude this system from subsequent analysis.
HD 195109 is 38.5 pc away and has a companion located at a separation of 2.4$\arcsec$. With a radial velocity acceleration of 1.9 m s$^{-1}$ yr$^{-1}$, a stellar companion at the observed AO separation must have a mass of at least 0.44 $M_{\odot}$ in order to cause the observed trend. With a relative K-band magnitude of 2.66, we find that the estimated mass from the AO data is 0.58 $M_{\odot}$. We conclude that the imaged companion could have caused the RV acceleration, and thus removed this system from future analyses. We note that this companion was previously reported in @Mugrauer2007.
Howard et al (2010) imaged a faint M-dwarf companion located $489.0\pm1.9$ mas from the primary star HD 126614. With an absolute K-band magnitude of 6.72, the authors estimated the mass of this companion to be $0.324 \pm 0.004$ $M_{\odot}$. From Equation 1, the estimated minimum mass of the companion inducing the RV trend, given a distance of 72.6 pc and a trend of 14.6 ms$^{-1}$yr$^{-1}$, is 0.26 $M_{\odot}$. Since the minimum estimated RV mass is lower than the estimated AO mass, we conclude that the imaged AO companion could cause the RV trend, and thus remove this system from subsequent analyses. Note that none of these AO companions have second epoch data, and thus have not been confirmed as bound to their respective primaries. However, at these projected separations and contrast ratios the probability that the companion is a background star is relatively low, and we therefore proceed under the assumption that they are bound.
We also carried out a literature search to determine whether any of the remaining trend systems had additional stellar or substellar companions. We found that HD 109749 has a known binary companion described in the published literature. HD 109749 has a companion with K-band magnitude of 8.123 separated by 8.35$\arcsec$ [@Desidera2007]. This visual binary lies outside the field of view for our AO observations. After calculating the minimum companion mass from the measured RV trend and comparing this value to the estimated mass from the AO data found in the literature, we found that this companions cannot explain the accelerations observed in these systems.
After removing stellar sources of RV trends, we find 20 systems with accelerations that have slopes at least $3\sigma$ away from zero. The RV data and best-fit accelerations for each of these systems are plotted in Figures 11 and 12. Six of these trends were previously reported in the published literature: HD 24040 [@Boisse2012], HD 168443 [@Pilyavsky2011], HD 180902 [@Johnson2010], HD 68988 [@Vogt2006], HD 158038 [@Johnson2011], and HD 50499 [@Vogt2005].
---------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------
{width="34.00000%"}
{width="34.00000%"} {width="34.00000%"} {width="34.00000%"}
{width="34.00000%"} {width="34.00000%"} {width="34.00000%"}
{width="34.00000%"} {width="34.00000%"} {width="34.00000%"}
---------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------
The confirmed planet orbital solutions have been subtracted from both the RV data and from the best fit orbital solution to yield the trends. Systems with curved trends include HD 50499, HD 68988, HD 72659, HD 75898, HD 92788, and HD 158038. The plots with the curved trends show the best fit one planet orbital solution to the data after the inner planet solution was subtracted.
----------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------
{width="34.00000%"} {width="34.00000%"} {width="34.00000%"}
{width="34.00000%"} {width="34.00000%"} {width="34.00000%"}
{width="34.00000%"} {width="34.00000%"}
----------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------
Contrast Curves
---------------
We used contrast curves from our AO observations to put limits on the masses and separations that a companion in each system could have. We calculate contrast curves for our target stars as follows. First, we measure the full width at half max (FWHM) of the central star’s point spread function in the stacked and combined image, taking the average of the FWHM in the $x$ and $y$ directions as our reference value. We then create a box with dimensions equal to the FWHM and step it across the array, calculating the total flux from the pixels within the box at a given position. The $1\sigma$ contrast limit is then defined as the standard deviation of the total flux values for boxes located within an annulus with a width equal to twice the FWHM centered at the desired radial separation. We convert absolute flux limits to differential magnitude units by taking the total flux in a box of the same size centered on the peak of the stellar point spread function and calculating the corresponding differential magnitude at each radial distance. We show the resulting $5\sigma$ average contrast curve for these observations in Figure 13; although our field of view extends farther in some directions than the maximum separations shown here, we have limited our calculations to radial separations with data available at all position angles.
We next use our contrast curves to place limits on the allowed masses of stellar companions as a function of projected separation. We interpolate the PHOENIX stellar atmosphere models [@husser13] in the available grid of solar metallicity models to produce a model that matches the effective temperatures and surface gravities of the primary star. For the proposed low-mass main sequence companions, we create PHOENIX models with radii and effective temperatures drawn from @baraffe98. We then calculate the corresponding contrast ratio between the primary and secondary by integrating over the appropriate bandpass (either $K_p$ or $K_s$), adjusting the mass of the secondary downward until we match the $5\sigma$ limit from our contrast curve. We discuss the merits of this approach as compared to other methods commonly utilized in AO imaging searches in Knutson et al. (2014).
{width="50.00000%"}
Companion Probability Distributions
-----------------------------------
We combine our AO and RV observations in order to constrain the allowed range of masses and semi-major axes for the observed companions. The duration and shape of the RV trend places a lower limit on the mass and semi-major axis of the companions. Similarly, a non-detection in AO gives a complementary upper limit on these quantities. We create a two dimensional probability distribution for each companion, by defining an equally spaced 50$\times$50 grid of logarithmic companion mass (true mass) and semi-major axis ranging from 1-500 AU and $0.05-1000$ $M_{\rm Jup}$. We then subtract off the orbital solutions of the confirmed inner planets, leaving only the trends due to the companions. At each grid point in mass and semi-major axis, we inject 500 simulated companions. While the semi-major axis and mass of the companion remain fixed at each point, we drew a new inclination of the orbit each time from a uniform distribution in $cos(i)$, and a new eccentricity each time from the beta distribution [@Kipping2013]. This distribution is defined in Equation 3, where $P_{\beta}$ is the probability of a given eccentricity, $\Gamma$ is the gamma function, and $a' = 1.12$ and $b' = 3.09$ are constants calculated from the known population of long period giant planets.
$$P_{\beta}(e;a',b') = \frac{\Gamma (a'+b')}{\Gamma (a') \Gamma(b')}e^{a'-1}(1 - e)^{b'-1}.$$
Given this fixed mass, semi-major axis, and eccentricity for each simulated companion, we fit the remaining orbital parameters to the RVs using a least squares algorithm, and we calculate a corresponding $\chi^2$ value. We note that the probability distribution calculations are not particularly sensitive to the assumed eccentricity distribution. We recalculate the probability distributions for 30 random systems within our sample assuming a uniform eccentricity distribution, and found that the $1\sigma$ semi-major axis and mass ranges, as presented in Table 6 for the $3\sigma$ trend systems, are generally consistent with each other to a couple of grid points.
We incorporate the constraints on potential companions from our AO observations using a method identical to the one described above. Within each mass and semi-major axis box we first generate a set of 500 companions with randomly selected masses, semi-major axes, and an eccentricity drawn from Eq. 3. We then fit for the remaining orbital parameters using the RV data, and use this best-fit orbit to calculate a set of 1000 projected separations for the companion sampled uniformly across the orbit. We then use our AO contrast curve to determine whether or not a companion of that mass and projected separation could have been detected in our AO image for each of the 1000 time steps considered. If the companion lies above our contrast curve we assume that it would have been detected, and if it lies below the curve we count it as a non-detection. For companions with large enough projected separations our images do not span all position angles, and we therefore assume that companions that lie above our contrast curve would be detected with a probability equal to the fractional position angle coverage of our image at that separation. We can then calculate the probability that a given companion would have been detected by determining the fraction of our 1000 time steps in which the companion lies above the contrast curve for that star.
The lower and upper limits on the mass/semi-major axis parameter space occupied by each companion can be combined to form a two dimensional probability distribution. After multiplying the $\chi^2$ cube in mass, semi-major axis, and eccentricity from the RV trends by the detection probability cube from the AO contrast curves, we marginalize this new cube over eccentricity to yield a two dimensional probability distribution. Figure 14 shows the posterior distributions for the companions in each of the 20 systems with statistically significant RV trends. Table 6 lists the $1\sigma$ mass and semi-major axis ranges derived for each companion from this analysis. As expected, systems with strong curvature in the observed radial velocity accelerations have tighter constraints on the allowed mass and semi-major axis of the companion than those with linear trends.
--------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------
{width="25.00000%"} {width="25.00000%"} {width="25.00000%"} {width="25.00000%"}
{width="25.00000%"} {width="25.00000%"} {width="25.00000%"} {width="25.00000%"}
{width="25.00000%"} {width="25.00000%"} {width="25.00000%"}
{width="25.00000%"} {width="25.00000%"} {width="25.00000%"} {width="25.00000%"}
--------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------
[lcc]{}
HD 3651&$0.84-817$&$14-440$\
HD 4208&$0.84-668$&$7.6-342$\
HD 11506&$9.6-72$&$14-40$\
HD 24040&$6.4-817$&$24-342$\
HD 28678&$5.2-446$&$11-124$\
HD 38801&$2.8-297$&$8.6-124$\
HD 50554&$1.9-817$&$13-440$\
HD 50499&$2.8-12$&$7.6-8.6$\
HD 66428&$4.3-72$&$11-66$\
HD 68988&$9.6-59$&$6.7-7.6$\
HD 72659&$1.3-133$&$7.6-35$\
HD 75898&$2.8-199$&$6.7-21$\
HD 86081&$0.69-72$&$4.6-124$\
HD 92788&$48-88$&$14-40$\
HD 109749&$0.25-59$&$5.9-160$\
HD 163607&$1.3-39$&$7.6-24$\
HD 168443&$4.3-817$&$14-388$\
HD 180902&$162-446$&$8.6-18$\
HD 206610&$7.8-446$&$13-85$
Based on the probability contours in Figure 14 and corresponding table of allowed companion masses, we conclude that the majority of companions are most likely gas giant planets, as field surveys indicate that the occurrence rate of brown dwarfs (13 - 80 $M_{\rm Jup}$) around sun-like stars is $3.2^{+3.1}_{-2.7}\%$ [@Metchev2009]. We note that while the Metchev and Hillenbrand result is for brown dwarf companions to sun-like stars between 28-1590 AU, the brown dwarf parts of parameter space for our companions are typically outside of 28 AU. Therefore, the comparison to the Metchev and Hillenbrand occurrence rate is appropriate. For comparison, @Cumming2008 states that $17\% - 20\%$ of solar type stars host a giant planet (0.3 - 10 $M_{\mathrm{Jup}}$) within 20 AU.
Completeness Maps
-----------------
We quantified the sensitivity of this survey to companions over a range of masses and semi-major axes by determining the completeness of each system given the system’s radial velocity baseline. Once again, we defined a 50$\times$50 grid in log mass/semi-major axis space from 1-500 AU and 0.05-1000 $M_{\rm Jup}$. In each defined grid box, we injected 500 simulated planets, each with a random mass and semi-major axis uniformly drawn from the grid box. We draw the inclination of the orbit from a uniform distribution in $\cos i$, the eccentricity from the beta distribution, and the remaining orbital elements from a uniform distribution. At each epoch that the star was observed, we calculated the expected RV signal caused by the injected companion. We generated errors for these simulated data by drawing randomly from a normal distribution of width $\sqrt{\sigma_i^2 + \sigma_{jitter}^2}$, where $\sigma_i$ are the randomly shuffled measurement errors from the original radial velocities and $\sigma_{jitter}$ is the best-fit jitter value.
To determine if a simulated companion would be detectable, we fit either a one planet orbital solution, a linear trend, or a flat line to the simulated RV observations over the observed baseline. To determine which was the best fit, we used the Bayesian information criterion (BIC). This is defined as: $\mathrm{BIC} = -2L + k\ln{n}$, where $L$ is the likelihood of the model, k is the number of free parameters in the model, and $n$ is the number of data points in the observed data set. While the likelihood can be increased by simply fitting models with more free parameters, BIC selects against these with a penalty term. The lower the BIC value the better the model fit. Comparing two models, if $\Delta BIC > 10$, this is very strong evidence for the model with the lower BIC [@Kass1995]. Thus if the BIC values for the trend or the one-planet models were less than ten compared to the BIC value for the flat line, the simulated companion was “detected", whereas if the flat line was the best fit, that companion was “not detected". This process was repeated for 500 simulated companions injected into each grid box, producing a completeness map of detection probability as a function of mass and semi-major axis. Figure 15 shows the average completeness map of all of the systems.
{width="50.00000%"}
Figure 16 shows the $50\%$ contour for the average of all the systems, for the least sensitive system, and for the most sensitive system. The sensitivity of each system to planets with varying masses and semi-major axes depends on the length of the RV baseline, the magnitude of the measurement errors, and the number of data points for the system. The longer the baseline, the smaller the errors, and the greater the number of data points, the more sensitive the system. The least sensitive system is HD 5891, while the most sensitive system is HD 156668.
{width="50.00000%"}
Discussion
==========
The distribution of wide companions
-----------------------------------
Now that we have determined the parameter space where each detected companion is most likely to reside, we can determine the most likely underlying distribution for these massive, long-period companions in confirmed exoplanet systems. We assume that the companions are distributed in mass and semi-major axis space according to a double power law (e.g. Tabachnik $\&$ Tremaine 2002, Cumming et al 2008):
$$f(m,a) = Cm^{\alpha}a^{\beta}$$
The total likelihood for a set of N exoplanet systems is given by:
$$\mathscr{L} = \Pi^{N}_{i = 1}p(d_i | C, \alpha, \beta)$$
where the expression on the right is the probability of obtaining the set of data $d$ for a system $i$ given values for $C$, $\alpha$, and $\beta$. We assume that each system can have at most one companion, and that the probability of obtaining the measured RV dataset for an individual star is therefore the sum of the probability that the system does contain a planet and the probability that the system does not contain a planet for each set of C, alpha, and beta values considered. The probability of a system having zero planets is given by:
$$p(d_i, 0 | C, \alpha, \beta) = p(d_i | 0)[1 - Z]$$
The quantity $p(d_i | 0)$ is the probability of obtaining the measured RV dataset given that there are no planets in the system. $Z$ is the probability that the system contains a planet within the specified range in mass and semi-major axis space. Here, $p(d_i | 0)$ and $Z$ are given by the following equations.
$$p(d_i | 0) = \Pi_j\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma_j}exp\bigg[\frac{-1}{2}\bigg(\frac{d_j - m_j}{\sigma_j}\bigg)^2\bigg]$$
$$Z = \int_{m_1}^{m_2} d\ln m \int_{a_1}^{a_2} d\ln a \hspace{0.1cm} C m^{\alpha} a^{\beta}$$
In equation 7, $d_j$ is the jth datapoint in the dataset d for system i, $m_j$ is the corresponding model point, and $\sigma_j$ is the error on the jth datapoint.
The probability of a system having one planet given values $C$, $\alpha$, and $\beta$ is: $$p(d_i, 1 | C, \alpha, \beta) = \int_{a_1}^{a_2} d\ln a \int_{m_1}^{m_2} d\ln m \hspace{0.1cm} p(d_i | a, m) C m^{\alpha} a^{\beta}$$
where $p(d_i | a, m)$ is the probability of a companion at a given mass and semi-major axis, which we know from the previously calculated two dimensional probability distributions. We then combine these expressions in order to calculate the likelihood of a given set of C, $\alpha$, and $\beta$ values given the measured RV data for all the stars in our sample:
$$\mathscr{L} = \Pi^{N}_{i = 1} \bigg[p_i(d_i, 0 | C, \alpha, \beta) + p_i(d_i, 1 | C, \alpha, \beta)\bigg]$$
Note that for this calculation we use the probability distributions for all systems, not just those with 3$\sigma$ trends. To maximize $\mathscr{L}$, we varied the values of $C, \alpha,$ and $\beta$ using a grid search. The $16\%$ - $84\%$ confidence intervals on these parameters were then obtained using the MCMC technique.
Occurrence Rates
----------------
The overall occurrence rate for the population of companions can be estimated by integrating $f(m,a)$ over a range of masses and semi-major axes. In addition to the population of exoplanet systems described previously, we also included the 51 hot Jupiter systems published in @Knutson2014. While we adopted the published RV model fits for each of the hot Jupiter systems, we recalculated probability distributions with the same grid spacing used for the 123 new systems described in this study for consistency.
In @Knutson2014, we utilized a conservative approach in which we defined a given planet as a non-detection with $100\%$ probability whenever the measured trend slope was less than 3$\sigma$ away from zero. Instead of using a binary picture of planet occurrence, our revised likelihood function is more statistically correct, as it considers the probability of hosting a planet in all of our systems. We note that integrated companion occurrence rates calculated using this approach are particularly sensitive to the estimated jitter levels in our fits, where an underestimate of the true stellar jitter levels could result in an over-estimate of the corresponding companion occurrence rates. As a test of this new method we re-calculate the companion occurrence rate for the sample of 51 transiting hot Jupiters presented in @Knutson2014 and find a value of $70 \pm 8\%$ for companions between 1 - 13 $M_{\rm Jup}$ and 1 - 20 AU. This is approximately 2$\sigma$ higher than the value of $51 \pm 10\%$ obtained for this sample of stars using our older, more conservative likelihood function.
We calculate the overall frequency of companions beyond 5 AU in our new expanded system of 174 planetary systems by integrating over our best-fit probability distributions. We evaluate the companion frequency using a variety of different mass and period ranges in order to determine how sensitively this result is to the specific limits of integration selected. The resulting total occurrence rates are presented in Table 7, and the corresponding values of $C$, $\alpha$, and $\beta$ are shown in Table 8.
[l|ccc]{} 0.5 - 20 $M_{\rm Jup}$ & $59.2^{+5.1}_{-5.2}$ & $66.5^{+5.6}_{-5.8}$ & $62.1^{+5.4}_{-5.7}$\
0.5 - 13 $M_{\rm Jup}$ & $56.9^{+5.2}_{-5.3}$ & $62.3^{+5.7}_{-5.8}$ & $61.0^{+5.5}_{-5.8}$\
1 - 20 $M_{\rm Jup}$ & $52.4^{+4.5}_{-4.7}$ &$59.6^{+5.4}_{-5.5}$ & $60.9^{+5.2}_{-5.6}$
[l|ccc]{} 0.5 - 20 $M_{\rm Jup}$ & $C = 0.0036^{+0.0047}_{-0.0018}$ &$C = 0.0174^{+0.0174}_{-0.0085}$ & $C = 0.023^{+0.026}_{-0.012}$\
& $\alpha = -0.04^{+0.13}_{-0.12}$ & $\alpha = 0.29^{+0.18}_{-0.16}$& $\alpha = 0.53^{+0.25}_{-0.22}$\
& $\beta = 1.46^{+0.47}_{-0.37}$& $\beta = 0.38^{+0.22}_{-0.22}$ & $\beta = 0.05^{+0.18}_{-0.19}$\
0.5 - 13 $M_{\rm Jup}$ & $C = 0.0063^{+0.0076}_{-0.0029}$ & $C = 0.015^{+0.031}_{-0.014}$ & $C = 0.019^{+0.039}_{-0.016}$\
& $\alpha = 0.08^{+0.15}_{-0.14}$ & $\alpha = 0.56^{+0.22}_{-0.19}$& $\alpha = 0.86^{+0.28}_{-0.26}$\
& $\beta = 1.22^{+0.33}_{-0.35}$& $\beta = 0.38^{+0.21}_{-0.22}$ & $\beta = 0.02^{+0.17}_{-0.20}$\
1 - 20 $M_{\rm Jup}$ & $C = 0.0020^{+0.0062}_{-0.0029} $& $C = 0.0083^{+0.0084}_{-0.0038}$ & $C = 0.0063^{+0.0072}_{-0.0029}$\
& $\alpha = -0.22^{+0.15}_{-0.15}$ & $\alpha = 0.44^{+0.22}_{-0.23}$& $\alpha = 0.86^{+0.26}_{-0.23}$\
& $\beta = 1.82^{+0.25}_{-0.27}$ & $\beta = 0.56^{+0.22}_{-0.22}$ & $\beta = 0.26^{+0.14}_{-0.15}$
We find that our values of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ vary significantly depending on the integration range chosen, and are therefore not accurate estimates of the power law coefficients for this population of long-period companions. This dependence on integration range is due to the fact that many of the companions detected in our study have poorly constrained masses and orbits. When we vary the range of masses and semi-major axes used in our fits we truncate the probability distributions for these companions at different points, therefore biasing our corresponding estimates of $\alpha$ and $\beta$. Although it is difficult to obtain reliable estimates for the values of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ for long-period companions, we can nonetheless investigate whether or not this population increases in frequency as a function of increasing mass and semi-major axis by calculating the occurrence rate of this sample of systems using equal steps in log space to increase the semi-major axis and mass integration ranges. When stepping in semi-major axis, we keep the mass range constant, 1 - 20 $M_{\rm Jup}$, and when stepping in mass, we keep the semi-major axis range constant, 5 - 20 AU. We then compare the observed changes in companion frequency per step in log mass or log semi-major axis in order to determine empirically how the overall distribution of companions compares to predictions from various power law models. For example, if the increase in frequency per log semi-major axis declines at larger separations this would imply a negative value for $\beta$, whereas the opposite would be true for a positive $\beta$. We calculate the uncertainties on the changes in occurrence rates by adding the individual uncertainties on the occurrence rates in quadrature.
We calculate the change in the integrated occurrence rate as a function of increasing semi-major axis (Figure 17) using a lower integration limit of 1 AU and including all planets in these systems, not just the outer companions. We find that for small separations these rates increase relatively quickly as compared to the predictions of a power law model with $\beta = 0$ (i.e. a uniform distribution in semi-major axis), whereas for large separations these rates increase relatively slowly. This suggests a positive $\beta$ value for giant planets at smaller separations and a negative $\beta$ value for outer companions at larger separations, with a broad peak in the distribution between 3 - 10 AU. When we examine the corresponding change in occurrence rate for companions beyond 5 AU as a function of planets mass (Figure 18), we find that these rates also increase slowly as compared to the predictions of a power law model with $\alpha = 0$. This implies a negative $\alpha$ value.
{width="50.00000%"}
{width="50.00000%"}
We next compare our constraints on the mass and semi-major axis distribution of long-period companions to predictions based on studies of short-period planets around FGK stars. Since values of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are broadly consistent among these studies (e.g. Bowler et al 2010), the results from @Cumming2008 will be taken as representative: $\alpha = -0.31 \pm 0.2$ and $\beta = 0.26 \pm 0.1$. These values were derived for planet masses between $0.3 - 10$ $M_{\rm Jup}$ and periods less than 2000 days (approximately 3 AU). We would like to know whether or not the population of companions beyond 5 AU is consistent with predictions based on the power law coefficients from this study. We answer this question by repeating our previous calculation using the Cumming et al power law, where we determine the change in the integrated occurrence rate per log mass and semi-major axis steps over the parameter range of interest. We calculate the uncertainties on these changes in occurrence rate by assuming Gaussian distributions for $\alpha$ and $\beta$ and using a Monte Carlo method to get a distribution of occurrence rates for each semi-major axis and mass integration range. We then determine the uncertainties on the changes in occurrence rates by adding the uncertainties on the occurrence rates in quadrature. We note that due to correlations between $\alpha$ and $\beta$ these uncertainties are slightly overestimated. We then compare these results to those obtained by fitting to our sample of long-period planets in Figures 17 and 18.
As shown in Figure 17, the Cumming et al. power law predicts an increase in the frequency of planets as a function of increasing semi-major axis, whereas our fits suggest a declining frequency for gas giant companions beyond the conservative 3 - 10 AU range. This implied disagreement between the integrated occurrence rates for our sample as compared to the extrapolated occurrence rates of Cumming et al is not surprising, as @Cumming2008 only fits gas giant planets interior to 3 AU. We speculate that this difference may indicate either a peak in the frequency of gas giant planets in the 3-10 AU range, or a difference between the population of outer giant planet companions in these systems and the overall giant planet population. In contrast to this result, Figure 18 indicates that the mass distribution of the long-period companions in our study is consistent with the negative $\alpha$ value (i.e. increasing frequency with decreasing planet mass) reported by Cumming et al. for the population of planets interior to 3 AU.
We next consider how the frequency of companions in these systems varies as a function of other parameters, including the inner planet mass, semi-major axis, and stellar mass. We select an integration range of $1 - 20$ $M_{\rm Jup}$ and 5 - 20 AU for these companions; this range is large enough to include all known companions detected by our survey, while still remaining small enough to ensure that we do not extrapolate too far beyond the region in which we are sensitive to companions. We find that within this integration range, the total occurrence rate for massive, long-period companions is $52.4^{+4.5}_{-4.7}\%$.
@Johnson2010_2 showed that planet occurrence rates and system architecture vary as a function of stellar mass. The A and M star systems are the high and low extremes of the sample’s stellar mass range. To address the concern that including A and M star systems would influence our final results, we ran the entire grid search and MCMC analyses again excluding the 29 A and M star systems in the sample. The occurrence rate for this FGK-only sample is $54.6^{+4.8}_{-4.8}\%$. We therefore conclude that the occurrence rates for the sample with and without the A and M stars are consistent with each other at the $0.4\sigma$ level.
Following the total occurrence rate calculation, we calculated the occurrence rate of massive, long-period companions as a function of inner-planet semi-major axis. We divided the total sample up into three bins - systems with planets interior to 0.1 AU (hot gas giants), systems with planets between 0.1 and 1 AU (warm gas giants), and systems with planets between 1 and 5 AU (cold gas giants). For each bin, we repeated our fits to derive new values of $C$, $\alpha$, and $\beta$, which we integrated over a range of $1 - 20$ $M_{\rm Jup}$ and 5 - 20 AU. Our results are presented in Figure 19. The hot gas giant companion frequency is 2.4$\sigma$ higher than that of the warm gas giants, and 2.3$\sigma$ higher than that of the cold gas giants. This suggests that gas giants with orbital semi-major axes interior to 0.1 AU may have a higher companion fraction than their long-period counterparts, albeit with the caveat that this short-period bin is dominated by our transiting hot Jupiter sample. These planets typically have fewer radial velocity measurements than planets detected using the radial velocity technique, which could result in an underestimate of the stellar jitter for these stars.
If this enhanced companion fraction for short-period planets is confirmed by future studies, it would suggest that three body interactions may be an important mechanism for hot Jupiter migration. Alternatively, this trend might also result from differences in the properties of the protoplanetary disks in these systems. If we suppose that each disk that successfully generates gas giant planets produces them at some characteristic radius (e.g. the ice line - see @Bitsch2013) separated by some time span, and these planets subsequently migrate inwards via type II migration. Gas giants that migrate early in the disk’s lifetime will reach the inner magnetospheric cavity of the disk, and due to eccentricity excitation mechanisms (Rice et al (2008)), will rapidly accrete onto the host star over a timescale that is short compared to the lifetime of the disk. As the disk ages however, photoevaporation will grow the radius of the inner disk cavity. Accordingly, for those gas giants that arrive later in the lifetime of the disk, the inner disk edge will have been eaten away to the point that the eccentricity excitation mechanisms are no longer effective at shepherding the planets into the host stars, allowing migration to halt. We note that there is a very narrow window of time where the aforementioned processes allow for a successful formation of a hot Jupiter (which may self-consistently explain their inherent rarity - see @Rice2008). We would thus expect hot Jupiters to form primarily around stars that hosted disks that were especially efficient at giant planet formation, thus increasing the chances of having a planet reach the inner disk edge during the small window of time where hot Jupiter formation is possible. These highly efficient disks would also be expected to produce more than one gas giant planet, which leads to the expectation that hot Jupiters would be more likely to have companions.
{width="50.00000%"}
We also calculated the occurrence rate of companions as a function of inner planet mass. We divided the sample up into three bins, corresponding to planets with masses between 0.05 and 0.5 $M_{\rm Jup}$, $0.5 - 5$ $M_{\rm Jup}$, and $5 - 15$ $M_{\rm Jup}$. Our results are plotted in Figure 20. We find that intermediate mass planets may be more likely to have a massive, long-period companion, although all three bins are consistent at the 2$\sigma$ level. We note that our ability to discern trends in companion rate as a function of planet mass is limited by the relatively small sample sizes in the lowest and highest mass bins, which result in correspondingly large uncertainties on their companion rates.
{width="50.00000%"}
Finally, we calculated the occurrence rate of companions outside of 5 AU as a function of stellar mass. Once again, we divided the sample up into three bins - systems with stellar masses from 0.08 - 0.8 $M_{\odot}$ (M and K stars), 0.8 - 1.4 $M_{\odot}$ (G and F stars), and 1.4 - 2.1 $M_{\odot}$ (A stars). Our results are plotted in Figure 21. We find that the occurrence rates for each stellar mass bin are consistent with each other at the $0.2\sigma$ level. Earlier studies indicated that the occurrence rate for gas giant planets interior to 3 AU is higher around A stars than F and G stars [@Johnson2010_2]; our results for companions beyond 5 AU suggest that these differences may be reduced at large orbital separations, albeit with large uncertainties due to the small number of A stars included in our sample. We note that while mass estimates for the evolved A stars have been debated in the literature [@Schlauffman2013; @Johnson2013; @Johnson2013_2; @Lloyd2013; @Lloyd2011], this has a minimal impact on our conclusions in this study as we find that these evolved stars have the same frequency of companions as the main sequence FGKM stars in our sample.
{width="50.00000%"}
Eccentricity Distribution
-------------------------
In addition to the results described above, we also seek to quantify how the eccentricity distribution of exoplanets in single planet systems might differ from that of exoplanets in two planet systems or systems with an outer body, as indicated by a radial velocity trend. We quantify these differences by fitting the set of inner planet eccentricities for each sample using the beta distribution [@Kipping2013]:
$$P_{\beta}(e;a,b) = \frac{\Gamma (a+b)}{\Gamma (a) \Gamma(b)}e^{a-1}(1 - e)^{b-1}.$$
We account for the uncertainties in the measured eccentricities for each planet by repeating our beta distribution fit 10,000 times, where each time we draw a random eccentricity from the MCMC posterior probability distribution for each individual planet. The resulting distributions of best-fit $a$ and $b$ values therefore reflect both the measured eccentricities and their uncertainties. Figure 22 plots the distribution of best-fit eccentricities for the two groups of planets. We excluded planets interior to 0.1 AU whose eccentricities might be circularized due to tidal forces from the primary star from this plot as well as the beta distribution fits. Figure 23 compares the two-dimensional posterior probability distributions in $a$ and $b$ for each of the two groups, taking into account the uncertainties on each planet eccentricity. We find that the two-planet systems appear to have systematically higher eccentricities than their single planet counterparts, with a significance greater than 3$\sigma$.
This result appears to contradict previous studies, which found that multi-planet systems have lower eccentricities [@Chatterjee2008; @Howard2013; @Limbach2014; @Wright2009]. This difference may be explained if the separation between inner and outer planets is larger for cases where the inner planet has a large orbital eccentricity. Previous surveys were typically only sensitive to a 1 $M_{\rm Jup}$ planet out to 3 - 5 AU, suggesting that many of the multi-planet systems detected by our survey would have been misclassified as single planet systems.
The most detailed study of this correlation to date was presented in @Limbach2014. This study used 403 cataloged RV exoplanets from exoplanet.org [@Han2014] to determine a relationship between eccentricity and system multiplicity. 127 of these planets were members of known multi-planet systems, with up to six planets in each system. When the authors calculated the mean eccentricity as a function of the number of planets in each system, they found that systems with more planets had lower eccentricities. We note that the difference between our new study and this one may be due to the fact that the majority of their planets have relatively short orbital periods. For systems with three or more planets, this means that the spacing between planets is typically small enough to require less eccentric orbits in order to ensure that the system remains stable over the lifetime of the system. Furthermore, their analysis did not take into account the uncertainties on individual exoplanet eccentricities, which can be substantial. @Howard2013 reaches a similar conclusion in their simpler analysis of published RV planets. This study compared eccentricity distributions of single giant planets to giant planets in multi-planet systems, and found that eccentricities of planets in multi-planet systems are lower on average.
Because @Limbach2014 did not carry out their own fits to the radial velocity data, they did not consistently allow for the possibility of long-term radial velocity accelerations due to unresolved outer companions. Previous studies by @Fischer2001 and @Rodigas2009 demonstrate that undetected outer planets can systematically bias eccentricity estimates for the inner planet to larger values. This is also a problem for systems where the signal to noise of the planet detection is low or the data are sparsely sampled [@Shen2008]. Although we use a smaller sample of planets for our study than @Limbach2014, our systems all have high signal to noise detections and long radial velocity baselines, which we use to fit and remove long-term accelerations that might otherwise bias our eccentricity estimates.
In contrast to these other studies, Dong et al (2014) found that warm Jupiters with companions have higher eccentricities than single warm Jupiters. However, we note that this study relied on a relatively small sample of planets (9 systems with e $>$ 0.4 and 17 with e $<$ 0.2), and the authors did not report uncertainties on their estimated occurrence rates for either sample. In this study the authors also point out that in order to migrate a warm Jupiter inwards via dynamical interactions with an outer body, the perturber in question must be close enough to overcome GR precession of the inner planet. We use this constraint, presented in their Equation 4, to test this formation scenario for the warm Jupiter population in our sample. Of the 42 warm Jupiter systems in our sample, 15 have resolved companions and 4 have statistically significant linear trends. We find that for the resolved companions, 13 out of the 15 companions satisfy the criterion for high-eccentricity migration (namely that warm Jupiters must reach a critical periastron distance of 0.1 AU within a Kozai-Lidov oscillation). We take the best fit masses and semi-major axes for the companions causing the trends from their probability distributions, and use these values to calculate the upper limit on the separation ratio between the warm Jupiter and the companion. We find that zero out of the four systems satisfy the criterion for high-e migration. Combining the resolved and trend systems, 13 out of 19 warm Jupiter systems with companions satisfy the criterion. However, we note that the criterion presented in Dong et al (2014) is necessary but insufficient for high-eccentricity migration. While our observations in principle do not rule out Kozai-Lidov migration for the warm Jupiter population, in order to decide if migration is relevant the character of the angular-momentum exchange cycle must be understood. In order to do this to lowest order, the mass and semi-major axis of the perturbing orbit, as well as the mutual inclination, must be known.
{width="50.00000%"}
{width="50.00000%"}
Conclusions
===========
We conducted a Doppler survey at Keck combined with NIRC2 K-band AO imaging to search for massive, long period companions to a sample of 123 known one and two planet systems detected using the radial velocity method. These companions manifest as long term radial velocity trends in systems where the RV baseline is not long enough to resolve a full orbit. We extended archival RV baselines by up to 12 years for the stars in our sample, and found that 25 systems had statistically significant radial velocity trends, six of which displayed significant curvature (HD 68988, HD 50499, HD 72659, HD 92788, HD 75898, and HD 158038). We found that trends detected in HD 1461 and HD 97658 correlxated with the Ca II H$\&$K line strengths, indicating that these trends were likely due to stellar activity and not due to a wide-separation companion. These systems were removed from further analysis. We also checked each system for stellar companions, and found that HD 164509, HD 126614, and HD 195109 had stellar companions that could account for the linear RV accelerations. These systems were also removed from further analysis. For the remaining 20 trend systems, we placed lower limits on companion masses and semi-major axes from the RV trends, and upper limits from the AO contrast curves of the corresponding systems. We quantified the sensitivity of our survey and found that on average we were able to detect a 1 $M_{\rm Jup}$ planet out to 20 AU, and a Saturn mass planet out to 8 AU with $50\%$ completeness. We fit the companion probability distributions with a double power law in mass and semi-major axis, and integrated this power law to determine the giant planet companion occurrence rate.
We found the total occurrence rate of companions over a mass range of 1 - 20 $M_{\rm Jup}$ and semi-major axis range of 5-20 AU to be $52.4^{+4.5}_{-4.7}\%$, and obtained a comparable occurrence rate when the A and M star systems were removed from the calculation. The distribution of these long-period companions is best matched by models with a declining frequency as a function of increasing semi-major axis, and appears to be inconsistent with an extrapolation from fits to the population of gas giant planets interior to 3 AU described in Cumming et al. (2008). This suggests that either the radial distribution of gas giants peaks between 3 - 10 AU, or that the distribution of outer gas giant companions differs from that of the overall gas giant population.
When calculating the occurrence rate as a function of inner planet semi-major axis, we found that the hot gas giants were more likely to have a massive outer companion as compared to their cold gas giant counterparts. This result suggests that dynamical interactions between planets may be an important migration mechanism for gas giant planets.
When we compared the eccentricity distributions of single planets in this sample with no outer bodies to planets in two-planet systems and single planets with a positive trend detection, we found that in multi-body systems, the eccentricity distribution was significantly higher than that of single planet systems with no outer bodies. The higher average eccentricities in these systems suggest that dynamical interactions between gas giant planets play a significant role in the evolution of these systems.
If we wish to better understand the role that dynamical evolution plays in these systems, there are several possible approaches to consider. First, continued RV monitoring would help to better constrain companion orbits and masses. Second, deep imaging of the trend systems could probe down to brown dwarf masses and determine whether any of the observed trends could be caused by stellar instead of planetary mass companions. If any brown dwarf companions are detected via direct imaging, the existence of complementary radial velocity data would allow us to dynamically measure their masses, which would provide a valuable test of stellar evolution models in the low mass regime [@Crepp20122]. Finally, long term RV monitoring of systems with lower mass planets and/or systems with three or more short period planets detected by transit surveys such as Kepler could allow us to determine if the companion occurrence rate of these systems differs from that of their gas giant counterparts. A significant limitation of this last suggestion is the need to detect low mass planetary systems orbiting bright, nearby stars - most Kepler stars are time consuming to observe with RVs, but K2, and later TESS, should provide a good sample of low mass planets orbiting nearby stars.
{#section .unnumbered}
We thank David Hogg and Ben Montet for helpful conversations. This work was supported by NASA grant NNX14AD24G, and was based on observations at the W. M. Keck Observatory granted by the University of Hawaii, the University of California, the California Institute of Technology, Yale University, and NASA. We thank the observers who contributed to the measurements reported here and acknowledge the efforts of the Keck Observatory staff. We extend special thanks to those of Hawaiian ancestry on whose sacred mountain of Mauna Kea we are privileged to be guests.
Albrecht, S., Winn, J. N., Johnson, J. A., et al. 2012b, ApJ, 757, 18
Albrecht, S. et al 2013, ApJ, 771, 1
Alibert, Y. et al 2005, A$\&$A, 434, 1
Anglada-Escude, G. et al 2012, ApJ, 746, 1
Apps, K. et al 2010, PASP, 122, 888
Baraffe, I., Chabrier, G., Allard, F., $\&$ Hauschildt, P. H. 1998, A$\&$A, 337, 403
Barbieri, M. et al 2009, A$\&$A, 503, 2
Batygin, K. 2012, Nature, 491, 418
Batygin, K., $\&$ Adams, F. C. 2013, ApJ, 778, 169
Bechter, E. B. et al 2014, ApJ, 788, 1
Becker, J. C. et al 2015, arXiv:150802411B
Bitsch, B. et al 2013, A$\&$A, 555
Boisse, I. et al 2012, A$\&$A, 545
Bonfils, X. et al 2013, A$\&$A, 549
Bouchy, F. et al 2005, A$\&$A, 444, 1
Bourrier, V. $\&$ Hebrard, Guillaume 2014, A$\&$A, 569
Bowler, B. P. et al 2010, ApJ, 709, 1
Butler, R. P. et al 2006, PASP, 118, 850
Butler, R. P. et al 2006, ApJ, 646, 1
Butler, R. P. et al 1996, PASP, 108
Chatterjee, S. et al 2008, ApJ 686, 580
Crepp, J. R. et al 2012, ApJ, 761, 1
Crepp, J. R. et al 2012, ApJ, 751, 97
Cumming, A., Butler, R. P., Marcy, G., W., et al. 2008, PASP, 120, 531
Da Silva, R. et al 2007, 473, 1
Dawson, R. I. 2014, ApJL, 790, 2, L31
Dawson, R. I. $\&$ Murray-Clay, R. A. 2013, ApJL, 767, 2
Delfosse, X. et al 2000, A$\&$A, 364
Desidera, S. $\&$ Barbieri, M. 2007, A$\&$A, 462, 1
Diaz, R. F. et al 2012, A$\&$A, 538
Dong, S. et al 2014, ApJL, 781, 1
Dragomir, D. et al 2013, ApJL, 772, 1
Endl, M. et al 2006, AJ, 131, 6
Endl, M. et al 2008, ApJ, 673, 2
Fabrycky, D. $\&$ Tremaine, S. 2007, ApJ, 669, 1298
Fischer, D. A. et al 2006, ApJ, 637, 2
Fischer, D. A. et al 2007, ApJ, 669, 2
Fischer, D. A. et al 2001, ApJ, 551, 1107
Fischer, D. A. et al 2003, ApJ, 590, 2
Forveille, T. et al 2009, A$\&$A, 493, 2
Fressin, F. et al 2013, ApJ, 766, 81
Fulton, B. J. et al 2015, ApJ, 805, 2
Giguere, M. J. et al 2012, ApJ, 744, 4
Filliland, R. L. et al 2011, ApJ, 726, 1
Goldreich, P., $\&$ Tremaine, S. 1980, ApJ, 241, 425
Haghighipour, N. et al 2012, ApJ, 756, 1
Haghighipour, N. et al 2010, ApJ, 715, 1
Han, E. et al 2014, PASP, 126, 827
Harakawa, H. et al 2010, ApJ, 715, 1
Hebrard, G., Ehrenreich, D., Bouchy, F., et al. 2011, A$\&$A, 527, L11
Howard, A. W. et al 2011, ApJ, 726, 2
Howard, A. W. et al 2011, ApJ, 730, 1
Howard, A. W. 2013, Science, 340, 572
Howard, A. W. et al 2009, ApJ, 696, 1
Howard, A. et al 2009, ApJ, 749, 134
Howard, A. W. et al 2010, ApJ, 721, 2
Howard, A. W. et al. 2012, ApJS, 201, 15
Howard, A. W. et al 2014, ApJ, 794, 1
Huber, D. et al 2013, Science, 342, 6156
Husser, T.-O., Wende-von Berg, S., Dreizler, S., et al. 2013, A$\&$A, 553, A6
Isaacson, H., $\&$ Fischer, D. 2010, ApJ, 725, 875
Johnson, J. A. $\&$ Wright, J. T. 2013, arXiv:1307.3441J
Johnson, J. A. et al 2010, PASP, 122, 892
Johnson, J.A. 2011, ApJS, 197, 2
Johnson, J. A. et al 2013, ApJ, 763, 1
Johnson, J. et al 2010, PASP, 122, 149
Johnson, J. A. et al 2010, PASP, 122, 888
Johnson, J.A. et al 2010, PASP, 122, 894
Johnson, J. A. et al 2010, ApJL, 721, 2
Johnson, J. A. et al 2007, ApJ, 665, 1
Johnson, J. A. et al 2007, ApJ, 670, 1
Johnson, J. A. et al 2011, ApJ, 141, 1
Johnson, J. A. et al 2006, ApJ, 647, 1
Jones, H. R. et al 2010, MNRAS, 403, 4
Juric, M., $\&$ Tremaine, S. 2008, ApJ, 686, 603
Kane, S. R. et al 2012, MNRAS, 425, 1
Kane, S. R. et al 2015, submitted to ApJ, arXiv: 1504.04066v1
Kass, R. E. $\&$ Raftery, A. E. 1995, J. Am. Statist. Assoc., 90, 430
Kipping, D. M. 2013, MNRAS, 434, L51
Knutson, H. A. et al 2014, ApJ, 785, 126
Limbach, M. A. $\&$ Turner, E. L. 2014, arXiv:1404.2552L
Lin, D. N. C., $\&$ Papaloizou, J. C. B. 1986, ApJ, 309, 846
Lin, D. N. C., Bodenheimer, P., $\&$ Richardson, D. C. 1996, Nature, 380, 606
Liu, M. C., Fischer, D. A., Graham, J. R., et al. 2002, ApJ, 571, 519
Lloyd, J. P. 2011, ApJL, 739, 2
Lloyd, J. P. 2013, ApJL, 774, 1
Malmberg, D., Davies, M. B., $\&$ Chambers, J. E. 2007, MNRAS, 377, L1
Marcy, G. W. $\&$ Butler, R. P. 2000, ApJ, 536, 1
Marcy, G. W. $\&$ Butler, R. P. 1992, PASP, 104, 674
Mayor, M. et al 2004, A$\&$A, 415
Melo, C. et al 2007, A$\&$A, 467, 2
Meschiari, S. et al 2011, ApJ, 727, 2
Metchev, S. A. $\&$ Hillenbrand, L. A. 2009, ApJS, 181, 1
Montet, B. T. et al 2014, ApJ, 781, 1
Mortier, A. et al 2013, A$\&$A, 556
Morton, T. D. $\&$ Winn, J. N. 2014, ApJ, 796, 1
Moutou, C. et al 2009, A$\&$A, 498, 1
Moutou, C. et al 2011, A$\&$A, 527
Mugrauer, M. et al 2005, A$\&$A, 440, 3
Mugrauer, M. et al 2007, Proceedings IAU Symposium, No. 240
Nagasawa, M., Ida, S., $\&$ Bessho, T. 2008, ApJ, 678, 498
Naoz, S. M. et al 2012, ApJ, 754, 36
Ngo, H. et al 2015, ApJ, 800, 138
Peek, K. M. G. et al 2009, PASP, 121, 880
Pepe, F. et al 2011, A$\&$A, 534
Perrier, C. et al 2003, A$\&$A, 410
Petigura, E. et al 2013, PNAS, 110, 48
Pilyavsky, G. et al 2011, ApJ, 743, 2
Pollack, J. B. et al 1996, Icarus, 124, 1
Rafikov, R. R. 2006, ApJ, 648, 1
Raghavan, D. et al 2006, ApJ, 646, 1
Rasio, F. A. $\&$ Ford, E. B. 1996, Science, 274
Rice, W. K. M. et al 2008, MNRAS, 384, 3
Rivera, E. J. et al 2010, ApJ, 708, 2
Robinson, S. E. et al 2007, ApJ, 670, 2
Rodigas, T. J. $\&$ Hinz, P. M. 2009, ApJ, 702, 1
Roell, T. et al 2012, A$\&$A, 542
Santos, N. C. et al 2010, A$\&$A, 511, 54
Schlaufman, K. C. $\&$ Winn, J. N. 2013, ApJ, 772, 2
Segransan, D. et al 2011, A$\&$A, 535
Shen, Y. $\&$ Turner, E. L. 2008, ApJ, 685, 1
Spalding, C. $\&$ Batygin, K. 2014, ApJ, 790, 1
Steffen, J. H. et al 2012, Proc Natl Acad Sci, 109, 21
Storch, N. I. et al 2014, Science, 345, 6202
Takeda, G. et al 2007, ApJS, 168, 2
Tanaka, H., Takeuchi, T., $\&$ Ward, W. R. 2002, ApJ, 565, 1257
Torres, G. 1999, PASP, 111, 169
Torres, G. et al 2008, ApJ, 677, 2
Udry, S. et al 2002, A$\&$A, 390
Valenti, J. A. $\&$ Fischer, D. A. 2005, ApJ, 159, 1
Valenti, J. A. et al 2009, 702, 2
Valenti, J. A. et al 1995, PASP, 107
Vogt, S. S. et al 2005, ApJ, 632, 1
Vogt, S. et al 2000, ApJ, 536, 2
Vogt, S. et al 2002, A\[J, 568, 1
Vogt, S. S. et al 1994, Proc. SPIE, 2198, 362
Wang, X. et al 2012, ApJ, 761, 1
Winn, J. N., Fabrycky, D., Albrecht, S., $\&$ Johnson, J. A. 2010a, ApJL, 718, L145
Wittenmyer, R. A. et al 2009, ApJS, 182, 1
Wright, J. T. et al. 2011, PASP, 123, 41
Wright, J. T. et al 2007, ApJ, 657, 1
Wright, J. et al 2004, ApJS, 152, 261
Wright, J. T. et al 2008, ApJ, 683, 1
Wright, J. T. et al 2009, ApJ, 693, 2
Wright, J. T. et al 2004, ApJS, 152, 2
Wu, Y. $\&$ Lithwick, Y. 2010, ApJ, 735, 109
[^1]: This assessment is however sensitive to the dynamical evolution of the stellar spin-axis itself, as spin-orbit misalignments may be suppressed by adiabatic coupling [@Storch2014]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We raise the possibility that the chiral degeneracy of the magnons in ultrathin films can be lifted due to the presence of Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interactions. By using simple symmetry arguments, we discuss under which conditions such a chiral asymmetry occurs. We then perform relativistic first principles calculations for an Fe monolayer on W(110) and explicitly reveal the asymmetry of the spin-wave spectrum in case of wave-vectors parallel to the (001) direction. Furthermore, we quantitatively interpret our results in terms of a simplified spin-model by using calculated Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya vectors. Our theoretical prediction should inspire experiments to explore the asymmetry of spin-waves, with a particular emphasis on the possibility to measure the Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interactions in ultrathin films.'
author:
- 'L. Udvardi'
- 'L. Szunyogh'
title: 'Chiral asymmetry of the spin-wave spectra in ultrathin magnetic films'
---
It is by now well-established that relativistic effects play a fundamental role in the magnetism of nanostructures, in particular, for thin films and finite deposited nanoparticles. Over the past two decades, a vast number of experimental and theoretical studies has been published to explore related phenomena such as magnetic anisotropies, spin-reorientation phase transitions, and non-collinear magnetic orderings.[@PB_JPCM99; @Skomski_JPCM03; @JB_SSR06; @VBL_RPP08; @Wein_08]
The antisymmetric exchange interaction between two magnetic atoms, $E_{DM}={\bf D}_{ij} \left( {\bf M}_i \times {\bf M}_j \right)$, where ${\bf M}_i$ and ${\bf M}_j$ denote the spin-moments of the atoms labeled by $i$ and $j$, has been proposed 50 years ago by Dzyaloshinskii [@Dzyalo_57-58] and Moriya [@Moriya_PR60]. The ${\bf D}_{ij}$ is called the Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya vector being identical to zero if the sites $i$ and $j$ experience inversion symmetry. It has been put forward just about ten years ago that an enhanced Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction (DMI) at surfaces or interfaces can give rise to novel phenomena in nanomagnetism such as to noncollinear interlayer coupling,[@Xia_PRB55; @SB_PRL] to unidirectional competing magnetic anisotropies,[@SOK_PRB98] or to stabilization of non-collinear (chiral) magnetic orderings.[@CL_JMMM98; @BR_PRL01]
A breakthrough on this field happened when the resolution of spin-polarized scanning tunneling microscopy enabled to detect magnetic pattern formation on the atomic scale in monolayer-thin films. Such periodic modulations have been observed for Mn monolayers deposited on W(110) and W(001) and, could successfully be interpreted in terms of a combination of relativistic first principles calculations and a simple micromagnetic model as the consequence of large DM interactions.[@Bode_Nature07; @Ferriani_PRL08]. Using the same theoretical basis it was even possible to explain the homochirality of the domain walls in two monolayers of Fe on W(110), [@Heide_PRB08] in agreement with previous experimental observation.[@Kubetzka_PRB03]
In this Letter, we investigate a consequence of the DM interactions on the spin-wave spectra in ultrathin films, not yet explored in the literature. We argue that the chiral degeneracy of the spin-wave (SW) spectrum can be lifted due to the Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interactions and discuss under which conditions such a chiral asymmetry occurs. Based on relativistic first principles calculations, we explicitly evidence the asymmetry of the SW spectrum of an Fe monolayer on W(110) in case of wave-vectors parallel to the (001) axis. We then quantitatively interpret our results in terms of a simplified spin-model by using calculated DM vectors. By emphasizing the possibility of probing the DM interactions in ultrathin films, we impel experiments to explore the proposed effect.
We start our study with simple considerations based on classical spin-waves. If the atomic magnetic moment in the ground state of a ferromagnetic monolayer is ${\bf M}_0=M_0 {\bf e}_0$ with ${\bf e}_0$ being a unit vector, then a spin-wave of wave-vector ${\bf q}$ and chirality index (rotational sense) $c=\pm 1$ is defined by the magnetic orientations, ${\bf e}_i ({\bf q},c)$ = ${\bf n}_1 \cos({\bf q} {\bf R}_i ) \sin\theta$ + $c \,{\bf n}_2 \sin ({\bf q} {\bf R}_i) \sin\theta$ + ${\bf e}_0 \cos\theta$, where ${\bf n}_1 \perp {\bf e}_0$ and ${\bf n}_2 = {\bf n}_1 \times {\bf e}_0$ are unit vectors, ${\bf R}_i$ is the position vector of site $i$ and the $\theta$ is the relative angle between the moments and ${\bf e}_0$. Inspecting the energy of the SW in terms of an extended Heisenberg model containing tensorial exchange interactions,[@Udvardi_PRB03] it turns out that only the antisymmetric exchange interactions, i.e., the DM interactions give rise to a chirality dependent contribution, $$E_{DM} ({\bf q},c) = c \sin^2\theta \sum_{i \ne j} \left(
{\bf D}_{ij} \cdot {\bf e}_0 \right)
\sin\left( {\bf q} ( {\bf R}_i - {\bf R}_j) \right) \; .
\label{eq:edm_sw}$$ The above expression also implies that only the components of the DM vectors parallel to ${\bf e}_0$ influence the SW energy and that a reversed chirality can be converted into a propagation of the SW in the opposite direction: $E_{DM} ({\bf q}, -c) =
E_{DM} (-{\bf q}, c) = - E_{DM} ({\bf q}, c)$.
The orientations of the DM vectors in a ferromagnetic monolayer have been analyzed for different 2D lattices in Refs. [@CL_JMMM98] and [@Elena_PRB07]. In particular, if the lattice has a twofold rotational symmetry, such as in case of the (001) and (011) surfaces of cubic lattices, all the DM vectors lie in-plane. Clearly from Eq. (\[eq:edm\_sw\]), a chiral asymmetry of the SW occurs then only for an in-plane ground-state magnetization. Furthermore, if the ground-state magnetization is in a mirror plane of the monolayer no chiral asymmetry applies for wave-vectors being parallel with ${\bf e}_0$.
In order to demonstrate the chiral asymmetry of the SW’s we have chosen a ferromagnetic Fe monolayer deposited on W(110), since $(i)$ it exhibits an in-plane ground-state magnetization [@EHG_prb96; @pratzer_prl01] and $(ii)$, as for the Fe double-layer [@Heide_PRB08] or for a Mn monolayer on W(110) and W(001), [@Bode_Nature07; @Udvardi_PhysicaB08; @Ferriani_PRL08] large DM interactions are expected.
![(Color online) Sketch of the lattice positions (left) and of the surface Brillouin zone (right) of a bcc(110) plane. The high symmetry points of the surface Brillouin zone are also labeled. \[fig:lattice\]](fig1a.ps "fig:"){width="4.5cm"} ![(Color online) Sketch of the lattice positions (left) and of the surface Brillouin zone (right) of a bcc(110) plane. The high symmetry points of the surface Brillouin zone are also labeled. \[fig:lattice\]](fig1b.ps "fig:"){width="3.5cm"}
-12pt
Our notation used for the principle axes of a bcc(110) plane are shown in Fig. \[fig:lattice\] depicting the structure of the real-lattice and the surface Brillouin zone with the high symmetry points. The theoretical bcc W lattice constant as given in Ref. , $a=3.205$ Å, was chosen for the in-plane lattice constant (along the Y axis) throughout the system. All the interlayer distances were fixed to the ideal bcc(110) value, $d=\sqrt{2}a/2=2.266$ Å, but the interlayer distance between the Fe and the topmost W layer was relaxed by -12.9 % ($d_{Fe-W}=1.974$ Å) according both to experiment [@albrecht_ssc91] and to theory [@qh_prb03]. The calculations were performed in terms of the fully relativistic Screened Korringa-Kohn-Rostoker (SKKR) method [@SKKR-book] by using the local density approximation and the atomic sphere approximation (ASA). It should be noted that the SKKR method makes use of a semi-infinite geometry for the substrate, therefore, the calculations are not affected by ambiguities related to a supercell or film geometry.
We calculated magnetic anisotropy energies, $E(001)-E(1\overline{1}0)= 2.11$ meV and $E(110)-E(1\overline{1}0)= 0.41$ meV. This implies that, in agreement with other theoretical works [@ah_prb06; @costa_prb08] and with the experiment,[@EHG_prb96], the ground-state magnetization of FeW(110) is in-plane with an easy axis along the $(1\overline{1}0)$ direction and the hard axis is along the $(001)$ direction. It should be noted that the magnetostatic dipole-dipole interaction also favors the $(1\overline{1}0)$ direction by about 0.01 meV with respect to the $(001)$ axis and by 0.11 meV with respect to the $(110)$ direction.[@heide_diss]
We applied a recent relativistic extension [@Udvardi_PRB03] of the torque method [@Lichtenstein_JMMM87] to evaluate tensorial exchange interactions for FeW(110) from first principles. This method opened the way to atomistic spin-model simulations of nanostructures accounting for relevant relativistic interactions, such as the on-site magnetic anisotropy, the anisotropic symmetric exchange interaction and the antisymmetric exchange interaction.[@Elena_PRB07; @Udvardi_PhysicaB08; @Antal_PRB08; @Hubert_PRB08]
By using the convention, $H=-\sum_{i\ne j} J_{ij} {\bf e}_i
{\bf e}_j$, our calculated isotropic exchange interactions for the first few neighbors are, $J_{01}=10.84$ meV, $J_{02}=-3.34$ meV, $J_{03}=3.64$ meV and $J_{04}=4.60$ meV. Note that, in particular, the nearest neighbor interaction, $J_{01}$, is about four times less in magnitude than the corresponding parameter in Ref. . To lend confidence to our values for $J_{ij}$, we performed Monte Carlo simulations and obtained a Curie temperature of about 270 K, in very good agreement with experiment (225 K).[@EHG_prb96] Note that random phase approximation (RPA) calculations in Ref. provided a $T_C$ above 1000 K which is, most likely, the consequence of the overestimated NN exchange interaction.
By using a canonical quantization of the linearized Landau-Lifshitz equations, we also developed a method to calculate the adiabatic SW spectra of bulk and layered systems on a relativistic first principles basis.[@Udvardi_PRB03] Although, within this approach, the interaction of the spin-waves with the Stoner continuum is neglected, the main features of the SW spectra due to relativistic effects are expected to be well-described. Notably, in case of a monolayer, two SW solutions are obtained with the energies, $E^+({\bf q})$ and $E^-({\bf q})$, that correspond to the chirality indices +1 and -1, respectively.
![(Color online) Calculated adiabatic spin-wave spectrum of FeW(110) along the X axis as given in Fig. \[fig:lattice\]. \[fig:spwx\]](fig2.ps){width="7cm"}
-20pt
In Fig. \[fig:spwx\] the calculated adiabatic SW spectrum is shown along the X axis. It was demonstrated in Ref. that the adiabatic SW energies and the SW dispersion obtained from RPA agree well for wave-numbers as large as about 1 Å$^{-1}$. We, therefore, display the adiabatic SW spectrum for only $|q| < 1.2$ Å$^{-1}$. Anticipated from the symmetry analysis above, since in this case the ground-state magnetization and the wave-vectors lie in a mirror plane of the system, the spectrum is degenerate, i.e., $E^+(q)=E^-(q)$. Correspondingly, the SW dispersion is symmetric, $E(q)=E(-q)$. Note that the energy range of the dispersion in Fig. \[fig:spwx\] is approximately half of that in Ref. , which we again attribute to the very different exchange interaction parameters in the two theoretical works.
![(Color online) Calculated adiabatic spin-wave spectra with chirality index +1 (triangles) and -1 (spheres) of FeW(110) along the Y axis, see Fig. \[fig:lattice\]. \[fig:spwy\]](fig3.ps){width="7cm"}
-20pt
Next we inspect the SW spectrum for wave-vectors parallel to the (001) axis displayed in Fig. \[fig:spwy\]. Since in this case ${\bf q}$ is perpendicular to the ground-state magnetization, our symmetry analysis predicts lifting of the chiral degeneracy of the spectrum, which can evidently be inferred from Fig. \[fig:spwy\]. Furthermore, the relationship $E^+(-q)=E^-(q)$ is clearly regained. As compared with Ref. , again a difference by a factor of two in the energy range of the magnons can be noticed.
![(Color online) Sketch of the calculated Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya vectors between an atom (C) and its nearest (1) and next nearest (2) neighbors in an Fe monolayer on W(110). \[fig:DMvecs\]](fig4.ps){width="5cm"}
-12pt
In order to demonstrate that the observed asymmetry of the SW spectrum results from the DM interactions we performed a model calculation for $\Delta E(q) = E^+(q)-E^-(q)$. Our first principles calculations indicated that the DM vectors for the nearest and next nearest neighbors, visualized in Fig. \[fig:DMvecs\], are at least by an order larger in magnitude than the ones for more distant pairs. By using the method described in Ref. the asymmetry of the SW energy can then be expressed as, $$\Delta E(q) = \frac{16 \mu_B}{M_0} D^x_1 \sin(\frac{1}{2}qa)-\frac{8 \mu_B}{M_0} D^x_2 \sin(qa)
\; ,
\label{eq:deq}$$ where $M_0=2.22 \, \mu_B$ is the spin-magnetic moment per atom and $D^x_1$ and $D^x_2$ are the magnitudes of the $x$ components (parallel to the ground-state magnetization) of the DM vectors for the nearest and second nearest neighbors, respectively.
![(Color online) Squares: asymmetry of the spin-wave spectrum of FeW(110) along the Y axis as derived from the data in Fig. \[fig:spwy\], solid line: the function, Eq. (\[eq:deq\]), obtained from a second nearest neighbor model with the calculated DM interactions. \[fig:spwyasym\]](fig5.ps){width="7cm"}
-20pt
In Fig. \[fig:spwyasym\] we plotted the asymmetry, $\Delta E(q)$, of the SW spectrum of FeW(110) along the Y axis obtained from the data in Fig. \[fig:spwy\]. As can be inferred from this figure, $\Delta E(q)$ exhibits local extrema at about $q = \pm$0.44 Å$^{-1}$ with $|\Delta E(q)| \simeq $ 15 meV and changes sign at $q = \pm$0.83 Å$^{-1}$. Apparently, these features of $\Delta E(q)$ are fairly well reproduced by the function, Eq. (\[eq:deq\]), when using the calculated parameters, $D^x_1=1.42$ meV and $D^x_2=6.08$ meV. Note that the characteristic extrema of $\Delta E(q)$ are determined by the DM interactions between the next nearest neighbors, since the $\sin(qa)$ function in the second term on the [*rhs*]{} of Eq. (\[eq:deq\]) reaches a maximum/minimum at $|q|=\pi/2a \simeq
0.49$ Å$^{-1}$. The deviations of the asymmetry of the SW energy from this model function are related to the DM interactions between more distant pairs that add low-frequency modulations to the SW dispersion.
The magnon spectrum of FeW(110) along the Y direction has been measured very recently by using spin-polarized electron energy loss spectroscopy (SPEELS),[@prokop_08] a highly suitable technique to probe high wave-vector magnetic excitations of ultrathin films. Surprisingly, the measured magnon energies are about half of the theoretical values reported here and smaller by even a factor of four than the calculated values in Ref. . We are, however, aware of linear response calculations [@buczek] that provided with a very similar magnon dispersion along the Y axis as compared to that in Fig. \[fig:spwy\]. Thus, the low energy of the measured magnon spectrum [@prokop_08] should most probably be attributed to effects not included in the first principles calculations, such as spin-charge coupling [@ps_prb08] or phonon-magnon interaction.[@lazewski_prb07]
Considering the size of the SW asymmetry obtained from our calculations, e.g., about 20 % at $q = \pm$0.44 Å$^{-1}$ with respect to the average energy, $(E^+(q)+E^-(q))/2$, we strongly suggest that it should be accessible to experiments. Indeed, preliminary measurements on FeW(110) [@prokop] indicate the presence of an asymmetry in the magnon spectrum being quite similar in size and shape as in Fig. \[fig:spwyasym\]. Further candidates for experimental observation of the proposed SW asymmetry are ferromagnetic monolayers on substrates with large spin-orbit coupling and polarizability (W, Pt or Ir). In case of an out-of-plane ground-state magnetization, a small magnetic field might be applied to orient the magnetization in-plane, in order to fulfill the necessary condition for the chiral asymmetry of magnons. Our model calculation, see Eq. (\[eq:deq\]), clearly implies that such experiments would serve as a unique tool to measure the Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interactions in ultrathin ferromagnetic films, to be directly compared with the results of ab initio calculations. Concerning, in particular, the role of relativistic effects, such a progress would clearly assist a deeper understanding of the magnetism in nanostructures.
The authors appreciate useful discussions with J. Prokop and J. Kirschner. Financial support of the Hungarian National Scientific Research Foundation (OTKA contracts No. OTKA K68312, No. K77771 and No. NF61726) is acknowledged.
[10]{}
P. Poulopoulos and K. Baberschke, J. Phys. Condens. Matter [**11**]{}, 9495 (1999).
R. Skomski, J. Phys. Condens. Matter [**15**]{}, R841 (2003).
P.J. Jensen and K.H. Bennemann, Surf. Sci. Rep. [**61**]{}, 129 (2006).
C.A. Vaz, J.A. Bland, and G. Lauhoff, Rep. Prog. Phys. [**71**]{}, 056501 (2008).
P. Weinberger, [*Magnetic Anisotropies in Nanostructured Matter*]{}, (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2008).
I. E. Dzyaloshinskii, Sov. Phys. JETP [**5**]{}, 1259 (1957); J. Phys. Chem. Solids **4**, 241 (1958).
T. Moriya, Physical Review **120**, 91 (1960).
K. Xia, W. Zhang, M. Lu, and H. Zhai, Phys. Rev. B [**55**]{}, 12561 (1997)
T. C. Schulthess and W. H. Butler, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 4516 (1998).
R. Skomski, H.-P. Oepen, and J. Kirschner, Phys. Rev. B [**58**]{}, 11138 (1998).
A. Crépieux and C. Lacroix, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. [**182**]{}, 341 (1998).
A. N. Bogdanov and U. K. Rössler, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{}, 037203 (2001).
M. Bode, M. Heide, K. von Bergmann, P. Ferriani, S. Heinze, G. Bihlmayer, A. Kubetzka, O. Pietzsch, S. Blügel, and R. Wiesendanger, Nature [**447**]{}, 190 (2007).
P. Ferriani, K. von Bergmann, E. Y. Vedmedenko, S. Heinze, M. Bode, M. Heide, G. Bihlmayer, S. Blügel, and R. Wiesendanger, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**101**]{}, 027201 (2008).
M. Heide, G. Bihlmayer, and S. Blügel, Phys. Rev. B [**78**]{}, 140403(R) (2008).
A. Kubetzka, O. Pietzsch, M. Bode, and R. Wiesendanger, Phys. Rev. B [**67**]{}, 020401(R) (2003).
L. Udvardi, L. Szunyogh, K. Palotás, and P. Weinberger, Phys. Rev. B [ **68**]{}, 104436 (2003).
E. Y. Vedmedenko, L. Udvardi, P. Weinberger, and R. Wiesendanger, Phys. Rev. B [**75**]{}, 104431 (2007).
H. J. Elmers, J. Hauschild, and U. Gradmann, Phys. Rev. B [**54**]{}, 15224 (1996).
M. Pratzer, H. J. Elmers, M. Bode, O. Pietzsch, A. Kubetzka, and R. Wiesendanger, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{}, 127201 (2001).
L. Udvardi, A. Antal, L. Szunyogh, Á. Buruzs, and P. Weinberger, Physica B (Amsterdam) [**403**]{}, 402 (2008).
X. Qian and W. Hübner, Phys. Rev. B [**60**]{}, 116192 (1999).
M. Albrecht, U. Gradmann, Th. Reinert, and L. Fritsche, Solid. State Comm. [**78**]{}, 671 (1991).
X. Qian and W. Hübner, Phys. Rev. B [**67**]{}, 184414 (2003).
J. Zabloudil, R. Hammerling, L. Szunyogh and P. Weinberger, *Electron Scattering in Solid Matter: a theoretical and computational treatise,* Springer Berlin Heidelberg New York, 2005
T. Andersen and W. Hübner, Phys. Rev. B [**74**]{}, 184415 (2006).
A. T. Costa, R. B. Muniz, J. X. Cao, R. Q. Wu, and D. L. Mills, Phys. Rev. B [**78**]{}, 054439 (2008).
M. Heide, [*Magnetic domain walls in ultrathin films: Contribution of the Dzyaloshinsky-Moriya interaction*]{}, PhD Theses, Rheinisch-Westfälische Technische Hochschule Aachen, 2006.
A. I. Lichtenstein, M. I. Katsnelson, V. P. Antropov, and V. A. Gubanov, J. Magn. Magn. Mat. [**67**]{}, 65 (1987).
A. Antal, B. Lazarovits, L. Udvardi, L. Szunyogh, B. Újfalussy, and P. Weinberger, Phys. Rev. B [**77**]{}, 174429 (2008)
H. Ebert and S. Mankovsky, submitted to Phys. Rev. B (2008) arXiv:0812.1145v1
J. Prokop, W. X. Tang, Y. Zhang, I. Tusoda, T. R. F. Peixoto, Kh. Zakeri, and J. Kirschner, submitted to Phys. Rev. Lett (2008).
P. Buczek, A. Ernst, L. M. Sandratskii and P. Bruno, private communication.
S. Pandey and A. Singh, Phys. Rev. B [**78**]{}, 014414 (2008).
J. Lazewski, P. Piekarz, A. M. Oleś, J. Korecki, and K. Parlinski, Phys. Rev. B [**76**]{}, 205427 (2007).
J. Prokop and J. Kirschner, private communication.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Characteristics of Abelian dyon - fermion bound system, parity - violating effects, a new series of energy spectra, effects related to the non - vanishing electric dipole moment, feature of spin orientation etc, are analyzed and compared with hydrogen - like atom. These analyses explore possibility of a new approach of searching for dyons under bound condition.'
---
0.5cm
[**Testing Abelian dyon - fermion Bound System**]{}
Jian-zu Zhang$^{a,b, \S}$
$^a$ Institute for Theoretical Physics, Box 316, East China University of Science and Technology, Shanghai 200237, P. R. China\
$^b$ Department of Physics, University of Kaiserslautern, PO Box 3049, D-67653 Kaiserslautern, Germany
${^\S}$ E-mail address: [email protected]\
[email protected]
Since Dirac studied the problem of quantum mechanics of a particle in presence of a magnetic monopole [@Dirac], monopoles have been one of the interesting topics concerned in physics [@Schwinger]-[@HK]. Their existence has been involved in explanation of phenomenon of electric charge quantization. Production of super-heavy monopoles or dyons (i.e. both electric and magnetic charged) in the early Universe is predicted in unified theories of strong and electroweak interactions [@Preskill] and its detection is one of few experimental handles for these theories.
Because Montonen-Olive duality conjecture [@MO] which is manifestation of classical electromagnetic duality in some spontaneously broken gauge theories, and its extension to an SL(2,[**Z**]{}) duality conjecture [@HT] suggested by Witten effect [@Witten79], plays important roles in recent developments of superstring theories during the last few years, monopoles have been receiving renewed attention.
So far search for free monopoles (or dyons) and for ones trapped in bulk matter (meteorites, schist, ferromanganese nodules, iron ores and others) has turned up negative. A summary of experiments can be found in review papers [@Giacomelli; @Perl]. In various experimental schemes monopoles were assumed to have different properties [@Giacomelli; @Jeon; @Perl]. Some of assumptions involved are (i) electromagnetic induction, (ii) energy losses, (iii) scintillation signature, (iv) catalysis of proton decay, and (v) trapping and extraction. Monopoles could be trapped in ferromagnetic domains by an image force of order 10 eV/[Å]{}. Trapped monopoles are supposed to be wrecked out of material by large magnetic force.
There are several difficulties in searching for free monopoles. First, we do not know how small the monopole flux is (according to the Parkker limit the up bound is $\phi < 3 \times 10^{-9} cm^{-2} y r^{-1}$ [@Parkker]), so we do not know that in order to record a event how long we have to wait. Second, estimation of monopole masses is model-dependent, for example, masses of classical monopoles are about order $10-10^2$ GeV, and masses of super-heavy monopoles in grand unified theories are about order $10^{16}$ GeV. But we are ignorant of their definite values. Specially we do not know whether masses of monopoles are within the energy region which can be reached by accelerator experiments in the near future.
In view of the fact whether monopoles (dyons) exist or not is important, we may as well try to explore other means to find their existence. If monopoles ( dyons ) were produced in the early Universe, they would like to form bound states with charged fermions and remain in the present Universe. In this letter we examine some detailed properties of dyon-fermion bound system, including their parity - violating effects, a new series of energy spectra, trapping phenomenon by an inhomogeneous electric field through a non - vanishing electric dipole moment, feature of the spin orientation, compare this system with hydrogen - like atom, and suggest a number of experiments to detect them.
. The Dirac quantization condition only determines possible values $z$ of charge of fermion. Charge $z_d$ of dyon is a free parameter which is not determined by the Dirac quantization condition. In order to quantitatively analyze dyon - fermion bound system, values $z_d$ should be correctly determined. Consider two dyons with electric and magnetic charges, respectively, $(q = z_d e \hbar ,g)$ and $(q^{\prime} = z^{\prime}_d e \hbar , g^{\prime})$. The Zwanziger-Schwinger quantization condition [@Schwinger] $qg^{\prime} - q^{\prime} g = 2\pi n, \, (n = 0, \pm 1, \pm 2,...)$ determines only difference between electric charges of dyons, $z_d-z^{\prime}_d = n$, but does not determine values of either $z_d$ or $z^{\prime}_d$. If CP is not violated, under CP transformation one determines that there are only two mutually exclusive possibilities: either $z_d = n$ or $z_d = n + \frac12$ [@FO]. In presence of a CP-violating term, electric charge of dyon explicitly depends on $\theta$ vacuum angle [@Witten79], $z_d = n + \frac{\theta}{2\pi}$. Possibility $z_d = n + \frac12$ is excluded, thus we have $$z_d = n
\label{zd}$$
In the following we review unusual properties of dyon - fermion bound system in detail. In order to provide experimental test all the results are calculated according to new estimation of charge $z_d$ of dyon given by Eq. (\[zd\]).
In this system spatial parity is violated by magnetic charge of dyon [@Goldhaber77; @JZZ] because of wrong transformation property of magnetic field $\vec{H}_D = g\vec{r}/r^3$ of dyon under space reflection $P$: $\vec{H}_D \to -\vec{H}_D$. Invariance of Dirac equation in external magnetic field under $P$ requires that vector potential $\vec{A}(\vec{x},t)$ transforms as $P \vec{A}(\vec{x},t)P^{-1} = - \vec{A}(-\vec{x},t)$ which obviously contradicts transformation of $\vec{H}_D$, unless one artificially changes sign of magnetic charge $g$ under $P$. This parity violation leads to two effects:
\(i) A modification of selection rules of electromagnetic transition for this system [@JZZ]. In hydrogen - like atom, electric dipole transitions are subject to strict selection rules as regards total angular momentum $j$ and parity $P: |j^{\prime}-j| \le 1 \le j^{\prime}+j, \, P^{\prime}P = -1$, where $j,P (j^{\prime}, P^{\prime})$ are total angular momentum and parity in initial (final) state. From $|j^{\prime}-j| \le 1$, selection rules of total angular momentum $j$ are $\Delta j = 0, \pm 1$; but parities of initial and final states must be opposite, thus $\Delta j = 0$ transition is strictly forbidden. But for dyon - fermion system, parity is violated, thus $\Delta j = 0$ electric dipole transitions are allowed.
\(ii) This system, different from hydrogen - like atom, can possess a non - vanishing electric dipole moment [@Goldhaber77].
According to Ref. [@KYG] for a fixed $q$ there are three types of simultaneous eigensections of $\vec{J}^2, J_z$ and $H$ in dyon - fermion system, types $\it A$ and $\it B$ ($j\ge |q|+\frac12$), and type $\it C$ ($j=|q|-\frac12$). Their eigensections are:
for type $\it A$ ($j\ge |q|+\frac12$) $$\psi^{(1)}_{qnjm}=
\frac{1}{r}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
h^{qnj}_1(r) \xi^{(1)}_{qjm}\\
-ih^{qnj}_2(r) \xi^{(2)}_{qjm}
\end{array}\right),$$ for type $\it B$ ($j\ge |q|+\frac12$) $$\psi^{(2)}_{qnjm}=
\frac{1}{r}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
h^{qnj}_3(r) \xi^{(2)}_{qjm}\\
-ih^{qnj}_4(r) \xi^{(1)}_{qjm}
\end{array}\right),$$ for type $\it C$ ($j=|q|-\frac12$) $$\psi^{(3)}_{qnjm}=
\frac{1}{r}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
f^{qnj}(r) \xi^{(2)}_{qjm}\\
g^{qnj}(r) \xi^{(2)}_{qjm}
\end{array}\right),$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
&&\xi^{(1)}_{qjm}=c_{qj} \phi^{(1)}_{qjm}-s_{qj} \phi^{(2)}_{qjm}, \nonumber\\
&&\xi^{(2)}_{qjm}=s_{qj} \phi^{(1)}_{qjm}+c_{qj} \phi^{(2)}_{qjm}, \nonumber\\
&&c_{qj}=q[(2j+1+2q)^{\frac12}+(2j+1-2q)^{\frac12}]/[2|q|(2j+1)^{\frac12}], \nonumber\\
&&s_{qj}=q[(2j+1+2q)^{\frac12}-(2j+1-2q)^{\frac12}]/[2|q|(2j+1)^{\frac12}],
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $$\phi^{(1)}_{qjm}=
\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
(\frac{j+m}{2j})^{-\frac12} Y_{q,j-\frac12,m-\frac12}\\
(\frac{j-m}{2j})^{-\frac12} Y_{q,j-\frac12,m+\frac12}
\end{array}\right),$$ $$\phi^{(2)}_{qjm}=
\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
-(\frac{j-m+1}{2j+2})^{-\frac12} Y_{q,j+\frac12,m-\frac12}\\
(\frac{j+m+1}{2j+2})^{-\frac12} Y_{q,j+\frac12,m+\frac12}
\end{array}\right).$$ In the above $Y_{q,L,M}$ is monopole harmonic [@WY; @Dray]. Radial wave functions $R^{qnj}_i(\rho)=2ph^{qnj}_i(\rho)/\rho$ (i=1, 2, 3, 4) are [@ZQ]:
for type $\it A$ $$\begin{aligned}
R^{qnj}_{1,2}(\rho)=4p^2(M\pm E^D_{qnj})^{\frac12}A^{qnj}_1 e^{-\frac\rho2}
\rho^{\nu-1}\Bigl[F(-n, 2\nu+1,\rho) \nonumber\\
\mp \frac{n}{\mu+(\mu^2+n^2+2n\nu)^{\frac12}}F(-n+1, 2\nu+1,\rho)\Bigr];
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ for type $\it B$ $$\begin{aligned}
R^{qnj}_{3,4}(\rho)=4p^2(M\pm E^D_{qnj})^{\frac12}A^{qnj}_3 e^{-\frac\rho2}
\rho^{\nu-1}\Bigl[F(-n, 2\nu+1,\rho) \nonumber\\
\pm \frac{n}{\mu-(\mu^2+n^2+2n\nu)^{\frac12}}F(-n+1, 2\nu+1,\rho)\Bigr].
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ In the above $M$ is mass of fermion, $E^D_{qnj}$ is energy of dyon - fermion bound system which is given by Eq. (\[E-D\]) below; $\rho=2pr,$ $p=[M^2-(E^D_{qnj})^2]^{\frac12};$ $n = 0,1,2,...$ is radial quantum number; $\nu =(\mu^2-\lambda^2)^{\frac12}> 0;$ $\mu = [(j + \frac12)^2 - q^2]^{\frac12} > 0;$ $\lambda = zz_d e^2,$ $z$ is electric charge of fermion, which is an integer; $j \ge |q| + \frac12;$ $q =zeg \not= 0$; Dirac quantization sets $eg = \frac{N}{2}, \; ( N =\pm 1, \pm 2, \pm 3,...)$ (For the dyon case possibility $eg=0$ is excluded). $F(a, b,\rho)$ is confluent hypergeometric function. $A^{qnj}_{1,3}$ are the normalization constants. It is not necessary to show detailed structures of radial wave functions $f^{qnj}(\rho)$ and $g^{qnj}(\rho)$ of type $\it C$ for our purpose.
Energy spectrum of dyon - fermion bound system is [@LZ86] - [@JZZ] $$\label{E-D}
E^D_{qnj} = M\left[ 1 + \frac{\lambda^2}{(n+\nu)^2} \right] ^{-\frac12}.$$ Spectrum (\[E-D\]) is hydrogen - like, but there is delicate difference between spectra of a dyon - fermion bound system and spectrum of a ordinary hydrogen - like atom. For hydrogen - like atom $j$ takes only half - integer. Total angular momentum of dyon - fermion bound system includes a term $- q \vec{r}/r$ contributed by monopole field, so $j$ takes half - integer as well as integer.
\(i) When $q$ takes half - integer, total angular momentum $j$ takes integer, leading to a new series of energy spectra that do not exist in ordinary hydrogen - like atom.
\(ii) When $q$ takes integer, $j$ takes half - integer which is similar to the case of ordinary hydrogen - like atom. But compared with energy level of the latter $$E^H_{nj} = M \left[ 1 + \frac{(ze^2)^2}
{(n + [(j+\frac12)^2 -(ze^2)^2]^{\frac12})^2}
\right]^{-\frac12}, \nonumber$$ $E^D_{qnj}$ shifts down. Consider the case $z = -1, \, z_d = 1, \, |q| = 1, \, j = \frac32,$ the shifted amount for $n=1$ energy level is $(E^D-E^H)/M \sim 10^{-2}\alpha^2,$ where $\alpha$ is the fine-structure constant. We also compare energy interval $\Delta E=E(n'=1)-E(n=0).$ The shifted $(\Delta E^D-\Delta E^H)/M $ is also at the order $10^{-2}\alpha^2.$ Notice that these differences can be measured by present experiments.
For a Dirac monopole - fermion bound system , there is LWP difficulty [@LWP] in angular momentum state $j = |q| -
\frac12$. For a Daric dyon - fermion bound system a new singularity occurs even in angular momentum states $j \ge |q| + \frac12$ when charge $z_d$ of dyon exceeds a critical value $z^c_d$ [@LWZ]. In order to avoid this difficulty, one way is to introduce terms [@KYG; @LWZ] $-[\kappa ze/(2Mr^3)]\beta \vec{\Sigma}\cdot \vec{r}$ and $-[\kappa\lambda/(2Mr^3)]\vec{\gamma} \cdot \vec{r}$. Using the above wavefunctions $\psi^{(1,2)}_{qnjm}$ of dyon - fermion bound system [@ZQ] we find that energy shifts from term $\vec{\Sigma} \cdot \vec{r}$ vanishes $$\label{dE1}
\Delta E^{(1)}_{qnj} = \langle -\frac{\kappa ze}{2Mr^3}\beta \vec{\Sigma}
\cdot \vec{r} \rangle_{qnjm} = 0.$$ This result is unlike to be accidental, behind it there should be a simple symmetry which needs to be explored. For energy shift $\Delta E^{(2)}_{qnj}$ from term $\vec{\gamma} \cdot \vec{r}$ we consider $n = 0$ and the case of dyon carrying one Dirac unit of pole strength, $|q| = \frac12$, thus $j = |q|+ \frac12 = 1;$ take $z = -1, \, z_d = 1,$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dE2}
\Delta E^{(2)}_{\frac{1}{2}01}
&=& \langle -\frac{\kappa z\lambda}{2Mr^3}
\vec{\gamma}\cdot \vec{r} \rangle_{\frac{1}{2}01m} \nonumber\\
&=&\frac{2\kappa\lambda^4M\Gamma(2\nu-1)}{\mu^3\Gamma(2\nu+1)}
=C_1 \kappa \alpha^4M.\end{aligned}$$ where $C_1$ is a number of order 1. $\Delta E^{(2)}_{\frac{1}{2}01}$ can be neglected. The above results show that energy spectrum (\[E-D\]) is quite accurate for a Daric dyon - fermion bound system with terms $\vec{\Sigma} \cdot \vec{r}$ and $\vec{\gamma} \cdot \vec{r}.$
For a Dirac dyon - fermion bound system coupled to general gravitational and electromagnetic fields their energy levels $\tilde{E}^D_{qnj}$ in the closed or open Robertson-Walker metric are [@LZ93] $$\label{E-D1}
\tilde E^D_{qnj} = E^D_{qnj} \left[ 1 \pm
\frac{\mu^2 \lambda^2(R_0/a_0)^2}
{6(\mu^2-\lambda^2)^{\frac12}[n+(\mu^2-\lambda^2)^{\frac12}]
[n^2+\mu^2+2n(\mu^2-\lambda^2)^{\frac12}]}\right]$$ where $R_0$ is the average radius of region of dyon - fermion system, $a_0$ is the cosmological radius; the plus and minus sign corresponds, respectively, to the closed and open space-time. After epoch of recombination, the cosmological radius $a_0(\tau)$ is about $10^{23}$ cm, $(R_0/a_0)^2 \sim 10^{-62}$ (if $R_0$ is about $10^{-8}$ cm). Thus correction of the curved space to energy levels (\[E-D\]) is $$\label{dE-D1}
\frac{\tilde{E}^D_{qnj} - E^D_{qnj}}{ E^D_{qnj}} \sim
\frac{(R_0/a_0)^2}{(\mu^2-\lambda^2)^{\frac12}},$$ which can be neglected. Only in the case of a large $z_d$ satisfied $\lambda \sim \mu$ correction of the curved space would become important.
matrix elements of the $\Delta j = 0$ parity violation electric dipole transition can be precisely estimated [@note1]. In electric dipole approximation, taking transverse Coulomb gauge, Hamiltonian of this system is $H_I = - z e\vec{\alpha}\cdot \vec{\epsilon}A_0$, where $\vec{\epsilon}$ and $A_0$ are, respectively, polarization vector and amplitude of external electromagnetic field. For type $A$ we consider the case of $q = \frac12, \, j = |q| + \frac12 = 1, \, n = 1, \, n^{\prime} = 0,
z =-1, \, z_d = 1$. Up to order $\alpha^2$, we have $$\label{matrix1}
(H_I)^{(A)}_{qn^{\prime}jm,njm} = iC_2A_0 \epsilon_3m,$$ $$\label{matrix2}
(H_I)^{(A)}_{qn^{\prime}j(m\pm 1);njm} =
iC_3A_0(\epsilon_1 \mp i \epsilon_2)(2 \pm m)^{\frac12}(1\mp
m)^{\frac12},$$ where $C_2$ and $C_3$ are numbers of order $10^{-2}$.
For electric dipole transitions within type B states or between type $A$ and type $B$ states, results are similar to Eq. (\[matrix1\]) and Eq. (\[matrix2\]).
Transitions from type $A$ $(B)$ to type $C$ would presumably be crucial in identifying emissions from such a system. Electric dipole transition matrix elements from type $A$ to type $C$ are $$\begin{aligned}
\label{matrix3}
(H_I)^{(A,C)}_{qn^{\prime}j^{\prime}m^{\prime};njm} &=&
iA_0 \delta_{j^{\prime},j-1}
\Bigl[ \delta_{m^{\prime},m-1}(\epsilon_1+i \epsilon_2)\frac{j+m}{2j}
\nonumber\\
&-&\delta_{m^{\prime},m+1}(\epsilon_1-i \epsilon_2)\frac{j-m}{2j}
\nonumber\\
&+&\delta_{m^{\prime}m}\epsilon_3\frac{(j^2-m^2)^{\frac12}}{j} \Bigr]
\left(I^{(1)}_ {qn^{\prime}j^{\prime};nj}R_{qj}+
I^{(2)}_ {qn^{\prime}j^{\prime};nj}T_{qj}\right), \end{aligned}$$ where $I^{(1)}_ {qn^{\prime}j^{\prime};nj}$ and $I^{(2)}_ {qn^{\prime}j^{\prime};nj}$ are radial integrals, $R_{qj}$ and $T_{qj}$ are numeral factors depending on $q$ and $j.$ Eq. (\[matrix3\]) shows that selection rule of transition from type $A$ to type $C$ is $\Delta j = -1$; the $\Delta j = 0$ parity - violating transition is absent. The result from type $(B)$ to type $C$ is similar to Eq. (\[matrix3\]).
Spectral series of transitions of this system can be accurately estimated by Eq. (\[E-D\]). In the general case, $zz_de^2 \ll 1$. By Eq. (\[E-D\]), the photon wavelength $\lambda(q;n^{\prime}j^{\prime},nj)$ of transition from $(n^{\prime},j^{\prime})$ state to $(n,j)$ state is $$\label{lambda}
\lambda(q;n^{\prime}j^{\prime},nj) = \frac{4\pi}{M(zz_de^2)^2}
\cdot \frac{(n^{\prime}+\mu^{\prime})^2 (n+\mu)^2}{(n^{\prime}
+\mu^{\prime})^2 - (n+\mu)^2}$$ We consider the case $|q| = \frac12$. In this case $\mu =[j(j+1)]^{\frac12}, \, j = 1,2,3,...$. For dyon - electron system, $z = -1, \; z_d = 1$. We calculate the first Lyman line. For transition from $(n^{\prime} = 1, j^{\prime} = 1)$ state to $(n = 0, \, j = 1)$ state is $$\lambda_e(\frac12;11,01) = 2.8 \times 10^3\AA \,(\Delta j = 0 \,
parity \, violation \, transition).
\nonumber$$ For transition from $(n^{\prime} = 1, \, j^{\prime} = 2)$ state to $(n = 0, \,j = 1)$ state is $$\lambda_e(\frac12;12,01) = 2.2 \times 10^3\AA \,(\Delta j = 1 \,parity
\,conservation \,transition).
\nonumber$$ For dyon - proton system, $z = 1, \, z_d = - 1$: $$\lambda_p(\frac12;11,01) = 1.5 \AA \, (\Delta j = 0 \,parity \,
violation \, transition).
\nonumber$$ $$\lambda_p(\frac12;12,01) = 1.3\AA \, (\Delta j = 1 \,parity \,
conservation \, transition).
\nonumber$$ For dyon - electron system the first Lyman lines are in the infrared region. For dyon - proton system the first Lyman lines are in the x-ray region.
Electric dipole moment $\vec{d}=e\vec{r}$ of this system can be represented by total angular moment $\vec{J}=\vec{r}\times(\vec{p}-ze\vec{A})+\frac12 \vec{\Sigma}-q\vec{r}/r$ as $\vec{d}=e(-q\vec{r}+\frac12 \vec{\Sigma}\cdot\vec{r})\vec{J}/[j(j+1)].$ It is easy to show that only its $z$ component has non - vanishing expectation value $\langle d_z \rangle_{qnjm}$ in state $\psi^{(1,2)}_{qnjm}.$ For the $n=0$ case, we have [@note2] $$\label{moment}
\langle d_z \rangle^D_{qojm}=-\frac{eqm}{2j(j+1)}
\frac{\mu}{\lambda M\Gamma(2\nu+1)}$$ Taking $q = \frac12, \, j = 1$, from Eq. (\[moment\]) it follows that $$\label{moment1}
\langle d_z \rangle^D_{\frac12 01m} \sim - C_4 (em/M),$$ where $C_4$ is a number of order 10.
For this system the expectation value $\vec{S}=\frac12 \vec{\Sigma}$ of spin of fermion is
$$\label{S}
\langle S_z \rangle^D_{qnjm} = \frac{m}{4j(j+1)}
\left( 1 + \frac{2\mu}{2j+1}\frac{E^D_{qnj}}{M}\right).$$
Here $j$ and $n$ dependence in Eq. (\[S\]) is different from that in hydrogen - like atom. For hydrogen - like atom $ \langle S_z \rangle_{njlm}$ are $\; \langle S_z \rangle_{nj(j+\frac12)m} = - m/\left[2(j+1)\right],$ $\langle S_z \rangle_{nj(j-\frac12)m} = m/(2j)$. In particular, Eq. (\[S\]) depends on the radial quantum number $n$, but the latter does not. The basic reason leading to the above difference is that in hydrogen - like atom spherical harmonic spinors $\Omega_{jlm}$ are eigenfunctions of $\vec{L}^2$, but in dyon - fermion bound system monopole spherical harmonic spinors $\xi^{(1,2)}_{qjm}$ are not.
Based on the above examination of detailed properties of Dirac dyon - fermion bound system, which are different from hydrogen - like atom, now we suggest the following experiments to detect them.
Approach of searching for dyon - fermion bound systems, compared with approach of searching for free monopoles, shows advantage. (i) Superheavy dyon is treated as an external potential so that its mass does not appear in energy spectrum (\[E-D\]). Spectrum (\[E-D\]) is quite accurate, corrections from the term $\vec{\gamma} \cdot \vec{r}$ and effect of curved space are completely negligible. (ii) If dyons were produced in plenty in the early Universe and formed into bound states with charged fermions, radial electromagnetic spectra of these bound systems should be recorded on astronomical observations during a long period. There are some astronomical spectra recorded at the Kitt Peak Observatory which cannot be explained by atomic or molecular spectrum [@Fan]. We suggest to compare spectrum (\[E-D\]) and related Lyman lines with such unexplained astronomical spectrum.
Because dyon - fermion (electron, proton, etc.) bound system possesses a non - vanishing electric dipole moment $\langle d_z\rangle^D_{qnjm}$, it can be trapped by a well of inhomogeneous electric field through $- \langle \vec{d} \cdot \vec{E} \rangle^D_{qnjm}$.
\(I) Residues in Ferromagnetic. One way to obtain electric dipole trap of dusting material of elementary ferromagnetic in a trapping chamber is to use a strongly focused laser beam with Gaussian intensity profile, providing a field with an absolute maximum of laser intensity at the center of focus. A laser trap relies on the force of an inhomogeneous electric field of a laser acting on the dipole moment of dyon - fermion bound system [@note3]. In order to violate the condition of optical Earnshaw theorem one needs to properly switch the laser field on and off. Because events are rare, we need high trapping density [@note4].
\(II) Trapped Events from Cosmic Rays. In order to trap rare events from cosmic rays, we need to use long duration static electric well with inhomogeneous distribution. In order to obtain a stable trap, it is necessary to violate the condition of static electric Earnshow theorem.
In such trapping devices it is possible to check whether trapped objects are dyon - fermion bound system:
\(i) One can observe their absorption spectrum and compare it with hydrogen - like atomic one according to Eq. (\[E-D\]).
\(ii) Using non - vanishing $\langle S_z \rangle^D_{qnjm}$, adding a strong magnetic field $\vec{\cal H}$ to orient the trapped system, one can examine $n$ and $j$ dependence of $\langle \vec{S} \cdot \vec{\cal H} \rangle_{qnjm}$ according to Eq. (\[S\]).
Investigation of potential technical sensitivity of testing dyon -fermion bound system in the above suggested experiments is out of this letter.
Discovery of monopoles would have far-reaching consequences. Of course, any attempt to detect monopoles or dyons is a challenging enterprise. The reason is that if they remain in the present Universe they are surely rare.
This work has been supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (Germany). This work has been also supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No.10074014 and by Shanghai Education Development Foundation.
[99]{} P. A. M. Dirac, Proc. R. Soc. London, [**A133**]{}, 60 (1931); Phys. Rev. [**74**]{}, 817 (1948). J. Schwinger, Phys. Rev. [**173**]{}, 1536 (1968); Science, [**165**]{}, 757 (1969); D. Zwanziger, Phys. Rev. [**176**]{}, 1489 (1968). H.J. Lipkin, W. I. Weisberger and M. Peshkin, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) [**53**]{}, 203 (1969). E.N. Parkker, J. Astrophys. [**160**]{}, 383 (1970); B. C. Choudhary, hep-ex/9905023. G. ’tHooft, Nucl. Phys. [**B79**]{}, 276 (1974); A.M. Polykov, Pis’ma ZETF, [**20**]{}, 430 (1974). \[JETP Lett. [**20**]{}, 174 (1974)\]. T.T. Wu and C.N. Yang, Nucl. Phys. [**B107**]{}, 365 (1976); Phys. REv. [**D16**]{}, 1018 (1977). R. Jackiw and C. Rebbi, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**36**]{}, 1122 (1976). Y. Kazama, C.N. Yang and A.S. Goldhaber, Phys. Rev. [**D15**]{}, 2287 (1977). A.S. Goldhaber, Phys. Rev. [**D16**]{}, 1815 (1977); Y. Kazama, Phys. Rev. [**D16**]{}, 3078 (1977). N.S. Montonen and D. Olive, Phys. Lett. [**B72**]{}, 117 (1977). J. P. Preskill, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**43**]{}, 1365 (1979). E. Witten, Phys. Lett. [**B86**]{}, 283 (1979). G. Giacomelli, in Monopole ’83, proceedings of the Ann Arbor meeting, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1983, edited by J.L. Stone (NATO Advanced Study Institutes, Series B: Physics Vol. III) (Plenum, New York, 1984). P. Osland and T.T. Wu, Nucl. Phys. [**B247**]{}, 421 (1984); [**B247**]{}, 450 (1984); [**B256**]{}, 13 (1985); [**B256**]{}, 32 (1985); [**B256**]{}, 4491 (1985); [**B261**]{}, 687 (1985). Xin-zhou Lin, Ke-Lin Wang and Jian-zu Zhang, Phys. Lett. [**B148**]{}, 89 (1984). T. Dray, J. Math. Phys. [**26**]{}, 1030 (1985); J. Math. Phys. [**27**]{}, 781 (1986). Xin-zhou Li and Jian-zu Zhang, Phys. Rev. [**D33**]{}, 562 (1986). P.H. Frampton, Jian-zu Zhang and Yong-chang Qi, Phys. Rev. [**D40**]{}, 3533 (1989). Jian-zu Zhang and Yong-chang Qi, J. Math. Phys. [**33**]{}, 1796 (1990). Jian-zu Zhang, Phys. Rev. [**D41**]{}, 1280 (1990). Xin-zhou Li and Jian-zu Zhang, J. Phys. [**A26**]{}, 4451 (1993). C. Hull and P. Townsend, Nucl. Phys. [**B438**]{}, 109 (1995); E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. [**B443**]{}, 85 (1995). J. M. Figueroa-O’Farrill, Lectures on Duality, 1996 (unpublished). H. Jeon and M. J. Longo, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{}, 1443 (1995); . A. R. Lugo and F. A. Schaposnik, Phys. Lett. [**B467**]{}, 43 (1999). T. Tamaki, K. I. Maeda and T. Torii, Phys. Rev. [**D60**]{}, 104049 (1999). N. Grandi, R. L. Pakman, F. A. Schaposnik and G. Silva, Phys. Rev. [**D60**]{}, 125002 (1999). (1999). A. S. Goldhaber, Phys. Rep. [**315**]{}, 83 (1999). B. Kleihaus and J. Kunz, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 2430 (2000). L. Gamberg and K. A. Milton, Phys. Rev. [**D61**]{}, 075013 (2000). Y. Brihaye, B. Hartmann and J. Kunz, Phys. Rev. [**D62**]{}, 044008 (2000). P. K. Tripathy and F. A. Schaposnik, Phys. Lett. [**B472**]{}, 89 (2000). A. R. Lugo, E. F. Moreno and F. A. Schaposnik, Phys. Lett. [**B473**]{}, 35 (2000). M. L. Perl, hep-ex/0002001. B. Hartmann and B. Kleihaus and J. Kunz, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{}, 1422 (2001). In the context of monopole - fermion states for $j_{min} = 1q1-\frac12 > 0$, the $j_{min} \to j_{min}$ transitions have been also discussed by K. Olaussen, H.A. Olsen, P. Osland and I. Overbo, Nucl. Phys. [**B267**]{}, 25 (1986). In the non-relativistic case $\Delta j = 0$ transitions are discussed by E.A. Tolkachev, L.M. Tomil’chik, and Y.M. Shnir, J. Phys. [**G14**]{}, 1 (1988). Kazama in Ref. [@Goldhaber77] estimated dominant term of $\vec{d}$ and $\vec{\mu}$ in a zero-energy bound state in the limit of very loosely bound approximation. In our case besides a kinematic factor $m/[j(j+1)]$ dynamical behaviors of $\langle d_z \rangle_{qnjm}$ and $\langle \mu_z \rangle_{qnjm}$ are also obtained in detail. Chang-Yun Fan, University of Arizona (private communication). Because of large mass and the perminent electric dipole moment of dyon - fermion bound system, laser cooling and trapping of events are easier than those of the neutral atom case. For this system maybe it is not so diffcult to break sub-Doppler cooling limit and subrecoil cooling limit to reach very low temperature. Recent report of the low temperature in three dimensional laser cooling beyond the single-photon recoil limit, see, J. Lawall, S. Kulin, B. Sanbamea, N. Bigelow, M. Loduc and C. Cohen-Tannoudji, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{}, 4194 (1995). In the neutral atom case, a far-off-resonance dipole force trap is used in $R_b$ photoassociation experiments to increase the trap density to $10^{12}$ cm$^{-3},$ see, J.R. Gardner, R.A. Cline, J.D. Miller, D.J. Heinzen, H.M.J.M. Boesten and B.J. Verhaar, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**74**]{}, 3764 (1995).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Atsushi Ono[^1] and Sumio Ishihara'
title: Photoinduced topological spin texture in a metallic ferromagnet
---
Topological character in magnetic materials is one of the attracting scientific themes in recent condensed matter physics. [@zang; @hellman; @togawa; @batista] Chiral-spin soliton, spin vortex and skyrmion are the examples of the topological spin textures in one-, two- and three-dimensional magnetic solids, respectively. These objects usually emerge in thermally and magnetically excited states in ferromagnetic (FM) or antiferromagnetic (AFM) ordered states, and persist due to the topological protection. In addition, the chiral spin orders, e.g., spin spiral, conical and screw structures, are widely recognized as non-trivial spin states, which often contribute to the functions such as multiferroics and the anomalous Hall effect. One of the strategies to produce the topological spin objects is to utilize the relativistic spin-orbit interaction (SOI). This provides the spin anisotropy in crystalline lattice, and often induces non-collinear or non-coplaner spin structures through the antisymmetric exchange interaction. However, this strategy is limited to the materials including magnetic elements with large SOI.
Intense laser-light irradiation to solids is now widely known to induce new states of matter in strong nonequilibrium states, in which novel electronic and lattice structures unrealized in thermal equilibrium states are expected. [@kirilyuk; @tokura; @aoki] Pulse-laser-induced superconductivity [@fausti; @mitrano] is one of the examples of the photoinduced novel states. Laser light is also available to control the topological spin textures, for examples, the electromagnon through the inverse Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction, [@mochizuki] the skyrmion by using the circularly polarized light [@ogawa; @stepanov] or the optical vortex [@fujita; @yang] and so on.
In this Letter, we study the topological spin textures in the photoinduced nonequilibrium state in a metallic magnetic system. We adopt the double-exchange (DE) model, [@zener; @anderson; @degennes] which has been applied to correlated electron systems, metallic magnets and spintronics related phenomena. Theoretical studies of the DE model revealed the photoinduced transition from the AFM insulating to FM metallic states. [@chovan; @matsueda; @kanamori; @ohara; @koshibae1; @koshibae2] In the previous paper by the authors [@ono1; @ono2], it was found that the FM metallic state described by the DE model is transformed into the AFM state by photoirradiation. Here, we focus on the transient spin structure described by the DE model from the initial FM state to the AFM ordered state. We find emergence of the topological spin texture in the photoinduced transient state through the calculation of the real-space spin configuration, the Pontryagin index, and the scalar chirality. This observation is reproduced by analyzing the spin dynamics after chemical-potential quench in a large cluster. Relations to the topological defect production in long-range ordered states are discussed.
We adopt the DE model defined by $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal H} = -h \sum_{\langle ij \rangle s} c_{is}^\dagger c_{js} - \frac{J}{S} \sum_{iss'} \bm{S}_i \cdot \bm{\sigma}_{ss'} c_{is}^\dagger c_{is'},
\label{eq:hamiltonian}\end{aligned}$$ where $c_{is}^\dagger \ (c_{is})$ is a creation (annihilation) operator of a conduction electron with spin $s \ (={\uparrow},{\downarrow})$ at site $i$, $\bm{S}_i$ is a localized-spin operator with magnitude $S$, and $\sigma^\alpha \ (\alpha=x,y,z)$ are the Pauli matrices. The first term describes the electron hopping, and the second term represents the on-site Hund coupling with $J>0$. We adopt the finite-size clusters with the total number of sites $N$, that of electrons $N_e$, and the electron number density $n_e=N_e/N$. From now on, we consider the case in which $J/S=4h$ and $n_e=0.5$, which provides the FM metallic ground state. [@yunoki]
The electromagnetic field is introduced in the Hamiltonian as the Peierls phase as $h c_{is}^\dagger c_{js} \rightarrow h \exp[i \bm{A}(t)(\bm{r}_i-\bm{r}_j)] c_{is}^\dagger c_{js}$, where $\bm{A}(t)$ is the vector potential at time $t$ and $\bm{r}_i$ is a position of the $i$th site. We consider the continuous-wave (cw) field given by $\bm{A}({t}) = (\bm{F}_0/\mathit{\Omega}) \sin(\mathit{\Omega}{t})$, where $\bm{F}_0$ and $\mathit{\Omega}$ are amplitude and frequency of the electric field, respectively. We adopt the two-dimensional square lattice with the lattice constant $a$. The electric field is applied to the diagonal direction, $\bm{F}_0=(F_0,F_0)$. Energy and time are measured in units of $h$ and $\hbar/h$, respectively. The nearest-neighbor hopping amplitude $h$, the reduced Planck constant $\hbar$, the electron charge, and the lattice constant are taken to be unity.
The real-time dynamics of electrons and spins are calculated by the method adopted in Refs. . Here, we summarize briefly the calculation procedure. The localized spins are treated as classical vectors, which is justified in the limit of large $S$. The Hamiltonian at time $t$ is diagonalized as ${\cal H}({t})=\sum_{\nu} \varepsilon_\nu({t}) \phi_\nu^\dagger({t}) \phi_\nu({t})$, where $\phi_\nu^\dagger(t)$ is a creation operator of an electron with energy $\varepsilon_\nu$. The wavefunction at time ${t}$ is given as a single Slater determinant $\vert \Psi({t}) \rangle = \prod_{\nu=1}^{N_e} \psi_\nu^\dagger({t}) \vert 0 \rangle$ where $\psi_\nu^\dagger$ is represented by $\psi_\nu^\dagger({t}) = \sum_{\mu=1}^{2N} \phi_\mu^\dagger({t}) u_{\mu\nu}({t})$, and the unitary matrix $u_{\mu\nu}({t}) = \langle 0 \vert \phi_\mu({t}) \psi_\nu^\dagger({t}) \vert 0 \rangle$ satisfies the initial condition $u_{\mu\nu}({t}=0)=\delta_{\mu\nu}$. During a short time interval $[{t},{t}+\delta{t}]$, $u_{\mu\nu}(t+\delta t)$ is obtained from $u(t)$ as $$\begin{aligned}
u_{\mu\nu}({t}+\delta {t})
&= \sum_{\lambda=1}^{2N} \langle \mu({t}+\delta{t}) \vert \lambda({t})\rangle e^{i\varepsilon_\lambda({t})\delta{t}} u_{\lambda\nu}({t}) ,
\label{eq:sch}\end{aligned}$$ where $\vert \lambda({t}) \rangle = \phi_\lambda^\dagger({t}) \vert 0 \rangle$. The dynamics of the localized spins is described by the Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert (LLG) equation, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial\bm{S}_i}{\partial t} = \bm{h}_i^{\mathrm{eff}} \times \bm{S}_i + \alpha \bm{S}_i \times \frac{\partial\bm{S}_i}{\partial t} ,
\label{eq:llg}\end{aligned}$$ where $\bm{h}_i^{\mathrm{eff}}({t}) = -\langle \partial \mathcal{H}({t}) /\partial \bm{S}_i \rangle = (J/S) \sum_{ss'} \langle c_{is}^\dagger \bm{\sigma}_{ss'}c_{is'}\rangle$ is the effective field, and $\alpha$ is the damping constant. A small randomness is introduced in the localized spins at each site in the initial state; the maximum deviation of the polar angle is $\delta\theta = 0.1$, which mimics the thermal fluctuation with temperature $T \sim 0.001$. The (anti)periodic boundary condition is imposed on the electrons along the $x$ ($y$) direction. The cluster size is chosen to $N=12\times 12$ and $16 \times 16$. The time step is set to $\delta t = 0.005$ for $N=12\times 12$ and $\delta t = 0.01$ for $N=16\times 16$. Other parameter values are $F_0=2$, $\mathit{\Omega}=1$, and $\alpha=1$. The magnitude of the localized spins, $S$, is taken to be unity. A unit of time, $t=1$, corresponds to $0.66$ fs for $h=1$ eV.
![(Color online) Snapshots of the local-spin configurations at (a) $t=0$ (an initial FM state), (b) $t=1000$ (a steady AFM state) and (c) $t=500$. A spin configuration in a sublattice at $t=500$ is shown in (d). Color describes $S^z_i$. The number of the lattice sites is $N=16\times 16$. The periodic boundary condition is imposed on the localized spins. []{data-label="fig:snap"}](FIG1)
First, we show the transient spin structure in real space. Figure \[fig:snap\] shows the snapshots of the local-spin configurations. As reported in Ref. , the initial FM order \[Fig. \[fig:snap\](a)\] is collapsed by photoirradiation, and finally, almost perfect Néel state \[Fig. \[fig:snap\](b)\] emerges. We note that the spin anisotropy is not introduced explicitly in the Hamiltonian, and the directions of the magnetic orders are governed by the initial conditions. A transient spin configuration during the FM to AFM orders is presented in Fig. \[fig:snap\](c) where a non-coplaner and flow spin structures are confirmed. A vortex-like topological structure is clearly shown in Fig. \[fig:snap\](d), where spins are plotted in one of the two sublattices in a square lattice.
![(Color online) Time profiles of (a) band width $W$, (b) FM spin structure factor $S(0, 0)$ and AFM one $S(\pi, \pi)$, respectively, (c) Pontryagin number $Q_{\rm A(B)}$ in each sublattice, and (d) vector chirality $P$. Shaded areas indicate the “intermediate time domain” (see text). The number of sites is $N=12\times 12$. []{data-label="fig:time"}](FIG2)
Real-time dynamics of the topological spin textures are analyzed in more detail. We show the time dependences of the electron band width $W$ (Fig. \[fig:time\](a)), and the FM spin structure factor $S(0, 0)$ and the AFM one $S(\pi, \pi)$ (Fig. \[fig:time\](b)), which have been reported in Ref. . The spin structure factor is defined by $S(\bm{q}) = N^{-2} \sum_{ij} e^{i\bm{q}(\bm{r}_i-\bm{r}_j)} \bm{S}_i {\cdot} \bm{S}_j$. There are two characteristic time scales: $t_{\rm F}\ (\sim 100)$ when the initial FM order almost collapses, and $t_{\rm AF}\ (\sim 300)$ when the steady AFM order is settled. During $t_{\rm F}$ and $t_{\rm AF}$, shown by a shaded area in Fig. \[fig:time\], a plateau emerges in the time profile of $W$, and $S(\pi, \pi)$ increases gradually. This time region is termed an “intermediate time domain” from now on.
We calculate the Pontryagin index, i.e., the winding number, defined in each sublattice by $$\begin{aligned}
Q_{\mathrm{A(B)}} &= \frac{1}{8\pi} \sum_{i\in \mathrm{A(B)}} \Bigl[ \mathcal{A}_{i,i+\hat{x}-\hat{y},i+\hat{x}+\hat{y}} + \mathcal{A}_{i,i+\hat{x}+\hat{y},i-\hat{x}+\hat{y}} \notag \\
&\quad + \mathcal{A}_{i,i-\hat{x}+\hat{y},i-\hat{x}-\hat{y}} + \mathcal{A}_{i,i-\hat{x}-\hat{y},i+\hat{x}-\hat{y}}
\Bigr],
\label{eq:qab}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{A}_{ijk}$ is the solid angle subtended by three vectors, $\bm{S}_i$, $\bm{S}_j$, and $\bm{S}_k$. The subscript $i+m\hat{x}+n\hat{y}$ represents the site at $\bm{r}_i+(m,n)$. The summation in Eq. is taken for sites belonging to the sublattie A or B. According to the spherical trigonometry, the solid angle $\mathcal{A}_{ijk}$ is evaluated as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{A}_{ijk}
= \operatorname{sgn}[\bm{S}_i\cdot(\bm{S}_j\times \bm{S}_k)] (C_{ijk}+C_{jki}+C_{kij}-\pi) ,\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
C_{ijk} &= \cos^{-1} {\left [ \frac{\bm{S}_j\cdot\bm{S}_k-(\bm{S}_k\cdot\bm{S}_i)(\bm{S}_i\cdot\bm{S}_j)}{\sqrt{1-(\bm{S}_k\cdot\bm{S}_i)^2} \sqrt{1-(\bm{S}_i\cdot\bm{S}_j)^2}} \right]},\end{aligned}$$ where $\operatorname{sgn}$ is the sign function. We note that, when $\mathcal{A}_{ijk}$ is much smaller than $4\pi$, the solid angle is approximately given by the scalar product: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{A}_{ijk} \approx \chi_{ijk} \equiv \frac{1}{2} \bm{S}_i \cdot (\bm{S}_j \times \bm{S}_k).
\label{eq:scalarproduct}\end{aligned}$$ It is shown in Fig. \[fig:time\](c) that the sublattice winding numbers are finite during the intermediate time domain, i.e., $Q_{\mathrm{A}}=-Q_{\mathrm{B}}=1$, indicating the appearance of the topological defects. We also examine the uniform vector chirality defined by $$\begin{aligned}
P=\frac{1}{N} {\left\vert \sum_{\langle ij \rangle} \bm{e}_{ij} \times
(\bm{S}_i \times \bm{S}_j) \right\vert},\end{aligned}$$ where $\bm{e}_{ij} \propto (\bm{r}_j-\bm{r}_i)$ is the unit vector directing from site $i$ to site $j$. This quantity is known to reflect the electric polarization induced by the chiral spin structure. [@katsura] As shown in Fig. \[fig:time\](d), $P$ is remarkable in the intermediate time domain, although it does not vanish even in $t<t_{\rm F}$ and $t>t_{\rm AF}$.
![(Color online) Time profiles of (a) spin structure factor at $(0, 0)$, (b) that at $(\pi, \pi)$, (c) scalar chirality in the sublattice A, and (d) vector chirality, for different initial spin configurations (\#1–\#9). Bold curves and shaded areas represent the mean values and the standard deviations, respectively. The number of the lattice sites is $N=16\times 16$. []{data-label="fig:initial"}](FIG3){width="1\columnwidth"}
Characteristics of the topological spin structure depend on the initial spin structure. As explained previously, a small randomness is introduced in $\bm{S}_i$’s at each site in the initial state. Numerical simulations for the real-time evolution are carried out for different 9 initial states, and the mean values and standard deviations of the time profiles of physical quantities are presented in Fig. \[fig:initial\]. Here, we introduce the staggered scalar chirality instead of the Pontryagin index as $$\begin{aligned}
\chi_{\mathrm{A(B)}} &= \frac{1}{8\pi} \sum_{i\in \mathrm{A(B)}} \Bigl[ \chi_{i,i+\hat{x}-\hat{y},i+\hat{x}+\hat{y}} + \chi_{i,i+\hat{x}+\hat{y},i-\hat{x}+\hat{y}} \notag \\
&\quad + \chi_{i,i-\hat{x}+\hat{y},i-\hat{x}-\hat{y}} + \chi_{i,i-\hat{x}-\hat{y},i+\hat{x}-\hat{y}} \Bigr],\end{aligned}$$ where the summation is taken over the sublattice A(B). Data sets of $S(0, 0)$ shown in Fig. \[fig:initial\](a) obtained from the different initial states are located on a universal curve. On the other hand, other three quantities depend largely on the randomness introduced in the initial states. Bold black lines and shaded areas in Fig. \[fig:initial\] represent the mean values and the standard deviations, respectively. The time profiles are classified qualitatively into the two types. Type I: $S(\pi, \pi)$ increases rapidly and saturates smoothly to one. Type II: a plateau-like features appear in the time profiles of $\chi_{\rm A}$ and $P$, although the plateau values and their time regions show some varieties. The time profiles of $\chi_{\rm A}$ and $P$ show peak structures when $S(\pi, \pi)$ increases steeply in type I, and show plateau structures in type II. The results imply that the photoinduced topological objects are metastable, and the Néel state is settled after the topological objects fade.
![(Color online) Time profiles of (a) spin structure factors $S(\bm{q})$ and nearest-neighbor spin angle $\bar{\theta}$, (b) Pontryagin index $Q_{\rm A(B)}$ (bold and broken lines), and scalar chirality $\chi_{\rm A(B)}$ (dotted and dashed-dotted lines), and (c) vector chirality $P$ calculated by the kernel polynomial method. (d)(e) Snapshots of the localized spin configurations in the sublattice A at (d) $t=200$ and (e) $t=1000$. Color represents $S^z_i$. The chemical potential of the electrons is changed from $\mu_i = -J/S = -4$ to $\mu_f = 0$ at $t=0$ corresponding to the sudden quench from the equilibrium FM metallic to AFM insulating states. The number of the lattice sites is $N=32\times 32$.[]{data-label="fig:kpm"}](FIG4)
The emergence of the topological objects shown above is checked by a different method where numerical calculations in large size clusters of the order of $10^4$ are possible. We analyze the quench dynamics from the FM to AFM orders by using the kernel polynomial method combined with the automatic differentiation technique, [@weibe; @barros; @ozawa; @wang] where the conduction electrons are assumed to be in equilibrium with temperature $T$. When the localized spins are treated as classical vectors, the Hamiltonian in Eq. and the partition function are written as $\mathcal{H} = \sum_{ijss'} c_{is}^\dagger h_{is,js'}[\phi] c_{js'}$ and $Z=\Tr_{\phi} \Tr_{c} \exp[-\mathcal{H}/T]$, respectively, where $\phi=\{\bm{S}_i\}$ is the classical spin configuration. Taking the trace over the electron degree of freedom denoted by $\Tr_c$, we obtain the free energy as $\mathcal{F}[\phi] = -T \int d\omega\, \rho(\omega) \ln[1+e^{-(\omega-\mu)/T}]$, where $\rho(\omega)=\sum_\nu \delta(\omega-\varepsilon_\nu)$ is the single-particle density of states with the $\nu$th eigenvalue $\varepsilon_\nu$ of $h_{is,js'}[\phi]$. The kernel polynomial method and the automatic differentiation technique enable one to evaluate efficiently the free energy $\mathcal{F}[\phi]$ and the effective field $\bm{h}_i^{\mathrm{eff}}=-\partial \mathcal{F}[\phi]/\partial \bm{S}_i$ with a computational time that scales as $\mathcal{O}(N)$. We consider the sudden quench of the chemical potential from $\mu_i=-J/S$ to $\mu_f=0$, which correspond to the equilibrium FM metallic ($n_e=0.5$) and AFM insulating $(n_e=1)$ states, respectively. The number of the random vectors for the stochastic estimates of the trace is $100$, and the Chebyshev expansion is taken up to the 200th order. The number of the sites and the time step are $N=32\times 32$ and $\delta t = 0.1$, respectively, and the other parameter values are the same as before.
Figure \[fig:kpm\](a) shows time profiles of the spin structure factors $S(\bm{q})$, and the nearest-neighbor spin angle defined by $\bar{\theta} = (2N)^{-1} \sum_{\langle ij \rangle} \cos^{-1}(\bm{S}_i\cdot\bm{S}_j)$. The Pontryagin index and the staggered scalar chirality are plotted in Fig. \[fig:kpm\](b), and the uniform vector chirality $P$ is presented in Fig. \[fig:kpm\](c). Real space spin configurations at $t=200$ and $1000$ are presented in Figs. \[fig:kpm\](d) and (e), respectively. After the quench of the chemical potential, the FM correlation $S(0,0)$ decreases and $\bar{\theta}$ increases rapidly until $t \sim 100$. The uniform vector chirality develops similarly to $\bar{\theta}$. Then, in $t \gtrsim 100$, $\bar{\theta}$ and $P$ remain almost constant within the present upper limit of the timescale, which is supposed to be smaller than $t_{\rm AF}$. Figure \[fig:kpm\](d) shows a snapshot of the localized spins at $t=200$, where seeds of the topological defects represented by red and blue (black in grayscale) cones are seen. In the intermediate time domain of $t\gtrsim 100$, the sublattice Pontryagin index and the staggered scalar chirality appear as in Figs. \[fig:time\] and \[fig:initial\]. Similarly to Fig. \[fig:time\](c), the Pontryagin indices $Q_{\rm A}$ and $Q_{\rm B}$ take not only integer values but also half-integer values, and do not always satisfy $Q_{\rm A}=-Q_{\rm B}$. Thus, the topological defects are interpreted as meron- or vortex-like objects. The slope of the time profile of $S(\pi,\pi)$ is much smaller than that in the $N=12\times 12$ lattice in Fig. \[fig:time\](b) and that in the $N=16\times 16$ lattice in Fig. \[fig:initial\](b), implying metastability of the topological objects in the thermodynamic limit. We conclude that the emergence of the topological spin objects is attributed to the sudden change in the initial FM order, and is irrespective of the detail of the conduction-electron dynamics.
The present numerical calculations reveal that the topological spin textures are produced through the photoinduced spin-structure change from the FM to AFM orders. We propose the following interpretation of the observations. The initial FM state is first collapsed by light irradiation around $t=t_{\rm F}$, and the system is in a moment a paramagnetic state. Then, the exchange interaction is transformed into the AFM one in highly non-equilibrium state, in contrast to the conventional FM DE interaction, and spins tend to align antiferromagnetically. In the transient state ($t_{\rm F}<t<t_{\rm AF}$) before the perfect Néel state is realized, the AFM domains with different directions of the staggered magnetization grow inside of the paramagnetic region. Around the domain boundaries, mismatches of the spin alignments happen, which produces seeds of the topological spin defects. This is a realization of the Kibble-Zurek mechanism for the topological defect generation in the phase transition dynamics. [@kibble; @zurek; @dziarmaga]
In conclusion, the photoinduced topological spin textures are examined in the DE model. In the transient non-equilibrium state from the initial FM to steady AFM states, the Pontryagin index, the scalar and vector chiralities emerge, indicating the photoinduced topological spin textures. This production is attributed to the dynamical change of the magnetic long-range ordered states. The present study provides a new route to produce the topological spin texture in magnets by using the laser light without SOI.
We thank T. Oka, G. Tatara, S. Iwai, and S. Koshihara for their helpful discussions. This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant No. JP15H02100, JP17H02916, JP18H05208 and JP18J10246. Some of the numerical calculations were performed using the facilities of the Supercomputer Center, the Institute for Solid State Physics, the University of Tokyo.
[9]{}
*Topology in Magnetism*, edited by J. Zang, V. Cros, and A. Hoffmann (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2018).
[[F. Hellman, A. Hoffmann, Y. Tserkovnyak, G. S. D. Beach, E. E. Fullerton, C. Leighton, A. H. MacDonald, D. C. Ralph, D. A. Arena, H. A. Dürr, P. Fischer, J. Grollier, J. P. Heremans, T. Jungwirth, A. V. Kimel, B. Koopmans, I. N. Krivorotov, S. J. May, A. K. Petford-Long, J. M. Rondinelli, N. Samarth, I. K. Schuller, A. N. Slavin, M. D. Stiles, O. Tchernyshyov, A. Thiaville, B. L. Zink]{}, **89**, [025006]{} ([2017]{}).]{}
[[Y. Togawa, Y. Kousaka, K. Inoue, and J. Kishine]{}, **85**, [112001]{} ([2016]{}).]{}
[[C. D. Batista, S. Lin, S. Hayami, and Y. Kamiya]{}, **79**, [084504]{} ([2016]{}).]{}
[[A. Kirilyuk, A. V. Kimel, and T. Rasing]{}, **82**, [2731]{} ([2010]{}).]{}
[[Y. Tokura]{}, **75**, [011001]{} ([2006]{}).]{}
[[H. Aoki, N. Tsuji, M. Eckstein, M. Kollar, T. Oka, and P. Werner]{}, **86**, [779]{} ([2014]{}).]{}
[[D. Fausti, R. I. Tobey, N. Dean, S. Kaiser, A. Dienst, M. C. Hoffmann, S. Pyon, T. Takayama, H. Takagi, and A. Cavalleri]{}, [Science]{} **331**, [189]{} ([2011]{}).]{}
[[M. Mitrano, A. Cantaluppi, D. Nicoletti, S. Kaiser, A. Perucchi, S. Lupi, P. Di Pietro, D. Pontiroli, M. Riccò, S. R. Clark, D. Jaksch, and A. Cavalleri]{}, [Nature]{} **530**, [461]{} ([2016]{}).]{}
[[M. Mochizuki and N. Nagaosa]{}, **105**, [147202]{} ([2010]{}).]{}
[[N. Ogawa, S. Seki, and Y. Tokura]{}, **5**, [9552]{} ([2015]{}).]{}
[[E. A. Stepanov, C. Dutreix, and M. I. Katsnelson]{}, **118**, [157201]{} ([2017]{}).]{}
[[H. Fujita and M. Sato]{}, **95**, [054421]{} ([2017]{}).]{}
[[W. Yang, H. Yang, Y. Cao, and P. Yan]{}, **26**, [8778]{} ([2018]{}).]{}
[[C. Zener]{}, **82**, [403]{} ([1951]{}).]{}
[[P. W. Anderson and H. Hasegawa]{}, **100**, [675]{} ([1955]{}).]{}
[[P. -G. de Gennes]{}, **118**, [141]{} ([1960]{}).]{}
[[J. Chovan, E. G. Kavousanaki, and I. E. Perakis]{}, **96**, [057402]{} ([2006]{}).]{}
[[H. Matsueda and S. Ishihara]{}, **76**, [083703]{} ([2007]{}).]{}
[[Y. Kanamori, H. Matsueda, and S. Ishihara]{}, **103**, [267401]{} ([2009]{}).]{}
[[J. Ohara, Y. Kanamori, and S. Ishihara]{}, **88**, [085107]{} ([2013]{}).]{}
[[W. Koshibae, N. Furukawa, and N. Nagaosa]{}, **103**, [266402]{} ([2009]{}).]{}
[[W. Koshibae, N. Furukawa, and N. Nagaosa]{}, **94**, [27003]{} ([2011]{}).]{}
[[A. Ono and S. Ishihara]{}, **119**, [207202]{} ([2017]{}).]{}
[[A. Ono and S. Ishihara]{}, arXiv:[1809.07132]{}.]{}
[[S. Yunoki, J. Hu, A. L. Malvezzi, A. Moreo, N. Furukawa, and E. Dagotto]{}, **80**, [845]{} ([1998]{}).]{}
[[H. Katsura, N. Nagaosa, and A. V. Balatsky]{}, **95**, [057205]{} ([2005]{}).]{}
[[A. Wei[ß]{}e, G. Wellein, A. Alvermann, and H. Fehske]{}, **78**, [275]{} ([2006]{}).]{}
[[K. Barros and Y. Kato]{}, **88**, [235101]{} ([2013]{}).]{}
[[R. Ozawa, S. Hayami, K. Barros, and Y. Motome]{}, **96**, [094417]{} ([2017]{}).]{}
[[Z. Wang, G. Chern, C. D. Batista, and K. Barros]{}, **148**, [094107]{} ([2018]{}).]{}
[[T. W. B. Kibble]{}, [J. Phys. A: Math. Gen]{} **9**, [1387]{} ([1977]{}).]{}
[[W. H. Zurek]{}, [Nature]{} **317**, [505]{} ([1985]{}).]{} [[J. Dziarmaga]{}, **59**, [1063]{} ([2010]{}).]{}
[^1]: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Byeong-Cheol Lee, Inwoo Han, Myeong-Gu Park, Kang-Min Kim ,'
- 'David E. Mkrtichian'
date: 'Received 29 November 2011 / Accepted 11 May 2012'
subtitle: 'Rotational modulations, pulsations, or a planet?'
title: 'Detection of the 128 day radial velocity variations in the supergiant $\alpha$ Persei'
---
[In order to search for and study the nature of the low-amplitude and long-periodic radial velocity (RV) variations of massive stars, we have been carrying out a precise RV survey for supergiants that lie near or inside the Cepheid instability strip. ]{} [We have obtained high-resolution spectra of $\alpha$ Per (F5 Ib) from November 2005 to September 2011 using the fiber-fed Bohyunsan Observatory Echelle Spectrograph (BOES) at Bohyunsan Optical Astronomy Observatory (BOAO). ]{} [Our measurements reveal that $\alpha$ Per shows a periodic RV variation of 128 days and a semi-amplitude of 70 m s$^{-1}$. We find no strong correlation between RV variations and bisector velocity span (BVS), but the 128-d peak is indeed present in the BVS variations among several other significant peaks in periodogram. ]{} [ $\alpha$ Per may have an exoplanet, but the combined data spanning over 20 years seem to suggest that the 128-d RV variations have not been stable on long-term scale, which is somewhat difficult to reconcile with the exoplanet explanation. We do not exclude the pulsational nature of the 128-d variations in $\alpha$ Per. Although we do not find clear evidence for surface activity or rotational modulations by spots, coupled with the fact that the expected rotation period is $\sim$ 130 days the rotational modulation seems to be the most likely cause of the RV variations. More observational data and research are needed to clearly determine the origin of RV the variations in $\alpha$ Per. ]{}
Introduction
============
During their evolution, massive stars undergo pulsations by the $\kappa$-mechanism, which operates in the helium ionization zone. At this stage, their expanding outer layers become unstable and they pulsate regularly within a certain region in the H-R diagram, known as the Cepheid instability strip. Depending on the mass, stars can move across the instability strip and back again several times as they continue to evolve. Classical Cepheids (Cepheids I) and W Virginis stars (Cepheids II) lie at the intersection of the strip with the supergiant branch in metal-rich and metal-poor stars.
Several studies have shown that at least one-half of the stars that reside near the Cepheid instability strip are photometrically $\it stable$ at the level of 0.01 $\sim$ 0.03 magnitude (Fernie & Hube 1971; Percy 1975; Fernie 1976; Percy et al. 1979; Percy & Welch 1981). However, among the $\it stable$ non-variable stars, low-amplitude variations in the radial velocity (RV) have been discovered thanks to high-resolution spectroscopy (Butler 1992; Hatzes & Cochran 1995). Despite these efforts, the nature of the low-amplitude variations and the reason for the existence of non-variable stars in the Cepheid instability strip are not yet known. Low-amplitude variations outside the blue edge of the instability strip may be common, but until now this has been scarcely investigated. Therefore, finding RV variations in Cepheids-like stars near the strip may help to understand these stars.
The bright F supergiant $\alpha$ Per (33 Persei, HD 20902, HR 1017, SAO 38787, HIP 15863) in the well-studied cluster of the same name has been observed for photometric and spectroscopic variations since the end of the 1890s. A history of RV determinations of $\alpha$ Per recorded before the development of precise RV technique is listed in Table \[tab1\]. There are few observed RV results of $\alpha$ Per despite the long interval. These show that the RV values vary with a range of $\sim$ 2 km s$^{-1}$, which indicates the possibility of periodic RV variations.
In this paper, we present new precise RV measurements of $\alpha$ Per acquired in 2005 – 2011. In Section 2, we describe the properties of $\alpha$ Per. We analyze the RVs and search for variability in Section 3. The origin of the RV variations is discussed in Section 4, and we discuss our results in Section 5.
------------------ -------------------------
RV References
(km s$^{-1}$)
–2.40 $\pm$ 0.53 Campbell (1898)
–2.12 $\pm$ 0.4 Campbell (1901)
–3.22 $\pm$ 0.69 Vogel (1901)
–2.69 $\pm$ 0.79 Belopolsky (1904)
–2.24 K[ú]{}stner (1908)
–1.66 $\pm$ 0.61 Goos (1909)
–1.57 $\pm$ 1.43 Belopolsky (1911)
–3.42 $\pm$ 0.87 Hnatek (1912)
–3.0 $\pm$ 1.0 Wilson & Joy (1952)
–2.4 $\pm$ 0.9 Wilson (1953)
–2.8 $\pm$ 0.5 Parsons (1983)
–2.9 $\pm$ 0.4 Beavers & Eitter (1986)
–2.08 $\pm$ 1.62 Mkrtichian (1990)
------------------ -------------------------
: The RV measurements of $\alpha$ Per recorded before the development of high-precision RV measurements.[]{data-label="tab1"}
The properties of the F supergiant $\alpha$ Per
===============================================
Parameter Value Reference
------------------------------------------ ------------------- ------------------------------------
Spectral type F5 Ib Hipparcos
$\textit{$m_{v}$}$ \[mag\] 1.82 Hipparcos
$\textit{$M_{v}$}$ \[mag\] – 4.67 Hipparcos
$\textit{B-V}$ \[mag\] 0.49 Mermilliod (1986)
age \[Myr\] 41 Lyubimkov et al. (2010)
Distance \[pc\] 156 $\pm$ 4 Lyubimkov et al. (2010)
RV \[km s$^{-1}$\] – 2.0 $\pm$ 0.1 Gontcharov (2006)
– 3.0 $\pm$ 1.5 Kudryavtsev et al. (2007)
Parallax \[mas\] 6.44 $\pm$ 0.17 van Leeuwen (2007)
6.43 $\pm$ 0.17 Lyubimkov et al. (2010)
Diameter \[mas\] 3.20 $\pm$ 0.25 Koechlin & Rabbia (1985)
2.8, 2.9 Pasinetti-Fracassini et al. (2001)
$T_{\mathrm{eff}}$ \[K\] 6270 $\pm$ 120 Evans et al. (1996)
6240 $\pm$ 20 Lee et al. (2006)
6541 $\pm$ 84 Kovtyukh (2007)
6350 $\pm$ 100 Lyubimkov et al. (2010)
$\mathrm{[Fe/H]}$ – 0.28 $\pm$ 0.06 Lee et al. (2006)
– 0.07 $\pm$ 0.09 Lyubimkov et al. (2010)
log $\it g$ 1.5 Evans et al. (1996)
0.58 $\pm$ 0.04 Lee et al. (2006)
2.0 Kovtyukh et al. (2008)
1.90 $\pm$ 0.04 Lyubimkov et al. (2010)
$\textit{$R_{\star}$}$ \[$R_{\odot}$\] 60.7 Spaan et al. (1987)
55, 51 Pasinetti-Fracassini et al. (2001)
$\textit{$M_{\star}$}$ \[$M_{\odot}$\] 7.2 Parsons & Bouw (1971)
7.2 Becker et al. (1977)
8.4 Spaan et al. (1987)
7.3 $\pm$ 0.3 Lyubimkov et al. (2010)
$\textit{$L_{\star}$}$ \[$L_{\odot}$\] 5500 Spaan et al. (1987)
$v_\mathrm{rot}$ sin $i$ \[km s$^{-1}$\] 17.9 $\pm$ 1.0 Gray & Toner (1987)
18 Hatzes & Cochran (1995)
17.1 $\pm$ 1.0 de Medeiros et al. (2002)
20 Lee et al. (2006)
$P_\mathrm{rot}$ / sin $i$ \[days\] 129 – 139 Derived
$v_\mathrm{micro}$ \[km s$^{-1}$\] 3.20 $\pm$ 0.05 Lee et al. (2006)
5.3 $\pm$ 0.5 Lyubimkov et al. (2010)
$v_\mathrm{macro}$ \[km s$^{-1}$\] 10 Hatzes & Cochran (1995)
: Stellar parameters of $\alpha$ Per.[]{data-label="tab2"}
The improved investigation of the physical parameters of $\alpha$ Per was reported by Evans et al. (1996). They measured $\alpha$ Per by comparing its energy distribution derived from IUE spectra and B, V, R, I, J, and K with model atmospheres convolved with instrumental sensitivity functions. The main parameters were reported by Lyubimkov et al. (2010), who used spectroscopic and the photometric methods and improved Hipparcos parallaxes by van Leeuwen (2007) to determine the fundamental parameters. The compiled basic stellar parameters of $\alpha$ Per are summarized in Table \[tab2\].
Stellar radius and diameter are taken from the result of Pasinetti-Fracassini et al. (2001). They calculated them with several methods using an intensity interferometer (Hanbury Brown et al. 1967) and intrinsic brightness and color (Wesselink 1969; Blackwell & Shallis 1977). Because the stellar mass has been determined somewhat differently by individual authors, the final mass of a companion (for exoplanet explanation) may vary. Table \[tab2\] shows the similar determinations of stellar mass even though Spaan et al. (1987) estimated a somewhat larger mass of 8.4 $M_{\odot}$.
It is difficult to determine a true rotational period because of an inaccurate stellar radius and ignorance of the stellar inclination. Nonetheless, the values of the projected rotational velocity, $v_\mathrm{rot}$ sin $i$, in the literature are consistent. Based on the recently published value of 20 km s$^{-1}$ (Lee et al. 2006) and a stellar radius of 51 – 55 $R_{\odot}$ (Pasinetti-Fracassini et al. 2001), we derived a range of the upper limit of the rotational period of
$$P_{\mathrm{rot}} = 2 \pi R_{\star} / (v_\mathrm{rot} \sin \emph{i}) = 129 - 139 \,\mathrm{days} \,.$$
Observations and analysis
=========================
{width="17cm"}
We have acquired 442 spectra of $\alpha$ Per from November 2005 to September 2011 (spanning 133 nights of observations) using the fiber-fed high-resolution (R = 90 000) Bohyunsan Observatory Echelle Spectrograph (BOES; Kim et al. 2007) attached to the 1.8-m telescope at Bohyunsan Optical Astronomy Observatory (BOAO) in Korea. An iodine absorption cell (I$_{2}$) was used to provide the precise RV measurements. Each estimated signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) at the I$_{2}$ wavelength region is about 250 with typical exposure times ranging between 60 and 180 seconds. The RV measurements of $\alpha$ Per are listed as online data (Table 4).
The extraction of normalized 1–D spectra was carried out using the IRAF (Tody 1986) software. The I$_2$ analysis and precise RV measurements were undertaken using a code called RVI2CELL (Han et al. 2007), which was developed at the Korea Astronomy $\&$ Space Science Institute (KASI).
Figure \[RV1\] shows RV measurements of $\alpha$ Per and the standard RV star $\tau$ Ceti to demonstrate the long-term stability of the BOES. The figure shows that the RV of $\tau$ Ceti is constant with an rms scatter of 6.7 m s$^{-1}$ over the timespan of our observations.
We calculated the Lomb-Scargle periodogram of the BOAO RV time series of $\alpha$ Per, which is a useful tool to investigate long-period variations for unequally spaced data (Lomb 1976; Scargle 1982). Figure \[power1\] shows a significant power at $f_{1}$ = 0.0078 cd$^{-1}$ ($P$ = 128.2 days). We find a false-alarm probability (FAP) of $<$ $10^{-6}$ by a bootstrap randomization process (K[ü]{}rster et al. 1999). We could find neither periods of 87.7 days (Hatzes & Cochran 1995) nor 77.7 days (Butler 1998).
![Lomb-Scargle periodogram of the RV measurements of $\alpha$ Per. The periodogram shows a significant power at a frequency of 0.0078 c d$^{-1}$ corresponding to a period of 128 days (*top panel*) after subtracting the main frequency variations (*bottom panel*). Arrows indicate previously reported periods of 87.8 and 77.7 days. []{data-label="power1"}](fig02_power){width="8cm"}
The origin of the RV variations
===============================
Giants and supergiants exhibit pulsations as well as surface activities, resulting in low-amplitude RV variability on different time scales. Short-term (hours to days) RV variations have been known to be the result of stellar pulsations (Hatzes & Cochran 1998), whereas long-term (hundreds of days) RV variations with a low-amplitude may be caused by three kinds of phenomena: stellar oscillations, rotational modulations, or planetary companions. To establish the origin of the low-amplitude and long-periodic RV variations of $\alpha$ Per we examined the Ca II H & K lines, the Hipparcos photometry, spectral line bisectors, and fitted a Keplerian orbit to RV data.
Ca II H & K lines
-----------------
We used the averaged Ca II H & K line profiles at the upper, near zero, and lower part of the RV curve to check for any systematic difference in the Ca II H & K region related to the RV variations. We selected spectra spanning a long time interval: the first positive deviation on JD-2453751.125798 (15 January 2006, RV = 144.2 m s$^{-1}$), near zero deviation on JD-2454535.956330 (10 March 2008, RV = – 7.0 m s$^{-1}$), and the last negative deviation on JD-2455495.383283 (25 October 2010, RV = – 109.3 m s$^{-1}$) of RV curve. Figure \[CaII\] shows that the Ca II H & K cores show no emissions at the line centers, and there is also no systematic difference among the line profiles at the three extreme parts of the RV curve. It means that F5 Ib $\alpha$ Per has exhibited no detectable peculiarities in Ca II H & K lines relevant to RV variations. This agrees with Pasquini et al. (2000), who found that supergiants in their sample of stars show no signatures of Ca II H & K chromospheric activity.
![The spectral line of the Ca II H & K region in $\alpha$ Per. It displays three spectra exhibiting positive, zero, and negative RV deviations, respectively (*top panel*), and a combined figure of the three features (*bottom panel*). No emission features are seen around the Ca II H & K central region, and any systematic differences in line profiles are invisible. []{data-label="CaII"}](fig03_CaII){width="8cm"}
Hipparcos photometry
--------------------
We analyzed the Hipparcos photometry of $\alpha$ Per to search for possible brightness variations relevant to the period of 128 days. For three years, the Hipparcos satellite obtained 87 photometric measurements of $\alpha$ Per. Figure \[Hip\] shows the Lomb-Scargle periodogram of the measurements. There are no significant peaks near the frequency of $f_{1}$ = 0.0078 c d$^{-1}$ corresponding to the period of 128 days. The Hipparcos data maintained a photometric stability down to rms of 0.0048 magnitude (0.26%) during those three years.
![Lomb-Scargle periodogram of the Hipparcos photometric measurements of $\alpha$ Per for three years. The arrow marks the location of the period of 128 days. []{data-label="Hip"}](fig04_Hipparcos){width="8cm"}
Line bisector variations
------------------------
The analysis of a line shape can help to determine the origin of the observed RV variations (Queloz et al. 2001). The RV variations by planetary companions should not produce any changes in the spectral line shape, whereas the surface inhomogeneities or pulsations do. Stellar rotational modulations of surface features or non-radial pulsations can create variable asymmetries in the spectral line profiles. Thus, the accurately measured variations in the shapes of stellar lines may provide valuable information about surface inhomogeneities, pulsations, or planetary companion. The bisector velocity span (BVS) is defined as the difference between two bisectors at the top and bottom of the profile and is used to quantify the changes in the line profile.
We measured the BVS using the least-squares deconvolution (LSD) technique (Donati et al. 1997; Reiners & Royer 2004; Glazunova et al. 2008). We used the Vienna Atomic Line Database (VALD; Piskunov et al. 1995) to prepare the list of spectral lines. A total of $\sim$ 3100 lines within the wavelength region of 4500 – 4900 and 6450 – 6840 [Å]{} were used to construct the LSD profile, which excluded spectral regions around the I$_{2}$ absorption region, hydrogen lines, and regions with strong contamination by terrestrial atmospheric lines.
We estimated the BVS of the mean profile between two different flux levels of central depth levels, 0.8 and 0.25, as the span points. The BVS as a function of JD is shown in Figure \[LSD\]. We calculated the Lomb-Scargle periodogram of the BVS shown in Figure \[LSD\_power\]. We see a significant peak frequency 0.0078 c d$^{-1}$ (a FAP $\sim$ 0.5%) relevant to the period of 128 days. There are indeed several significant peaks with higher or comparable power in the periodogram. Although it is difficult to claim with certainty whether the signal near the 128-d period is physically real, it is unlikely that noise would cause this peak. The variations in the BVS might have a higher magnitude compared with the signal at 128 days and hinder it.
![BVS variations of $\alpha$ Per from November 2005 to September 2011. []{data-label="LSD"}](fig05_BVS){width="8cm"}
![Lomb-Scargle periodogram of BVS variations of $\alpha$ Per. The arrow marks the location of the period of 128 days []{data-label="LSD_power"}](fig06_power){width="8cm"}
Keplerian orbital fit
---------------------
We analyzed our BOAO data using the Lomb-Scagle periodogram and found the best-fitting Keplerian orbit with a $P$ = 128.2 $\pm$ 0.1 days, a semi-amplitude $K$ = 70.8 $\pm$ 1.5 m s$^{-1}$, and an eccentricity $e$ = 0.10 $\pm$ 0.04. The RV curve phased to the period of 128 days is shown in Figure \[phase1\], and it exhibits clear variations. We derive the minimum mass of a companion $m$ sin $i$ = 6.6 $\pm$ 0.2 $M_{\mathrm{Jup}}$ at a distance of $a$ = 0.97 AU from $\alpha$ Per, only four times the stellar radius ${R_{\star}}$ = 51 – 55 $R_{\odot}$ ($\sim$ 0.25 AU).
As can be seen in Figure \[phase1\], the rms of the RV residuals are 44.8 m s$^{-1}$, which is larger than the typical internal error of individual $\alpha$ Per RV accuracy ($\sim$ 20 m s$^{-1}$). We also noticed some systematic pattern in the periodogoram of RV residuals after removing the best fit. Figure \[power1\] (bottom panel) shows the Lomb-Scargle periodogram. We found a FAP of $\sim$ $10^{-3}$ at the highest peak of the residual RV measurements, but there are several peaks at this level, which suggests noise. Irregular periodic RV variations in $\alpha$ Per appear with a 2K amplitude of $\sim$ 150 m s$^{-1}$ in a short period of time. The scatter seems to be caused by variations due to the intrinsic stellar variability or stellar oscillations. All the orbital elements from the BOAO data set are listed in Table \[tab3\].
![RV measurements of $\alpha$ Per phased to the orbital period of 128 days obtained at BOAO. The solid line is the orbital solution that fits the data with an rms of 44.8 m s$^{-1}$. []{data-label="phase1"}](fig07_phase){width="8cm"}
Parameter Value
---------------------------------------- ----------------------------------
Period \[days\] 128.2 $\pm$ 0.1
$\it{K}$ \[m s$^{-1}$\] 70.8 $\pm$ 1.5
$\it T$$_{\mathrm{periastron}}$ \[JD\] 2451513.00 $\pm$ 4.91 (1999.912)
$\it{e}$ 0.10 $\pm$ 0.04
$\omega$ \[deg\] 208.37 $\pm$ 12.36
$f(m)$ \[$\it M_{\odot}$\] (4.6473) $\times$ 10$^{-9}$
$\sigma$ (O-C) \[m s$^{-1}$\] 44.8
with M = 7.3 \[$\it M_{\odot}$\]
$m$ sin $i$ \[$\it M_\mathrm{Jup}$\] 6.6 $\pm$ 0.2
$\it{a}$ \[AU\] 0.97
: Best-fitting Keplerian orbit of the hypothetical planet $\alpha$ Per b.[]{data-label="tab3"}
Discussion
==========
F-G yellow supergiants are very important for studying the Galactic structure owing to their high luminosity and young age (Klochkova & Panchuk 1988; Giridhar et al. 1998). Furthermore, all types of supergiants are good science cases in pulsations regarding the Cepheid instability strip. According to the the traditional criteria (Iben & Tuggle 1975; Fernie 1990), $\alpha$ Per is located outside the blue edge of the Cepheid instability strip (Hatzes & Cochran 1995; Bulter 1998).
If supergiants with luminosities and temperatures similar to the Cepheids do not pulsate in the Cepheid instability strip, they may be related to non-variable supergiants (NVSs), which were investigated by Fernie & Hube (1971). The presence of the NVSs in the instability strip is quite enigmatic. s-Cepheids are pulsating stars with low amplitude variations of the light, color, and RV. They can be considered as objects in the stage between normal Cepheids and the NVSs in the instability strip. Andrievsky & Kovtyukh (1996) found no significant differences in the C and O abundances between them and concluded that these two groups of stars have undergone the first stage of core helium burning and are at the same evolutionary stage. From the photometrist’s point of view, $\alpha$ Per can be classified as an NVS near or on the blue border of the Cepheid instability strip.
In this work, we found compelling evidence for a low-amplitude and long-periodic RV variation in the F supergiant $\alpha$ Per. A strongly periodic variability in RV measurements was detected with a period of 128 days. We will examine possible origins of these RV variations in the next subsections.
Pulsations
----------
The estimated period of the fundamental radial mode pulsations is several days. Therefore, the 128-d period of periodic variations found in $\alpha$ Per cannot be caused by classical $\kappa$-mechanism pulsations operating in Cepheids. On the other hand, we found additional 119-d RV variations on top of the low-amplitude Cepheid variations of 3.97-d period in Polaris (Lee et al. 2008), a Cepheid that lies inside the instability strip. Lee at al. (2008) speculated about the existence of an yet unrecognized mechanism that drives low-amplitude and long-period oscillatory variations of the radius in F-supergiants and in all classical Cepheid stars. Lee et al. (2008) expressed the need for a detailed comparative study of the precise RV for a sample of F-type supergiant stars including Cepheids that can provide additional constraints on the nature of the long-term radius variations detected in Polaris. $\alpha$ Per is the second supergiant star in our survey that shows nearly identical (in terms of RV period and amplitude) long-period quasi-periodic variations and seems to support the assumptions made by Lee et al. (2008) about the common nature of the oscillatory variations of the radius in F-supergiants.
![Lomb-Scargle periodogram of the data combined with the McDonald (Hatzes & Cochran 1995) and Lick observatory (Butler 1998) RV measurements of $\alpha$ Per. Arrows indicate $\sim$ 128 and $\sim$ 77 days. []{data-label="H+B"}](fig08_power){width="8cm"}
![Lomb-Scargle periodograms of the BOAO, McDonald, and Lick observatory RV measurements of $\alpha$ Per. The periodograms show a frequency of 0.0078 c d$^{-1}$ at the BOAO data set (solid line) and 0.0077 c d$^{-1}$ at the BOAO + McDonald + Lick observatory data set (dashed line), respectively. []{data-label="power2"}](fig09_power2){width="8cm"}
Rotational modulations
----------------------
{width="10cm"}
Hatzes & Cochran (1995) and Butler (1998) argued that the cause of the RV variations of $\alpha$ Per is not likely to be the orbital motion, but rather the intrinsic stellar variations such as rotational modulation or non-radial pulsations. The 119-d period with a 2K amplitude of $\sim$ 280 m s$^{-1}$ variations in the residual RV measurements in the F supergiant Polaris could also have been caused by rotational modulation of surface features (Lee et al. 2008), for example.
Supergiants typically have rotational periods of several hundred days (Rao et al. 1993). $\alpha$ Per shows a projected rotational velocity of 17 – 20 km s$^{-1}$ (see the Table 2) corresponding to a period of 129 – 139 days (upper limit), very close to the observed period of 128 days. It is also close to the mean projected rotational velocity of 15 km s$^{-1}$ for 16 F supergiants (Danzinger & Faber 1972). Although the real rotational period is likely to be shorter by the factor of sin $i$ than 129 – 139 days, it does not eliminate the rotational origin of RV variations. When the inclination of $\alpha$ Per is very close to 90 degrees there is a chance that the observed RV variations are caused by the rotational modulation.
$\alpha$ Per is an object with weak longitudinal magnetic fields of $B_{l}$ = 0.82 $\pm$ 0.37 G (Grunhut et al. 2010) but it exhibits the strongest and most complex Stokes V profile of all 30 supergiant stars observed. Such a low value of magnetic fields does not mean, however, that the local fields are weak as well. The local magnetic fields can be stronger and have a complex surface structure. Even a weak magnetic field in spots is enough to suppress the convection motion and make the velocity field (macroturbulence) inside the spot lower than the surrounding photosphere. This would alter the line shapes and result in an RV shift. As shown for Polaris by Hatzes & Cochran (2000) such macroturbulent spots can account for RV variations of up to $\sim$ 100 m s$^{-1}$. Such spots would produce no detectable chromospheric activity indicator (Figure \[CaII\]) or photometric variations (Figure \[Hip\]). We need a direct confirmation of the existence of the local magnetic fields and the surface inhomogeneities in $\alpha$ Per.
Planetary companion
-------------------
The important features of the hypothetical planetary RV variations are the strong period, shape, and phase stability of variations. We clearly found 128-d variations. However, the measurements in the previous records by Hatzes & Cochran (1995) and by Butler (1998) did not show the same variations. Nevertheless, the data combined with previous records do not show a significant power, just two somewhat high peaks exhibited near $\sim$ 128 and $\sim$ 77 days, with a moderate power of $\sim$ 20 (Figure \[H+B\]). If we have regular, long-term stable 128-d variations in two data sets, the combination of them should increase the power in the resulting periodogram, which is not the case. We also calculated the Lomb-Scargle periodogram of the whole RV measurements of BOAO, McDonald (Hatzes & Cochran 1995), and Lick observatory (Butler 1998). Figure \[power2\] shows the periodogram of the combined data against that of BOAO. We find a significant power at at $f_{1}$ = 0.0077 cd$^{-1}$ ($P$ = 129.9 days) from the whole data set, approximately the same frequency in BOAO data, and an FAP of this periodicity is less than 10$^{-5}$. However, the Lomb-Scargle power decreases, which means that 128-d variations have not been stable on the long-term scale. This is a strong criterion to reject the exoplanet hypothesis. The RV measurements of the whole data set phased to the period of 129.9 days are shown in Figure \[phase2\]. It does not conform perfectly with whole RV measurements.
Assuming an exoplanet (least possible) hypothesis, we can estimate the minimum mass for the planetary companion of 6.6 $\it M_{\mathrm{Jup}}$ with an orbital semi-major axis of 0.97 AU and an eccentricity of 0.1.
Support for MGP was provided by the National Research Foundation of Korea to the Center for Galaxy Evolution Research. We thank the developers of the Bohyunsan Observatory Echelle Spectrograph (BOES) and all staff of the Bohyunsan Optical Astronomy Observatory (BOAO). This research made use of the SIMBAD database, operated at CDS, Strasbourg, France.
Andrievsky, S. M., & Kovtyukh, V. V. 1996, , 245, 61
Beavers, W. I., & Eitter, J. J. 1986, , 62, 147
Becker, S. A., Iben, I., Jr., & Tuggle, R. S. 1977, , 218, 633
Belopolsky, A. 1904, , 19, 85
Belopolsky, M. 1911, The Observatory, 34, 168
Blackwell, D. E., & Shallis, M. J. 1977, , 180, 177
Butler, R. P. 1998, , 494, 342
Campbell, W. W. 1898, , 8, 150
Campbell, W. W. 1901, Lick Observatory Bulletin, 1, 22
Donati, J.-F., Semel, M., Carter, B. D., et al. 1997, , 291, 658
Danziger, I. J., & Faber, S. M. 1972, , 18, 428
de Medeiros, J. R., Udry, S., Burki, G., et al. 2002, , 395, 97
Evans, N. R., Teays, T. J., Taylor, L. L., et al. 1996, , 111, 2099
Fernie, J. D., & Hube, J. O. 1971, , 168, 437
Fernie, J. D. 1976, , 88, 116
Fernie, J. D. 1990, , 354, 295
Giridhar, S., Arellano Ferro, A., & Parrao, L. 1998, Bulletin of the Astronomical Society of India, 26, 493
Glazunova, L. V., Yushchenko, A. V., Tsymbal, V. V., et al. 2008, , 136, 1736
Gontcharov, G. A. 2006, Astronomy Letters, 32, 759
Goos, F. 1909, Astronomische Nachrichten, 180, 49
Gray, D. F., & Toner, C. G. 1987, , 322, 360
Grunhut, J. H., Wade, G. A., Hanes, D. A., & Alecian, E. 2010, , 408, 2290
Han, I., Kim, K.-M., Lee, B.-C., et al. 2007, Publication of Korean Astronomical Society, 22, 75
Hanbury Brown, R., Davis, J., Allen, L. R., et al. 1967, , 137, 393
Hatzes, A. P., & Cochran, W. D. 1995, , 452, 401
Hatzes, A. P., & Cochran, W. D. 1998, ASPC, 154, 311
Hatzes, A. P., & Cochran, W. D. 2000, , 120, 979
Hnatek, A. 1912, Astronomische Nachrichten, 192, 245
Iben, I., Jr., & Tuggle, R. S. 1975, , 197, 39
Kim, K.-M., Han, I., Valyavin, G. G., et al. 2007, , 119, 1052
Klochkova, V. G. & Panchuk, V, E. 1988, Pis’ma Astron. Zh., 14, 933
Koechlin, L., & Rabbia, Y. 1985, , 153, 91
Kovtyukh, V. V., Soubiran, C., Luck, R. E., et al. 2008, , 389, 1336
Kudryavtsev, D. O., Romanyuk, I. I., Semenko, E. A., et al. 2007, Astrophysical Bulletin, 62, 147
K[ú]{}stner, F. 1908, , 27, 301
K[ü]{}rster, M., Hatzes, A. P., Cochran, W. D., et al. 1999, , 344, L5
Lee, B.-C., Galazutdinov, G. A., Han, I., et al. 2006, , 118, 636
Lee, B.-C., Mkrtichian, D. E., Han, I., et al. 2008, , 135, 2240
Lomb, N. R. 1976, , 39, 447
Lyubimkov, L. S., Lambert, D. L., Rostopchin, S. I., et al. 2010, , 402, 1369
Mermilliod, J.-C. 1986, Bulletin d’Information du Centre de Donnees Stellaires, 31, 13
Mkrtichyan, D. E. 1990, Soviet Astronomy Letters, 16, 476
Parsons, S. B., & Bouw, G. D. 1971, , 152, 133
Parsons, S. B. 1983, , 53, 553
Pasquini, L., de Medeiros, J. R., & Girardi, L. 2000, , 361, 1011
Pasinetti Fracassini, L. E., Pastori, L., Covino, S., et al. 2001, , 367, 521
Percy, J. R. 1975, Information Bulletin on Variable Stars, 983, 1
Percy, J. R., Baskerville, I., & Trevorrow, D. W. 1979, , 91, 368
Percy, J. R., & Welch, D. L. 1981, , 93, 367
Piskunov, N. E., Kupka, F., Ryabchikova, T. A., et al. 1995, , 112, 525
Queloz, D., Henry, G. W., Sivan, J. P. et al. 2001, , 379, 279
Rao, L. M., Baliunas, S. L., Robinson, C. R., et al. 1993, ASPC, 45, 300
Reiners, A., & Royer, F. 2004, , 415, 325
Scargle, J. D. 1982, , 263, 835
Spaan, F. H. P., de Jager, C., Nieuwenhuijzen, H., et al. 1987, , 185, 229
Tody, D. 1986, , 627, 733
van Leeuwen, F. 2007, , 474, 653
Vogel, H. C. 1901, , 13, 320
Wesselink, A. J. 1969, , 144, 297
Wilson, R. E., & Joy, A. H. 1952, , 115, 157
Wilson, R. E. 1953, General catalogue of stellar radial velocities, (Washington, Carnegie Inst. Washington)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper, we propose a destination-aware adaptive traffic flow rule aggregation (DATA) mechanism for facilitating traffic flow monitoring in SDN-based networks. This method adapts the number of flow table entries in SDN switches according to the level of detail of traffic flow information that other mechanisms (e.g. for traffic engineering, traffic monitoring, intrusion detection) require. It also prevents performance degradation of the SDN switches by keeping the number of flow table entries well below a critical level. This level is not preset as a hard threshold but learned during operation by using a machine-learning based algorithm. The DATA method is implemented within a RESTful application (DATA App) which monitors and analyzes the ongoing network traffic and provides instructions to the SDN controller to adapt the traffic flow matching strategies accordingly. A thorough performance evaluation of DATA is conducted in an SDN emulation environment. The results show that—compared to the default behavior of common SDN controllers—the proposed DATA approach yields significant SDN switch performance improvements while still providing detailed traffic flow information on demand.'
author:
- '[^1]'
bibliography:
- 'resource.bib'
title: 'Destination-aware Adaptive Traffic Flow Rule Aggregation in Software-Defined Networks'
---
[Trung V. Phan : Destination-aware Adaptive Traffic Flow Rule Aggregation in Software-Defined Networks]{}
Adaptive Traffic Aggregation, Resource Consumption, Network Statistics, Software Defined Networks.
Introduction
============
Software Defined Networking (SDN) is a new networking paradigm which brings numerous advantages w.r.t. dynamic traffic control and management. The SDN concept overcomes the restrictions of legacy network architectures by decoupling the control and data plane, and handling the control plane in a centralized entity called SDN controller. The global network view of the SDN controller allows to enable a policy-based traffic management and a faster and more dynamic response to network state and traffic variations [@SDN].
Several features [@RelatedWork] are already available in SDN networks such as mechanisms for traffic analysis, traffic flow management and resilience. Nevertheless, some challenges still remain to be addressed [@SDNChallenge]. In particular, adapting the granularity of traffic forwarding is an important issue. Most traffic management approaches rely on the default flow matching strategies of the available SDN controllers and therefore do not allow traffic flow handling with variable granularity. For instance, the *Open Network Operating System* (ONOS) SDN controller [@onos], by default, applies *Reactive Forwarding* and uses the *destination MAC address* for packet matching only. Hence, an incoming packet is matched to a flow entry by just using its layer 2 destination address. In order to change the flow matching scheme, an administrator has to manually set the respective $true$ or $false$ variables for the packet matching fields in the ONOS source code.
In this paper, we propose a destination-aware adaptive traffic flow matching (DATA) mechanism for SDN-based networks in order to adapt the number of flow table entries in SDN switches according to the level of detail of traffic flow information that other mechanisms (e.g. for traffic engineering, traffic monitoring) require. A RESTful application (DATA App) monitors and analyzes the network traffic and advises the SDN controller to adapt the matching strategy. The paper is structured as follows. Section \[ProblemStatement\] gives a short overview about common flow matching strategies in SDN-based networks. Related work is outlined in Section \[RelatedWork\]. Section \[DATAProposal\] explains the DATA solution in detail. The results of the performance evaluation are outlined in Section \[PerformanceEvaluation\] and Section \[Conclusion\] provides a short summary of our work.
Common SDN Flow Matching Strategies and Their Implications {#ProblemStatement}
==========================================================
ONOS [@onos] provides high scalability and availability through its distributed architecture. It supports *Reactive Forwarding* (fwd) and *intent-based Reactive Forwarding* (ifwd) [@onos]. By default, the ONOS SDN controller provides flow rules using destination MAC addresses, i.e. only the destination MAC address is examined during the packet matching process and the other packet header fields like src/dst IP addresses or src/dst ports are not considered. We denote this flow matching strategy as MAC Matching Only Scheme (MMOS). However, by modifying the ONOS Reactive Forwarding configuration file, it is possible to add both the src/dst IP addresses and the src/dst ports to the matching fields - this flow matching strategy we denote as Full Matching Scheme (FMS). Similarly, OpenDaylight (ODL) [@odl] provides a default L2Switch service which applies MMOS. ODL also allows for another flow matching scheme which uses only destination IP addresses.
In MMOS the destination MAC address but no IP addresses and port numbers are included in the matching fields. Consequently, flow-table space is saved and the SDN switch might have a higher data plane forwarding performance (as the packet matching operation is quite fast). Another significant advantage of MMOS is that it reduces the workload of the SDN controller as less *packet\_in* messages are generated. For example, MMOS does not care about new TCP requests to the same destination because it only checks the layer-2 addresses. However, the simple MMOS scheme may raise problems for other applications which want to monitor traffic flows in the network. For instance, an intrusion detection application requires detailed flow information to detect malicious traffic. As a result, an intrusion prevention application cannot issue the right policies for specific flows to prevent or mitigate unwanted traffic (e.g., DDoS traffic). In general, by using only MMOS, the ability to track and monitor network traffic for security or forensic analysis is limited.
In FMS, as the MAC address, IP address, and port number are used for packet matching, it is possible to classify traffic based on any individual field or combination of these fields. This fine-grained flow handling enables security or traffic engineering applications to have a closer view on the current network traffic. On the contrary, the number of *packet\_in* messages to the SDN controller as well as the number of flow entries in a SDN switch is much higher than in the case of MMOS. This can result in significant degradation of the forwarding performance or even to a switch outage in case the maximum number of flow table entries is reached.
Related Work {#RelatedWork}
============
Issues related to flow rule installation and management in SDN switches attracted a high interest in the SDN research community. A wide range of approaches to control TCAM (Ternary Content Addressable Memory) utilization were proposed with the primary target of flow rule compression or aggregation [@Stephens:2012; @Leng:2015; @Luo:2014; @Mimidis:2016; @Minnie:2017]. For example, the authors in [@Stephens:2012] argue that for simple packet forwarding rules based e.g. on MAC addresses or VLAN IDs only cheap SRAM memory is sufficient. Only more complex matching rules (with more matching fields) might require the use of fast but expensive TCAM memory. Thus the amount of TCAM memory in SDN switches can be significantly reduced. The solutions outlined in [@Leng:2015] and [@Luo:2014] apply the concept of flow rule aggregation by restructuring the matching fields. By that the number of flow rules can be significantly reduced. Another approach for dynamic flow matching was proposed in [@Mimidis:2016] where the matching policy includes the DSCP (Differentiated Services Code Point) values for different traffic types. Rifai et al. introduced the MINNIE framework [@Minnie:2017] for flow table compression using wildcard rules. The mentioned approaches only focus on flow table size reduction and on increasing the data plane forwarding performance but—contrary to our approach—do not consider the possibility of adaptively changing the granularity of flow matching (and thus the flow table size) depending on the level of detail of traffic flow information that other mechanisms (traffic engineering, traffic monitoring) demand.
Destination-aware Adaptive Traffic Flow Rule Aggregation Mechanism {#DATAProposal}
==================================================================
DATA Architecture {#SoftwareDesignArchitecture}
-----------------
Fig. \[fig:DATA\] provides an overview of the extended SDN control plane. It comprises the default SDN control plane with a built-in forwarding application and our novel DATA App. Detailed information about the relevant components is provided below.
![DATA Architecture[]{data-label="fig:DATA"}](DATA-Model.png){width="49.00000%"}
### Built-in Forwarding Application
Most of the common SDN controllers [@onos; @odl] provide a built-in forwarding application with basic functionality to allow the creation of flow rules which are then downloaded to the SDN switches. In this work, we propose to add REST API interfaces to the built-in forwarding application to have a secure communication channel to the DATA App. The channel is used to share and exchange network information and control instructions with the DATA App via the shared database. Initially the DATA App instructs the build-in forwarding application to apply the FMS strategy.
### DATA App
The DATA App consists of the following three main components: The Statistics Collector periodically gets information about the traffic flows (e.g. MAC/IP addresses, packet counts) traversing the SDN switches from the SDN controller via a RESTful API [@onos; @odl]. It sends the collected statistical information to the Analyzer and stores it in the shared database. The *Shared Database* is accessible from three agents: Built-in forwarding application, Statistics Collector and Analyzer. The *Analyzer* controls the change of the flow matching schemes in the SDN network. It receives flow statistics information from *monitor threads* of SDN switches via the Statistics Collector and identifies the SDN switches which are subject to performance degradation and finds out the *destination* hosts (via applying Algorithm \[FMStoMMOS\], see below) whose associated flows are most critical to the switch performance. In order to anticipate the switch performance degradation well before it occurs and to trigger the flow matching scheme change in time we apply a 2-dimensional Support Vector Machine (SVM) [@SVMIntro] learning algorithm which is well known in the machine learning research community for its very good practical results [@AIGoogle]. After checking the switch performance, the Analyzer co-operates with the built-in forwarding application of the SDN controller to conduct actions regarding the flow matching schemes of all flows related to the previously identified destination hosts.
![Support Vector Machine principle[]{data-label="fig:SVM"}](SVM.png){width="49.00000%"}
The SVM algorithm in the DATA App works as follows. In general we have a linearly separable data set for training $D = \left\{\left({x}_1,\textit{y}_1\right), \left({x}_2,\textit{y}_2\right),\dots,\left({x}_N,\textit{y}_N\right)\right\}$, where ${x}_i \in \mathbb{R}^{n}$ and $y_{i} \in \left\{+1,-1\right\}$. In this work ${x}_i$ represents the tuple ($f$,$\Delta f$). Here $f$ ($0 \leq f \leq f_{cap}$) is the current total number of flow entries and $\Delta f$ denotes the change of the total number of flow entries in a SDN switch between two consecutive observations. The value of $y_i$ represents the status of the switch in the $i$th observation period: $y_i$ = +1 denotes a good switch state while $y_i$ = -1 indicates a performance degradation (due to e.g. errors or exceptions). The SVM algorithm operates in two main phases: training and mapping. In the training phase, the SVM algorithm takes data samples from the data set $D$ and tries to find three hyperplanes $H_0$, $H_1$ and $H_2$ as follows: $$\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
H_0 = \left\{{x} \in \mathbb{R}^{n} : \left\langle{w},{x}\right\rangle + \textit{b} = \text{0},\; {w} \in \mathbb{R}^{n},\;\textit{b} \in \mathbb{R}\right\} &
\\ H_1 = \left\{{x} \in \mathbb{R}^{n} : \left\langle{w},{x}\right\rangle + \textit{b} = \text{-1},\; {w} \in \mathbb{R}^{n},\;\textit{b} \in \mathbb{R}\right\} &
\\ H_2 = \left\{{x} \in \mathbb{R}^{n} : \left\langle{w},{x}\right\rangle + \textit{b} = \text{+1},\; {w} \in \mathbb{R}^{n},\;\textit{b} \in \mathbb{R}\right\} &
\end{array}\right.$$ see Fig. \[fig:SVM\]. The region bounded by the $H_1$ and $H_2$ hyperplanes is called the margin in which no data samples of the training set are allowed to be in. The $H_0$ hyperplane lies in the middle between $H_1$ and $H_2$. Note, that the chance of finding more than three hyperplanes to separate two data groups is relatively high. However, there is only one optimal solution that maximizes the margin between $H_1$ and $H_2$. The task is to find the values $w$ and $b$ so that the margin is maximum. The solution of this optimization problem is described in [@SVMIntro]. The distance of $x_i$ to the hyperplane $H_0$ is defined as follows: $$\frac{y_i (\left\langle{w},{x}\right\rangle + \textit{b})}{\parallel w \parallel} \geq 1,$$ where the sign of $y_i$ indicates the data group to which $x_i$ belongs. In the mapping phase, for a new sample $x_i$ it is checked to which of the two data groups separated by the hyperplane $H_0$ it belongs. This is done according to the result of the function $F(x)=sign(\left\langle{w},{x}\right\rangle + \textit{b})$. If $F(x)$= +1 the sample $x_i$ is assigned to the data group representing a good switch performance status, otherwise ($F(x)$= -1) the sample $x_i$ is assigned to the data group representing a performance degradation of the switch. Interested readers are referred to [@SVMIntro; @OpenFlowSIA; @SVMSOM; @SVMSOM-IEEEAccess] for a detailed explanation of the SVM algorithm.
The reasons for choosing the tuple ($f$,$\Delta f$) for evaluating the forwarding performance of a SDN switch are as follows: The effort for flow searching and matching within a SDN switch is proportional to the number and matching fields of flow entries. Moreover, a SDN switch has a maximum capacity ($f_{cap}$) for storing the flow entries. Accordingly, the change of the number of flow entries indicates the control plane load (w.r.t. $of\_mod$ and $of\_removed$ messages sent between SDN controller and SDN switch) affecting both the SDN switch and the SDN controller.
![Traffic analysis and policy creation at the Analyzer[]{data-label="fig:DATAWorkflow"}](FlowChart.png){width="48.00000%"}
**Input**: $S_i$ = $\left\{(h_{1}, f_{1}), (h_{2}, f_{2}), ..., (h_{k}, f_{k})\right\}$: set of destination hosts and respective number of flow entries associated with these hosts in switch $i$, $f_i$ = $\sum_{c=1}^{k} f_{c}$: total number of current flow entries in switch $i$, $p$ = 1: first index **Output**: $H_{j}$ = $\left\{ \right\}$: set of destination hosts **begin** Sort $S_i$ in descending order of the current flow $f_c$ (from highest to lowest numbers) $H_j.append(S_{i}$\[$p$\]) $f_{remaining} = 1 + \sum_{c=p+1}^{k} f_{c}$ $\Delta f = f_i-f_{remaining}$ ${x}$ = ($f_{remaining}$, $\Delta f$) $sign = \textit{SVM}\left({x}\right)$ **break** $p$ = $p$+1 **return** $H_j$
Operational Workflow
--------------------
Initially, the Statistics Collector sends a request to the SDN controller to ask for network topology information. Then, it launches a monitor thread for each connected SDN switch (step (1) in Fig. \[fig:DATA\]). The monitoring information is stored in the shared database. Meanwhile, the Analyzer activates the SVM engine and performs the training phase using a pre-prepared training data set, see Section \[scenariosetup\]. Next, the Statistics Collector gets traffic flow statistics from the connected SDN switches (step (2) in Fig. \[fig:DATA\]). In regular time intervals (observation period) - for each SDN switch - a monitor thread counts the total number of current flows and measures the flow number changes in order to provide the tuple ($f$,$\Delta f$) to the SVM engine within the Analyzer. The Analyzer then conducts traffic analysis and policy creation for each SDN switch (step (3) in Fig. \[fig:DATA\]).
As illustrated in Fig. \[fig:DATAWorkflow\], in case the SVM engine detects a performance degradation of a switch $i$, the destination hosts whose associated flows are most critical to the performance of switch $i$ (i.e. have the most flow entries in switch $i$) are identified by applying Algorithm \[FMStoMMOS\]. Subsequently, the Analyzer instructs the built-in forwarding application to send *of\_mod* messages to remove all full-matching flow entries in the flow-table of switch $i$ and replace them by MAC matching only flow entries, i.e. to perform a change from FMS to MMOS (step (4) in Fig. \[fig:DATA\]). Furthermore, the DATA App monitors the number of incoming packets per second ($R_{pkt}$) in switch $i$ individually for all flows, for which the matching scheme change to MMOS is applied.
In case no performance degradation is detected for switch $i$ it is checked whether there exists a MMOS policy for any destination hosts. If an MMOS policy is found, then Algorithm \[MMOStoFMS\] is applied to check the conditions for a change to the FMS strategy (step (4) in Fig. \[fig:DATA\]).
**Input**: $S_i = \left\{(h_{1}, R_{pkt_1}), (h_{2}, R_{pkt_2}), ..., (h_{m}, R_{pkt_m})\right\}$: set of destination hosts and respective packet rate of MMOS flows associated with these hosts in switch $i$, ($f_i$, $f_{cap}$): total number of current flow entries and maximum number of flow entries in switch $i$, $f_{extra}$: number of flow entries that might be added in switch $i$ **Output**: $H_{j} = \left\{ \right\}$: set of destination hosts **begin** $f_{extra}$ = *idle\_timeout*\*$R_{pkt_{s}}$ $H_{j}$.append\[$h_s$\] **continue** **return** $H_{j}$
Algorithm \[MMOStoFMS\] works as follows: for each switch (which has MMOS applied) the identified flows respectively destination hosts are sorted in ascending order w.r.t. the packet rate $R_{pkt}$ of the identified flows. For the *first* destination host in the list a flow matching scheme change to FMS is applied in the switch. For that, the built-in forwarding application is instructed to send *of\_mod* messages to remove all MMOS flow entries in the affected switches (step (4) in Fig. \[fig:DATA\]). The decision about changing the flow matching strategy happens once per observation period (which is set to 3 seconds in our implementation). By that strategy we increase the number of flow entries in a switch only moderately (per observation period) and avoid large variations in the number of flow entries.
![DATA deployment example (Enterprise SDN network emulated with MaxiNet)[]{data-label="fig:DATADeployment"}](DATADeployment.png){width="50.00000%"}
Performance Evaluation {#PerformanceEvaluation}
======================
[3]{} {width="\linewidth"}
{width="\linewidth"}
{width="\linewidth"}
Scenario Setup {#scenariosetup}
--------------
The MaxiNet framework [@MaxiNet] is applied to emulate an enterprise SDN network comprising several SDN switches (realized via OpenvSwitch), 96 enterprise hosts (24 hosts per office), 24 enterprise servers (within one server rack) and a connection to the Internet (see Fig. \[fig:DATADeployment\]). The emulated enterprise SDN network runs within one Linux PC and is controlled by a remote ONOS SDN controller running on another PC. The Internet hosts are emulated on a third Linux PC. Enterprise and Internet hosts are running within Linux containers using Ubuntu images, and the servers are running within Linux containers using Apache Web server images. For a convenient configuration we place both the ONOS SDN controller and the DATA App on the same Linux PC.
Initially, for training the SVM we generate traffic from enterprise and Internet users towards the enterprise servers and among enterprise users and apply the FMS scheme for these traffic flows. Contrary, for the traffic flows from the servers towards the enterprise and Internet users (response traffic) we apply MMOS. We monitor any errors or exceptions indicating that switches cannot handle new flow requests or that switches are disconnected from the SDN controller. We capture the tuple ($f$,$\Delta f$) at all SDN switches and set *sign* = -1 if the switch performance degrades (due to errors or exceptions); otherwise, we set *sign* = +1. These tuple samples are then used for training the SVM in the Analyzer. We observe that an SDN switch starts getting overloaded or cannot handle new flow rules when the current number of flows is around 3000 ($f_{cap}$). Setting the *idle\_timeout* value (after which the flow entries are removed) to 10 seconds, the safety threshold for the packet rate $R$ a switch can handle is 300 packets per second assuming that each packet belongs to a different flow (worst case assumption). Accordingly, for the traffic generation we divide R into three levels: low ($R$=100), medium ($R$=200) and high ($R$=300).
In our performance analysis we carry out several experiments with different flow matching strategies: MMOS only, FMS only, Threshold-based (considering the number of flow entries, $f_{thres}$, as threshold in the DATA App without applying the SVM engine) and adaptive (DATA App with SVM engine). The ONOS controller applies *Reactive Forwarding*. Furthermore, we implement an IDS application to detect abnormal traffic. The IDS application is based on a Self Organizing Map algorithm [@SOM] which classifies traffic by the 4-tuple *average number of packets per flow*, *average number of bytes per flow*, *average duration per flow* and *percentage of pair-flows*. For the performance analysis we generate traffic from enterprise and Internet users towards the enterprise servers and among enterprise users with three different load levels $R$ = (100, 200, 300). During the experiments we trace the total number of flow entries in the enterprise SDN network and extract the average number of *packet\_in* messages per second to the ONOS controller.
Result Analysis
---------------
### Total number of flow entries in the enterprise SDN network
Fig. \[fig:FlowNumber\] shows that the MMOS scheme naturally accounts for a very small amount of flow entries in all cases, and that the FMS, the DATA and Threshold-based strategies are not much different for low and medium traffic load. In case of high traffic load, the total number of flow entries is still beyond a critical level both for the DATA as well as the Threshold-based scheme (with $f_{thres}=0.5f_{cap}$). This is due to the fact that despite increasing traffic flows, these two mechanisms significantly reduce the number of new flow entries by changing to MMOS in order to prevent performance degradation of the SDN switches. Contrary the FMS and the Threshold-based scheme (with $f_{thres}=f_{cap}$) continue to generate more and more flow entries which quite soon has negative effects (errors and exceptions) on both the built-in forwarding application of the SDN controller and some SDN switches leading to a gradual performance degradation. Finally the SDN controller and some switches suspend their operation. A low total number of flow entries remains due to the few switches which are still operational.
-------------------------------------------- -- -- -- -- --
**&&& Threshold-& Threshold-&\
Schemes&MMOS&FMS&based&based&DATA\
&&&(0.5$f_{cap})$& ($f_{cap}$)&\
$R$=100&0.066&187.33&180.33&183.33&184.33\
$R$=200&0.066&369.33&340.33&368.33&363.33\
$R$=300&0.066&562.33&387.33&553.33&393.33\
**
-------------------------------------------- -- -- -- -- --
: Average *packet\_in* rate (pkts/s) to the SDN controller for different traffic flow rule aggregation schemes and traffic loads $R$[]{data-label="AveragePacketin"}
### Average *packet\_in* message rate to the ONOS controller
In Table \[AveragePacketin\] the average number of packets per second (*packet\_in* rate) arriving at the built-in forwarding application quering for new flow rules is shown. It can be seen that, contrary to the FMS and the Threshold-based scheme (with $f_{thres}=f_{cap}$), for all traffic load levels, the Threshold-based scheme (with $f_{thres}=0.5f_{cap}$) and the DATA scheme allow the ONOS controller to have an acceptable *packet\_in* rate and guarantee that the SDN switches are not getting degraded. Besides, they significantly reduce the workload of the built-in application due to the lower number of new flow queries.
### Errors and exceptions
An important criterion for the performance evaluation of the DATA approach is the time until an error or exception (observed by the ONOS) occurs because of an overloaded SDN switch in the network. Our results show that the FMS and the Threshold-based scheme (with $f_{thres}=f_{cap}$) cause *disconnected* channels errors and *FlowRuleManager* exceptions in the ONOS controller after 7 to 10 seconds since the high traffic load ($R$ = 300) is generated. For the other traffic load cases no errors and exceptions are observed.
--------------------------------------------- -- -- -- -- --
**&&& Threshold-& Threshold-&\
Schemes&MMOS&FMS&based&based&DATA\
&&&(0.5$f_{cap})$& ($f_{cap}$)&\
$R$=100 & 0.0 & 98.6 & 97.8 & 97.5 & 98.8\
$R$=200 & 0.0 & 98.7 & 82.45 & 97.9 & 97.5\
$R$=300 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 81.23 & 0.0 & 97.8\
**
--------------------------------------------- -- -- -- -- --
: Detection rate (%) of our IDS application for different traffic flow rule aggregation schemes and traffic loads $R$[]{data-label="IDSDetectionRate"}
### Detection rate of the IDS application
We assume that attackers from both the enterprise and the Internet launch a DDoS TCP SYN flooding attack to the enterprise Web servers. We measure the DDoS attack detection rate of our IDS application. The results in Table \[IDSDetectionRate\] show that there is no alert in case of MMOS for all traffic loads because all traffic towards the Web servers is grouped into one flow entry at all switches. Hence, the IDS application can not recognize the DDoS attack. In case of low and medium load, with FMS, Threshold-based (with $f_{thres}=f_{cap}$) and DATA a TCP SYN flooding attack is detected by the Self Organizing Map algorithm (with quite similar detection rate). The Threshold-based scheme (with $f_{thres}=0.5f_{cap}$) accounts for a less attack detection rate due to the fact that traffic flows towards the Web servers are handled with MMOS whenever the threshold is reached. In our DDoS attack scenario the attacker tries to send as fast as possible TCP segments with different source TCP ports to the victim (Web servers). This leads to the installation of new flows entries in the SDN switches. Therefore, it is easy for the IDS application to gather traffic flow information and detect the attack. In the high load case and for FMS as well as for the Threshold-based (with $f_{thres}=f_{cap}$) scheme, the operations of the SDN controller and some switches are suspended. That makes the IDS application unable to gather traffic information from the SDN controller and detect the attack. On the contrary, with DATA, all SDN network components stay operational and the IDS application can gather detailed information about the new traffic flows and thus detect the TCP SYN flooding attack. DATA yields a detection rate that is 16.5% higher compared to the Threshold-based scheme (with $f_{thres}=0.5f_{cap}$). Consequently, our novel DATA solution can efficiently provide useful information for security analysis avoiding the drawbacks of the other flow matching schemes.
Conclusion {#Conclusion}
==========
In this paper, we propose a destination-aware adaptive traffic flow rule aggregation mechanism (DATA) to adapt the number of flow table entries in SDN switches according to the level of detail of traffic flow information that other mechanisms (e.g. for traffic engineering, traffic monitoring, intrusion detection) require and at the same time prevent SDN switch performance degradation. Our performance evaluation proves that the DATA solution outperforms legacy flow rule matching schemes. In our future work, we are going to adapt DATA as integrated application for common SDN controllers.
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
This work has been performed in the framework of the Celtic-Plus project SENDATE Secure-DCI, funded by the German BMBF (ID 16KIS0481).
[^1]: Corresponding author
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider the isentropic compressible Euler equations in multiple space dimensions. In the past it has been shown via convex integration that this system allows for infinitely many solutions. However all non-uniqueness results available in the literature were achieved by reducing the equations to some kind of incompressible system and applying convex integration to the latter. This ansatz seems to be quite restrictive concerning the solutions that are obtained and also concerning the initial data for which the method works. A direct application of convex integration to the compressible Euler equations could overcome these restrictions. This paper can be viewed as the first step towards such a direct application as we present a new setup for convex integration and compute the corresponding $\Lambda$-convex hull.'
author:
- Simon Markfelder
title: |
On the $\Lambda$-Convex Hull for Convex Integration\
Applied to the Isentropic Compressible Euler System
---
Institute of Mathematics, Würzburg University
Emil-Fischer-Str. 40, 97074 Würzburg, Germany
Introduction
============
In this paper we consider the isentropic compressible Euler equations $$\label{eq:iseneuler}
\begin{split}
\partial_t {\varrho}+ {{\rm div}\,}({\varrho}{{{\bf u}}}) &=0 ,\\
\partial_t ({\varrho}{{{\bf u}}}) + {{\rm div}\,}({\varrho}{{{\bf u}}}\otimes{{{\bf u}}}) + {\nabla}p({\varrho}) &={{{\bf 0}}}.
\end{split}$$ The unknowns are the density ${\varrho}={\varrho}(t,{{{\bf x}}})\in{\mathbb{R}}^+$ and the velocity ${{{\bf u}}}={{{\bf u}}}(t,{{{\bf x}}})\in{\mathbb{R}}^n$, which are both functions of time $t\in[0,\infty)$ and position ${{{\bf x}}}\in{\mathbb{R}}^n$. In this paper the space dimension $n$ can be anything larger than 1. Furthermore we exclude vacuum in our consideration, i.e. we assume ${\varrho}>0$. The pressure $p=p({\varrho})$ is a convex function of ${\varrho}$.
It turns out that it is more convenient to write system in terms of momentum ${{{\bf m}}}$ instead of velocity ${{{\bf u}}}$, i.e. $$\label{eq:euler}
\begin{split}
\partial_t {\varrho}+ {{\rm div}\,}{{{\bf m}}}&=0 ,\\
\partial_t {{{\bf m}}}+ {{\rm div}\,}\left(\frac{{{{\bf m}}}\otimes{{{\bf m}}}}{{\varrho}} + p({\varrho}) {\mathbb{I}}\right) &={{{\bf 0}}}.
\end{split}$$ Note again that since we exclude vacuum, the ${\varrho}$ in the denominator cannot cause any problems.
The isentropic compressible Euler system is a basic example of a hyperbolic system of conservation laws, which describes the time evolution of a compressible fluid by conservation of mass and momentum. Typically one considers initial value problems to such systems, i.e. one imposes the initial configuration of the fluid $${\varrho}(0,\cdot) = {\varrho}_0, \qquad\qquad {{{\bf m}}}(0,\cdot) = {{{\bf m}}}_0$$ and the aim is to find out how the fluid behaves at later times. It is well-known that even for scalar conservation laws, strong solutions of the corresponding initial value problem do not exist globally in time, no matter how smooth or small the initial data are. To overcome this problem one typically considers weak solutions. Because of many simple examples of initial data for which there are inifinitely many weak solutions, one imposes admissibility criteria to single out the physically relevant weak solutions. For scalar conservation laws it turned out that the entropy criterion is a satisfying criterion, in the sense that weak solutions fulfilling the entropy condition exist, are unique and depend continuously on the initial data, see Kružkov [@Kruzkov70].
A similar well-posedness theory for the initial value problem for systms of conservation laws is far from being reached. On the one hand little is known in one space dimension, as Glimm [@Glimm65] showed existence of weak entropy solutions for sufficiently small initial data and Bressan et al. [@BreCraPic00] proved uniqueness of these solutions and continuous dependence on the initial data. In multiple space dimension even negative results are known. It was shown originally by De Lellis and Sz[é]{}kelyhidi [@DelSze10] that there exist bounded initial data for the Euler system for which there are infinitely many weak solutions, all of which fulfill the corresponding entropy criterion which is in the case of compressible Euler the energy inequality $$\label{eq:energy}
\partial_t \left({\frac{1}{2}}\frac{|{{{\bf m}}}|^2}{{\varrho}} + P({\varrho})\right) + {{\rm div}\,}\left[\left({\frac{1}{2}}\frac{|{{{\bf m}}}|^2}{{\varrho}} + P({\varrho}) + p({\varrho})\right)\frac{{{{\bf m}}}}{{\varrho}}\right] \leq 0.$$ Here $P$ is the *pressure potential*, a function of the density ${\varrho}$ which is related to $p$ via $p({\varrho}) = {\varrho}P'({\varrho}) - P({\varrho})$. This non-uniqueness result for compressible Euler is based on convex integration applied to the *incompressible* Euler system.
The convex integration technique was developed by Gromov [@Gromov86] in the context of partial differential relations. Later De Lellis and Sz[é]{}kelyhidi [@DelSze09; @DelSze10] applied this method to the incompressible Euler equations $$\label{eq:incompeuler}
\begin{split}
{{\rm div}\,}{{{\bf v}}}&=0, \\
\partial_t {{{\bf v}}}+ {{\rm div}\,}({{{\bf v}}}\otimes{{{\bf v}}}) + {\nabla}p &={{{\bf 0}}},
\end{split}$$ with unknown velocity ${{{\bf v}}}= {{{\bf v}}}(t,{{{\bf x}}})$ and pressure $p=p(t,{{{\bf x}}})$. More precisely they showed existence of bounded initial data to which there are infinitely many weak solutions of the initial value problem to where one can prescribe the kinetic energy ${\frac{1}{2}}|{{{\bf v}}}|^2$ for all times $t$ and almost all positions ${{{\bf x}}}$. If one sets the kinetic energy to be constant then one can achieve infinitely many weak solution to with constant pressure (here *constant* means constant in time and space).
It is easy to verify that $({\varrho},{{{\bf u}}})$ definied by ${\varrho}\equiv 1$ and ${{{\bf u}}}={{{\bf v}}}$, where ${{{\bf v}}}$ is a solution to the incompressible Euler equations with constant pressure, solves the compressible Euler system . This is how De Lellis and Sz[é]{}kelyhidi deduced the above mentioned non-uniqueness result for compressible Euler from their theory for incompressible Euler.
This first result on non-uniqueness for the compressible Euler equations has been further improved. Chiodaroli [@Chiodaroli14] as well as Feireisl [@Feireisl14] showed that for any continuously differentiable initial density ${\varrho}_0$ there exists a bounded initial momentum for which there are infinitely many weak entropy solutions to the initial value problem for the compressible Euler system . Chiodaroli’s ansatz is to look for solutions with constant-in-time density ${\varrho}(t,\cdot)={\varrho}_0$, $\forall t$. This leads to some kind of “incompressible system” for the momentum ${{{\bf m}}}$ which includes the prescribed initial density ${\varrho}_0$. A slight modification of De Lellis’ and Sz[é]{}kelyhidi’s convex integration then yields the result.
Feireisl’s approach is even more general. The idea is to apply Helmholtz decomposition to the momentum, i.e. ${{{\bf m}}}={{{\bf v}}}+ {\nabla}\Phi$ where ${{{\bf v}}}$ is div-free and $\Phi$ is a scalar field. He then prescribes ${\varrho}$ and $\Phi$ such that they are compatible with the conservation of mass $_1$, i.e. $\partial_t{\varrho}+ \Delta \Phi = 0$. Finally one ends up with some kind of “incompressible system” again, to which one applies a modified version of De Lellis’ and Sz[é]{}kelyhidi’s convex integration.
In addition to that the literature provides non-uniqueness results for the initial value problem to compressible Euler with a special type of initial data that are inspired by one-dimensional Riemann problems, see [@ChiDelKre15; @ChiKre14; @KliMar18_1]. These solutions are constructed with piecewise constant densities and again a slight modification of De Lellis’ and Sz[é]{}kelyhidi’s convex integration.
To the best of the author’s knowledge the reduction of the problem to some kind of “incompressible system” for which a slight modification of De Lellis’ and Sz[é]{}kelyhidi’s convex integration can be applied is common to all non-uniqueness results for compressible Euler available in the literature.
This is the reason why the solutions constructed by convex integration so far only contain oscillations in the momentum and not in the density. As shown by Feireisl et al. [@FeiKliMar18] the set of initial data, for which one can construct convex integration solutions by now, is rather small. This seems to be surprising since it contrasts with a result by Sz[é]{}kelyhidi and Wiedemann [@SzeWie12] who showed that the opposite is true for incompressible Euler: The set of initial data for which there exist infinitely many solutions is $L^2$-dense in the set of all initial data. On the other hand a new convex integration approach for compressible Euler could work for a larger set of initial data.
The author’s motivation is to apply convex integration directly to the isentropic compressible Euler system . This paper can be viewed as the first step in this direction since we will fix a suitable setup for which we will compute the $\Lambda$-convex hull that is needed in order to implement convex integration. In particular we do not produce any solutions in this paper. Hence we will forget about initial data. Note furthermore that convex integration itself does not care about admissibility criteria. Our setup will not respect the energy inequality . We will come back to this issue in Section \[subsec:adjusting\].
The paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec:prel\] we fix a convex-integration-setup for the isentropic compressible Euler equations . In particular we will find a set $K$ and consider the wave cone $\Lambda$ which corresponds to our setup. In Section \[sec:general\] we present the definition of “$\Lambda$-convex” and discuss some general facts about $\Lambda$-convex hulls. The main part of this paper is Section \[sec:main\] where the $\Lambda$-convex hull is computed. We finish with some remarks in Section \[sec:conseq\].
Preliminaries {#sec:prel}
=============
Adjusting the Problem {#subsec:adjusting}
---------------------
Mimicking the procedure in [@DelSze09] and [@DelSze10], where the kinetic energy $|{{{\bf v}}}|^2={{\rm tr}\,}({{{\bf v}}}\otimes{{{\bf v}}})$ was prescribed for the incompressible Euler system, we want to prescribe $${{\rm tr}\,}\left(\frac{{{{\bf m}}}\otimes{{{\bf m}}}}{{\varrho}} + p({\varrho}) {\mathbb{I}}\right)=\frac{|{{{\bf m}}}|^2}{{\varrho}} + np({\varrho}) \mathop{=}\limits^! {\overline{e}},$$where ${\overline{e}}={\overline{e}}(t,{{{\bf x}}})$. Since we want to work with traceless matrices, we reformulate $_2$ as $$\partial_t {{{\bf m}}}+ {{\rm div}\,}\left(\frac{{{{\bf m}}}\otimes{{{\bf m}}}}{{\varrho}} + p({\varrho}) {\mathbb{I}}- \frac{{\overline{e}}}{n} {\mathbb{I}}\right) + {\nabla}{\overline{e}} ={{{\bf 0}}}.$$
For simplicity we look for solutions with constant ${\overline{e}}=:c$ in this paper. Therefore we can rewrite as $$\label{eq:eulertrace}
\begin{split}
\partial_t {\varrho}+ {{\rm div}\,}{{{\bf m}}}&=0 ,\\
\partial_t {{{\bf m}}}+ {{\rm div}\,}\left(\frac{{{{\bf m}}}\otimes{{{\bf m}}}}{{\varrho}} + p({\varrho}) {\mathbb{I}}- \frac{c}{n}{\mathbb{I}}\right) &=0.
\end{split}$$
Note that if a monoatomic gas is considered, i.e. $p({\varrho})={\varrho}^{\frac{2}{n}+1}$, then $P({\varrho})=\frac{n}{2} p({\varrho})$. Hence in this case we have $$\frac{{\overline{e}}}{2} = {\frac{1}{2}}\frac{|{{{\bf m}}}|^2}{{\varrho}} + P({\varrho}).$$ In other words we prescribe the energy. This means that in the case of a monoatomic gas, an energy criterion is contained in our setup. To be precise this criterion is not the energy inequality but a global version which states that the total energy $$\int\left( {\frac{1}{2}}\frac{|{{{\bf m}}}|^2}{{\varrho}} + P({\varrho})\right) {\,{\rm d}{{\bf x}}}$$must not increase in time, which is true if ${\overline{e}}=c=\text{const}$.
Tartar’s Framework {#subsec:tartar}
------------------
First we replace $\frac{{{{\bf m}}}\otimes{{{\bf m}}}}{{\varrho}} + p({\varrho}) {\mathbb{I}}- \frac{c}{n}{\mathbb{I}}$ in by a new unknown ${\mathbb{U}}={\mathbb{U}}(t,{{{\bf x}}})$, which takes values in ${\mathcal{S}^{n\times n}_0}:=\{A\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n\times n}\,|\,A\text{ symmetric and }{{\rm tr}\,}A = 0\}$. Then we obtain a linear system with the following property which simply follows from the arguments in Section \[subsec:adjusting\].
\[prop:solution\] If $({\varrho},{{{\bf m}}},{\mathbb{U}})$ solves $$\label{eq:lineuler}
\begin{split}
\partial_t {\varrho}+ {{\rm div}\,}{{{\bf m}}}&=0 ,\\
\partial_t {{{\bf m}}}+ {{\rm div}\,}{\mathbb{U}}&=0,
\end{split}$$ and takes values in $$\label{eq:K}
K:=\left\{({\varrho},{{{\bf m}}},{\mathbb{U}})\in{\mathbb{R}}^+\times{\mathbb{R}}^n\times{\mathcal{S}^{n\times n}_0}\,\Big|\,{\mathbb{U}}=\frac{{{{\bf m}}}\otimes{{{\bf m}}}}{{\varrho}} + \left(p({\varrho}) - \frac{c}{n}\right){\mathbb{I}}\right\},$$ then $({\varrho},{{{\bf m}}})$ solves and hence together with $$\frac{|{{{\bf m}}}|^2}{{\varrho}} + np({\varrho}) = c.$$
Wave Cone {#subsec:wavecone}
---------
The idea of convex integration is now to relax the set $K$ to a larger set $\mathcal{U}$. Due to Proposition \[prop:solution\] we call a triple $({\varrho},{{{\bf m}}},{\mathbb{U}})$ a *solution* if it solves and takes values in $K$. A triple $({\varrho},{{{\bf m}}},{\mathbb{U}})$ solving and taking values in $\mathcal{U}$ is called a *subsolution*. Next, one wants to construct a sequence of subsolutions by successively adding oscillations. In [@DelSze09; @DelSze10] localized planar waves have been used for such oscillations. The relaxed set $\mathcal{U}$ has to be chosen such that it is compatible with the oscillations that are added in each step, which we choose to be planar waves as well. In order to specify $\mathcal{U}$ we have to study planar waves and the wave cone.
A plane wave solution to is a solution $({\varrho},{{{\bf m}}},{\mathbb{U}})$ of the form $$\label{eq:planewave}
({\varrho},{{{\bf m}}},{\mathbb{U}})(t,{{{\bf x}}})= ({\overline{{\varrho}}},{\overline{{{{\bf m}}}}},{\overline{{\mathbb{U}}}})\,h\big((t,{{{\bf x}}})\cdot \xi\big)$$ with a constant $({\overline{{\varrho}}},{\overline{{{{\bf m}}}}},{\overline{{\mathbb{U}}}})\in {\mathbb{R}}\times{\mathbb{R}}^n\times{\mathcal{S}^{n\times n}_0}$, a function $h:{\mathbb{R}}\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}$ and a direction in space-time $\xi\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}\smallsetminus\{0\}$. Here $\cdot$ denotes the scalar product in space-time ${\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}$.
\[defn:wavecone\] Define the *wave cone* as $$\begin{split}
\Lambda:=\bigg\{({\overline{{\varrho}}},{\overline{{{{\bf m}}}}},{\overline{{\mathbb{U}}}})&\in{\mathbb{R}}\times{\mathbb{R}}^n\times{\mathcal{S}^{n\times n}_0}\,\Big|\,\\
&\exists\xi\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}\smallsetminus\{0\}\text{ such that }\ {\overline{{\varrho}}}\,\xi_t + {\overline{{{{\bf m}}}}} \cdot \xi_{{{\bf x}}}=0\ \text{ and }\ {\overline{{{{\bf m}}}}}\,\xi_t + {\overline{{\mathbb{U}}}} \,\xi_{{{\bf x}}}={{{\bf 0}}}\ \bigg\},
\end{split}$$ where we denote the components of $\xi\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}$ as $\xi=(\xi_t,\xi_1,\ldots,\xi_n)^{\top}$ and $\xi_{{{\bf x}}}:= (\xi_1,\ldots,\xi_n)^{\top}$.
The following proposition shows the meaning of Definition \[defn:wavecone\].
\[prop:planarwave\] Let $({\overline{{\varrho}}},{\overline{{{{\bf m}}}}},{\overline{{\mathbb{U}}}})\in \Lambda$ and $h\in C^1({\mathbb{R}},{\mathbb{R}})$ arbitrary. Then $({\varrho},{{{\bf m}}},{\mathbb{U}})$ defined as in with the corresponding $\xi$, that exists according to the Definition \[defn:wavecone\], is a plane wave solution to .
The proof is a simple calculation. Indeed we have $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_t {\varrho}+ {{\rm div}\,}{{{\bf m}}}&= {\overline{{\varrho}}} \, \partial_t \Big(h\big((t,{{{\bf x}}})\cdot \xi\big)\Big) + {\overline{{{{\bf m}}}}} \cdot {\nabla}\Big(h\big((t,{{{\bf x}}})\cdot \xi\big)\Big) \\
&=h'\big((t,{{{\bf x}}})\cdot \xi\big) \Big({\overline{{\varrho}}}\,\xi_t + {\overline{{{{\bf m}}}}} \cdot \xi_{{{\bf x}}}\Big) \ =\ 0
\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_t {{{\bf m}}}+ {{\rm div}\,}{\mathbb{U}}&= {\overline{{{{\bf m}}}}} \, \partial_t \Big(h\big((t,{{{\bf x}}})\cdot \xi\big)\Big) + {\overline{{\mathbb{U}}}} \cdot {\nabla}\Big(h\big((t,{{{\bf x}}})\cdot \xi\big)\Big) \\
&=h'\big((t,{{{\bf x}}})\cdot \xi\big) \Big({\overline{{{{\bf m}}}}}\,\xi_t + {\overline{{\mathbb{U}}}} \, \xi_{{{\bf x}}}\Big) \ =\ {{{\bf 0}}},
\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the fact that ${\overline{{\mathbb{U}}}}$ is symmetric.
Note that $({\overline{{\varrho}}},{\overline{{{{\bf m}}}}},{\overline{{\mathbb{U}}}})\in\Lambda$ if and only if the kernel of the matrix $$\left(\begin{array}{cc} {\overline{{\varrho}}} & {\overline{{{{\bf m}}}}}^{\top}\\ {\overline{{{{\bf m}}}}} & {\overline{{\mathbb{U}}}} \end{array}\right)$$ contains $\xi\neq 0$. This holds if and only if its determinant is zero. Hence we can write $$\label{eq:wavecone}
\Lambda = \left\{({\overline{{\varrho}}},{\overline{{{{\bf m}}}}},{\overline{{\mathbb{U}}}})\in{\mathbb{R}}\times{\mathbb{R}}^n\times{\mathcal{S}^{n\times n}_0}\,\Big|\,\det\left(\begin{array}{cc}
{\overline{{\varrho}}} & {\overline{{{{\bf m}}}}}^{\top}\\
{\overline{{{{\bf m}}}}} & {\overline{{\mathbb{U}}}}
\end{array}\right)=0\right\}.$$
As pointed out in the beginning of section \[subsec:wavecone\], we have to choose $\mathcal{U}$ in such a way that it is compatible with planar waves. This means that $\mathcal{U}$ must be equal to the $\Lambda$-convex hull of $K$, which can be seen from Lemma \[lemma:Ki\] below. For the definition of the $\Lambda$-convex hull we refer to Section \[sec:general\].
On Convex and $\Lambda$-Convex Hulls {#sec:general}
====================================
We will discuss some general facts about $\Lambda$-convex hulls in this section. These facts will help us the compute the $\Lambda$-convex hull of $K$ later.
The statements presented here hold for every cone $\Lambda\subseteq{\mathbb{R}}^N$ and every subset $K\subseteq{\mathbb{R}}^N$ with $N>1$.
We first recall some definitions.
\[defn:cone\] A set $\Lambda\subseteq{\mathbb{R}}^N$ is called *cone* if $\Lambda\neq\varnothing$ and $\forall p\in \Lambda, \forall \alpha\in {\mathbb{R}}: \alpha p \in \Lambda$.
Note that every cone contains $0$. This will be used in the proof of Lemma \[lemma:Ki\].
\[defn:convex\] A set $S\subseteq{\mathbb{R}}^N$ is called
- *convex* if $\forall p,q \in S : [p,q]\subseteq S$,
- *$\Lambda$-convex* if $\forall p,q \in S$ with $p-q\in\Lambda : [p,q]\subseteq S$.
<!-- -->
- The convex hull $K^{{\rm co}}$ is the smallest convex set which contains $K$.
- The $\Lambda$-convex hull $K^\Lambda$ is the smallest $\Lambda$-convex set which contains $K$.
Let us continue with some basic facts on the notions defined above.
\[prop:generalfacts\]
- Every convex set is $\Lambda$-convex.
- $K^\Lambda\subseteq K^{{\rm co}}$.
- If $p-q\in \Lambda$ for all $p,q\in K$, then $K^\Lambda = K^{{\rm co}}$.
Part (a) is an immediate consequence of Definition \[defn:convex\] and (b) simply follows from (a). If $p-q\in\Lambda$ for all $p,q \in K$ then the notions *convex* and $\Lambda$*-convex* are equivalent which shows (c).
Note that the wave cone $\Lambda$ for *incompressible* Euler is so large that part (c) of Proposition \[prop:generalfacts\] holds, which is hidden in the proof of [@DelSze09 Lemma 4.3] and [@DelSze10 Proposition 4]. Then one has immediately $K^\Lambda = K^{{\rm co}}$ which is an advantage since it is easier to compute convex hulls instead of $\Lambda$-convex hulls. The reason for this is in our context that for convex hulls one can apply Minkowski’s theorem (see Theorem \[thm:minkowski\] in the appendix) which was also used by De Lellis and Sz[é]{}kelyhidi in the proof of [@DelSze10 Lemma 3].
In our setup for the *compressible* Euler system one can show that there exist $p,q\in K$ with $p-q\notin K$. Hence part (c) of Proposition \[prop:generalfacts\] is not applicable. However we will show that we still have $K^\Lambda = K^{{\rm co}}$.
The following lemma will be used later. Furthermore it enlightens why one has to use $K^\Lambda$ for the relaxed set $\mathcal{U}$.
\[lemma:Ki\] Define for $i\in{\mathbb{N}}_0$ $$K^i:=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
K & \text{ if }i=0 \\
\{s\in{\mathbb{R}}^N\,|\,\exists p,q\in K^{i-1}\text{ with }p-q\in\Lambda\text{ such that }s\in[p,q]\} & \text{ if }i>0.
\end{array}\right.$$ Then $K^\Lambda = \bigcup\limits_{i\in{\mathbb{N}}_0} K^i$.
Crippa et al. [@CGSW17] use the notation of an *$H_n$-condition* which is similar to the $K^i$ definied above.
Note first, that $K^i\subseteq K^{i+1}$ for all $i\in{\mathbb{N}}_0$. Indeed if $y\in K^i$ then set $p=q:=y$. Then $p,q\in K^i$ with $p-q=0\in \Lambda$ and $y\in[p,q]$, hence $y\in K^{i+1}$.
Now we show $K^\Lambda\subseteq \bigcup\limits_{i\in{\mathbb{N}}_0} K^i$. By the observation above we have $K\subseteq \bigcup\limits_{i\in{\mathbb{N}}_0} K^i$. To show that $\bigcup\limits_{i\in{\mathbb{N}}_0} K^i$ is $\Lambda$-convex, let $s_1,s_2\in \bigcup\limits_{i\in{\mathbb{N}}_0} K^i$ with $s_1-s_2\in \Lambda$. Again with the observation above we find $j\in{\mathbb{N}}_0$ with $s_1,s_2\in K^j$. Then $[s_1,s_2]\subseteq K^{j+1}$ and hence $[s_1,s_2]\subseteq \bigcup\limits_{i\in{\mathbb{N}}_0} K^i$.
It remains to prove that $\bigcup\limits_{i\in{\mathbb{N}}_0} K^i\subseteq K^\Lambda$. We show by induction over $i\in{\mathbb{N}}_0$ that $K^i\subseteq K^\Lambda$ for all $i\in{\mathbb{N}}_0$. Let first $i=0$, then trivially $K^i=K\subseteq K^\Lambda$. For the induction step we assume that $K^i\subseteq K^\Lambda$ for some $i\in{\mathbb{N}}_0$. Let $s\in K^{i+1}$. Then there exist $p,q\in K^i$ with $p-q\in \Lambda$ and $s\in [p,q]$. The induction assumption yields $p,q \in K^\Lambda$. Since $K^\Lambda$ is $\Lambda$-convex, we deduce $[p,q]\subseteq K^\Lambda$ which gives $s\in K^\Lambda$.
The following theorem is a simple observation. However it will be an important ingredient of the proof of our main result Theorem \[thm:main\].
\[thm:Kstar\] Define $K^\ast:=\bigcup\limits_{{\overline{x_1}}\in {\mathbb{R}}} \left(K\cap \{x_1 = {\overline{x_1}}\}\right)^\Lambda.$ Then $K^\ast \subseteq K^\Lambda$.
We prove by induction over $i\in{\mathbb{N}}_0$ that $\left(K\cap \{x_1 = {\overline{x_1}}\}\right)^i\subseteq K^i$. Obviously this is true for $i=0$. Let for the induction step $x\in\left(K\cap \{x_1 = {\overline{x_1}}\}\right)^{i+1}$. Then by definition there exist $p,q\in (K\cap \{x_1 = {\overline{x_1}}\})^i$ with $p-q\in\Lambda$ and $x\in[p,q]$. By induction assumption these $p,q$ lie also in $K^i$, which shows $x\in K^{i+1}$.
Let now $y\in K^\ast$. Then $y\in\left(K\cap \{x_1 = y_1\}\right)^\Lambda$. Hence by Lemma \[lemma:Ki\] there exists a $j\in{\mathbb{N}}_0$ such that $y\in\left(K\cap \{x_1 = y_1\}\right)^j$. What we showed above yields $y\in K^j$ and hence $y\in K^\Lambda$.
Computation of the $\Lambda$-Convex Hull of $K$ {#sec:main}
===============================================
Now we turn our attention back to the Euler equations, i.e. we consider $K$ as in and $\Lambda$ as in . For a symmetric matrix $A$ we define $\lambda_{\max}(A)$ as the largest eigenvalue of $A$.
As in Theorem \[thm:Kstar\] we define $$\label{eq:Kstar}
K^\ast=\bigcup\limits_{{\overline{{\varrho}}}\in{\mathbb{R}}^+} (K\cap\{{\varrho}={\overline{{\varrho}}}\})^\Lambda.$$
We will finally prove that $K^\ast = K^\Lambda = K^{{\rm co}}$, see Theorem \[thm:main\] below. To this end we need the following two lemmas, the first of which (Lemma \[lemma:LmaxConvex\]) is a “compressible variant” of [@DelSze10 Lemma 3 (i)]. The second lemma (Lemma \[lemma:Kast\]) can be deduced form [@DelSze10 Lemma 3 (iv)] since here the density ${\overline{{\varrho}}}$ is constant. For completeness we redo this proof.
\[lemma:LmaxConvex\] The mapping $$({\varrho},{{{\bf m}}},{\mathbb{U}})\mapsto\lambda_{\max}\left(\frac{{{{\bf m}}}\otimes{{{\bf m}}}}{{\varrho}} + p({\varrho}){\mathbb{I}}- {\mathbb{U}}\right)$$ is convex.
We mimick the proof of [@DelSze10 Lemma 3]. The first steps are exactly the same as in [@DelSze10]. For completeness we redo them. First we show that $$\lambda_{\max}\left(\frac{{{{\bf m}}}\otimes{{{\bf m}}}}{{\varrho}} + p({\varrho}){\mathbb{I}}- {\mathbb{U}}\right)=\max\limits_{{{{\bf y}}}\in{\mathbb{R}}^n,|{{{\bf y}}}|=1} {{{\bf y}}}\cdot\left(\left(\frac{{{{\bf m}}}\otimes {{{\bf m}}}}{{\varrho}} + p({\varrho}){\mathbb{I}}- {\mathbb{U}}\right){{{\bf y}}}\right).$$ Since $\frac{{{{\bf m}}}\otimes {{{\bf m}}}}{{\varrho}} + p({\varrho}){\mathbb{I}}- {\mathbb{U}}$ is symmetric, it is diagonalizable with orthogonal eigenvectors. Let $\lambda_1\leq\ldots\leq\lambda_n$ the eigenvalues and ${{\bf b}}_1,\ldots,{{\bf b}}_n\in{\mathbb{R}}^n$ the corresponding normed eigenvectors. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda_{\max}\left(\frac{{{{\bf m}}}\otimes{{{\bf m}}}}{{\varrho}} + p({\varrho}){\mathbb{I}}- {\mathbb{U}}\right)&=\lambda_n =\lambda_n\left({{\bf b}}_n\cdot{{\bf b}}_n\right)={{\bf b}}_n\cdot\left(\lambda_n{{\bf b}}_n\right) \\
&={{{\bf b}}}_n\cdot\left(\left(\frac{{{{\bf m}}}\otimes {{{\bf m}}}}{{\varrho}} + p({\varrho}){\mathbb{I}}- {\mathbb{U}}\right){{\bf b}}_n\right) \\
&\leq\max\limits_{{{{\bf y}}}\in{\mathbb{R}}^n,|{{{\bf y}}}|=1} {{{\bf y}}}\cdot\left(\left(\frac{{{{\bf m}}}\otimes {{{\bf m}}}}{{\varrho}} + p({\varrho}){\mathbb{I}}- {\mathbb{U}}\right){{{\bf y}}}\right).
\end{aligned}$$
Let ${\overline{{{{\bf y}}}}}\in{\mathbb{R}}^n$, $|{\overline{{{{\bf y}}}}}|=1$ such that $$\max\limits_{{{{\bf y}}}\in{\mathbb{R}}^n,|{{{\bf y}}}|=1} {{{\bf y}}}\cdot\left(\left(\frac{{{{\bf m}}}\otimes {{{\bf m}}}}{{\varrho}} + p({\varrho}){\mathbb{I}}- {\mathbb{U}}\right){{{\bf y}}}\right)={\overline{{{{\bf y}}}}}\cdot\left(\left(\frac{{{{\bf m}}}\otimes {{{\bf m}}}}{{\varrho}} + p({\varrho}){\mathbb{I}}- {\mathbb{U}}\right){\overline{{{{\bf y}}}}}\right).$$ Because ${{{\bf b}}}_1,...,{{{\bf b}}}_n$ form a basis of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$, there exist unique coefficients $\alpha_1,...,\alpha_n\in{\mathbb{R}}$ such that ${\overline{{{{\bf y}}}}}=\sum\limits_{i=1}^n \alpha_i {{{\bf b}}}_i$, and from $|{\overline{{{{\bf y}}}}}|=1$ and the fact that ${{{\bf b}}}_1,...,{{{\bf b}}}_n$ form an orthonormal basis we deduce $\sum\limits_{i=1}^n\alpha_i^2= 1$. So we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\max\limits_{{{{\bf y}}}\in{\mathbb{R}}^n,|{{{\bf y}}}|=1} {{{\bf y}}}\cdot\left(\left(\frac{{{{\bf m}}}\otimes {{{\bf m}}}}{{\varrho}} + p({\varrho}){\mathbb{I}}- {\mathbb{U}}\right){{{\bf y}}}\right) &={\overline{{{{\bf y}}}}}\cdot\left(\left(\frac{{{{\bf m}}}\otimes {{{\bf m}}}}{r} + p({\varrho}){\mathbb{I}}- {\mathbb{U}}\right){\overline{{{{\bf y}}}}}\right) \\
&= \sum_{i,j=1}^n \alpha_i\alpha_j\,{{{\bf b}}}_i\cdot\left(\left(\frac{{{{\bf m}}}\otimes {{{\bf m}}}}{{\varrho}} + p({\varrho}){\mathbb{I}}- {\mathbb{U}}\right){{\bf b}}_j\right)\\
&= \sum_{i=1}^n \alpha_i^2\lambda_i \leq \lambda_n.
\end{aligned}$$
An easy calculation yields $$\begin{aligned}
{{{\bf y}}}\cdot\left(\left(\frac{{{{\bf m}}}\otimes {{{\bf m}}}}{{\varrho}} + p({\varrho}){\mathbb{I}}- {\mathbb{U}}\right){{{\bf y}}}\right) &=\frac{1}{{\varrho}}{{{\bf y}}}\cdot\left({{{\bf m}}}{{{\bf m}}}^{\top}{{{\bf y}}}\right) + p({\varrho}) - {{{\bf y}}}\cdot\left({\mathbb{U}}{{{\bf y}}}\right) \\
&= \frac{1}{{\varrho}}\left({{{\bf y}}}\cdot{{{\bf m}}}\right)^2 +p({\varrho}) - {{{\bf y}}}\cdot\left({\mathbb{U}}{{{\bf y}}}\right)
\end{aligned}$$ for all ${{{\bf y}}}\in {\mathbb{R}}^n$ with $|{{{\bf y}}}|=1$.
Hence we have to show that $$({\varrho},{{{\bf m}}},{\mathbb{U}})\mapsto \max\limits_{{{{\bf y}}}\in{\mathbb{R}}^n,|{{{\bf y}}}|=1} \left(\frac{1}{{\varrho}}\left({{{\bf y}}}\cdot{{{\bf m}}}\right)^2 +p({\varrho}) - {{{\bf y}}}\cdot\left({\mathbb{U}}{{{\bf y}}}\right)\right)$$ is convex. From here on the proof slightly differs from the one of [@DelSze10 Lemma 3].
Let $({\varrho}_1,{{{\bf m}}}_1,{\mathbb{U}}_1),({\varrho}_2,{{{\bf m}}}_2,{\mathbb{U}}_2)\in {\mathbb{R}}^+\times {\mathbb{R}}^n\times {\mathcal{S}^{n\times n}_0}$ and $\tau\in [0,1]$. Furthermore let ${\overline{{{{\bf y}}}}}\in{\mathbb{R}}^n$, $|{\overline{{{{\bf y}}}}}|=1$ such that $$\label{eq:p31}
\begin{split}
&\max\limits_{{{{\bf y}}}\in{\mathbb{R}}^n,|{{{\bf y}}}|=1} \left(\frac{1}{\tau{\varrho}_1+(1-\tau){\varrho}_2}\left({{{\bf y}}}\cdot\left(\tau{{{\bf m}}}_1+(1-\tau){{{\bf m}}}_2\right)\right)^2 +p(\tau{\varrho}_1+(1-\tau){\varrho}_2) - {{{\bf y}}}\cdot\left(\left(\tau{\mathbb{U}}_1+(1-\tau){\mathbb{U}}_2\right){{{\bf y}}}\right)\right) \\
&= \frac{1}{\tau{\varrho}_1+(1-\tau){\varrho}_2}\left({\overline{{{{\bf y}}}}}\cdot\left(\tau{{{\bf m}}}_1+(1-\tau){{{\bf m}}}_2\right)\right)^2 +p(\tau{\varrho}_1+(1-\tau){\varrho}_2) - {\overline{{{{\bf y}}}}}\cdot\left(\left(\tau{\mathbb{U}}_1+(1-\tau){\mathbb{U}}_2\right){\overline{{{{\bf y}}}}}\right).
\end{split}$$ We consider each summand seperately in and obtain $$p(\tau{\varrho}_1+(1-\tau){\varrho}_2) \leq \tau p({\varrho}_1) + (1-\tau) p({\varrho}_2)$$ since ${\varrho}\mapsto p({\varrho})$ is convex. Furthermore $$- {\overline{{{{\bf y}}}}}\cdot\left(\left(\tau{\mathbb{U}}_1+(1-\tau){\mathbb{U}}_2\right){\overline{{{{\bf y}}}}}\right) = - \tau{\overline{{{{\bf y}}}}}\cdot\left({\mathbb{U}}_1{\overline{{{{\bf y}}}}}\right) - (1-\tau){\overline{{{{\bf y}}}}}\cdot\left({\mathbb{U}}_2{\overline{{{{\bf y}}}}}\right).$$ What remains is to look at the first summand in . To handle this summand, we show that for all $a,b>0$, $c,d\in{\mathbb{R}}$, $\tau\in[0,1]$ it holds that $$\label{eq:p32}
\frac{1}{\tau a + (1-\tau) b} \big(\tau c + (1-\tau) d\big)^2 \leq \tau \frac{c^2}{a} + (1-\tau) \frac{d^2}{b}.$$
Obviously we have $$\begin{aligned}
0&\leq \tau(1-\tau)\big(ad-bc\big)^2 \\
&=\tau^2 ab c^2 + (1-\tau)^2 ab d^2 + \tau(1-\tau)(a^2d^2 + b^2c^2) -\tau^2 ab c^2 - (1-\tau)^2 ab d^2 - 2 \tau (1-\tau) abcd,
\end{aligned}$$ what is equivalent to $$\tau^2 ab c^2 + (1-\tau)^2 ab d^2 + 2 \tau (1-\tau) abcd\leq \tau^2 ab c^2 + (1-\tau)^2 ab d^2 + \tau(1-\tau)(a^2d^2 + b^2c^2).$$ This yields $$ab \big(\tau c + (1-\tau) d\big)^2\leq \big(\tau a + (1-\tau)b\big)\big(\tau c^2 b + (1-\tau) d^2 a\big).$$ Deviding by the positive expression $ab(\tau a + (1-\tau)b)$ leads to .
Let us set $a:={\varrho}_1$, $b:={\varrho}_2$, $c:={\overline{{{{\bf y}}}}}\cdot{{{\bf m}}}_1$, $d:={\overline{{{{\bf y}}}}}\cdot{{{\bf m}}}_2$ in to estimate the first summand in . We obtain $$\frac{1}{\tau {\varrho}_1 + (1-\tau) {\varrho}_2} \big(\tau {\overline{{{{\bf y}}}}}\cdot{{{\bf m}}}_1 + (1-\tau) {\overline{{{{\bf y}}}}}\cdot{{{\bf m}}}_2\big)^2 \leq \tau \frac{\left({\overline{{{{\bf y}}}}}\cdot{{{\bf m}}}_1\right)^2}{{\varrho}_1} + (1-\tau) \frac{\left({\overline{{{{\bf y}}}}}\cdot{{{\bf m}}}_2\right)^2}{{\varrho}_2}.$$
All in all we have $$\begin{split}
&\max\limits_{{{{\bf y}}}\in{\mathbb{R}}^n,|{{{\bf y}}}|=1} \left(\frac{1}{\tau{\varrho}_1+(1-\tau){\varrho}_2}\left({{{\bf y}}}\cdot\left(\tau{{{\bf m}}}_1+(1-\tau){{{\bf m}}}_2\right)\right)^2 +p(\tau{\varrho}_1+(1-\tau){\varrho}_2) - {{{\bf y}}}\cdot\left(\left(\tau{\mathbb{U}}_1+(1-\tau){\mathbb{U}}_2\right){{{\bf y}}}\right)\right) \\
&\leq \tau\left(\frac{1}{{\varrho}_1}\left({\overline{{{{\bf y}}}}}\cdot{{{\bf m}}}_1\right)^2 +p({\varrho}_1) - {\overline{{{{\bf y}}}}}\cdot\left({\mathbb{U}}_1{\overline{{{{\bf y}}}}}\right)\right) + (1-\tau) \left(\frac{1}{{\varrho}_2}\left({\overline{{{{\bf y}}}}}\cdot{{{\bf m}}}_2\right)^2 +p({\varrho}_2) - {\overline{{{{\bf y}}}}}\cdot\left({\mathbb{U}}_2{\overline{{{{\bf y}}}}}\right)\right) \\
&\leq \tau\max\limits_{{{{\bf y}}}\in{\mathbb{R}}^n,|{{{\bf y}}}|=1}\left(\frac{1}{{\varrho}_1}\left({{{\bf y}}}\cdot{{{\bf m}}}_1\right)^2 +p({\varrho}_1) - {{{\bf y}}}\cdot\left({\mathbb{U}}_1{{{\bf y}}}\right)\right) + (1-\tau) \max\limits_{{{{\bf y}}}\in{\mathbb{R}}^n,|{{{\bf y}}}|=1}\left(\frac{1}{{\varrho}_2}\left({{{\bf y}}}\cdot{{{\bf m}}}_2\right)^2 +p({\varrho}_2) - {{{\bf y}}}\cdot\left({\mathbb{U}}_2{{{\bf y}}}\right)\right).
\end{split}$$
\[lemma:Kast\] It holds that $$K^\ast = \left\{({\varrho},{{{\bf m}}},{\mathbb{U}})\in{\mathbb{R}}^+\times{\mathbb{R}}^n\times{\mathcal{S}^{n\times n}_0}\,\Big|\,\lambda_{\max}\left(\frac{{{{\bf m}}}\otimes{{{\bf m}}}}{{\varrho}} + p({\varrho}){\mathbb{I}}- {\mathbb{U}}\right)\leq \frac{c}{n}\right\},$$ where $K^\ast$ was defined in .
Let us fix ${\overline{{\varrho}}}\in {\mathbb{R}}^+$. We want to show that $$\label{eq:p33}
(K\cap\{{\varrho}={\overline{{\varrho}}}\})^\Lambda = \left\{({\varrho},{{{\bf m}}},{\mathbb{U}})\in{\mathbb{R}}^+\times{\mathbb{R}}^n\times{\mathcal{S}^{n\times n}_0}\,\Big|\,\lambda_{\max}\left(\frac{{{{\bf m}}}\otimes{{{\bf m}}}}{{\overline{{\varrho}}}} + p({\overline{{\varrho}}}){\mathbb{I}}- {\mathbb{U}}\right)\leq \frac{c}{n}\text{ and }{\varrho}={\overline{{\varrho}}}\right\},$$ which proves the lemma.
The proof of is the same as the proof of [@DelSze10 Lemma 3]. For completeness we recall that proof and furthermore we present more details.
Let $({\varrho}_1,{{{\bf m}}}_1,{\mathbb{U}}_1),({\varrho}_2,{{{\bf m}}}_2,{\mathbb{U}}_2)\in K\cap\{{\varrho}={\overline{{\varrho}}}\}$. Then we claim that $({\varrho}_1,{{{\bf m}}}_1,{\mathbb{U}}_1)-({\varrho}_2,{{{\bf m}}}_2,{\mathbb{U}}_2)\in \Lambda$. In order to show this we must look at $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
{\varrho}_1-{\varrho}_2 & {{{\bf m}}}_1^{\top}- {{{\bf m}}}_2^{\top}\\
{{{\bf m}}}_1 - {{{\bf m}}}_2 & {\mathbb{U}}_1-{\mathbb{U}}_2
\end{array}\right) &= \left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & {{{\bf m}}}_1^{\top}- {{{\bf m}}}_2^{\top}\\
{{{\bf m}}}_1 - {{{\bf m}}}_2 & \frac{1}{{\overline{{\varrho}}}}\big({{{\bf m}}}_1\otimes {{{\bf m}}}_1-{{{\bf m}}}_2\otimes {{{\bf m}}}_2\big)
\end{array}\right) \\ &= \left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & {{{\bf m}}}_1^{\top}- {{{\bf m}}}_2^{\top}\\
{{{\bf m}}}_1 - {{{\bf m}}}_2 & \frac{1}{{\overline{{\varrho}}}}{{{\bf m}}}_1 {{{\bf m}}}_1^{\top}-\frac{1}{{\overline{{\varrho}}}}{{{\bf m}}}_2 {{{\bf m}}}_2^{\top}\end{array}\right),
\end{aligned}$$ since ${\varrho}_1={\overline{{\varrho}}} = {\varrho}_2$ and $({\varrho}_1,{{{\bf m}}}_1,{\mathbb{U}}_1),({\varrho}_2,{{{\bf m}}}_2,{\mathbb{U}}_2)\in K$. To compute the determinant, observe that $$\left(\begin{array}{cc}
1 & {{{\bf 0}}}^{\top}\\
-\frac{1}{{\overline{{\varrho}}}}{{{\bf m}}}_1& {\mathbb{I}}\end{array}\right)\cdot \left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & {{{\bf m}}}_1^{\top}- {{{\bf m}}}_2^{\top}\\
{{{\bf m}}}_1 - {{{\bf m}}}_2 & \frac{1}{{\overline{{\varrho}}}}{{{\bf m}}}_1 {{{\bf m}}}_1^{\top}-\frac{1}{{\overline{{\varrho}}}}{{{\bf m}}}_2 {{{\bf m}}}_2^{\top}\end{array}\right) \cdot \left(\begin{array}{cc}
1 & -\frac{1}{{\overline{{\varrho}}}}{{{\bf m}}}_2^{\top}\\
{{{\bf 0}}}& {\mathbb{I}}\end{array}\right) = \left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & {{{\bf m}}}_1^{\top}- {{{\bf m}}}_2^{\top}\\
{{{\bf m}}}_1 - {{{\bf m}}}_2 & \mathbb{O}
\end{array}\right),$$ where $\mathbb{O}\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n\times n}$ denotes the zero matrix. Obviously $$\begin{aligned}
\det\left(\begin{array}{cc}
1 & {{{\bf 0}}}^{\top}\\
-\frac{1}{{\overline{{\varrho}}}}{{{\bf m}}}_1& {\mathbb{I}}\end{array}\right) &=1, \\
\det\left(\begin{array}{cc}
1 & -\frac{1}{{\overline{{\varrho}}}}{{{\bf m}}}_2^{\top}\\
{{{\bf 0}}}& {\mathbb{I}}\end{array}\right) &= 1,\\
\det\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & {{{\bf m}}}_1^{\top}- {{{\bf m}}}_2^{\top}\\
{{{\bf m}}}_1 - {{{\bf m}}}_2 & \mathbb{O}
\end{array}\right) &=0, \end{aligned}$$ and hence $$\det \left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & {{{\bf m}}}_1^{\top}- {{{\bf m}}}_2^{\top}\\
{{{\bf m}}}_1 - {{{\bf m}}}_2 & \frac{1}{{\overline{{\varrho}}}}{{{\bf m}}}_1 {{{\bf m}}}_1^{\top}-\frac{1}{{\overline{{\varrho}}}}{{{\bf m}}}_2 {{{\bf m}}}_2^{\top}\end{array}\right) = 0.$$
Now Proposition \[prop:generalfacts\] (c) yields that $(K\cap\{{\varrho}={\overline{{\varrho}}}\})^\Lambda=(K\cap\{{\varrho}={\overline{{\varrho}}}\})^{{\rm co}}$, which means that we can use Minkowski’s theorem \[thm:minkowski\] in order to find $(K\cap\{{\varrho}={\overline{{\varrho}}}\})^\Lambda$.
Let us now check the assumptions of Theorem \[thm:minkowski\]. We first show that the set $$C:= \left\{({\varrho},{{{\bf m}}},{\mathbb{U}})\in{\mathbb{R}}^+\times{\mathbb{R}}^n\times{\mathcal{S}^{n\times n}_0}\,\Big|\,\lambda_{\max}\left(\frac{{{{\bf m}}}\otimes{{{\bf m}}}}{{\overline{{\varrho}}}} + p({\overline{{\varrho}}}){\mathbb{I}}- {\mathbb{U}}\right)\leq \frac{c}{n}\text{ and }{\varrho}={\overline{{\varrho}}}\right\}$$ is compact and convex. To prove compactness it is enough to show that $C$ is closed and bounded. The fact that $C$ is closed follows since the map $A\mapsto\lambda_{\max}(A)$ is continuous and $C$ is the pre-image of a closed set under $\lambda_{\max}$. For the boundedness let $({\varrho},{{{\bf m}}},{\mathbb{U}})\in C$ arbitrary. First notice that ${\varrho}={\overline{{\varrho}}}$ and hence $|{\varrho}|\leq {\overline{{\varrho}}}$. Furthermore $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{|{{{\bf m}}}|^2}{{\overline{{\varrho}}}} &= {{\rm tr}\,}\left(\frac{{{{\bf m}}}\otimes{{{\bf m}}}}{{\overline{{\varrho}}}} - {\mathbb{U}}\right) \leq {{\rm tr}\,}\left(\frac{{{{\bf m}}}\otimes{{{\bf m}}}}{{\overline{{\varrho}}}} - {\mathbb{U}}\right) + np({\overline{{\varrho}}}) = {{\rm tr}\,}\left(\frac{{{{\bf m}}}\otimes{{{\bf m}}}}{{\overline{{\varrho}}}} + p({\overline{{\varrho}}}){\mathbb{I}}- {\mathbb{U}}\right) \\
&\leq n\lambda_{\max}\left(\frac{{{{\bf m}}}\otimes{{{\bf m}}}}{{\overline{{\varrho}}}} + p({\overline{{\varrho}}}){\mathbb{I}}- {\mathbb{U}}\right)\leq c.
\end{aligned}$$ Therefore $|{{{\bf m}}}|\leq \sqrt{{\overline{{\varrho}}}c}$. To show the bound of ${\mathbb{U}}$ we use the matrix norm (note that all norms are equivalent) which is given by $\|{\mathbb{U}}\|=\max\limits_i |\lambda_i|$ for symmetric matrices ${\mathbb{U}}$, where $\lambda_i$ are the eigenvalues of ${\mathbb{U}}$. Hence $\|{\mathbb{U}}\|=\max\{|\lambda_{\min}({\mathbb{U}})|,|\lambda_{\max}({\mathbb{U}})|\}$. First we show that $|\lambda_{\min}({\mathbb{U}})|$ is bounded. Since ${\mathbb{U}}\in {\mathcal{S}^{n\times n}_0}$, we have $\lambda_{\min}({\mathbb{U}})\leq 0$ and therefore $$\begin{aligned}
|\lambda_{\min}({\mathbb{U}})| &= -\lambda_{\min}({\mathbb{U}}) = - \min\limits_{{{{\bf y}}}\in{\mathbb{R}}^n,|{{{\bf y}}}|=1}{{{\bf y}}}\cdot\left({\mathbb{U}}{{{\bf y}}}\right) \leq \max\limits_{{{{\bf y}}}\in{\mathbb{R}}^n,|{{{\bf y}}}|=1} \left(\frac{1}{{\overline{{\varrho}}}}\left({{{\bf y}}}\cdot{{{\bf m}}}\right)^2 +p({\overline{{\varrho}}}) - {{{\bf y}}}\cdot\left({\mathbb{U}}{{{\bf y}}}\right)\right) \\
& = \lambda_{\max}\left(\frac{{{{\bf m}}}\otimes{{{\bf m}}}}{{\overline{{\varrho}}}} + p({\overline{{\varrho}}}){\mathbb{I}}- {\mathbb{U}}\right)\leq \frac{c}{n}.
\end{aligned}$$ The fact that $|\lambda_{\max}({\mathbb{U}})|$ is bounded, too, follows because ${\mathbb{U}}$ is traceless. Indeed $$\begin{aligned}
|\lambda_{\max}({\mathbb{U}})| &\leq \sum\limits_{\text{pos. EV}} |\lambda_i| = \sum\limits_{\text{neg. EV}} |\lambda_i| \leq (n-1) |\lambda_{\min}({\mathbb{U}})|.
\end{aligned}$$
The convexity of $C$ is a simple consequence of Lemma \[lemma:LmaxConvex\].
Furthermore $K\cap\{{\varrho}={\overline{{\varrho}}}\}\subseteq C$. Indeed, let $({\varrho},{{{\bf m}}},{\mathbb{U}})\in K\cap\{{\varrho}={\overline{{\varrho}}}\}$. Then $$\lambda_{\max}\left(\frac{{{{\bf m}}}\otimes{{{\bf m}}}}{{\overline{{\varrho}}}} + p({\overline{{\varrho}}}){\mathbb{I}}- {\mathbb{U}}\right) = \lambda_{\max}\left(\frac{c}{n} {\mathbb{I}}\right) = \frac{c}{n}$$ holds, in addition to ${\varrho}={\overline{{\varrho}}}$.
Hence the assumptions of Minkowski’s theorem \[thm:minkowski\] hold. What remains is to prove that the extreme points of $C$ lie in $K\cap\{{\varrho}={\overline{{\varrho}}}\}$. In order to do this, let $({\varrho},{{{\bf m}}},{\mathbb{U}})\in C$ but $({\varrho},{{{\bf m}}},{\mathbb{U}})\notin K\cap\{{\varrho}={\overline{{\varrho}}}\}$. It suffices to show that this implies that $({\varrho},{{{\bf m}}},{\mathbb{U}})$ is not an extreme point of $C$.
From $({\varrho},{{{\bf m}}},{\mathbb{U}})\in C$ we obtain ${\varrho}={\overline{{\varrho}}}$ and $$\label{eq:temp1}
\lambda_{\max}\left(\frac{{{{\bf m}}}\otimes{{{\bf m}}}}{{\overline{{\varrho}}}} + p({\overline{{\varrho}}}){\mathbb{I}}- {\mathbb{U}}\right)\leq \frac{c}{n}.$$ Since the matrix $$\frac{{{{\bf m}}}\otimes{{{\bf m}}}}{{\overline{{\varrho}}}} + p({\overline{{\varrho}}}){\mathbb{I}}- {\mathbb{U}}$$ is symmetric, it is diagonlizable. More precisely there exists an orthogonal matrix $T$ such that $$\label{eq:temp2}
\frac{{{{\bf m}}}\otimes{{{\bf m}}}}{{\overline{{\varrho}}}} + p({\overline{{\varrho}}}){\mathbb{I}}- {\mathbb{U}}= T \left(\begin{array}{ccc}
\lambda_1 & & \\ & \ddots & \\ & & \lambda_n
\end{array}\right) T^{-1}.$$ We may assume without loss of generality that the eigenvalues are ordered $\lambda_1\leq...\leq \lambda_n$. We denote the normed eigenvector, which corresponds to the $i$-th eigenvalue $\lambda_i$, with ${{{\bf b}}}_i$. Then the vectors ${{{\bf b}}}_1,...,{{{\bf b}}}_n$ form an orthonormal basis of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ and $T=({{{\bf b}}}_1 \,\cdots\,{{{\bf b}}}_n)$.
From we deduce that $\lambda_i\leq \frac{c}{n}$ for all $i=1,...,n$. Assume that $\lambda_1=\frac{c}{n}$. Then we have $\frac{c}{n}\leq\lambda_1\leq...\leq \lambda_n\leq \frac{c}{n}$, i.e. $\lambda_i= \frac{c}{n}$ for all $i=1,...,n$. Hence with we get $$\frac{{{{\bf m}}}\otimes{{{\bf m}}}}{{\overline{{\varrho}}}} + p({\overline{{\varrho}}}){\mathbb{I}}- {\mathbb{U}}= T \frac{c}{n} {\mathbb{I}}T^{-1} = \frac{c}{n}{\mathbb{I}},$$ which means that $({\varrho},{{{\bf m}}},{\mathbb{U}})\in K\cap\{{\varrho}={\overline{{\varrho}}}\}$, a contradiction. Therefore $\lambda_1<\frac{c}{n}$.
Because ${{{\bf b}}}_1,...,{{{\bf b}}}_n$ form a basis of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$, there exist unique coefficients $\alpha_1,...,\alpha_n\in{\mathbb{R}}$ such that ${{{\bf m}}}= \sum\limits_{i=1}^n \alpha_i{{{\bf b}}}_i$. Let us define $$(\widehat{{\varrho}},\widehat{{{{\bf m}}}},\widehat{{\mathbb{U}}}) := \left(0, {{{\bf b}}}_1 , \frac{{{{\bf m}}}\otimes{{{\bf b}}}_1 + {{{\bf b}}}_1\otimes{{{\bf m}}}- 2\alpha_1 {{{\bf b}}}_1\otimes{{{\bf b}}}_1}{{\varrho}}\right).$$ Obviously $\widehat{{\mathbb{U}}}$ is symmetric and furthermore $${{\rm tr}\,}\widehat{{\mathbb{U}}} = \frac{2}{{\varrho}}\left({{{\bf m}}}\cdot {{{\bf b}}}_1 - \alpha_1 |{{{\bf b}}}_1|^2\right) = 0$$ due to the facts that ${{{\bf m}}}\cdot {{{\bf b}}}_1 = \alpha_1$ and $|{{{\bf b}}}_1|=1$. In other words $\widehat{{\mathbb{U}}}\in{\mathcal{S}^{n\times n}_0}$.
For $\tau\in{\mathbb{R}}$ we compute $$\begin{aligned}
&T^{-1} \left( \frac{({{{\bf m}}}+ \tau\widehat{{{{\bf m}}}})\otimes({{{\bf m}}}+ \tau\widehat{{{{\bf m}}}})}{{\varrho}+ \tau\widehat{{\varrho}}} + p({\varrho}+ \tau\widehat{{\varrho}}){\mathbb{I}}- ({\mathbb{U}}+ \tau\widehat{{\mathbb{U}}})\right) T \\
&=T^{-1} \left( \frac{{{{\bf m}}}\otimes{{{\bf m}}}}{{\varrho}} + p({\varrho}){\mathbb{I}}- {\mathbb{U}}\right) T + \tau T^{-1} \left(\frac{{{{\bf m}}}\otimes{{{\bf b}}}_1 + {{{\bf b}}}_1\otimes{{{\bf m}}}}{{\varrho}} - \widehat{{\mathbb{U}}}\right) T + \tau^2 T^{-1} \frac{{{{\bf b}}}_1\otimes{{{\bf b}}}_1}{{\varrho}}T \\
&=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
\lambda_1 & & \\ & \ddots & \\ & & \lambda_n
\end{array}\right) + (2\alpha_1\tau + \tau^2) T^{-1} \frac{{{{\bf b}}}_1\otimes{{{\bf b}}}_1}{{\varrho}}T.
\end{aligned}$$ Note that $$T^{-1}\, {{{\bf b}}}_1\otimes{{{\bf b}}}_1 \,T = \left(\begin{array}{cccc}
1 & & & \\ & 0 & & \\ & & \ddots & \\ & & & 0
\end{array}\right),$$ due to the facts that $T$ is orthogonal, the columns of $T$ are the vectors ${{{\bf b}}}_1,...,{{{\bf b}}}_n$ and these vectors form an orthonormal basis. Hence $$\lambda_{\max}\left( \frac{({{{\bf m}}}+ \tau\widehat{{{{\bf m}}}})\otimes({{{\bf m}}}+ \tau\widehat{{{{\bf m}}}})}{{\varrho}+ \tau\widehat{{\varrho}}} + p({\varrho}+ \tau\widehat{{\varrho}}){\mathbb{I}}- ({\mathbb{U}}+ \tau\widehat{{\mathbb{U}}})\right) = \max\left\{\lambda_1 + \frac{2\alpha_1\tau + \tau^2}{{\varrho}},\lambda_n\right\}\leq \frac{c}{n},$$ as long as $|\tau|$ is sufficiently small, because $\lambda_1<\frac{c}{n}$ and $\lambda_n\leq \frac{c}{n}$. Furthermore we have ${\varrho}+ \tau\widehat{{\varrho}} = {\varrho}= {\overline{{\varrho}}}$ for all $\tau\in{\mathbb{R}}$ since $\widehat{{\varrho}}=0$. In other words we have $({\varrho}+ \tau\widehat{{\varrho}},{{{\bf m}}}+ \tau\widehat{{{{\bf m}}}},{\mathbb{U}}+ \tau\widehat{{\mathbb{U}}})\in C$ for sufficiently small $|\tau|$. Since $({\varrho},{{{\bf m}}},{\mathbb{U}})$ is a convex combination of $({\varrho}\pm \tau\widehat{{\varrho}},{{{\bf m}}}\pm \tau\widehat{{{{\bf m}}}},{\mathbb{U}}\pm \tau\widehat{{\mathbb{U}}})$, $({\varrho},{{{\bf m}}},{\mathbb{U}})$ is not an extreme point of $C$. This finishes the proof.
The following theorem is our main result.
\[thm:main\] It holds that $K^\ast = K^\Lambda = K^{{\rm co}}$.
By Theorem \[thm:Kstar\] and Proposition \[prop:generalfacts\] (b) we have $K^\ast \subseteq K^\Lambda \subseteq K^{{\rm co}}$. Lemmas \[lemma:LmaxConvex\] and \[lemma:Kast\] show that $K^\ast$ is convex. Since $K\subseteq K^\ast$, we have $K^{{\rm co}}\subseteq K^\ast$. This yields the claim.
Concluding Remarks {#sec:conseq}
==================
As already pointed out, the computation of the $\Lambda$-convex hull, see Theorem \[thm:main\], can be viewed as the first step towards a genuinely compressible convex integration which yields solutions with oscillations in the density as well.
Let us compare our result with Feireisl’s convex integration for compressible Euler [@Feireisl14], where Helmholtz decomposition was used and which is the most general among the available convex integration ansatzes for compressible Euler. In Feireisl’s method a subsolution is more or less a triple of functions $({\varrho},{{{\bf m}}},{\mathbb{U}})$ solving and taking values in $K^\ast$. It is surprising that the notion of a subsolution to our setup, which seems to be more general, coincides with the notion of a subsolution to Feireisl’s setup (because $K^\ast=K^\Lambda$).
Minkowski’s Theorem
===================
\[thm:minkowski\] Let $C\subseteq{\mathbb{R}}^d$ be a compact convex set and let $M\subseteq C$. Then $$C=M^{{{\rm co}}}\Leftrightarrow {{\rm ext}}(C)\subseteq M,$$ where ${{\rm ext}}(C)$ denotes the set of extreme points of $C$.
[99]{} A. Bressan, G. Crasta and B. Piccoli: *Well-posedness of the [C]{}auchy problem for $n\times n$ systems of conservation laws.* Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 146(694), 1–134 (2000)
E. Chiodaroli: *A counterexample to well-posedness of entropy solutions to the compressible [E]{}uler system.* J. Hyperbolic Differ. Equ. 11(3), 493–519 (2014)
E. Chiodaroli, C. [De Lellis]{} and O. Kreml: *Global ill-posedness of the isentropic system of gas dynamics.* Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 68(7), 1157–1190 (2015)
E. Chiodaroli and O. Kreml: *On the energy dissipation rate of solutions to the compressible isentropic [E]{}uler system.* Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 214(3), 1019–1049 (2014)
G. Crippa, N. Gusev, S. Spirito and E. Wiedemann: *Failure of the chain rule for the divergence of bounded vector fields.* Ann. Sc. Norm. Super. Pisa Cl. Sci. (5) 17(1), 1–18 (2017)
C. [De Lellis]{} and L. [Sz[é]{}kelyhidi Jr.]{}: *The [E]{}uler equations as a differential inclusion.* Ann. of Math. (2) 170(3), 1417–1436 (2009)
C. [De Lellis]{} and L. [Sz[é]{}kelyhidi Jr.]{}: *On admissibility criteria for weak solutions of the [E]{}uler equations.* Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 195(1), 225–260 (2010)
E. Feireisl: *Maximal dissipation and well-posedness for the compressible [E]{}uler system.* J. Math. Fluid Mech. 16, 447–461 (2014)
E. Feireisl, C. Klingenberg and S. Markfelder: *On the density of wild initial data for the compressible Euler system.* Submitted, arXiv: `1812.11802` (2018)
J. Glimm: *Solutions in the large for nonlinear hyperbolic systems of equations.* Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 18, 697–715 (1965)
M. Gromov: *Partial differential relations.* Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete Vol. 9, Springer (1986)
C. Klingenberg and S. Markfelder: *The Riemann problem for the multidimensional isentropic system of gas dynamics is ill-posed if it contains a shock.* Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 227(3), 967–994 (2018)
S. N. Kružkov: *First order quasilinear equations with several independent variables.* Mat. Sb. 81(123), 228–255 (1970)
L. [Sz[é]{}kelyhidi Jr.]{} and E. Wiedemann: *Young measures generated by ideal incompressible fluid flows.* Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 206(1), 333–366 (2012)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.